Slashdot Mirror
FCC Says No to Mobile Phones on Airplane
GayBliss writes "CNN is reporting that the FCC has decided to keep a rule in place that would ban mobile phone usage on airplanes. The FAA has a similar ban, but for different reasons. 'In an order released Tuesday, the agency noted that "insufficient technical information" was available on whether airborne cell phone calls would jam networks below. [...]Unlike the Federal Aviation Administration, which bans the use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices for fear they will interfere with navigational and communications systems, the FCC's concern is interference with other cell phone signals on the ground.'"
I've commented before about some of the hassles of travel lately (and some of the possible solutions), and all I have to say about the FCC maintaining the ban of cell phones on planes is thank you!. Aside from the "insufficient technical information" statement, this ruling is going to prevent someone from having violence done to them because of their inane constant droning to any and all within earshot. I once had the displeasure of sitting on a plane on the tarmac for two hours while our flight was delayed and the pilot allowed everyone to use their cell phones. It was torture as most folks were not talking on their cell phones to arrange transportation or take care of business, but they were talking (loudly) about everything and nothing and forcing those around them to have to listen! Even worse, people began trying to speak over one another and the volume gradually increased until there was an amazing din of people calling their friends to say "Hey! Hey! Betcha can't guess where I'm calling you from! An airplane! Ha ha ha ha, yeah and on my own cell phone even!". It was a horrible forced invasion of personal space and ever since then I had been hoping that the FCC would not allow this to become a common occurrence.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Its not like theres any service in an airplane
Unfortunately (or fortunately), this might give the MPAA ideas about courtesy in theaters...
Insufficient technical information exists to say that they do interfere with ground signals or even the navigation and communications systems used to justify the FAA's ban.
So why the ban? Erring on the side of caution? Gimme a break. There's gotta be another reason that nobody's talking about.
My blog
"I'm sick and tired, of these muthaf**king phones, on these muchaf**king planes!" The sequil comes out this August!
The original generic sig.
I really don't want to be stuck inches away from someone talking way too loud for several hours anyway.
Business travel is stressful enough the way it is and being "out of touch" from the office may be the best part of the trip. If they allow cell phones on airplanes that means I will be expected to work while I am on the plane as well. Get 20 people on a plane doing that and it is going to be really annoying to everyone else.
/whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
I still don't understand why anyone would want to use their cell phones in an airplane in the first place. If they do implement it, the airline company would charge a fee to relay the cellphone signal from the plane's receivers/transmitters to the telco, so why not just use the wired phones that are already installed on the plane?
I think that I read that most communication with air traffic control is done at very long wavelength, low frequencies because they have traditionally thought to propagate better than high frequency communications. And cell phones use microwave or shorter frequencies, I think. But maybe some devices in the airplane use high frequencies for short distance communications, but I doubt it.
assuming the technical reasons are even valid. How about banning cell phones in the air as a safety issue? Rapidly deteriorating service in the air, smaller seats, little bits of terrible food if at all, lost luggage, delays, rude employees, rude travelers, overbooked flights and then someone wants the ability to chat on their phone for the entirety of the flight. Can you say air rage?
for fear they will interfere with navigational and communications systems
for fear they will interfere
fear
It's afraid...
.. I cannot tell you how elated I am to hear this news.
Nothing amuses me more than the high-end muscle-man salesman that strolls through an airport terminal with a bluetooth device in his hear, extolling the virtues of his latest deal that he closed, how drunk he got the night before, and where he was heading next. All the while strolling like there is something up his but, and his hands are waving in the air like he's swatting flies or something buzzing around his head - maybe it's his arrogance.
But while it is amazing, it is also irritating, and the thought of having to deal with that type of behavior AFTER the door is shut scares the living hell out of me. The only people that might benefit from something like this rule change would be Bose - as I'm sure they would sell 1000's of additional Acoustic Noise Canceling Headphones.
Furthermore, being that you would be 6 miles up in the sky, in an aluminum shielded tube, I cannot even imagine that you would get good coverage from within the airplane. I'm willing to bet that maintaining a call even for just a few minutes would be a hassle. Imagine that beefy salesman screaming into his bluetooth headset "can you hear me... hold one, let me get up and find a better signal" - all the while he's walking up and down the aisle, "Can you hear me NOW?" and holding the phone up to an airplane window in the galley.
