The Real Reasons Phones Are Kept Off Planes 642
jcatcw writes "Mike Elgan argues that the the real reason that cell phones calls are not allowed is fear of crowd control problems if calls are allowed during flight. Also, the airlines like keeping passengers ignorant about ground conditions. The two public reasons, interference with other systems, could easily be tested, but neither the FAA nor the FCC manage to do such testing."
funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that we live in a global world; how do you certify that a Chinese passenger's Chinese cell phone doesn't interfere with a Russian plane's avionics flying into the US? Getting everyone on the planet to agree to these things is a pretty impressive challenge.
Re:funny (Score:5, Informative)
Cell phones are already tested for interference because otherwise they would interfere with other devices. Cell phones are certified to use regulated bandwidths. It's walkie-talkies and cordless phones that you need to be worried about since they use uncertified spectrum's.
The reality is that most of these things have already been verified as that is why you have little stickers on the back of the device indicating that they have been certified. And interestingly enough most countries have similar certifications because otherwise they would have wireless nightmares.
Re:funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Fears aside, I actually like not having cell phones in a plane. For one, I hate phones. Two, I hate people who spend their whole life on a phone. Three, flights are long and boring, perfect for a nice little nap. If a dozen powersuit assholes are having a phone conference in a plane, I'll be turning into a spontaneous terrorist. I don't care if I have to beat them to death with a pillow, whatever it takes to shut them up. It's already enough of a nuisance that people treat coffee shops like their own personal office these days... a guy can't have a frickin' macchiato and enjoy a book anymore with these loud pompous market-slaves invading every quiet space on this bubble.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is much more difficult than simply certifying every cell phone design as safe. The problem is that a small number of cell phones might have shielding that becomes ineffective, either through a problem during manufacturing, or something that happens in service (dropped cell phone, cell phone disassembled and reassembled by curious geek, etc).
And, it is possible that the avionics or coax cabling in some aircraft might be not quite up to snuff. So, most aircraft of a given design are OK, when
Mythbusters already did it. (Score:5, Informative)
"It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did interfere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to stay on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne." -Wikipedia
You can read more about it here: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the electronics on an aircraft are located either in compartments in the nose or tail, or in bays below central fuselage areas (depending on specific aircraft).
What you see in the panels in the cockpit are 'control and indicator' heads, which house only display and switching to conserve precious cockpit panel space. They are linked by cabling to the actual
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Old airbus models had severe interference problems from old pre-GSM cellular network phones. That has been confirmed many times. I have seen that myself in the early 90-es.
2. No test has ever proven any GSM phone to interfere with plane equipment (do not care about the US ragtag of network spagetty).
3. A modern GSM base station (and EU style 3G node B) is small enough to be put on a plane. If there is a local BTS it can enforce power control criteria on any phone which it camps on. Further to this, there is at least one reject code which will shutdown and lock up a phone solid with its radio off (only really old Samsungs violate the spec and reboot, rest follows it). So having phone support and local kit on the planes is actually beneficial as it allows airlines to ensure that "interfering" mobiles are powered down to their lowest possible transmit power or are outright off.
4. The commercial reason for not having mobiles on planes is easily resolved once again by putting basestations and the airline entering into a special roaming agreement with an operator. Plenty of Timbuktu GSM operators to do so, some are actively looking into entering these partnerships. Once again - the US ragtag of cellular non-standard networks is the loser. The airline skims a portion of an outright exorbitant roaming fee and everyone is a happy camper. There is a number of airlines that already have the kit in place and/or are testing it. There are also more than one company producing these as well.
So it all boils down to crowd control and to the airline ensuring that it does not end up on the receiving end of a lot of angry customers who have just received a 90$+ phone bill for a 10 minute call from the inlaw while on the plane.
This and the fear of "organised terrorists". Not that it is possible as the current generation of kit will run any voice channels all the way to the ground and back for an in-plane call. As a result anyone trying to organise a "terrorist attack" will simply fail as the plane will run out of channels to the ground right away. This is also the reason why the producers of this type of kit keep targeting the plane market and not the much more lucrative cruise ship and ferry market. A cruise ship is not subject to stupid FAA restrictions, but it has a disproportionately large proportion of local calls (where are you, I am in bar on level 7, ok, I am on level 3).
Re:funny (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and good luck with the E911 crap... In the course of a minute, you've gone from the east end of a major city to the west end according to the cells.
