Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am regularly able to get usable signal to almost 10,000ft (9500 +/- 100).

But as you probably know it is fleeting, a min or 2, and quite spotty.
Plus it is a SMALL aircraft (venerable Cessna 172), much less metal in way then the thick skin of say 737.

More importantly, the airliner is going to be cruising at 500 knots, with even less connection times. Also, at that speed there can be enough of a Doppler shift to make cell signals go off frequency. I was surprised to learn about that.

I posted a graphic about the spotty aerial coverage of a cell tower the other day. I'll repeat it here. The red dot is an example airliner at 8,000 feet going in and out of various bars of coverage (white is zero).

cell_signal_aircraft.png

And recall the 9/11/2001 cell phone intercepts from high alt as well.

The high altitude 9/11 calls were from seatback phones. It was only when they got very low, that some were able to use their cells.

And again, the system can currently only manage less than 10 concurrent calls, so it's not going to be a plane filled with 100 phone conversations happening at once.

Technology will progress.

But the more relevant thing is, USDOT doesn't ban cellphone use on interstate bus or train transport, so arguing that it should be banned on planes is tough.

Airplanes are special cases. People are strapped into their assigned (and often tiny) seat next to others, often for hours on end, with dehydration, exhaustion, and even fear-of-flight thrown in. Plus the availability of alcohol. It's a recipe for lots of air rage, and that's a safety problem.

Quiet areas on an airliner? Seriously?

Sure, trains have it. And we all used to pick smoking / non-smoking seating on airliners.

(By "quiet area", I'm obviously referring to the areas in other situations that are called that. It means "no cell phones".)
 
The FAA regulates aviation safety. This is not a safety matter.

They regulate far more than safety, but many aspects of operations. For instance you would think that the "free market" (cough) would make airlines with very poor on-time departures, who leave their customers on the tarmac for 2-3 hours as the plane runs out of food/water/bathroom-capacitysink to the bottom and the customers would go to another airline (oh wait, not simple to do). There are now regulations forcing the industry to try and not do this to its customers. They've had decades to fix this on their own, but didn't.

Once the government deregulated fees the insanity of charging nickel-and-dime fees grew up. As a frequent business traveller as the bag fees goes up, I watch the size of the carryons get bigger as nobody wants to deal with the fees; but wait, the free market should take care of this, but it doesn't (it is getting worse)...

Without regulation the flight attendant couldn't enforce stoping obnoxious behavior. If someone is drunk/disorderly on the plane (it's not safety per se since the cockpit is locked) the attendants now have legal recourse to stop them (which before was a "please stop being belligerent" situation). Regulation isn't a bad thing per se, but bad regulation is. Without a rule that says either that they are banned across the board OR that the airline has the right to enforce their own ban with the force of law, people will tell the attendant to go screw: "I have the legal right to make calls wherever".
 
The cell service providers had the opportunity to provide in-flight phone services years ago. GTE and AT&T did.

It wasn't abused. The prices were so high, hardly anyone used it. And the prices didn't fall.

Ultimately, both companies abandoned it, and the equipment was removed from the airplanes.

Gogo Inflight has the ground-based infrastructure to provide talk and text services, alongside their Internet service. They already offer it to business aviation.

But, they aren't yet profitable, and have actually raised their prices for inflight WiFi. I don't think they will offer a great bargain on phone calls -- especially for people that are used to unlimited talk/text for no extra charge.

Without the ground based infrastructure, a provider will have to rely on satellite, such as Iridium or Inmarsat. If you think that might be a bargain, check out the per-minute cost for voice calls on those networks.

Wholeheartedly agree. Just because a federal agency says the airlines now have the go ahead to install antennas that will allow voice over cellular on aircraft does not mean anyone who walks onto a plane with an unlimited talk plan will be able to keep talking at 35,000 feet for no additional charge.

