If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Cell phone use from aircraft have been allowed in Canada for quite some time. And it will become legal in the US whenever 1) the FCC gets motivated to change it, and 2) the wireless service providers agree that the regulation is unnecessary. I think it more likely that the old AMPS system will gradually be replaced with PCS and the issue will become moot. George Patterson Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
xrayvizhen wrote: My understanding, from a source within the I.T. department of Cingular, is that this issue has nothing to do with safety in the cockpit or interference with aircraft navigation equipment. It has to do with the fact that when at altitiude, a cell phone will be accessing many more cells at one time than when on the ground which somehow prevents your cell phone carrier from accurately billing you. This information came to me about a year ago. If AOPA has updated information and is saying it's OK with the carriers, then hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later That was true with the old analog sites. Their antennas seemed to point up as well as down. I used to be able to make an analog call at cruise altitude without a problem. Of course I probably lit up every cell to the horizon (note: only did it a few times in sparsely poplated areas). When the PCS network was built, it seemed that they caught on to this and angled the antennas towards the ground in most places. So says and acquaintence who works as a design engineer at Sprint. With the PCS phone, I've never been able to get a signal much above pattern altitude. I have to agree with the poster that said AOPA's quest was pointless. Analog service is disappearing and you can't use the newer services in the air anyway. I would think that they'd have more pressing matters on their plate than this. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:42:13 GMT, George Patterson
wrote: We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that interferes with other system customers and with the service providers. Well, we've yammered about this for years, and it does seem that digital does not intefere when used at altitude. And we will all be digital eventually. -- all the best, Dan Ford email (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com the blog: www.danford.net |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:11:57 GMT, "Joe Johnson"
wrote: In lesislation authorizing executive agencies to regulate something, Congress usually includes "...such regulations shall have the full force of law," or some such equivalent language. A regulation that has the force of law is nevertheless a regulation, not a law. -- all the best, Dan Ford email (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com the blog: www.danford.net |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:43:33 GMT, George Patterson
wrote: FCC (and FAA) regulations are considered to be "regulatory law." Regulatory law is the same as dry rain. No such a thing. -- all the best, Dan Ford email (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com the blog: www.danford.net |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
We are *not* in the former state. The FCC is prohibiting an action that interferes with other system customers and with the service providers. That is *not* harmless.
Well, if the cell companies disagree (with the FCC on this matter), then we =are= in the former state. The new information is that the cell companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message
om... The new information is that the cell companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air. Probably because they know that their antenna are oriented so that they won't receive our signals anyway... Or maybe because they will only give us an analog and roaming signal and it end up costing us more... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Jose wrote:
The new information is that the cell companies are ok with letting cell phones be used in the air. What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about. George Patterson Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about. Ok, I inferred from the note that the cell phone companies were ok with it. My bad. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
George Patterson wrote: What new info? My contacts at Verizon say that that company, for one, is still opposed. If you're talking about the AOPA article, note that AOPA seems to be of the opinion that the entire reason for the FCC ban is to prevent interference with avionics. In short, AOPA doesn't know what they're talking about. I agree, George. AOPA is missing the point. The airlines would like to lift the ban on cell phones so that they could install small cells inside the aircraft, which would then downlink to a ground station by a non-cell means. They would, of course, charge their customers big bucks for this service. AOPA seems to be under the impression that all cell phones (AMPS and digital services) would work just fine in an airplane. That's just not the case. The analog system still has problems with aircraft lighting up every cell within line of sight. The digital services have oriented their antennas downward, so that airborne phones won't interfere with the ground system. I don't know why AOPA is even wasting their time and money on this. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |