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.
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
And I the passenger don't care. Ok, maybe I care a little.
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.
it's annoying enough that people talk loudly on their cell phones in resaurants etc.. can you imagine a flight with 200 people all talking on cell phones?
the horror the horror the horror
they will have to have cell phone sections on the plane. cell phones will be this generations cigarettes.
I've never been convinced that the 300mW that a cell phone puts out can cause any harm. If it could there would have already been catastrophies caused by people who ignored the rules or simply forgot to turn their phones off.
I'm interested to see how this will work. Currently there are two big cellular standards: GSM and CDMA. GSM seems like the more viable choice, as it is used globally (three GSM nets in US, also), but many americans use CDMA carriers like sprint/verizon/alltel/etc. For either, I assume it would be just like hitting a roaming partner and associating with their network, but I wonder how they will prevent people from just using land-based carriers, assuming range permits this.
unzip; strip; touch; grep; mount; fsck; yes; more; fsck; umount; make clean; sleep
will they make the captain use a hands free headsets so they are less likely to get distracted and get in an accident?
Cellphones are banned for interference reasons by the FCC. Cellphones might also be banned for (perceived) safety reasons by any individual airline (or, for that matter, aircraft captain); cell phones are *NOT* banned by the FAA.
It's interesting that you mention this. Jakob Nielsen did a great study that showed that people don't need to talk any louder on their cell to be annoying - it's naturally annoying to you because you only hear one side of the conversation. Read about it here.
- Allen Pike
Altering time, one time at a time.
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
My (probably gullible) impression was always that the risks that were involved were due to potential interference with the pilot to control tower communication (I mean, what if I were telling someone on the other end of my cell call "Lower! Lower!!!!" very urgently and the pilot thought that was the air traffic controller talking to him/her).
A more cynical view might be that the airlines wanted to control a slice of the air time charges and couldn't do that with cell phones. Might that be the case? Nah.
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
That should be fun for Nextels, I usually get 30-40 seconds of "Please hold while the subsciber is located" as it is, I can't imagine adding aircraft.
Yeah, first he said she used her cell phone. When someone pointed out that wouldn't work he changed it to a collect call from an airphone, since she didn't have her purse.
He didn't know. The problem is that she couldn't get a direct line to her husband's office. She kept getting disconnected, and when she called back she had to find a way to convince the switchboard operator to accept the charges from the collect call. I know this; I watched him tell the story on Fox news three days later.
I don't know what his story changed to when someone pointed out that you need a credit card to get the phone out of the seatback.
The ones on the plane I was on this weekend didn't. You just pushed the button and it poped out. (I know b/c I got bored and played with it.) The ones I've seen that do require a credit card to get out are not that difficult to get around; a thin utensel or a stiff business card could pop them out.
actually cell phones on airplanes causes problems with the cell network, wih the phone "visible" to many towers rather than one or two each phone uses far more network resources and can cause dropped calls on the ground.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I'll be using my portable MP3/CD player during takeoff, landing, and enroute cruise tomorrow morning... while I'm at the controls of my own airplane!
:p
And yes, I do play Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" as I'm taking off down the runway. I do it just because it's so damn tacky
The cell phone can interfere with the navigation and communication equipment on the flight deck. The phone's signal strength gets prgressively stronger when it can't contact a tower, and this strong(ish) radio signal can screw things up for you and the other couple of hundred people on board. The thing about the pico-towers they are talking about is they prevent the phone from seeking out the tower on the ground by providing a signal nearby, thus lowering the phone's signal strength.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
Okay, credentials first: I'm an electromagnetic compatibility engineer with one of the worlds larger commercial aircraft manufacturers.
The difference with the AirPhone is that it is accounted for in the design of the aircraft and it is a known quantity. Your cell phone (and the WiFi card in your laptop and your bluetooth PDA) are unknown elements. There are plenty of aircraft out their that where designed and constructed before personal wireless gear became widespread, and even if you design with say the GSM cell phone standard in mind, you don't know that all possible handsets will meet the spec with regard to spurious emissions.
The thing is, we don't know the answer to what this stuff to do. And we're pretty smart guys who are spending alot of money looking at the problem. Mean while all these people on slashdot know the answer already. I guess we should have just asked them.
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
Cell phones crash planes when you want them to, and don't crash planes when you don't want them to. Proof: 1) Cell phone use by passengers saved the White House on September 11th. Passengers were able to learn what happened at the World Trade Center, and correctly deduced that the plane was going to be used as a weapon. This is actually a security measure. Cell phones in the hands of passengers is the best chance that NORAD has of learning that a plane has been hijacked before it can be used to hit anything. 2) Cell phones are constantly, constantly being left on accidentally in flight (along with Wifi laptops, etc.) If this could bring down a plane, they would be falling out of the sky left and right. In the 21st Century, the only way to be safe is to build a plane that is immune to cell phone interference. Anything less is delusional folly.
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.
It seems that the stewardess will still make me turn off my graphing calculator before takeoff.
Seriously, I though all electronics were tested for interference in important bands. There is a little FCC logo on my VCR. Isn't what that means?
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.
