Cell-Phone Calls on Jets May Be OK'd by 2006

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/story/21907.html' target='_blank'>http://wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/...tory/21907.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Rapid changes in technology might mean that using cell phones during flight could be safe now. "It's been seven years since we last looked at this issue," FAA spokesman Les Dorr says. "That's like dog years, given the advances in technology." Cell-phone use aboard commercial planes in flight could be approved in about three years if a new study authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration shows that their transmissions don't threaten safety. <br /><br />The study by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, a non-profit advisory panel to the FAA, should be completed by October 2005. The RTCA panel includes representatives from airlines, airplane makers and the electronics industry. The FAA typically takes six months to a year to act on RTCA recommendations. The study also will look into what effects other portable communication devices, such as modem-equipped laptops and handheld computers and wireless messaging devices, have on aircraft equipment."<br /><br />Quite frankly, I'm not sure I want to see this happen - I was looking forward to it until someone pointed out in an earlier thread how irritating it would be to have dozens of people around you screaming into a mobile phone. 8O Most people talk louder than they need to while on the phone, and quarters are already so cramped on a plane, this might be more trouble than it's worth. Now wireless data on a plane, there's something I can't wait to see! No, scratch that - first I want to see power jacks on every seat and every plane. There's no point in offering wireless data access if your device can't plug in on a long flight.

[Terry]

I'm sure that there are many active wireless devices on board most airline jets today (Blackberry, 2-way pagers, laptops with Wi-Fi that don't have an indicator light, etc.) even if they aren't being used.

Regardless, I'd simply like to see a power port and Ethernet jack or Wi-Fi on board, skipping the cell phone use entirely.

If they permit cell phones, I guess I'm going to need to invest in noise-cancelling headphones or haul a headset/microphone system so I can talk with family or co-workers but not hear the rude cell-phonies. :devilboy:

[bbarker]

This would be a solution for those long flights: NEC gasses up 40-hour notebook fuel cell (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-1022130.html)
Japanese chips-to-computers giant NEC said Monday that it has developed a small fuel cell that will dramatically improve the battery life of notebooks and that the company aims to test on the market within two years.

[robepps]

There is one problem with providing power ports at every seat: fire danger.

Next time you're on a commercial flight, look closely at the general condition of the seats. Are they pristine? No, they're probably worn, with coverings coming loose, tray tables somewhat askew, screws missing, things looking somewhat frayed and worn. Airline seats take alot of abuse and, given the horrid economic state of the airlines, those poor seats probably don't get much care and attention -- not a real high priority on the maintenance side of things.

Oh, yes, all that plastic and fabric and foam you're looking at is not exactly fireproof, either.

Now, run miles of new wires through these seats, each carrying enough current to power a mobile Pentium 4 (which could fry an egg if you let it). Let hundreds of overweight passengers get in and out of those seats and thrash around uncomfortably. Watch those wires rub together, rub together. insulation fraying, fraying a little more...

I think the airlines' cautiousness about this sort of thing is quite justified.

[Jer]

Yes, I agree. Forget about the power outlets. Until wifi is free. I hope they authorize cell phones, so I can get online thru the Verizon Express Network. :D

[CTSLICK]

There is one problem with providing power ports at every seat: fire danger.

Next time you're on a commercial flight, look closely at the general condition of the seats. Are they pristine? No, they're probably worn, with coverings coming loose, tray tables somewhat askew, screws missing, things looking somewhat frayed and worn. Airline seats take alot of abuse and, given the horrid economic state of the airlines, those poor seats probably don't get much care and attention -- not a real high priority on the maintenance side of things.

Seats absolutely take a lot of abuse but the state of the industry is producing a strange phenomena...airlines are trying to (a) get rid of older aircraft which in effect gets rids of older interiors and (b) clean up the interiors on their remaining aircraft. Why? The smarter airlines are realizing that it is tougher to compete on price alone so they are looking to things like customer service and aircraft appearance to try to seperate themselves from the pack and create a better customer experience. Airlines will do just about ANYTHING to create any sort of customer loyality.

Oh, yes, all that plastic and fabric and foam you're looking at is not exactly fireproof, either.

Fireproof? No. Fire retardant? Yes. All materials used in the interior of the aircraft have to pass burn tests before it can be used. In fact the seat covers can only be laundered a fixed number of times before they have to be treated again.

