Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / September 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

From an airplane?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
William Bray - 27 Aug 2003 06:19 GMT
Can Cingular be used from an airplane?  I know that AT&T has a sky-line,
does Cingular?
Ed Canning - 27 Aug 2003 16:06 GMT
It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations, but yes, they will work.
The problem is the signal put out by the phone in the air will reach many
more cell phone towers than if broadcast from the ground, overloading the
system.  However, in an emergency, I'd take the risk
> Can Cingular be used from an airplane?  I know that AT&T has a sky-line,
> does Cingular?
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Kyler Laird - 28 Aug 2003 03:03 GMT
>It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations,

sometimes

>but yes, they will work.

You've tried it?  I've been unable to get it to work except at low speeds
and altitudes.

--kyler
John Navas - 28 Aug 2003 06:09 GMT
>>It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations,
>
>sometimes

alltimes:

  "47 CFR 22.925: Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular
  telephones. Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard
  airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be
  operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground).
  When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board
  that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted
  on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft. ‘The
  use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is
  prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result
  in suspension of service and / or a fine. The use of cellular
  telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA
  regulations.’"

Signature

Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular

Kyler Laird - 28 Aug 2003 20:18 GMT
>>>It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations,
>>
>>sometimes

>alltimes:

Oh, boy...I hate having to explain this repeatedly.  I hope
that people who are really interested in the subject will
hit Google to find the truth from people who care enough to
investigate the subject.

>   "47 CFR 22.925: Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular
>   telephones.

My Cingular phone is not covered by that.

--kyler
John Navas - 29 Aug 2003 07:20 GMT
>>>>It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations,
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>My Cingular phone is not covered by that.

Actually it is.

Signature

Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular

Seth Heckard - 29 Aug 2003 20:50 GMT
>  In <idm121-n34.ln1@jowls.lairds.org> on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:18:56 GMT, Kyler
>  Laird <Kyler@news.Lairds.org> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>  
>  Actually it is.

According to 47 CFR 22.905: Channels for cellular service,
"cellular" is defined as the 800 MHz band.  Nowhere is the word
cellular used with the 1900 MHz PCS band.  So, based on the FCC
regulations, a 1900 MHz only phone, with no 800 MHz capability,
would not be covered by 47 CFR 22.925, and should be perfectly
legal to use while in flight.

Signature

Seth Heckard / sdh+news@csociety.org

John Navas - 29 Aug 2003 22:14 GMT
>>  In <idm121-n34.ln1@jowls.lairds.org> on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:18:56 GMT, Kyler
>>  Laird <Kyler@news.Lairds.org> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>would not be covered by 47 CFR 22.925, and should be perfectly
>legal to use while in flight.

Yes and no.

<http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/hearing/07-20-00/hatfield.html>:

  TREATMENT OF OTHER MOBILE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES:

  As I said before, there is a wide range of portable electronic
  devices, including mobile phones, which emit RF energy. There are
  different types of mobile communications, including cellular,
  Personal Communication Services, Specialized Mobile Radio, and
  Air-Ground Communications that are capable of on-board, in-flight
  communications. However, FCC rules prohibit the use of Cellular
  phones on-board aircraft in-flight and restrict the use of
  Specialized Mobile Radio Communications when an aircraft is more than
  1.6 km above the earth’s service. FCC rules do not address airborne
  PCS communications and they permit the operation of specially
  designed air-ground devices, which I will discuss in a moment.

  It is important to note that, regardless of the different FCC
  requirements, pursuant to an FAA advisory, it is my understanding
  that commercial air carriers themselves prohibit the use of mobile
  phones onboard aircraft (e.g., cellular, PCS, SMR).

  [MORE]

<http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/cellphonesairlines.html>:

  Both the airline industry and the Federal Communications Commission
  ban the use of cell phones aboard commercial flights. ...

  Safety is the main concern, which Federal Aviation Administration
  officials say is reason enough for the ban. And there is plenty of
  anecdotal evidence, they argue, to strongly suggest that wireless
  devices can interfere with aircraft instruments.

