| Author |
'I'm On The Plane!' Phone Calls In Mid Air
|
|
|
|
| Road_Hog 2008-03-25, 10:33 am |
|
"Section 31T" <sd@spamplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fsah55$bd8$1@ne
ws.albasani.net...
> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made during a commercial
> flight, meaning the sound of ringtones at high altitudes may become a
> feature of modern plane travel.
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1310224,00.html
>
I'm glad I've already managed to travel most of the Earth as I feel I may do
a lot less air travel in future or at least only on the airlines that
continue the ban of mobile phones.
| |
| Andy W. 2008-03-25, 10:33 am |
| Road_Hog wrote:
> "Section 31T" <sd@spamplease.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fsah55$bd8$1@ne
ws.albasani.net...
>
> I'm glad I've already managed to travel most of the Earth as I feel I
> may do a lot less air travel in future or at least only on the
> airlines that continue the ban of mobile phones.
Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure passengers used the onboard
phones, at a exorbitant price.
--
Continuum - Meet people from all over the world... then kill them.
Free online multiplayer action game http://www.getcontinuum.com/
| |
| Road_Hog 2008-03-25, 10:33 am |
|
"Andy W." <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message news:fsas8r$pb4$1@ai
oe.org...
> Road_Hog wrote:
>
> Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure passengers used the
> onboard phones, at a exorbitant price.
Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result.
| |
| stillnobodyhome@gmail.com 2008-03-25, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:58:16 -0000, "Road_Hog" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>"Andy W." <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message news:fsas8r$pb4$1@ai
oe.org...
>
>Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result.
>
Exactly .Is there to be no escape from the friggin' things .
| |
| Gordon Henderson 2008-03-25, 10:33 am |
| In article < fsasu4$1lu4$1@energi
se.enta.net>,
Road_Hog <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy W." <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message news:fsas8r$pb4$1@ai
oe.org...
>
>Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result.
I was under the impression they're doing it by installing a nanoCell
inside the plane and having it connect to the world via the existing
satellite connections they currently use... Making it just as
expensive...
Gordon
| |
| ChrisM 2008-03-25, 10:33 am |
| In message fsas8r$pb4$1@aioe.org,
Andy W. <gresd@jhg.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
> Road_Hog wrote:
>
> Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure passengers used the
> onboard phones, at a exorbitant price.
Can you reach the earth-bound transmitters from the air, or would you 'roam'
to a mini-cell aboard the plane at substantial cost??
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-25, 3:33 pm |
| "Andy W." <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message
news:fsas8r$pb4$1@ai
oe.org
: Road_Hog wrote:
: > "Section 31T" <sd@spamplease.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:fsah55$bd8$1@ne
ws.albasani.net...
: >> The first authorised mobile phone call has been made
: >> during a commercial flight, meaning the sound of
: >> ringtones at high altitudes may become a feature of
: >> modern plane travel.
: >> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1310224,00.html
: >>
: >
: > I'm glad I've already managed to travel most of the
: > Earth as I feel I may do a lot less air travel in
: > future or at least only on the airlines that continue
: > the ban of mobile phones.
:
: Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure
: passengers used the onboard phones, at a exorbitant price.
Ha..! Never once seen anyone use one of those. Anyone here confess to
doing so..?!
Ivor
| |
| Graham. 2008-03-25, 10:33 pm |
|
> :
> : Although I agree with you the ban was to ensure
> : passengers used the onboard phones, at a exorbitant price.
>
> Ha..! Never once seen anyone use one of those. Anyone here confess to
> doing so..?!
>
> Ivor
My last holiday was a cruse, many of the parents kept in touch with
their kids with PMR 446Mhz transceivers.
--
Graham
%Profound_observatio
n%
| |
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} 2008-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| In message < va6dnYlREa1QnHTanZ2d
nUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com>, ChrisM wrote:
> In message fsas8r$pb4$1@aioe.org,
> Andy W. <gresd@jhg.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>
> Can you reach the earth-bound transmitters from the air, or would you
> 'roam' to a mini-cell aboard the plane at substantial cost??