The cost will probably be between $2.50 and $5.00 a minute (if not more) and the airlines will likely just add the per-minute charges onto the cost of a monthly postpaid bill from one's carrier just like international roaming has always worked for postpaid customers. It would be interesting to see if prepaid customers would be able to use the in-flight service. My guess would be no.

Or, maybe they'll just sell reloadable prepaid SIM cards for in-flight voice. That probably makes the most sense since that would be compatible with any unlocked GSM handset regardless of pre/postpaid. That would make things a lot easier from a billing standpoint as well, I'd assume.
 
I'm ok with your making cell phones on flights that I am on, as long as they are not loud enough for me to hear. You are welcome to make calls using inaudible subvocalization all you like. If you are not ok with this, please Get. Out. Of. My. Life.

Thanks.

Stop talking to the person next to you while your at it. Your voice annoys me. Good point.
 
how is this new? you were always able to unlock your phone once you meet your contractual agreement.
 
wtf, am I the only one that thinks if they are going to ban talking on the phone they should ban talking to the person in the seat next to you? Both equally annoying, and if you want to sleep or something and are annoyed, you should have earplugs. :cool:
 
They allow calling, then the airlines will charge passengers an extra premium for seating located in a quiet zone.

I question how that would work. I remember back in the day when the airlines offered a "no smoking" section. In practice, that arrangement freed you to inhale the exhaled cigarette smoke of others.
 
wtf, am I the only one that thinks if they are going to ban talking on the phone they should ban talking to the person in the seat next to you? Both equally annoying, and if you want to sleep or something and are annoyed, you should have earplugs. :cool:

I think we're the only two... lol
 
If you can't see the difference between a crying baby and your example, well, I really don't know what to say.

I can say with certainty that you don't have kids though.
I have 2 kids. :)
When we took them on planes, we were prepared.
Like going to the doctor prior to the flight and getting suggestions in event that air pressure may cause them to be agitated.
Have food/milk ready.
Things to do if he starts crying during take off or landing.

It seems these days people are not as respectful of others.
It's the me, me, me generation of entitlement.

It's upon those creating the problem to correct the problem, not for others to tolerate.
 
At 6,737 miles from NY to Tokyo (just figuring a long flight), that's over 148 trips, or 74 round trips, or better than one round trip per week. NY to Sydney would be over 100 flights, or just about one round trip per week.

Million-milers rarely accumulate that mileage in one year. It's a lifetime accumulation. Airlines usually grant you the first tier in their frequent flyer program, permanently, and you don't have to re-qualify each year. Two million lifetime miles bumps you up to the next tier. In a decade of regular business travel, I'm just over 1 million miles, but unfortunately not on the same airline.

However, there are a significant number of people that do make a trip every week, although it is usually domestic. I've done it for 6 months at a time, and met the same people on the plane each time. Round-trip from LAX to NYC will rack up 5,000 miles every round-trip, and there are overnight "red-eye" flights expressly for this purpose.

It's not fun, although if you can arrange to work 4 days and be home for 2 (losing the 7th day enroute), it's bearable if you don't have a family.
 
wtf, am I the only one that thinks if they are going to ban talking on the phone they should ban talking to the person in the seat next to you? Both equally annoying, and if you want to sleep or something and are annoyed, you should have earplugs. :cool:

In general...

Talking to the person next to you, and speaking on a phone, are not equally annoying.

Compared to regular person-to-person conversations, most people yell into their phones... because the audio feedback is too low and they think they have speak louder.

(Real hell would be if you were on a night flight full of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans, all determined to talk louder on their phones than anyone else on the flight.)
 
Sure, trains have it. And we all used to pick smoking / non-smoking seating on airliners.

(By "quiet area", I'm obviously referring to the areas in other situations that are called that. It means "no cell phones".)

Sorry but calling anything a "quiet area" on a jet airliner, with a sound level range of 95 to 105 decibels is just plain stupid. Guess that is why airlines don't do it, and likely never will.

This topic seems to have people throwing common sense out the proverbial window. Jet engine? No problem. Someone talking to someone else? Fine. Someone talking to someone else on a cellphone? OMG NO WAY!!!!


