Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Wireless Networking Hardware Science

Cellphones Usable on Airplanes in 2006? 453

Posted by CowboyNeal from the phoning-home dept.
JOhn-E G writes "In a recent article from the New York Times it seems that airlines and cellphone makers are working towards allowing cellphones to be used on airplanes during flight. (free reg. required) Currently the plan is to have a mini cell tower, a picocell, on the plane that would intercept all the calls from people in the plane and relay them to satelites or ground towers. The FAA, FCC, and the airlines really want to be absolutely sure that there will be no interference anywhere. The article also says that cell use may still be banned during landings just to be safe. Changes would start in 2006."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cellphones Usable on Airplanes in 2006? More

Cellphones Usable on Airplanes in 2006?

Comments Filter:

  • Charges? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by keeleysam ( 792221 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:18PM (#10145502) Homepage Journal
    I wonder: 1. If it will be free 2. If it will work with all cell phone carriers. If they are gonan charge 30 buvks for a call, then screw it

    • Re:Charges? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TykeClone ( 668449 ) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:19PM (#10145511) Homepage Journal
      1. I wouldn't bet on it.

      2. I would think that it would.

      • Re:Charges? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by afidel ( 530433 )
        2. I would think that it would.

        This will be a tough technical requirement, the hardware will have to be quad band, tri standard (GSM, CDMA, UMTS) and capable of talking to the ground stations of all of the providers. All of that and fit into probably no more than one airplane rack (about 28U I believe). That's a tall order!

        • Re:Charges? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by beh ( 4759 ) * on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:47AM (#10147417)
          It wouldn't neccessarily need to speak to the ground stations of each provider. If it's relayed through a satellite it'll just be fed back as a regular (international) phone call.

          What they WOULD need are roaming agreements with as many telcos as possible to allow all their mobiles to be used on to the plane. And - this is in the interest of both the airlines, as well as the telcos themselves [it IS a selling point for a telco if its mobiles can be used on a plane].

          There is one issue, though:

          Will they be able to offer services on all bands (900, 1800, 1900 MHz), or will they restrict to ONE band and require the passengers to have a mobile capable of it. I know, *I* would be quite pissed, if they would require me to buy a 1900MHz US band mobile so I could use it on a flight within Europe (900+1800MHz). I don't know whether there is micro-cell equipment that could handle all three...

          As for the question about charges - that's fairly trivial, they'll charge everything that they can get away with...

          I don't know whether the telcos will allow them to use variable roaming charges (usually, roaming charges are a fixed amount per minute), because I could easily see the airlines wanting to charge MORE for a call from a long-haul flight, as their corporate clients on the planes might be more pressed to actually MAKE calls from longer flights, rather than short local flights [the chances of you actually absolutely HAVING to make a call will certainly be lower on very short flights].

          Also, with more and more people having notebooks, I see the possibility that the whole thing might fall away with the advent of Wifi Internet access on planes, as you could use VoIP instead.

    • Re:Charges? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ronald Dumsfeld ( 723277 )

      I wonder:
      1. If it will be free

      No. It won't be free, at least I don't believe so. Instead it will probably be like roaming. You'll pay a similar charge to using your phone in a foreign country, and if anyone calls you they'll pay "local" rate and you pay the "international" segment.

      2. If it will work with all cell phone carriers. If they are gonan charge 30 buvks for a call, then screw it.

      They'll want it to work with as many cellular companies as possible. I have no knowledge of what sort of bi

  • Ohhh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:18PM (#10145508)
    More inane chatter. Mile high was one place where you were safe for a while from all the i-have-got-to-talk-on-my-cell-phone people. Damn.

    • Re:Ohhh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:35PM (#10145623)
      Isn't that the truth. I was putting gas in my car one day when a rather ditzy looking girl pulls up yapping on her phone. She hangs up, but immediately asks me why she can't use her phone while filling up. I mentioned something about high power antennas igniting the gas (whether or not it's actually true), and she responds with "oh well, that's stupid. they should fix gas so it won't do that."

      Are people these days really so reliant on cell phones that they can't put them down for 5 minutes to fill up their gas tank or order food, or watch a movie, or drive down the freeway, or take a flight? I have a cell phone, but it only gets used once or twice a day, for no more than 5 minutes at a time. Makes me wonder how people survived 10 years ago, or even before the widespread growth of cell phone usage. Sad really.