  The FAA used the findings of the RTCA, an independent aeronautics
  adviser, to justify the ban, although it leaves enforcement up to the
  airlines. ...

  The FCC has its own cell-phone ban, but it has nothing to do with
  airplane safety. The FCC says signals emitted by phones in the air
  could occupy multiple cell towers on the ground and cause
  interference with calls on the ground. This interference might even
  allow analog cell phone users to listen to others' conversations on
  the ground.

  However, no study has been conducted to prove this. What's more, the
  ban does not extend to SprintPCS and AT&T wireless phones because of
  an FCC "oversight," according to a former FCC engineer.

  SprintPCS and AT&T wireless phones use a different frequency than
  other cell phones. The oversight might imply that a user of either
  phone could use them in flight, but most, if not all, airlines adhere
  to FAA guidelines and prohibit all mobile phones anyway.

  "You try to write the rules so that they cover everything," said Dale
  Hatfield, a former FCC engineer who is now telecommunications program
  director at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "Since the FAA has
  its own rules, there's not a lot of pressure to fix that."

  [MORE]

So it seems to be just oversight, and not something you should rely upon,
particularly in light of FAA regulations.

See also "GSM Applications for Airborne Platforms" (Masters Thesis), cached at
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?F1AF22EB5>

  6. Conclusions and Recommendations
 
  Existing GSM networks cannot support reliable general purpose
  communications from airborne platforms. However, better call
  completion rates were achieved at altitudes near 1,500ft AGL and at
  relative ground speeds below 100 miles per hour in areas where the
  cellular density (in terms of cell size) is low (i.e. large, widely
  spaced cells). Call completion rates, call duration, and voice
  quality, suggest that existing GSM networks might possibly support
  certain specialized applications that would operate within those
  limitations. Some military unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based
  applications might fit within these guidelines. The conclusions also
  suggest that GSM networks might provide a means of emergency
  communications for general aviation pilots who have lost other forms
  of radio communications. No significant reliable communications are
  possible in areas where the cellular density is high, even at low
  altitudes and slow speeds.

  [MORE]

That would seem to debunk the notion that cellular is workable on commercial
airline flights except during takeoff and landing.

Signature

Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular

Kyler Laird - 31 Aug 2003 15:19 GMT
>So it seems to be just oversight, and not something you should rely upon,
>particularly in light of FAA regulations.

The FAA regulations weren't what we were discussing (and generally
don't apply to me either).

The FCC regulations being "just oversight" still satisfies my
assertion that your quoted regs don't apply to my phone.

Whether or not it's "workable" also has no bearing on its legality.

I'm happy to see that you're finally doing some research on the
subject, but you still haven't presented anything to back up your
wild claims.

--kyler
Steven M. Scharf - 31 Aug 2003 16:36 GMT
> The FCC regulations being "just oversight" still satisfies my
> assertion that your quoted regs don't apply to my phone.
>
> Whether or not it's "workable" also has no bearing on its legality.

While sematically you may be correct wtih regards to the FCC
regulation about "cellular", on commercial flights, the FAA
regulation would of course prohibit the use of any transmitting
device.

> I'm happy to see that you're finally doing some research on the
> subject, but you still haven't presented anything to back up your
> wild claims.

Never does. Get used to it.
jer - 31 Aug 2003 19:19 GMT
>>The FCC regulations being "just oversight" still satisfies my
>>assertion that your quoted regs don't apply to my phone.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> regulation would of course prohibit the use of any transmitting
> device.

Interesting you mention this, as just the other day I witnessed an
incident involving two friends traveling together.  Unfortunately,
they weren't seatmates during the commercial flight - they were
separated be many, many rows of seats.  However, they were having a
good time chatting back and forth on their FRS radios until a cabin
attendant figured out what they were doing, and asked them to cease,
desist, and power off their radios.  One complained (two rows ahead of
my economy seat), and he was told he could refer his complaint to the
FAA after reaching his destination, but in the meantime....

