WirelessCabin: Use Your Mobile Phone on Airplanes

Sky high rates? by LostCluster · 2004-04-20 06:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

The only thing is, you might as well use the back-of-seat AirPhones to get to that satellite trnasponder rather than your own phone and the picocell...

I get the feeling that even if this allows you to use your cell phone like normal, you're going to be considered to be on a "roaming tower" as far as your cell phone company is concerned because your cell phone company won't own the picocell. Therefore, forget about using your unlimited night and weekend minutes on these flights, you'll be still paying the same through-the-nose rates for plane-to-ground communications.

Re:Sky high rates? by Shakrai · 2004-04-20 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Therefore, forget about using your unlimited night and weekend minutes on these flights, you'll be still paying the same through-the-nose rates for plane-to-ground communications.
Do cell phones actually interfere with airliners anyway? I mean c'mon -- are the systems onboard a modern aircraft really so fragile that my cell phone will bother them? Of course I always turn my phone off anyway because I don't want to be arrested and wind up in Cuba but still...
Of course I do recall that with my old Nextel (i700 plus -- that phone was a beast) I could tell when a call was incoming before the ringer went off because it would interfere with nearby speakers. I've never seen a cell phone other then that one (and I've used lots of different cell phones) interfere with anything though.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Sky high rates? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-20 06:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Two things:

1) When you're on the ground and your call drops because some jackass on an airplane owns the same cell you are on then you might care.

2) When the only time you can get 3 hours of peace is on a flight from X to Y and you have to sit next to Joe on the phone to his secretary talking about the meeting he has five days from now (which he could call and talk to her about tomorrow) you might care.
Re:Sky high rates? by Shakrai · 2004-04-20 06:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Did the conversation get amplified by the speakers too? That could get interesting.
No, it just made little static bursts on speakers (even if they weren't being used -- it would make static bursts on speakerphones that were on-hook -- all they needed was to be powered) near the cell phone. I always assumed it was the cell phone transmitting it's data packets back to the network. It was really interesting to use in the car with the surround-sound system I had. It gave my friends pause about using my cell phone ("Your going to put that right next to your brain?").
To this day I hate Nextel (billing problems that I've talked about elsewhere) but the i700plus was a true beast of a phone. It was supposedly mil-spec rated for shock and vibration resistance. That phone was indestructible.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Sky high rates? by adam+mcmaster · 2004-04-20 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Do cell phones actually interfere with airliners anyway? I mean c'mon -- are the systems onboard a modern aircraft really so fragile that my cell phone will bother them?

There's an article in this month's Wired that talks about this. Basically, no it wouldn't cause a problem.
Re:Sky high rates? by Shakrai · 2004-04-20 07:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

When you're on the ground and your call drops because some jackass on an airplane owns the same cell you are on then you might care.
Why would roaming between cells on an aircraft be any different then roaming between cells while driving? Do I kick people off their calls if I switch to a new tower when I drive behind a building? Somehow I doubt it -- the cell networks are designed with roaming in mind.
When the only time you can get 3 hours of peace is on a flight from X to Y and you have to sit next to Joe on the phone to his secretary talking about the meeting he has five days from now (which he could call and talk to her about tomorrow) you might care.
That's a physiological problem not a technical problem. My question was is there any technical reason why cell phones won't work from airplanes? They obviously do work -- some of the people on the hijacked planes during 9/11 called out on them -- yet the FAA won't let you use them because they might 'interfere'. Is this founded or just paranoia?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Sky high rates? by whovian · 2004-04-20 07:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

There were some archived posts to /. on this that I read recently. the upshot was that modern planes wouldn't suffer interference, but older planes would. The easier solution when dealing with the public at large was simply to ban all passengers from using them on all flights until the airlines could be sure none of the older planes was in use.

Can't find the post. Maybe s/b else can.

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Re:Sky high rates? by stephanruby · 2004-04-20 07:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Do cell phones actually interfere with airliners anyway?
No, they interfere with cell towers, that's the problem. The plane is going so fast that the cell phone keeps on switching towers.
Re:Sky high rates? by imsabbel · 2004-04-20 07:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, thats easy.
After the initial handshake the sending power is reduced to a minimum needed to keep contact to the corresponding cell, and in most situations thats 1/10th or so of the peak transmission power.
So while the initial handshake will cause interferences (most likely short bursts of noice, in 1 second periods), later the power is to little.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:Sky high rates? by goates · 2004-04-20 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

You can also be in range of more than one or two towers at a time as well. Either way, the cell networks have trouble with it.

goates
Re:Sky high rates? by sir_cello · 2004-04-20 07:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I wish I could remember the reference, but I read recently that supposedly the main issue with mobile phones on flights is the way they splatter themselves across cells on the ground. The article acknowledged that there have been many examples of people accidently leaving phones on during flights.

Personally, I've left a GSM phone on during a flight once.

Additionally, as an engineer, I would be _extremely_ suprised if the GSM standards bodies and the FCC/licensing authorities actually permitted the GSM technology to be made available to the public if there were any chance that it would interfere with navigation systems or any other critical systems (medical equivalent). We would have a string of news articles about plane crashes if this were the case. This simply doesn't happen for massively deployed technologies because it goes through all of these regulatory hurdles. I guess you could have an issue with equipment from other less rigorous countries, which may be the main point.

Equally, I've accidently travelled on a post 9/11 cross-european flight with a pocketknife keyring. I realised when I was in the air that it was in my carry on "man bag": this was after I waited one hour at Stansted to make my way through supposedly tight security. I wanted to take an in-flight photograph to prove it, yet worried that attendant would see me and I'd be meeting the boys in blue at the other end.
Re:Sky high rates? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-20 07:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Broadcasting from a plane is bad from a network point of view because you light up sveral hundred cells at a time. Since you are above them with clear line of sight your signal travels much farther than normal. Most of the time is traveld further than the frequency reuse distance, meaning that you just trashed the capacity of the cellular system.

And yes, it is possible for Cell phones to affect accuracy of onboard instuments in older planes... There is NO GROUND PLANE on an aircraft. You are sitting a nice big faraday cage... so the onlything to absorb your signal is the equipment around you.

From a practical standpoint I would prefer rules that ban Cells on aircraft for comfort reasons... an aircraft is close personal quarters... I really don't want to hear your conversation on a long flight... (AIRRAGE!)
Re:Sky high rates? by hpa · 2004-04-20 07:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

It won't cause a problem if the cell phone is working properly. The thing people are worried about (for valid or invalid reasons) are what happens if the cell phone is broken and starts transmitting (or have subcarriers or harmonics) on air traffic control or guidance frequencies. The likelihood is small, but it's likely to happen in the most critical moments of flight.

Note that the subcarriers/harmonics problems isn't limited to intentional radiators (transmitters.)
Re:Sky high rates? by luckyguesser · 2004-04-20 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

When the only time you can get 3 hours of peace is on a flight from X to Y and you have to sit next to Joe on the phone to his secretary talking about the meeting he has five days from now (which he could call and talk to her about tomorrow) you might care.
You say that as if it would be peaceful without cell phones! Hah! The little kid behind you doesn't care whether or not he/she could drive the most steel-nerved adult crazy within the course of a couple hours (or maybe it's the parent who refuses to do nothing to calm the child), he/she'll do it anyway!
My point is, airplanes are NOT theaters, no matter how much the people who need sleep wish it could be. The funniest thing I have ever heard in my life (and I hear it a lot) is, "I don't have to sleep now, I'll sleep on the plane."

--

The power of Christ compiles you.
A Random Blog
Re:Sky high rates? by Shakrai · 2004-04-20 07:37 · Score: 2, Funny

"So, Bob, is that syphilis cleared up yet?"
Laugh, I heard somebody in a restaurant having this conversation once (of course I could only hear one side of it -- bet it would have been twice as funny with Nextel two-way):
"Did the results come back yet?"
"WHAT???? HERPES???? THAT F-ING BITCH!"
"AWWW MAN! That REALLY sucks!"
"That bitch! No man I used a condom! That slut!"
"Whatta gonna do?"
"YEAH THAT'LL TEACH HER! Stupid bimbo!"
The sad thing is that this conversation was in the middle of a busy pizzeria at lunch hour and this guy didn't seem to care (or he is really that dense) that everybody in a 50' radius could hear this conversation.
Of course on the off topic (non cellphone) arena my deepest fear has always been having a conversation with a friend in a bar and having the music stop at just the wrong moment:
"YEAH I GOT THE TEST RESULTS BACK...." [music stops] "IT'S HERPES" [looks around the room wondering why everybody is looking at him]

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Sky high rates? by jjhall · 2004-04-20 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Yep. Periodic handshakes going on between your phone and the cell network.

