Slashdot Mirror

Replying to my own message before I get going.

Most Slashdotters probably rarely check facts before they mod posts, so here's a link with the results of a bunch of well done tests, and feedback from people who work in the cell phone industry: http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

And here is the company that makes the cell site equipment for aircrafts: http://www.aircell.com/

Yes, Boeing getting out of the broadband business, but they are not the only providers of air based broadband. Enter Aircell. They already offer an Iridium (satillite) based data connection products and services. Yes, it's dead slow. You're not going to be playing Doom3 or any other FPS over this link.

A few weeks back Aircell also picked up the spectrum currently used by verizons air-to-ground telephone service (Magnastar). Air-to-ground communications offers lower latency, higher speed data connections. Magnastar will be phased out starting in 2008, coinciding with Aircells new broadband service.

Aircell is poised to roll out a major broadband service by 2008.

Yes, Boeing getting out of the broadband business, but they are not the only providers of air based broadband. Enter Aircell. They already offer an Iridium (satillite) based data connection products and services. Yes, it's dead slow. You're not going to be playing Doom3 or any other FPS over this link.

A few weeks back Aircell also picked up the spectrum currently used by verizons air-to-ground telephone service (Magnastar). Air-to-ground communications offers lower latency, higher speed data connections. Magnastar will be phased out starting in 2008, coinciding with Aircells new broadband service.

Aircell is poised to roll out a major broadband service by 2008.

The findings come as the Federal Communications Commission is considering lifting the ban on the use of cell phones during flight.

Why would the FCC 'consider' lifting this ban? If technologies like AirCell are involved, cell calls from airplanes are completely safe. If not, however, there's no point in lifting the ban, as an unassisted cellphone call has an extremely poor chance of getting through above 2000 feet (which would be during landings and takeoffs...precisely when you cell calls can be most hazardous).

Either way, there doesn't seem to be much room for 'consideration'. Either AirCell is used, in which case there is no safety issue, or not, in which case cell calls are both hazardous and nigh-imposible.

"AirCell is also developing a migration path to use digital protocols for higher bandwidth and expanded features. With all these developments, and strategic partnerships within the industry, AirCell continues to lead the way with airborne telecom technology."

http://www.aircell.com/

As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

Ars Technica reports that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article quoted by the Ars article discusses all this pretty well.

So, companies are trying to come up with a solution. One company, AirCell, has been granted "a patent" (US Pat 6,408,180) for facilitating cell phone use in planes. AirCell has a press release touting their patent and technology. USA Today said Aircell would charge a roaming fee to use their network.

The patent discusses the various methods used to reduce interference with ground stations, like antenna polarization.

It also seems to discuss an additional cell site on the plane itself, that is designed to convince all the passengers' phones to talk to it, so that it can efficiently relay the signals in a non-interfering mannor down to the ground.

It ALSO seems like they talk about redesigned ground sites to facilitate this, so you have to wonder what the involvement of each of the cell phone providers will have to be.

(skimming patents is not easy... I might be wrong, but the images help. In TIFF format: diagram of relay system on the plane, special cell sites vs normal cell sites)

It just hurts to think about the infrastructure investment in all these different, competeing cell technologies in the US. Wouldn't it make lots of sense to just GIVE UP and legislate/regulate a single standard. Say, GSM for example. Works for Europe... :)

- Peter

As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

Ars Technica reports that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article quoted by the Ars article discusses all this pretty well.

So, companies are trying to come up with a solution. One company, AirCell, has been granted "a patent" (US Pat 6,408,180) for facilitating cell phone use in planes. AirCell has a press release touting their patent and technology. USA Today said Aircell would charge a roaming fee to use their network.

The patent discusses the various methods used to reduce interference with ground stations, like antenna polarization.

It also seems to discuss an additional cell site on the plane itself, that is designed to convince all the passengers' phones to talk to it, so that it can efficiently relay the signals in a non-interfering mannor down to the ground.

It ALSO seems like they talk about redesigned ground sites to facilitate this, so you have to wonder what the involvement of each of the cell phone providers will have to be.

(skimming patents is not easy... I might be wrong, but the images help. In TIFF format: diagram of relay system on the plane, special cell sites vs normal cell sites)

It just hurts to think about the infrastructure investment in all these different, competeing cell technologies in the US. Wouldn't it make lots of sense to just GIVE UP and legislate/regulate a single standard. Say, GSM for example. Works for Europe... :)

- Peter

A possible reason that you didn't get any service is due to AirCell. I don't remember the exact details, but they had some *serious* fights with other cell carriers a few years back due to AirCell having a national network that the other guys were concerned about. The compromise, if I recall correctly, was that AirCell towers were engineered to handle traffic from 10,000 foot (FL100) or whatever, and the other towers would somehow not receive signals from above....


Also, as a employee of a decent-sized (and profitable, w00t) airline, I deal with flight deck crew who all seem to have a story or two about a cell phone interfering in a minor way with some avionics gear in the cockpit. Kill the cell phone, no problems. Granted, it was their phone they had left on, so maybe proximity was an issue, but still.....

I've been searching for a few years for a way to get legit, reasonably priced, Internet connectivity in cockpit. There are many web sites where pilots can get nearly real time weather data. If we could connect in flight we could see radar images of storms ahead. Commercial weather avoidance devices cost tens of thousands of dollars. It's frustrating that every ground-based wireless connectivity solution just won't work at 3,000-10,000 feet. Besides many, such as cellular systems, are is illegal to use in flight.

Commercial in flight internet links like ground-based AirCell and satellite phones, cost more than $3000 for equipment with conenct rates of $2-5 per minute.

The $3,000 PDA-based AnyWhere WX shows the potential. The promised inflight access to NEXRAD will fill the bill, but most avionics makers are planning systems that are still in tens of thousands of dollars range, when a laptop or PDA will do the job.

Your average weekend pilot isn't going to sign up for a $200 month subcription for something only used for a few hours on nice weekends. (Flamers should douse the fire. Most pilots are mere mortals that made flying a priority, just like those who sink money in hot cars or the hottest gaming machines. Most aren't really rich.

It would be a godsend if 802.11b connectivity could be made to work reliably in flight. Does anybody have any ideas on which wireless technology might fill the need?