      • Are people these days really so reliant on

        computers that they can't walk away for 5 minutes to go to the bathroom or go to the fridge for food, or watch a movie, or drive down the freeway, or take a flight? I have a computer, but it only gets used once or twice a day, for no more than 5 minutes at a time. Makes me wonder how people survived 10 years ago, or even before the widespread growth of computer usage. Sad really.

        Insert anything that people do frequently, or even infrequently in public, and there w

      • Re:Ohhh (Score:5, Informative)

        by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @10:05PM (#10145798)
        Nope, it's an Urban Legend..Cells can't ignite the fumes..MythBusters also did a segement on this where they debunked it very well. If ya check out snopes.com I think you'll see if debunked there too. I like my cell, but there are times I wish I could chunk it..A great thing and a PITA both at the same time..
      • "Are people these days really so reliant on cell phones that they can't put them down for 5 minutes to fill up their gas tank or order food, or watch a movie, or drive down the freeway, or take a flight? "

        Who are you to judge how anybody uses a phone? Yeah, some people out there could learn a bit about etiquette, but a lot more (at least around here on Slashdot) need to grow a thicker skin.

        " Makes me wonder how people survived 10 years ago, or even before the widespread growth of cell phone usage. Sad
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • "Obviously you've never been on the freeway with several pre-occupied cell phone jockeys, otherwise known as drivers."

            What's that got to do with restaraunts, airplanes, filling up the tank, etc? In any event, I agree, those people are being stupid.

            "When I get calls while I'm in the car, I let them know I'm in the car and that I'll call them back. "

            I appreciate it. But I don't expect you to stay off your phone at the places I've mentioned. All I prefer is that you don't shout.

        • Who are you to judge how anybody uses a phone?


          You don't need to be anyone special to start judging someone if they pull up to you at a GAS station yapping on the phone while they handle the pump.


          but a lot more (at least around here on Slashdot) need to grow a thicker skin.


          thicker skin? no, we'd need to grow some fire-resistant skin.

    • "Hello? HELLO? I'm on the plane. I'm ON THE PLANE. Hello? Hello? Hello? I'm on the plane. I'm on the plane. HELLO? Wyoming. I'm on the plane. I'M ON THE PLANE. Hello? Hello? I'm - Hello? I'm on the plane. Wyoming. I'm over Wyoming. Hello?"

      Slight modification of a conversation I actually heard on the bus.

      Honestly, after being one seat away from that person, I was willing to ban all cell-phones flatout - and that was only a fifteen-minute ride!
    • I hate the inane chatter as much as you do, and so often I wish I could turn on a jammer.

      The FCC may think cell phones are safe for use, but have they considered whether passengers will be safe from the likes of people who are stupid enough to engage their cell phone jammers on the plane... :-S
    • You know what's way more annoying that other people talking on the phone? Whingers who have nothing better to do than complain about other people being on the phone. How is it your business if they're on the phone, and how do you know if it's important to them who they're talking to? Of course you turn the bloody thing to silent or off in the theatre, but in the mall, or on a bus or a train or a plane, why should you care?

      • Re:Ohhh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by asdfghjklqwertyuiop ( 649296 )

        How is it your business if they're on the phone


        How is it my buisness? Well they made it my business. I can't not listen to them. I sincerely wish it were not my business, but they decided to force it to be my business.
  • And I the passenger don't care. Ok, maybe I care a little.

  • Is it necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nos. ( 179609 ) <andrew@nOSPAm.thekerrs.ca> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:20PM (#10145515) Homepage
    I don't know, is it really that important to stay "in touch" with friends, family, or work over the duration of a flight? I would think that most flights are 3 hours or less as this will pretty much get you across NA, or Europe. Longer flights certainly happen on a regular basis, but I just don't see it being necessary to be available or be in contact for the duration of a flight.
    • "I don't know, is it really that important to stay "in touch" with friends, family, or work over the duration of a flight?"

      It's important when you're really really bored on that 3 hour flight. Geez, isn't this the site that wants better laptops for flying?
  • Yeah, this is just going to be another crying baby on a cramped 5 hour flight. I wish they'd keep it how it is.

  • oh please no (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pierre ( 6251 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:21PM (#10145521)
    it's annoying enough that people talk loudly on their cell phones in resaurants etc.. can you imagine a flight with 200 people all talking on cell phones?

    the horror the horror the horror

    they will have to have cell phone sections on the plane. cell phones will be this generations cigarettes.

