FCC: 'No' to Cell Phones on Planes

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC

The Federal Communications Commission has officially grounded the idea of allowing airline passengers to use cellular telephones while in flight.

Existing rules require cellular phones to be turned off once an aircraft leaves the ground in order to avoid interfering with cellular network systems on the ground. The agency began examining the issue in December 2004.

Federal Aviation Administration regulations also restrict the use of cellular phones and other portable electronic devices onboard aircraft to ensure against interference with the aircraft's navigation and communication systems.

In an order released Tuesday, the FCC noted that there was "insufficient technical information" available on whether airborne cell phone calls would jam networks on the ground.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3004884

---

Good!

[AndyA]

1. Thank goodness!

All you need is some chatterbox taking and receiving calls nonstop during the flight to make you want to give up on flying forever!

Nothing like being forced to listen to one side of someone's phone conversation about hemorrhoids...!

"I swear, Jennifer, it was HUGE! I couldn't believe it. I don't know how he can even lay down on it!!" :rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. I was at Target one time and the lady at the register in front of me was on her phone

The clerk rang up her stuff and told the lady what her total was. The lady kept talking. The clerk waited. I put my stuff down on the counter so the clerk could ring it up. The lady kept talking on her cell phone. The clerk again looked at her and told her the total. I said "you need to pay for your stuff" The lady put her phone against her chest and said "Just a minute I am on the phone!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[guitar man]

60. If it was me behind her

and she said that shit to me, she would have been picking up her phone off the floor in pieces. I have little patience for rude people wasting my time. :grr:

[Scairp]

61. This is a relief

I couldn't stand the thought of 50 people on a plane yelling at someone on their mobiles for a 3 + hour flight. It would have definitely made coach just that much more miserable.

[aquart]

2. Praying works.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Nonsense. There's no evidence cell phones can cause any problems

with aircraft or ground systems.

[Warpy]

7. I was furious when a study said cell phones didn't interfere

with electronic equipment in the ICU.

I worked in the step down unit, and we were cursed with family members would stand in our hall outside the ICU and YELL on their cell phones because reception in the building wasn't that good. We were delighted when they posted signs against using the damned things near the ICU because of the equipment inside. So were the patients who were trying to rest.

People just don't realize what CLODS they are when they're yammering on those things. They shout. They walk into people. They drive like lunatics and are worse than drunks, something proven on "Mythbusters."

Three cheers for the FCC. Now they have to overturn that damned study on hospital equipment.

[merwin]

9. Maybe they should put up signs that say "for the comfort of our patients,

please refrain from using cell phones in this area", instead of lying about the interference with equipment.

The FCC is lying about the interference of cell phones with equipment in order to make people more comfortable on airplanes. How about telling the truth and letting the airlines decide what they want to do?

We don't tolerate lying by Bush, why tolerate lying by the FCC?

[Warpy]

12. Clods will respond better when it's a safety issue

They don't give a shit about the stranger in the next cramped coach seat and they don't give a shit about anyone else's family.

[merwin]

16. Personally, I have a problem with lying to people to justify a policy.

It's a crying wolf issue... if people see enough signs saying "Don't use cellphones, as they interfere with the equipment", and keep reading stories about how it doesn't interfere with that equipment, they might just decide to use their cellphones in a place where it might just interfere with equipment and kill someone.

Lying is lying, and there is no justification for it.

[Hugin]

32. I agree... They should tell the truth.

"Lies for Effect" is so Bush Administration.

[SemperEadem]

40. because if they cared about the comfort of patients

they wouldn't even be hollaring into their cell phones in the hallways to begin with.

re: airplanes. 5 miles up is a bit too high off the ground to find out that it does interfere with their instrumentation. I'd rather err on the side of caution when that far from the ground.

[Canuckistanian]

22. Our local hospital bans them for ONE good reason

Apparently, cell phones interfere with temperature monitoring equipment in the neonatal unit.

[Odin2005]

25. Lying is still lying no matter what your intentions.

Lying to the public, unless in extreme circumstances, is totally immoral, even if you have "good" intentions for doing it. The ends do not justify the means.

[Sgent]

27. Why not

just present it to the board of the hospital (up the chain) that to restrict cell phone usage to medical personnel, private rooms, and waiting rooms so patients can rest easier?

[merwin]

8. Boeing did a test about the use of cellphones

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html

Cell phone tests and analysis.
Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system ). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits. One concern about these other emissions from cell phones is that they may interfere with the operation of an airplane communication or navigation system if the levels are high enough.
Top of Page

Boeing also performed an airplane test on the ground with the same 16 phones. The airplane was placed in a flight mode and the flight deck instruments, control surfaces, and communication/navigation systems were monitored. No susceptibility was observed.