Continuing his rant at an ever-inreasing volume level, he was then
informed if he didn't comply with the instructions already provided to
him, his radio, and that of his traveling companion would be
confiscated, and they'd both be held for criminal charges before
disembarking the aircraft.  Ultimately, they complied.

The attendant subsequently made a summary announcement via the cabin
PA system, "No radios of any kind are allowed to be operated from the
passenger cabin area while the aircraft is in flight.  This includes
walkie-talkies, cell phones, cell phones with games, and the like.
Personal entertainment devices are allowed to be used during flight,
but must be secured for final preparations before landing.  Compliance
with these FAA regulations is compulsory for all ticketed passengers,
and includes compliance with all instructions from any cabin attendent
or from the flight deck.  Noncomplying passengers may be subject to
criminal prosecution before disembarking this aircraft.  Is there
anyone aboard this aircraft that does not understand these FAA
regulations as I've stated?"

The passenger cabin was never more quiet.

NOTE:  "... and includes compliance with all instructions from any
cabin attendent or from the flight deck."'

It matters not what anyone believes is risky from a technological
perspective, if a cabin attendent wants it off, it gets turned off.

And for those curious enough to ask... the incident occured during a
domestic Delta flight between Kansas City and Dallas on 19-Aug.

[....]

Signature

jer  email reply - I am not a 'ten'  ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know."  -- Richard Wilbur

Kyler Laird - 31 Aug 2003 22:18 GMT
>> The FCC regulations being "just oversight" still satisfies my
>> assertion that your quoted regs don't apply to my phone.
>>
>> Whether or not it's "workable" also has no bearing on its legality.

>While sematically you may be correct wtih regards to the FCC
>regulation about "cellular", on commercial flights, the FAA
>regulation would of course prohibit the use of any transmitting
>device.

It's been over a decade since I've taken a commercial flight and I
have no intention of taking another one anytime soon.

>> I'm happy to see that you're finally doing some research on the
>> subject, but you still haven't presented anything to back up your
>> wild claims.

>Never does. Get used to it.

Yeah, I'm catching on to that slowly.  I sure would like a way to
keep my Usenet messages from being mirrored in the goofy forums.  It
seems like that's where a lot of the noise originates.

--kyler
NetworkEngineer@NetworkEngineerz.com - 30 Aug 2003 12:32 GMT
>1900 MHz only phone

Please name a model of phone that Cingular sells that is upper band only.

I believe you will find that all of the phones offered are dual band, upper and
lower, and therefore covered.
John Navas - 30 Aug 2003 14:46 GMT
>>1900 MHz only phone
>
>Please name a model of phone that Cingular sells that is upper band only.
>
>I believe you will find that all of the phones offered are dual band, upper and
>lower, and therefore covered.

Nokia 3390
1900 MHz only
Cingular has sold lots of single band PCS phones.

Signature

Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular

Kyler Laird - 31 Aug 2003 15:19 GMT
>>1900 MHz only phone

>Please name a model of phone that Cingular sells that is upper band only.

The T68i (which I have) will not dip down into the 800MHz (AMPS) band.
While that doesn't make it a "1900 MHz only phone", it does keep it out
of the FCC "cellular telephone" definition.

--kyler
Steven M. Scharf - 31 Aug 2003 16:43 GMT
> >1900 MHz only phone
>
> Please name a model of phone that Cingular sells that is upper band only.

I believe that you meant to ask a model of a TDMA phone that is upper band
only. Cingular has sold millions of GSM PCS-only phones in its GSM only
areas.
Steven M. Scharf - 31 Aug 2003 16:52 GMT
> According to 47 CFR 22.905: Channels for cellular service,
> "cellular" is defined as the 800 MHz band.  Nowhere is the word
> cellular used with the 1900 MHz PCS band.  So, based on the FCC
> regulations, a 1900 MHz only phone, with no 800 MHz capability,
> would not be covered by 47 CFR 22.925, and should be perfectly
> legal to use while in flight.

