What is the rule now? (Its always been a stupid rule). It used to be no
calls after the cabin door closes, and no calls until after the cabin door
opens when you touch down. It didn't stop self important little people from
exercising their power over you, but that was the rule in print. What is it
now that the cabin door is always closed?
I know about canes and taking them away from blind people too, but that is a
whole nuther topic.
Up Yours Jerk wrote:
> What is the rule now? (Its always been a stupid rule). It used to be
> no calls after the cabin door closes, and no calls until after the
> cabin door opens when you touch down. It didn't stop self important
> little people from exercising their power over you, but that was the
> rule in print. What is it now that the cabin door is always closed?
I am a heavy phone user but using your words I am one of those "stupid
little people". Unfortunately for you there are just too many of us
sensible "stupid little people" that realize cell phone use in small
spaces when forced to sit next to others just doesn't make sense. You
get no sympathy from me and I find your self important attitude offensive.
>
> I know about canes and taking them away from blind people too, but that
> is a whole nuther topic.
Some carriers allow you to use your mobile phone after landing once the
aircraft has exited the runway and is taxiing towards the gate.
Common sense -- regrettably in short supply -- suggests that any mobile
phone calls made at that time should be as brief and discreet as possible.
Few people would object to a quick "hi, just landed at Lower Slobbovia,
talk to you later, love you, bye" call in a low voice. A protracted
mobile conversation that everybody in the aircraft can hear is another
matter.
Which raises another issue. Mobile phone microphones are quite sensitive.
Landlines have not used microphone amplitude as a power source for 100 or
so years. There is nothing to be gained by yelling into a phone
microphone; doing so just distorts what the receiver hears. If there is
considerable background noise, either find another spot or cup your hands
around the phone while talking.
Actually, in tight public places, cupping your hands is a good idea
anyway. That ought to allow you to lower your voice to a whisper during
your call.
But all this is common sense. Most people don't have it. Perhaps it
should be called uncommon sense.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
> Which raises another issue. Mobile phone microphones are quite
> sensitive. Landlines have not used microphone amplitude as a power
> source for 100 or so years. There is nothing to be gained by
> yelling into a phone microphone
But people always do it. It's one of the most complained about bad
habits of cell phone usage.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0908201058470.211@hsinghsing. panda.com:
> Some carriers allow you to use your mobile phone after landing once
> the aircraft has exited the runway and is taxiing towards the gate.
>
> Common sense -- regrettably in short supply -- suggests that any
> mobile phone calls made at that time should be as brief and discreet
> as possible. Few people would object to a quick "hi, just landed at
> Lower Slobbovia, talk to you later, love you, bye" call in a low
> voice. A protracted mobile conversation that everybody in the
> aircraft can hear is another matter.
>
> Which raises another issue. Mobile phone microphones are quite
> sensitive. Landlines have not used microphone amplitude as a power
> source for 100 or so years. There is nothing to be gained by yelling
> into a phone microphone; doing so just distorts what the receiver
> hears. If there is considerable background noise, either find another
> spot or cup your hands around the phone while talking.
>
> Actually, in tight public places, cupping your hands is a good idea
> anyway. That ought to allow you to lower your voice to a whisper
> during your call.
>
> But all this is common sense. Most people don't have it. Perhaps it
> should be called uncommon sense.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://panda.com/mrc
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
I find that a quick check of voicemail and email gets me to the gate. I
can then make any calls necessary on the way to baggage claim, where I am
not sitting elbow-to-elbow with anyone.
"Up Yours Jerk" <shazbot@shazbot.com> wrote in message
news:t9ejm.78189$0z7.12130@newsfe07.iad...
> What is the rule now? (Its always been a stupid rule). It used to be no
> calls after the cabin door closes, and no calls until after the cabin
> door opens when you touch down. It didn't stop self important little
> people from exercising their power over you, but that was the rule in
> print. What is it now that the cabin door is always closed?
>
> I know about canes and taking them away from blind people too, but that is
> a whole nuther topic.
Do the same rules also apply to texting and Internet usage?
>> Which raises another issue. Mobile phone microphones are quite
>> sensitive. Landlines have not used microphone amplitude as a power
>> source for 100 or so years. There is nothing to be gained by
>> yelling into a phone microphone
>
> But people always do it. It's one of the most complained about bad
> habits of cell phone usage.
>
..
I believe part of the problem is the inability to adequately hear oneself.
If there was a way to increase the volume of the earpiece in noisy
environments it would reduce the tendency to try and compensate by raising
one's voice. I'm not trying to justify this behavior - just raise
awareness. In general I feel the less cell phone use on planes the better,
and I sincerely hope the in-flight ban remains in effect.
Years ago I asked a stewardess if i could use my cellphone during a flight.
She said it was OK as long as the phone did not have GPS. I started my
phone call. A minute later a different stewardess came over and chastized
me for using a cellphone on the plane. She told me it would interfere with
their navigation equipment. She orderred me to shut the phone off.
IMHO the cell companies should prohibit airplane usage. The whole idea of
cellphones is that frequencies are re-used at each cell allowing a large
capacity. The transmission of a phone on a plane might use a channel
reaching dozens of cell sites, thus using a large chunk of the capacity of
the system to just make one call.
"William R. Cousert" <wrcousert@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h6n0ak$gnb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Up Yours Jerk" <shazbot@shazbot.com> wrote in message
> news:t9ejm.78189$0z7.12130@newsfe07.iad...
>> What is the rule now? (Its always been a stupid rule). It used to
>> be no calls after the cabin door closes, and no calls until after
>> the cabin door opens when you touch down. It didn't stop self
>> important little people from exercising their power over you, but
>> that was the rule in print. What is it now that the cabin door is
>> always closed?
>>
>> I know about canes and taking them away from blind people too, but
>> that is a whole nuther topic.
>
> Do the same rules also apply to texting and Internet usage?
>
I don't believe they take away the canes of those that text and use
the internet.....
"Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news381959vu2oi2clhlhtc5sjndsje6nrt0h@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:40:33 -0700, "QN" <hidingfromyou@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Years ago I asked a stewardess if i could use my cellphone during a
>>flight.
>>She said it was OK as long as the phone did not have GPS. I started
>>my
>>phone call. A minute later a different stewardess came over and
>>chastized
>>me for using a cellphone on the plane. She told me it would
>>interfere with
>>their navigation equipment. She orderred me to shut the phone off.
>>
>>IMHO the cell companies should prohibit airplane usage. The whole
>>idea of
>>cellphones is that frequencies are re-used at each cell allowing a
>>large
>>capacity. The transmission of a phone on a plane might use a
>>channel
>>reaching dozens of cell sites, thus using a large chunk of the
>>capacity of
>>the system to just make one call.
>
> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude? I
> doubt it.
Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran once),
through ground based cell towers?....
> --
> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org>
wrote:
>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude? I
>> doubt it.
>
>Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran once),
>through ground based cell towers?....
Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated network of
towers.
"Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of 92
towers scattered across North America. These essentially are cellphone
towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that the
Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the underside
of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed through
the plane via Wi-Fi."
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:evn195pp7h0r19toe3n5deptk6odrvm2ua@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart"
> <stewartg@american.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude? I
>>> doubt it.
>>
>>Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran
>>once),
>>through ground based cell towers?....
>
> Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated network
> of
> towers.
>
> From
> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080619...flight-access/
>
> "Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of 92
> towers scattered across North America. These essentially are
> cellphone
> towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that the
> Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the underside
> of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed
> through
> the plane via Wi-Fi."
So why is that form of two way communication fine, while all others
are not? Could it be that this signal generates revenue?
Stewart wrote:
> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
> news:evn195pp7h0r19toe3n5deptk6odrvm2ua@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart"
>> <stewartg@american.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude? I
>>>> doubt it.
>>> Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran
>>> once),
>>> through ground based cell towers?....
>> Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated network
>> of
>> towers.
>>
>> From
>> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080619...flight-access/
>>
>> "Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of 92
>> towers scattered across North America. These essentially are
>> cellphone
>> towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that the
>> Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the underside
>> of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed
>> through
>> the plane via Wi-Fi."
>
> So why is that form of two way communication fine, while all others
> are not? Could it be that this signal generates revenue?
>
>
For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude? I
> doubt it.
Happens all the time, at least with CDMA. Sometimes you'll see people
texting, with the flight attendants believing the phones are in airplane
mode, if they notice anything at all.
