Post #161,874
6/28/04 9:24:45 AM
|
No it isn't.
I know you libertarians would like to be able to do what you like where you like when you like and fuck everyone else, but there's a good reason for not allowing mobile phone use on an aeroplane - it places great stress on the network.
Normally, your mobile phone can see one or maybe two towers. The handoff routine from tower to tower is not problematic.
Go a couple of miles up and all of a sudden your phone can see a dozen towers and wants to talk to them all. Handoff becomes a major nightmare.
Now imagine a couple of dozen phones talking to a couple of dozen towers all at the same time, multiplied by the number of aircraft in the air at any one time. Network go splat.
Peter [link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #161,875
6/28/04 9:44:05 AM
|
That ain't the reason they give
The airplane folks say it'll interfere with the plane's systems. Not with the cellular network.
-YendorMike
[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
|
Post #161,881
6/28/04 10:11:55 AM
|
Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Psychology, pure and simple.
"Make a call and you'll DIE!!!!1111" <-- stops people making calls "Make a call and you'll fuck up the network" <-- "Ah, fuckit. As long as MY call works I don't give a shit."
Peter [link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #161,882
6/28/04 10:18:13 AM
|
Stop lyin' to me.
Careful, Peter. You're advocating the same techniques that politicians have been using for eons.
Make the farkin' network more stable.
-YendorMike
[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
|
Post #161,887
6/28/04 10:46:58 AM
|
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Nowhere did I say I advocated it.
Peter [link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #161,893
6/28/04 11:01:55 AM
|
Wasn't sayin' that to you
...rather, to the airlines/cell companies. Sorry for the confusion.
-YendorMike
[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
|
Post #161,883
6/28/04 10:23:51 AM
|
Maybe not.
Phones, computers, even radios have oscillators in them which radiate in the RF band. Multiple oscillators reflecting off the inside of a metal tube could potentially cause unpredictable interactions with the plane's avionics. Probably won't, but why take the risk? Losing communications for a short time isn't worth making a hole somewhere. Then, too, they may have other concerns. Would they consider a phone or computer to be a remote triggering device? It's possible, but the prohibitions predated 9-11.
|
Post #161,889
6/28/04 10:49:01 AM
|
The real reason is to use the hideously expensive skyphones
Same principle as a cell dunno the frequency but guarrantied to have the same manner of operation. thanx, bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518 I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #161,896
6/28/04 11:09:08 AM
|
Again, maybe...
Before cell phones/skyphones became popular, they prohibited listening to radios. I believe that the rationale was that the heterodyne oscillator could potentially cause interference. I don't know if that still pertains, but it is a better excuse than customer gouging. I'm really just guessing on this. My ignorance of avionics is fairly complete...
|
Post #161,915
6/28/04 12:12:53 PM
|
Yes, hetrodynes are a concern.
Multiple oscelators working at different frequencies can cause unexpected frequencies to appear in the environment. These frequencies are entirely unpredictable and uncontrollable.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #161,891
6/28/04 10:59:02 AM
|
And it does.
Or at least it can. [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2992973.stm|BBC News].
I recall another story where a test of cell phone call caused an airplane compass to be off a tiny amount, but can't find it.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #161,895
6/28/04 11:05:18 AM
|
get a compass make phone calls, report back
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518 I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #165,140
7/20/04 10:07:36 AM
|
Cringely's take.
[link|http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040715.html|Here] at PBS: The primary reason we are restricted as passengers from using airborne electronic devices has to do with regulation and liability. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commands the air while the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) commands the airwaves. The FCC has no problem at all with you listening to your CD player in flight, but the FAA does -- to a point. So the agency that wants to control your use of an electronic device doesn't really have jurisdiction over the device, just over you as a passenger. And the FAA's objection to your using an electronic device comes down to their lack of control over the manufacture and certification of that device: If the device was FAA certified, they wouldn't care how you used it. Finally the airlines -- the folks who actually implement these rules -- are mainly covering their flying butts so that there isn't yet another cause for legal action when the next fatal crash happens.
What part 91.21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations actually says about the use of portable electronic devices aloft is that it is up to the operator of the aircraft. The Feds (bless their engineering hearts) actually lay out a proposed plan for air carriers to have passengers turn on all their gizmos at cruise altitude, see if there is any interference, then start turning stuff off until the offender is discovered with the goal of creating a database of approved devices. If you think about it, this process of discovery could be completed in just a few days, but for some reason it has never been done. Instead, some manufacturers (well one, Airbus) have gone to the effort of certifying some of their aircraft as compatible with certain kinds of electronic systems, mainly WiFi. Now you can surf the net on some Lufthansa flights, and the connection between your notebook computer and the airplane router is by WiFi, though the actual connection to the Internet is by satellite.
The FCC, not the FAA, has traditionally objected to the use of mobile phones in flight. And this restriction comes down not to any safety consideration, but to a commercial one. Cell phones work so well in the sky that the FCC fears they could command large swaths of bandwidth is one airborne telephone could reach dozens of cells. There may be some validity to this claim, but that validity is waning as most cell systems go digital and smart antennas make better use of the spectrum.
There was early this year a report that a Samsung dual-mode phone caused GPS interference on a non-commercial flight. NASA bought that now-discontinued model phone on eBay, tested it and verified that while the phone met all FCC emissions limits, it could interfere with GPS reception in PCS mode. This result is sobering, but I suggest we look a little deeper into the NASA report, which is among this week's links. There we will see that the phone RF emissions DIDN'T interfere with GPS, but were simply judged as being CAPABLE of interfering. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #161,890
6/28/04 10:53:28 AM
|
that isnt how it works the MIN will attach to the
strongest signal, then switch as signal strength falls below threshold to the next strongest signal. It will switch rapidly as towers are overflown but doesnt stress the network anymore than x phones in network are still x phones in network. No stressors at all. thanx, bill
Anchorage AK: House for sale 3 bed 1 bath 1440 sq feet huge lot near Cheney Lake 175K FSBO 813.273.3518 I wondered what Darwinian moment had to effect itself before we devolved from children flying paper flags in the sky to half formed creatures thundering in a wall of horns down the road to Roncevaux. James Lee Burke questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #161,947
6/28/04 3:24:45 PM
|
During my round trip to Cleveland
my cell (Sprint network) couldn't lock onto a signal the whole way there and back. Couldn't have used it if I wanted to.
lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|