True, but most airlines can and do, prohibit the use of mobile phones,
regardless of the transmitting frequency.

Furthermore, you know that the FCC simply failed to update their
regulations to cover the PCS and other bands.
Kyler Laird - 31 Aug 2003 22:18 GMT
>> According to 47 CFR 22.905: Channels for cellular service,
>> "cellular" is defined as the 800 MHz band.  Nowhere is the word
>> cellular used with the 1900 MHz PCS band.  So, based on the FCC
>> regulations, a 1900 MHz only phone, with no 800 MHz capability,
>> would not be covered by 47 CFR 22.925, and should be perfectly
>> legal to use while in flight.

>True, but most airlines can and do, prohibit the use of mobile phones,
>regardless of the transmitting frequency.

There are FAA regs for such phone use in commercial (especially IFR)
flight situations, but not all flight ops are commercial and even
for those flights there are times when it's o.k. (with the FAA).

>Furthermore, you know that the FCC simply failed to update their
>regulations to cover the PCS and other bands.

It's not so clear to me.  You would have them lump together *all*
(terrestrial?) cellular radio services which happen to have PSTN
gateways?  That would be interesting.  Let's hear from Nextel...

--kyler
Steven M. Scharf - 02 Sep 2003 15:38 GMT
> >Furthermore, you know that the FCC simply failed to update their
> >regulations to cover the PCS and other bands.
>
> It's not so clear to me.  You would have them lump together *all*
> (terrestrial?) cellular radio services which happen to have PSTN
> gateways?  That would be interesting.  Let's hear from Nextel...

After I wrote that I thought about Nextel, and how at least their PTT
service cannot really be lumped in with cellular.

However when I read the FAA regulations, they mention a ban on
transmitting devices in _civil aircraft_ using IFR, not just commercial
aircraft. Don't most civil aircraft (other than perhaps crop dusting planes)
operate under IFR? At least in populated areas, aren't VFRs no longer
used?
Kyler Laird - 03 Sep 2003 01:18 GMT
>However when I read the FAA regulations, they mention a ban on
>transmitting devices in _civil aircraft_ using IFR, not just commercial
>aircraft.

I'm sorry for not taking the time right now to research more on this
and giving you a good reference.  My recollection is that the pilot
(as usual) gets to decide for the most part what's allowed as far as
"electronic devices."  There definitely is more regulation on what
can be used under IFR though.

If that's not enough of a lead for you to track down what you need,
please tell me and I'll try to look up the details.

>Don't most civil aircraft (other than perhaps crop dusting planes)
>operate under IFR?

I doubt it.  I don't have the numbers, but I'd be surprised if most
GA flight ops *aren't* VFR.

>At least in populated areas, aren't VFRs no longer
>used?

No.

I have several hundred hours of VFR flight including regular flights
between Indiana and California.  I've only gone IFR a few times.
(And those are not times when I'd be likely to have a chat on the
'phone.)

--kyler
Kyler Laird - 31 Aug 2003 05:18 GMT
>>>   "47 CFR 22.925: Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular
>>>   telephones.
>>
>>My Cingular phone is not covered by that.

>Actually it is.

Gosh.  With such sound logic, it's hard for me to imagine what the FCC
was thinking when they told me it isn't.

You should give the FCC Enforcement Division a call and correct them.

--kyler
William Bray - 28 Aug 2003 03:26 GMT
I doubt if this is illegal as several service providers make it
available.  I can think of three providers off hand who sell this
service all the time, you can walk into T-Mobile and they can sign you
up easy.  I know of several folks who make business and family calls
from passenger jets.  I think the only limits that are actually set are
on landing and take off.
  On private plans cell phone calls are made all the time.  AT&T users
report having no problems at all from 45,000 feet.