>
You'd probably be in range of too many cells on each channel, plus there's a
speed limit associated with GSM that can make operation problematic on busy
cells. Because it's a time-division multiplex system, your transmissions
have to arrive at the base station in their assigned slot. The base tells
your phone to advance or retard its transmission to make sure your
transmission arrives in its correct slot. If you're travelling too fast
towards or away from the base station, it can't update your phone at a high
enough rate and so you'll overlap into what may be other transmissions.
--
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time
| |
| Theo Markettos 2008-03-25, 10:33 pm |
| ChrisM < chris_mayersblue@sue
deyahoo.com> wrote:
> Can you reach the earth-bound transmitters from the air, or would you
> 'roam' to a mini-cell aboard the plane at substantial cost??
You'd have to roam - there aren't too many base stations in mid-Atlantic or
mid-Pacific, or I suspect on the Asian steppe. In any case the beams
probably don't reach upward too far - it'd be a big waste of power when they
could be angled towards subscribers on the ground.
Theo
| |
| David Moore 2008-03-26, 12:33 pm |
| "Road_Hog" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy W." <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message news:fsas8r$pb4$1@ai
oe.org...
>
>Yep I knew the reasoning but I liked the result.
>
Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and
landing or is it just a "security" restriction
| |
| Tracym 2008-03-26, 12:33 pm |
|
"David Moore" <dmoore@spamfree.org.uk.com> wrote in message
news:9a1lu3t1ibu0cn1
3bee54pj1hc6cbj0kep@
4ax.com...
> "Road_Hog" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and
> landing or is it just a "security" restriction
A couple of times during 2007 my SE phone has flight mode, so I wanted to
use it for music, but was told not to use it at all, as the airline(s) i was
travelling with didnt accept it. So I couldnt use it. Carry my mp3 player
with me everywhere still. maybe this will change
Tracym
| |
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} 2008-03-26, 10:34 pm |
| In message < 9a1lu3t1ibu0cn13bee5
4pj1hc6cbj0kep@4ax.com>, David Moore wrote:
> "Road_Hog" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and
> landing or is it just a "security" restriction
On the offchance that it does cause a problem (which could happen, depending
on where you're sitting in the aircraft, which base station you're talking
to, etc) takeoff and landing are the two worst times for it to happen
because there's no room for error. If you're seven miles up and you clobber
a critical flight system they've got chance to do something about it before
hitting the ground. GSM mobile phones can cause interference to nearby
electronics, as anyone who's held one close to audio gear will know. Given
that wiring passes down the fuselage, you're going to be close to some of
it. Banning all electronic devices during critical flight phases is a bit
overkill, but it's simpler than getting cabin crew and Joe Public to have
to determine which bits are perfectly safe. It's also not that much of a
hardship to manage without your phone/ipod/game for 30 minutes or so.
--
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time
| |
| stillnobodyhome@gmail.com 2008-03-27, 7:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:30:31 +0000, "Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}"
<noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>In message < 9a1lu3t1ibu0cn13bee5
4pj1hc6cbj0kep@4ax.com>, David Moore wrote:
>
>
>On the offchance that it does cause a problem (which could happen, depending
>on where you're sitting in the aircraft, which base station you're talking
>to, etc) takeoff and landing are the two worst times for it to happen
>because there's no room for error. If you're seven miles up and you clobber
>a critical flight system they've got chance to do something about it before
>hitting the ground. GSM mobile phones can cause interference to nearby
>electronics, as anyone who's held one close to audio gear will know. Given
>that wiring passes down the fuselage, you're going to be close to some of
>it. Banning all electronic devices during critical flight phases is a bit
>overkill, but it's simpler than getting cabin crew and Joe Public to have
>to determine which bits are perfectly safe. It's also not that much of a
>hardship to manage without your phone/ipod/game for 30 minutes or so.
It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3
hours so ban the use of phones I say !!!
| |
| Chris Blunt 2008-03-27, 7:33 am |
| On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:50 +0000, stillnobodyhome@gmai
l.com wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:30:31 +0000, "Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}"
><noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>
>
>It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3
>hours so ban the use of phones I say !!!
That would depend on the personal circumstances of each individual.
The issue isn't so much as whether not being able to use a phone is a
hardship or not, its whether it's disturbing to other passengers.
Personally, it wouldn't bother me too much on a short daytime flight,
but it certainly would on a long-haul overnight flight.
