Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phones In The Air?
jumbledInTheHead writes "Are you ever annoyed when someone near you talks unnecessarily loud on their cell phone? Or even worse, when it is in a tight, enclosed space and you can't walk away? The problem is about to get worse the next time you take a flight; the FAA is considering removing the ban on cell phone use on airlines."
So they can let phones on planes - big deal. Exactly how is this different:
'some wanker talking loudly to the person next to them'
'some wanker talking loudly to a person on the phone'
That's right - there is stuff all difference. People use phones (rudely sometimes), but so what! If they are a loud, rude person then they will be loud and rude no matter what technology you limit them to.
I hardly ever use my mobile, but on a plane I imagine it would be really useful (Hi Honey - I'll be in late, or booking rooms or whatever)
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
It is to bad we can't make laws to stop people from being jerks. The idea that if it is legal then I can do it mentality, so a bunch of people see that it is legal then they abuse the law then they people get annoyed with them then they make it illegal so people cant do it even why it is appropriate. It is the same with NY and people with Cell Phones while driving they started talking and driving all the time getting into accidents so NY made it illegal to talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time. Now if people take to heart the warnings that they give they should be smart and reduce there cell phone usage or whatever is annoying people. If not just to not be a jerk but to make sure you right to do this activity when it is really needed is maintained.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Brutal punch-to-the-head incidents are expected to rise eleventy kajillion* percent.
* Margin of error +/- three kajillion.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Divide up the seats into a cell phone and non-cell phone section. Kind of like a non-smoking and smoking section they have in restaurants.
I already wear earplugs on the train: they block the noise from the train itself quite effectively but don't muffle voices as effectively as I'd like. (I think they are designed to attenuate low frequencies.)
Has anyone seen earplugs designed specifically to block human voices as well as low-frequency noise?
Just ask them to step outside.
They only have two people next to them on the plane to talk to, and if they are talking loudly, that's going to stop pretty quickly.
With a cell phone, they can talk loudly to anyone they can reach by phone.
So instead of maybe an hour before their seatmate gives them a hint that maybe it is time to shut up, they can conduct "business" in a loud voice for 8 hours straight (or as long as their battery lasts).
Long-distance air travel is already annoying enough, this is going to crank it up a notch!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Actually, the problem is that it's really easy to get a signal, because you have a clear shot to a crap load of cells at the same time while you are up in the air.
I feel the same way about those people who are selfish enough to think that babies have an off button that their parents can just hit whenever they have to fly.
Seriously, if you're so intolerant of every aspect of the rest of society then perhaps you should fly first class, fly by private charter, or not fly at all. (And that's a general "you", not JNighthawk in particular.)
Frankly, this whole "loud conversation" stuff reminds me of that universal off button story a few months back. If something bothers you, then try to address it politely or not at all.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The fine folks at Coudal http://www.coudal.com/ provide cards that you can hand to your neighbor blarring into his cell phone:
... about [ ] last night [ ] the game ... is very important to you, but we thought you'd like to know that it doesn't interest us in the least."
"Dear Cell Phone User, we are aware that your ongoing conversation with [ ] yer mother [ ] yer therapist
I have aleady printed my bunch of cards and started handing them out. Reactions are quite positive.
At the beginning was at.
First, engine and wind noise provide natural noise masking. It will only be the few closest people that you'd be able to hear talking. And to be honest, I'd mostly prefer that they talk to someone on their cell phones rather than trying to strike up a conversation with me.
Secondly, I'm surprised that the FAA and/or FCC is still concerned about the planes. I can't remember the last time I went on a flight and didn't hear a phone accidentally ring in flight. Oops. Forgot to shut off your cell phone. Yet despite most flights having at least some passengers who leave their cell phones on, it hasn't caused any problems. If it were an actual issue, it would be pervasive.
And finally, a huge number of people bring on laptops and although they might not be actively attached to a wireless connection, the computers are still sitting there probing the airwaves looking for connection points. Again, no problem there despite the fact that wireless computer technology is present and active on most flights.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
As a private pilot, I always leave my cell phone on when I fly VFR. (So far I haven't flown into any mountains due to navigational system confusion.)
The only way that I can get my phone to work is to descend very low in a rural area. If I'm up more than about 2000' AGL, then the phone doesn't work. I figure that it gets confused because it probably sees a dozen towers with strong signals.
Commercial aircraft would probably have to install special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
> Actually, the problem is that it's really easy to get a signal,
> because you have a clear shot to a crap load of cells at the
> same time while you are up in the air.
