FCC To Vote On High Speed WiFi In Planes, Will Discuss Lifting Cellphone Ban

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041215/D8703TK80.html">http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041215/D8703TK80.html</a><br /><br /><i>"Federal regulators plan to vote Wednesday whether to allow air travelers wireless high-speed Internet access. And they plan to talk about, without a vote, whether to end the cell phone ban."</i><br /><br />Allowing it and making it reasonable are two different things. I can see it now. Sit down, get at cruising altitude and launch your browser to be welcomed by a screen that says "Welcome to High Speed Wireless Internet Access provided by Fly-Em-Everywhere Airlines. Please insert your credit card number here. Only $29.99 for the first hour and $9.99 for each additional hour." :roll: <br /><br />Maybe I am being cynical, but <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27059">Boeing announced a data access plan earlier</a> this year with pricing only <i>slightly</i> less ridiculious.<br /><br />As for the lifting of the cell phone ban, I am not sure how much value that has. When flying around a city you might have access, but at 25,000 feet, how much coverage would you have?<br /><br /><span style="color:red"><b>UPDATE:</b></span> The <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=333180">wireless measure passed</a>.<br />Now let's see how long it takes and what the pricing will be. :D

[duncanhbrown]

Actually, the cell-phone coverage is planned in conjunction with a satellite dish on the plane that will beam cell calls to and from a satellite, eliminating the problem of high speed switching from terrestrial tower to tower (and lack of towers in some areas).

However, I'm not so concerned with the technology: air travel is cramped and uncomfortable. The airline food some used to complain about is now seldom served. To top it off, do I want those in the seats next to me (18 inches from my ear) jabbering away on their cell phones during the entire flight? No.

I hope the pricing for this "service" is somewhere between unreasonable and obscene.

[KimVette]

Wow, is the FCC really admitting, in essence, that the only recorded instance of wireless communications interfering with avionics outside of lab conditions was not due to the nature of the technology but due to a faulty installation which should have never passed IFR certification and be given an airworthiness certificate in the first place? :D

[webdaemon]

I just heard the wireless internet issue passed so we can now read PPC Thoughts on flights! Yay! It won't be available till 2006 though, according to the news.

[wolwol]

i thought these wifi on the plane is already available from a few airlines such as www.lufthansa.com and others...
here's the pricing from connexionbyboeing.com
i guess these are all international flights :roll:


Internet Flight
Complete and unlimited freedom to use our service at any time during your flight. Sign in and out as often as you like.

$14.95 for service on short-haul flights under 3 hours
$19.95 for service on medium-haul flights between 3 to 6 hours
$29.95 for service on long-haul flights over 6 hours

Internet Minutes
High-speed internet access when you need it. Your first contiguous 30 minutes for an initial fee and only $0.25 per minute thereafter.

$7.95 initial fee for service on short haul flights under 3 hours
$9.95 initial fee for service on medium and long haul flights over 3 hours


service availability....

http://tinyurl.com/6zpsh



:twisted:

[Phillip Dyson]

To top it off, do I want those in the seats next to me (18 inches from my ear) jabbering away on their cell phones during the entire flight? No.

I hope the pricing for this "service" is somewhere between unreasonable and obscene.

I completely agree. I don't want to be stuck at 30,000 feet surrounded by 50 or more people jabbering away nonstop.

[wolwol]

and about cellphones....well, right now am guessing its the ban that would scrap this plan....


Plane maker Airbus reported progress Wednesday in plans to enable passengers to use mobile phones in flight, beginning in 2006.

Test equipment aboard an Airbus A320 plane demonstrated that mobile phones can be used without interfering with navigation systems, according to Airbus.

Cell phones onboard were used to send and receive calls and texts, the Toulouse, France-based company said in a statement.

"The tests are a major milestone in the offering by Airbus of personal mobile telephones aboard commercial aircraft from 2006," it said.

PDAs and other wireless devices were tested in a separate trial, which capped a two-year study led by German Aerospace Center DLR, it said.

While falling fares drive simpler service on short flights, airlines competing on intercontinental routes are turning to innovations such as Internet access, flat beds, and better music and video systems to distinguish their brands.

Airbus rival Boeing, for example, has developed Connexion by Boeing, an onboard broadband Internet service.

Germany's Lufthansa launched the Internet service under the name Lufthansa FlyNet in May aboard some planes and aims to have it available on its entire long-haul fleet by the first quarter of 2006.

Airbus' mobile-phone trial involved using a small onboard base station, or "picocell," and routing calls via the Globalstar satellite communications network to the ground and terrestrial telephone networks.

Airbus, along with Geneva, Switzerland-based SITA and Seattle-based Tenzing, announced plans to form a new company in July aimed at helping airlines deploy such technology.

The companies said the aim was to enable passengers to use cell phones, laptops and PDAs on planes--and to be billed through their own phone company or Internet service provider.

from cnet:

http://tinyurl.com/469xn

[Jonathan1]

Note to self: Do not fly the first 6 months they have this in effect. 8O

[T-Will]

The high speed wireless gets a thumbs up from me...but lifting the ban on cell phones is not a good thing. Who wants to be stuck next to someone who is yelling into their phone telling someone how their kid's soccer game went, or how the movie was, etc...

[nic]

I don't know much about bomb detection, but I do know that in the right situation a cell phone can make an interesting boom.

There is potential to make a bomb that fits in a laptop. Hell, you can use the laser diode out of a cd-rom to blind someone, like a pilot.

I think security should still be paramount over features.

[whydidnt]

I don't know much about bomb detection, but I do know that in the right situation a cell phone can make an interesting boom.

There is potential to make a bomb that fits in a laptop. h-ll, you can use the laser diode out of a cd-rom to blind someone, like a pilot.