Re:funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:9-11? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:funny (Score:5, Funny)
Hello operator, I need a fire truck with a REEEALLY long ladder.
Though if things are that big an emergency, when they need your location it'll be "that big smoking crater".
Re:funny (Score:5, Interesting)
In the U.S., Class A FM broadcasting stations are limited to a power of 6,000 watts at a maximum antenna height of 100m. Higher antennas are allowed if the power is reduced to compensate. [fcc.gov]At an antenna elevation of 600m, power must be reduced to only 150 watts (?!) to achieve the same distance coverage. Translate those figures to a cell phone with a rated power of no more than 3 watts, and you're talking about limiting power to 0.08 watt at 600m.
Of course, commercial aircraft fly a LOT higher than 600m!
The cellular network has far more subscribers than it has channels. To work, it depends on the ability to reuse a channel throughout the service area. If I place a phone call from my home 40km northwest of Nashville, the same channel can be reused in downtown Nashville, and on the city's west side, and in Donelson, and Brentwood, and Smyrna, etc., etc... My phone, about 1.2m off the ground, has a range of only about 6km.
If I place that call from an airplane flying 8,000m above my home, every base station in the greater Nashville area can receive my signals. Now, "my" channel cannot be reused at all.
If it were just me, that wouldn't be a problem. If it were, say, 10% of the passengers on each flight - well, I don't think it's hard to see how that could use up all available channels in a hurry. New channels aren't cheap. Nextel is paying to replace [2ghzrelocation.com]almost *all* the microwave remote broadcast equipment in use by U.S. TV stations, so they can free up some remote broadcast spectrum for use as cellular-telephone channels.
Here's an idea: allow calls from aircraft, but allow cellular providers to charge enough extra for airborne calls to cover their costs in adding more channels. I'll bet after the next billing cycle, the number of calls made from aircraft would plummet!
Mountians and tall buildings (Score:3, Interesting)
If this was a serious problem they would at least have signs telling us not to use our cell phones in high places. Even if they could not enforce it it would help.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
re; Are you *sure* this is still an issue? (Score:5, Informative)
He claimed that in reality, this process doesn't "tax" the towers inordinately at all. The "bandwidth" tied up is no more than a regular call would tie up, since the towers are rejecting the extra instances of the connection to the phone. There's simply a small amount of overhead involved in the towers passing along the information to each other about the status of your connection.
(I believe this type of software also comes into play for handling problems of "cloned" cellphones. If a connection shows up simultaneously on towers that are spread far apart, they know they're dealing with not just 1 legitimate phone, but also a duplicate in service elsewhere.)
Re:re; Are you *sure* this is still an issue? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say your phone is connected to Cell A and is talking on channel 375. You aren't using Cell B. But you are using channel 375. If Cell B tries to assign channel 375 for someone else's call, your phone is going to interfere with theirs. If you're flying at 15,000 feet, you're only going to tie up one cell at a time -- but you're going to tie up channel 375 for as far as 100km or more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which technology are you describing? It doesn't sound accurate to me, but I'm familiar in only 3GPP standards.
A GSM handset may monitor many cells at one time, basically reading some broadcast data (BSIC etc...) and monitoring the signal level, but it will only be transmitting to one cell at any one time. The broadcast channels from cell towers are constantly on, and an accepted overhead that makes the system work - monitoring these broadcast channels takes no bandwidth from other users.
A WCDMA FDD han
FDMA, TDMA, CDMA, oh my! (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if you've got a first generation analog brick-phone using FDMA. Since G2, the handset/cell interaction has been digital (The cell network was always digital) using TDMA or CDMA.
TDMA on a moving target requires the handset ensure that the transmission occurs during its assigned timeslot. There is an acceptable amount of error built into the length of the guard interval between assigned timeslots. Violate the TMA assumptions of the code for calculating transmission timing significantly enough and t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cell tower troubles (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cell phones don't try to talk to as many towers as they can. They generally have a relatively short list of towers that they are interested in at a time (active set). They may scan as many towers as they can hear at once, but then they'll only keep track of perhaps the top 3. Even then, they aren't in constant communication with them. Cell scanning doesn't require any involvement on the part of the tower itself. The tower will be generating a pilot signal. The pilot is sent at a kn
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, the real solution is to have picocells onboard the airplanes. In the mean time
Re:funny, most inseatphones are not active. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also the only phones still avaliable on planes are run by ARINC and SITA, which both now have a picocell replacements under testing for installation this year.
There is no technical nor marketing reason you can't have a cell phone on board, if cell phones were a real danger then they would not be in carry on allowance anymore.
FAA is very conservative, and the FCC is a political body.
That is all
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's the aircraft manufacturers.
Boeing and Airbus both run tests, and there IS interference with some of the more sensitive systems on the plane, like, duh, navigation. GPS is better at high altitudes, but when you have to get 6 data values from GPS, you need many more satellite receptions than for just location. Modern planes don't use just gyros for roll/pitch/yaw rates, they confirm it with GPS data. As one might expect,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have no respect for people that don't try to understand the sensitivity of avionics and then reject every technical argument as "political cover-up".
People like conspiracy theories. They're more emotionally satisfying than banal technical explanations. Take a popular urban legend, find somebody who believes it, and try to pick hobs in it. You'll get nowhere.
My favorite example is the one about the bodies of all the dead construction workers buried in Hoover Dam, supposedly to conceal the high rate of accidental deaths on that project. Construction engineers have no patience with that one -- the builders went to a lot of trouble to control t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty easy to determine that your navigation equipment may be unreliable when it's lightning out. Not so much when someone is fiddling with their electronic device.
Re:funny, most inseatphones are not active. (Score:5, Interesting)
What do cellphones talk to? Cell towers. Where are those towers? EVERYWHERE, and they all operate at much higher power levels than any handset.
If there was some sort of danger, cell tower signals from the ground -particularly towers near airports where they are always A LOT of such towers- would be knocking planes out of the sky on an hourly basis from miles away. Every airliner in the sky flies over hundreds of these towers on every flight. It would be like the worst anti-aircraft fire ever devised.
But it doesn't happen.
And cell towers are hardly the most powerful transmitters in the wild. A cell tower throws out a couple watts. A TV transmitter can throw out a million watts and there are thousands of those towers too.
Aircraft operate happily amid a sea of RF and generally nothing goes wrong. So the idea that a wimpy little cell handset are threats are just overblown assumptions, unproven and unrealistic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:funny (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the crowd control theory either.
In the six years I worked at an airline, I've never heard anyone speak of passengers as negatively as this article does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too true (Score:5, Funny)
Re:funny (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like the cost is about $1.29 / minute. I don't know what kind of phones they might use, but a basic phone costs about $1500 according to here [telestial.com]
How about keeping some peace and quiet?? (Score:2)
Re:How about keeping some peace and quiet?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, if that was really the reason then you'd have to ask why planes have reclining seats and music via headphones. Each of those is equally capable of being annoying.
TFA's "they don't want testing because testing costs money" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. Just because planes could be allowed to tested for phone usage doesn't mean planes would have to allow phones to be used. It would be up to the plane manufacturers to decide to have their plane designed and tested for that "feature" and then up to the airlines if they wanted to pay the inevitable extra cost for such a plane, and then of course pass that on in extra cost to the passengers.
I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:5, Interesting)
The real reason? Its bad enough when people are yapping on their phones constantly on the ground. Getting stuck on a plane near someone who won't shut up on the phone is MUCH MUCH worse due to the duration and the captive audience. For that reason I hope cell phones are never allowed (and if they are it should be a cell phone only section kept reasonable sound proof from the rest of the plane).
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it was Jet Blue that had the situation where passengers could see the news about their flight through satellite TV, something about damaged landing gear. I don't remember anything about a crew or passenger mutiny in the news reports.
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Wifi on planes will be MUCH less of a problem in terms of annoyance to other passengers.
Unfortunately, the best solution is the one that is already in place on some planes - a public pay phone in the seat. It costs money to use, so people won't use it idly, but important business and personal calls that justify the cost can still be made.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't buy the crowd control thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong: sidetone *is* an effect of the copper loop (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the copper loop is a complex impedance and varies with line construction. There are various balance network options (e.g. TN12, etc) which try to approximate a 'best match' to the line, but they're not perfect. The end result is imperfect isolation across the hybrid - i.e. some microphon
FUD (Score:2)
doesn't matter (Score:2)
Easily Tested? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not easily tested at all (Score:5, Insightful)
And testing individual phones isn't sufficient. What happens when 100 people all use their phones at the same time.
