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?

[MightyMartian]

Oh the FCC was very very concerned,
That he poor consumer might get burned.
They set out their plan,
Copell was their man,
And decided an auction was what they yearned.

Oh, the FCC had had it up to here,
Verizon might not be free as beer.
So they'd sell the band away,
To as many company's as could say,
"Let's hope this pilot can really steer!"

Oh, the FCC was very very concerned,
Of dire consequences that might get us burned.
But just as long as they,
Could keep one guy away,
And not let it anywhere near Howard Stern!

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.

Re:Monopoly?

[Deadstick]

Not unlike the monopoly the FCC granted itself, unconstitutionally and illegally, over all specturm.

Ummm, no, Congress gave it to the FCC in the Communications Act of 1934. Some people consider that unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS is not among them.

rj

Re:Monopoly?

[Melfina]

Formatting is your friend!

<p>

and

<br>

Will make your posts more Dynamic!

Re:Monopoly?

[SeventyBang]

Then a particular POTUS de-regulated the FCC. Otherwise, time spent in front of the panel become BOHICA (Bend Over, Here It Comes Again)
One of the resulting actions was to eliminate the amount of airtime which is|dedicated to commercials. When they started, I think it was 5, 6, or 7 minutes. Suddenly...there were no restrictions and the birth of infomercials occurred.

Re:Monopoly?

[Soporific]

The problem with the FCC is that you have no recourse really if they decide they don't like something that you are doing. i.e., When Howard Stern wanted to fight the indecency charges and fines leveled against him, the FCC held up the licensing paperwork for all the other stations owned by Infinity Broadcasting until the case was decided.

~S

Re:Monopoly?

[TheGavster]

Calls from the phone on the plane were $5/min the last time I got bored enough in the middle seat to read the little information card ... makes your $55/mo landline seem a bargain!

Re:Monopoly?

[nacturation]

You have the rhyming part down pat, but your rhythm needs work. Number of syllables, man!

Re:Monopoly?

[BitGeek]

It seems constitutional to you because you have no freaking clue what the constitution says... like most americans.

The bottom line is, if the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to regulate something, then the federal government doesn't have that power.

This is according to the constitution. It enumerates the powers the government has... and then says these are the only powers they have.

Its unfortunate that americans are so ignorant of their own constitution, that mentioning it makes one a troll.

Go read it-- show me where it gives feds power to regulate airwaves, and then otice where it says "all rights not enumerated here are reserved to the people and the several states"

Re:Monopoly?

[wile_e_wonka]

Normally I don't reply to my replies, but this one needs a reply. I do know what the constitution says--I haven't merely read it, I *studied* it last semester. I'm a law student--I have a copy next to my computer at this very moment, and I usually have one with me at all times, since I have a copy on my PocketPC as well. As I noted in my reply, the Constitution does not say that the only powers the federal government has are listed in the Constitution. No where does it say that. In fact it says just the opposite in the "Necessary and Proper" clause of Art 1, Sec. 8 (the same section you were referring to in your reply; read the last clause). My ConLaw book had a whole chapter on this!

The Articles of Confederation said that the only powers available to the fed government were listed in the Articles, but this is one of the very reasons the Articles of Confederation were rejected--they couldn't account for new developments, like, for example, the discovery of the ability to communicate by means of radio waves.

So, I assume you are well read when it comes to the Articles of Confederation, but don't tell me what's in the Constitution if you don't know what's in it yourself. Get your nose out of a dead document, and read the one our country uses now (Might I recommend the last clause of Art. 1, Sec. 8).

Because I can see you're high in spirits, but lacking in smarts, I assume you'll still have a tough time understanding why that ambiguous"Necessary and Proper" clause gives powers outside of the "enumerated powers" (those are the ones that are listed; "unenumerated powers" are the unlisted ones--hey look, those powers you said Congress doesn't have, they have a name!!), I gave you the Wikipedia link explaining this. Note that even "strict constructionists" agree that the necessary and proper clause gives congress powers that are not enumerated in the text in certain circumstances. See McCulloch v. Maryland for more information (the constitution doesn't specifically say congress can incorporate a bank, but it gets to anyway because it's necessary to regulate currency).

Re:Monopoly?

[BitGeek]

Great, just what the country needs- - another lawyer ignorant of the law.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

There it is, plain as day. Since there is no enumerated power to regulate the airwaves, no laws are necessary or proper to do so!

Stop reading a bunch of books that tell you the document doesn't say what it plainly says. Try reading the actual document yourself.

Also notice:
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."

and
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The first ammendment enumerates that speech is protected, any other speech related rights are retained by the people.

The FCC is the federal COMMUNICATIONS commission. Any action it takes, by definition, is regulation of communication.

So, not only is it unconstitutional under the enumerated clause, its explicitly called out as a right in the first ammendment.

QED.

Re:Monopoly?

[BitGeek]

Both Congress and the SCOTUS are irrelevant to the constitution... read the constitution.

Congress passes many laws that are unconstitutional, and even the SCOTUS agrees that when it does so, the laws are null and void at the moment signed into law.

The SCOTUS thinks its the supreme decider of the constitution, but any literate person can read the document themselves and see when the government is acting illegally.

If you will read it, you will see there is no enumeration of a power to regulate communication, and the first ammendment explicitly forbids it.

Re:Monopoly?

[Deadstick]

The SCOTUS thinks its the supreme decider of the constitution, but any literate person can read the document themselves and see when the government is acting illegally.

So, who should decide what the Constitution says?

rj

Re:Monopoly?

[wile_e_wonka]

It is apparent you don't listen to the same radio that I do. Let me play a little game here (I'll keep it simple, for your sake):

Why do we have radio?
      To listen to music, news, and Rush Limbaugh.

Why is music, news, and Rush on the air--just for charity purposes?
      No, they do it for money.

How do they get their money?
      Advertizers--the advertizers pay money to the station, and the station plays advertisements for the company.

Do people like the advertisements?
      Usually not, I change the station during commercials.

Then no one hears the commercials?
      Well, a commercial spot is worth more money if the radio station can get people to listen to it. So the radio plays music, news, or something people will listen to and then inserts commercials.