I think security should still be paramount over features.

I've never heard of a "cell phone bomb". I've heard of Cell phones being used to detonate bombs, but not the other way around. Theoritcally a bomb could fit in a laptop, that's why they scan those separately now at airports, nullifying your point. We could all walk around in armor sheilds and never leave our houses too, that would be safe.

I don't think potential "safety" issues such as this are relevant to the conversation, since we can already carry the phone onto the plane.

I doubt you're going to get very good cell service at 32,000 feet anyway, which is why they're talking about picking up the signal and retransmitting via satellite. I would think in that case, there will be sufficient cost to eliminate the frivolous calls that none of us want to here. My guess is that a few people that need to contact the office or a customer during flight will do so, but it won't happen wholesale as discussed here. I woudn't expect it to be too much different than today when there are various conversations, babies crying, etc around where we are sitting on airplanes today.

[ChuckyRose]

As for the reception, I'd imagine that 6 miles from a tower isn't too far to get a decent signal (32,000 ft). Also, I wouldn't imagine the people on the ground would appreciate their cell phone towers going into a melt-down every time a plane with 100 cell phones flew over.

I fly a lot of trans-pacific flights and it's bad enough when a baby gets crying, leg space is minimal and you're trying to catch some sleep to avoid too much jet lag. Text messaging or e-mail, I don't mind. And admittedly, I wouldn't mind having it myself. But talking on cell phones? For 6 hours? I remember one time a business man was placed into economy in the row in front of us. It was a cross country flight in the U.S. and it was when they still had Air phones on all flights. 5 hours on that thing from take-off until just before touch down. Non-stop jabbering. Maybe they were on to something when they priced the Air phone rates. If everyone thought they were cheap to use, then we would have had this problem much earlier, but now that this is coming up, I don't look forward to the day when I have people yelling into a phone two seats away.

ChuckyRose

[KimVette]

As for the reception, I'd imagine that 6 miles from a tower isn't too far to get a decent signal (32,000 ft).

It's not hard to get a good signal over very long distances when it's line of site. 6 miles is nothing when you're straight over an antenna - unless the antenna is highly directional and has almost no off-axis gain.

Also, I wouldn't imagine the people on the ground would appreciate their cell phone towers going into a melt-down every time a plane with 100 cell phones flew over.

ChuckyRose

It'd be no worse than oh, say, towers alongside Route 128/95 near Bawstun or alongside Route 70 near St Louis during rush hour.

[SteveHoward999]

As for the reception, I'd imagine that 6 miles from a tower isn't too far to get a decent signal (32,000 ft).

The towers are not designed to send/recieve signals from the sky ...

I don't like the idea of noisy businessmen showing off their cellphone prowess on a plane, nor to I look forward to Trailer Trash Trish tellin her sister about the great shag she had on the beach in Miami last night ... especially knowing they will have to shout to hear themselves over the noise of the plane.

Wi-Fi internet is a super-cool addition, but since anyone with savvy now has Skype or similar, we will have 'phone' access too even without cell phone approval.

Great that we can have the technology available to us, especially on those longer trans-atlantic flights, but boo hiss to the telephone.

[Jonathan1]

Euugh....I was thinking this was purely from the WIFI POV. I missed the part about the cellphone. Oh god please no. I do not want some self important idiot sitting next to me yacking on his cellphone. If the world has survived this long without having cell phones on planes they can survive a little longer...say...forever. I already can see an increase in air rage because of cell phone use. Heck I hope some airlines keep it banned. I will go out of my way to make sure I get booked on their flights.

[ChuckyRose]

That would be cool to have "radio-free" flights like they have train cars. Certain flights would only allow cell-phones to be used on them, or only have it in Business class and watch the fists fly. :) Well, not really. Something to limit the total proliferation of cell phones on all flights.

As for the melt-down thing, I believe it doesn't have to do with the fact of 100 cell phones connecting to a tower. Usually a cell phone can only associate with one to 4, 5 towers which the switching network can handle in terms of passing off calls, strongest signal, open circuits to use, etc. When you're 32,000 feet up, each of those 100 cell phones are associating with maybe, oh all the cell phone towers over a small geographical region the size of Rhode Island. Along with the plane about 5 miles behind you. And the plane 5 miles ahead of you. That's where the melt-down happens, from what I've been told. Can anyone clarify? Also, I believe that this is actually the main motivating reason why they banned them in the first place. To avoid a system melt-down every time a plane flew overhead. Not for interferance. Again, can anyone clarify?

Also, the VoIP could be an interesting way around the "Wi-Fi - yes, Cell phone - no" situation. Especially now that they have phones which can auto switch between traditional cell-phone networks and a Wi-Fi network at the push of a button. I believe that before I'm willing to say "Whoo hoo! Let's do it!", I think there should be some very close looks at what would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed.

ChuckyRose

[spontaneous]

About a possibility of using Skype or any VoIP stuff on flight....If the packet route is from your laptop -> AP on the plane -> Satellite -> Satellite feed back to ground, and vice versa, ON TOP OF inherent internet delay, wouldn't it be susceptible to too much of delay, to the point where it is unusable??
I would think that inherent delay on IP based network would make it not very practical. For example, Nextel, RF based push to talk service is almost instant coast to coast. On the other hand, Verizon PTT, which is IP based, takes about 2-3 seconds to establish initial connection. That's withOUT delays that come with technology such as satellite.... Delay on PTT service is at least half duplex, and not very noticeable, but on full duplex VoIP???? Ehhh... I don't know.....
Anybody here own a jet? Let’s try it ourselves. I will provide a laptop. :mrgreen:

I would definitely try it on flight though when it's available. Just because we can..... :D