Has been tested (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm [post-gazette.com]
I think I'll trust real research from CMU over a vapid so-called journalist who probably just can't stand not yapping on his cell-phone.
BTW, it doesn't matter if some or even nearly all cell phones don't cause interference with flight controls. All it takes is one person using one that does and things get ugly. Likewise, most airplanes have a mix of avionic equipment. Some of it is new where the cost/benefit makes it worth it for the airline to upgrade and some of it is old. Rather than test each airplane independently, it makes more sense to just say "no" until someone comes up with a way that is known to be absolutely safe regardless of the equipment on the airplane.
Cheers,
Dave
I'm fine with the ban (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd be ok with the cellph
Re:I'm fine with the ban (Score:4, Interesting)
What *does* bug me the most about travelling on planes:
1. Fat people. No offense, but I feel like I have a right to my entire seat and 50% of the armrest. I don't mean to offend obese people, but if they cannot respect my rights to that space without elbows and legs brushing against me for the entire flight, they need to purchase a first class seat or two seats or something. No, it's *not* ok to plop yourself down and arrogantly and comfortably take up the entire both armrests on both sides of you. If you are fat, it's your fault. Period.
2. Smelly people.
3. People who aren't nice about travel needs (like having to get up to go to the bathroom, get up to walk around because you have a medical condition that requires you to), people who argue with flight attendants about stupid stuff ("No! I paid for this seat and I'm *not* moving" [even though an old woman really needs that seat])
4. People who aren't nice to you. I was once on a flight and after the lights were turned off in cruising altitude, I slowly put my seat back to go to sleep. A couple of minutes later, the guy behind me started pounding on the seat, probably trying to tell me to put my seat back in the upright position. He didn't bother to talk at all, didn't bother to get up and at least signal at me nicely if he didn't speak English, he didn't do anything. He just kept pounding on my seat for the entire flight, periodically.
5. People who rest their hands on the top of the seat in front of them, in a fashion that causes their fingers to touch the person's hair in front, and refuse to remove their hand.
6. People who look so antisocial and angry-faced and silent that you can't figure out if they have some terrorist plot behind their eyes. Cheerful people are much easier to be around.
7. People who think that a flight is the place to hit on girls.
journalist statistics (Score:2)
Millions of man hours in playing solitaire/minesweeper is costing billions per year in lost productivity and taxes for the government. I say that the FAA and FCC get together and put a ban on these, especially while in flight.
myth busted? (Score:2)
I've never heard of any incident where navigation equipment was actually affected by a cell phone in the real world. Wouldn't you think if it were even possible, it would have happened at least once?
Recently I was on a flight where this chick yacked on some business call for almost 30 minutes while we were waiting to back out from the gat
Re: (Score:2)
And on Page 2, the real real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
however:
you know, I'd rather the government (of whichever country) err on the side of caution, actually: "Well, we can't tell whether cellphones might cause crashes, so we'll just allow them and see what happens"?
Bottom line for me: people are annoying with cellphones. Now imagine sitting next to the guy talking shite for all 12 hours of a long haul flight. I'd hijack the plane just to shut him up. Keep the ban, people can surely live without cellphones for the duration of a flight... surely?
Billions and billions (Score:5, Insightful)
What the author completely fails to address is the noise that ensues if you have ten businesspeople in first class all "doing business" on a cell phone at the same time. Are they supposed to wander the aisles and pace as they talk? Or merely talk over one another in increasingly loud voices?
There's something about a long tube that seems to suggest to people that maybe conversation should be kept to a minimum. Not only planes, but buses and subways and trains too. In my experience riding public transit, most people do not chatter on their phones endlessly. In part, I think, because there's an unconscious realization that the guy standing 6 inches away (that you can't move away from) does not want or need to hear your prattle.
Doubtful (Score:3, Informative)
It takes a little planning to find something to do but it's really not hard to make semi-productive use of that time.
Re:Billions and billions (Score:5, Insightful)
As for billions in lost productivity (that number sounds rather high to me) because of people flying, big freakin' deal. Businesses have existed for thousands of years without cell phones, a few hours disconnected here and there won't put our economy into a recession.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Calmly take the cellphone, push it down your underpants and give it a good rub around there. Hand it back, smiling silently.
I guarantee that you won't have to worry about that person putting the cellphone anywhere near their face for the remainder of the flight.
Cell hopping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Author is an idiot; the carrier reason is valid (Score:5, Informative)
Mike Elgan, the article's author brushes off the problem of an airborne cell phone seeing a large number of cell towers at once. He claims it could be easy to fix with a software upgrade to the towers. Nonsense. The fundamental problem is that there is only a finite range of frequencies for cell phone calls. The more towers a given phone's signal is visible to, the more towers whose frequencies you're chewing up. Redesigning the system to support cell calls would be massively expensive. Is the value of being able to make cell calls from a plane really that valuable? Who is going to pay for the overhaul? Elgan is just whining.
Elgan points out that Europe is working on making this work. Tellingly, they're not just letting the phones connect to towers normally; they're shielding the cabin and routing connections through dedicated on-plane hardware. This is reasonable as it means you have a single source (the plane's hardware) that can far more efficiently utilize tower frequency space. Furthermore, the cost of making the changes falls on the airlines, who will pass it on to the logical people: the fliers who want to use this service.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Response from a Pilot (Score:5, Interesting)
Without further prefacing, here is my original post:
You mention in your article that "Many headsets used by private pilots come with jacks for using them with cell phones. The manufacturers say they're for use on the ground only. But many private pilots use them in the air without incident."
I fall into this category. However, I've also seen the dangers of airborne cell phone use. I carry a Nextel branded Blackberry. From my experience, it's not a very good phone to use on board an aircraft. About every 20 minutes or so, the phone goes into a signal frenzy. It's as if it finds multiple strong towers to connect to and is unable to choose. This results in a barrage of beeps and lights while it tries to figure out what's going on.
Furthermore, the risks of interference are very real. When I'm using the phone, I never notice the interference. I recently let someone else use my phone and was very surprised. My headset (flight radio headset) emitted a horrible scratching noise. I was totally unable to hear anything on the radio. I quickly looked at my VOR (radio navigation, NOT a gps) , and noticed that it was off coarse as well. Now, had I not been certain that I was on the right course, I might have well thought I was off course and corrected in an ultimately wrong direction.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with VOR technology, but it's the primary aviation navigational aid. GPS is wonderful, but it's still not the primary navigation mechanism. GPS is considered a "non-precision" navigation tool. VOR and ILS are still the primary mechanisms and they are dependent upon terrestrial radio transmissions. This is where the cellphone interference comes into play. Most cell phones operate in the 800mhz range. I'll save you a lesson in radio technology by simply stating that they can often have harmonic emissions in the same bands as used for aircraft navigation.
While you state that countless numbers of phones are left on during flights, this is not particularly dangerous. A phone ranging a tower is only actively transmitting for a very short period of time every 20 minutes or so at regular speeds. A phone that is in active use is a source of radio emissions that is in VERY close proximity to the aircraft communications and navigation antennas and is operating on a frequency that can have interfering harmonics. I have personal experience with the reactions a nav needle can have to a cellphone.
Imagine if the weather was bad (instrument meteorological conditions or IMC) and you were trying to land a large passenger airliner using nothing but a small needle on the panel to align with the runway. Then, a passenger starts talking to their uncle Bill about his bypass surgery and that needle jumps even 10 degrees off position. Now, instead of aligning with a runway, you're aligning with a corn field.
To answer your thoughts about shielding, that's not a viable solution. You would either have to shield the passenger cabin from radio emissions or shield the comm/nav antennas from it. In either case, the shielding to protect them from each other would seriously impair their usefulness. A passenger cabin shielded from RF emissions wouldn't allow your cell signal to get out, thereby negating the purpose. Shielding the comm/nav antennas sounds like a good idea until you realize that oftentimes nav aids and aircraft controllers a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: I have absolutely no pilot training, however I do write software for mobile phones as well as networking apps in general.
With the "legacy" cell app - voice - that is true. However, with wireless broadband becoming more common and affordable, application
For an article with *real* research done... (Score:4, Informative)
Crowd control argument makes no sense (Score:5, Interesting)
It was actually pretty cool to hear the various airplanes yak with the tower. O'hare is a busy airport (to say the least), and it was astounding to listen to them juggle all the incoming planes. What was particularly funny was listening to them berate our pilot - the guy mumbled a bit, so the flight number kept getting cut off. The tower had to repeatedly ask him to repeat, and eventually they started making fun of him. Things like "well, this particular pilot doesn't feel he's important enough to respond to us". Tres droll.
Also cool was listening to the tower give directions (turn left, etc) and feel the plane immediately respond. All in all, it sounded pretty much exactly like it does on TV/movies. I'm sure if there were any actual flight emergencies, it would have been broadcast for the passengers to hear - unless there's some protocol to shut that channel down when things go amiss - which would just alert passengers to a problem anyway.
IEEE Spectrum article with recent test data (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a good article for the layperson, I'd encourage reading it.
Interference is not an urban legend (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA says:
Real testing has been done. Unintended emissions from the phone have been identified as the culprit, not a deficiency in the navigation equipment. The aircraft's receivers are doing exactly what they are supposed to, responding to signals of certain frequencies arriving at the antenna. Once the phone pollutes the spectrum with spurious signals, nothing can protect the receiver. The shielding and filtering must be applied at the problem, which is the phone. Since the competitive consumer phone market demands the lowest possible cost, once a phone meets the minimum legal requirements they won't add another dime of product cost for further interference control.
Intereference does not occur every time, but when it does occur there has been a demonstrable cause and effect relationship. Start with this NASA case study [nasa.gov](long pdf warning).
Then consider this article from Spectrum [ieee.org]. On page 3:
And from page 4:
It's no conspiracy, and no urban lege
What I want... (Score:4, Interesting)
But, how much money could I make if I started a business that installed Faraday cages into movie theaters? Could I completely block all cell traffic with one? And could I install the cages relatively cheap and keep them invisible? See, I know there's been talk amongst movie theaters of using jammers to stop cell phone use. But the FCC is against that and it doesn't look like it's going to happen. But can the FCC stop me from constructing a faraday cage around my theater to 'ensure the highest degree of fidelity of the digital projection equipment, thereby ensuring the best viewing experience'?
I'll tell you what, if I know one theater in town has faraday cages and the others don't.. I'm goin to the one with the cages.
A lot of people argue that they need their cell phones during a movie in case of emergency situations. I think that's bullshit. For decades people managed to go to movie theaters without cell phones. They accepted there might be emergencies happening that they weren't aware of until after they left the theater. They accepted this because whenever an emergency happens and you are twenty minutes from the scene you are 99% of the time too late anyway.
Someone enlighten me here, what kind of emergency can you really expect to respond to fast enough to make a difference by racing out of a theater to the scene of the emergency? By the time you get there either the emergency is over or people who are supposed to handle that sort of thing (you know, EMT, Firefighters, professionals...) have already done so. But please, give me an example of how I could be wrong. I'm curious. There has to be something.
TLF
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.phonejammer.com/ [phonejammer.com]
Pay some kid to walk around the place and sit in every seat with a cellphone from carrier to see if they still get signal.
Much easier than putting a copper mesh over the entire theater and worrying about holes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, you have to figure out how many theatres will pays the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars you'll have to charge. I'd imagine the number [of theatres] isn't very large. (IOW, I think you seriously underestimate the difficulty of installing and maintaining Farady cages.)
probably ineffective anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were the case, it'd be torches and pitchforks for the cellcos if they allow it and then it sucks.
Testing Isn't Easy (Score:4, Informative)
I think it probably boils down to cost and caution. The testing is expensive, and nobody wants to be the one that approved cell phones if they end up causing a plane crash.
What about TVs and GPSs? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, there's also a restriction on hand-held TVs/radios and GPSs, and I've always wondered why, since they're all receive-only. I don't see how it's possible for them to cause any interference (or at least no more interference than a laptop computer) since they're only picking up on signals that are already passing through the plane from an external source.
So, does anyone have any info on why those are banned as well?
TSA should therefore confiscate cell phones. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually I'd like to see that. Confiscating a bunch of inexpensive water bottles in the name of security is a relatively benign way of maintaining the appearance of security. Being willing to risk massive public fallout by confiscating expensive cell phones would show they are actually serious.
Phones *can* cause interference with VHF radios (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not particularly loud, and I haven't had any trouble hearing ATC over it. On a commercial jet... with several hundred cell phones, and the much higher importance of ATC calls under IFR... I can see where it could be a major problem.
Are there ways to solve the problem? Sure. Is it really worth spending the resources to test and resolve in light of the social factors? I'd say no. I personally consider time spent on commercial flights as downtime. I don't want people to be able to get ahold of me, I want to read a book or watch a good movie.