Is there any other funding for radio?
      NPR is funded through charity, sometimes stations are owned by schools. But most stations are funded through advertising.

Would you go so far as to say that without radio with advertising, there probably wouldn't be popular radio?
      There would be subscription radio; they use encrypted signals, like satellite radio.

So, we either get free radio with advertisements, or if we don't want advertisements we have subscription radio?
      Yes.

Ok--that was it for the game. I think it is well established that free radio is not out there for communication, it is out there to make money for advertisers. Now let's think about the advertisers. I'm listening to the radio right now, there is an advertisement for a new movie. The movie ad is put on by MGM, based in either Florida or California (I'm not sure which). This is definitely an advertisement that was made in one state, and played in another for business purposes. That's interstate commerce.

What about the radio company. Do you think the station you listen to is self run? Almost none are anymore. Eclipse, Clear Channel--these are huge companies that own stations in many states. They work with those huge advertizers to get their ads heavily broadcasted. Would this radio companies exist without the advertising? Not in their current form.

What about Howard Stern, who is no longer on free radio. When he was, was he only played in New York, where he was based? No, he was played accross the country.

In sum--radio, which is not done primarily for First Amendment rights, but for advertising--is clearly a commercial enterprise. And it is clearly an interstate commercial interprise. (You might note that commercial speech is in a different category than normal speech. Speech that is done for money is not as well protected as speech done for personal purposes. And it is well this way, otherwise it would be legal for advertisers to lie).

Further, it is not the speech that is regulated--not any more than speech is regulated in the town square (which is a whole nother debate), merely the means by which it is diseminated.

And even further, you are worried about the FCC regulating the airwaves in airplanes--the companies that will use these waves will be large interstate companies, like Verizon and Qwest (feasible, smaller companies could control some of the airwaves, but only a very large company would have the means necessary to actually make use of the airwaves). And will the FCC be listening in the the phone calls made on these airwaves to make sure there is no cussing? No. Will they be watching where you surf on the internet to make sure you don't look at porn? No--though you're really weird if you do that on an airplane.

So, in sum, the FCC doesn't regulate speech, or communication, merely how that speech is communicated. And it does so by regulating huge interstate companies involved purely in commerce (Verizon doesn't care about your free speech rights, only money).

Re:Monopoly?

[BitGeek]

The interstate commerce clause is irrelevant to this discussion, because we are not talking about moving material, we are talking about communications. Whether the communications are paid for - like the pamphlets in the time of the framing of the constitution- or not is irrelevant.

Even if the interstate commerce clause was applicable, the first ammendment trumps it.

You really need to read the constitution. You know, yourself. Stop listening to what fascists tell you about it... read it.

Re:Monopoly?

[BitGeek]

There's no deciding necessary. What it says is not really up for debate. Only people who want to violate it come up with creative interpretations.

Find anywhere that it authorizes the governemnt to regulate communications. If you will look in the enumerated powers clause, you will see that it clearly doesn't. If you look at the first amemndment, you see that not only is it not allowed to, but it is specifically forbidden from regulating communication.

No creative interpretation is necessary. The constitution says what it means and means what it says.

Re:Monopoly?

[wile_e_wonka]

Ummm, I don't know about where you come from, but where I come from "speech" does not equal "communication." I do think that all speech is done with the purpose of communication, and it is done in a variety of ways--the spoken words, pictures, writing on a jacket, etc. However, I do not think that all communication is speech. I think I would call speech a subset of communication.

Further, I believe it is possible to regulate communication without regulating speech.

You will cringe at such a thing. You will say, "you just told me that speech is a subset of communication. If communication is regulated, then obviously speech, being a subset thereof, will necessarily be regulated as well."

I will refute this by example. I use an alarm clock that I don't have to set. It is set by GPS signals from satellites. In other words, some GPS satellite *communicates* with my clock to set the time. For a long time the DoD did not allow civilian use of their satellites. I'm sure glad they changed their mind because otherwise, on your logic, I would be bringing a suit on First Amendment grounds! "You are regulating communication! My clock has every right to communicate with that satellite--it's freedom of speech!"

Obviously that's foolish. That is certainly an example of a regulation of communication that is not a regulation of speech. If that was all the government regulated, then it would be regulating communication without regulating speech.

Now you will argue--but the FCC does regulate speech because they regulate airwaves that have speech in them. That still seems like a misrepresentation to me. If you are correct, then the government is already overstepping its bounds in other areas. For example--the mail. Congress was expressly told to regulate the mail. But, as you noted, the First Amendment trumps anything from earlier in the Constitution that conflicts with it. Therefore, where the First Amendment conflicts with Congress's power to regulate the Postal Service, the First Amendment wins.

Well, is there any question but that the mail is filled with speech? In letters, magazines, books, etc. But it is highly regulated. Are you going to run into court with a Free Speech case? No--doing so would be stupid. Regulation of the mail is not regulating speech, it is just regulation of how and whether the speech gets from one place to another. Now, if the post office censored mail, that would be a regulation of speech.

Well, the FCC doesn't regulate speech either. Just like the mail, it is merely regulating how and whether the speech gets from one place to another.

Now you will argue--that's fine for mail; it's expressly authorized to regulate mail, it isn't expressly authorized to regulate "communication." That's where my prior argument comes into play--nearly all communication is commercial in one way or another. Either it's using a commercial service (telephone), or it's only purpose is for advertising (radio). So regulating those airwaves it just regulating commerce. Speech is carried on those waves too? Yes, but regulating communication is not necessarily regulating speech.

I think we all know that anyone who wants to can talk to another person over the telephone, radio, internet or face to face about anti-American ideas. The FCC just tells you what frequencies to use when doing so. If something gets to be a regulation of speech (like if they relegating your fascist radio show to a frequency below the dial), then bring a suit. Of course, knowing you, you're probably one of those wacko conspiracy theorists that is convinced all of the courts are in on this too. But remember, these are the same courts that said a jacket with "F the draft" is protected speech.

Re:Monopoly?

[Deadstick]

OK, so when somebody "violates" it, who gets to do what about it?

rj

Surely that's a typo

[Scareduck]

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

Re:Surely that's a typo

[jo7hs2]

I think the author meant THAT specific one mhz, not 1.000Mhz. Editing is useful.

Re:Surely that's a typo

[hustlebird]

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

Yup, they are saying that they plan to issue either 2 overlapping 3mhz licenses, or 1 3mhz license (for internet/data), and an additional 1mhz license (for verizon).

Re:Surely that's a typo

[slashdot.org]

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

They are talking about the width, not the center frequency. So a 1 MHz wide band. I don't know what frequency at exactly, but likely in the 800-900MHz range.

Re:Surely that's a typo

[iamlucky13]

That confused me at first too. By the way, the article doesn't say, but I'm assuming this band would be used for relaying the data from the plane to ground, not for users inside the plane. Can anybody confirm this?

It seems to me they'd either want to use 2.4 GHz inside the plane so people can use their existing 802.11G equipment, or else ethernet to keep extra RF signals to a minimum intensity. Of course, ethernet wiring to every seat would add a notable amount of weight, and given that it costs somewhere on the order of $50/year in fuel to lift every extra pound of mass, that probably wouldn't be very attractive to the airlines.

$25 for one day sounds pretty pricey, but I don't doubt plenty of people, especially on long trans-oceanic flights, would pay for it. Then they can charge another $25 for an hour of access to a 110 VAC outlet when your batteries start to die.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[dlt074]

i live in a state(oregon) that thinks i'm too stupid to pump my own gas you insensitive clod!

Hoaxes

[Shadow Wrought]

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

Re:Hoaxes

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

NO DOUBT!

I have an LG VX8100 which thankfully has a standalone mode. I had to show it to the flight attendant everytime I pull it out. I kept pulling it out because, also thankfully, it can play Need For Speed Underground 2 ^TM

So, as an expirement, and to see if the FAA would haul my @$$ to jail, I switched it on in mid-flight & Stowed it in my pocket so no one would freak out during landing.

No engine studder, no sudden drop in cabin preassure, no sudden altitude changes....

And then it happened ...

We crash landed in some guys corn farm.. skidded for 3 miles. Everyone got out O.K.
Yes I am a survivor of flight 3.14159

(j/k about the corn farm part... it was a potatoe field)

Re:Hoaxes

[whoever57]

Last year, I sat on a flight next to a commercial pilot (he flew for American Eagle) -- he knowingly left his cellphone turned on throughout the entire flight (including takeoff and landing) . So I guess at least some flight crew are not too bothered about cellphones.

Re:Hoaxes

[GlassHeart]

Part of that problem is that cell phone providers reuse the same frequency in non-adjacent cells. When your airborne cell phone talks to one such cell and is assigned a frequency for a call, your signal can actually be picked up by multiple cells that are also using the same frequency. It may interfere with another user on the ground who was assigned that same frequency by another cell.

Re:Hoaxes

[evilad]

That's funny, something similar happened to me. Last year I left my phone on accidentally through an entire flight and didn't die.

It was a non-precision approach using a navaid called a VOR. On the final leg of the approach, the airport was nowhere to be seen, and cross-checking the VOR against the non-IFR loran indicated that we were more than three miles off course. Fortunately, it was a practice approach. In hard instrument conditions 3 miles off course at 1000 feet above ground, we would probably have been flying through cumulus granitus. That's pilot lingo for "attempting to fly through rocks."

If you're *ever* sitting beside me and you leave your cellphone on during an approach, I will give you papercuts on your tongue with my instrument ticket.

Re:Hoaxes

[nacturation]

(j/k about the corn farm part... it was a potatoe field)

Dan Quayle, is that you?

Stop calling me Shirley!

[MS-06FZ]

Seems like the bandwidth at 1MHz would be kind of narrow, too...

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:One bird... two stones...

[Kruid]

I have to agree on no cell phones on airplanes - or at least no ringer. I usually sleep on flights, talking won't wake me, but a phone ringing certainly will, especially if someone is using the same ringtone as I.
-k

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

[cyberwave]

If you hate cell phones so much, why do you use one? Couldn't you just turn the phone off before you went to the bathroom?

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

[Arctic Fox]

Here's the answer for the annoying cell phone talker.

Eventually you can embarrass them to shut up.

If you're lucky enough to see their boarding pass, just say, "John you're times up. That'll be $100."

If you're bolder, "John, get your hand off my cock. Be a good boy."

If you don't know their name, just say you have Touretts.

I'm a frequent flier, and I look forward with sick-pleasure to annoying cell-phone yapping douchebags.

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

[Znork]

Dont worry, they'll price themselves out of business. Like you say, we're already reachable more or less everywhere else, so the value of the service is negligable, nevermind worth what a monopoly will charge.

Cell free Nirvana

[ttelrocj]

I for one am against the usage of individual cell phones on flights. There aren't many areas now that you can't hear some idiot talking entirely too loudly about some worthless subject, but at least you can usually walk away from them. What if now that jerk is suddenly ten or twenty jerks yapping all around you in a confined space for several hours?

When do we reach that point when the public is too wired? It's one thing to be a techie and enjoy technology for the pure love of the game. You might pay top dollar to be bleeding edge and capitalize on the next-great-thing, but you have to work at that. There are no free lunches on the edge. But when Joe Consumer has that same power of connectedness, at his simple beck and call without having to "work" for it, don't you think it will get really annoying?

Broadband on a flight would be pretty cool, though.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[fiannaFailMan]

Yeah but with broadband on a flight you open up the possibility of people using Skype, then you're potentially back to the same problem of "HELLO? I'M ON THE PLANE!" being scramed into your ear whether you like it or not.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[phoenix.bam!]

The simple solution at the moment is earplugs. If this goes in to effect i plan i purchasing a large bag of them and always having a pair handy for flight. Does wonders on isolation from the environment and after 15 minutes you forget they are in.

Still sucks that you need to plug your ears, but the situation isn't hopeless.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[Tsiangkun]

That's one option, be nice and quiet. I plan to get into their conversations. Forcefully and as rudely as necessary to make the point that I can hear them, and can't get away.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[Burning1]

The majority of flights I've been on have had people yapping about odd subjects. The only difference is that most of them aren't on cell phones.

