Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

In-flight cell phone test

Last response: in Technologies
Share
July 17, 2004 3:09:13 AM

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

Just something different...

Airborne cell phone service took a test flight on Thursday...

http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/Chocks+away+for+in-flig...


I thought the last paragraph was interesting, and I would tend to agree...

"...Should cell phone calling be allowed on planes, airlines may have to
contend with a backlash from passengers who don't want to hear someone
else's conversation..."

Dana

More about : flight cell phone test

Anonymous
July 17, 2004 7:54:07 PM

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

In article <%L0Kc.209$Dk6.191@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Dana" <delouis@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Just something different...
>
> Airborne cell phone service took a test flight on Thursday...
>
> http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/Chocks+away+for+in-flig...
> -1039_3-5272934.html?type=pt&part=marketwatch-cnet&tag=feed&subj=news
>
>
> I thought the last paragraph was interesting, and I would tend to agree...
>
> "...Should cell phone calling be allowed on planes, airlines may have to
> contend with a backlash from passengers who don't want to hear someone
> else's conversation..."

Interesting how this is for CDMA. This is also happening for GSM. The
big difference is who would be able to use the service. How many CDMA
networks have international roaming?
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 11:07:44 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:54:07 +1000, Matthew Smith <matty_d@macxxx.com>
wrote:

>In article <%L0Kc.209$Dk6.191@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> "Dana" <delouis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Just something different...
>>
>> Airborne cell phone service took a test flight on Thursday...
>>
>> http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/Chocks+away+for+in-flig...
>> -1039_3-5272934.html?type=pt&part=marketwatch-cnet&tag=feed&subj=news
>>
>>
>> I thought the last paragraph was interesting, and I would tend to agree...
>>
>> "...Should cell phone calling be allowed on planes, airlines may have to
>> contend with a backlash from passengers who don't want to hear someone
>> else's conversation..."
>
>Interesting how this is for CDMA. This is also happening for GSM. The
>big difference is who would be able to use the service. How many CDMA
>networks have international roaming?

There are some technical issues driving it. CDMA is particularly
attractive in an envirornment where you are scared to death of
interference. CDMA signal levels are so low and power output
controlled so rigorously that interference is a low probability event.

In addition, the onboard equipment links to Globalstar, which is SAT
CDMA provider. I know someone who flew on the test flight, and the
only complaint was the latency was a bad as a two sat link with a
landline....

The other problem is that when the smokes clears in the USA, CDMA will
have perhaps 40% of the market (After Cingular and AT&T complete the
migration to GSM), and outside the USA and CDMA kingdom (Korea), GSM
users outnumber CDMA users by wide margin, so either a GSM or a dual
standard platform needs to be developed for air use if the service is
to have much chance as a commercial venture.

However there are quite a few airline customers that would really
rebel at having the idiot next to them spend the whole 4 hour flight
yaking away on their cell phone. In addition the consistent failure of
inflight phone systems to even pay the costs of carrying them suggests
that there is no vast unmet demand for these services, and with an
anticipated per aircraft installation cost of about $1 million, you
have to wonder how cost effective it is going to be, and how trouble
it is going to cause... Will there be cell phone free zones as their
used to be non-smoking zones on the aircraft?
Related resources
July 18, 2004 7:18:25 PM

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

matt weber wrote:

[....]

> Will there be cell phone free zones as their
> used to be non-smoking zones on the aircraft?

Only after one or two air marshals have stepped into the middle of a few
fist fights. Seems there's always a few blokes who don't care how much
their incessant yammering bothers someone else trying desperately to
avoid jet lag. Does trying to hear on a cell phone in a high-noise
environment strike anybody as a tad iffy? Can ya hear me now? Can ya
hear me now? Yeah, we all can, now STFU!! After the first broadcast of
these newsworthy events, I fully expect the price of good ear plugs to
command a price as high as the damn plane. That is until someone is
killed because they couldn't hear the orders from a cabin attendant to
abandon ship. Then all the attorneys step in, do lunch somewhere
pretty, and the cell phone and ear plug companies get stuck with the
tab. Then, on appeal, the attorneys do lunch somewhere pretty again,
one or two airlines go tits up from the financial strain, with the
surviving air carriers sporting a plugged hole in the roof of all their
aircraft and at least one no-mouth zone (probably in coach). Finally,
after about five years or so, I just might get some blessed sleep.
<whisper>
Can someone please hand me that extra pillow in the overhead?
</wisper>