With GSM it probably wouldn't work because of the way calls are
connected to only the closest tower. But CDMA can handle being connected
to multiple towers that are essentially equidistant from the phone.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:h6rn2l$ga9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Stewart wrote:
>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>> news:evn195pp7h0r19toe3n5deptk6odrvm2ua@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart"
>>> <stewartg@american.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude?
>>>>> I
>>>>> doubt it.
>>>> Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran
>>>> once),
>>>> through ground based cell towers?....
>>> Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated network
>>> of
>>> towers.
>>>
>>> From
>>> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080619...flight-access/
>>>
>>> "Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of
>>> 92
>>> towers scattered across North America. These essentially are
>>> cellphone
>>> towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that
>>> the
>>> Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the
>>> underside
>>> of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed
>>> through
>>> the plane via Wi-Fi."
>>
>> So why is that form of two way communication fine, while all others
>> are not? Could it be that this signal generates revenue?
>
> For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
> transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
> designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
> equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
> combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
How about all the laptop computers and wireless networking hardware
combinations that have not been tested that are used for internet
connectivity on flights?
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:26:53 -0700, "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org>
wrote:
>
>"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:h6rn2l$ga9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Stewart wrote:
>>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>>> news:evn195pp7h0r19toe3n5deptk6odrvm2ua@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart"
>>>> <stewartg@american.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude?
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> doubt it.
>>>>> Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran
>>>>> once),
>>>>> through ground based cell towers?....
>>>> Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated network
>>>> of
>>>> towers.
>>>>
>>>> From
>>>> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080619...flight-access/
>>>>
>>>> "Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of
>>>> 92
>>>> towers scattered across North America. These essentially are
>>>> cellphone
>>>> towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that
>>>> the
>>>> Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the
>>>> underside
>>>> of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed
>>>> through
>>>> the plane via Wi-Fi."
>>>
>>> So why is that form of two way communication fine, while all others
>>> are not? Could it be that this signal generates revenue?
>>
>> For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
>> transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
>> designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
>> equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
>> combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
>
>How about all the laptop computers and wireless networking hardware
>combinations that have not been tested that are used for internet
>connectivity on flights?
>
Why don't you contact the FAA and FCC and ask them?
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:v084951qrkj814fkmf10p2kkrgeh819ece@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:26:53 -0700, "Stewart"
> <stewartg@american.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:h6rn2l$ga9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Stewart wrote:
>>>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>>>> news:evn195pp7h0r19toe3n5deptk6odrvm2ua@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart"
>>>>> <stewartg@american.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at
>>>>>>> altitude?
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> doubt it.
>>>>>> Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran
>>>>>> once),
>>>>>> through ground based cell towers?....
>>>>> Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated
>>>>> network
>>>>> of
>>>>> towers.
>>>>>
>>>>> From
>>>>> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080619...flight-access/
>>>>>
>>>>> "Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of
>>>>> 92
>>>>> towers scattered across North America. These essentially are
>>>>> cellphone
>>>>> towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that
>>>>> the
>>>>> Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the
>>>>> underside
>>>>> of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed
>>>>> through
>>>>> the plane via Wi-Fi."
>>>>
>>>> So why is that form of two way communication fine, while all
>>>> others
>>>> are not? Could it be that this signal generates revenue?
>>>
>>> For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
>>> transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
>>> designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
>>> equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
>>> combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
>>
>>How about all the laptop computers and wireless networking hardware
>>combinations that have not been tested that are used for internet
>>connectivity on flights?
>>
>
> Why don't you contact the FAA and FCC and ask them?
We are just postulating. Official answers are always taken with a
grain of salt anyway.
>Years ago I asked a stewardess if i could use my cellphone during a flight.
>She said it was OK as long as the phone did not have GPS. I started my
Basic GPS systems are radio *receivers*, not transmitters.
Some GPS locator systems (like location devices attached to kids,
pets, or grandparents in case they wander off, or LOJACK for cars)
transmit their location on some other radio band or other (and often
only when polled). If a cell phone is sending your location, it's
using the same frequencies as it would if you were dialing or
talking. It makes no sense that the GPS in a cell phone interferes
but talking doesn't.
Cell phones interfere significantly with the profit margins for
in-flight phone systems, if any.
On 2009-08-24, The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:26:53 -0700, "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org>
> wrote:
>>How about all the laptop computers and wireless networking hardware
>>combinations that have not been tested that are used for internet
>>connectivity on flights?