Is someone too loud? Do what you always do and ask them politely to talk a little quieter.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[LionKimbro]

When do we reach that point when the public is too wired?

The problem isn't being "wired," the problem is that you're picking up cross talk.

This technology, then, should interest you: Subvocal speech recognition.

In the not too distant future, we should be able to communicate with people without actually voicing our words. Just moving our mouths, and perhaps not even that, will be all that's necessary.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[0rionx]

When do we reach that point when the public is too wired?

I think it happened roughly around the time when these little plastic boxes started appearing in people's homes that allowed someone on the other end of the country who you didn't know to interrupt you at any time and ask if you wanted to switch long-distance carriers...

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[zakezuke]

What if now that jerk is suddenly ten or twenty jerks yapping all around you in a confined space for several hours?

Put on some headphones. Listen to some music, watch the inflight movie, or better yet just put those ear buds in your ears without anything attached to it. Read a book...problem solved.

At least they are not trying to chat you up. I can tune out 20 or so people yapping about nothing, it's harder to tune out some yoyo sitting next to you wanting you to accept Jesus.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[Mr2001]

There aren't many areas now that you can't hear some idiot talking entirely too loudly about some worthless subject, but at least you can usually walk away from them.

Many planes already have phones on them. If you've flown on a non-bargain airline, you've probably seen those Airfone handsets built into the seat in front of you (usually one for every 3 seats). The only difference is, they aren't cell phones - they're owned by a single company that contracts with the airline to provide phone service at $3 a minute.

Your concern about increased yapping on the plane is valid, but not because people don't have access to phones today. They have access; it's just so ridiculously expensive that most people can't take advantage of it.

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[Deviant Q]

Why, the solution to annoying technology is always more technology, of course.

That is, you use your iPod!

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[Jay Carlson]

Don't worry. Reasonable voice QoS will remain very expensive on legacy (read "differentially priced") airlines. As soon as IP-to-ground services get low enough latency and jitter for voice performance, you can bet the airlines will figure out that some small percentage of their high-$ passengers value this highly.

One of two things will happen. One possibility is that prioritized transit of packets will end up priced only slightly below the pound-me-in-the-ass rates of airphone. The other is that decent QoS will be priced into first class seats and/or front-of-the-plane frequent flyers.

Steven Wright said something like: "I just had the most expensive meal of my life. It was in a movie theater in an airport." Don't worry, it can get worse.

[Disclosure: I've been online from an airliner with a Palm Modem on my Pilot 1000, a PCMCIA faxmodem from my HP 200LX, and I've probably blocked from memory any Newton dialups. At least back in the dark ages, half the fun was sending out "Dear foo, I am writing to you from an airplane" messages....]

Re:Cell free Nirvana

[elgatozorbas]

It's one thing to be a techie and enjoy technology for the pure love of the game. You might pay top dollar to be bleeding edge and capitalize on the next-great-thing, but you have to work at that. There are no free lunches on the edge. But when Joe Consumer has that same power of connectedness, at his simple beck and call without having to "work" for it, don't you think it will get really annoying?

Maybe not intended, this quite an arrogant and elitist remark. If he pays for it 'Joe consumer' is just as much entitled to communication as you are. Chances are that 'techies' get on Joe's nerves too especially when using it 'for the pure love of the game' (think: 'look how rich I am, having a cell phone' guys of fifteen years ago)...

Let the auctions begin

[nexcomlink]

While where at it auctioning shit that's not even our's for a high price. I will like to auction the radio waves coming from my microwave starting bid is $6,000. Anyone interested please contact me at /dev/null. Please check out my other items such as radiowaves from my cellphone for sale and my remote control toy hovercraft operating in the elite mhz of 25! I am verified and please remember to bid with confidence. kthxbye.

Re:Let the auctions begin

[iamlucky13]

Aren't most microwave ovens already in 900 MHz range allocated for general, low power, civillian use? Or at least close, because it seems to me they always caused interference with 802.11b sets.

Regarding "stuff that's not ours," do you propose that instead of the FCC regulating RF use in the United States that it would be better if the entire EM spectrum were one big free for all?

Re:Let the auctions begin

[nexcomlink]

I just don't like seeing the FCC earn a profit from selling such a spectrum. I do agree that there should be regulations on the spectrum but who ever gave them the right to "claim" that spectrum as there own property?

Re:Let the auctions begin

[iamlucky13]

Interesting point. On the other hand, it would be hard to establish a first claim on any portion of the spectrum for private parties, so it seems like the FCC should be the body to regulate it. I suppose it ultimately comes down to auctioning the spectrum off to the companies that manage it or paying the FCC's operating costs from taxes. However, the article did sound like the FCC was forcing Verizon to give up their claim on the spectrum.

Selfish and shallow

[Nichotin]

Not neccassarily that bad, but have you ever tought of us that do not neccassarily fly on a vacation or otherwise for pleasure? When I go on a business trip, on a business flight, I would love to stay productive by being able to use the internet and my cellphone. Please, think of us suits :)

Re:Selfish and shallow

[timeOday]

As it is I look forward to plane flights as a chance to do some serious reading, writing, or coding with no interruptions. Having people sitting all around me and yelling (airplanes are loud) certainly wouldn't boost my productivity.

Maybe they should repurpose all those "No-Smoking" indicators to mean "no loud talking," and just let people yak for 5 minutes of every hour.

Re:Selfish and shallow

[Chowderbags]

Comon now, since when has management been known to be productive?

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[GmAz]

Ya, I drove through Oregan to Washington a couple years ago. It really bugged me having to let someone else pump my gas. Espically when it was around 10pm and I needed to fill up and had to drive almost 10 miles off I5 to find an open gas station. That was so freakin irritating having to drive into a town I didn't know.

Interferance?

[Traa]

The FCC is considering letting us use cellphones on the plane. Are we talking about the same cellphone that I now have to turn off because it could cause interferance with the planes instruments?? Or am I missing something?

