Results 1 to 14 of 14
- 12-15-2004, 09:08 AM #1Jack ZwickGuest
- 12-15-2004, 09:50 AM #2Jud HardcastleGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4092019.stm
>
Whoa. A bit premature. They're voting today on whether to allow a
wireless high speed internet system on the planes. At the same time
they're going to "discuss" dropping the ban on cellular phones--they
haven't actually done it yet (which the FAA also has to do). Here's more
info:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...32641&CMP=OTC-
RSSFeeds0312
http://tinyurl.com/63r6k
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
- 12-15-2004, 09:51 AM #3John NavasGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Dec
2004 15:08:22 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4092019.stm
What it actually says:
This week, though, the Federal Communications Commission is to
consider how to ease the ban on cell phones in aircraft.
It's expected to look at two measures: increasing competition to
bring down the price of using the phones currently on the back of
aircraft seats, and starting to look for technical solutions so
ordinary mobile phones can function at high altitudes.
There will no doubt be much public discussion and any change is
likely to take some years.
Jumping the gun there a bit, eh Chicken Little?
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 12-15-2004, 11:38 AM #4Ralph BlachGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
The problems with cell phones on Airplanes is not so much a
Navigation interference problems as it a cell tower/billing nightmare
for the cell companies.
When you up that high, one has sight of many many cell towers.
If one is flying close to the candian border, the chances roaming on
a canadian system are very high.
This is the real technical problem to be solved.
Chip
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Dec
> 2004 15:08:22 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4092019.stm
>
>
> What it actually says:
>
> This week, though, the Federal Communications Commission is to
> consider how to ease the ban on cell phones in aircraft.
>
> It's expected to look at two measures: increasing competition to
> bring down the price of using the phones currently on the back of
> aircraft seats, and starting to look for technical solutions so
> ordinary mobile phones can function at high altitudes.
>
> There will no doubt be much public discussion and any change is
> likely to take some years.
>
> Jumping the gun there a bit, eh Chicken Little?
>
- 12-15-2004, 11:58 AM #5Jack ZwickGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
In article <[email protected]>,
Ralph Blach <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problems with cell phones on Airplanes is not so much a
> Navigation interference problems as it a cell tower/billing nightmare
> for the cell companies.
>
> When you up that high, one has sight of many many cell towers.
> If one is flying close to the candian border, the chances roaming on
> a canadian system are very high.
>
> This is the real technical problem to be solved.
>
> Chip
The airlines will install a "Pico cell" for the airplane.
- 12-15-2004, 01:40 PM #6Jack ZwickGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1215/ap_on_go_
ca_st_pe/fcc_air_travelers>
FCC has approved.
- 12-15-2004, 02:27 PM #7Jud HardcastleGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ralph Blach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The problems with cell phones on Airplanes is not so much a
> > Navigation interference problems as it a cell tower/billing nightmare
> > for the cell companies.
> >
> > When you up that high, one has sight of many many cell towers.
> > If one is flying close to the candian border, the chances roaming on
> > a canadian system are very high.
>
> The airlines will install a "Pico cell" for the airplane.
>
Wouldn't that require one "pico cell" per carrier (or at least one per
technology)? With all the attendant radio gear and antenna. And it
would STILL have to talk to either ground or satellite. The current
airphone system is buggy and noisy--that might not be any better. AND
the cost would have to be passed to the customers somehow.
It would probably be easier to fix the firmware in the ground stations.
After all they ALREADY have some logic to handle multiple towers picking
up one handset and selecting the one to take the call based on both
tower load and signal strength. That logic's been in there since the
AMPS days. That handshake would just have to be widened to cover a much
larger area. Assuming it doesn't *ALREADY* handle it--there may not
even *BE* a problem. Private plane passengers have apparently been
using cell phones all along and has there been even one reported case of
one messing up the ground system? The article I read mentioned an
independent study is underway to determine if there are problems first
and then how to address them.
The current system will try to hold onto the "cheapest" carrier (to the
home carrier) when roaming. Something like that could easily handle the
Canadian or US or Mexican tower question (oops--128mb sim card needed).
My only objection would be from the irritation viewpoint. Do we
*REALLY* want 1) cell phones ringing (or singing or mooing or...)
constantly and 2) to listen to all the phone conversations since at
least half the users seem to think they have to practically shout into a
cell phone instead of talking at the normal volume. And I swear if I
hear one push-to-talk phone (Nextel now--others by then) in speakerphone
mode I'm going to flush it out the toilet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
- 12-15-2004, 03:12 PM #8Ralph BlachGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
I would require a pico cell per techology. And I'll bet it will
be expensive. Current rates are $2.00 a minute and this was the
problem. People just saw this number and said NO way.
