 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / June 2005Wha..? no cell phones on planes?
From CNN... http://tinyurl.com/cnqx7  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > From CNN... > > http://tinyurl.com/cnqx7 Something seems a little fishy with Cingular's desire to social engineer the behavior of flyers by requesting the FAA ban cell phone calls from airplanes. Wonder what the real reason is? When a company tries an end run into social engineering I always consider the possibility that they are trying to create an image of a "caring company" to hide or smokescreen an unrelated problem. What's next for Cingular? Banning all cell phone calls on Sunday until after 12:00 o'clock. :-) > > http://tinyurl.com/cnqx7 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > possibility that they are trying to create an image of a "caring > company" to hide or smokescreen an unrelated problem. Maybe they're working behind the scenes to work a deal to supply airtime for the airphones on the backs of the seats. > From CNN... > >http://tinyurl.com/cnqx7 Thank you Cingular! The last thing I need is to sit next to some inconsiderate person talking on the phone as I try to sleep my way arcoss the company. >> From CNN... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inconsiderate person talking on the phone as I try to sleep my way > arcoss the company. As opposed to an inconsiderate person talking to the person next to them? Or worse, me? I can't see where cell phones are going to make it much noiser than it already is. I put my headphones on and tune it all out. Whoa.....it is a very simple electronic problem and not social engineering. You have a "cell" phone designed to work within a "cell". That is a small area of coverage from one tower. When you get on an airplane to activate your phone....you then talk not to one cell but dozens or even hundreds from altitude. That caused a big problem of how to handle it with the network. You want good 'cell' service then turn the things off in an airplane, simple. > Whoa.....it is a very simple electronic problem and not social > engineering. You have a "cell" phone designed to work within a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You want good 'cell' service then turn the things off in an airplane, > simple. Thank you for offering what may seem an obvious observation, but has gone missing in this thread. I'd like to add that cell phones were designed with car use (up to 80mph) in mind but not jet travel (hundreds of mph). Just imagine the difficulty of handing off at that speed! ;-) I can add, as a pilot and cell phone user, that cell networks have been known to cancel your service when your signal is detected on mulitple towers at once since that is exactly what occurs when your phone has been "cloned". > > Whoa.....it is a very simple electronic problem and not social > > engineering. You have a "cell" phone designed to work within a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ;-) > I can add, as a pilot and cell phone user, that cell networks have been > known to cancel your service when your signal is detected on mulitple towers > at once since that is exactly what occurs when your phone has been "cloned". An interesting aspect I hadn't considered. Although to a large degree, clone fraud has largely been an AMPS issue, it's not totally impossible with digital technologies. Multiple system registration would be a nuther kettle of fish for the terrestrial provider, but for the cabin provider, this doesn't seem likely. An airborn in-cabin cellular system would be likely be a dual-face microcell linked via satellite (can you say 'latency'?) or a direct ground link via multi-channel radio as the plane hops from one ground station to another. The former would see the "air cell" as a static point in the network (like any other terrestrial cell), and the latter as a 'hopping' cell within the network - each still offering single cell operation for the handset users. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' Per JohnF: >As opposed to an inconsiderate person talking to the person next to them? Or >worse, me? I can't see where cell phones are going to make it much noiser >than it already is. Somewhere read/heard that, unlike regular phones, cell phones lack feedback to the earpiece from the microphone - so people don't have that subliminal cue to regulate their voice volume, SignaturePeteCresswell > phones lack feedback to the earpiece from the microphone It's called "Sidetone" BTW. > you then talk not to one cell but dozens or even hundreds from altitude. The idea was to create a cell on the plane itself so interefence with terrestial cell site would not be a problem. Your phone seeks out the strongest signal. That being said....as a platinum flyer/million miler, I for one hope cell phones NEVER are allowed in flight. It would be a nightmare. Can you imagine just 20% of a 767 talking on phones? Endless, mindless conversations