Starlink

June 30, 2016. BBC publishes an article called: How does the Wi -Fi work in the airplanes and why is it so bad? Almost 10 years later, we are almost in the same place. The Earth has revolved for almost a decade but in terms of connecting to Internet networks from the air it seems that we are completely stagnant. Or it seemed. 2016. “Some compare their speed with that of the beginning of the Internet, when, with the soundtrack of the atrocious beep of the modem, they had to be put on patience while any page was loaded.” With this paragraph Yolanda Valery for BBC In 2016 what was the experience of trying to connect to the Internet from the air. In that same article it was explained that connecting to the Internet from a flight guaranteed a certain guarantee to do very basic connected tasks, such as sending an email. But it was also mentioned that you could already forget to see a content in streaming Or, at least, assume that it was going to be a really tedious experience. We remain the same. In 2016, the offer of a wifi on board was relatively recent. In 2013 we told you that Iberia made this service available to the client at a price of five euros … for five megas. Shortly after, Enrique Dans narrated his experience In an Iberia plane and pointed out that the option was really interesting but that the result was very bad. And even raised if he had to be offered under the conditions of that time. Already in 2017, in Xataka We wondered why we still have no wifi in all airplanes. And we could say the same right now, with a good handful of airplanes that do not offer it … and above all: those who offer it and serve little or nothing. If we enter On Iberia’s own page We verify that in its reference to the connection packages it is specified that allow “Internet navigation, messenger, email, download and sending documents”. That is, tasks that require poor discharge speed. And they emphasize that it is “it is possible that during some moments of the trip the signal can come weakened” or that it lends itself with “three different suppliers, so you can experience differences between one flight or another.” Why is it so bad? The main reason why the Wi -Fi in the airplanes is so bad is how the Internet connection is obtained. You can take “global, satellite or land coverage,” depending on the flight, they point out on the Iberia website. This means that the plane receiver can connect to telephone antennas or satellites if the latter are not available. On a transatlantic flight, that connection is more unstable since Terrestrial antennas are far away. It only remains to be connected to a satellite so that the shipment and reception of data is complicated. First because the distance is much broader than when we have our feet on the floor and, second, because the plane moves hundreds of kilometers per hour, which complicates the reception and sending of the data. The big problem is that although the bandwidths that users have to share are now the demands of applications. Not only is the Quality of the images we load on Instagramis also the huge amount of data that an application like Netflix needs to play your streaming videos. Already in 2020, in Xataka We estimated that one hour sailing on this platform consumes between one and seven GB (depending on quality). A turning point? Andrew J. Hawkins explains in The Verge that the time may have come to say goodbye to these connections. In the aforementioned article, it indicates its experience aboard an E-175 Embraer, a 88-seat narrow fuselage plane that United Airlines uses for short flights. This, specifically, lasted 90 minutes. The plane is one of the first connected to Starlink and, in fact, will begin offering on May 15. The figures collected are highly hopeful. Connected to the airport Wi -Fi, Hawkins said navigating with a 305 Mbps discharge and a load of 249. The latency was 5 ms. During the flight, the speed was 196 Mbps of discharge and 27.3 Mbps of load with a latency of 19 ms. The discharge speed is close to the experience before climbing to the plane and although the figures are remote from what it offers on land, they are notable compared to those we had so far. During the whole flight. Hawkins breaks another spear in favor of the system and United Airlines: the wifi was active throughout the flight. “The service works from the door to the door, not only above 10,000 feet, restriction under which some other systems operate. As soon as I sat, they told me to connect to the Wi-Fi using United mobile application. “ In fact, in your article to The VergeThe author reflects the speeds during takeoff (234.8 Mbps of discharge and 14.9 Mbps of load with a latency of 19 ms) and the landing (72.6 Mbps of discharge, 26.1 Mbps of load and 90 ms of latency) when the worst data was collected. The time, despite this, would be brief because as soon as the plane touched earth again offered good figures with 231.5 Mbps of discharge. Although, this time, with the worst load data with only 3.01. Well to watch movies. But not so much to work. Because Hawking himself points out that he could use Instagram and Tiktok, Disney Plus, follow the ceremony of the new Pope for CNN or watch a live match “with a crystalline image quality.” However, the result was much less impressive when loading a file on Google Drive that took him seven minutes. Explains that this is because Starlink’s own infrastructure It is designed to download content and not so much to raise it, hence the difference in figures between the two processes. Differential. How much would you be willing to pay … Read more