Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

FCC to Auction Airwaves for Inflight Internet 165

maotx writes "The FCC is set to auction off existing licensed frequencies from Verizon on May 10 to provide communication services such as high-speed Internet to U.S. air travelers. Verizon is the current licensee of the range for their onboard phones found on most commercial jets. The auction will force Verizon to use the 1MHz range. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps fears that such an auction could allow a single provider to have a monopoly that could prey on consumers. The FCC is also weighing whether to allow consumers to use their own cell phones on planes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC to Auction Airwaves for Inflight Internet

Comments Filter:
  • Monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Amoeba ( 55277 ) * on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:01PM (#14467961)
    FCC Commissioner Michael Copps fears that such an auction could allow a single provider to have a monopoly that could prey on consumers.

    Unlike now where you have a single provider (Verizon) holding this spectrum that could prey on consumers?

    • Oh the FCC was very very concerned,
      That he poor consumer might get burned.
      They set out their plan,
      Copell was their man,
      And decided an auction was what they yearned.

      Oh, the FCC had had it up to here,
      Verizon might not be free as beer.
      So they'd sell the band away,
      To as many company's as could say,
      "Let's hope this pilot can really steer!"

      Oh, the FCC was very very concerned,
      Of dire consequences that might get us burned.
      But just as long as they,
      Could keep one guy away,
      And not let it anywhere near Howard Stern!
    • by BitGeek ( 19506 )

      Not unlike the monopoly the FCC granted itself, unconstitutionally and illegally, over all specturm.

      The FCC is selling something it never owned in the first place... and then, of course, using the violence of the state (eg: cops with guns and courts which will back them up, even though there is no basis in the constitution for it).

      The pathetic thing is that it was over 50 years ago that spread spectrum technology was invented-- obliviating even the "tragedy of the commons" fallacy to justify these sales.

      Gov
      • Re:Monopoly? (Score:2, Insightful)

        Sorry to break into a troll, but I think that I don't understand this last comment. What makes the FCC's self-imposed jurisdiction over the "airwaves" unconstitutional? I realize that the text of the Constitution doesn't mention where control of the "airwaves" lies, but we do know that without "controlling" purveyors of services by means of electromagnetic radiation we would have havoc. (I can see it now--I build a radio tower, then the competition builds a more powerful tower right next to mine sending
        • by Melfina ( 872932 )
          Formatting is your friend!

          <p>

          and

          <br>

          Will make your posts more Dynamic!
        • The problem with the FCC is that you have no recourse really if they decide they don't like something that you are doing. i.e., When Howard Stern wanted to fight the indecency charges and fines leveled against him, the FCC held up the licensing paperwork for all the other stations owned by Infinity Broadcasting until the case was decided.

          ~S

        • It seems constitutional to you because you have no freaking clue what the constitution says... like most americans.

          The bottom line is, if the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to regulate something, then the federal government doesn't have that power.

          This is according to the constitution. It enumerates the powers the government has... and then says these are the only powers they have.

          Its unfortunate that americans are so ignorant of their own constitution, that mentioning it makes
      • Not unlike the monopoly the FCC granted itself, unconstitutionally and illegally, over all specturm.

        Ummm, no, Congress gave it to the FCC in the Communications Act of 1934. Some people consider that unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS is not among them.

        rj



        • Then a particular POTUS de-regulated the FCC. Otherwise, time spent in front of the panel become BOHICA (Bend Over, Here It Comes Again)
          One of the resulting actions was to eliminate the amount of airtime which is|dedicated to commercials. When they started, I think it was 5, 6, or 7 minutes. Suddenly...there were no restrictions and the birth of infomercials occurred.



        • Both Congress and the SCOTUS are irrelevant to the constitution... read the constitution.

          Congress passes many laws that are unconstitutional, and even the SCOTUS agrees that when it does so, the laws are null and void at the moment signed into law.

          The SCOTUS thinks its the supreme decider of the constitution, but any literate person can read the document themselves and see when the government is acting illegally.

          If you will read it, you will see there is no enumeration of a power to regulate communication,
          • The SCOTUS thinks its the supreme decider of the constitution, but any literate person can read the document themselves and see when the government is acting illegally.