Re:Interferance?

[Firehed]

You know they only say that because your talking pisses off the flight attendants. Like how having your office buy you that new luxury chair will "help productivity."

Re:Interferance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Intereference is a real problem. The reason they started that whole thing was because things as small as the motor in a CD player were wreaking havoc on the plane electronics. I suspect today's systems are a little more shielded, but it's still a serious problem, especially since cell phones have to go to max power to reach a tower if they're in an airplane.

The FCC is considering allowing cell phone usage if airlines install their own "cell towers" in planes so that the signals don't have to be so powerful. Even with that, there will have to be a lot of studies done before they can approve it, and airlines would have to want to invest in the equipment (and put up with the social consequences).

Re:Interferance?

[malraid]

I've read that one of the biggest problems of cell phones in airplanes is that you are in line of sight to many towers at once, and can therefore cause congestion for the people on the ground.

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.

Re:Interferance?

[amitola]

If there was even a remote chance that your phone was going to interfere with the airplane electronics, the FAA would have issued the regulation to prevent it, not the FCC. Not to mention which, if airplanes were really that fragile, there wouldn't be any need to hijack them, would there? Why not get a $200 ham UHF radio and semi-directional antenna at Fry's, and bring down everybody on approach at LAX.

Re:Interferance?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, flight crews are composed of generally smart individuals, and today's aircraft require a large degree of technical knowledge to operate. I posit that "non-technical flight crew" is in large degree a contradiction in terms. It's very doubtful that the source of these rumors is pilots, as we (I am a pilot, though not for an airline) understand the way our airplanes work quite well, and would be familiar with their susceptibilities to interference, if they existed.

By the way, "Correlation != Causality" is a logical flaw that has been named by the academic community: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Finally, your assertion that interference in the navigational system of an aircraft renders it "unsafe to fly in any circumstances" is incorrect, and in my opinion, irresponsible: any failure of the navigational system would be likely confined to only one part of it. Moreover, pilots have ways of navigating without all of the fancy crap they put on planes these days. How do you think it was done before computers? Finally, even if the pilots were lost (which they wouldn't be, because, as I've said, most of the system would probably be operational and even if that wasn't the case they would still be able to figure out their location) the plane isn't going to drop out of the sky. The pilots would simply radio air traffic control and ask for the direction to the nearest airport - yes, it's that simple.

Have a nice day.

Re:Interferance?

[Deadstick]

Correct. There are a limited number of frequencies available for cellphone communication. The system accommodates multiple users on the same frequencies by separating them geographically: if your phone is using x.xx MHz in Los Angeles, another user in Riverside can use the same frequency and not interfere because there is no line-of-sight path between you. Further, both your phone and the terminal it's connected to adjust their output power to the minimum required to communicate.

Now take your phone up in an airplane over LA, and you're in line of sight of everything from Santa Barbara to Mexico, and you tie up a channel.

The proposals for cellphone use on airplanes involve installing a mini-terminal aboard the airplane, and connecting both that and Internet service to a ground station with a microwave link. Since the terminal will only be a few feet from you, your phone will put out a bare minimum amount of power and the leakage through the airplane windows won't be strong enough to hit ground cell terminals.

rj

Re:Interferance?

[Nasarius]

By the way, "Correlation != Causality" is a logical flaw that has been named by the academic community: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

While we're being anal, that's just Latin for "correlation == causation", a logical fallacy. When dealing with these kinds of fallacies, it's much clearer to just say "correlation does not imply causation", rather than dragging out the Latin.

Re:Interferance?

[R3d M3rcury]

It's an overlapping set of responsibilities.

The FAA doesn't want you to use your cell-phone during taxi, takeoff, and landing because of anecdotal evidence that they can screw up various electronic systems of the airplane. While you're in the air, the FAA doesn't have a problem with it unless it messes up the airplane, at which point someone will come back and tell you to turn it off (depending on how curious they are and how much time they have, they might try to figure out which device was the problem).

The FCC doesn't want you using your cell-phone while in-flight because some cellular systems were not designed to deal with passengers being able to see all cell towers while traveling at over 400 miles per hour. I don't know the details, just that it can mess things up. The FCC has no problem with you using the cell-phone during taxi, take-off, or landing because you're going slowly and you're at low altitude, and you're probably not going to confuse the cellular systems.

So, if the FCC drops their complaints about cell-phone use, you will be able to use a cell-phone while in-flight, but not during take-off or landing.

For a chuckle, take a look at this PDF on "Passenger Electronic Devices" from NASA: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf

Cellphones on planes

[nexcomlink]

I do not understand why I have to pay about 599 round trip ticket from Atlanta to Sacremento while having some guy or woman talking on there phone during the entire flight. It seems rather childish that you someone like you should ruin the ride for others because you feel the need to talk. Why not just use a laptop with a internet connection to send email instead? You know it's good every once and a while to let go of the phone even if you are conducting business it's nice to not have that phone ring till you reach your destination and gives you some time to relax or catch up on some work on your laptop. People should show some respect to those around them before even thinking to start talking out loud over the phone.

Re:Cellphones on planes

[drinkypoo]

Why don't you just show them disrespect back? I find that to be the most effective method. Then again I'm over 2 meters tall...

Re:Cellphones on planes

[nexcomlink]

So your saying I need to stick something in my ear just so I can enjoy a flight I have already paid for...hmm interesting. Why not stick it up your ass let's see if that reduces cabin noise without having to be a prissy little bitch because you want to use your damn cellphone on a plane and bugging the shit out of everyone. If people do not respect others there would be problems and in your case your will be the first one to fly out simply because you think your something special.

Re:Cellphones on planes

[zakezuke]

why not just use a laptop with a internet connection to send email instead?

The battery life on a mobile phone with e-mail is a heck of alot longer than your typical laptop.

Re:Cellphones on planes

[cyberwave]

Why don't you just fly privately? Gosh.

Re:Cellphones on planes

[cyberwave]

Okay, then let's also ban ugly girls from getting on the plane, because that irritates me far more than cell-phone chatter. How about just a general no-talking allowed rule? Don't you value your rights?

Re:Cellphones on planes

[nexcomlink]

It's just a matter of respect, this is not a issue of rights but a issue on being corteous about those around you.

Re:Cellphones on planes

[cyberwave]

It becomes a matter of rights when you force people to do things such as "be respectful" as according to :your: definition of respect. What happens when :you're: the one on a plane, you're bored, and your best friend calls you? Besides, cabin noise drowns out most talking I think. Nevertheless my two latter points are nowhere near as important as my first, the one regarding your rights.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[Kesch]

Look at the glass half full side.

You don't have to get out of your car.

Plus, what's not to love about no sales tax?

Yes!

[digismack]

Yes! Now my porn downloads don't have to stop when I leave the hotspots in the airport and get on the flight.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[Damathon]

I drove through oregon awhile back from norcal...I thought it was ridiculous that I had to pay someone to pump gas for me, until I realized it was still cheaper than back home.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[drinkypoo]

The funny thing is, when I went through OR in a vehicle, the fuel was cheaper than WA or CA (the beginning and end points of my trip, respectively.) So I'd rather someone else pump my gas, so I can be lazy.

Re:the money?

[putko]

The government auctions the stuff off because that's how they get the most money for it.

A bit like EBay -- auctions work.

It goes into the general fund, which pays for medicare, the arms industry and so on.

Re:

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

I don't think there is a threat from a cell phone, let alone a darned gameboy.

Unless of course you rig the GPS to allow the plane to become a target for some kind of cellular homing missle..

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[belmolis]

I avoid buying gas in Oregon for exactly this reason. It bugs me not to be able to pump my own. If the right to pump your own gas isn't in the Magna Carta, it should be. :) I don't suppose you know how this law came about?

Trigger Happy TV...

[Burning Plastic]

At least they'd have to get the next seat to fit that size of phone on the plane...

Noise Cancellation

[Clueless Moron]

Airplanes are very loud, and noisy. There's chatter, certainly, but above it all is the deafening roar of the atmosphere going past you at 900 km/hr. A category five hurricane is only 250 km/hr.

The only solution is noise cancelling headphones. Pilots have awfully nice ones, but you can buy acceptable ones for a hundred bucks. My modest ones (Sennheiser PCX-250) block out the whole damned airplane so I can get some rest, listen to tunes, whatever. I leave them on with no audio input at all just to block out the noise while trying to sleep.

When I take them off to go to the lavatory I'm always surprised at how noisy that flying airplane tube really is.

Get noise cancelling headphones.

Re:Noise Cancellation

[Bri3D]

Noise cancelling headphones are excellent for getting sleep and blocking out the obnoxious roar of the plane combined with people talking and kids screaming, however most won't protect from hearing damage (just FYI). The variety that is over-ear and acts as an earmuff actually physically blocks sound and thus will reduce possible hearing damage, however the variety that works by creating opposing sound waves (most in-ear and many over-ear types) does not protect from hearing damage and may actually increase the risks (as it's always piping opposite waves into your ear).

While this wasn't the point of the parent poster I thought I'd point that out.

Re:Noise Cancellation

[KlomDark]

Piping opposite waves into your ear negates the non-opposite waves, so how does that cause any ear damage?

Re:Noise Cancellation

[Bri3D]

As far as I know it's still causing your inner ear to move and the tiny hairs in it to vibrate.

Re:Noise Cancellation

[nacturation]

Noice-cancelling headphones, whether resting over the ears of completely encompassing the ears work in exactly the same way. For every sound it detects outside, it plays the inverse of that sound through the speakers. So both are "piping opposite waves into your ear".

You're probably thinking of the kind of hearing protection used on construction sites, which have enough soundproof material that the sound which would damage your hearing just never gets through in the first place. Batteries not required, of course. If your intent is to just block out sound and you don't want to listen to your music at the same time, this would be the safest way to go.

Re:Noise Cancellation

[Clueless Moron]

No. The cancellation truly does reduce the sound amplitude just as real as heavy earmuffs would do. Labs measure the effectiveness of active noise cancelling headphones using plain old SPL (sound pressure level) meters; these don't lie.

It's simple destructive interference. Maybe the active noise control FAQ will help. See section 2.5 in particular.

5-mile-high LAN party!

[whovian]

Not only a great idea, but there is probably a world's record in that.

And it's a way to get back at cell phone users, especially if they are ever allowed in-flight calls.

Re:Cellphones on planes, god please no!

[krang321]

The mobile phones does not bring the plane down.

It's simply because its stuck in a metal tube and cant connect to a tower, so it goes onto full power... the problem being interference with the radio equipment, in the same way as when you put a mobile phone on a speaker as you receive a text message.

Think how difficult it would be to talk to the control tower when all the mobile phones on the plane are doing this.

The solution is simple though, put a small mobile phone transceiver in the plane, so all the mobile phones can work in a lower power mode as they have something to connect to.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[frostyfriday]

Wees all cussins in oregon, so wees not so smart. thems that make the laws is also cussins, also not so smart. Seriously I live here too (I am not from Oregon) and it drives me nuts. Have to wait for someone to come and serve me whose intelligence and enthusiasm matches his salary... The thing that gets me is that apparently this has been voted on more than once by Origonians and voted down each time!

Can you say broadband in the plane??

[firebeaker]

http://www.evdoinfo.com/The_News/Latest_News/Veriz on_Airfone_to_Offer_Inflight_Wireless_Broadband_20 051212646/

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:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[ockegheim]

Someone probably got scared watching Zoolander. But a frighteningly high proportion of the population probably is too stupid to pump their own gas.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[armitage_23]

I rode through OR on a motorcycle. None of the gas station attendants attempted to pump gas for me, but they all insisted sliding my card through the on-pump reader and selecting the grade of gas before handing the nozzle to me.

So do this -...

[voxel]

1. Individual cell phones are now legal on planes...
2. Talking outloud is now out-lawed on planes.

Problem solved. Everyone who wants to have their cell phone on can, and at the same time shut-up.