The current phones would have been used a lot more if they had charged
..25 cents/ minute.
What ever the solution, it will be weight and fuel and cost money to fly.
Given that people really dont want to pay roaming charges, Roaming
on a airplane for will still restrict use.
IMHO
Chip
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Ralph Blach <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The problems with cell phones on Airplanes is not so much a
>>>Navigation interference problems as it a cell tower/billing nightmare
>>>for the cell companies.
>>>
>>>When you up that high, one has sight of many many cell towers.
>>>If one is flying close to the candian border, the chances roaming on
>>>a canadian system are very high.
>>
>>The airlines will install a "Pico cell" for the airplane.
>>
>
>
> Wouldn't that require one "pico cell" per carrier (or at least one per
> technology)? With all the attendant radio gear and antenna. And it
> would STILL have to talk to either ground or satellite. The current
> airphone system is buggy and noisy--that might not be any better. AND
> the cost would have to be passed to the customers somehow.
>
> It would probably be easier to fix the firmware in the ground stations.
> After all they ALREADY have some logic to handle multiple towers picking
> up one handset and selecting the one to take the call based on both
> tower load and signal strength. That logic's been in there since the
> AMPS days. That handshake would just have to be widened to cover a much
> larger area. Assuming it doesn't *ALREADY* handle it--there may not
> even *BE* a problem. Private plane passengers have apparently been
> using cell phones all along and has there been even one reported case of
> one messing up the ground system? The article I read mentioned an
> independent study is underway to determine if there are problems first
> and then how to address them.
>
> The current system will try to hold onto the "cheapest" carrier (to the
> home carrier) when roaming. Something like that could easily handle the
> Canadian or US or Mexican tower question (oops--128mb sim card needed).
>
> My only objection would be from the irritation viewpoint. Do we
> *REALLY* want 1) cell phones ringing (or singing or mooing or...)
> constantly and 2) to listen to all the phone conversations since at
> least half the users seem to think they have to practically shout into a
> cell phone instead of talking at the normal volume. And I swear if I
> hear one push-to-talk phone (Nextel now--others by then) in speakerphone
> mode I'm going to flush it out the toilet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
- 12-15-2004, 03:45 PM #9John NavasGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:38:12 -0500,
Ralph Blach <[email protected]> wrote:
>The problems with cell phones on Airplanes is not so much a
>Navigation interference problems as it a cell tower/billing nightmare
>for the cell companies.
>
>When you up that high, one has sight of many many cell towers.
>If one is flying close to the candian border, the chances roaming on
>a canadian system are very high.
>
>This is the real technical problem to be solved.
This is actually the real Internet myth. Cell phones in metal jetliners reach
fewer towers than cell phones on the ground, particularly when the airplane is
at cruising altitude.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 12-15-2004, 06:32 PM #10JerGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:38:12 -0500,
> Ralph Blach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The problems with cell phones on Airplanes is not so much a
>>Navigation interference problems as it a cell tower/billing nightmare
>>for the cell companies.
>>
>>When you up that high, one has sight of many many cell towers.
>>If one is flying close to the candian border, the chances roaming on
>>a canadian system are very high.
>>
>>This is the real technical problem to be solved.
>
>
> This is actually the real Internet myth. Cell phones in metal jetliners reach
> fewer towers than cell phones on the ground, particularly when the airplane is
> at cruising altitude.
>
Yup, being inside a metal tube where the only signal exit points are the
windows doesn't leave much to work with. Add to that, the signal from
the ground towers low propagation angle, and it's a small miracle any
cell phone works from cruising altitude of commercial aircraft. Private
aircraft with smaller, more open cabin areas, and lower altitudes offer
much better chances of getting a call through.
Certainly one of the reasons the existing AirPhone service is
underutilized is the price delivery point to the end user, but I think
the high cost is primarily due to a complete lack of competition. But,
billable roaming prices will always be higher due to the increased
infrastructure costs despite increased competition - and aircraft users
will always be roaming since current system planning involves the
airline companies as a cell service provider with their own satellite
network - the sole revenue source will be roaming fees since they won't
have their own customer base.