            So, who should decide what the Constitution says?

            rj

            • There's no deciding necessary. What it says is not really up for debate. Only people who want to violate it come up with creative interpretations.

              Find anywhere that it authorizes the governemnt to regulate communications. If you will look in the enumerated powers clause, you will see that it clearly doesn't. If you look at the first amemndment, you see that not only is it not allowed to, but it is specifically forbidden from regulating communication.

              No creative interpretation is necessary. The constitu
  • by Scareduck ( 177470 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:03PM (#14467983) Homepage Journal
    ... or a misunderstanding. 1 MHz is currently in use by terrestrial AM broadcasters.
    • by jo7hs2 ( 884069 )
      I think the author meant THAT specific one mhz, not 1.000Mhz. Editing is useful.
    • Seems like the bandwidth at 1MHz would be kind of narrow, too...
    • ... or a misunderstanding. 1 MHz is currently in use by terrestrial AM broadcasters


      Yup, they are saying that they plan to issue either 2 overlapping 3mhz licenses, or 1 3mhz license (for internet/data), and an additional 1mhz license (for verizon).

    • by slashdot.org ( 321932 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:51PM (#14468340) Homepage Journal
      ... or a misunderstanding. 1 MHz is currently in use by terrestrial AM broadcasters.

      They are talking about the width, not the center frequency. So a 1 MHz wide band. I don't know what frequency at exactly, but likely in the 800-900MHz range.
    • That confused me at first too. By the way, the article doesn't say, but I'm assuming this band would be used for relaying the data from the plane to ground, not for users inside the plane. Can anybody confirm this?

      It seems to me they'd either want to use 2.4 GHz inside the plane so people can use their existing 802.11G equipment, or else ethernet to keep extra RF signals to a minimum intensity. Of course, ethernet wiring to every seat would add a notable amount of weight, and given that it costs somewher
  • Hoaxes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <shadow@wrought.gmail@com> on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:08PM (#14468028) Homepage Journal
    Look for a new round of e-mail and web hoaxes regarding plane crashes once this plan gets off the ground.
    • NO DOUBT!

      I have an LG VX8100 which thankfully has a standalone mode. I had to show it to the flight attendant everytime I pull it out. I kept pulling it out because, also thankfully, it can play Need For Speed Underground 2 ^TM

      So, as an expirement, and to see if the FAA would haul my @$$ to jail, I switched it on in mid-flight & Stowed it in my pocket so no one would freak out during landing.

      No engine studder, no sudden drop in cabin preassure, no sudden altitude changes....

      And then it happened ...

      We
      • Re:Hoaxes (Score:3, Interesting)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 )
        Last year, I sat on a flight next to a commercial pilot (he flew for American Eagle) -- he knowingly left his cellphone turned on throughout the entire flight (including takeoff and landing) . So I guess at least some flight crew are not too bothered about cellphones.
        • I don't think there is a threat from a cell phone, let alone a darned gameboy.

          Unless of course you rig the GPS to allow the plane to become a target for some kind of cellular homing missle..
          • Re: (Score:5, Interesting)

            by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland@ya ... .com minus punct> on Friday January 13, 2006 @08:04PM (#14468802) Homepage Journal
            They can interfere with the Autopilot.

            Basically some phones slip away from spec due to poor design, or low quality companents. That is why it is only some phones, sometimes.

            Granted, that information is 5 years old, so I have no idea how often it happens with new cell phones.

            OTOH, my speakers on my cmopeter make a ticking noise just befor I get a call, or whenever the phone has some initial contact with the tower. I ahve no idea why, but if it is messing up a speakers then it is concievable that it interferes with the 400MHz wiring in a plane.
            • Re: (Score:4, Informative)

              by ScottBob ( 244972 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @11:28PM (#14469574)
              it is concievable that it interferes with the 400MHz wiring in a plane

              That's 400 Hz, not 400 MHz. All the electrical power in aircraft is at 400 Hz, instead of 60 Hz like in your house. The reason is that the fluorescent light ballasts, transformers inside power hungry avionics gear and other power rectifying equipment can be made smaller and lighter when run at 400 Hz. Ever noticed the slightly sour A flat note that comes from the intercom when the stewardess is giving the pre-flight "use your seat cushion for floatation" speech? That is caused by the same factors that cause the 60 Hz buzz in a guitar amplifier.

