Telecom in-flight roaming

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom in-flight roaming

1 | 2 | 3

426 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#327081 5-May-2010 20:25

Not an easy quesiton to answer.

It's because of the extra technology needed to delivery messages from other carriers while roaming that we end up with only 140 characters.

The comments I write on this forum do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer and as such cannot be taken as official statements of my employer.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#327088 5-May-2010 20:32

NealR: Not an easy quesiton to answer.

It's because of the extra technology needed to delivery messages from other carriers while roaming that we end up with only 140 characters.

I thought it was so Telecom had space to add their own extra couple words at the end.
I was obviously mistaken!

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#327091 5-May-2010 20:41

PenultimateHop:
sbiddle: I didn't think Qantas had the service running in their A380's - isn't it just seatback SMS?

Yes - sorry I was unclear. Seat-back SMS on the QF offerings (and Emirates, as well).

I haven't seen WiFi on any QF plane... or IFE based Internet, either.

I know V are rolling out their inflight mobile service within the next month or so. Air NZ's new 777-300's (and V's) come factory fitted and certified for installation of the Panasonic system.

hairy1

3251 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#327132 5-May-2010 21:56

Flying across the Pacific is not a good option for high bandwidth. Obviously the States and Europe have a much larger customer base for satellite data (satellite radio anyone?). The Pacific is a whole lot of water so there are very limited high bandwidth options. High bandwidth k band antennas also tend to add a large antenna to the top of the aircraft. They come with cheaper data but cost the airlines money flying the big antenna around (check out Virgin Australias 737 NG's with the big bulge at the back)

Getting inflight connectivity costs a fortune for long haul aircraft.

Cheers, Matt.

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

Byrned

453 posts

Ultimate Geek

#327223 6-May-2010 08:57

I don't know if I really want to be on a plane sitting next to someone who is yacking away for an hour. It's bad enough having to put up with it when i've been on the bus or train and the person sitting next to gets a phone call.

Behodar

9241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#327255 6-May-2010 09:54

Byrned: I don't know if I really want to be on a plane sitting next to someone who is yacking away for an hour. It's bad enough having to put up with it when i've been on the bus or train and the person sitting next to gets a phone call.

At $60 (incoming) or $780 (outgoing), I don't think hour-long conversations will be the norm :P

Personally I'd probably send a text or two, and possibly log into MSN. Both of those should be silent if I remember to turn the text alert sound off. It'll be interesting to see how many people end up using the service.

SteveON

1916 posts

Uber Geek

#327389 6-May-2010 14:19

If we can call on planes... Why are we still told to turn them off?

corksta

2385 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#327393 6-May-2010 14:24

Because it's easier for them to tell you to turn them off. As you know there are many different types and brands of phones, and you can imagine them saying (for example) "if you own a Nokia 2102, 6650, 3390, E75 you can leave them on, but if you own a Nokia 3375, 4120, 8880 they must remain off as they haven't been tested" (model numbers made up). Imagine the confusion that would cause!

Plus, it's also a safety thing. Should something go wrong during take off or landing you don't really want people to be playing with their phones, you want their full attention to listen to the instructions of the crew.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#327395 6-May-2010 14:24

Byrned: I don't know if I really want to be on a plane sitting next to someone who is yacking away for an hour. It's bad enough having to put up with it when i've been on the bus or train and the person sitting next to gets a phone call.

hairy1

3251 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#327397 6-May-2010 14:26

the aircraft you can use your phone on have a pico cell which is a mini cell site with an entenna running the length of the aircraft. The picocell connects to the satellite which provides the ip connection.

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

wellygary

7375 posts

Uber Geek

#327413 6-May-2010 15:35

Boeing tried a varient of this for wifi internet in the sky in the early 2000s, after 6 years they couldn't get the numbers in the business model to come out the right colour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexion_by_Boeing

This will be over a micro-cell and I would be very interested to see the numbers needed to make it economic, by covering the actual cost of the gear and the bandwidth, along with the additional costs incured on every flight due to the weight and additional drag of the cowling.

Hmm, and I'll be waiting for greenpeace to start protesting this service claiming it will cuase a huge increase in the fuel burn and hence carbon foot print of every flight :)

Byrned

453 posts

Ultimate Geek

#327613 7-May-2010 09:51

Behodar:
Byrned: I don't know if I really want to be on a plane sitting next to someone who is yacking away for an hour. It's bad enough having to put up with it when i've been on the bus or train and the person sitting next to gets a phone call.

At $60 (incoming) or $780 (outgoing), I don't think hour-long conversations will be the norm :P

Personally I'd probably send a text or two, and possibly log into MSN. Both of those should be silent if I remember to turn the text alert sound off. It'll be interesting to see how many people end up using the service.

The company I work for really doesn't care too much what my bill is each month as long as I'm doing the business to justify it. My last bill when I had to go to Aus on business was around $700.

Imagine your typical mid week flight to Sydney, how many business people are on there. At $1 per minute incoming it's no different to a typical roaming call. I would put money on it I'll be sitting next to the loud obnoxious guy that talks for an hour

wellygary

7375 posts

Uber Geek

#327620 7-May-2010 10:09

Hang on a moment, I am doubtful about the incoming call only costing $1 minute, who is wearing the roaming/data charge, it certainly is not the original caller as they will simply be calling your 027 XXX number, and according to Telecom's pricing it is not the call recipient. this sounds fishy to me unless they are going to require the original caller to add some inmarsat style satellite prefix to their call, so they get stung the $13/minute air time.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#327725 7-May-2010 14:40

wellygary:
Hang on a moment, I am doubtful about the incoming call only costing $1 minute, who is wearing the roaming/data charge, it certainly is not the original caller as they will simply be calling your 027 XXX number, and according to Telecom's pricing it is not the call recipient. this sounds fishy to me unless they are going to require the original caller to add some inmarsat style satellite prefix to their call, so they get stung the $13/minute air time.

I'm not sure if I understand where you're coming from.

When you roam you always pay for the cost of the incoming call. In this case it's $1 per minute which is the standard rate Telecom (and Vodafone) charge for incoming calls in every roaming destination.

wellygary

7375 posts

Uber Geek

#327757 7-May-2010 15:49

sbiddle:
I'm not sure if I understand where you're coming from.

When you roam you always pay for the cost of the incoming call. In this case it's $1 per minute which is the standard rate Telecom (and Vodafone) charge for incoming calls in every roaming destination.

What I am trying to say is:

A) If you make a outgoing call you get pinged $13/min- The recipient on a land line in NZ pays $0/min to receive

B) If you receive an incoming call you pay $1/min- The preson making the 027 number from a landline pays $0.69/min ( or whatever is their calling plan rate)

The total call cost in A) is around $13/min in B) its $1.70/min, so unless their call cost is around $7/min and they have decided to lump all the call cost on the originators, they are not covering costs ( presumably more than $1/min) for any incoming calls

1 | 2 | 3