Man it would be a disaster. He would either get his ass kicked by someone, or lose the deal because he thought he could hold the con call from the airplane.
Thank You FCC. you did everyone a favor.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
GOOD!
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Cellphones were used effectively by passengers and cabin crew during the 9/11 hijackings, apparently without messing up ground communications.
Logically, if it's a technical problem using a cellphone from a plane, it would also be a problem using it from the top of a tall building. In a metropolitan area, the top of a skyscraper would be "line of sight" to hundreds of cellphone towers.
Paid Q&A/Research
So it's not going to happen in the US. Have other countries let flyers use their phones on a plane? Have there been marked results for this?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
All I can hope for is that they continue to ban the use of headsets. I don't mind someone emailing or (OMG) IMing. At least it's quiet and I'm not held hostage to their innane conversation. Didn't I just see a story on this that several airlines are rolling out wifi? And the difference is....? I guess it's slightly lower power, but wifi runs the same interference risks as cell phones.
As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded. I seem to recall a "Mythbusters" episode (yes.. the paragons of the scientific process) that also confirmed this. The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No. Airline communications? No -- totally different frequency band. Somebody give me a good example of where your cell phone was interfering in ground based systems while in your car (not your unshielded car stereo with a GSM phone). There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air. And no -- there is NO problem with communicating with a cell tower several miles DOWN -- with nothing in your way except the airplane fuselage. You'd actually get pretty good reception. Antenna sensitivity is also a function of height (and how much is in the way).
I'm one of those people who sleep through the whole flight and I welcome this.
I have a pair...they're wonderful (thankfully, I received them as a gift as they're damned expensive). While they are nearly 100% effective at removing the drone and rumbling sounds of the plane, they're still not totally effective at cancelling out human voices. Part of the problem is that our skulls do part of the work of hearing, making it difficult to make a totally cancelling waveform. So when people drone on inanely or cough incessantly, that's where the MP3 player comes in quite handily (which plugs into them).
Ryanair has announced that their entire fleet is being fitted with equipment to allow calls on board. Ryanair don't fly to the USA (yet!) but it does raise the question as to whether the FCC would have jurisdiction over a non-US airline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5298332.stm
http://www.themeparks.ie
It's a human right to be an arse back to people talking on their phones in public. Walk into them. They can't resist.
I'd mod funny, I think, but I dunno. Being a pilot, as far as I know, when I use the radio thingy, in my plane, it uses some frequencies in the VHF, like 99% of what seems to be most air traffic control communications. Except for those. Which, actually, is a very long wave, if you're a cell phone.
I don't think a cell phone has ever interfered with ATC, except for maybe once or twice, Or maybe not ever, or more times than that. My opinion, if anyone gives a s***, is that The Man doesn't want to make air travel any more of a Living Hell than it already is, mostly, except for sometimes.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I always leave my cell in the on position for every flight I take, over 20 R/T a year.. But I do always turn the ringer off
Now if they'll just ban extremely loud stereos in cars. Or issue portable EMP guns to disable them.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
This is good news for VoIP services, as wifi is being allowed -- provided the wifi speed and lag in planes is acceptable for VoIP. Anyone has info on this?
That's exactly what I was saying. Why don't the FAA just come out with a ban that's simply based on this reasoning? Loud talking is banned in public libraries and cellphone use is banned in moving vehicles in some states, so why can't they ban cellphones on planes? I think if you took a poll of most psychologists, I think they'd back you up that having to listen to a plane full of people's cellphone conversations is like sitting on a powder keg.
In truth cell phones can cause interference to airplane instrumentation; on modern instruments, it is very minimal if any at all. Also, modern airplanes have shielded cable and electronic devices to protect from signal interference.
To the most part, cell phones won't be an issue however they can generate huge signal spikes when first turned on; for me I rather not take that chance.
Hmm, does anybody know if it possible to use my cell phone as a cosmic radiation shield at 35,000 feet ? Just kidding... I know this is ridiculous. Testing my new Slashdot account !
I can throw as many stones as I wish; my house is made of transparent aluminum.