Now, run miles of new wires through these seats, each carrying enough current to power a mobile Pentium 4 (which could fry an egg if you let it). Let hundreds of overweight passengers get in and out of those seats and thrash around uncomfortably. Watch those wires rub together, rub together. insulation fraying, fraying a little more...

I think the airlines' cautiousness about this sort of thing is quite justified.

I disagree, its all about the money. It is VERY expensive and time intensive to retrofit existing aircraft with this type of wiring. Most of the dollars are spent on the installation labor and certification of the systems. There are thousands of miles of wire running around an aircraft with lots of rubbing, fraying, pinch points, nasty environments etc to deal with. A properly designed system should not pose a fire threat. I DO agree that wiring which runs through the seats is a tremendous pain in the a$$ to keep operational for all the reasons you mention. Just ask anyone who has tried to figure out why 10 rows of seat back TV monitors won't work in the 30 minutes of ground time they have to troubleshoot it. Once again, as older aircraft work there way out of the fleet we should be begin to see better newer and better systems.

[Brad Adrian]

I've heard skepticism expressed, though, about whether mobile towers and networks would be able to handle the rapid and frequent hand-offs needed while traveling at 500+ mph.

Anybody know enough about such things to tell for sure?

[iomatic]

Just now, they're figuring out how to keep interference on board planes with modern travellers from messing with on-board electrical systems? No, wait, in three more years? Crimony. Was there no electrical interference around when the engineers designed the planes? What is wrong with the human race? We still have to reboot our computers (yes, even my Mac occasionally) and fix hardware conflicts...how long have computers been around? Computers and electronic technology is supposed to be the pinnacle of human intelligence and I still have to stick a needle in a reset hole. For crying out loud.

I'm just a pessimist.

[CTSLICK]

Well, at least the FAA is finally picking up this one. They have been playing hot potato with the airlines for years on the subject of who should be responsible (and who should pay) for cell-phone testing. Things at the FAA normally move at glacial speeds so 2006 is probably a reasonable estimate.

This topic spurred me to post a rant on a related topic which I posted here (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15801) to avoid the wrath of our esteemed moderator and moderatrix.

[Jeff Rutledge]

I'm not for this at all. I enjoy the quiet of the plane ride. I'd survive I guess as I usually just plug in my headphones and listen to mp3's or watch a DVD for most of the trip.

I would like data access too I guess. But the prospect of a couple dozen salesmen yakking into a phone (screaming even louder than usual to be heard over the engines) all around me doesn't make for a pretty picture in my mind.

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

[donkthemagicllama]

I've heard skepticism expressed, though, about whether mobile towers and networks would be able to handle the rapid and frequent hand-offs needed while traveling at 500+ mph.

Anybody know enough about such things to tell for sure?

You've hit the nail on the head with this comment.

I don't know TDMA that well (mostly work with CDMA in my line of business), but as I understand it, TDMA networks (like GSM) don't handle hand-offs that well (only hard break before make hand-off is possible), and you're correct that you'd be doing a lot of them in a plane. Lots of opportunities to drop calls, and possibly all the hand-offs could degrade network performance as well.

CDMA networks let you communicate with more than one base station at a time, which allows for smoother soft (make before break) hand-offs, but weren't designed for the case where you're able to talk to more than two or three basestations at once (i.e. from a plane with line of sight to many). Chances are users in planes could significantly degrade network capacity.

[rustywallace]

So call me crazy, but how is this going to work? Won't you have to post some sort of cell reception device on each plane? I was on top of the Empire State Building about six weeks ago, and I couldn't get reception up there let alone in a plane that flies six miles above the ground at 500 miles per hour. I think 2006 is even farther off.

[compkid2005]

I agree, this would be really bad. It'll probably happen eventually though. They could make it a premium service like the current airphons (pay to get access to the signal, though not as expensive) which would in turn not make it as apetizing to customers.

[donkthemagicllama]

So call me crazy, but how is this going to work? Won't you have to post some sort of cell reception device on each plane? I was on top of the Empire State Building about six weeks ago, and I couldn't get reception up there let alone in a plane that flies six miles above the ground at 500 miles per hour. I think 2006 is even farther off.