I notice that Qantas are also introducing the use of mobile phones in
flight, but they're restricting it to SMS and Internet access only,
which seems a good idea. They're also asking people to keep their
phone's alerts on vibrate only.
Chris
| |
| ChrisM 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| In message 9a1lu3t1ibu0cn13bee5
4pj1hc6cbj0kep@4ax.com,
David Moore <dmoore@spamfree.org.uk.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
> "Road_Hog" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a technical reason why you can't use it during takeoff and
> landing or is it just a "security" restriction
Think it's a convenience thing. It's easier to say ALL electronic items must
be turned off during take off and landing, than for the cabin crew to have
to check each item to see if it's allowed or not.
As someone else said, takeoff and landing are the two most critical points
of the flight, where you REALLY don't want ANY chance of something
interfering with critical systems.
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
| |
| mymail@hotmail.co.uk 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:50 +0000, stillnobodyhome@gmai
l.com wrote:
>It's not that much of a hardship to manage without your phone for 3
>hours so ban the use of phones I say !!!
Agreed I know for a fact that over a period of two consecutive days
next week I am going to be subjected to mobile phone nuisance whilst
traveling by train from the UK to the continent and back . I see no
need for people to use or even receive calls whilst using public
transport except in an emergency just the same with the smoking ban
if people cannot do without a cigarette during the time they are
confined to a bus or train I think they must be mental . Not being
able to have cigarette between entering my home rail station and
arriving in London does not bother me in the slightest same regarding
my journey from London over to Brussels and I am an heavy smoker , and
I most certainly will not be using my phone whilst on the train
either.
On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no
smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no
problem but the eleven hour flight I would make just for pleasure
alone would not be acceptable to me regards smoking .
| |
| S Viemeister 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states due to the no
> smoking rule airlines are operating now , three or four hours no
> problem but the eleven hour flight I would make just for pleasure
> alone would not be acceptable to me regards smoking .
The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours,
was in the days of prop planes.
| |
| Chris Blunt 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:01:32 -0400, S Viemeister
<firstname@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
>mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours,
>was in the days of prop planes.
Eleven hours to the west coast of the US sounds about right.
Chris
| |
| The Drone 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| In article <651k5rF2d1iedU1@mid.individual.net>, S Viemeister
<firstname@lastname.oc.ku> writes
>mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took _eleven_ hours,
>was in the days of prop planes.
Depends where - it takes 11 hours to get to the west coast in a 747.
--
Peter
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
|
"S Viemeister" <firstname@lastname.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:651k5rF2d1iedU1
@mid.individual.net
: mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
:
: > On the other hand I will never fly over to the states
: > due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now ,
: > three or four hours no problem but the eleven hour
: > flight I would make just for pleasure alone would not
: > be acceptable to me regards smoking .
:
: The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took
: _eleven_ hours, was in the days of prop planes.
Those are the days Ron lives in.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| "The Drone" <wsne@zzmail.org.uk> wrote in message
news:sOLFr0C2$56HFwD
c@zzmail.org.uk
: In article <651k5rF2d1iedU1@mid.individual.net>, S
: Viemeister <firstname@lastname.oc.ku> writes
: >mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
: >
: >> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states
: >> due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now
: >> , three or four hours no problem but the eleven hour
: >> flight I would make just for pleasure alone would not
: >> be acceptable to me regards smoking .
: >
: >The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took
: >_eleven_ hours, was in the days of prop planes.
:
: Depends where - it takes 11 hours to get to the west
: coast in a 747.
ISTR it was just over 9 hours from Paris to San Francisco the last time I
did it. Never again, I prefer changing in New York or Chicago. It's just
too long a haul in one go, particularly if the plane is packed with
screaming kids..!
Ivor
| |
| S Viemeister 2008-03-27, 10:33 am |
| Chris Blunt wrote:
> <firstname@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> Eleven hours to the west coast of the US sounds about right.
>
>
Take a smoke break on the east coast.......
| |
| Frank Incense 2008-03-27, 3:33 pm |
| > Ha..! Never once seen anyone use one of those. Anyone here confess to
> doing so..?!
>
> Ivor
>
\ /
Hands up.
