Slashdot Mirror
Cellphones Usable on Airplanes in 2006?
JOhn-E G writes "In a recent article from the New York Times it seems that airlines and cellphone makers are working towards allowing cellphones to be used on airplanes during flight. (free reg. required) Currently the plan is to have a mini cell tower, a picocell, on the plane that would intercept all the calls from people in the plane and relay them to satelites or ground towers. The FAA, FCC, and the airlines really want to be absolutely sure that there will be no interference anywhere. The article also says that cell use may still be banned during landings just to be safe. Changes would start in 2006."
I wonder: 1. If it will be free 2. If it will work with all cell phone carriers. If they are gonan charge 30 buvks for a call, then screw it
Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
cellphones bans are for safety not interference
More inane chatter. Mile high was one place where you were safe for a while from all the i-have-got-to-talk-on-my-cell-phone people. Damn.
Free XBox, PS2
I don't know, is it really that important to stay "in touch" with friends, family, or work over the duration of a flight? I would think that most flights are 3 hours or less as this will pretty much get you across NA, or Europe. Longer flights certainly happen on a regular basis, but I just don't see it being necessary to be available or be in contact for the duration of a flight.
An airplane is one of the last places I don't have to listen to some asshole yell "I told him- I- I- HOLD ON, YOU"RE BREAKING UP!"
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
OK, I expect a new technology. You did too -- right? Seems like we believe the airlines and the FAA and/or FCC when they tell us that cellphones can interfere with airplane communication and/or navigation systems (anything's possible right? can't be too careful at 20k ft. right?)
But then I read:
Until now, there have been concerns that cellphone use during flight could disrupt cell networks or interfere with the plane's navigation systems. The F.C.C., which has jurisdiction over ground communication, forbids the use of cellphones in flight out of concern that passengers calling from the air could overwhelm the nation's system of cell towers. That policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October, according to Lauren Patrich, an F.C.C. spokeswoman.
Whoah -- "until now?" The "policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October?" OMGWTFBBQ?
But alas, it's not that simple:
For its part, the F.A.A., which governs in-flight communications, recommends that airlines forbid the use of any device - including cellphones and pagers - that transmits signals, because of the risk of interference.
Woot! Administrative deathmatch -- FCC vs. FAA! Who will win!? Are you rrrready to tuuuune-to-this-freeeeequency?
Two newly proposed solutions will allow passengers to use their own cellphones to place calls in flight in a way that their makers say addresses both concerns. Unlike the current seat-back phone system, airlines will not have to pay for costly interior wiring. Instead, a small cell tower, known as a picocell, will be installed inside the cabin. Cellphone signals will be picked up by that cell, and then, depending on the system, relayed either first to a satellite or directly to the ground.
What's that? Not just a policy revision. Sigh. Actually a technological product that might prevent the FCC/FAA battle from ever taking place? Say it aint so . .
AirCell of Louisville, Colo., a large provider of in-flight communications services, has proposed a system that would bypass existing cellphone towers on the ground and direct calls instead to a separate grouping of receivers installed throughout the country. Equipment inside the plane would effectively create a cabin-wide hot spot handling voice and Internet communications.
Bah, it's true. They have a sufficiently expensive product to but that will allow them to charge sufficiently high fees so that we don't all ever have to know the truth about whether or not calling your sweetie from 30k ft. will crash the plane and they can still charge $5/min for airtime and the FCC doesn't have to kick the FAA's ass in public and all is well.
The AirCell system can handle any of the three digital phone standards in use by the American carriers: C.D.M.A., T.D.M.A. or G.S.M. Signals from each phone would be received by the plane's picocell, and then translated into one digital signal that would be sent to one of AirCell's terrestrial receivers. (To keep costs down, those receivers could be situated next to ones operated by cellphone carriers.) The signals would be separated and sent to the customer's carrier for routing and billing.
"Keep costs down." Did you see what he did there? He made you think they really want to keep costs down. Because it's worth it to take a percentage of smaller number if the average guy gets a break!