-------

Basically, while the phones produce emissions outside of the operating frequency, it had absolutely no effect on any of the plane's systems and were within airplane equipment emission limits.

To sum up, cell phones pose no problems on airplanes.

[One_Life_To_Give]

37. Want to fly on planes with no Proof there is a problem?

We shouldn't be basing any decision about which transmitters may or may not be used on a commercial aircraft by a lack of evidence that it causes a problem. But instead should be basing it on Proof that it won't cause a problem. If you can't show evidence that the entire insides of the aircraft have been subjected to immunity testing over the entire Cell Phone bands. And at levels equal to the highest for any cell phone plus an immunity margin. Without any effects on the flight controls or instuments. Then it's not worth the risk. You miss 1 antennae inside the plane, throw an instrument reading at the wrong time and we have bodies.

Forget evidence of a problem. Show proof that no problem is possible.

[merwin]

51. Boeing did that test

And no, there was no interference, and everything was well within range.

[ProudDad]

56. You want to bet your life on it?

I DON'T!

"The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system ). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits"

I'm a pilot. I wouldn't want be doing the field testing.

I'm also a fairly frequent flyer. I don't want a bunch of self-absorbed pricks making flying any harder than it is. I like to nap and read on a plane -- a bunch of loud idiots on the phone would make that impossible...

[merwin]

62. You left out the part where it says that the emissions that fall within

the range of the instruments are well within acceptable limits.

It's 100% hype. Many laptops nowadays come with built-in cell phone cards, or owners have put them in the PCMCIA slot. I'm pretty sure that most of them don't know how to turn them off (aside from removing them, which i don't think they do). I don't see planes going down left and right due to these, or special caution taken for those.

As you stated, it's a comfort issue, and interference is just an excuse so you can get your sleep.

[ProudDad]

69. You got that right!

Some idiot's "right" to be obnoxious on a cell phone in a small aluminum tube at 35,000' ends at my threshold of hearing!

May they FOREVER be banned.

[merwin]

74. Don't they still have the right to yell into inflight phones, or to each other?

I don't see the difference.

[One_Life_To_Give]

57. You need more than 1 Test

Every model of plane would need to be tested as a minimum. The tests would also have to be repeated for any significant change to the wiring of the aircraft or the instrumentation installed.

Then there is a check of all the maintenance manuals/instructions. Shielding effectiveness of cable trays varies significantly with position of wires within the tray, etc. I don't doubt that a new palne can be designed/built to comply with the requirements. Back engineering that into the existing fleet of aircraft is another story. It takes a significant engineering project to verify for each model and variant that there will not and can not be an effect.

[Tesha]

38. Go back and read the article; you missed the point. (NT)

[pokercat999]

71. Just with the other passengers as noted by earlier posts.

[mikelgb]

4. they don't work anyway

[merwin]

6. Airlines could install a cell tower on the plane that (for the most part)

would use the same technology as the in-flight phones.

[Skittles]

28. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ASSHOLE CELL PHONE USERS WHILE I'M CONFINED TO A F***ING AIRPLANE

[SemperEadem]

41. thank you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. They did on 9/11

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. Barbara Olsen had a magic cell phone on 9/11?

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Apparently so

[mhatrw]

34. Weird, isn't it?

So much happened on 9/11 that has never physically occurred before or since.

[Hieronymus]

43. Lots of cellphone calls from those flights on 9/11 ..

if you believe the hype.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. it would be difficult to prove

I guess the cellphone companies wouldn't tell you

[AlCzervik]

5. Good, i cannot imagine sitting next to someone on a long plane ride with them

yapping on their cell phone the whole way.

[maseman]

10. Cell phones messing with navigation devices

is a myth. I'm a pilot, own my own plane, use my cell phone often while flying. I don't know what navigation tools they think it will mess up. On older planes many instruments are operating off of vacuum and gyros. The GPS systems are operated off of satellite. Nothing in a cell phone will mess either of those up.

But I hope this myth continues to be mainstream. I agree that sitting next to someone screaming "HELLO, HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME" would drive me nuts. There's very little cell accessability at 32,000 feet. When I use mine I am usually around 3,000 to 4,000 feet and it is still spotty.

[AlCzervik]

11. my dad is a pilot and a flight instructor so i knew already from what he's told me over

the years and i too hope the myth holds up, air rage can be ugly now, can you imagine being a 32,000 feet with some asshole next to you on the phone the whole way?

[Javaman]

59. It would be the first reported case of someone going postal on a flight

I take the bus to work and I can't even begin to tell you how often I just want to punch out someones lights when they blather on and on about the most inane and intimate details of there crappy little lives at 6:30 in the fucking morning!!! When everyone else is trying to get a few extra minutes of sleep.

It's bad enough in the afternoons with the dimwitted teenagers screaming into their phones that have the most annoyingly unique ringtones you could possibly imagine.