This is the big problem. If they use the existing cellular infrastructure, this will greatly increase interference and make voice quality even worse than it is today for everybody.
For existing cell phone towers, any cell phone in the air will be likely above the antenna mid-line. Since most antennas have a down-tilt of around 3-degrees (so they point slightly towards the ground), any coverage above the mid-line will be from one of the normally minimized antenna nodes that point up.
Antenna manufacturers try to make these nodes small because it's just wasted energy. One would rather have that energy pointed to where the traffic is. So the cell phones that are in the air will have moderate to poor signal strength which will require the cell phone and the base station radio to transmit at their highest power settings. For the base station, that's not too bad, but for the cell phone, you're suddenly going to have this giant source of interference because the phone will be broadcasting at its full power setting from nearly two miles above the surface. Since voice quality is indirectly proportional to the level of the noise floor in an area, cell phones service will get even worse.
However, the article talks about how they'll mitigate this. Airlines will install very small, low power base stations called "Picocells" aboard the plane. Thus, the cell phone will communicate with this nearby base station, reducing power levels significantly and minimizing the interference effect.
However, this will do nothing to mitigate the annoyance of listening to the person next to you screaming on their cell phone because they can't hear their voice over the roar of the engine.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The people who want the laws enacted are worse than the jerks. Jerks are just annoying.
People who enact laws are forcing you to act the way they want or they'll put you in prison. In other words, they're a dangerous threat to you.
Antenna manufacturers try to make these nodes small because it's just wasted energy. One would rather have that energy pointed to where the traffic is. So the cell phones that are in the air will have moderate to poor signal strength which will require the cell phone and the base station radio to transmit at their highest power settings. For the base station, that's not too bad, but for the cell phone, you're suddenly going to have this giant source of interference because the phone will be broadcasting at its full power setting from nearly two miles above the surface. Since voice quality is indirectly proportional to the level of the noise floor in an area, cell phones service will get even worse.
I'm not sure if this is really true. Currently, cell phones operate totally without any line of sight component in a multipath envirinment (ie, a Rayleigh signal model). An airplane would have line of sight to a base station, but would still have multipath (ie, a Rician signal model). Having a LOS component greatly improves things. I haven't see a a Smith chart for a cell tower antenna in a while, but while the main lobe is basically horizontal, there will be a side lobe pointing up. Also, multipath dominates the quality issues in mobile communications. AWGN plays a part, but fading is a bigger problem.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
well, if it's such a problem, do what the japanese do... on the shinkansen (bullet train) which is essentially a slow airplane on wheels, the vestibule near the toilets is the required spot for all mobile conversations... if your phone rings, you leave your seat and have your conversation back by the loos, not in your seat
it works because everyone respects not being an ass to others... whether or not this would work on airplanes is another matter, but the idea of a mobiles section in the same sense as smoking sections would be a step in the right direction
This will have the additional safety benefit that the signal from the phones doesn't have to be at full power, since the distance to the link is only ten or so meters instead of over 10km at cruising altitude and so the chance or interference to onboard equipment is reduced.
> I'm not sure if this is really true. Currently, cell phones operate
> totally without any line of sight component in a multipath
> envirinment (ie, a Rayleigh signal model).
> I haven't see a a Smith chart for a cell tower antenna in a
> while, but while the main lobe is basically horizontal, there
> will be a side lobe pointing up.
You're correct in that multi-path governs cellular communications, particularly for spread spectrum systems like IS-95 CDMA. However, wouldn't the fact that the device is flying above the skyline with no objects for the signal to bounce off of minimize multi-path effects? It's almost free air space with no obstructions when you're pointed at an airplane.
The airplane would offer an unobstructed path to the cell site, which could help things, but you'd still have a problem with the main lobe (on the vertical axis) pointing away from the airplane. You'd have to rely on a lobe pointing up or even on the back lobe in the case that the antenna is really tilted (like in an urban environment).
They've got some Smith charts on Andrew's web site that indicate the problem. I pulled a pattern for what I think is a typical cellular sectored antenna 854DG90VTESX running at ~824 MHz. If the top lobe is pointed at the plane (and there's no multi-path), along the blue vertical axis you're going to get a node 20 dB down from the main lobe. Thus, the line of sight coverage from the base station will be much lower than one would expect, and both the base station and mobile station will have to increase their power levels to make up for the lack of coverage.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Go ahead, you know you want to, too.