From this FAA web page:
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
"How exactly does banning me from making a cell phone call during a flight keep anyone any safer given that I can make the same call on the "AirPhone" on the back of the seat in front of me? "
:P
A.) The antenna for the plane phone, to the best of my understanding, is on the outside of the plane. Assuming I'm right, shielding equipment from that should be possible.
B.) They can fully test the one phone system with the equipment on board. They cannot test every single phone that works on different frequencies based on the particular service they use.
C.) A Britney Spears ring tone won't have the chance to cause a riot.
"Derp de derp."
Wrong!!! There is an article in this Month's issue of Smithsonian Air and Space magazine that has hard data from NASA tests that proves cell phones are a hazard. Cell phones are just not shielded well use,a plane has about 10 systems that rely on external signals, and some cells emit signals (not the call signals but "leakage") in that range. I couldn't find a web link to that article, go check it out on the newstand. I too used to think it was no big deal but airplane electronics are setup to deal with outside sources of interference not inside. Also there is some thought that at 35K feet you can hit dozens of towers with a call making the call management software do back flips :) bringing down the network for everyone..(I have no idea if this is true..just heard it).Anyhow I dont think just adding "picocells" is going to correct the problem of poorly designed cell phones that give off EMR they are not supposed to!
Noise-canceling headphones wouldn't help you with people talking; they only work well with constant drones like the roar of the engines.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
The reason the FCC bans cellphones in-flight is because from 30,000 feet, you can see several hundred or more cellsites. Which the switching gear does not deal politely with.
People think in terms of commercial aircraft, but private aircraft have the same restrictions, even if you're in a Piper Cub with no electrical system.
The captain has turned on the no talking sign. Shut the hell up. Please return your mouths to an upright and locked position.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Which one are they going to support?
we're pretty smart guys who are spending alot of money looking at the problem. Mean while all these people on slashdot know the answer already. I guess we should have just asked them.
Well duh, I could have told you that like 5 years ago!
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
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.
Actually, you're wrong. If you read the FCC regs very carefully, it's analog cell phones that are banned from the air, not digital ones. It's because the frequency that the analog phones run in put them in the banned category, while the digital ones are in a different category.
Keep in mind this is probably just a loop hole.
Also, my ex-girlfriend's brother was a 747 captain, he regularly saw interference from people using cell phones.
He was flying an older plane that used 70's technology, btw.
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.
Anyhow I dont think just adding "picocells" is going to correct the problem of poorly designed cell phones that give off EMR they are not supposed to!
But the local picocell wuill induce the cell phone to reduce its power to the bare minimum because it has such a good local signal. Cell phones have some of the most elaborate battery saving software in the world. They always try to use the absolute minimum power that will get the job done.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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
They're not secret, i think it's a given there's stinger squads at the whitehouse.
Do you know how far the Pentagon is from Regan Internation Airport?
Not even one kilometer. A passenger jet can cross that distance in less than 5 seconds. The White House is further away, 15 seconds or so. The missile itself needs 2+ seconds to travel. Imagine how quickly the guards can decide a plane has become a threat, target it, and launch.
Oh, and how many Stingers does it take to bring down a 747? Three.
Yes, there probably are Stingers in an arms locker at the Whitehouse. They might be useful if a terrorist helicopter shows up... happens all the time in the movies, right?
That's not my experience (GSM). I once was bored and did a few experiments with my computer speakers as a broadcast strength indicator. (Funny, my hifi amplifier never has those problems) The handshake and the first few seconds are broadcast at higher power.
A phone knows how strong the signal from the base is, but does not know whether the base can hear the phone as well. In standby mode, a phone is just listening, only every now and then (30 minute intervals) it will give a "I'm alive" message. So, broadcasting initially happens at maximum power. If the base acknowledges that the signal level is strong enough, the signal level is stepped down.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Sadly the overwing emergency exits will not operate if the cabin is pressurized. Perhaps we can club the idiots into submission with the in-flight telephones built into the seat-backs. It is already bad enough during the post-landing taxi: "*BEEP* HEY! NO, WE'RE STILL ON THE PLANE! I'LL BE HOME IN ABOUT TWO HOURS. I'LL CALL YOU FROM *smack* Ack! *smack* No! *smack* *BEEP*" Yeah. Airline phone beat-downs are definitely the way to go.
Wrong. You do not have the range to "see" cells at 30,000 feet. iDEN networks have the longest range of all cellular technologies, and based on the reuse pattern, maxes out at a few miles. Even if the range could extend to that far of a distance, cell antennae are directional, and point at a downwards angle.
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.
Counterexample: they serve drinks drinks in first class before takeoff. Nothing like a wee bit o' Scotch to make the takeoff nice and smooozzzzzzzz.
Silly person.
We in first class fully expect to be carried off the aeroplane in the event of such unforseen misfortune.
They may be banned for safety but I fly every week and the last thing I want is the fat, lound and obnoxious guy sitting next to me from SF to the east coast to be sitting there yammering on his phone for 6 hours so everyone can hear his conversation. Get me wireless internet then that will be progress but please never allow cell phones on during flights. They already let you use them during taxi'ing after landing and Ill admit it is the first thing I do but I only check messages I hear all those frigging salesmen from the back of the plane being lound and obnoxious.