It will work in the sense that you'll be able to get reception... you essentially have line of site to several cell sites to get a very clean signal. Which is also the problem with it... you can talk to too many base stations at once, and you start overwhelming the network. I'm guessing there was some other reason for your phone not working on top the the ESB.

[T-Will]

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Maybe airlines could start providing these (http://www.cinerhama.com/getsmart/innovations.html) for passengers. :D

[wbuch]

I'm not for this at all. I enjoy the quiet of the plane ride. I'd survive I guess as I usually just plug in my headphones and listen to mp3's or watch a DVD for most of the trip.

I would like data access too I guess. But the prospect of a couple dozen salesmen yakking into a phone (screaming even louder than usual to be heard over the engines) all around me doesn't make for a pretty picture in my mind.

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Well, some airlines might decide not even to allow cell phones, to preserve the quiet for passengers. Or possibly, they might have certain flights which are cell phone-less.

[rfischer]

Imagine this: 200+ people all saying "Can you hear me now". 8O No thanks. They would be better off lowering the price on the use of the existing "AirPhones" but keeping it just expensive enough to deter the social talker from yapping on them during the entire flight.

Better yet, forget the cell phones and give folks the means to use Instant Messaging (as long as they turn off their speakers). Hmmm... Microsoft? Yahoo? AOL? Why not? Some planes are already equipped with Nintendo & TVs in every seat (even in coach).

[beq]

I enjoy the quiet of the plane ride.
What magical airplane are you flying in? :)

[beq]

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Maybe airlines could start providing these (http://www.cinerhama.com/getsmart/innovations.html) for passengers. :D
Hehe funny, like an old-tech, portable version of B5's cone of silence ;)

[qmrq]

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Plastic bubbles all around! For anyone who talks at all. Noisy plane rides... ugh. :(

[Janak Parekh]

Hmm... do none of you take above-ground commuter trains frequently? I've gotten to this years ago. Use your Pocket PC for music and either play loud rock music and/or get noise-canceling headphones. (I've found, BTW, that The Superjesus' (http://www.superjesus.com.au/index.html) Sumo is absolutely the best album for this. I can be listening to it on non-canceling open-air earbuds -- and I will not hear anyone -- and it's not even that loud. They just occupy the entire audio spectrum.)

The one good piece of news is that most people have discovered the art of speaking softly on a cell phone in the last year or two. It was absolutely terrible about 5 years ago, but etiquette is slowly developing -- the announcements even implore people to be respectful while on cellphones nowadays. Also, people are starting to get used to the notion of hearing one-sided conversations. I can say for myself that I'm less bothered by it, although the loud idiots still frustrate me immensely.

--janak

[dean_shan]

I hope that cell phones stay banned. I would not like people talking on a cell for 5 hours. Maybe OK cellphone for data access but not talking.

[felixdd]

Is it even practical? A plane's cabin interior is akready quite noiisy...I have to crank up my PPC to twice the volume I would on the ground, just to be able to hear the music.

Sooner or later people will realize that it just won't be practical. Besides I don't think we'll see much social chatting for two reasons:

1) Someone would only probably want to call during take offs and landings. Why? Roaming charges. Most people would only call when they're in the area, to tell their loved ones that "I'm landing"

2) FAA probably won't allow cell phone use during take-off and landing anyways. I mean...it's probably for the same reason as not being allowed to use laptops, walkmans, or PDAs during that time (which I do not know). But cI can see the FAA for saying, "no cell phone use during take off and landings"

[Janak Parekh]

Is it even practical? A plane's cabin interior is akready quite noiisy...I have to crank up my PPC to twice the volume I would on the ground, just to be able to hear the music.
Get noise-canceling headphones. Seriously, it is beyond amazing on airplanes -- it cuts out 70-80% of the airplane's sound. I was blown away with what my Sony noise-canceling headphones did with my iPAQ.

Now, you make a good point wrt cell phones -- especially those that don't go loud. That might be yet another source of a person yelling -- otherwise the remote party wouldn't be able to hear them. However, I believe a lot of cell phones have background noise cancellation technologies built in, and besides, the AirPhones seem pretty understandable when people have called me on them. (Admittedly, I can't cost-justify using them myself.)