Do not touch -Willie
The FAA has no business trying to keep people from being rude. Why should the FAA regulate rudeness. Should the FTC be concerned with people talking loudly or on cellphones in theaters? It should be up to the airline if phones are not to be used.
Example: Excuse me sir, if you keep up the loud obnoxious cellphone talking, we'll be forced to tazer you and sit you between the three body odor offenders in row F.
The FAA should only be concerned if there's a valid problem with equipment interferrance. Which I would hope not, because then we'd be forced to use those $4.50/min credit card phones on the seat-backs.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
What is it with the frickin Jihad people have on using phones in a public place? Last I had heard, noone had legislated that being a inconsiderate assmunch was illegal. Here's my tips for blocking out people talkign loudly (it works on my wife, so it will work on your idiot cell phone user):
1. Headphones man....put em on when you get to flight level and crank away my friend!
2. Just ignore it. Get into something like a good book and you can block out most anything.
3. Relax! It's ok dude! That person talking on thier cell phone is exercising their rights. You can't legistlate the rights of people to be idiots. People are going to be idiots whether they have their cell in their ear or not.
Now, here's a list of cell phone usage rules for the idiots:
1. Vibrate man.....put it on vibrate on the plane, in the theater or in a restaurant. If it's a quick call, take it. If it's going to get extended, head for the restroom and finish it up in there.
2. USE YOUR INSIDE VOICE! If your in a bad cell, hang up, call later.
3. If it's on audio ring, silence it quickly. No reason to hear more then the opening bar or two of music.
4. If you simply need to make that call, then wait til you get to a private location. Don't make extended chattering calls in public. If it's simple hey we're running late calls, go ahead and make it or take it. If you feel the need for a cell convo to take your whole plane ride, don't. As you can see from the posts hear on slashdot, it annoys people.
Lastly for everyone, TAKE A FRICKIN CHILL PILL! People are idiots with or with out cellphones, cars, bicycles, walkmans, bass thumpers, iPods, laptops....etc, etc....they will continue to be idiots when you take their toys away (in fact they willl be worse because now you have to listen to them whine about it).
Gorkman
If only we could block voice traffic and not text traffic on planes. Text messaging is a quiet, discrete, polite way to communicate when crammed like sardines into a metal tube hurtling through the sky at 800kph.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Some people seem to be mystified as to why some others find obnoxious cellphone users so annoying. Personally, I think it's because those loud, one-sided conversations are a bit like audio spam. Not in the sense that it's trying to sell you something, but because the listener is effectively powerless to do anything about it (unless you want to get into a confrontation, which most don't). Think about it: Spam is annoying because there is this sense that someone can reach out and plant irrelevant messages in your inbox that you have to spend time and attention deleting. It's this feeling that someone else has power over you (despite the best filters, I still get a few every day) is what is so annoying. In the same way, it's that these people yacking in a very loud voice is effectively subjecting you to something that you have little or no control over, and you have to spend time and valuable "mental space" trying to ignore or block out. It takes effort. Noise can be very, very irritating, since it's so hard to screen out. The sense of hearing is one of those (like smell) that we cannot easily tune out, without substantial inconvenience (i.e. blocking out all other sounds).
It's no coincidence that the most common "quality of life" complaint is about noise from your neighbors.
So, for all those people who are saying "just chill out, relax, tune it out", you should realize that this is pretty much the same response that spammers give when they are criticized for sending out thousands of useless messages to people who aren't remotely interested in what they have to sell. Saying "oh just chill out and don't listen to it" and "oh, just hit delete and relax" is pretty much the same thing. The key is to realize that even if you personally don't find it annoying, MANY other people do.
I think that with all the loud background noise on planes, this would mean that people would talk even more loudly than normal on a cellphone. And, in my experience, there is always someone who seems totally oblivious to the loudness of their own phone voice. They are totally focused on their conversation, and simply don't care about the people around them. Or, perhaps they actually believe that other people are interested in what they are saying - I certainly think that this is the case sometimes. I have heard cellphone users talking loudly about stuff that seems purposely designed to be heard by the passers by, particularly when it pertains to something "cool" that the person did, e.g. a sexual conquest, or when the person is trying to be "wise" and demonstrate to everyone around them what a great person they are. There's something about having an audience that makes people behave a little differently. In a twisted way, they believe everyone else will be interested in what they have to say, just like those people who believe that everyone in the vicinity simply *MUST* love the song that's playing on their music system (of course, they totally forget that treble doesn't travel so well, so other people mostly just hear the thudding "dmpha dmpha dmpha" of the bass, like a bad headache), or the guys who drive around very aggressively with screeching tires for no apparent reason ("ooooohhhh, he must be *such* a great driver" is what is going through their little heads, methinks)...