Some little genius just this morning had his phone ring to the sound of an ear piercing scream. That was his ring tone...a screaming woman. WTF????

I turned around and told him to shut that shit off, people are trying to sleep.

ugh, sorry for the rant.

[Toots]

13. I guess people don't remember the phone calls on 9-11

Cell phones seemed to work just fine on that day...:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

17. Funny, that

Especially Barbara Olsen's call.

[goclark]

18. That was very strange to me nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Just what I was thinking . . .

[RamboLiberal]

24. I think most of the passengers were using air phones

You know the ones they put in the seat backs and they do work. I think the cell phone story is one of the myths that grew up around 9-11. There may have been a couple of passengers who were using their cells. That may have happened when the planes were flying low where apparently they may work somewhat.

[merwin]

31. A cell phone wouldn't be able to do a handoff to the next tower going

200+ MPH. Odds are they were going faster than that.

Aside from the odds of even being able to connect a call, they would almost definitely NOT be able to carry a call for more than a few seconds.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. then they must have been calling from the ground?

[merwin]

49. That's one idea that has been brought up

[Psephos]

26. You don't understand the problem

No offense, but the problem isn't that cell phones don't work in the air; it's that they work too well. Instead of beaming its signal to a couple of cell towers, a cell phone can beam to dozens of them simultaneously from the air. That creates an immense problem for the cell tower computers, which are trying to switch a user to a single tower based on signal strength. You can end up with massive resonance switching (switching back and forth between towers rapidly), which screws up the network.

Now multiply that by a planeload (or dozens of planeloads near an airport) of people using their phones. Calls start dropping, busy signals start multiplying, and everyone using an affected cell tower suffers degraded performance.

BTW, most of the calls placed from 9/11 planes were on dedicated AirPhones, the payphones in the back of the seats.

[snooper2]

29. I love posts by people who don't understand basic telecom...

"massive resonance switching"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Please step away from the oscilloscope and re-read your book on AC/DC theory.

[Psephos]

54. You could use a refresher yourself

Given that I spent two years as a field tech for Sprint towers while earning a double E, I feel comfortable with my knowledge.

I wasn't referring to electronic resonance (duh). You're not only rude, but ignorant.

Resonance is the concept of loop-modulated oscillation in a system, whether mechanical, acoustic, quantum, electrical, or a wealth of other modalities. Resonance took down the Tacoma Narrows bridge, just as it took down AT&T's national network in the early 90s. The AT&T example is actually rather instructive in this case.

Resonance in cell tower switching refers to excitable, fractal switching loops in tower control software caused by conditions not envisioned in the switching algorithms, such as multi-tower sweeps of a beamed signal from a plane on the horizon. I'm sure you realize that cell tower antennas are tuned into three overlapping horizontal lobes. Sensitivity is very low when above a tower, and high in the center of a lobe. A cell phone working from within an airplane is effectively a aperture-beam transmitter, because the airframe absorbs RF while the window transmits it. When sent from a airplane far to the side of a line of towers, this beam sweeps past the towers at 500 mph...faster, if the plane is turning (as happens on approach to the airport). A single beam can strafe the towers at remarkable speed.

Cui-Qing and Reddy's 1995 paper, "A taxonomy for congestion control algorithms in packet switching networks" is an early key work on the subject. See if you still want to use the asinine rolling-on-the-floor emoticons after you absorb what they say. Better yet, do a bit of googling about cell tower strafing from airborne cell phones. Then imagine thousands of them, simultaneously, on the glidepath to LAX.

Or save yourself the trouble and make another condescending bullshit statement. Seems more like your style.

[mhatrw]

35. Next time you are on a plane, test your theory.

Seriously. Your post is laughable.

[merwin]

50. How so?

[mhatrw]

64. Your phone won't find any network above 20,000 feet going 500+ mph.

If it does, the "connection" will be too fleeting to actually place a call. Your call will be dropped long before you can even connect to the number you are attempting to dial. Try it. I have -- several times with several different phones and several different networks. You can only connect when you are below 10,000 feet over a densely urban area with the plane going slower, and it's still hard to keep a connection for more than a minute anywhere above 5,000 feet.

[merwin]

65. You are 100% correct.

I've also been trying to explain that. I just didn't quite understand your post previously :)

[SayWhatYo]

67. But Psephos wasn't wrong....

and his "theory" isn't "laughable". He is describing why it is capable of causing problems within the equipment. Whether or not the systems can handle such situations is not what he was talking about. The signals will still reach the towers and the switches will still try to handle them, and that is what Psephos was talking about.

[Decruiter]

75. "Let's Roll!"

[Raine]

14. GOOD

who needs all that chitchat going on around you when you are stick on a plane.

