FCC to Auction Airwaves for Inflight Internet

maotx writes "The FCC is set to auction off existing licensed frequencies from Verizon on May 10 to provide communication services such as high-speed Internet to U.S. air travelers. Verizon is the current licensee of the range for their onboard phones found on most commercial jets. The auction will force Verizon to use the 1MHz range. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps fears that such an auction could allow a single provider to have a monopoly that could prey on consumers. The FCC is also weighing whether to allow consumers to use their own cell phones on planes."

Comments

Monopoly?

[Amoeba]

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps fears that such an auction could allow a single provider to have a monopoly that could prey on consumers.

Unlike now where you have a single provider (Verizon) holding this spectrum that could prey on consumers?

Re:Monopoly?

[wile_e_wonka]

Sorry to break into a troll, but I think that I don't understand this last comment. What makes the FCC's self-imposed jurisdiction over the "airwaves" unconstitutional? I realize that the text of the Constitution doesn't mention where control of the "airwaves" lies, but we do know that without "controlling" purveyors of services by means of electromagnetic radiation we would have havoc. (I can see it now--I build a radio tower, then the competition builds a more powerful tower right next to mine sending signals at the same frequency). So, with it settled that someone must control the airwaves--if it isn't the federal government it is the state governments. Certainly neither the federal nor state governments "owned" bands of frequency, but who did? No one--or rather, everyone did--the "people" did. So it seems rational that either the federal or state government must need to "control" the use the radio communication. One of the jobs of the federal government is to regulate commerce, making any laws necessary and proper toward that purpose. It can be argued that use of radio waves do not constitute interstate commerce--though that would be tough to argue considering how easily radio commerce crosses state lines (especially when it's being used in an airplane)--but imagine if radio communication was under regulations of state law. Remember--you're imagining states regulating this as we are talking about this under the topic of an article about airplanes using airwaves. "Sorry passengers, due to the regulations of Nebraska, we will need to turn off cell phone and internet usage for the next hour. After that, you'll be able to use cell phones, but Missouri allows quite high charges for use of internet in the air space so keep that in mind." The different state laws would be very hard to work with. Additionally--radio is often used to communicate commercial messages accross state lines (remember that the majority of radio is on the air serving commercial purposes--this is obvious on just about any FM station besides NPR).
Having already covered the fact that it makes good sense to regulate the airwaves, and it makes more sense for the federal government to perform that regulation rather than state governments. Now what of the FCC's self-imposed jurisdiction over the airwaves? They did that a long time ago. If that were wrong, the body who gets final say in what the FCC does and does not regulate would have said that the FCC does not regulate airwaves. Instead, Congress reinforced that self-imposed jurisdiction using its lawmaking power.
That means the very government that should regulate the airwaves that made the body that regulates "communication" agreed when the FCC when it decided that it regulates communication.
In sum--this all seems very constitutional to me.

Surely that's a typo

[Scareduck]

... or a misunderstanding. 1 MHz is currently in use by terrestrial AM broadcasters.

Hoaxes

[Shadow Wrought]

Look for a new round of e-mail and web hoaxes regarding plane crashes once this plan gets off the ground.

One bird... two stones...

[Shabbs]

With internet enabled airplanes... VOIP then becomes possible.

Personally, I'd prefer no cell phones on planes at all. Too annoying for everyone else, and man - I'm already reachable everywhere else.

Re:One bird... two stones...

[Coan_teen]

Yes, I remember the first time I got a cell phone call in the bathroom, cementing my hatred of being constantly connected. An airplane is a contained space, and I don't want to have to listen to people's phone conversations. People tend to talk louder on their phones than face-to-face. And of course there is the question--what could be so important that it can't wait a few hours for the plane to land? I refuse to believe that people will only use cell phones on planes for emergencies or vitally important calls.

Re:Cell free Nirvana ??

[guzzirider]

"FCC has yet to make a decision amid fears of a backlash from many fliers who see airplanes as a cell phone-free zone."

I thought the FCC was protecting Verizon's ca$h cow. Personally I can't believe the airline doesn't get some piece of the action some how. I would prefer it to stay statues quo, but this is about the buck$ and not personal wants\ needs. (I understand that the 3$ a minute currently is cost prohibitive for many of our business travelers)

One another note, if cell phones become approved for usage on airlines in mass will this cause any kind of unforeseen burden on cell phone networks. At 40K feet one cell phone would be able to link to a lot more cells than when it is on the ground. Would the system be confused by this? I would imagine that the signal strength would be quite similar in a number of the adjacent cells that are picking up the phone. Maybe this is mute, even with a number of full 747's over head in the bigger picture it probably is not that many phones in a given area ???

Re:Interferance?

[rco3]

Except that no study has ever - EVER - been able to reproduce that interference. Boeing even *bought* a passenger's laptop and put it in the same seat, on the same plane, on the same route, and were unable to reproduce the interference.

I'd be willing to believe cell phone interference, but I'm just not buying the CD player thing. Note that those are all anecdotal reports made by non-technical flight crew, along the lines of "Hey, the nav system is screwy! Check the cabin!" "Oh, yes sir, we found a guy with a CD player on and castrated him!" "Hey, the nav system works again!" No consideration is apparently made for the possibility that it was a glitch unrelated to the CDplayer, or to the fact that you can almost always find someone using a PED whether there's an avionics problem or not. Correlation != causality.

OTOH, if the aircraft's avionics are SO susceptible to interference that a CD player's motor (although it's more likely to be the clock for the D/A converter than the motor) 30 feet away on the other side of a metal bulkhead will screw them up, then that's crappy design of the avionics and the goddamned thing's not safe to fly under any circumstances. And yes, I am an EE.