I did on a long haul flight from Singapore to London back in 2002 ish (being
a bit of a gadget detective)
was on phone for about min and half and it worked out at about £4
NEVER AGAIN
and I REALLY dont want "mobiles" on planes in normal mode - "yeah Mum I can
see the clouds from up ere" crap conversations. Another sacred place should
be the Tube (in tunnels).
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2008-03-27, 10:33 pm |
| On 2008-03-27, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
> "The Drone" <wsne@zzmail.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:sOLFr0C2$56HFwD
c@zzmail.org.uk
>: In article <651k5rF2d1iedU1@mid.individual.net>, S
>: Viemeister <firstname@lastname.oc.ku> writes
>: >mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>: >
>: >> On the other hand I will never fly over to the states
>: >> due to the no smoking rule airlines are operating now
>: >> , three or four hours no problem but the eleven hour
>: >> flight I would make just for pleasure alone would not
>: >> be acceptable to me regards smoking .
>: >
>: >The last time I was on a transatlantic flight that took
>: >_eleven_ hours, was in the days of prop planes.
>:
>: Depends where - it takes 11 hours to get to the west
>: coast in a 747.
>
> ISTR it was just over 9 hours from Paris to San Francisco the last time I
> did it. Never again, I prefer changing in New York or Chicago. It's just
> too long a haul in one go, particularly if the plane is packed with
> screaming kids..!
That sounds more like San Francisco to Paris, with a good wind. The
scheduled time from San Francisco to Paris is usually 10.5 hours, from
Paris to San Francisco 11.25 hours. That time less half an hour or so
is usually what you spend in the air.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-28, 10:33 pm |
|
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfuoeve.i3.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com
: On 2008-03-27, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid>
: wrote:
[snip]
: > ISTR it was just over 9 hours from Paris to San
: > Francisco the last time I did it. Never again, I prefer
: > changing in New York or Chicago. It's just too long a
: > haul in one go, particularly if the plane is packed
: > with screaming kids..!
:
: That sounds more like San Francisco to Paris, with a good
: wind. The scheduled time from San Francisco to Paris is
: usually 10.5 hours, from Paris to San Francisco 11.25
: hours. That time less half an hour or so is usually what
: you spend in the air.
Could well be, it was a few years back now.
Ivor
| |
| Mark Carver 2008-03-28, 10:33 pm |
| Chris Blunt wrote:
>
> That would depend on the personal circumstances of each individual.
No, not really. What are you supposed to do about a problem you hear about via
your phone when you're at 35,000k ft above the Atlantic ? Ask the pilot turn
around and drop you by parachute into your trouble spot ? If the conversation
is a bit of good news, then it can bloody well wait until you've landed. So,
either way what's the point of having mobile access in the air ?
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
| |
| Dave Higton 2008-03-28, 10:33 pm |
| In message <6554sgF2ec1q8U1@mid.individual.net>
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> So, either way what's the point of having mobile access in the air ?
To stave off the boredom.
Dave
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-28, 10:33 pm |
|
"Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:556559874f.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com
: In message <6554sgF2ec1q8U1@mid.individual.net>
: Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
:
: > So, either way what's the point of having mobile
: > access in the air ?
:
: To stave off the boredom.
Go to sleep..? Or read a book..? Works for me.
Ivor
| |
| Chris Blunt 2008-03-29, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:05:32 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Chris Blunt wrote:
>
>
>No, not really. What are you supposed to do about a problem you hear about via
>your phone when you're at 35,000k ft above the Atlantic ? Ask the pilot turn
>around and drop you by parachute into your trouble spot ? If the conversation
>is a bit of good news, then it can bloody well wait until you've landed. So,
>either way what's the point of having mobile access in the air ?
You can often do almost as much as if you were in an office or hotel
room the other side of town and received a phone call about something.
I can think of dozens of situations where you can resolve a problem
over the phone. For example, you might be a company executive being
asked to make a decision on some important issue that needs your
approval. You might be an engineer being asked for technical advice on
an important system that has developed a problem. A lot of people
traveling on business carry their laptops with them and can do at
least part of their jobs as effectively on an aircraft as they can on
the ground.
Of course if you work as a janitor and a phone call to you normally
means you're being called to clean up the vomit that some kid just
spewed up in your workplace, then no, there's not much you can do
about it. That's why I said it depends on the personal circumstances
of each individual.
