Gogo's on-flight internet: Why airlines put up with its slow internet service | Hacker News Reader

Gogo's on-flight internet: Why airlines put up with its slow internet service

slate.com

19 pointscpeterso22 comments

This article is based off Bloomberg's original piece, "Why Gogo's Infuriatingly Expensive, Slow Internet Still Owns the Skies" (http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gogo-airplane-wireles...). Would likely be better to update the link to that one.

Thanks for providing that link - the original piece was far more useful for me to read than the condensed version.

No competition isn't true, at least for Europe where I know Norwegian are using "Row 44" as can be seen in this report from CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2012/11/15/bus...

The difference between them, which also could explain the AOL-like speeds with Gogo, is that Row 44 used a satelite dish whilst Gogo communicates with ground radio towers. The obvious advantage of Row 44's approach, which is also highlighted in the video, is that by using satellites you can continue providing internet over remote areas and oceans.

JetBlue has a similar satellite-based service in the US.

I rarely fly economy but the two Norwegian flights I've been on both had very good wifi (not very fast, but certainly reliable).

Definitely a much better experience than with gogo.

It's a sad thing that one of the worst airlines in Europe has the best wifi.

(I'm really curious as to how my 5k euro emirates 1st class ticket can't cover the expenses for working wifi... I can even shower on the plane for gods sake)

> I rarely fly economy but

How or why is that relevant ?

Because Norwegian is primarily an economy airline and I have very limited experience flying with them so it's rather likely that my views on the wifi quality are at least somewhat biased.

Also, I have to ask. Would you have made this comment if I had said "I fly economy a lot" instead? (Not that anyone does that because of FFPs)

I'd still ask that question. From what I gather, the wifi on a plane has nothing to do with the type of seat you are sitting in.

> It's a sad thing that one of the worst airlines in Europe has the best wifi.

It's usually the same with hotels - wi-fi quality is usually inversely proportional to the quality of the establishment. I wonder if airlines have this problem for the same reasons.

Actually, I can't say I've really noticed this so much lately, but I've mostly been staying with the big chains (Marriott, Hilton and 4 seasons).

Although, often the big chain hotels are the most crowded ones.

I have tried to use Norwegian`s wifi multiple times and i has never been good. It usually works fine in the beginning of the flight. But the latency gets higher and higher as the flight progresses, and is usually unusable for anything after a while.

(And i cannot say that i like that they inject content in webpages either)

"[...] you know that it’s not much of an improvement over 1990s AOL-era dial-up.

Gogo’s connectivity speed amounts to about half the average download speed on Verizon’s 4G network,"

Oh dear, how far we've come (or not, tech journalism has always been crap) - the average download speed on Verizon 4G[1] is >30mbps, a 90's dial up would have been 56kbps - so half the 4G speed is 275 times faster than dial-up (or, in terms a journalist can understand: 27500% faster!)

1: http://www.cnet.com/news/4g-lte-showdown-how-fast-is-your-ca...

The article is a bad summary of the original BW article[1]:

> Gogo can provide a plane with as much as 10 megabits per second of connectivity, which is about half the average download speed on Verizon’s 4G network. Only one-third of Gogo-equipped planes, however, have the hardware to reach even that speed. The rest top out at 3 Mbps.

If only 10 people are on it, then you're getting ~5x dial-up, which would be great if the internet was the same as it was in 1999. I would guess that webpages have grown more than 5x in size since then, making effective speeds much slower than dial-up (estimates range from 2-10MB for an average news article [2]).

1: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gogo-airplane-wireles...

2: http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/08/03/what-the-ad-blocker-deb...

On the other hand, page sizes have gone up so much since the 1990's that the subjective experience isn't necessarily hugely different, despite the enormous absolute speed increase. (On the other hand, I've—mercifully—forgotten what those days felt like, and have never used Gogo, so I can't really compare.)

I was pleasantly surprised about the quality of the WIFI Lufthansa provides on its transatlantic flights (FlyNet). It's rather expensive at 9 € / hour, though.

non-blogspam Bloomberg piece that is referenced: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gogo-airplane-wireles...

Does Slate really count as 'blogspam', especially when the very first line credits the original appearance? (Of course, that qualitative judgement aside, I agree that it is better to link to the original.)

I'd argue that, these days, yes Slate counts as "blogspam." Autoplaying video ads, pop-up adverts, banners everywhere, and a copy/pasted article that is 1/2th the length of the original with no additional commentary or content.

Slate might have been a legitimate publication once, but then again so was CNet and look how far they have fallen. Sorry, but Slate should be blacklisted for being junk now.

I'm more puzzled why airplanes are still using the horrendous touch interfaces. Even the newest Dreamliner has them. The cheapest and most sluggish Android tablet would still be a big improvement.

IFE devices are "independent" and bought separately from the plane.

But some airlines are going for the tablet solution

I would love to see such an article about trains. Why can't we have high-quality wifi on the go?

AmtrakConnect can be very slow at times, but is often reasonable. At least, I had no trouble with casual browsing during a recent trip, as long as I was willing just not to use it during the most congested times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com