[Politicub]

15. Great decision

I love that the cabin of an airplane in flight is one of the few places where I can escape from people blabbing on cell phones.

[Canuckistanian]

23. How do CELL PHONES interfere with CELLULAR newtwoks?

The cellular network doesn't care where the cell phone is. If it sees a stray call coming in, the normal roaming functions kick in.

How is this different from a cell phone in a car on the highway somewhere?

[Tesha]

39. Cell phones in cars don't change cells at 500 MPH.

> How is this different from a cell phone in a car on the highway somewhere?

Cell phones in cars don't change cells at 500 MPH.
Cell phones in cars don't have the "line-of-sight" to
reach dozens of cells simultaneously.

Tesha

[merwin]

53. The surefire way to make cell phones work perfectly on airplanes

would be to have a cell tower installed on the airplane that sends signal to the ground the same way the onboard phones do. The phone will not switch cells when there is full strength cell nearby.

Also, line of sight is not the only issue. Distance is also an issue. When you're 4+ miles up in the air, going 500 MPH, latency is an issue and the cells are changing too much to even get onto a network.

I haven't ever been able to get onto a network, let alone see any networks from my phone while on an airplane.

Give it a shot yourself sometime. The plane isn't going to crash.

[Patiod]

30. Thank God

If they ever allow cell phones on planes, and someone sitting next to me starts yammering away, I am going to be forced to get mine out and start singing or yelling really loudly until the person next to me has to hang up or walk away. And I WILL do it.

We are subject to so much stress and nonsense (limited overhead capacity coupled with huge luggage handling problems, small seats, no food service, etc.) that cell phone use will send passengers over the edge. I certainly will send me over the edge.

Hint -- if they allow cell phones, don't use yours if you're sitting next to or behind a very tall 45-year-old frequent flyer with shoulder-length brown-and-blond hair. Probably wearing a skirt and either boots or cute sandals. Just don't. It's just not worth it.

I don't care WHY they are prohibited, but they damned well better stay prohibited.

[superconnected]

36. Wow, I didn't know ANY rights were still left on planes

oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, they are not.

This was merely a privlege they were letting people do.

[SemperEadem]

42. cell phone users on an airplane

is the equivalent to an unruly 3 yr old who won't stay seated and whose parents don't care that they won't stay seated... however, the only difference is that a 3 yr old is a 3 yr old and an adult should know better.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Now that everyone's crabbed about cell phone user rudeness, the REAL reason for this .....

..... I am guessing, is to preserve the airphone franchise.

[truthisfreedom]

46. There's no conspiracy here. Cell phones put out a surprisingly large amount of power.

For cell phones that are turned on (whether or not in use), zooming along at 500mph will cause the cell networks on the ground to have to change very quickly for every phone on a plane, something the networks aren't designed to do. The high level of microwave radiation in cell phones would certainly end up somewhere in the plane's wiring... it strongly affects audio signals in recording studios, guitar amplifiers, electric guitars, and am/fm radios and hi-fi equipment, and a lot of sensitive hospital gear.

The annoyance factor would be ridiculous. People would be at each other's throats!

I'm quite pleased about this decision. This decision does NOT stop you from firing up your cell in the restroom to call in a terrorist attack or highjacking.

[merwin]

52. Many of those devices you listed have interference from cell phones

they are not shielded properly.

BTW, boeing did the required tests with cell phones to use them on planes, and found that there was zero interference with any of the plane's equipment.

Oh, and could you name those sensitive medical devices that have interference with cell phones, or are you just going by signs posted on the doors?

[ProudDad]

55. For once they get it right

It's obnoxious enough for a dozen of the damn things to go off as soon as the plane turns off of the runway after landing. The thought of having to share the plane with a dozen self-absorbed idiots yelling into their phones makes me want to scream...

THANK DOG!!! I've got to fly next week.

[Eurobabe]

58. Applauding that move

:thumbsup:

Cell phones in public places are obnoxious, why do we want to listen to people blah-blahing for hours cooped up on a plane?

[merwin]

63. I agree. Let's also ban people talking to each other.

I don't want to hear you talk to the person next to you either.

[Eurobabe]

66. My BOSE3 headphones on to drone out

fools who like to chat. :eyes:

[merwin]

72. I've got the Bose QC 2. It's a godsend for international flights.

I don't think i'd even be able to hear a phone conversation.

[ProudDad]

70. ???? n/t

[merwin]

73. You serioulsy need me to explain more?

There was a comment about not liking loud people talking on cell phones, how about loud people talking to each other?

[donco6]

68. Hooray!

I hate being trapped next to some dumbass who is too important to be out of contact for two hours.

[Autobot77]

76. Enough is enough!

I have had it with these motherfucking cell phones on these motherfucking planes!

Sorry couldn't resist. :P