The system is designed to be able to transmit signals a distance of 50,000 feet, and hand them off from one ground receiver to the next while a caller is moving at 600 miles per hour. Because of the height at which planes fly, only 150 cell sites will be needed to provide coverage across the continental United States, according to Jack Blumenstein, AirCell's chief executive officer.
150 x what, $15 million? $10 million? I have no idea. But I bet the break-even point is at about 200 phone-fligh
everything in moderation
My understanding of one of the primary issues surrounding cellphone use in aircraft (that the picocell would address) is that lack of ground-based signal obstruction gave cellphones fairly long range in the air, and that range confused towers, made hand-offs nearly impossible to co-ordinate, and caused a huge headache for billing (eg: what cell was he actually in, which carrier was he roaming to, etc).
-Matt
Although Wi-fi would be cool, what I'd really like is some power outlets for portable elctronic devices on the flight. It really sucks, when your laptop battery conks out after a couple of hours, or if you need a power outlet for any of your gadgets.
This is worse when you are on international flights, when you have to sit for 12 straight hours doing nothing.
I guess they'd cite a million reasons why it's dangerous and not do it, but if they can allow cellphones, why not this.
You're a fucking idiot.
Which one are they going to support?
I've never believed that using your laptop, game boy or mp3 player/walkman "interfered with the instruments", or whatever excuse they give you.
I think they don't want you to use any electronic devices during takeoff and landing (particularly headphones) because that's the time when something is most likely to go horribly wrong. They want you alert.
I would rather cellphones stay banned as I really don't want to spend 6hrs on a plane with some ass who's talking the entire time.
It's not an issue of yapping on the phone too long and not being able to control it. I live about 40 minutes from the airport. If I have to wait until I land to call for a ride, i'd be waiting at least that long. I can always make the call before I get on the plane, but there are frequently delays, even after you get on a plane. Making the call in-flight would be far more efficient.
We must have had commercial air travel now for something like 80-odd years but all of a sudden it's just SO important that we remain constantly in touch on our phones.
It seems like most of the human race these days needs to look up from their little screen occasionally and see what's happening in the real world.
A mobile phone is a tool, nothing more. Sometimes you need it, most of the time you don't.
Get used to it, get a life!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"...the plan is to have a mini cell tower, a picocell, on the plane...", and the picocells will undoubtedly be "over" us, so how is it off-topic?
I guess I don't get the choice not to sit under a cell phone mast for 11 hours on a flight anymore. Like a number of people in this post, I don't think its a great problem for people to be without their cell phone for a few hours - at the risk of flaming, people don't get to smoke on planes, why can't they live without phoning too.
There's also the problem that in the event of an accident, a laptop computer and to a lesser extent, other electronic items are bad things to be flying around the cabin being as they tend to be fairly solid objects.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
The big problem here is perceived vs actual volume.
Due to the blocking of local sound and own voice by the cellphone against the ear, combined with the perceived 'distance' of the other person and the quietness of their voice in the ear, most cellphone converstations are conducted in far louder tones of voice than person-to-person.
This is combined with the higher 'annoyance' factor of a cellphone conversation. This is because you only hear one side of the conversation, and you don't hear a steady flow. These bursts of speech cause your mind to wonder whether they might be talking to you, and hence puts you in a more alert/tense mood.
It's also harder for your mind to filter irregular intermittent noise than steady conversation.
The net effect, therefore, is that mobile conversations have a much bigger impact on your thoughts and current activity than a two-or-more person conversation at an equivalent distance.
(groups of Liverpool fans in First Great Western trains notwithstanding...)
Counterexample: they serve drinks drinks in first class before takeoff. Nothing like a wee bit o' Scotch to make the takeoff nice and smooozzzzzzzz....
Just junk food for thought...
Who cares if it's technically feasible or not, or causes interference - the real issue is, how annyoying is it going to be listening to your seat neighbor yakking on his phone for an entire flight while you want to read or sleep. Airplanes were the last refuge of those that don't want to be made available at all times, and don't want to listen to other people's business. Now, sadly, they are taking that away.