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."
Monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike now where you have a single provider (Verizon) holding this spectrum that could prey on consumers?
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2, Funny)
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!
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1, Troll)
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)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2, Funny)
<p>
and
<br>
Will make your posts more Dynamic!
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
~S
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
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
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
Great, just what the country needs- - another lawyer ignorant of the law.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
There it is, plain as day. Since there is no enumerated power to regulate the airwaves, no laws are necessary or proper to do so!
Stop reading a bunch of books that tell you the document doesn't say what i
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
The interstate commerce clause is irrelevant to this discussion, because we are not talking about moving material, we are talking about communications. Whether the communications are paid for - like the pamphlets in the time of the framing of the constitution- or not is irrelevant.
Even if the interstate commerce clause was applicable, the first ammendment trumps it.
You really need to read the constitution. You know, yourself. Stop listening to what fascists tell you about it... read it.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
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
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
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,
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
So, who should decide what the Constitution says?
rj
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
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
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
rj
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
Surely that's a typo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surely that's a typo (Score:2, Informative)
Stop calling me Shirley! (Score:1)
Re:Surely that's a typo (Score:2, Informative)
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).
Re:Surely that's a typo (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Surely that's a typo (Score:2)
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)
Re:Hoaxes (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re:Hoaxes (Score:2)
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
Re:Hoaxes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hoaxes (Score:2)
Dan Quayle, is that you?
One bird... two stones... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I'd prefer no cell phones on planes at all. Too annoying for everyone else, and man - I'm already reachable everywhere else.
Re:One bird... two stones... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One bird... two stones... (Score:1)
-k
Re:One bird... two stones... (Score:2)
Cell free Nirvana (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
Trigger Happy TV... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
Still sucks that you need to plug your ears, but the situation isn't hopeless.
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:1)
Selfish and shallow (Score:2)
Re:Selfish and shallow (Score:2)
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.
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
Is someone too loud? Do what you always do and ask them politely to talk a little quieter.
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Noise Cancellation (Score:2)
Re:Noise Cancellation (Score:2)
Re:Noise Cancellation (Score:2)
Re:Noise Cancellation (Score:2)
It's simple destructive interference. Maybe the active noise control FAQ will help. [faqs.org] See section 2.5 in particular.
No - think about how sound works (Score:2)
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
Re:Noise Cancellation (Score:2)
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
Re:Cell free Nirvana ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Cell free Nirvana ?? (Score:2)
Cell phones won't work at altitude. Cell towers have a down-tilt built into the antenna so the signals don't emanate upwards. Turn on your cell phone in the air sometime - it won't find a signal.
Really? Then I must have been imagining that time I was in the right seat of a King Air 200 from Norman, OK (KOUN) to Charlevoix, Michigan (KCVX), at FL250 (about 25,000 feet), and my passenger was on the phone somewhere over Kansas or Missouri or something.
Or the time I called somebody who answered from the lef
Re:Cell free Nirvana ?? (Score:2)
So do this -... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:1)
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...
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
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.
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
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
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
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
Re:Cell free Nirvana (Score:2)
Maybe not intended, this quite an arrogant and elitist remark. If he pays for it 'Joe consumer' is just as mu
Let the auctions begin (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let the auctions begin (Score:2)
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?
Re:Let the auctions begin (Score:2)
Interferance? (Score:2)
Re:Interferance? (Score:1)
Re:Interferance? (Score:1, Informative)
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)
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.
Not true (Score:2)
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.
Electromagnetic Pulse (Score:2)
Re:Interferance? (Score:2)
While we're being anal, that's just Latin for "correlation == causation", a logical fallacy. When dealing with these kinds of fallacies, it's much clearer to just say "correlation does not imply causation", rather than dragging out the Latin.
Re:Interferance? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interferance? (Score:3, Informative)
Now take your phone up in
Re:Interferance? (Score:2)
The FAA doesn't want you to use your cell-phone during taxi, takeoff, and landing because of anecdotal evidence that they can screw up various electronic systems of the airplane. While you're in the air, the FAA doesn't have a problem with it unless it messes up the airplane, at which point someone will come back and tell you to turn it off (depending on how curious they are and how much time they have, they might try to figure out which device was the problem).
T
Cellphones on planes, god please no! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Cellphones on planes, god please no! (Score:1)
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
Cellphones on planes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cellphones on planes (Score:2)
Re:Cellphones on planes (Score:2)
The battery life on a mobile phone with e-mail is a heck of alot longer than your typical laptop.
Yes! (Score:2, Funny)
5-mile-high LAN party! (Score:1)
And it's a way to get back at cell phone users, especially if they are ever allowed in-flight calls.
Can you say broadband in the plane?? (Score:2, Interesting)
private jet (Score:2, Funny)
so the truth is out (Score:2)
Yeh? I thought using cell phones etc caused interference with flight systems. What else in the safety videos is bullshit?
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:2)
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:2)
There are places in California where I would have to drive 10 miles late at night just so I can pump my own gas.
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:1)
You don't have to get out of your car.
Plus, what's not to love about no sales tax?
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:2)
I avoid buying gas in Oregon for exactly this reason. It bugs me not to be able to pump my own. If the right to pump your own gas isn't in the Magna Carta, it should be. :) I don't suppose you know how this law came about?
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:2)
The cost of the employee is mostly absorbed by the store so it has almost no impact on gas prices.
FYI most, if not all, stations only make about a penny per gallon. There real money is from a store, or garage. And car washes.
My uncle used to own smome gas stations. Man, the crap those companies do to the owners of the stations is amazing.
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:2)
Sure, I understand that some people want someone else to pump their gas for them. I have no problem with that. But just about all gas stations offer that service if you want it. It isn't necessary to require it.
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:2)
Very unlikely. And if it's true, it means that some gas stations are driven out of business (or prevented from opening in the first place) due to the extra costs.
Man, the crap those companies do to the owners of the stations is amazing.
In which case I fail to see why government should compound their difficulties by forcing them to pay gas pumpers regardless of whether customers actually want them.
Re:Yeah but will we be able to use our cell phones (Score:1)
Re:the money? (Score:2)
A bit like EBay -- auctions work.
It goes into the general fund, which pays for medicare, the arms industry and so on.
Flight risk highest at takeoff and landing (Score:2)