"Ed Canning" <fcanning@grandecom.net> wrote in article
<vkpi5hfeo5h97f@corp.supernews.com>:
> It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations, but yes, they will work.
> The problem is the signal put out by the phone in the air will reach many
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
John Navas - 28 Aug 2003 06:10 GMT
It is illegal:

  "47 CFR 22.925: Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular
  telephones. Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard
  airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be
  operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground).
  When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board
  that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted
  on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft. ‘The
  use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is
  prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result
  in suspension of service and / or a fine. The use of cellular
  telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA
  regulations.’"

>I doubt if this is illegal as several service providers make it
>available.  I can think of three providers off hand who sell this
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>"Ed Canning" <fcanning@grandecom.net> wrote in article
><vkpi5hfeo5h97f@corp.supernews.com>:

>> It is illegal, contrary to FAA and FCC regulations, but yes, they will work.
>> The problem is the signal put out by the phone in the air will reach many
>> more cell phone towers than if broadcast from the ground, overloading the
>> system.  However, in an emergency, I'd take the risk

>> > Can Cingular be used from an airplane?  I know that AT&T has a sky-line,
>> > does Cingular?

Signature

Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular

NetworkEngineer@NetworkEngineerz.com - 29 Aug 2003 02:11 GMT
>I doubt if this is illegal as several service providers make it
>available.  I can think of three providers off hand who sell this
>service all the time, you can walk into T-Mobile and they can sign you
>up easy.

Really? I don't remember having set it up.

> I know of several folks who make business and family calls
>from passenger jets.  I think the only limits that are actually set are
>on landing and take off.

Wrong. You are disallowed from using one on a passenger airliner ever. No one
makes cell phone calls from on board. They don't get signal at cruising altitude
- only sitting on the ground.

>   On private plans cell phone calls are made all the time.  AT&T users
>report having no problems at all from 45,000 feet.

Total bullshit. Cell tower maximum range is not even 10,000 feet in a direction
they are pointed.
William Bray - 29 Aug 2003 03:16 GMT
Ah.  A scholar and a gentleman who likes to be insulting.  I do not
challenge what you are saying, I am stating that this is an ongoing
practice.  And yes, T-Mobile does set it up through some outfit called
Air Touch.  So if this is all bullshit maybe you should go around to all
the T-Mobile outlets and make sure they no longer sell such services.
Somehow I get the feeling that they'll ask you to leave the building.
  Not to worry though.  I consider the T-Mobile staff I spoke to as
liars.  But that's for another post.

NetworkEngineer@NetworkEngineerz.com wrote in article
<mv9tkvoj0v0dt0fjb5ul7eaek06s4chgec@4ax.com>:

> >I doubt if this is illegal as several service providers make it
> >available.  I can think of three providers off hand who sell this
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Total bullshit. Cell tower maximum range is not even 10,000 feet in a direction
> they are pointed.
NetworkEngineer@NetworkEngineerz.com - 30 Aug 2003 12:31 GMT
>Ah.  A scholar and a gentleman who likes to be insulting.  I do not
>challenge what you are saying, I am stating that this is an ongoing
>practice.  And yes, T-Mobile does set it up through some outfit called
>Air Touch.

Air Touch is now owned by Verizon. They were the local carrier for AMPS/CDMA in
the Southeast that Verizon gobbled up to create a national footprint.

They have nothing to do with T-Mobile. In fact, T-Mobile was named Powertel when
Air Touch was around, back in 1996.
Steven M. Scharf - 29 Aug 2003 05:31 GMT
> >I doubt if this is illegal as several service providers make it
> >available.  I can think of three providers off hand who sell this
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> makes cell phone calls from on board. They don't get signal at cruising altitude
> - only sitting on the ground.

The whole problem is that people do make cell phone calls
from on board, and it does work; even the cell phone companies
admit this. It works better at lower altitudes, but it can even work
at cruising altituded.

http://www.wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact_2
Doug - 27 Aug 2003 19:40 GMT
>Can Cingular be used from an airplane?  I know that AT&T has a sky-line,
>does Cingular?

A stewardess will chew your butt out.  Mine was recently when I tried
to sneak a test.

Doug
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.