|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > October 2007 > NEWS: Mobile phone use backed on planes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
NEWS: Mobile phone use backed on planes
|
|
| John Navas 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7050576.stm>
Passengers could soon be using their mobile phones on planes flying
through European airspace.
Plans have been developed across EU countries to introduce technology
which permits mobile calls without risk of interference with aircraft
systems.
Regulators around Europe are calling for consultation on the
potential introduction of the technology.
If given the go ahead, the service would allow calls to be made when
a plane is more than 3,000 metres high.
Individual airlines would need to decide if they wanted to introduce
the technology, if the green light is given by national regulators.
...
The cost of making a mobile phone call from a plane will be higher
than making one from the ground. In the UK, regulator Ofcom said it
would investigate and address any evidence of "excessive charges and
abuses of competition" if prices were set unfairly by airlines and
mobile networks.
...
The proposed system utilises an on-board base station in the plane
which communicates with passengers' own handsets. The base station -
called a pico cell - is low power and creates a network area big
enough to encompass the cabin of the plane.
The base station routes phone traffic to a satellite, which is in
turn connected to mobile networks on the ground.
A network control unit on the plane is used to ensure that mobiles in
the plane do not connect to any base stations on the ground. It
blocks the signal from the ground so that phones cannot connect and
remain in an idle state.
Calls will be billed through passengers' mobile networks.
[MORE]
Fairly easy for Europe with one cellular standard (GSM),
not so easy here in the USA. :(
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7050576.stm>
>
> Passengers could soon be using their mobile phones on planes flying
> through European airspace.
>
> Plans have been developed across EU countries to introduce technology
> which permits mobile calls without risk of interference with aircraft
> systems.
>
> Regulators around Europe are calling for consultation on the
> potential introduction of the technology.
>
> If given the go ahead, the service would allow calls to be made when
> a plane is more than 3,000 metres high.
>
> Individual airlines would need to decide if they wanted to introduce
> the technology, if the green light is given by national regulators.
>
> ...
>
> The cost of making a mobile phone call from a plane will be higher
> than making one from the ground. In the UK, regulator Ofcom said it
> would investigate and address any evidence of "excessive charges and
> abuses of competition" if prices were set unfairly by airlines and
> mobile networks.
>
> ...
>
> The proposed system utilises an on-board base station in the plane
> which communicates with passengers' own handsets. The base station -
> called a pico cell - is low power and creates a network area big
> enough to encompass the cabin of the plane.
>
> The base station routes phone traffic to a satellite, which is in
> turn connected to mobile networks on the ground.
>
> A network control unit on the plane is used to ensure that mobiles in
> the plane do not connect to any base stations on the ground. It
> blocks the signal from the ground so that phones cannot connect and
> remain in an idle state.
>
> Calls will be billed through passengers' mobile networks.
>
> [MORE]
>
> Fairly easy for Europe with one cellular standard (GSM),
> not so easy here in the USA. :(
>
I imagine not long after the FCC 'must carry' mandate evaporates in Feb
'08, the old technology will fold up faster than a broken lawn chair.
Mom n' Pop AMPS/TDMA providers that have largely depended on roaming
fees to keep the lights on will soon find there's not enough legacy
handsets roaming around to pay the dog sitter, and they'll sell their
spectrum to the highest bidder just before they turn out the lights for
good. I'll give them a year.
Current handsets won't work well in the noisy passenger cabin anyway.
Further, last I knew, screaming loud enough to disturb other passengers
wasn't allowed, not that screaming ever helped a cell phone in the first
place.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-10-19, 12:33 pm |
| On 2007-10-19, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> Fairly easy for Europe with one cellular standard (GSM),
> not so easy here in the USA. :(
Not quite so easy, maybe, but certainly not impossible. I think
the basic technology to be used on planes is similar to that
used on cruise ships, and the latter (the ships based in the
western hemisphere, at least) don't seem to have a problem
accomodating both GSM and CDMA.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2007-10-19, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Not quite so easy, maybe, but certainly not impossible. I think
> the basic technology to be used on planes is similar to that
> used on cruise ships, and the latter (the ships based in the
> western hemisphere, at least) don't seem to have a problem
> accomodating both GSM and CDMA.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
Ships don't have the same weight limits as a plane does.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| I really dont understand how they say that GSM does not interfere with
Aircraft systems. Perhaps it doesnt, but when I was learning to fly, and my
instructor failed to turn off his phone, I could hear the typical cell
signal sounds when going from cell to cell. Not that it effected anything
but..................