--janak

[Jeff Rutledge]

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Maybe airlines could start providing these (http://www.cinerhama.com/getsmart/innovations.html) for passengers. :D

:rotfl:

That's hilarious -- exactly what I was thinking of. Now I'm definitely behind this idea! :clap:

[Jeff Rutledge]

I'm not for this at all. I enjoy the quiet of the plane ride. I'd survive I guess as I usually just plug in my headphones and listen to mp3's or watch a DVD for most of the trip.

I would like data access too I guess. But the prospect of a couple dozen salesmen yakking into a phone (screaming even louder than usual to be heard over the engines) all around me doesn't make for a pretty picture in my mind.

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Well, some airlines might decide not even to allow cell phones, to preserve the quiet for passengers. Or possibly, they might have certain flights which are cell phone-less.

Maybe that will be the evolution of business class:

"Loud, obnoxious salesmen who can't go 5 minutes without hearing their own voice, step to the left."

"Quiet people who can actually take a couple hours out of a day to put their feet up, step to the right."

...now if they'd only group the crying babies with the cell phone talkers, I'd be all set. :D

(Actually, I don't mind the crying babies. I mostly feel bad for the parents.)

[Jeff Rutledge]

I think they should bring in big plastic bubbles that you'd have to wear around your head if you want to talk on the phone in the air. :lol:

Plastic bubbles all around! For anyone who talks at all. Noisy plane rides... ugh. :(

Actually I think it's a good idea now.

...except for those passengers who are prone to air sickness... :pukeface2:

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[JohnJohn]

"Give me WIFI or give me death"

I would actually like to see a Starbucks with a T-Mobile Hotspot on every plan first. :) The less people calling my butt the better. Let's see them tackle the power plug issue first.

What would rock is AC/DC power via BlueTooth

[Jeff Rutledge]

Get noise-canceling headphones. Seriously, it is beyond amazing on airplanes -- it cuts out 70-80% of the airplane's sound. I was blown away with what my Sony noise-canceling headphones did with my iPAQ.

--janak

I couldn't agree more. It makes a world of difference! I've got the Sony Fontopia headphones and they sound great. I'm not even sure they're fully noice cancelling headphones as they're advertised as "noise reducing".

[konfoo]

Cellular is not made for hand-off between towers on devices travelling 200+Mph. Also, before your cell can make a call, there are a half dozen subcarrier connections that have to be initiated to determine cell tower, alignment, BER rates, and so on. This is done in bursts, some of which may take up to 200ms. In 200ms, travelling in a plane at 200+Mph, you can easily have moved cell sites before initialization is complete.

There is much more at stake than just the problem of rapidly handing off connections between cell towers. Not to mention that you may be in distance of multiple towers at a single point in time. This typically makes the cell -> network connection implode. Cell devices and towers have to deal with doppler shift, fading, multipath, and frequency shifting. On a plane this would introduce so much errors that the bit error rate would not sustain the connection. (You have more error correcting bits than data flowing).

The likely scenario is that select planes will uplink cell feeds via vsat or some other customized RF piped data exchange, and use low-power onboard base stations. This same approach is being done for in-flight entertainment (satellite tv to your seat, etc.).

I hope cellphones stay banned. I can definitely see some people going postal if confined to a 2+ hour plane ride with some obnoxious fool yakking on his phone 2ft away from them.

[Brad Adrian]

The issue of listening to people making in-flight calls is one thing, but the ability to actually MAKE a call with the jet engines fired up is another. Anybody who has ever tried to use those seat-back in-flight phones can tell you that it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to have a meaningful conversation.

[Janak Parekh]

Thanks for the feedback, Brad. I have not been able to cost-justify using that thing, so I wouldn't know. This does mean that everyone would be yelling into their cell phones, which in turn are mucking up the towers. What a fun situation. :lol:

--janak

[Brad Adrian]

I had to use one of those seat-back phones once, because of a true business emergency. The background noise was horrible...It was the worst $5 per minute my company has ever spent!

[Jeff Rutledge]

I hope cellphones stay banned. I can definitely see some people going postal if confined to a 2+ hour plane ride with some obnoxious fool yakking on his phone 2ft away from them.

That's a good point. Road rage and Air Rage: meet "Call them back when we land or I'm going to shove that cell phone so far...."-rage. :twak:

[daS]

I've heard skepticism expressed, though, about whether mobile towers and networks would be able to handle the rapid and frequent hand-offs needed while traveling at 500+ mph.