              The ticking, warbling, or whatever sound you hear in your computer speakers when your cell phone connects or occasionally syncs with the nearest tower when on standby is caused by stray rf energy from your cellphone, and it can conceivably interfere with the avionics of the airplane, especially the fly-by-wire types, but rest assured, the avionics and signal cables connecting the various systems are well shielded, because they have to be hardened against the multi-megawatt electromagnetic pulse of rf energy that comes from lightning strikes in the thunderstorms planes sometimes have to fly in the vicinity of. I don't think the milliwatt or so of stray rf energy from cell phones will do anything, but somebody out there must have done a study to show otherwise...

              I remember when I was working at a nuclear power plant, there were certain areas of the plant that were "radio exclusion zones", where the workers had to turn their walkie-talkies off. The reason is that the signals in the control systems could be disturbed by someone keying their mike, causing the reactor to scram (much like the disturbance from a neighbor big into CB radios who has illegal linear amplifiers and can be heard jaw-jacking through your TV, FM radio, washing machine, child's braces, etc.)
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by AeroIllini ( 726211 )
                Ever noticed the slightly sour A flat note that comes from the intercom when the stewardess is giving the pre-flight "use your seat cushion for floatation" speech?

                Oh, God I hate that. Why, WHY couldn't Boeing have gone with a power system that operated at 440Hz?!

                I kid, I kid. But seriously, one tiny little cell phone is likely not going to interfere with the avionics, because of all the EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference) certification that goes on. However, since the FAA can't possibly certify every cell ph
        • That's funny, something similar happened to me. Last year I left my phone on accidentally through an entire flight and didn't die.

          It was a non-precision approach using a navaid called a VOR. On the final leg of the approach, the airport was nowhere to be seen, and cross-checking the VOR against the non-IFR loran indicated that we were more than three miles off course. Fortunately, it was a practice approach. In hard instrument conditions 3 miles off course at 1000 feet above ground, we would probably ha
      • (j/k about the corn farm part... it was a potatoe field)

        Dan Quayle, is that you?
         
  • by Shabbs ( 11692 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:15PM (#14468081)
    With internet enabled airplanes... VOIP then becomes possible.

    Personally, I'd prefer no cell phones on planes at all. Too annoying for everyone else, and man - I'm already reachable everywhere else.
    • Yes, I remember the first time I got a cell phone call in the bathroom, cementing my hatred of being constantly connected. An airplane is a contained space, and I don't want to have to listen to people's phone conversations. People tend to talk louder on their phones than face-to-face. And of course there is the question--what could be so important that it can't wait a few hours for the plane to land? I refuse to believe that people will only use cell phones on planes for emergencies or vitally important c
    • I have to agree on no cell phones on airplanes - or at least no ringer. I usually sleep on flights, talking won't wake me, but a phone ringing certainly will, especially if someone is using the same ringtone as I.
      -k
    • Dont worry, they'll price themselves out of business. Like you say, we're already reachable more or less everywhere else, so the value of the service is negligable, nevermind worth what a monopoly will charge.
  • Cell free Nirvana (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ttelrocj ( 690346 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:17PM (#14468092)
    I for one am against the usage of individual cell phones on flights. There aren't many areas now that you can't hear some idiot talking entirely too loudly about some worthless subject, but at least you can usually walk away from them. What if now that jerk is suddenly ten or twenty jerks yapping all around you in a confined space for several hours?

    When do we reach that point when the public is too wired? It's one thing to be a techie and enjoy technology for the pure love of the game. You might pay top dollar to be bleeding edge and capitalize on the next-great-thing, but you have to work at that. There are no free lunches on the edge. But when Joe Consumer has that same power of connectedness, at his simple beck and call without having to "work" for it, don't you think it will get really annoying?

    Broadband on a flight would be pretty cool, though.
    • Yeah but with broadband on a flight you open up the possibility of people using Skype, then you're potentially back to the same problem of "HELLO? I'M ON THE PLANE!" being scramed into your ear whether you like it or not.
    • The simple solution at the moment is earplugs. If this goes in to effect i plan i purchasing a large bag of them and always having a pair handy for flight. Does wonders on isolation from the environment and after 15 minutes you forget they are in.

      Still sucks that you need to plug your ears, but the situation isn't hopeless.
      • That's one option, be nice and quiet. I plan to get into their conversations. Forcefully and as rudely as necessary to make the point that I can hear them, and can't get away.
    • Not neccassarily that bad, but have you ever tought of us that do not neccassarily fly on a vacation or otherwise for pleasure? When I go on a business trip, on a business flight, I would love to stay productive by being able to use the internet and my cellphone. Please, think of us suits :)
      • As it is I look forward to plane flights as a chance to do some serious reading, writing, or coding with no interruptions. Having people sitting all around me and yelling (airplanes are loud) certainly wouldn't boost my productivity.

        Maybe they should repurpose all those "No-Smoking" indicators to mean "no loud talking," and just let people yak for 5 minutes of every hour.

    • The majority of flights I've been on have had people yapping about odd subjects. The only difference is that most of them aren't on cell phones.

      Is someone too loud? Do what you always do and ask them politely to talk a little quieter.
    • When do we reach that point when the public is too wired?

      The problem isn't being "wired," the problem is that you're picking up cross talk. [wikipedia.org]

      This technology, then, should interest you: Subvocal speech recognition. [nasa.gov]

      In the not too distant future, we should be able to communicate with people without actually voicing our words. Just moving our mouths, and perhaps not even that, will be all that's necessary.
    • Noise Cancellation (Score:4, Informative)

      by Clueless Moron ( 548336 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @07:26PM (#14468580)
      Airplanes are very loud, and noisy. There's chatter, certainly, but above it all is the deafening roar of the atmosphere going past you at 900 km/hr. A category five hurricane is only 250 km/hr.

      The only solution is noise cancelling headphones. Pilots have awfully nice ones, but you can buy acceptable ones for a hundred bucks. My modest ones (Sennheiser PCX-250) block out the whole damned airplane so I can get some rest, listen to tunes, whatever. I leave them on with no audio input at all just to block out the noise while trying to sleep.

      When I take them off to go to the lavatory I'm always surprised at how noisy that flying airplane tube really is.

      Get noise cancelling headphones.

      • Noise cancelling headphones are excellent for getting sleep and blocking out the obnoxious roar of the plane combined with people talking and kids screaming, however most won't protect from hearing damage (just FYI). The variety that is over-ear and acts as an earmuff actually physically blocks sound and thus will reduce possible hearing damage, however the variety that works by creating opposing sound waves (most in-ear and many over-ear types) does not protect from hearing damage and may actually increas
        • Piping opposite waves into your ear negates the non-opposite waves, so how does that cause any ear damage?
          • As far as I know it's still causing your inner ear to move and the tiny hairs in it to vibrate.
            • No. The cancellation truly does reduce the sound amplitude just as real as heavy earmuffs would do. Labs measure the effectiveness of active noise cancelling headphones using plain old SPL (sound pressure level) meters; these don't lie.

              It's simple destructive interference. Maybe the active noise control FAQ will help. [faqs.org] See section 2.5 in particular.

            • If those tiny hairs were moving just as much or more, the noise would be *louder*, not quieter. The noise-cancelling headphones by definition are finding a way to make sure those little hairs move *less*.

              Or take the other approach and think about how waves work. Cancelling out a wave means it doesn't exist anymore in the overlap area, not that the original wave and the "cancelling" wave are still both there, and somehow coexisting without affecting each other. A wave that meets with a perfect cancellatio
        • Noice-cancelling headphones, whether resting over the ears of completely encompassing the ears work in exactly the same way. For every sound it detects outside, it plays the inverse of that sound through the speakers. So both are "piping opposite waves into your ear".

          You're probably thinking of the kind of hearing protection used on construction sites, which have enough soundproof material that the sound which would damage your hearing just never gets through in the first place. Batteries not required, o
    • "FCC has yet to make a decision amid fears of a backlash from many fliers who see airplanes as a cell phone-free zone."

