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?

[Melfina]

Formatting is your friend!

<p>

and

<br>

Will make your posts more Dynamic!

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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: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:

[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.

private jet

[cyberwave]

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

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:

[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.)

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.