>>
>
> Why don't you contact the FAA and FCC and ask them?
If he did I think he'd find that FAA regulations basically leave
what electronics are prohibited during flight up to the airlines.
That isn't to say that they are telling lies when they tell
you FAA regulations prohibit use, but what the FAA regulations
enforce are decisions made by the airline. The FCC does ban
cell phone use in particular on planes in the air, though it
does this to protect the cell equipment on the ground, rather
than the avionics, from interference (and most pilot headsets
now come with a mobile phone adapter, suggesting that
violations of this particular FCC rule might not be
uncommon...).
It is fairly unlikely that either cell phones or WiFi
equipment (let alone the local oscillator in a radio receiver,
which they also generally prohibit) would interfere with any
well-designed, modern avionics but prudence dictates that
they restrict this stuff regardless, to reduce the free
variables if they have problems anyway. They'll drop the
restrictions in a heart beat, though, if there's profit to
be made as is the case with on-board WiFi service or, indeed,
on-board cell phone service like that which a few European
and Asian airlines have already begun to offer.
Stewart wrote:
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:h6rn2l$ga9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Stewart wrote:
>>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>>> news:evn195pp7h0r19toe3n5deptk6odrvm2ua@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:07:24 -0700, "Stewart"
>>>> <stewartg@american.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You were able to get a cell signal, inside a plane, at altitude?
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> doubt it.
>>>>> Isn't that how the get in the air internet (I used on Air Tran
>>>>> once),
>>>>> through ground based cell towers?....
>>>> Not exactly. AirTran/Gogo/Aircell has their own dedicated network
>>>> of
>>>> towers.
>>>>
>>>> From
>>>> http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20080619...flight-access/
>>>>
>>>> "Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of
>>>> 92
>>>> towers scattered across North America. These essentially are
>>>> cellphone
>>>> towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that
>>>> the
>>>> Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the
>>>> underside
>>>> of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed
>>>> through
>>>> the plane via Wi-Fi."
>>> So why is that form of two way communication fine, while all others
>>> are not? Could it be that this signal generates revenue?
>> For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
>> transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
>> designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
>> equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
>> combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
>
> How about all the laptop computers and wireless networking hardware
> combinations that have not been tested that are used for internet
> connectivity on flights?
>
>
It has been a while since I've flown anywhere but ISTR that laptops,
cell phones, etc, must be turned off during takeoff and climbout and
also during approach and landing. Those two periods are critical and
the aircraft's electronics must work!
If there is a problem during the remainder of the flight, it's generally
possible to correct such a problem before it turns into a disaster.
Per George:
>there are just too many of us
>sensible "stupid little people" that realize cell phone use in small
>spaces when forced to sit next to others just doesn't make sense
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:36:11 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>Per George:
>>For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
>>transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
>>designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
>>equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
>>combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
>
>Which seems to raise an interesting speculation: what about The
>Bad Guys using some sort of jamming device to broadcast a signal
>that disables the airplane's nav and/or control systems?
>
>Combine that with the prospect of a bra bomber, a body cavity
>bomber, and/or a few other things the Powers That Be might react
>to and it sounds kind of grim... like the next logical step
>might be "FedEx your bags and fly naked."
A German travel agent has come up with the ultimate in no-frills
flying - a charter flight for passengers who want to fly naked.
Naturist holidays are particularly popular among east Germans, who
like nothing better than to stretch out on a beach in the nude. "The
flight can be enjoyed as God intended," said OssiUrlaub, a company
specialising in selling to holidaymakers from the former east. "For
the first time, passengers in Germany can fly completely in the nude."
FKK, which stands for Freikörperkultur (Free Body Culture), is a
German movement which became widespread in the German Democratic
Republic. Today most German beaches or lakes, east or west, have
sections clearly labelled "FKK" or "textile beach" to avoid confusion.
Enrico Hess, head of OssiUrlaub, said his business plan was inspired
by the enthusiasm for naturist holiday breaks back in the days of
communism.
"FKK holidays were a popular way of spending the best weeks of the
year. Now we want to make this freedom possible above the clouds."
Its plane will fly from the city of Erfurt to the Baltic island of
Usedom, returning on the same day. Tickets cost €499 (£370). All
passengers will travel naked but will only be allowed to get undressed
aboard the flight, the company said. Pilots and cabin crew will remain
clothed "for security reasons".
"Up Yours Jerk" <shazbot@shazbot.com> wrote in message
news:t9ejm.78189$0z7.12130@newsfe07.iad...
> What is the rule now? (Its always been a stupid rule). It used to be no
> calls after the cabin door closes, and no calls until after the cabin
> door opens when you touch down. It didn't stop self important little
> people from exercising their power over you, but that was the rule in
> print. What is it now that the cabin door is always closed?
Why don't you get in, sit down, buckle up, shut up and listen to the
instructions of the crew. They'll tell you when you can use your pacifier.
On Aug 20, 8:42*am, "Up Yours Jerk" <shaz...@shazbot.com> wrote:
> What is the rule now? *(Its always been a stupid rule). *It used to be no
> calls after the cabin door closes, *and no calls until after the cabin door
> opens when you touch down. *It didn't stop self important little peoplefrom
> exercising their power over you, but that was the rule in print. *What is it
> now that the cabin door is always closed?
They're talking about the door to the plane, not the door to the
cockpit.
Most airlines allow cell phone use as soon as the plane touches down,
well before the door is open.
The ban on cell phones in flight is an FCC rule, not an FAA
regulation. For GSM, it would screw up the network if multiple towers
tried to connect to a bunch of phones that are all essentially equally
far away. CDMA can handle this just fine, in fact CDMA phones normally
will connect to multiple towers at the same time.
The airlines are working on a revenue model to allow cell phone use.
Hopefully they'll charge so much that cell phones on planes will go
the way of the Airfone service that used to be on most planes. Not
nearly enough people used it to make it worthwhile. Actually Verizon
(who operated the Airfone network) had a good deal for its subscribers
to use Airfone very cheaply. But Airfone was decommissioned shortly
afterward.
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Mark Crispin:
>> Which raises another issue. Mobile phone microphones are quite sensitive.
>> Landlines have not used microphone amplitude as a power source for 100 or
>> so years. There is nothing to be gained by yelling into a phone
>> microphone;
>
> Somewhere I read that the root cause of people talking too loud
> into cell phones is something about the talker's voice not being
> shunted back to them in the ear piece. Apparently land-line
> phones have this behavior, so the louder one speaks, the louder
> one's voice is heard in the earpiece..... but with cell phone's
> there is no feedback.
>
> Maybe somebody who actually knows something can affirm or debunk
> this assertion.
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per RepublicansDestroyAmerica:
>> The airlines are working on a revenue model to allow cell phone use.
>> Hopefully they'll charge so much that cell phones on planes will go
>> the way of the Airfone service....
>
> Hopefully - or we'll have one more reason to avoid using air
> travel.
You mean you need MORE reason than 9/11/2001?????????
Per Mark Crispin:
>Which raises another issue. Mobile phone microphones are quite sensitive.
>Landlines have not used microphone amplitude as a power source for 100 or
>so years. There is nothing to be gained by yelling into a phone
>microphone;
Somewhere I read that the root cause of people talking too loud
into cell phones is something about the talker's voice not being
shunted back to them in the ear piece. Apparently land-line
phones have this behavior, so the louder one speaks, the louder
one's voice is heard in the earpiece..... but with cell phone's
there is no feedback.
Maybe somebody who actually knows something can affirm or debunk
this assertion.
--
PeteCresswell
Per George:
>For the same reason the VHF (on domestic flights) and HF (on
>transoceanic flights) two way radios can be used. The equipment is
>designed, installed and tested to avoid interference with other
>equipment on the aircraft. How would you propose all possible
>combinations of cell phones (type, use, location) be tested?
Which seems to raise an interesting speculation: what about The
Bad Guys using some sort of jamming device to broadcast a signal
that disables the airplane's nav and/or control systems?
Combine that with the prospect of a bra bomber, a body cavity
bomber, and/or a few other things the Powers That Be might react
to and it sounds kind of grim... like the next logical step
might be "FedEx your bags and fly naked."
--
PeteCresswell
Per RepublicansDestroyAmerica:
>The airlines are working on a revenue model to allow cell phone use.
>Hopefully they'll charge so much that cell phones on planes will go
>the way of the Airfone service....
Hopefully - or we'll have one more reason to avoid using air
travel.
--
PeteCresswell
Phones on a Plane 
381959vu2oi2clhlhtc5sjndsje6nrt0h@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