Anybody know enough about such things to tell for sure?

You've hit the nail on the head with this comment.

Yes, handoffs at 600mph are not good for the cellular system.

CDMA networks let you communicate with more than one base station at a time, which allows for smoother soft (make before break) hand-offs, but weren't designed for the case where you're able to talk to more than two or three basestations at once (i.e. from a plane with line of sight to many). Chances are users in planes could significantly degrade network capacity.
Now that's the real issue! When you're 7 miles above the ground, it's not just two or three base stations, it's a cone with a base that could cover half a good size city! 8O This is bad news for CDMA carriers, but it's a complete meltdown for for TDMA (GSM). That's because there are only a very limited number of channels per site for TDMA and the system totally depends on reusing these channels in cells at least one cell away. One airplane of cell phone users could easily shut down a cellular system for the whole city.

If I recall correctly, the FARS don't even allow you to use a cell phone in a private plane. That's not because of danger to the plane, it's to protect the cell systems.

Of course, in a few more years, even GSM will be using WCDMA and TDMA will be retired. At that point, perhaps cell phones will be allowed. Until then, I'm sure the ban will remain. :|

[MortNFO]

I have to agree about the $ issue wrt wiring every seat with power. But also, where will they get the power from? As far as I know, all power onboard aircraft comes from engine-driven generators. If you were to run power to every seat, you'd have to upgrade those generators (development $, testing $, installation $).

I also have to agree about cell-phones probably not being allowed during takeoff and landing. Why? Safety!!! Takeoff and landing are referred to as "critical phases of flight" because if something bad is going to happen to an airplane, that is usually when it happens. :( It's the same reason they make you buckle up (keeps you in place), stow the tray tables (clears the way for emergency egress), put your seats upright (clears the way for emergency egress) and open the window shades (lets potential rescuers see into the plane once its on the ground).

[maximus]

This would be a solution for those long flights: NEC gasses up 40-hour notebook fuel cell (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-1022130.html)
Japanese chips-to-computers giant NEC said Monday that it has developed a small fuel cell that will dramatically improve the battery life of notebooks and that the company aims to test on the market within two years.

Hum, I dont think they let you carry fuel cell with highly flammable gas (hydrogen) on board.

[maximus]

I've heard skepticism expressed, though, about whether mobile towers and networks would be able to handle the rapid and frequent hand-offs needed while traveling at 500+ mph.
Anybody know enough about such things to tell for sure?

Actually, BTS to BTS transfer speed is limited to a maximum of 120 mph. Anything faster than that will be disconnected (personal experience from a previous freelance job with a telco provider).

The issue of listening to people making in-flight calls is one thing, but the ability to actually MAKE a call with the jet engines fired up is another. Anybody who has ever tried to use those seat-back in-flight phones can tell you that it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to have a meaningful conversation.

Then it is time for those satellite phones with noise cancelling headset....

[maximus]

Now wireless data on a plane, there's something I can't wait to see! No, scratch that - first I want to see power jacks on every seat and every plane. There's no point in offering wireless data access if your device can't plug in on a long flight.

What I REALLY want is a device that can transmit power wirelessly into my mobile device. No cable, no batteries. Just like those wireless power converters on the Startrek Nemesis movie.

Well, we already have wireless remote control, wifi, wireless headphone, GPRS, .. why not wireless power supply? 0X.

[Certified Optimist]

I hope cellphones stay banned. I can definitely see some people going postal if confined to a 2+ hour plane ride with some obnoxious fool yakking on his phone 2ft away from them.

That's a good point. Road rage and Air Rage: meet "Call them back when we land or I'm going to shove that cell phone so far...."-rage. :twak:

And then let's add the fact that they are serving free beer and spirits, which will surely ensure people are behaving rationally...

[beq]

Get noise-canceling headphones. Seriously, it is beyond amazing on airplanes -- it cuts out 70-80% of the airplane's sound. I was blown away with what my Sony noise-canceling headphones did with my iPAQ.

--janak
I couldn't agree more. It makes a world of difference! I've got the Sony Fontopia headphones and they sound great. I'm not even sure they're fully noice cancelling headphones as they're advertised as "noise reducing".
Is that the earbud model? I almost got one but delayed...

What I REALLY want is a device that can transmit power wirelessly into my mobile device. No cable, no batteries. Just like those wireless power converters on the Startrek Nemesis movie.
How would it work, flood the whole enclosed air area with highly charged ionic particles? Or flood the whole area with megawattage bright lights (for the device's solar receiver)? :)

[ChuckyRose]

What I REALLY want is a device that can transmit power wirelessly into my mobile device. No cable, no batteries. Just like those wireless power converters on the Startrek Nemesis movie.

Well, we already have wireless remote control, wifi, wireless headphone, GPRS, .. why not wireless power supply? 0X.

Tesla coils!! :D :microwave:

[beq]

^ Heh I'd have to recall my high school physics, but I thought they're not much good for amp/current charging, just for high voltage/p-differential light shows :)

[felixdd]

Or they can just zap people with lightning bolts...certainly reminds you of Red Alert :)

[Jeff Rutledge]

I hope cellphones stay banned. I can definitely see some people going postal if confined to a 2+ hour plane ride with some obnoxious fool yakking on his phone 2ft away from them.

That's a good point. Road rage and Air Rage: meet "Call them back when we land or I'm going to shove that cell phone so far...."-rage. :twak:

And then let's add the fact that they are serving free beer and spirits, which will surely ensure people are behaving rationally...

You get free beer? I always have to pay whenever I fly within Canada. Which is surprising when you think about it. I mean, it's Canada! The beer should be free and the water should cost $$$. 8)

[Jeff Rutledge]

Get noise-canceling headphones. Seriously, it is beyond amazing on airplanes -- it cuts out 70-80% of the airplane's sound. I was blown away with what my Sony noise-canceling headphones did with my iPAQ.

--janak
I couldn't agree more. It makes a world of difference! I've got the Sony Fontopia headphones and they sound great. I'm not even sure they're fully noice cancelling headphones as they're advertised as "noise reducing".
Is that the earbud model? I almost got one but delayed...

Yeah, they fit very nicely into the ear. I think that makes for much of their effectiveness. They basically "seal in" the sound. They're great headphones though. I've used them as my "crying-baby-filter" many times. :D

[Janak Parekh]

Is that the earbud model? I almost got one but delayed...
I have an cover-the-whole-ear model, myself. My ears are very sensitive to anything stuck into the canal, so I only use open-air earbuds if I need lightweight headphones.

--janak

[maximus]

How would it work, flood the whole enclosed air area with highly charged ionic particles? Or flood the whole area with megawattage bright lights (for the device's solar receiver)? :)

I am sorry dude, but it is a restricted information. If I tell you, I have to kill you :razz: ha ha ha.

[maximus]

Is that the earbud model? I almost got one but delayed...
I have an cover-the-whole-ear model, myself. My ears are very sensitive to anything stuck into the canal, so I only use open-air earbuds if I need lightweight headphones.

--janak

I use a backphone-whole-ear model, mainly because:
1. It delivers bigger punch on the lower frequency spectrum ...
2. It psychologically transmit the "Do Not Disturb" sign, when being wear around my head.

[Certified Optimist]

[quote="You get free beer? I always have to pay whenever I fly within Canada. Which is surprising when you think about it. I mean, it's Canada! The beer should be free and the water should cost $$$. 8)

For international flights yes. For domestic flights nope.

...on the last domestic flight I got a bag of crips... thank you very much'a...

And yes... beer should be free... "Stop the inprisonment of beer!!!"

[Orange]

forget the NC headphones, they don't block out the whole spectrum, the sound quality sucks (even on the bose ripoff ones), and they emit a humming noise that bothers (some) people's ears. If your ears are shaped for them (most people), canalphones from Etymotic (er-6, er4p) or Shure (S2, S1, S5) provide isolation across the entire frequency passively (think earplugs with sound coming out of them--that's basically how they work) with wonderful sound, much better than you could get out of most NC headsets.

[beq]

When I saw Sony's "canalphone" earbuds at local store (both regular $50 version and the NC $150 version as I recall), I'd thought that maybe they licensed the design from Etymotic or something :) Small 9mm drivers, but sound pretty good due to the silicone plugs... But it's been years since I heard Etymotic, don't even remember what it looks like...