monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant) (09/15/90)
An article in today's "Wall Street Journal" (9/14/90 p B1) states that the FCC banned the use of cellular phones in planes on the ground because they figured that people wouldn't hang up when the flight took off. The FCC claims that the cellular phones can't be used in the air because they interfere with calls be earthbound cellular phone users. The FCC is reconsidering permitting the use of cellular phones in planes on the ground. The FAA doesn't mind ground use of cellular phones in planes. How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the ground? It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane once it lands. Why did the FCC prohibit this as well? Also, on the same page is an article 900 numbers entitled "Scams in 900 Numbers Spur Calls for Federal Regulation"
merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) (09/17/90)
In article <12175@accuvax.nwu.edu>, monty@sunne (Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes: | The FCC is reconsidering permitting the use of cellular phones in | planes on the ground. The FAA doesn't mind ground use of cellular | phones in planes. Well, not quite. The PIC (pilot in command) on a part 91 flight (your typical small plane operation) is responsible for approving the use of nearly any onboard electronics *after* determining that such use will not interfere with any of the avionics in use at the time. I s'pose that you probably aren't using your navigational radios on the ground (one would hope!), but if it interferes with communications with ground control or clearance delivery, the FAA would have a fit. This doesn't exactly equal "doesn't mind" ... it's just that cell phones probably don't really interfere. (But my handheld cell phone *does* mess up my cordless phone if it's too close, and given the aged state of most private aircraft comm gear, I can imagine similar interference.) Speaking as an instrument-rated pilot *and* handheld cell phone user, Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn
FREE0612@uiucvmd (David Lemson) (09/17/90)
In a message of Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:58:59 EDT, Monty Solomon <monty@sunne.east.sun.com> writes: >The FCC claims that the cellular phones can't be used in the air >because they interfere with calls be earthbound cellular phone users. >How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the >ground? The entire premise of cellular service assumes that your cellular unit transmits with a relatively low power, and has a fairly small range. This allows other cells in your general area to use the same frequency as you are using, but on the other side of town. If you are in a plane, you are likely to receive several calls land-based calls on your frequency at one time. (Ever notice how you can get FM stations from 100 miles away when you're in a plane?) Another problem may be that if you are moving at 350 knots, you will be switching cells every few seconds, putting a lot of load on the computers that switch calls between cells. When the entire network goes to micro-cells, this will be an even bigger problem.
Tad.Cook%ssc.UUCP@hpubvwa.uucp (09/18/90)
In article <12175@accuvax.nwu.edu>, monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > An article in today's "Wall Street Journal" (9/14/90 p B1) states that > the FCC banned the use of cellular phones in planes on the ground > because they figured that people wouldn't hang up when the flight took > off. > How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the > ground? Because it hogs a frequency used by many users in different cells. The great thing about cellular phone systems is that they are very efficient in terms of spectrum usage. This is because as you move from cell to cell, you are shifted by the cell site to different frequencies. Two adjacent cells never use the same frequencies, but the frequency that you are on may be used by another user two or three cells away. The system depends on everyone being on the ground and running low power. Otherwise it cannot function. When you use a cellular phone from a plane, many cell sites can hear your signal, so you end up hogging that frequency throughout the entire system. A few cellular callers in the air could cause major problems. > It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane > once it lands. Why did the FCC prohibit this as well? Because they were afraid the users would not stop talking once the plane took off. I also have a feeling that they may have been nervous about possible interference with the plane's various electronic systems for navigation and communications. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (09/19/90)
In article <12175@accuvax.nwu.edu>, monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty Solomon) writes: > How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the > ground? The cellular telephone system depends upon spatial diversity. The channel you're using is also in use at numerous other cell sites, far enough from your location that others may use them without interference. A cellular phone in a plane, being approximately equi-distant from numerous cell sites, occupies a channel simultaneously throughout the cellular system. This may impose a heavy switching load on the cellular switch, which may continually try to hand the call off among the numerous cell sites, each of which thinks it's got a close location to the mobile unit. It may also cause interference with other calls on the same frequency. It is also possible that the cellular phone's transmitter, aboard the aircraft, would cause interference with the navigation or communication radio equipment aboard the same plane. When the plane's autopilot, having been misguided by the interfering signal on a coupled approach, attempts to land the plane somewhere _near_ the airport rather than on it, people on the ground may get hurt (not to mention the danger to people on the plane). This is why the operation of most portable electronic devices is prohibited in flight. > It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane > once it lands. Why did the FCC prohibit this as well? As the original article described, it would be difficult to ensure that the use ends as the plane takes off. Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Internet: dave@westmark.com [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