Well I hope this holds up, I remember reading an article in the nytimes about google's transportation system: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/technology/10goo gle.html?ei=5088&en=dcb412d03d29e1f6&ex=1331182800 &pagewanted=print
and in the article it states: "inside, most riders appeared to abide by the shuttle's etiquette rules. Cellphone conversations are allowed if they are work-related and sotto voce. But loud personal calls are definitely out." This reminded me of the (at the time) FCC impending decision.
Technical reasons aside, if any reason should be enough to not allow people to use cellphones on the planes it would be for courtsey and etiquette.
I am wondering if cell phones will even work. There is quite a Doppler effect to take into account. The frequency shift can be quite big and cell phones are usually designed to work up to certain speeds.
Then, the elevation changes things... but that would require some hard data that I don't have and a little bit of trigonometry...
http://www.bruguier.com
However from a technical point of view a person working in the Aircraft maintenance said to me that the only technical reason it is onnoying, is because it can sometimes screw with the logging system. Suddenly you get a peak of absurd highRPM for the engine for example.
It is the same in hospitals where you are not allowed to use a cellphone, yet somehow the staff does have them and sms each other over the operating table for fun.
What is it that people can't live without a cellphone anymore? I remember that we actualy went over to people and say hello. If you can't turn of your cellphone for a week, then you do something wrong.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"CNN is reporting that the FCC has decided to keep a rule in place that would ban mobile phone usage on airplanes."
That would ban, or that already does ban? A few words can (mis)say lots.
I think it is likely that the FAA and FCC know that it is practically impossible to enforce this regulation (although I wouldn't mind a foxy flight attendant patting me down to find my turned-on cell phone, which is always on when I fly). I also think it is likely that there are lots of you who leave your phones on, too. And yet, our planes didn't crash, and here we all are. So I think they are saying no due to some other reason - it certainly isn't because it messes up navigational equipment; many of us are proof of that.
Wrap cellphone securely in several layers of aluminum foil. Interference problems solved!
More seriously, it'd be neat if airplanes had cells associated with them, so each airplane could grab all the phone requests and relay them to ground via some no-doubt proprietary, expensive, costs-forwarded-to-customer radio signal that doesn't jam cell towers across entire states.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I sympathize with all the posts about the lack of mobile phone etiquette and the dangers of "air-rage", but I really think that these are ignoratio elenchi. The real issue as far as the FCC should be concerned is a matter of feasibility with the existing communications network. Some suggestions have been made here as to why the relaxing of the existing ban might cause problems, and if these are valid, then the FCC made the right decision for the time being. They should of course encourage the communications industry to try and overcome these, or any similar technical limitations by paving the way for relaxed regulations.
That being said, it is nowhere in the FCC's jurisdiction to regulate the use of cell phones to limit "air-rage", and it is questionably within their jurisdiction to make regulations due to interference with avionics equipment. The latter could be (and is) dealt with by the FAA, and the former could be regulated by an act of congress, but it is worrisome if such federal agencies are being allowed to overstep their bounds, even in the interest of "a more civil society."
"Si vis pacem para bellum" -Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
But what about the FBB? Is the FBB cool with them?
No phones on the plane! Having listen to people yap is worse than having your building bombed.
I can only imagine what 4 hours of inane babbling would do to me. I've been stuck on a 20 minute bus ride listening to some loud ass explain to a girl he went on a date with that he, infact, was not a creep despite his actions the previous night. I was decibels away from stealing his phone and throwing it out the window. Thank you FCC!
When I'm flying my own airplane, I can't seem to get a signal anywhere above 3,000 feet anyway. I wish I could, because the Treo's web browser would be useful for checking weather radar web sites.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
As for the FCW (Fuck Cellphone Whores), their concern is interference with other people's sanity.
Draw a right triangle. One right side is 5 miles, this half the usual distance between cell towers (rural, though oftentimes less). The other right side is 5 to 10 miles, this is the altitude of the plane. This triangle would represent your worst case scenario.
If you are directly overhead of a cell tower (perpendicular - best case). Your effective velocity towards the tower nears zero, and the shift is minimal. At worst case, you're 45 off, creating making your effective velocity 0.7 x speed of the aircraft.
Okay, speculation on my part. At present time, I don't believe that handset data speeds are high enough for airplane speeds to create a serious problem. With future revisions of EV-DO, et al, having higher data rates, it may become a technical hurdle.
Take just a minute to let him know that you do *NOT* want to hear losers yack all flight long on their cellphones, because you're worried you may punch them in the face. Tell him you're worried terrorists could use cellphones on board to coordinate terrorist acts on the plane. Tell him you support the national association of flight attendants in their desire to ban cellphone usage on board. The address is: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
Hasn't it been a generally accepted concept of Constitutional philosophy that only harmful actions are to be banned and/or prosecuted? You guys are saying "Thank god they're banning it... people with cell phones annoy me so much!", but the use of a cell phone is not in itself bad. In fact, talking about inane subjects on a cellphone in a confined space is by all means supported by law unless it interferes with necessary functions (which the ban may or may not be saying).
/may/ get this "air rage". It's your problem to deal with the situation-- politely if you choose to practice what you preach. Note, however, that if you choose to be violent, YOU will be held accountable.
Since when does the Slashdot community suggest and support that behavior be regulated? What next: No homosexuality because it's icky for it to go "in there"? No driving at the speed limit because you're late and it's annoying when other people don't understand that YOU didn't get up on time in the morning? Shall we now force people to speak with a specific accent because you don't like a regional diction?
At no point should it EVER be the government's responsibility to enforce "polite behavior" because you
Grow a pair, complainers, and solve your own social problems.
The FAA bans all portable electronic devices, but provides an exclusion for portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers, electric shavers, and "any other portable electronic device that the [airline] has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used." - 14CFR121.306
The airlines can allow cell phone use under the current FAA regulations if they determine that it doesn't interfere. There is no explicit ban of cell phones by the FAA. The FCC ban is a different story.
The subject says it all.
Ryanair route map: http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/dests.php?flash=chk &pos=MYFLIGHT
A ir%20Ryanair%20final.pdf
Ryanair / Onair press release : http://www.onair.aero/admin/fil/30%2008%2006%20On
The motor car! How dare they release such a mechanic monster into our neighborhoods. Our quiet horses are all a civilized person could ever want. These "cars" are outrageously loud and garish!
And whats this about these cars costing much less than a horse? Only gentlemen should be riding anyway. The peons should be glad we even let them walk, for I cant imagine the noise they would make with cheap technologies.
----
Its sad to see people take of the mantle of a luddite, dismiss logic (cell phones are safe on planes), and applaud these decisions because they dont like overhearing a conversation or two. Sad really. Thankfully, there's no federal association ready to take my laptop and pda. Well, not yet. Enjoy your big win, you have less rights in a plane now instead of more. Also note that no cell also means no cell modems, so now I will never be able to use my treo as a modem because of you anti-cell phone fanatics. Thanks!
They say ignorance is bliss. My government is a very happy government. Giddy, in fact.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
there exists a company called aircell which buys space on towers and points antennae straight up. the down-tilt antennae hardly see the signals from the sky as it is, and the uptilts handle all the traffic just fine. interference with cellular networks is not a real excuse, it's made up to sound important.
the so-called 'wired' phones in planes are analog cellular phones which use the aircell towers.
The constant self-righteous indignation directed at cell phone users would be laughable if it wasn't so annoying. What EXACTLY is it that bothers those who are complaining about HAVING to hear someone else talk on a cell phone? Do you make the same complaints when you HAPPEN to overhear someone having a discussion nearby with another actual person? Is it the caliber of the conversation itself which irks you? Do you make the same judgments on the cloyingly cute couple who are returning from their honeymoon and can't seem to stop pawing each other and whispering how much they love each other?
Since when was any place outside of a church or a library considered sacred ground, where people had to speak in hushed tones and only to people who were actually present with them? If your auditory perception is such that you cannot weed out the annoyances we all face on a daily basis, whether it is loud thumping music in some punk's car or the incessant babbling of two teenage girls, then I am sure there is some sort of medication you could look into.
I can fully understand the technical reasons for limiting cell phone use on airplane, if such data actually backs up the need for such a ban. However, what is amazing to me is that there are so many who seem to think they need protection from the conversations of people around them. I use my cell phone all the time when I am traveling, ESPECIALLY if I am either traveling alone or conducting actual business. It's a communication service I pay for and will use whenever the hell I feel like it regardless of some overly-sensitive whiner who feels that my conversation via a cell phone is less worthy to be overheard than his back and forth with his nearby buddies.
Why are the cell phone haters stopping at just cell phone conversations? Why aren't they pushing for a Quiet Time law on any conversation they might happen to overhear in any close space? What's the real difference except that its fashionable and PC to hate an alleged annoyance caused by some device someone is using?
When I speak on my phone, it is in the same tone of voice and loudness as when someone is right next to me. Others might not, just as others might not control their volume in real-life conversations. Guess what? That's life, folks. Get over it.
OK, seriously -- how is it that the tiny little transmitter inside a cellular phone is capable of broadcasting a signal over 10,000 feet? That's 33 football fields away.
Breakfast served all day!
is basically that cell phones are designed for short-range communication (to the nearest base station).
As roaming between cells is designed to appear seamless, the handover to the next station would have to happen before the station one is currently connected to goes out of range (so the process is started when signal quality drops below a certain threshold). The next hop station is the one with the strongest signal.
This works fine on the ground, however in the air, the distance to the base stations is a lot greater, so it is not as easy to determine the best station for a handover, plus the high velocity has people enter and leave the cells pretty quickly. Being reachable via cell phone means that you have to establish an association to the nearest base.
And this is where it starts to get ridiculous. A plane with 300 people on board means that there are 300-epsilon phones constantly associating with base stations, and once they are done, they are already leaving for the next cell. With a GSM network, that happens over one or two 9600 baud signalling channels (basically time slots) that these 300 phones plus all the people on the ground compete for. In most parts of Europe, normal signalling traffic (which includes SMS) is so bad that two channels are constantly reserved for it, and that is without people on planes. I doubt other cell phone systems scale much better.
Battery is the other scalability problem. An 8 hour drive across Germany eats about a third of my cell phone battery, with reassociation happening every two minutes (yay for cell phone noise in the radio). Having the phone on a plane requires higher power levels, so I suspect my phone would run out of battery after two or three hours anyway.
So the entire thing is pointless. Cell phone technology was not made for that.
I, for one, am horribly dismayed at this news.
For some reason, cellphone users have earned a special place of annoyance with folks that they do not deserve. See, on a cell phone, the speaker is practically in your ear canal, and the mike is practically in your mouth. On my travels, I _very_ _often_ find cell phone conversations to be less loud and intrusive than standard, person-to-person conversations. Especially when a majority of those conversations seem to be between people on differing rows of the plane. And, what's worse: I have to listen to BOTH sides of the conversation when two people are yelling over engine noise to each other. At least with a cellphone conversation, if its loud enough for me to hear, I can make up the other side of the dialogue.
Frankly, if you're in favor of banning something due to annoyance? Ban children. On a six-hour flight, I'd MUCH rather a self-absorbed former-frat-boy deal-closing businessman on bluetooth ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over a two year old with a rash and a set of healthy lungs.
Interference from the ground, must not come from above.
sometimes, nothing.
My understanding is they don't ban the use during take off and landing for fear of interference. It is so you aren't fucking around with your gadgets at the most likely time an emergency should occur.
1. The probability of irate passengers - myself included - either throwing the cell phone the length of the plane, using it as an anti-theft device (bonk), or shoving it down your throat is pretty darned high, especially if people act like Americans talking on cell phones (speak louder, ignore nearby people, don't move to back of plane or train). So they may not say it, but the FEC will upset a lot of people if they don't disallow it.
2. Peace and quiet is one societal way of coping with the crowded conditions - playing movies is like a shared movie theater so they can do that.
3. Just the thought of some cell-enabled robot overlord flying over the US remotely triggering explosions with text messages probably gives them nightmares.
So, is the technical argument for banning cell phones from planes sound? Probably not.
Would they be in a whole horde of trouble if they didn't ban cell phones from planes? Definitely.
Besides, this will save a lot of my fellow passengers from having me destroy their cell phone.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Federal Bureau of Boilerplate currently has its legal experts reviewing the footnote text for the press release detailing its stance.
One man's constant is another man's variable.
For the first time, I'm can say that I'm proud of the FCC. Thank you for this decision!
[%] Cingular Ringtones
I don't care what reason they use, and what reason a fan of using their cell phone on the plane comes up with, I'm glad that for the foreseeable future, i won't have to spend 3-6-9 hours on a flight squeezed next to some blabbermouth who uses the flight as a means of catching up with long lost acquaintances...
I think all cell phone calls should be taxed as much as possible, with balance being made in lower taxes on other more important goods and services. Cell phones are used by insufferable fuckwits all over the world. Thirty years ago we didn't have cell phones at all and nobody died because of that.
Cell phones should be in the same or higher tax brackets as booze and tobacco. Actually, they should have higher taxes, since we already have smoke-free areas everywhere. Sitting next to a cell talker has about the same irritation factor as sitting next to a smoker.
Great idea. If someone is using technology you don't like, or don't like how they use it, commit assault and battery.
The FCC has prevented a massive increase in "sky rage" as rude people yap on their cell phones loudly on the plane disturbing passengers who are already on the edge from massive ticket price hikes and intrusive security checks.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We put them next to our brains everyday.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
"Get 20 people on a plane doing that and it is going to be really annoying to everyone else."
Yeah, suddenly the seat next to the crying infant will be the good seat. The real problem with allowing cell phones on planes is the high background noise. People would have to speak so damn loud to be understood over the hiss of the boundary layer and jet noise. Listening to people in the terminal is bad enough, but it would be significantly worse on the plane than while sitting in the terminal. In the terminal, ambient noise levels are at least within reason so people don't have to speak that loudly into a phone. In an aircraft, ambient noise levels are typically 75-80 dBA, which is quite loud, and the broadband noise is typically centered near the speech interference range of the audio spectrum.
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
Cell phones all the time. Worse thing is that they main users spread themselves maximally apart to not interfere with each other. No mercy for the rest of us. I'd prefer some all in one section protocol.
In addition to only getting half a conversation...
People speak much more loudly into their phones than they do to someone standing next to them. With a lot of phones it is the only way to be heard on the other end of the line.
And cell phone calls are non-stop talk. One or the other person is always actively talking. It has been my experience that the person on the cell does most of the talking as well since they have nothing else to do, with the other end usually at home or the office or otherwise preoccupied with something in addition to talking on the phone.
It all adds up to people talking too loudly plus filling dead air plus dominating the conversation. Highly annoying.
When you are in a commercial plane you are traveling at hundreds of miles per hours. That is much faster than anything the cell network normally has to deal with and thus likely equals lots of tower switching. Even phones that aren't actively making calls are likely to put a fair bit of stress on the system moving around that fast.
While I abhor the idea of anyone talking on a cell phone on a commercial flight (and would never fly on one that allowed it), I think it would be okay for private charter or business jets to allow cell phone usage. The criteria being that either everyone on the plane is in a single group, or everyone says it's okay to use cell phones (to account for those semi-private jet services).
/. goodness I'm normally too busy to read. ;-)
The technical hurdles will be solved soon enough, and I think this is a valid reason for solving them. I also think they need to get the ball rolling on in-plane Wi-Fi, being able to access email or IM services would be a huge boon for an otherwise relatively boring trip. I could finally catch up on all the
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
Sure I understand--and agree--that this kind of cell phone use can be horribly frustrating. Just like having someone blow cigarette smoke in your face is horribly frustrating--or worse! But think about this: for the government FCC or FAA to outlaw it on those grounds seems wrong. It should be the responsibility of the Airlines to compete to create an environment that is most attractive to their clients. It is not in the interest of freedom for the government to dictate that across the board on every airline and every flight. Should the ban be removed, certain airlines or even certain flights could cater to travelers who wish to use their phones. And other airlines or other flights could cater to those who wish a somewhat quieter (airplanes quiet?! ... anyway) environment. It would even be possible to have cell-phone and non-cell-phone cabins. I protest that if this is really mostly a social/annoyance issue the government should not address it in this way. Hey, if I know that on United Airlines I can use my cell phone, I might be more inclined to travel with them. Or on the other hand, if I know that on Northwest they don't allow cell phones, I could be more inclined to travel with them. Especially since there's not a whole lot else to distinguish them.
:-o
By the way, this is my first post on Slashdot.
This is so ludacris, americans have been so brain washed over the years about cell phones being an élitist tool that they are living in a fools paradise.
All international airlines will have cell phone service within 5 years, and the USA carriers will be left, as the whole of the USA has been by the late 90's cell phone technology wilderness.
Have you ever wondered, how cell phones became such a nuscience to americans but not to any one else, and why countries like sweeden now control the cell phone market.
Between ignoring GSM , and AT&T's worries about the new product eroding there core business, Americans have been left in a third world country for cell phones awareness.
It is wierd that us bunch of technocrats, applaud banning of technology?
-- email me @ 30,000 ft
We have this problem on the NYC subways too. My favorite part is when the subway is underground (deep underground, say, under the East River) and some idiot tries to speak on his cell phone. "Hello? Hello? HALLLLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME?" No they cant. Mobile phones dont work down here. Atleast you dont have *that* problem on airplanes!
It's true though - the base stations are all set up with at least some downtilt to make a cell. You don't have antennas pointing up in the sky - that'd be a waste. I was in a charter helicopter once, about 700' AGL over a dense area (lots of houses, metro area, all networks well covered) and I tried to use my Samsung Q105 on t-mobile. It would not pick a tower. I had bars, but even power cycling didn't help. Wouldn't have helped if I could call, the noise was probably too great.
It was only a matter of time before they made a good decision. They're due for one!
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
Lets PRETEND I'm a pilot. This is all hypothetical. I'm flying in my cessna. My noise canceling radio headset has a plug that conveniently connects to my headset jack on my phone. No ones looking over my shoulder and I'm not bothering anyone.
Who's gonna know.
Wake up FCC. No point in making laws you can't enforce.
There are several problems with a strict interpretation like this. The US market has developed differently from the rest of the world because they standardized on protocols and technology were the American market didn't.
The effect is that we have several types of cell phones that are perfectly safe and usable on plains mixed in with ones that aren't. And this is a serious drawback IMHO. But outlawing some and letting other would be the equivalent of government endorsement and driving some customers to switch. Things have normalized to an extent in the past few years but will take a few more before all the networks are capable. This is a reason why Switzerland can pwn the market were in the US, it is almost impossible to narrow it down to one carriers or type of tower.
Eventually it will catch up. AT&T has less to do with the situation then you give them credit for. They are not without fault though,
There was a time when a small plane would get you free calls. The billing system couldn't keep up with the tower handoffs.
Maybe it still works in some places.
If cell phones are so dangerous to the navigation systems, like the FAA claims, why are cellphones or other radio transmitters allowed on a plane in the first place? What prevents terrorists from intentionally disrupting these systems?
ZX2C4
Have you ever wondered, how cell phones became such a nuscience to americans but not to any one else, and why countries like sweeden now control the cell phone market.
I'm norwegian.
I wonder what the fsck you're smoking.
I dread the day cellphones will be allowed on flights. It's annoying. It's _damn_ annoying. It's a fucking huge nuisance.
That you haven't discovered it yet doesn't mean that all other scandinavians share your idiotic view.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
There are several problems with a strict interpretation like this. The US market has developed differently from the rest of the world because they standardized on protocols and technology were the American market didn't.
I believe there was a much more immediate reason for the quick adoption of cell phone technology in Europe.
When I moved to London for instance, it would have taken BT at least four weeks before they would send me a technician to activate my land-based phone service, and that was on an existing phone line mind you so I doubt a technician was really necessary, plus they required a security deposit of something like 190 pounds -- just for the activation -- an outrageous amount if you ask me (at the time, 1 pound sterling was equivalent to 1.5 American dollars).
You combine this with the fact that cell phone providers in the UK were offering all kinds of low-cost (almost free) cell phone plans (many more than the ones allowed by law in the US), and the decision was a no-brainer for me. Which brings me to my second point: By making sure that the consumer wouldn't get ripped off by the cell phone companies, the United States government inadvertently squashed a certain kind of low-cost cell phone market before it even began. In the UK for example, if you don't want to pay for cell phone service, but still want a phone, you can get yourself a cell phone plan (with a special area code) where it's the people calling you that have to pay a significant surcharge for calling your cell phone. This kind of cell phone plan may seem kind of unfair to us Americans, but it has actually its good points, when people have to pay something to call you, it's like having a true emergency phone -- one that doesn't get called that much, and it is this kind of low-cost freedom that spurred the initial explosive cell phone market growth in the UK. It was very visible too. Everyone, especially poor people had those cell phones, in fact in the UK poor people were more likely to have a cell phone than rich people, and upon my return to the US, it was completely different of course -- rich people were the only ones with cell phones -- they were very few -- and still now -- the cell phone is taking a while to trickle all the way down to the bottom of the economic ladder.
Yet another story that destroys the myth of passengers on flight 93 making calls to say it had been hijacked! Shot out of the air by a national guard f16 is what really happened
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
The FCC should make it legal if they can find no technical reason not to. Why should they decide what we can or can not do in a plane? Basically all the posts on this subject seems to indicate a huge market for "No talking on the plane"-flights. Let market forces decide. People liked their dry-virus-filled-recycled-air smoke free, hence we can no longer smoke on planes. If all are like Slashdot readers, cell phones will be banned by the companies. Don't thank governmental organizations for limiting our options. Thanks.
And it has been probed conclusively that it is more dangerous to chatter away in your mobile phone.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Cell Phones do not interfere with plane equipment. All these stories about "pilots" who have experienced their avionic equipment going haywire while someone is making a call is completely bogus. How in the heck could you know that it was a cell signal and not one of the thousands of other variables on a plane! Mythbusters isn't exact science, but their show pretty mch proved cell phones don't do jack squat to a plane's equipment. That being said, I am very glad the ban is still in place. If I were on a red-eye with some jerk blabbing all night long, I really think I would lose it, and normally I'm a very calm person.
Sorry but that is not how they work, they use a technology called pico cells, a technology to have a dedicated mini-cell tower on the plane as a communications gateway, which most often does not even touch the normal terristrial cell network.
On Dec. 15, 2004, the FCC proposed lifting the ban on cell phones and other devices, as long as they operate under the control of a pico cell located on the aircraft. The pico cell would basically restrict the power of such devices, which would work through a cell base on the aircraft. The problem with the existing system is that when cell phones are unable to easily contact a ground station, they boost to high power in hope of finding one. One cell phone behaving this way is not a particularly high threat to aircraft systems, otherwise they would be banned as carry on?, but 200-plus cell phones do place onboard avionics at risk.
At present the major players supplying this technology this year on international carrriers are: OnAir and ARINC. Both of which do not operate terristrial networks and are hybriding GSM to the 3G based I4 or the older I3 Inmarsat satellites.
The FAA have no technical reason to ban the use of cell phones, ( any equipment that goes near a plane has a very strict transmitting guidlines for qualififaction ) and the FCC is a political body which in this case, has placed its rulling in the public arena, NOT TECHNICAL by voting based on very strong public backlash.
-- email me @ 30,000 ft
OK I agree it is anoying, but technology based groups do not make social comments.
There are loads that don't like the idea of people on cell phones everywhere, but banning them is not the answer.
The point is that, government don't ban cars because of bad drivers.
The ban by the FCC, a political body, is not a sound technical one.
Ultimatly the comsumer will decide , if no one uses on board cell then it will go, or if enough people choice to use an airline that doesn't have the technilogy it will die.
-- email me @ 30,000 ft
Actually, that's my thoughts on it. Since the original ban, the FAA has found no credible interference issues from cellphones on airliners. The FCC ban is based on interference with ground stations.
If the FCC similarly finds no problem, or works around the problem, rather than see it federally regulated, I think the airlines should make the call themselves. At that point it's their planes, and their customers. Free market right? Let the airlines decide who wants to deal with cost of on board cell stations and the hassle of noisy passengers and who doesn't.
Washington state (and others) have a similar issue with smoking in private businesses. Instead of letting businesses decide if they would allow smoking or not, the voters banned it statewide. I'm not a smoker, but it kind of upset me based on property rights principles.