    • Re:oh please no (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:30PM (#10145594)
      Yeah, we wouldn't want talking to interrupt the blissful quiet and plush comfort of airline travel.

      And why would anyone want to talk on the phone when they can watch the riveting in-flight entertainment?

      • Re:oh please no (Score:5, Funny)

        by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:35PM (#10145631)
        I prefer stairing out the window myself....

        *ring*

        911 Operator: "Emergency Services, how can I halp you?"

        Me: "MY GOD! There's something on the wing!!!" /Rod

      • Re:oh please no (Score:3, Funny)

        by Colol ( 35104 )
        I know you're being funny, but holy crap...

        "Talking" is a little generous for the volume level many cell-addicted people believe is necessary to make a cellular phone work.

        Especially the ones who use the damn thing like it's a walkie-talkie: Quick, by my ear to listen! Quick, in front of my face to talk! Quick, back to my ear to listen again!

        It's not talking on planes that's the problem. I've spent many flights talking to family, friends, or absolute strangers. It's the potential for hundreds of people l

      • Re:oh please no (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thesp ( 307649 )

        The big problem here is perceived vs actual volume.

        Due to the blocking of local sound and own voice by the cellphone against the ear, combined with the perceived 'distance' of the other person and the quietness of their voice in the ear, most cellphone converstations are conducted in far louder tones of voice than person-to-person.

        This is combined with the higher 'annoyance' factor of a cellphone conversation. This is because you only hear one side of the conversation, and you don't hear a steady flow.

    • I can imagine it now... (Score:5, Funny)

      by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @10:26PM (#10145884)
      The captain has turned on the no talking sign. Shut the hell up. Please return your mouths to an upright and locked position.

  • It's about time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rayd75 ( 258138 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:21PM (#10145522)
    I've never been convinced that the 300mW that a cell phone puts out can cause any harm. If it could there would have already been catastrophies caused by people who ignored the rules or simply forgot to turn their phones off.

    • Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kb9vcr ( 127764 )
      well, believe it!

      I've used VOR/LOC transmitters to test lateral/glideslope deviation(how far your off your landing path) that ran on small rechargable NiCad that easily worked from anywhere within an aircraft. TCAS (that uses Transponders), nav aids-VOR,TACAN,VORTAC...these things don't just work on magic.

      More then likely you won't generate some frequency(or harmonic) to interfer but, I wouldn't bet MY life on it during take-off and approach.

      During flight, with GPS, you're probably okay which is what the

    • I've never been convinced that the 300mW that a cell phone puts out can cause any harm. If it could there would have already been catastrophies caused by people who ignored the rules or simply forgot to turn their phones off.

      It's a pre-emptive strike against litigation, like the signs at service stations telling you to turn your phone off.

      • It's a pre-emptive strike against litigation, like the signs at service stations telling you to turn your phone off.

        Maybe it's because exploding cell phones can set the pump on fire.
    • Just because it's possible for cell phones to cause harm doesn't mean they always will. They're banned just to be on the safe side, because there are situations where they could cause problems. That and because a cell phone in the air can see many different cell towers at once, which confuses the cell network and causes bad things.
    • who ignored the rules or simply forgot to turn their phones off.

      Most Digital cell phones, despite having a 300mW transmitter, only use it completely during transmission. (The whole 180 'talk' minutes versus 5 days 'standby' time)

      Analog or digital receiving (or to a extent, analog standby) are what eat the juice and really use the transmitter power.

      Medevo

    • Re:It's about time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by StarsAreAlsoFire ( 738726 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @10:28PM (#10145892)
      I used to set my phone on my desk -- a Nokia 5860. I would always know that my phone was going to ring a few seconds before it actually did. Why? The handshake is broadcast at higher power (I presume) than the rest of the call -- and it would broadcast enough power into the speaker wire going between my PC and my amplifier that it was *very* audible in the music. *THUMP**THUMP*BzzzzzZzz* ring!

      So, knowing what I know about aircraft electronics, which isn't a huge amount (I *do* have a degree in aerospace engineering, though that was NOT a focus area of mine), I would be VERY hesitant to allow the use of cell phones in aircraft.

      Even neglecting the entire cell phone issue, I don't understand WHY the FAA has not issued a requirement that ALL future aircraft use optical systems. They are more difficult to engineer, but the advantages are pretty significant.