Not true

[geekoid]

McDonnel Dougles (now Boeing) reproduced interference from laptops, and cell phones.
I know this for a fact becasue I know the person* who tests the items that are bought from passengers thought to cause the interference.
Granted, it was only interfering with the autopilot, and some of the landing systems, so why worry?

Well, maybe not 'for a fact' since I didn't test. But my confidence in this person is very high.

Re:

[geekoid]

They can interfere with the Autopilot.

Basically some phones slip away from spec due to poor design, or low quality companents. That is why it is only some phones, sometimes.

Granted, that information is 5 years old, so I have no idea how often it happens with new cell phones.

OTOH, my speakers on my cmopeter make a ticking noise just befor I get a call, or whenever the phone has some initial contact with the tower. I ahve no idea why, but if it is messing up a speakers then it is concievable that it interferes with the 400MHz wiring in a plane.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[geekoid]

I am not a native, but I love having them pump my gas. especially when it's raining.

The cost of the employee is mostly absorbed by the store so it has almost no impact on gas prices.

FYI most, if not all, stations only make about a penny per gallon. There real money is from a store, or garage. And car washes.

My uncle used to own smome gas stations. Man, the crap those companies do to the owners of the stations is amazing.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[geekoid]

Having someone pump your gas, and stations being closed are not the samething.

There are places in California where I would have to drive 10 miles late at night just so I can pump my own gas.

Please oh please FCC let us use the phone!

[darjen]

The FCC is also weighing whether to allow consumers to use their own cell phones on planes.

Golly gee, I sure hope the FCC will find it in their heart to allow us this one tidbit of freedom. If they would only let me talk on my phone in the plane, which I barely even use on the ground, it would make up for all their censorship and heavy handed regulation. I love you, FCC!

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[belmolis]

Sure, I understand that some people want someone else to pump their gas for them. I have no problem with that. But just about all gas stations offer that service if you want it. It isn't necessary to require it.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[bnenning]

The cost of the employee is mostly absorbed by the store so it has almost no impact on gas prices.

Very unlikely. And if it's true, it means that some gas stations are driven out of business (or prevented from opening in the first place) due to the extra costs.

Man, the crap those companies do to the owners of the stations is amazing.

In which case I fail to see why government should compound their difficulties by forcing them to pay gas pumpers regardless of whether customers actually want them.

For all those worried about "signal interference".

[Anonymous Coward]

I've taken my Nintendo DS - an electronic device with wireless capability - onboard, and I've played a 3-player game with two other devices from one end of the plane to the other. Trust me, my flight did not get screwy, and did not crash - it certainly didn't interfere with the autopilot, I assume it was on, as it was a 12-hour flight from London to Narita, Japan.

private jet

[cyberwave]

On my Gulfstream 550 they let me use the cell phone.

Re:Cell free Nirvana ??

[Strider-BG]

Cell phones won't work at altitude. Cell towers have a down-tilt built into the antenna so the signals don't emanate upwards. Turn on your cell phone in the air sometime - it won't find a signal.

There would have to do some kind of repeater system to uplink to a satellite or ground station - individual handsets won't function.

Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones

[rdoger6424]

New Jersey does that too.

"Broadband would be pretty cool though"

[scwizard]

But if we had broadband inflight, then we'd have to listen to the jerk next to us yelling "BOOM HEADSHOT" nonstop, right?

Re:Cell free Nirvana ??

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Cell phones won't work at altitude. Cell towers have a down-tilt built into the antenna so the signals don't emanate upwards. Turn on your cell phone in the air sometime - it won't find a signal.

Really? Then I must have been imagining that time I was in the right seat of a King Air 200 from Norman, OK (KOUN) to Charlevoix, Michigan (KCVX), at FL250 (about 25,000 feet), and my passenger was on the phone somewhere over Kansas or Missouri or something.

Or the time I called somebody who answered from the left seat of a Cessna 150 inbound from Tulsa. (I didn't know he was flying at the time, else I wouldn't have called.) Or my co-workers who talked about using the phone while flying a Baron.

Yes, Virginia, cell phones work in airplanes.

"So, where are you?"

[miller17]

In reply to your offtopic pet-peeve. When calling someone's cellphone, it's important to know if someone is in a car or doing some other activity that might require more of their attention. It's simply a little more specific than the other relevent question, "Are you busy?". As busyness is definitely relative, and subject to change depending on the circumstances.

I also find it a little annoying when people ask me this question. Or when it's often the first thing people are asked in overheard conversations. But this annoyance is simply because I want whatever conversation that I'm having or others are having to get to the point as quickly as possible so that it can end. The idea of tourists calling their family and stating "Guess what? I'm calling from the plane!" simply for the novelty of it very annoying. But I'll still be asking people where they are when calling them if I forsee the conversation lasting for more than a couple minutes, just so that I know.

Not such a bad idea

[EmagGeek]

First of all, I would LOVE to have access from an airplane. Nothing is worse than just sitting there.... for hours... especially on a transcontinental flight. Make no mistake, this is going to be very expensive, but just might be worth it.

The alternative is that if they let you use cell phones and you have tethering capability, those cross-country flights will go oh-so-much faster.

And seriously, listening to other peoples' conversations can't be that bad. It certainly can't be worse than being in any public place listening to people talk. Sure, there are a _few_ obnoxious people who don't understand that you don't have to yell in order to be heard on the other side of a cell phone, but I think in general, it will destress everyone on the flight to be able to have a conversation.

Jet engines are ridiculously loud anyway, so it's either listen to a conversation, or listen to the jet engines... heh..

so the truth is out

[Kanasta]

*The FCC is also weighing whether to allow consumers to use their own cell phones on planes.*

Yeh? I thought using cell phones etc caused interference with flight systems. What else in the safety videos is bullshit?

Re:so the truth is out

[Dokbua]

Everything in the flight safety videos are BS. If your plane crash, knowing how to don an oxygen mask and a inflatable west is not going to keep you from becoming ketchup on impact.