Chris
| |
| Adam Funk 2008-03-29, 10:33 pm |
| On 2008-03-28, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:556559874f.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com
>: In message <6554sgF2ec1q8U1@mid.individual.net>
>: Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>:
>: > So, either way what's the point of having mobile
>: > access in the air ?
>:
>: To stave off the boredom.
>
> Go to sleep..? Or read a book..? Works for me.
And of course, good luck doing that with some idiot blabbing "I'm on
the plane!" beside you!
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-29, 10:33 pm |
| "Adam Funk" <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:bem2c5-qvm.ln1@news.ducksburg.com
: On 2008-03-28, Ivor Jones wrote:
: > "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
: > message news:556559874f.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com
: >: In message <6554sgF2ec1q8U1@mid.individual.net>
: >: Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
: >: wrote:
: >:
: >: > So, either way what's the point of having mobile
: >: > access in the air ?
: >:
: >: To stave off the boredom.
: >
: > Go to sleep..? Or read a book..? Works for me.
:
: And of course, good luck doing that with some idiot
: blabbing "I'm on the plane!" beside you!
Indeed ;-)
Ivor
| |
| Chris Blunt 2008-03-30, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:46:35 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>On 2008-03-28, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
>And of course, good luck doing that with some idiot blabbing "I'm on
>the plane!" beside you!
What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and
talking to the passenger seated next to him?
Chris
| |
| David Kennedy 2008-03-30, 4:33 am |
| On 30/3/08 04:51, Chris Blunt wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:46:35 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and
> talking to the passenger seated next to him?
Many seem to confuse the situation; substituting prefixes. i.e. tele
gets replaced by MEGA.
--
David Kennedy
http://www.anindianinexile.com
| |
|
| Chris Blunt wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:46:35 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and
> talking to the passenger seated next to him?
>
> Chris
You get to listen in on the conversation and the conversation is likely
to be more meaningful than "Hey, I bet you cant guess where I'm calling
from".
| |
|
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:51:39 +0800, Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com>
wrote:
>What's the difference between a passenger talking on a phone. and
>talking to the passenger seated next to him?
I'm surprised you haven't noticed yet. The difference is the same as
between a passenger on a train talking on a phone and talking to the
the passenger seated next to him. Or between someone in an office
talking on a phone and talking to someone next to him. Or between
someone in a restaurant and ... Or, ...
The differenece is that many (most?) people when talking into a mobile
phone SHOUT and block out their surroundings so completely that they
have no comprehension of the adverse effect they're having on those
around them. Talking on a mobile phone in company is extremely
anti-social; it's one of those things that should be restricted to
consenting adults in private.
Mike.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-30, 12:33 pm |
| "Chris Blunt" <mail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6e3uu3pgepqf2ha
k7ogmpb9kmn8e3g95gh@
4ax.com
[snip]
: What's the difference between a passenger talking on a
: phone. and talking to the passenger seated next to him?
You can't hear both sides of the conversation, very annoying ;-)
Actually, most people on public transport seem to raise their voices far
above the level they would use normally. I once spent 30 minutes on a bus
listening to some idiot female on the back seat yakking on her mobile the
entire time. I reckon I could have given a blow by blow description of her
entire social life for the following month for quite some time
afterwards..!
At least with a bus you can get off when it gets unbearable (unless you're
the driver..!) - no chance on a plane.
BTW if anyone ever tells me talking on the phone while driving is
dangerous, I tell them that driving a double decker with 60+ screaming
schoolkids is *far* more distracting..!!
Ivor
| |
| dennis@fake 2008-03-30, 12:33 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
Snip
>
> BTW if anyone ever tells me talking on the phone while driving is
> dangerous, I tell them that driving a double decker with 60+ screaming
> schoolkids is *far* more distracting..!!
>
> Ivor
>
Imagine teaching them !
| |
| Chris Blunt 2008-03-31, 10:34 am |
| On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:21:36 +0100, Simon <simon@notisp.com> wrote:
>Chris Blunt wrote:
>
>You get to listen in on the conversation and the conversation is likely
>to be more meaningful than "Hey, I bet you cant guess where I'm calling
>from".
OK, perhaps you're right. but at $4 a minute I don't think many people
are going to be making long calls for trivial things like that, at
least once the novelty of the new service is over.
Chris
|
|
|
|