      1.) Can't light the fuel on fire
      2.) Unaffected by EMF (*big one*)
      3.) Aging issues are insignificant, compared to wire (no heat/flexure).
      4.) others that I don't know about because it isn't my field.

      Who has a nice list of reasons NOT to use fibre? Mechanically I don't believe it is as flexible, and you shouldn't really splice it over such a short run. I know that it requires more hardware at each end of the system, but the hardware is fairly robust.

  • GSM or CDMA? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by orakle ( 233985 )
    I'm interested to see how this will work. Currently there are two big cellular standards: GSM and CDMA. GSM seems like the more viable choice, as it is used globally (three GSM nets in US, also), but many americans use CDMA carriers like sprint/verizon/alltel/etc. For either, I assume it would be just like hitting a roaming partner and associating with their network, but I wonder how they will prevent people from just using land-based carriers, assuming range permits this.
  • CDMA as it is right now has up to a 4 second connection time. I cannot imagine how long it will take from a plane. Does this picocell interface with VLRs, HLRs, and everything else???

  • the captain (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pierre ( 6251 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:27PM (#10145567)
    will they make the captain use a hands free headsets so they are less likely to get distracted and get in an accident?
  • The article also says that cell use may still be banned during landings just to be safe.

    Frankly I think they should ban it anyways during landings - it's not like anyone *has* to be on the phone during that *exact* time that they're landing.

  • Oh Christ, no (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:32PM (#10145613)
    An airplane is one of the last places I don't have to listen to some asshole yell "I told him- I- I- HOLD ON, YOU"RE BREAKING UP!"
  • This interfrience crap needs to go. If people are allowed to carry devices on airplanes that enable them to crash the plane due to negelent or bad intentions I suggest the TSA needs to consficate the trouble some devices during flight operations. BUT guess what this is all crap.. if the planets align, the sun spots hit and we get are in a ION storm, thne you migth be able to slightly confuse the ILS systsem that were phased out in the 70's. The real reason they want tell us to turn off the cellphones is

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by randyest ( 589159 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:38PM (#10145646) Homepage
    OK, I expect a new technology. You did too -- right? Seems like we believe the airlines and the FAA and/or FCC when they tell us that cellphones can interfere with airplane communication and/or navigation systems (anything's possible right? can't be too careful at 20k ft. right?)

    But then I read:

    Until now, there have been concerns that cellphone use during flight could disrupt cell networks or interfere with the plane's navigation systems. The F.C.C., which has jurisdiction over ground communication, forbids the use of cellphones in flight out of concern that passengers calling from the air could overwhelm the nation's system of cell towers. That policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October, according to Lauren Patrich, an F.C.C. spokeswoman.

    Whoah -- "until now?" The "policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October?" OMGWTFBBQ?

    But alas, it's not that simple:

    For its part, the F.A.A., which governs in-flight communications, recommends that airlines forbid the use of any device - including cellphones and pagers - that transmits signals, because of the risk of interference.

    Woot! Administrative deathmatch -- FCC vs. FAA! Who will win!? Are you rrrready to tuuuune-to-this-freeeeequency?

    Two newly proposed solutions will allow passengers to use their own cellphones to place calls in flight in a way that their makers say addresses both concerns. Unlike the current seat-back phone system, airlines will not have to pay for costly interior wiring. Instead, a small cell tower, known as a picocell, will be installed inside the cabin. Cellphone signals will be picked up by that cell, and then, depending on the system, relayed either first to a satellite or directly to the ground.

    What's that? Not just a policy revision. Sigh. Actually a technological product that might prevent the FCC/FAA battle from ever taking place? Say it aint so . .

    AirCell of Louisville, Colo., a large provider of in-flight communications services, has proposed a system that would bypass existing cellphone towers on the ground and direct calls instead to a separate grouping of receivers installed throughout the country. Equipment inside the plane would effectively create a cabin-wide hot spot handling voice and Internet communications.

    Bah, it's true. They have a sufficiently expensive product to but that will allow them to charge sufficiently high fees so that we don't all ever have to know the truth about whether or not calling your sweetie from 30k ft. will crash the plane and they can still charge $5/min for airtime and the FCC doesn't have to kick the FAA's ass in public and all is well.

    The AirCell system can handle any of the three digital phone standards in use by the American carriers: C.D.M.A., T.D.M.A. or G.S.M. Signals from each phone would be received by the plane's picocell, and then translated into one digital signal that would be sent to one of AirCell's terrestrial receivers. (To keep costs down, those receivers could be situated next to ones operated by cellphone carriers.) The signals would be separated and sent to the customer's carrier for routing and billing.