Cell1: Hey, Bob's phone, are you still there.
Phone: Yeppers. Read you loud and clear.
Cell2: Can you hear me?
Phone: Yes, I hear you too.
Cell2: OK, just wanted to make sure.
Phone: Just send me a call if it comes in.
Cell1: Roger.
Cell2: Ditto.

Obviously that is not the technical terms for what is going on, but it seemed a little more humerous.

The importance of this is when you call someone whose phone is turned off, a lot of times it will say "Please wait while the (insert carrier name here) subscriber you have dialed is located." If the phone just went through the handshake, then the network thinks it is still there. It will try several times to find it if not. After 10 seconds or so it will go to voice mail. If the phone has been off during several handshakes, the network knows it can't complete the call and it goes right to voicemail. If you are traveling at a high speed through an area with high cell density, you can actually move between several towers between the handshakes, and that will cause the delays as well before being connected.

This is also the reason paranoid people don't keep their phones on. The network knows the general location of every cell phone user at most any given time.

I know for a fact that TDMA and GSM with AT&T, as well as iDen with Nextel, and CDMA with Verizon all exhibit the periodic handshake with the associated interference. Since T-Mobile and AT&T use the same GSM network band, there is no difference between the two. Now if only they would establish a roaming agreement with each other...

Jeremy

Huh? by xSquaredAdmin · 2004-04-20 06:42 · Score: 5, Funny

We're supposed to turn off our cellphones on airplanes? Whoops.

--
Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm

Re:Huh? by cmdr_beeftaco · 2004-04-20 07:03 · Score: 3, Funny

I've used my cell phone on planes for years and have only been involved in one crash and it didn't really hurt as much as I expected. I would definitly not be interested in this service. Anyone know of amplifiers and/or high gain antennae that can get through security checkpoints?

I never turn it off by jzuska · 2004-04-20 06:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

I never turn my mobile off. The phone just doenst work that high up, and I travel by air weekly. Never had any problems either.

Re:I never turn it off by cmdr_beeftaco · 2004-04-20 07:06 · Score: 2, Funny

I've been using my cell phone on the plane for years and have only crashed once. Lucky for me the injuries where not severe and I am sure the plane was insured.
Re:I never turn it off by radish · 2004-04-20 07:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Please wear a badge so I can avoid going on a plane with you.

Most of the civil aviation regulators of the world ban cellphones on flights, I really don't believe that they do so simply to make the network operators happy. There has been at least one crash (a CrossAir flight in Switzerland) which the official report blamed on a cellphone, and there is at least one post on this very thread from a pilot who says it is a real problem. But you know more than all of them right?

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:I never turn it off by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-04-20 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I never turn my mobile off. The phone just doenst work that high up
Exactly, and even if your phone made the aircraft twitch, the pilot would just correct it as a matter of course.

And then, just as the plane approaches for landing in a tricky crosswind, your phone comes within range of the radio tower, and starts receiving a bunch of SMS messages (the 'welcome to such-and-such network' ones, and yes, phones do transmit as well when receiving messages), and screws up the avionics. But now, there is very margin for error and that twitch might well cause a crash.

Not following these safety regulations on aircraft is not only illegal, it's utterly stupid.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:I never turn it off by fatray · 2004-04-20 08:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is, of course, a felony in the US. (Failure to obey the instructions of a uniformed crew member.)

Too complicated by Zweistein_42 · 2004-04-20 06:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why not just use existing phones/ethernet jacks in Airplanes? I cannot see this much technology being any cheaper, so what is the point in using your own cell vs. built-in phones?

--
- To err is human; but to really screw up, you need a computer

Re:Too complicated by xSquaredAdmin · 2004-04-20 06:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only advantage I can see is that then people would be able to call you. But it's not like it'd hurt them to leave a message on your voicemail. So I guess I don't see any advantages.

