FCC approves cellular use on inflight aircraft

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4092019.stm
12 answers Last reply
More about approves cellular inflight aircraft
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    In article <jzwick3-27A1AB.09081715122004@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
    jzwick3@mindspring.com 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/wireStory?id=332641&CMP=OTC-
    RSSFeeds0312
    http://tinyurl.com/63r6k
    --
    Jud
    Dallas TX USA
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <jzwick3-27A1AB.09081715122004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Wed, 15 Dec
    2004 15:08:22 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> 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>
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    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 <jzwick3-27A1AB.09081715122004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Wed, 15 Dec
    > 2004 15:08:22 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> 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?
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    In article <10s0tkg9v0te541@corp.supernews.com>,
    Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> 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.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041215/ap_on_go_
    ca_st_pe/fcc_air_travelers>

    FCC has approved.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <10s0tkg9v0te541@corp.supernews.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:38:12 -0500,
    Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> 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>
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <10s0tkg9v0te541@corp.supernews.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:38:12 -0500,
    > Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> 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'
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <cpql0n$13l@library2.airnews.net> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:32:29 -0600, Jer
    <gdunn@airmail.ten> 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>
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    John Navas wrote:

    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <cpql0n$13l@library2.airnews.net> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:32:29 -0600, Jer
    > <gdunn@airmail.ten> 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'
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    news:ig2wd.12291$_3.136173@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > 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.

    The real myth is that a cell phone would cause interference to the airplane.
    There's a lot more stronger signals the traveling through the airplane that
    I'd worry a lot more about. Come on, you have to ask yourself if you really
    want to get on a plane that's going to have a problem if the signal from a
    cell phone hits it. I think you'd be surprised how often people don't
    actually turn them off. I have nothing to back this but I'd put up a bet
    that almost every flight has at least one phone that hasn't been turned off.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <w66wd.1101503$Gx4.979008@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Thu, 16
    Dec 2004 02:08:28 GMT, "inetnews.worldnet.att.net" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    >news:ig2wd.12291$_3.136173@typhoon.sonic.net...

    >> 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. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

    "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    news:bnbwd.12357$_3.137346@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <w66wd.1101503$Gx4.979008@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Thu,
    > 16
    > Dec 2004 02:08:28 GMT, "inetnews.worldnet.att.net" <u85721@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    >>news:ig2wd.12291$_3.136173@typhoon.sonic.net...
    >
    >>> 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>
Ask a new question

Read More

Cingular Internet Service Providers Product