      I thought the FCC was protecting Verizon's ca$h cow. Personally I can't believe the airline doesn't get some piece of the action some how. I would prefer it to stay statues quo, but this is about the buck$ and not personal wants\ needs. (I understand that the 3$ a minute currently is cost prohibitive for many of our business travelers)

      One another note, if cell phones become approved for us
    • 1. Individual cell phones are now legal on planes...
      2. Talking outloud is now out-lawed on planes.

      Problem solved. Everyone who wants to have their cell phone on can, and at the same time shut-up.

    • When do we reach that point when the public is too wired?

      I think it happened roughly around the time when these little plastic boxes started appearing in people's homes that allowed someone on the other end of the country who you didn't know to interrupt you at any time and ask if you wanted to switch long-distance carriers...

    • What if now that jerk is suddenly ten or twenty jerks yapping all around you in a confined space for several hours?

      Put on some headphones. Listen to some music, watch the inflight movie, or better yet just put those ear buds in your ears without anything attached to it. Read a book...problem solved.

      At least they are not trying to chat you up. I can tune out 20 or so people yapping about nothing, it's harder to tune out some yoyo sitting next to you wanting you to accept Jesus.
    • There aren't many areas now that you can't hear some idiot talking entirely too loudly about some worthless subject, but at least you can usually walk away from them.

      Many planes already have phones on them. If you've flown on a non-bargain airline, you've probably seen those Airfone handsets built into the seat in front of you (usually one for every 3 seats). The only difference is, they aren't cell phones - they're owned by a single company that contracts with the airline to provide phone service at $3 a m
    • Don't worry. Reasonable voice QoS will remain very expensive on legacy (read "differentially priced") airlines. As soon as IP-to-ground services get low enough latency and jitter for voice performance, you can bet the airlines will figure out that some small percentage of their high-$ passengers value this highly.

      One of two things will happen. One possibility is that prioritized transit of packets will end up priced only slightly below the pound-me-in-the-ass rates of airphone. The other is that decent
    • It's one thing to be a techie and enjoy technology for the pure love of the game. You might pay top dollar to be bleeding edge and capitalize on the next-great-thing, but you have to work at that. There are no free lunches on the edge. But when Joe Consumer has that same power of connectedness, at his simple beck and call without having to "work" for it, don't you think it will get really annoying?

      Maybe not intended, this quite an arrogant and elitist remark. If he pays for it 'Joe consumer' is just as mu

  • by nexcomlink ( 930801 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @06:20PM (#14468112) Homepage
    While where at it auctioning shit that's not even our's for a high price. I will like to auction the radio waves coming from my microwave starting bid is $6,000. Anyone interested please contact me at /dev/null. Please check out my other items such as radiowaves from my cellphone for sale and my remote control toy hovercraft operating in the elite mhz of 25! I am verified and please remember to bid with confidence. kthxbye.
    • Aren't most microwave ovens already in 900 MHz range allocated for general, low power, civillian use? Or at least close, because it seems to me they always caused interference with 802.11b sets.

      Regarding "stuff that's not ours," do you propose that instead of the FCC regulating RF use in the United States that it would be better if the entire EM spectrum were one big free for all?
  • The FCC is considering letting us use cellphones on the plane. Are we talking about the same cellphone that I now have to turn off because it could cause interferance with the planes instruments?? Or am I missing something?
    • You know they only say that because your talking pisses off the flight attendants. Like how having your office buy you that new luxury chair will "help productivity."
      • Re:Interferance? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Uh, no. Intereference is a real problem. The reason they started that whole thing was because things as small as the motor in a CD player were wreaking havoc on the plane electronics. I suspect today's systems are a little more shielded, but it's still a serious problem, especially since cell phones have to go to max power to reach a tower if they're in an airplane.

        The FCC is considering allowing cell phone usage if airlines install their own "cell towers" in planes so that the signals don't have to be s
        • Re:Interferance? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rco3 ( 198978 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @07:53PM (#14468746) Homepage
          Except that no study has ever - EVER - been able to reproduce that interference. Boeing even *bought* a passenger's laptop and put it in the same seat, on the same plane, on the same route, and were unable to reproduce the interference.

          I'd be willing to believe cell phone interference, but I'm just not buying the CD player thing. Note that those are all anecdotal reports made by non-technical flight crew, along the lines of "Hey, the nav system is screwy! Check the cabin!" "Oh, yes sir, we found a guy with a CD player on and castrated him!" "Hey, the nav system works again!" No consideration is apparently made for the possibility that it was a glitch unrelated to the CDplayer, or to the fact that you can almost always find someone using a PED whether there's an avionics problem or not. Correlation != causality.

          OTOH, if the aircraft's avionics are SO susceptible to interference that a CD player's motor (although it's more likely to be the clock for the D/A converter than the motor) 30 feet away on the other side of a metal bulkhead will screw them up, then that's crappy design of the avionics and the goddamned thing's not safe to fly under any circumstances. And yes, I am an EE.
          • McDonnel Dougles (now Boeing) reproduced interference from laptops, and cell phones.
            I know this for a fact becasue I know the person* who tests the items that are bought from passengers thought to cause the interference.
            Granted, it was only interfering with the autopilot, and some of the landing systems, so why worry?

            Well, maybe not 'for a fact' since I didn't test. But my confidence in this person is very high.
          • I'm pretty sure that a plane's avionics and wiring is hardened against the multi-megawatt electromagnetic pulse of wide-spectrum rf energy from lightning in thunderstorms that planes occasionally have to fly in the vicinity of. I don't think the narrow band milliwatts level of rf energy from cell phones, laptop computers, etc. will cause any significant interference. I'll let someone else reply with why the avionics of cold-war era Russian planes have tube powered avionics...
    • Re:Interferance? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by malraid ( 592373 )
      I've read that one of the biggest problems of cell phones in airplanes is that you are in line of sight to many towers at once, and can therefore cause congestion for the people on the ground.
      • Re:Interferance? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Deadstick ( 535032 )
        Correct. There are a limited number of frequencies available for cellphone communication. The system accommodates multiple users on the same frequencies by separating them geographically: if your phone is using x.xx MHz in Los Angeles, another user in Riverside can use the same frequency and not interfere because there is no line-of-sight path between you. Further, both your phone and the terminal it's connected to adjust their output power to the minimum required to communicate.

        Now take your phone up in

  • I can't stand cellphones here on the ground, and if I was stuck in a small cabin full of dingbats yapping about pointless shit on their phones, I'd go nuts. Definitely encouragement to bring headphones and some shiny plastic filled with serious metal bands. So, I'm happy to see them banned, no matter what the stupid excuse. However, if they legalize cellphones on planes, they might finally have to admit that one tiny 800-900 or 1800-1900MHz signal won't bring the plane down. I know, local repeaters forc
    • The mobile phones does not bring the plane down.

      It's simply because its stuck in a metal tube and cant connect to a tower, so it goes onto full power... the problem being interference with the radio equipment, in the same way as when you put a mobile phone on a speaker as you receive a text message.

      Think how difficult it would be to talk to the control tower when all the mobile phones on the plane are doing this.

      The solution is simple though, put a small mobile phone transceiver in the plane, so all t

  • I do not understand why I have to pay about 599 round trip ticket from Atlanta to Sacremento while having some guy or woman talking on there phone during the entire flight. It seems rather childish that you someone like you should ruin the ride for others because you feel the need to talk. Why not just use a laptop with a internet connection to send email instead? You know it's good every once and a while to let go of the phone even if you are conducting business it's nice to not have that phone ring till y
  • Yes! (Score:2, Funny)

    by digismack ( 262459 )
    Yes! Now my porn downloads don't have to stop when I leave the hotspots in the airport and get on the flight.
  • Not only a great idea, but there is probably a world's record in that.

    And it's a way to get back at cell phone users, especially if they are ever allowed in-flight calls.
  • private jet (Score:2, Funny)

    by cyberwave ( 695555 )
    On my Gulfstream 550 they let me use the cell phone.
  • *The FCC is also weighing whether to allow consumers to use their own cell phones on planes.*

    Yeh? I thought using cell phones etc caused interference with flight systems. What else in the safety videos is bullshit?

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.

Working...