When I get a text message or phone call and the phone is next to my electric
razor the razor turns on. I know it may sound unbeleivable and that I am
making this stuff up, but its true!
"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:13hgdm4tke259da
@corp.supernews.com...
> John Navas wrote:
>
>
> I imagine not long after the FCC 'must carry' mandate evaporates in Feb
> '08, the old technology will fold up faster than a broken lawn chair. Mom
> n' Pop AMPS/TDMA providers that have largely depended on roaming fees to
> keep the lights on will soon find there's not enough legacy handsets
> roaming around to pay the dog sitter, and they'll sell their spectrum to
> the highest bidder just before they turn out the lights for good. I'll
> give them a year.
>
> Current handsets won't work well in the noisy passenger cabin anyway.
> Further, last I knew, screaming loud enough to disturb other passengers
> wasn't allowed, not that screaming ever helped a cell phone in the first
> place.
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| tmoran@acm.org 2007-10-22, 10:33 pm |
| >I really dont understand how they say that GSM does not interfere with
>Aircraft systems.
Several years ago I attended a talk by the then head of Homeland
Security. At the Q&A I asked why they searched passengers for bombs when
apparently all a terrorist needed to down a plane was his cell phone. He
said not to worry.
| |
|
| John wrote:
> I really dont understand how they say that GSM does not interfere with
> Aircraft systems. Perhaps it doesnt, but when I was learning to fly,
> and my instructor failed to turn off his phone, I could hear the typical
> cell signal sounds when going from cell to cell. Not that it effected
> anything but..................
>
> When I get a text message or phone call and the phone is next to my
> electric razor the razor turns on. I know it may sound unbeleivable and
> that I am making this stuff up, but its true!
>
I believe you and I'm certain others do as well - we've all experienced
the same "static" on our <insert name of personal electronic device> for
quite some time now. The primary issue is the GSM handset signal
injecting a modulated signal into the unshielded speaker wiring, which
is within the reproductive range of the speaker. Frustrating as this
is, this isn't an issue likely to interfere with an aircraft's nav/com
or other avionic systems because they're far more robust and better
engineered to be protected from this. Some folks have described a
somewhat different scenario that indicates their particular issue is
handset interference into an I/F stage of some "consumer-grade" radio
receiver sitting nearby and turned on. Again, these are consumer-grade
devices, which are required to tolerate these shenanigans. Obviously,
avionics aren't expected to tolerate this, and are designed to a far
higher engineering standard than anything available from a retail store
shelf or catalog.
I don't believe we need to worry about our planes getting lost. Not
this week anyway.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> Several years ago I attended a talk by the then head of Homeland
> Security. At the Q&A I asked why they searched passengers for bombs when
> apparently all a terrorist needed to down a plane was his cell phone. He
> said not to worry.
That's funny stuff there. :)
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| clifto 2007-10-23, 4:33 am |
| Jer wrote:
> Frustrating as this
> is, this isn't an issue likely to interfere with an aircraft's nav/com
> or other avionic systems because they're far more robust and better
> engineered to be protected from this. Some folks have described a
> somewhat different scenario that indicates their particular issue is
> handset interference into an I/F stage of some "consumer-grade" radio
> receiver sitting nearby and turned on. Again, these are consumer-grade
> devices, which are required to tolerate these shenanigans.
More to the point, they're cheaply made, without all the nice shielding
and good design that goes into the avionics equipment.
--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch
|
|
|
|
|