If you really are important enough you HAVE to be in communication 24/7... well buy your own jet =)
Calling bullshit... (Score:4, Interesting)
I fly on Air Force flights, which are not subject to FAA regulations, and the main problem with cell phones on airplanes is the fact that they DO NOT WORK. The transmitter in your phone is not powerful enough to reach more than say, 1000m. Your phone will go dead at less than 10,000 ft of elevation. Add this to the fact that cell towers are not powerful enough to reach the average cruising altitude of ~30,000 ft.
Fear of instrument interference was due to older, analog units with less defined spectrum. With ALL equipment in aircraft being shielded these days there is almost NO possibility of a disturbance in flight.
Besides, your 50mW transmitter is no match for, oh, the sun. And all the other background noise that is present in our atmosphere these days. I would bet that the electric motors on the landing gear ( or hydraulic pumps that may power them) put out more EMF in just about every frequency known to man than all the cell phones that might be in call at once.
Now we need the *real* reason for no water... (Score:3, Funny)
It is, surely, trivial to test whether a given substance is H2O. I mean, how hard can it be?
It is, surely, trivial to test whether the container has got a false top containing water and the rest of it contains some other (possibly explosive) substance. Those xrays give pretty detailed views plus you could push a probe down the mouth of the bottle and wave it about. They do this to passengers all the time.
Therefore there has to be a reason why passengers are not allowed to bring *water* onto planes.
One theory is that the homeland security guys figured out a way to harm an aircraft by pouring enough water into or onto a certain area of the passenger compartment of the plane; flooding it with a conductive fluid.
Any other offers?
Re:Vapidity all round (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations on coming up with the exact opposite meaning to the one that the statement obviously is supposed to convey.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Vapidity all round (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this fear the web thing is a bit over-stated on your part, considering some planes are going to begin having internet access, which short of shoots down the entire argument of this guy. There is far more information available via the internet then in any phone call. I think the real reason is they do not want to have any people chattering away and people complaining about them talking too loudly.
As for your terrorists comment, you simply ignore what the author is trying to say. He is saying this lack of wireless devices on airplanes is bullshit, because if they would take down planes, terrorists would have tested every device possible to try to interfere with equipment and see if you cannot bring a plane to the ground. You really should spend less time at Digg.
I doubt it (Score:4, Interesting)
United often allows you to hear the flight deck communications.
Some airplanes still have in-plane phones using something similar to a cell network (with much bigger cells). So not all phones are banned.
If this was the real problem, these things would also have been banned, or never allowed but they are not.
The real reasons for banning phones are:
1) Paranoia by the FAA about malfunctioning devices (which is valid, BTW-- it doesn't usually cause a problem but I have seen radio intererence from many other devices that you wouldn't expect).
2) Concern by the FCC about the effect on ground-based cell systems. I.e. if you use your cell on a flight high above New York, how many cells are you reserving bandwidth on?
This article was largely typicall Slashdot incite....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both Boeing and Eurobus have test rigs of the actual aviation equipment in their development sites (seen on Discovery channel). It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to wave a mobile phone around to see what equipment it interferes with.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Learning to spell "retarded" correctly: two years of high school.
So I guess that puts you somewhere in the grade 9 range? LOLWTFOMG pwnage!!!11!1! (I kid, I kid).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are commenting about the fear of conflicts due to rude behavior, the AirFones are fine because no one uses them. I may have seen this phone used 1-2 times in the last 10 years. The fact is they are HUGELY expensive so people either don't use the service or use it for 2-3 minutes at most.
Now, compare that with a plane full of people with cell phones that have cheap plans where they can gab on for hours and, with power adapters, the phone can last the entire flight. Awful right? Even the nicest p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The wiring on board is all exceptionally thin and shielded poorly - per spec, and on a great deal of commercial planes the wiring has significant corrosion.
An industry wide test for interference factors may not indicate a great deal of problems with cell phones, but it would end up resulting in the requirement for replacing the wiring in a great deal of airplanes, at an impressive cost - because planes wou
Flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
--
vi VS emacs arguments are pointless and a waste of time.
vi is the best.
Attacking a religion like that is just pure flamebait.
You probably shouldn't have brought up Islam either.
Oh, goodbye karma.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What, Pilots have to stand nowadays?
I thought they were glorified bus-drivers, not glorified tram-drivers!