from bored idiots? It's bad enough now during taxi to the gate when they ARE allowed! To say that it wouldnt be much worse than it is now is folly. It guarantee it would be much worse...not to mention those oh-so-cool "look at me holding mycell like a microphone" Nextel users! The airplane is the one place of solace where my (or others) phones never ring. I like that! Barry - NY > Endless, mindless conversations from bored idiots? Not sure what flights you're on but I hear the same thing now without cell phones. I'm not sure how it would be much worse. Taking a moment's reflection, JohnF mused: | Not sure what flights you're on but I hear the same thing now without | cell phones. I'm not sure how it would be much worse. Not sure what flights you're on. ;-) All the flights I take for business usually are pretty quiet affairs (other than engine noise of course). I would say less than 5% of the passengers talk ... much less in extended conversations. But, as soon as we dock at the gate, and the bell chimes, out come everyone's cell phones. If they they were allowed to use the phones during flight, they probably would. I image it would be much like being one of the 50 people jammed in a telephone booth at University ... except with everyone else being on the phone at the same time. Lifting the ban would probably be good for iPod sales, though. ;-) > Taking a moment's reflection, JohnF mused: > | [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lifting the ban would probably be good for iPod sales, though. ;-) I imagine it wouldn't take long for passengers on the same flight to use their cell phones to talk to each other when they couldn't get adjacent seats. Considering the typical noise levels of the passenger cabin, this type of comm link would provide a whole new level of challenges for the participants and their unfortunate seat neighbours. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> phones lack feedback to the earpiece from the microphone > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you imagine just 20% of a 767 talking on phones? Endless, mindless > conversations from bored idiots? Better yet, give 'em all Nextel phones. <BLEEP>BLARBLHARBLAHABLLAHR<BLEEP> > Better yet, give 'em all Nextel phones. <BLEEP>BLARBLHARBLAHABLLAHR<BLEEP> More like (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) <BLEEP>BLARBLHARBLAHABLLAHR<BLEEP> (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) (no signal) > Thank you Cingular! The last thing I need is to sit next to some > inconsiderate person talking on the phone as I try to sleep my way > arcoss the company. Maybe Cingular can stop all conversations while they're at it. It really sucks to sit next to a person who's talking to someone on his other side ;-) tg. Simply and politely ask him to quiet. If he does no comply, call the flight attendant. When in close proximity of others, one should tap (SMS) not talk. People do that very well in Europe and Asia. Why are Americans so loud? >> From CNN... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inconsiderate person talking on the phone as I try to sleep my way > arcoss the company. > Why are Americans so loud? Yes. Why cant we be more like Europeans! Calm...quiet...docile...peaceful. You know...like their soccer matches! :P Barry - NY Taking a moment's reflection, BarryHill@gmail.com mused: | Yes. Why cant we be more like Europeans! | Calm...quiet...docile...peaceful. You know...like their soccer | matches! Soccer isn't played in Europe. US = cheap minutes, expensive data (including SMS) Europe = cheaper data, expensive [outgoing] minutes > Simply and politely ask him to quiet. If he does no comply, call the flight > attendant. When in close proximity of others, one should tap (SMS) not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > inconsiderate person talking on the phone as I try to sleep my way > > arcoss the company. Not on Sprint. Sprint also has cheap text and internet access. > US = cheap minutes, expensive data (including SMS) > Europe = cheaper data, expensive [outgoing] minutes [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > inconsiderate person talking on the phone as I try to sleep my way >> > arcoss the company. The real reason for No cell phone on planes is the Roaming implications of a customer taking a flight from New York to Seattle and roaming on all the canadian towers. It will also tie up a huge number of channels. This is a roaming and capacity issue and Not a interference issue. I have read in this forum where people have been traveling near the Canadian boarder, and getting huge roaming bills. Cingular will usually discard the charges, but they do not have to. If the feds do lift the ban, al lot of poeple will roam on mexican GSM systems, Canadian systems, and other systems, depending on weather conditions. IMHO Chip > From CNN... > > http://tinyurl.com/cnqx7 |
Reply to this Message |
 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.