Re:

[ScottBob]

it is concievable that it interferes with the 400MHz wiring in a plane

That's 400 Hz, not 400 MHz. All the electrical power in aircraft is at 400 Hz, instead of 60 Hz like in your house. The reason is that the fluorescent light ballasts, transformers inside power hungry avionics gear and other power rectifying equipment can be made smaller and lighter when run at 400 Hz. Ever noticed the slightly sour A flat note that comes from the intercom when the stewardess is giving the pre-flight "use your seat cushion for floatation" speech? That is caused by the same factors that cause the 60 Hz buzz in a guitar amplifier.

The ticking, warbling, or whatever sound you hear in your computer speakers when your cell phone connects or occasionally syncs with the nearest tower when on standby is caused by stray rf energy from your cellphone, and it can conceivably interfere with the avionics of the airplane, especially the fly-by-wire types, but rest assured, the avionics and signal cables connecting the various systems are well shielded, because they have to be hardened against the multi-megawatt electromagnetic pulse of rf energy that comes from lightning strikes in the thunderstorms planes sometimes have to fly in the vicinity of. I don't think the milliwatt or so of stray rf energy from cell phones will do anything, but somebody out there must have done a study to show otherwise...

I remember when I was working at a nuclear power plant, there were certain areas of the plant that were "radio exclusion zones", where the workers had to turn their walkie-talkies off. The reason is that the signals in the control systems could be disturbed by someone keying their mike, causing the reactor to scram (much like the disturbance from a neighbor big into CB radios who has illegal linear amplifiers and can be heard jaw-jacking through your TV, FM radio, washing machine, child's braces, etc.)

Electromagnetic Pulse

[ScottBob]

I'm pretty sure that a plane's avionics and wiring is hardened against the multi-megawatt electromagnetic pulse of wide-spectrum rf energy from lightning in thunderstorms that planes occasionally have to fly in the vicinity of. I don't think the narrow band milliwatts level of rf energy from cell phones, laptop computers, etc. will cause any significant interference. I'll let someone else reply with why the avionics of cold-war era Russian planes have tube powered avionics...

Hmm... maybe this whole thing not a good idea?

[jigjigga]

Wouldn't allowing people to use the net/cell phones more convenient make it far easier to say set off a bomb or something? I mean hell we're spending billions of dollars to prevent terrorism and now the airlines want to make it easier for the bad guys. I have mixed feelings with cell's in planes, wifi is ok.

Re:Hmm... maybe this whole thing not a good idea?

[thatshortkid]

I have mixed feelings with cell's in planes, wifi is ok.

you do realize the two are equivalent, right? if not, please explain to me the difference between a cell phone trigger and a gumstix trigger.

it's not because of interference...

[netcrusher88]

The reasons that cell phones are not allowed on planes is not the interference potential, as such potential is proven to be near zero, with properly shielded (read: standard complient) airplane systems. The reason is the potential that a cellphone having access to one or two hundred cells at the same time, and switching between cells at intervals in the seconds, could confuse (read: DoS) the terrestrial cell phone network. Evidently, however, the FCC is considering that potential to be less likely then previously thought.

And, to those of you who fly, I know that the flight attendants say it could interfere with flight systems. During takeoff and landing, this is understandable - any nonzero chance of interference is NOT negligible. And, radio recievers cannot physically cause interference to flight systems, any more than your wristwatch can, but they give the same reason to restrict FM radios. This is what they tell you so that you'll listen, because no uninitated end user will believe that a cell phone travelling at 600 mph has the potential to DoS the cell network.

And personally, although I have mixed feelings about legalizing cell phone use on airplanes, as previous posters, a phone call to my gf would be a very nice way to pass a couple of the ~7 hours it takes to fly home.

Re:

[AeroIllini]

Ever noticed the slightly sour A flat note that comes from the intercom when the stewardess is giving the pre-flight "use your seat cushion for floatation" speech?

Oh, God I hate that. Why, WHY couldn't Boeing have gone with a power system that operated at 440Hz?!

I kid, I kid. But seriously, one tiny little cell phone is likely not going to interfere with the avionics, because of all the EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference) certification that goes on. However, since the FAA can't possibly certify every cell phone that flies (and they are a little twitchy about flying any piece of equipment that isn't certified) they simply make blanket statements like "all cell phones must be turned off."

Better safe than sorry, I say. And if a little fib about how electronics can affect the avionics keeps people from yakking while I'm trying to take a very reasonable nap at 35,000 ft., then so be it.

The FCC can say whatever they want, but...

[SierraPete]

...it really doesn't matter because the FAA will also have to weigh in on the use cellphones while in flight. As I understand it, this is one of those dual-hatted sort of things. Sure the FCC controls the airwaves, but the FAA also issues the rules as to what you can do while airborne.

Flight risk highest at takeoff and landing

[Jott42]

The largest risk to get killed in an airplane is during and a few minutes after takeoff, and during landing. The highest risk is at taxing (or at least it was a couple of years ago, if you compared to total numer of people killed) And btw,you have evidence that at one time nothing did happen. The chance for something happenig can still be 1 in 10. Please read up in statistics and probability before you start a career in safety engineering!

Re:Cell free Nirvana ??

[nacturation]

There ought to be a hall of fame for posts like this.

No - think about how sound works

[JavaRob]

If those tiny hairs were moving just as much or more, the noise would be *louder*, not quieter. The noise-cancelling headphones by definition are finding a way to make sure those little hairs move *less*.

Or take the other approach and think about how waves work. Cancelling out a wave means it doesn't exist anymore in the overlap area, not that the original wave and the "cancelling" wave are still both there, and somehow coexisting without affecting each other. A wave that meets with a perfect cancellation is a flat line. An imperfect but "good-enough" cancellation (like I'm guessing you'll get with these kinds of headphones) leaves you with a mostly flat line.

Where did you read that noise-cancellation headphones can't protect your hearing?

[For the record, they probably aren't ideal for that purpose -- because a really loud noise could probably overwhelm them, and perhaps even just because if you like your music really loud, they obviously aren't going to stop *that* damage... but I'm guessing in an environment of very loud but consistent noise they could technically do the trick. Anything I'm missing?]

September 11th conspiracy

[ClioCJS]

Q: So how did the people on the hijacked planes call their relatives on their cell phones?

A: They didn't.