I believe that if cellphones became formally permissable on planes then we are going to see an increase in "air rage" incidents because of the closed space and already somewhat tense environment. People are already primed to be annoyed by the time they step on the plane, what with all the parking hassles, lines, delays, security checks and other impediments to their getting from A to B. We certainly don't need to finally settle down into that airplane seat, only to realize that the asshat behind us wants to talk to Lenny in marketing about the latest sales figures. When that happens in the terminal, I simply get up and walk away. On a plane, not really an option.
Just my opinion...
I am a student pilot, and nowhere in the FAR does it say anything about cellphones. This rule is from the FCC, not the FAA. The closest the FAA has is FAR 91.21 which gives part 91 carriers the right to decide who can use what aboard their aircraft.
Again, give credit where credit is due: This is the FCC's rule, not the FAA's.
Take a gander at this "report" that suggests that calls made above 8000 ft. are impossible from an airplane, and that calls below that are unlikely...
So... is the conclusion drawn from this report wrong?
You're correct in that multi-path governs cellular communications, particularly for spread spectrum systems like IS-95 CDMA. However, wouldn't the fact that the device is flying above the skyline with no objects for the signal to bounce off of minimize multi-path effects? It's almost free air space with no obstructions when you're pointed at an airplane.
The only real way to be sure is to take field measurements, but I am pretty sure that this would be a Rician model (line of sight with multipath) with a fairly big Doppler shift. My reasoning is that since the mainlobe of the antenna is horizontal or pointing downward, it will pick up building and ground reflections. Since they are doing picocell and retransmitting, then can precompensate for the Doppler, though, by measurements on pilot channel. This topic has come up several times on comp.dsp. The general consensus was that the LOS component really helps things more than you think.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Those who say its easy to use a cell phone on a plane have obviously never tried it.
-------------------------------------------------
Most of the discussion so far has focused on whether people should be allowed to do this, how annoying they'll be, etc.
But my question is this: People say that cell phones might be dangerous, but does anyone here know how this is? What "navigational equipment" are they talking about when they say the cell phones might interfere? Does anyone believe that story in 2000 where they're saying that some guy flipping on his phone caused the plane to nose dive? Is the navigation equipment really that flaky?
I'm curious whether there is anyone out there who actually knows about frequency/radio/signal stuff AND airplane equipment that could shed some light on what the real danger is?
My guess is that the FAA has been "playing it safe" as a precaution.
It would act as a Faraday cage just like the average car does, and we all know that nobody EVER drives their car while talking on their cellphone, right?
I don't pretend to think this is an original thought... I'll say it anyway. For each time that I wished I could make a call from a plane, there were probably 50 times that I was glad I had a rock-solid excuse for not being called by anybody, and there were probably a 100 times that I didn't even think about that I would have been disturbed by somebody else on their phone.
Now the announcement from the crew will be "please put your phones on vibrate out of respect for your fellow passengers," and that will be largely ignored along with something about oxygen masks and floatation devices.
I'm all in favor of dumb rules going away and freedom to use my phone when I really need to, but I really believe that I will miss the relative peace that came with knowing that nobody had a phone and there was nothing we could do about it.
On another topic, I thought I heard that cell phone towers only have a range of a mile or two. So how is it that we expect to be able to use our cell phones at 30,000 feet (5.6 miles)? Just wondering.
RP
When people near me are using technology to speak to friends and relatives instead of being as bored as me. I like the current airphones ok, because it means that the bastards have to pay through the nose, and communication should be expensive. After all, what about my right to not have to put up with people talking around me? What about my freedom from speech?
Oh, wait...
Seriously, I really hate this logic. Cellphones are a wonderful, lifesaving technology. Sure, people use them wrong sometimes, and sometimes I'll hear one side of a stupid conversation, and that side is really loud. You know how we talk at a certain volume into a phone, and a softer volume to someone right next to us? I betcha that's a technical problem no one cared about until cellphones became ubiquitous. I bet that having a better microphone plus some voice enhancement software (cutting out the nonspeech band I think happens already during compression but is anything amplifying the strongest sound source yet?) will eventually allow you to talk at a murmur and still be clearly heard.
Until then, the principles of freedom dictate that we put up with the inconvenience, instead of going with junk science (turn off gameboys at takeoff) and luddites (i haet teh c3llphones c4n i jam tem pls?).