--
Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
Re:Too complicated by cmdr_beeftaco · 2004-04-20 06:49 · Score: 2, Informative

One word, incoming telephone calls.
Re:Too complicated by Blimey85 · 2004-04-20 07:10 · Score: 4, Funny

One word, incoming telephone calls.
Fscking metric system.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

The whole no phones in planes by Marxist+Commentary · 2004-04-20 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

is simply a red herring. The airlines stand to make confiscatory profits from the seat-back phones, which charge upwards of $10/minute. Thus, there is no incentive for them to change. Why would this be adopted?

--

Stop corporate

Re:The whole no phones in planes by LostCluster · 2004-04-20 06:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Nope... there's two bans on phones in flight...

- The FAA doesn't like them because of the longshot theory that radio waves of any kind might just add up to a signal that tricks autopilot or other navigational systems into glitching, causing the plane to crash. That's a long shot risk, but the disaster case is kinda a bad one if it ever happens.

- The FCC also has a ban because when you're in flight, you're always at least 6-8 miles away from the nearest cell tower. You end up communicating with too many towers and bogging down the network. One or two such calls is tolerable, but a whole plane load moving through would disrupt the ground-based users of the network.

This picocell concept solves both problems by moving the nearest cell tower to just a few feet away from the phone. Therefore, the phone kicks into its lowest power setting, and never talks to any other tower.
Re:The whole no phones in planes by LordDartan · 2004-04-20 06:51 · Score: 5, Informative

I've been a pilot for 15 years now and I can tell you without a doubt that cellphones (and most any electronic device) can affect instruments in the airplane. Yes, in this day and age the chances of that have been reduced, but it can still happen.
Re:The whole no phones in planes by Kenja · 2004-04-20 06:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cell phones CAN cause problems with radar systems. However only in select spots (ie where yuo are in relation to the radar). Rather then say that yuo can use a cell phone anyplace on the plane other then this red circle, they just say no phones. Hell, you cant use a cell phone in the front section of the ferry boat I ride home each day because its under the radar dome.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:The whole no phones in planes by Waffle+Iron · 2004-04-20 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why would this be adopted?
Probably because the airlines can still get a piece of the action with this scheme. They can do a deal with the phone companies to split an outrageously priced "roaming" fee for these calls. People would be much more likely to use their own phones than those crappy phones in the backs of seats. (I can't remember ever seeing anyone actually use one of those things.)
Even if they only charged half or less of the unbelievable current air phone price, the total call volume would go way up, and so would the airlines' revenues from phone services.

just what we've been waiting for... by twstdr00t · 2004-04-20 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't tell you how nice it would be to have wifi on the plane...

--

---------
AlmostFreeLinux.com

Uh-oh... by aussersterne · 2004-04-20 06:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm not one of those virulent mobile phone haters (I use mine all the time), but imagining a long flight with a cabin full of people having inane conversations with their chums and having to yell over the engine noise... all 100+ of them... is my idea of a bad time.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

Re:Uh-oh... by Kenja · 2004-04-20 06:55 · Score: 4, Funny

The way I see it, if they can have their cell phones, then I should get my gun. Its a checks and ballances issue.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Uh-oh... by Minwee · 2004-04-20 07:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Having all 100+ conversations being "Hey, guess where I'm calling you from!" and "Can you hear me now?" would be even worse.

Is the danger real? by still+cynical · 2004-04-20 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does anyone know where I could find some sort of evidence that there is a danger to begin with? Maybe then I'll stop believing that it's purely a matter of hoovering my wallet as completely as possible.

--
Ignorance is the root of all evil.

Re:Is the danger real? by cheide · 2004-04-20 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative

There is certainly a potential for interference. Electromagnetic compatibility isn't always a straightforward matter; I briefly worked on a software tool to assist in compatibility testing and there are a *huge* number of ways signals from different components in an aircraft can combine and interfere with others. You can't just certify a range of frequencies as being okay and leave it at that, because it also depends on how the frequencies are generated inside the device, which may be different from device to device. Any time a new frequency-generating device was to be added to a plane, it had to undergo fairly extensive testing first.

