main

Boeing kills 'Dreamliner' Wireless Network Plans

Slimy   on 26 January 2007 - 01:31 · 14 comments & 2884 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Boeing Co. has announced that it has cancelled wireless network plans for in-flight entertainment on its 787 "Dreamliner" airplane (planned for August 2007). A wireless network would add 200 pounds per plane as opposed to the 50 pounds needed for a wired network. Another obstacle was countries not giving Boeing permission to use certain wireless frequencies. Boeing would have worked on the weight problem, but decided against it because of the spectrum issue: "Knowing that the regulatory issues were basically insurmountable, it just did not make sense to apply those resources there," a spokeswoman named Lori Gunter said. She declined to say which countries were unwilling to approve the use of the frequencies, although she slipped that the U.S. was not among them. She also declined to say how much the company had spent on the wireless network, but denied it being wasted as the research and development can serve the wired network which is being supplied by Panasonic and Thales Group.

News source: ComputerWorld

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 14 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 Epimetheus on 26 Jan 2007 - 01:37
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
#1.1 w1r3d on 26 Jan 2007 - 02:23
Quote - (Epimetheus said @ #1)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


+1
#1.2 idoia on 28 Jan 2007 - 13:24
Re NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO +2
#2 redeemed on 26 Jan 2007 - 02:22
That's a pity, but 200 lbs!?!?! All you need is a few routers and 2-3 servers!!
#3 Snakehn on 26 Jan 2007 - 02:30
and the network admin guy who is a 200 Lbs hamburger eater LOL
(1 reply) #4 Brandon on 26 Jan 2007 - 02:47
how does 200lbs matter? I mean really, when the plane weights tons, is 200lbs (the weight one one passengar) gonna matter?
#4.1 trashpickinman on 26 Jan 2007 - 04:01
In terms of aircraft weight, 200lbs does matter, every additional pound of weight that is added means more fuel is required to push the aircraft. With the sky high price of fuel (no pun intended) every pound of aircraft that can be removed is less overall cost for the airlines. Also 200lbs of passenger pays the airline money, 200lbs of dead weight only takes money away.
#5 +Nashy on 26 Jan 2007 - 02:48
Do you guys even know what this is? You are whinging for absolutely NOTHING. You wouldn't know the difference if they hadn't told you.
#6 strekship on 26 Jan 2007 - 03:08
What does it matter? You will be sitting in your seat with your laptop anyway so its not like all the sudden you will be restricted in movement.
#7 morgs on 26 Jan 2007 - 03:11
Did you guys actually read the article. They said the weight wasn't an issue per se, it was more the fact that some contries would not approve the wireless frequiencies.

Its too bad, but not the end of the world. That being said, it does suck for wireless devices that dont have a lan jack.
#8 +Nashy on 26 Jan 2007 - 06:38
Its for the entertainment system! Not for your own personal devices
#9 Antcodd on 26 Jan 2007 - 08:32
How is a wired system lighter (50lbs) than a wired system (200lbs)? what with all those cables and such
#10 dugbug on 26 Jan 2007 - 15:11
"We're putting in about 50 pounds of wiring and taking out about 200 pounds of other gear" including wireless antennae, wireless access points and thickened ceiling panels, said Sinnett. "And from a schedule point of view, it makes life easier for us."

The 200 lbs were the result of trying to control the wireless emissions
#11 PermaSt0ne on 26 Jan 2007 - 19:45
"in-flight entertainment" meaning what? the controller / phone on the back of the seats wouldn't have wires anymore?

or does that mean no cell phones, stick with the phone connnected to the seat?


if it's the first one, then it doesn't matter.

if it's the latter then YAY!!! enough annoying people in the movie theaters with cellphones, them having cellphone usage on the plane would be the worst idea ever for commercial airlines

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)