I'd love there to be "no cellphone" flights for the few people who would prefer them, or a "no cellphoning" section of the airplane. That way people could still get their chance at not being bothered. But, failing that, the default should not be to deny people access to their useful and frankly somewhat godlike (by standards of generations ago, this is telepathy) technology.
Personally, I would glady put up with cellphones, if they would ban reclining seats.
I thought the reason you couldn't use a phone on the plane actually had more to do with FCC regulations than FAA ones.
Cell phones work by assigning a particular set of frequencies to a particular geographic area, and then reusing those frequencies further away where there is no chance for interference (phones that use spread spectrum work more or less the same way, only the frequency separation is more dynamic). When you take a phone operating within such an arrangement and suddenly raise its altitude a few thousand feet, it can suddenly be present in many, many cells. This causes interference in every cell where the phone is not actually communicating with that cell's tower.
I have heard of plans to put micro-cells aboard planes. Such micro-cells would instruct the phones to use low enough power that this wouldn't happen. THAT is a much different scenario, but I wonder how many different modulation types (and therefore customer populations) will be able to be handled by such a scheme. Those who aren't covered by a cell in the plane should not be using their phones for the technical reasons described above.
As for whether people can talk on a phone or not, I fail to see the distinction between talking on a phone and talking to a person next to you. I've seen drivers distracted by their fellow passengers with equal frequency to drivers distracted on a phone. I've seen loud, obnoxious boors talking way too loud to people 3 feet away with equal frequency to the same boors shouting into a phone. What's the difference? Rudeness is the same whether technology is involved or not.
I went through providers over the years. I don't pick them by the ability to get a signal on the plane, mind you, but it never hurts to do a little test:
1. Verizon CDMA-800 kinda works when the plane's still low, and you might get a signal at cruse altitude every now and then. That phone also had analog roaming, and it picked up analog signal sometimes.
2. TDMA works quite well.
3. GSM-1800 doesn't work AT ALL.
BTW, if any of you don't understand how come the FAA worries about something as insignificant as a ell phone disrupting avionics, you can do a little experiment - put your cell next to a car radio and call it. I'm not sure how likely you'd be to have the same effect with CDMA and analog, but GSM phones time-multiplex the channel, and most radios would pick up the multiplex frequency, which would come out of your speakers as rather unplesant loud hum, akin to a modem sound.
I think I people seem to talk louder on cell phones than "normal" phones is because they can't hear themselves talk. I noticed this when I first made the jump to my cell phone a few years ago. I tended to talk louder and it takes a GREAT conscious effort to talk softer. What tipped me off is that it wasn't like the person couldn't hear me when I talked softer, so I figured that it couldn't be the difference in the cell phone's microphone.
Try this...
Pick up your desk/home phone. Dial a couple numbers to get some dead air and blow into the receiver (no jokes, please) or scratch it with your fingernail. You'll find that you can hear the noise pretty well in the listening end of the phone.
Now do the same with your cell. Nothing, right?
I think this is the same effect of singers using an audio monitor in their ear for pitch control or plugging your ears when you hum. I think if we were able to hear ourselves speak, we'd all chill a little instead of making up for our perceived lack of volume.
Whattaya think?
Having trouble with the fellow next to you talking too loudly? A cell phone user cussing out their employee? Here's a nutty thought: Ask them politely to keep their voice down. Now, I know that sounds a little wacky to those of you who would rather hang back silently judging, but let me tell you I have tried it many times successfully. It requires a little known ability called courtesy, but with practice, you may be able to acquire this skill, too. Good luck, and welcome to the wonderful world of talking to strangers!
Most importantly, there are 2 limiting factors:
It doesn't accept phones further than 20 kms from the base station because the signal takes so long to get there that it will jam the next time slot
It doesn't allow speeds greater than 250 km/hr because the doppler shift stretches the signal too much.
So, an airliner flying at 10 km altitude will have a very limited view of base stations, and it's cruising speed of 1000 km/hr will be 4 times the limit. I'm pretty sure this won't work.
Perhaps in the U.S. where analog networks are still commonplace, you could get a connection on one of them. But I don't see it happening with GSM. Perhaps during take-off and landing but that would be it.
I learned a great little trick from a letter to the editor in 2600 Magazine once.... if somebody's being a loud blabbermouth on their cell phone, just listen to everything they say... specifically listen for personal information. When (if) they get off the phone, repeat all of their personal information back to them. Tell the loud blabbermouth everything about themselves.... and watch them get scared and freaked out.
I've done in on more than one occasion - works great.