Whether interference issues exist or not, nobody really knows because
the airlines depended on the FCC and FAA to relieve them of having to
prove the issue one way or another. Eventually, they may have to. It's
one thing for the FCC to allow the service, quite another for the FAA to
allow offering it without confidence of immunity from interference.
The social impact of cell phone use in the confined space of aircraft
cabins is not an issue for the government to be involved with - only the
airlines should be obligated to provide guidelines for their passengers
if/when the time comes. Hopefully, by then, the internal noise level of
the passenger cabin will no longer be an issue for cell users - right
now, shouting would be a pre-requisite for any call to be accomplished -
and I don't think even the most robust passenger would tolerate his/her
neighbour for very long. Their behaviour near the incessant crying baby
tells all one needs to know for a prediction.
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
- 12-15-2004, 07:00 PM #11John NavasGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:32:29 -0600, Jer
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The social impact of cell phone use in the confined space of aircraft
>cabins is not an issue for the government to be involved with - only the
>airlines should be obligated to provide guidelines for their passengers
>if/when the time comes. Hopefully, by then, the internal noise level of
>the passenger cabin will no longer be an issue for cell users - right
>now, shouting would be a pre-requisite for any call to be accomplished -
>and I don't think even the most robust passenger would tolerate his/her
>neighbour for very long. Their behaviour near the incessant crying baby
>tells all one needs to know for a prediction.
Where is the Cone of Silence now that we really need it!
http://www.cinerhama.com/getsmart/innovations.html
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 12-15-2004, 08:25 PM #12JerGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:32:29 -0600, Jer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The social impact of cell phone use in the confined space of aircraft
>>cabins is not an issue for the government to be involved with - only the
>>airlines should be obligated to provide guidelines for their passengers
>>if/when the time comes. Hopefully, by then, the internal noise level of
>>the passenger cabin will no longer be an issue for cell users - right
>>now, shouting would be a pre-requisite for any call to be accomplished -
>>and I don't think even the most robust passenger would tolerate his/her
>>neighbour for very long. Their behaviour near the incessant crying baby
>>tells all one needs to know for a prediction.
>
>
> Where is the Cone of Silence now that we really need it!
> http://www.cinerhama.com/getsmart/innovations.html
>
Thanks for the stroll down Memory Lane!
I recall another comment on a PBS program this morning... they
mentioned that noise-cancelling headsets may become popular as a result.
I have a noise-cancelling headset I use with my portable mp3 player,
and I'll say right now it works great for typical cabin noise levels,
won't work at all for any protection from cell phones. In fact, it
makes hearing your neighbour's voices much easier because their voice
isn't the same thing as high-level cabin noise. My headset works so
well that, if I want to actually listen to the attendant's seatbelt
routine (as if I haven't ridden on a car since 1964), I just mash the
in-cord mute button. If I want to completely isolate myself from *all*
surrounding sounds (as if I don't need to hear the attendant's screams
and instructions for an emergency exit after a crash), I'd have to get
a completely different headset.
OTOH, I'm beginning to imagine a portable cell jamming system rat-holed
in a briefcase in a overhead compartment. Considering the efficiency of
batteries these days, it seems technically plausible to me.
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
- 12-16-2004, 02:07 AM #13John NavasGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Thu, 16
Dec 2004 02:08:28 GMT, "inetnews.worldnet.att.net" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> This is actually the real Internet myth. Cell phones in metal jetliners
>> reach
>> fewer towers than cell phones on the ground, particularly when the
>> airplane is
>> at cruising altitude.
>
>The difference is that on the ground the towers have a better chance of
>determining which one you're closest to and which one should service you. At
>altitude when you're equidistant to several towers it causes congestion as
>they pass you back and forth trying to determine which one you're closest
>to.
Not really.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 12-18-2004, 01:07 PM #14inetnews.worldnet.att.netGuest
Re: FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu,
> 16
> Dec 2004 02:08:28 GMT, "inetnews.worldnet.att.net" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> This is actually the real Internet myth. Cell phones in metal jetliners
>>> reach
>>> fewer towers than cell phones on the ground, particularly when the
>>> airplane is
>>> at cruising altitude.
>>
>>The difference is that on the ground the towers have a better chance of
>>determining which one you're closest to and which one should service you.
>>At
>>altitude when you're equidistant to several towers it causes congestion as
>>they pass you back and forth trying to determine which one you're closest
>>to.
>
> Not really.
Yeah. Really.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Similar Threads
- Motorola
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.nextel
- alt.cellular.nextel
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat