FCC to Allow Wireless Access on Planes

isd_glory writes "The FCC has unanimously voted to allow wireless internet connections on airplanes. If everything goes according to plans, airplanes might be offering passengers internet service by as soon as 2006. Furthermore, the FCC is also soliciting comments about the possibility of lifting the in-flight ban on cellphone use. While this could be new profit source for the cash-strapped airlines, it might also be a new way to annoy your neighbor sitting next to you."

Re:What I want to know is...

[ccharles]

It's the same as in hospitals (in Ontario, Canada at least). It was determined that cell phones *might* interfere with important equipment. Failure of important equipment in hospitals and airplanes can lead to bad things, and were thus banned altogether.

In fact, cellphones generate VERY little interference for hospital equipment. I've read that they're used all the time in some Asian hospitals by patients, doctors and everybody in between.

This is a classic example of the fire alarm principle: alarms are too sensitive because the PITA of a false alarm is much less costly than not alarming when there's a real fire.

As we realize that cell phones are pretty much harmless from an interference perspective, they're being phased in due to customer demand.

Re:Cellphone on Airplanes

[mrm677]

Yes, a mini base station would be required on the plane for cellphones to work. This would then be patched into the rest of the system via satellite.

Even if you are flying at 1000 feet and your signal wasn't distorted by the aluminum shell, handoffs woudln't work flying that fast. There is a small window of opportunity for cell-to-cell handoffs. It differs between CDMA, AMPS, GSM, and etc. This is also the reason the old Japanese PDC system wouldn't work in cars. Handoffs were too slow to work beyond 20 mph or so.

been there done that

[Anubis333]

Lufthansa has about 80 planes with wifi already [newswireless.net], they fly to destinations in the US and Germany..

Re:Cellphone on Airplanes

[ecklesweb]

The argument that cell phones interfere with instruments seems to be overblown. From a news.com.com.com.com article:

Engineers at NASA noted at least three years ago that cell phones were being built so well that they emitted remarkably fewer interference-causing spurious radio signals. A NASA engineer said in a 2000 interview that the airplane cell phone ban would be lifted once earlier generations of cell phones wore down and were tossed out or recycled.

Of course, that being said, I'd sure like some solid data. Apparently the FAA has commissioned an indepenedent agency to study the effects of cell phones on instrumentation. Results aren't due until 2006.

Anyone heard any further details about the "independent study"?

FCC might be OK, but still up to the FAA and PIC

[Anonymous Coward]

does not change 14 CFR 91.21 Portable electronic devices (see link below);

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ec fr&sid=1d07491ba74d51f531dcb9a0d4dc8f1e&rgn=div5&v iew=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10. 1.4.11 [gpoaccess.gov]

the FCC may say it is ok, but it is still up to the operator of the aircraft (and ultimately the pilot in command) to say whether or not you'll be allowed to use your cell phones on board...

Re:talking on a phone annoying?

[Fletch]

How is talking on a phone any more or less annoying than talking to a person sitting next to you?

There's a paper called "Why Mobile Phones are Annoying," published in Behaviour and Information Technology, that discusses that very topic.

One finding was that it's apprently easier to tune out the continuous drone of a complete conversation than it is to ignore a single person alternating between speaking and siting silent.

I don't think the paper is online, but Jakob Nielson [useit.com] has a good summary [useit.com].

Re:Cash strapped, yeah right

[new-black-hand]

Very true - Qantas (which is the correct spelling - it is an acronym) added a 'fuel surcharge' to all tickets when oil hit $50 a barrel.

Chances are that Qantas has never paid $50 for a barrel of oil, their bottom line is protected from oil price fluctuations due to future price contracts ('futures'). I believe that they lock in pricing for their fuel supply for up to 3 years in advanced.

They need to do this for two reasons, so that they are able to forecast future expenditure and as I mentioned to protect their whole operation from any sort of oil/fuel supply meltdown.

Adding $10-$20 on the price of a ticket the day that oil prices spike up is just a total scam - Qantas and the other airlines are not ordinary purchasers who pay 'bowser prices'.

To get back on-topic, a number of airlines already offer Internet access to business class passengers. I cant see a profit motive for allowing phone calls - since existing 'in seat' phones charge the user about $6 a minute for calls. The benefit for the airlines would be just as a 'value add' to attract more business customers. Airlines mostly profit from business users, economy class just fills the rest of the seats. There is almost zero profit in long-haul economy class passengers, this is why they charge you extortionate amounts for extra luggage!

I worked on something like this!

[jlseagull]

When I was working at (insert name of huge network equipment company) on their WiFi, we worked on phased-array SDMA, that stands for space division multiple access. The idea was that you could have a system with lots of nodes moving past a central point, at which was a 2D square conformal array of patch antennas. By varying the phase and amplitude of the signals to each patch antenna element, you could accurately track up to floor((2ln(n))? targets with acceptable crosstalk, where n is the number of patches on a side. This would work awesomely with a plane flying over a bunch of omnidirectional access points with a ventral mounted conformal antenna.

Incorrect.

[i41Overlord]

I see this myth repeated often. People say that cell phones don't work in airplanes for all kinds of technical reasons.

But if you remember on 9/11, there were a whole bunch of cell phone calls that got through just fine. You don't hear of cell phone calls working on airplanes that often because as current law has it, they aren't allowed. But when people broke the rules in an emergency, they worked just fine.

Re:Cellphone on Airplanes

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"CDMA"

CDMA can hand-off extremely quickly because, in a CDMA system, handoffs are "soft" - more than one tower is handling the call at the same time. There isn't a fixed point when the phone switches from one tower to the next like there is with GSM.

WLAN on Lufthansa since 2 years...

[Uzull]

WLAN on Lufthansa is available since 2 years, for flights over the atlantic to the US and Canada...
And the quality is good everywhere in the aircraft. I was sitting in economy class, and could work without problems. I suspect they have several access points throughout the aircraft.
And in fact, phone calls are possible using VoIP... So annoying your neighbour is already possible :( skype me!!!