    "Keep costs down." Did you see what he did there? He made you think they really want to keep costs down. Because it's worth it to take a percentage of smaller number if the average guy gets a break!

    The system is designed to be able to transmit signals a distance of 50,000 feet, and hand them off from one ground receiver to the next while a caller is moving at 600 miles per hour. Because of the height at which planes fly, only 150 cell sites will be needed to provide coverage across the continental United States, according to Jack Blumenstein, AirCell's chief executive officer.

    150 x what, $15 million? $10 million? I have no idea. But I bet the break-even point is at about 200 phone-fligh
    • Need feedback. Electrical shocks from excessive voice volume. Mandatory on all phones. That'll train 'em. And they're less likely to bitch about the price after a few more braincells are fried

      i'd rather have a system on the cell tower, if you talk too loud your call gets dropped.

  • Nextel? (Score:3, Funny)

    by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:40PM (#10145657)
    That should be fun for Nextels, I usually get 30-40 seconds of "Please hold while the subsciber is located" as it is, I can't imagine adding aircraft.
  • Hello, 911? The guy that sits after me looks suspicious, I think he is a terro...

  • the phones will still be eminating the same radio signals. IOW, it would interfere with the equipment wether it was talking to the pico cell or the land based 7 mile cells. So I wonder what is different ? Profits anyone?
  • My understanding of one of the primary issues surrounding cellphone use in aircraft (that the picocell would address) is that lack of ground-based signal obstruction gave cellphones fairly long range in the air, and that range confused towers, made hand-offs nearly impossible to co-ordinate, and caused a huge headache for billing (eg: what cell was he actually in, which carrier was he roaming to, etc).
    -Matt

  • Cell phones crash planes when you want them to.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mgh02114 ( 655185 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:53PM (#10145741)
    Cell phones crash planes when you want them to, and don't crash planes when you don't want them to. Proof: 1) Cell phone use by passengers saved the White House on September 11th. Passengers were able to learn what happened at the World Trade Center, and correctly deduced that the plane was going to be used as a weapon. This is actually a security measure. Cell phones in the hands of passengers is the best chance that NORAD has of learning that a plane has been hijacked before it can be used to hit anything. 2) Cell phones are constantly, constantly being left on accidentally in flight (along with Wifi laptops, etc.) If this could bring down a plane, they would be falling out of the sky left and right. In the 21st Century, the only way to be safe is to build a plane that is immune to cell phone interference. Anything less is delusional folly.
    • Whoa there, chester!

      If the plane flew over the whitehouse it would be shot down. Just shot down.

  • TI-89 still banned (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tom3118 ( 790479 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:55PM (#10145751)
    The FAA, FCC, and the airlines really want to be absolutely sure that there will be no interference anywhere. The article also says that cell use may still be banned during landings just to be safe.

    It seems that the stewardess will still make me turn off my graphing calculator before takeoff.

    Seriously, I though all electronics were tested for interference in important bands. There is a little FCC logo on my VCR. Isn't what that means?
  • I can see it now people gabbing away the whole flight. What if I have a transcontinental flight? Even with my headphones on and volume up I still wont be able to drown out some peoples volumnous voices and hysterical laughter.

    Once you allow cell phones they will have to make it available at take off and landing, I can already see people that will make a big fuss when asked to turn it off while take off or landing.

    Definitely a bad concept for a cranky flier like me.
  • Maybe this will quell the hysteria about electronics on flights. Ever been asked to 'turn off your gameboy' during takeoff and landing? They asked me to turn off my mp3 player too.

    I would think they see GBAs so often that it wouldn't be a stretch to have them say "Oh, it's just a Gameboy. 's all good."

    Granted, it wasn't the end of the world. But it wasn't what I wanted to do either.

  • CDMA or TDMA or GSM (Score:2, Insightful)

    by geneing ( 756949 )
    Which one are they going to support?

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:05AM (#10146908)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Annoying! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CrazyTalk ( 662055 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @07:28AM (#10147958)
    Who cares if it's technically feasible or not, or causes interference - the real issue is, how annyoying is it going to be listening to your seat neighbor yakking on his phone for an entire flight while you want to read or sleep. Airplanes were the last refuge of those that don't want to be made available at all times, and don't want to listen to other people's business. Now, sadly, they are taking that away.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close