 |
 | 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 / General / GSM / July 2004In-flight cell phone test
Just something different... Airborne cell phone service took a test flight on Thursday... http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/Chocks+away+for+in-flight+cell+phone+test/2100-1 039_3-5272934.html?type=pt&part=marketwatch-cnet&tag=feed&subj=news I thought the last paragraph was interesting, and I would tend to agree... "...Should cell phone calling be allowed on planes, airlines may have to contend with a backlash from passengers who don't want to hear someone else's conversation..." Dana > Just something different... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contend with a backlash from passengers who don't want to hear someone > else's conversation..." Interesting how this is for CDMA. This is also happening for GSM. The big difference is who would be able to use the service. How many CDMA networks have international roaming? >> Just something different... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >big difference is who would be able to use the service. How many CDMA >networks have international roaming? There are some technical issues driving it. CDMA is particularly attractive in an envirornment where you are scared to death of interference. CDMA signal levels are so low and power output controlled so rigorously that interference is a low probability event. In addition, the onboard equipment links to Globalstar, which is SAT CDMA provider. I know someone who flew on the test flight, and the only complaint was the latency was a bad as a two sat link with a landline.... The other problem is that when the smokes clears in the USA, CDMA will have perhaps 40% of the market (After Cingular and AT&T complete the migration to GSM), and outside the USA and CDMA kingdom (Korea), GSM users outnumber CDMA users by wide margin, so either a GSM or a dual standard platform needs to be developed for air use if the service is to have much chance as a commercial venture. However there are quite a few airline customers that would really rebel at having the idiot next to them spend the whole 4 hour flight yaking away on their cell phone. In addition the consistent failure of inflight phone systems to even pay the costs of carrying them suggests that there is no vast unmet demand for these services, and with an anticipated per aircraft installation cost of about $1 million, you have to wonder how cost effective it is going to be, and how trouble it is going to cause... Will there be cell phone free zones as their used to be non-smoking zones on the aircraft? [....] > Will there be cell phone free zones as their > used to be non-smoking zones on the aircraft? Only after one or two air marshals have stepped into the middle of a few fist fights. Seems there's always a few blokes who don't care how much their incessant yammering bothers someone else trying desperately to avoid jet lag. Does trying to hear on a cell phone in a high-noise environment strike anybody as a tad iffy? Can ya hear me now? Can ya hear me now? Yeah, we all can, now STFU!! After the first broadcast of these newsworthy events, I fully expect the price of good ear plugs to command a price as high as the damn plane. That is until someone is killed because they couldn't hear the orders from a cabin attendant to abandon ship. Then all the attorneys step in, do lunch somewhere pretty, and the cell phone and ear plug companies get stuck with the tab. Then, on appeal, the attorneys do lunch somewhere pretty again, one or two airlines go tits up from the financial strain, with the surviving air carriers sporting a plugged hole in the roof of all their aircraft and at least one no-mouth zone (probably in coach). Finally, after about five years or so, I just might get some blessed sleep. <whisper> Can someone please hand me that extra pillow in the overhead? </wisper>  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur >[....] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >avoid jet lag. Does trying to hear on a cell phone in a high-noise >environment strike anybody as a tad iffy? That a problem that is well understood, and general aviation has dealt with it for more than a decade. Background noise level in a light aircraft cabin tends to be right around 100db..... Most of the background noise on a commecial jetliner turns out to Low Frequency rumble, which is very amenable to electronic cancellation (you'd be amazed at the differnce a $30 pair of electronic Noise Canceling headphones like Jensen or Panasonic will make). Cutting out 10db of noise in the right place makes a remarkable difference. If you want to spend $300 for a pair of Bose QC's, they are much better, but I would debat the improvement being worth 10 times the price! In any event in the tests conducted last week, background noise on board was not an issue (at least according to the participants). > Can ya hear me now? Can ya >hear me now? Yeah, we all can, now STFU!! After the first broadcast of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Can someone please hand me that extra pillow in the overhead? ></wisper >>[....] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with it for more than a decade. Background noise level in a light > aircraft cabin tends to be right around 100db..... My adhoc measurements have shown anywhere between 85-110, depending on the cabin location of my receiver. First class typically has the least background level, I suspect due to it's proximity to the aircraft's nose. > Most of the background noise on a commecial jetliner turns out to Low > Frequency rumble, which is very amenable to electronic cancellation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > want to spend $300 for a pair of Bose QC's, they are much better, but > I would debat the improvement being worth 10 times the price! Oh man, I didn't spend anywhere near that for my Bose NC Dozers, but they sure work good with my MP3 player and PC. > In any event in the tests conducted last week, background noise on > board was not an issue (at least according to the participants). Yeah, unfortunately I saw no info on which handsets were used. Maybe their handsets had better ear pieces than the anemic ones most are. Here's a thought... maybe the cell-use zones could be in the lavatories? Not only would it keep the yammering private, but a serious time limitation on blowing through next months bar tab on roaming fees? :) Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur >My adhoc measurements have shown anywhere between 85-110, depending on >the cabin location of my receiver. First class typically has the least >background level, I suspect due to it's proximity to the aircraft's nose. the engines... hence when mumble airlines got ahold of the first batch of tail mounted jet engines in the late 1960s they called them "whisperjets". Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] |
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.