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
July 18, 2004 8:28:35 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:18:25 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>matt weber wrote:
>
>[....]
>
>> Will there be cell phone free zones as their
>> used to be non-smoking zones on the aircraft?
>
>Only after one or two air marshals have stepped into the middle of a few
>fist fights. Seems there's always a few blokes who don't care how much
>their incessant yammering bothers someone else trying desperately to
>avoid jet lag. Does trying to hear on a cell phone in a high-noise
>environment strike anybody as a tad iffy?
That a problem that is well understood, and general aviation has dealt
with it for more than a decade. Background noise level in a light
aircraft cabin tends to be right around 100db.....


Most of the background noise on a commecial jetliner turns out to Low
Frequency rumble, which is very amenable to electronic cancellation
(you'd be amazed at the differnce a $30 pair of electronic Noise
Canceling headphones like Jensen or Panasonic will make). Cutting out
10db of noise in the right place makes a remarkable difference. If you
want to spend $300 for a pair of Bose QC's, they are much better, but
I would debat the improvement being worth 10 times the price!

In any event in the tests conducted last week, background noise on
board was not an issue (at least according to the participants).




> Can ya hear me now? Can ya
>hear me now? Yeah, we all can, now STFU!! After the first broadcast of
>these newsworthy events, I fully expect the price of good ear plugs to
>command a price as high as the damn plane. That is until someone is
>killed because they couldn't hear the orders from a cabin attendant to
>abandon ship. Then all the attorneys step in, do lunch somewhere
>pretty, and the cell phone and ear plug companies get stuck with the
>tab. Then, on appeal, the attorneys do lunch somewhere pretty again,
>one or two airlines go tits up from the financial strain, with the
>surviving air carriers sporting a plugged hole in the roof of all their
>aircraft and at least one no-mouth zone (probably in coach). Finally,
>after about five years or so, I just might get some blessed sleep.
><whisper>
>Can someone please hand me that extra pillow in the overhead?
></wisper>
July 18, 2004 11:13:50 PM

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

matt weber wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:18:25 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>matt weber wrote:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>
>>>Will there be cell phone free zones as their
>>>used to be non-smoking zones on the aircraft?
>>
>>Only after one or two air marshals have stepped into the middle of a few
>>fist fights. Seems there's always a few blokes who don't care how much
>>their incessant yammering bothers someone else trying desperately to
>>avoid jet lag. Does trying to hear on a cell phone in a high-noise
>>environment strike anybody as a tad iffy?
>
> That a problem that is well understood, and general aviation has dealt
> with it for more than a decade. Background noise level in a light
> aircraft cabin tends to be right around 100db.....

My adhoc measurements have shown anywhere between 85-110, depending on
the cabin location of my receiver. First class typically has the least
background level, I suspect due to it's proximity to the aircraft's nose.


> Most of the background noise on a commecial jetliner turns out to Low
> Frequency rumble, which is very amenable to electronic cancellation
> (you'd be amazed at the differnce a $30 pair of electronic Noise
> Canceling headphones like Jensen or Panasonic will make). Cutting out
> 10db of noise in the right place makes a remarkable difference. If you
> want to spend $300 for a pair of Bose QC's, they are much better, but
> I would debat the improvement being worth 10 times the price!

Oh man, I didn't spend anywhere near that for my Bose NC Dozers, but
they sure work good with my MP3 player and PC.

>
> In any event in the tests conducted last week, background noise on
> board was not an issue (at least according to the participants).

Yeah, unfortunately I saw no info on which handsets were used. Maybe
their handsets had better ear pieces than the anemic ones most are.


Here's a thought... maybe the cell-use zones could be in the lavatories?
Not only would it keep the yammering private, but a serious time
limitation on blowing through next months bar tab on roaming fees? :) 


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
July 19, 2004 7:27:35 AM

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

In <cdf3ni$klb@library2.airnews.net> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> writes:

>My adhoc measurements have shown anywhere between 85-110, depending on
>the cabin location of my receiver. First class typically has the least
>background level, I suspect due to it's proximity to the aircraft's nose.

the engines... hence when mumble airlines got ahold of the first batch of
tail mounted jet engines in the late 1960s they called them "whisperjets".
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
!