flak@mcgp1.uucp (Dan Flak) (09/21/90)
In article <12213@accuvax.nwu.edu> Randal Schwartz <merlyn@iwarp.intel. com> writes: >Well, not quite. The PIC (pilot in command) on a part 91 flight (your >typical small plane operation) is responsible for approving the use of >nearly any onboard electronics *after* determining that such use will >not interfere with any of the avionics in use at the time. I s'pose >that you probably aren't using your navigational radios on the ground >(one would hope!), but if it interferes with communications with >ground control or clearance delivery, the FAA would have a fit. Not quite! The pilot checks navigation radios on the ground. You wouldn't want to have your flight taxi back in because of an erroneous "bad check" of the instruments. I suspect that the "right" type of transmission would even "spoof" an INS which gets no electronic data from the outside world. Also RMI isn't just limited to navigation / communications equipment. Nearly everything on a modern jet transport is electronically reported. There are transducers of every description to measure engine power, airspeed (OK, not the actual airspeed itself, but the Central AIr Data Computer), pitch trim ... (Which, by the way, is one reason why MIL-SPEC coffee pots cost $700. This still doesn't explain the toilet seats). The relatively short wavelengths used by cellular makes it a good candidate for producing RMI. I, as a Pilot in Command would be hesitant to allow its use during any phase of flight. Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak)
olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (09/22/90)
This thread (and the {Wall Street Journal}, and other publications)
has mentioned a general prohibition against cellular telephone use in
aircraft. I have searched the FCC regulations for this prohibition
(to find out its details), but I cannot find it.
Does anyone know what regulation prohibits cellular calls from
aircraft? (I know that you need the permission of the pilot and/or
the airline, but that is supposedly not good enough in this case.)
[Moderator's Note: It is not so much cellular phones as it is radio
equipment in general. All radios -- even those which 'only' receive
i.e. scanners, AM/FM broadcast receivers -- also radiate at least a
little via what is called the IF, or intermediate frequency. Try
holding two little pocket radios back to back, both turned on, and
listen to them fight with each other; squealing, etc. Even that tiny
amount of RF could adversely affect the aircraft's electronics. PAT]kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (09/23/90)
In article <12412@accuvax.nwu.edu> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: >This thread (and the {Wall Street Journal}, and other publications) >has mentioned a general prohibition against cellular telephone use in >aircraft. I have searched the FCC regulations for this prohibition >(to find out its details), but I cannot find it. It is certainly too recent to have found itself printed in CFR47 (the FCC rules and regulations). In any event, the cabin crew announcement these days is exceedingly explicit in disallowing operation of ANY radio equipment (transmitters or receivers) at any time. US Air also requested that we turn off laptop computers and video games during takeoff and landing. All of the above is, I believe, related to the FARs proscribing interference to navigational equipment. The airborne cellular (specifically) prohibition has be discussed here before, and relates to cell overloading. Maybe someone can look it up in the cellular rules. I wouldn't be surprised to find the laptop prohibition on takeoff and landing to be an attempt to prevent injury from flying objects in the event of an accident. Sometimes there may be MORE THAN ONE reason for a rule. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)
olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (09/25/90)
In article <12412@accuvax.nwu.edu> I wrote: >Does anyone know what regulation prohibits cellular calls from aircraft? (The Moderator appended a note pointing out the potential risks from IF-leakage interfering with the aircraft's avionics.) I see that I wasn't quite clear in my question. There are two distinct problems arising from cellular use in aircraft: 1. Interference with the aircraft avionics, due to IF leakage. (this is an *aviation* problem). 2. Overloading the cellular radio network, by accessing multiple cells. (this is a *telecom* problem). The first problem is addressed by FAA regulation 91.21 (formerly 91.19), which prohibits the operation of most portable electronic equipment on commercial flights, unless the airline has determined that the equipment will not interfere with the aircraft avionics. The second problem is what I was asking about. Suppose someone is flying high over Los Angeles, in circumstances where FAR 91.21 does not apply. If he uses his cellular phone, it might activate hundreds of cells and confuse the network. It would be impolite for him to make a cellular call from there, but would it be illegal? If so, how?
covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 03-Oct-1990 1104) (10/03/90)
[Moderator's Note: John Covert forwarded this to us. PAT] From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio, Washington In TELECOM Digest Vol 10, Issue 666, Marc Kaufman writes: >In any event, the cabin crew announcement >these days is exceedingly explicit in disallowing operation of ANY >radio equipment (transmitters or receivers) at any time. The announcements seem to be idiosyncratic to the airlines involved. Over the last three years, I've flown a lot on America West Airlines and there's never been any mention of using RF equipment. (What does give me a hoot, especially on the Phoenix-Tucson shuttle, is listening to the detailed instructions on use of the plane's emergency flotation gear: for those not familiar with southern Arizona, you're hundreds of miles from any body of water large enough to take a bath in.) On the thread of inadvertent three-way calling (more or less), we had a peculiar incident at work a number of years ago. _How_ it happened would take a special Digest edition, but: One Saturday night, a female staff member (NOT at work that evening) accidentally got her home phone "stuck" in the building paging amp. Our telecom manager was finally able to clear the problem, but all my attempts (pick-up, barge-in, etc.) were fruitless. Of course, a lot of people were opposed to my _trying_ to correct things.... ;-) Opinions expressed are my own. NPR's opinions are made by a bunch of people upstairs. Dale Neiburg NPR Engineering 202-822-2402
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (10/04/90)
In article <12619@accuvax.nwu.edu>, olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: > Suppose someone is flying high over Los Angeles, in circumstances > where FAR 91.21 does not apply. If he uses his cellular phone, it > might activate hundreds of cells and confuse the network. It would be > impolite for him to make a cellular call from there, but would it be > illegal? If so, how? Ted Potter, flying traffic reporter on KOMO in Seattle was using his cellular phone from his traffic spotting plane a few years ago. The FCC called him and told him to STOP. I don't know what regulation they cited. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/06/90)
On Oct 6 at 1:20, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I > think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to > report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT There is only one thing he can be using if the reports are broadcast directly and that is a "Part 74" frequency. Part 74 is the section of FCC rules and regs that covers use of broadcast aux frequencies. And the rules are quite explicit that anything meant for direct broadcast must be sent on one of these channels. There are such channels in the 150 MHz and more popular 450 MHz region. The 950 MHz channels that radio broadcasters use to relay program material to transmitter sites also fall under Part 74. Just as someone was busted in the Seattle area for using cellular for this purpose, so was a station in the Bay Area chastised for using the "business band" for traffic reports. The problem is, in metro areas there aren't enough Part 74 frequencies to go around. And even though there are several traffic reporting services that are used by many stations, they must use a coveted Part 74 frequency (whose license is actually held by a designated broadcaster, since only broadcasters can be granted licenses for these channels). Another problem is that use of a frequency from aircraft wipes out its reuse over a vast area. Broadcasters spend many hours a month coordinating the use of these frequencies. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
73765.1026@compuserve.com (John Stanley) (10/07/90)
Regarding a comment on the FCC requesting a traffic reporter to stop using cellular phones from the air, our esteemed Moderator asks: >[Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I >think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to >report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT In Syracuse, Captain Scott King, the only air traffic reporter in Syracuse, uses 170.15 for his downlink. Uplink frequency is unknown, but 170.15 can be used by the studios he talks to (1 AM, 1 FM, and 1 TV, as far as I know.) The city police also monitor 170.15 and can talk to him on it. He regularly uses this frequency to notify them of traffic problems and accidents. This frequency is designated as one of the standard remote to studio links, and is used for many things besides air traffic. Several stations in this area use it for live shots. It was quite interesting to listen during the (Great) New York State Fair, where everyone and their brother was trying to get live stuff from the grounds. The Captain was VERY unhappy that his signal was getting covered. Since there is so little coordination heard on that frequency, there must be another frequency they use, but I have not found it. A friend of mine flies a reporter during the Captain's vacation time. He says there is about 100 pounds of radio gear strapped into the seat. It includes tally lights and all sorts of stuff. There are a lot of extra antennas pasted all over the Captain's plane. His signal from the plane is good enough that he sometimes makes his last traffic report from the ground at the airport after landing. For those with a listening bent, the RTS links and other media frequencies are a great way to keep up with breaking news. The police use too many codes, but the reporters never do. It also gives an insight into the mania that exists in broadcast journalism. One night, I heard a TV remote leave the local hospital (downtown) and arrive at the station (Eastside) in about five minutes, in a race to get a hot tape to air. He must have been doing about 80 and blowing red lights to perform this feat. The tape: a standup in front of the hospital saying that one victim was taken to XXX hospital, but no information was available on his condition. The ground pounding reporters do make heavy use of cellular, sometimes for remote feeds. This is information I heard from someone. I never listen to cellular frequencies. Nope, not me.
sekell@monsanto.com (10/08/90)
> [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I > think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to > report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT Around here, the local clear-channel AM station (KMOX) uses a FM radio system on 161.730 Mhz for their traffic copter-to-base reporting. I'm not sure if this frequency is specifically allocated for this type of service or not. I thought I once heard that this same system and frequency was used as a link to the local Emergency Operations Center for their EBS broadcast audio. Scott Keller - sekell@monsanto.com - 314-537-6317 -