One case that they were investigating involved a jet that was fitted with extra sensors and transmitters to gather vibration data. After taking off and reaching level flight, the pilot turned on the sensors, only to have the entire avionics system immediately shut down. It took a while before they finally figured out what had happened -- the sensor packages were transmitting on the resonant frequency of a length of metal in the plane, which acted as an antenna and leaked energy into the nearby circuit breaker, which then tripped.

I'm not sure how well this relates to cell phones since these were fairly high-power devices and I'm not familiar with cell phones, but for what it's worth...
Re:Is the danger real? by kc8tbe · 2004-04-20 07:33 · Score: 2, Informative

The situation isn't really dangerous. In fact, HAM radio operators are allowed to use their radios during flight (just not during take off and landing). The problem isn't in interference with avionic equipment but rather, as has already been mentioned, in the cell network.

Normally several adjacent towers pick up your signal, and then decide which one has the best signal quality. That tower then handles the signal. Remember, signal quality/strength is best with a line-of-sight to the cell tower. Well, on an airplane, you have line of site to lots of cell towers - some of which are several miles apart and consequently not programmed to defer your signal. Too many users doing this could crash the cell phone network!

Perhaps a more effective solution would be better tracking software in cell towers. Software that enabled far-away towers to communicate and defer your signal would resolve the problem and be a whole lot cheaper than using sattelite uplinks.
Re:Is the danger real? by jay2003 · 2004-04-20 08:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most people don't understand the statistics involved when it comes to expected norms of commercial airplane safety. There are almost 10,000,000 commerical airplane flights a year so if unlimited cell phone crashed only 1 in 10,000,000 flights, one plane every year would be lost. Even if it's 1 in a 100,000,000, that's one plane every ten years. I just don't think it's a worth plane crash with potentially hundreds of passengers dead just so people can talk for cheap on their cell phones.

Look here for statistical information on airplane safety

And besides, airplanes are one of few respites in the modern world from constant cell phone ringing. If phones were found to be safe on planes, every flight would become a cacophony of really irrating ring tones. Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again.

Could prevent another 9-11 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-20 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Reliable independent comm in flight, and even internet connectivity, could be used to notify officials and the military if they're asleep on the job about a terrorist event.

So you'd rather... by lxt · 2004-04-20 06:46 · Score: 4, Informative

...a plane crashed to prove it?

There's lots of evidence that phones can interfere with navigation equipment, and from my experience as an audio engineer I can tell you digital cell phones can very easily intefere with electrical equipment, disrupting signals etc.

Picocells are the future by Paul+Crowley · 2004-04-20 06:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've been predicting picocells for a while. I think there will be a lot of them. A private owner (eg a shop or a bar) installs a picocell, hooks it up to their broadband connection, and gets some of the call revenue from the network provider in return for taking some of the weight off the towers. Battery life is improved, radiation reduced, and everyone wins. The cells units are small and cheapish, and when they fail you just send them back by post and get sent a replacement. You'll see them underground in metro stations, or at the backs of shops in buildings which block radio waves.

--
Xenu loves you!

Re:Picocells are the future by JabberWokky · 2004-04-20 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd just like one in my house so I can choose to use the landline when at home so I don't have to worry about minutes or long distance, plus having better reception and high speed bandwidth. Kind of like a base station for a portable, and when I get too far away, it flips over to the cell system.
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien

Obligatory Mobile Explainer by sibdib · 2004-04-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Redundant

CDMA is both a mobile phone standard (IS-95) and a technology (Code Division Multiple Access) and if you're comparing "GSM" to "TDMA" to "CDMA" then you're refering to phone standards. CDMA the phone standard is junk, in all honesty, and is being phased out. The direct replacement for it is CDMA2000, which existing US IS-95 operators like Sprint PCS and Verizon are moving to.

CDMA the technology is rather better and is being used in a number of newer systems. GSM "version 2" is called UMTS, and has a configurable air interface which can be GSM's Time Division Multiple Access, EDGE (a more modern and efficient Time Division MA system), or a variant of Code Division Multiple Access (ie the CDMA the technology, not CDMA the mobile phone standard) called WCDMA, depending on the operator's preferences.

Only CDMA2000 is based upon CDMA the standard. UMTS is based upon GSM. TD-CDMA is a completely new system and isnt' based upon anything. It does use "CDMA the technology", but it certainly isn't related in any way, shape, or form to IS-95.

Re:Obligatory Mobile Explainer by squiggleslash · 2004-04-20 07:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I assume you are implying that the voice quality is junk.
No, I said in my original comment that the standard is junk. The call quality is fine, it's approximately the same as EFR GSM. However, it's an absurdly basic, if not positively backward, system which is only slightly more capable than an AMPS phone with a built in pager and a modem.
There's no position independence (your phone book will not work properly if you leave the region you set the numbers up in, for instance), there's no device independence (you need to call your carrier just to switch phones), internetwork signalling is poorly handled which lead, at one point, to phone companies having to agree on a different way of forwarding calls, because if you were roaming, set a forward, and moved onto another network, you'd have no way to cancel the forwarding!
My understanding is that at least some of these issues are fixed in CDMA2000, though not necessarily in a way that carriers "have to" support in order to support the standard. Qualcomm's insistance on allowing carriers to actively prevent users making use of what ought to be ordinary features doesn't really help end users either.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Cost? by slykens · 2004-04-20 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

What kind of fees can we expect for this?

Inside the US seat-back phone calls run $2-$3 per minute. I had to make a call over India from Lufthansa's satellite phone on Inmarsat's network at $10 per minute a few years ago. That was an expensive call.

Roaming on a $10 per minute network certaintly would keep the chatter to a minimum for those who don't want to listen to people on mobile phones in airplanes. SMS, however, would be very cool and should be very quiet.

Shit. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · 2004-04-20 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

What we do NOT need is 300 assholes all chatting away while in a confined space for 6 hours.

The RULE on all airplane flights should be, "Sit down, don't smoke, don't talk, shut the fuck up and read a book because hundreds of strangers need to get along so be fucking polite, please." That should be written on every ticket.

I can't stand how self-indulgent most people are, and how important they want to think they are, and can't go without a cell phone or a deep conversation about Cosmo magazine for a few hours. Grow the fuck up and learn to sit still and read something quietly on a place. Seriously.

This is technology being used in a very BAD way IMO.

Re:Shit. by randyest · 2004-04-20 07:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now that's flamebait.

Seriously. No matter how good you think your social skills are, or how impeccably perspicacious your banter may seem to you, I may not (and probably don't) want to hear it on a plane while I'm trying to read/sleep/watch a movie. See, we're stuck close together, I can't just move away from you like I might in another situation.

So yeah, I have to agree with the grandparent poster -- you really should keep conversations to a minimum, and at a very low volume, when flying. It's polite (i.e., a good social skill).

I'm not sure what the jab about being the other posters child was supposed to mean, but I for one would hate to share a plane with you if you think "good social skills" on a plane is anything other than shutting the fuck up as much as possible.

--
everything in moderation

Pretty expensive uplink costs by Dubber · 2004-04-20 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

(from the bottom of the article):"Connexion's pricing, announced late last month, puts unlimited Wi-Fi access at $29.95 for flights longer than six hours; $19.95 for flights between three and six hours; and $14.95 for flights less than three hours. Connectivity can be purchased on a metered basis for $9.95 for the first 30 minutes and 25 cents for each additional minute. Airlines are considering an option to pay for connectivity with frequent-flyer miles, Boeing has said."

$20.00 / 6 hours = $3.33/hour
or
$30.00 / 6+ hours = ~$5.00/hour on East Coast US to Europe flights down to 1.50 an hour or so for those West Coast US to Australia flights.

& I thought 24.95 for a day's access at a conference was exorbitant!

--
Your complaints about being offended offend me.

Unless you're flying with a convention of mimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-20 06:49 · Score: 2, Funny

just imaging trying to think with 200 stuttering zombies around you chatting about nothing

The airplane is one of my last refuges, keep it sacred!!

Happens to a friend of mine too.. by FirstNoel · 2004-04-20 06:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

His Monitor starts going nuts a few seconds before the cell phone rings. It's weird when you see it happen.

Sean D.

--
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"

Re:Happens to a friend of mine too.. by jwthompson2 · 2004-04-20 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The tower is probably asking the phone to return some information before connecting the call. Some sort of handshaking system I would imagine to make sure the call is connected to the right phone....

