Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / September 2003
From an airplane?
|
|
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 earths 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
|
|
|