That'd be my guess.

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

A brief scenario by ArmenTanzarian · 2004-04-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Funny

There's always that one lady with the super high-pitched voice and horrible accent (I'm picturing Fran Drescher) who just has to talk about something horrifically mindless. She's been on planes before, but decorum was preserved by the fact that her friend fell asleep with all the other normal people. Now she can ring up her equally annoying family and drone on through every time zone, I can't wait...

But that's my quiet time by Wiseazz · 2004-04-20 06:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously. I enjoy not being hassled by clients, etc. for those hours that I'm flying. I also like not having to listen to OTHER people gabbin' on the phone.

Just relax... Read a book. Listen to some music (softly).

--
My sig sucks.

Interference? by bsd4me · 2004-04-20 07:09 · Score: 2, Informative

There was an article in IEEE Spectrum about this a few years ago. I would post the results, but (1) I forget what the article said, and (b) I am lazy.

--

(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

IM access by deicide · 2004-04-20 07:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

A United flight SFO-EWR flight I took a couple weeks ago allowed IM (AIM, MSN, ICQ and Y!) access for $5.99 for the duration of the flight. You connect your laptop to a phone line, dial up to any number and it connects. Their router then only allows IM traffic to the ground.

Brilliant! Why would I need to use a phone with some rediculous per-minute charge if I can chat with 5 people at once while in the air without disturbing other passengers nonetheless..

Email (POP3/SMTP) access was $20.

GAAH! this will be awful by goombah99 · 2004-04-20 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

So now in addition to have to sit next to sweaty bloated people with bad perfume, I will have to listen to a cabinful of loud talking idiots sucking up to some customer they want to squeeze. No thanks, I'd rather have cigar smoke that that.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Flight attendants: bring extra zip ties by sulli · 2004-04-20 07:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

to tie down all those yakkers who won't shut up.

Seriously. I use my phone and stuff, but can we have some peace and quiet anywhere these days?!

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Why? by cmpalmer · 2004-04-20 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I often fly through Atlanta when travelling and the flight from Huntsville (where I live) to Atlanta is about 35 minutes gate-to-gate (~20-25 minutes in the air).

I am always amazed at the type-A people who have their finger poised over the power button when the wheels hit the ground so they can get on the phone to talk business.

I'm not talking about the worried flyers who call their wife/mom/kids/whoever to say they've arrived safely, but the big deal makers suffering cell phone withdrawal after 30 minutes disconnection. These are usually the same people who have packed for a four day trip in oversized carry-on luggage because checking a bag would take too much time and they jump to their feet as the plane taxis up to the gate and grab their bags as if that is going to get them off the damned plane any quicker.

Sorry, had to rant (and I'm flying this weekend and already dreading it).

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness

Re:no, god. please no. by Dr.+Evil · 2004-04-20 08:59 · Score: 2, Funny

The airlines could test the markets... "cellular section" and a "no cellular section". Just like "wailing child section" and a "no wailing child section".

Toddlers are the worst. Some f-ing numbnuts came up with the idea that they shouldn't have their own seat. Have you ever seen a person try to hold down a three year old during takeoff? Have you sat next to them? I mean, your ears six inches from the toddler's face? Being spat on and scratched as the toddler tries desparately to escape his mother's grasp?

Then when the meals are served, when you're belted in and trapped under your meal tray as the toddler (with no seat) stands in front of his mother, flailing his arms in the three inches of space, pushing over drinks and slapping the tray.

It's a stupid situation to put the kid, their mother and other passengers in.

On my subsequent flight, I asked if I could be seated away from any toddlers. The person working the seating arrangement just gave me a dirty look then nodded blankly.

I mean even if you had a toddler-section (e.g. designate a set of bulkhead seats...) then somebody who really doesn't want to be around them during a flight, would only have themselves to blame for not arranging their seat well enough ahead of time... unless there are just too many toddlers.

Trains, planes by mbstone · 2004-04-20 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Before you wish for cell phones on planes, take a train sometime.

hi! guess what! my cell phone works on the train! but it never seems to work quite right unless i yell into it!!

Slashdot Mirror

WirelessCabin: Use Your Mobile Phone on Airplanes

62 of 296 comments (clear)