Michael
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Little do you know that you are being completely judgmental

As you have been with blaming bad parenting for the reason that kids cry on flights.

Your sense of entitlement is as asinine as the posts you made in this thread, causing the backlash you are getting.

BL.
 
Voice calls have been possible in flights for years. I don't see why everyone is getting roused up about this.

Just don't yell into your phone and I won't mind.
 
The cell service providers had the opportunity to provide in-flight phone services years ago. GTE and AT&T did.

It wasn't abused. The prices were so high, hardly anyone used it. And the prices didn't fall.

You mean cellphone service? I don't remember that. I've only seen wired phones in planes that use AT&T or something and take a credit card.
 
As you have been with blaming bad parenting for the reason that kids cry on flights.

Your sense of entitlement is as asinine as the posts you made in this thread, causing the backlash you are getting.

BL.

Backlash?!

My comment has nearly the most number of thumb ups my friend!

Okay my comment wasn't fair

Doesn't mean I like crying babies or overweight passengers
 
Cell phones will not work above about 10,000 feet, on a good day with optimal conditions. No one is going to be using their cell phones to make calls on a cellular network at 35,000 feet. It just won't work.
 
Backlash?!

My comment has nearly the most number of thumb ups my friend!

Okay my comment wasn't fair

Doesn't mean I like crying babies or overweight passengers

And it also doesn't mean that you are entitled to only what you want, because you are not the only paying passenger on that flight. Unless you pay for a different class, you shouldn't receive any preferential treatment.

That is what you just don't get, let alone what parents go through when flying with their children.

BL.
 
Me, too. I am not normally one big on regulation, but enough is enough. We should not have to ever shut our devices down, but voice calls should be avoided.

Is it really a place for the government to get involved, which is my quandary, but I fear them not getting involved may be a nightmare.

This is interesting, as it highlights why no issue is left or right, and how the truth/answer often lies in the middle.

This. In other scenarios many would complain about airline service; the enforcement of a no-call policy on a per airline basis would likely result in uneven enforcement and even more complaints about airline service. A uniform regulation banning voice calls is the right path.

----------

It's funny how no one every complains about people talking on their phones on buses or trains...

Have you ridden on a commuter bus? I've seen people practically tarred and feathered for talking on a cell phone.
 
The FAA regulates aviation safety. This is not a safety matter.

Cell phone use was previously regulated on the basis of both aviation safety and FCC interference concerns. Now that technology has been developed that negates both arguments, the reason for outlawing them (etiquette?) would truly break new ground. How far do you suggest we go with regulating etiquette? Do we ban phones in restaurants? Trains? Buses? Do we require people to hold the door open for us at a public establishment when we're within a certain distance behind them?

By your own logic, we don't need the FAA. Consumers will simply vote with their dollars to fly on safe airlines so why regulate safety measures, right?
 
You mean cellphone service? I don't remember that. I've only seen wired phones in planes that use AT&T or something and take a credit card.

That's correct: both AT&T and GTE were doing so at one point, but they were abandoned due to lack of use.

If an airline chooses to install the micro/pico/femto-cell base station required to make this work, the prices will be similar to roaming charges on cruise ships: $2.50/minute on AT&T.
 
<....> Using the phone's built-in GPS receiver, they can calculate your height and charge you based on that. It's a ridiculous idea but it but fit in nicely with their customer-screwing plans.

People in Denver and Albuquerque will hate that!
 
That's correct: both AT&T and GTE were doing so at one point, but they were abandoned due to lack of use.

If an airline chooses to install the micro/pico/femto-cell base station required to make this work, the prices will be similar to roaming charges on cruise ships: $2.50/minute on AT&T.

Not necessarily. With cell service, more people might use it, in which case they'd be able to lower their prices. It's one thing to be able to make calls from a pay phone, another thing to have service to send AND receive calls on your own personal cellphone. Much more desirable and tempting.
 
And it also doesn't mean that you are entitled to only what you want, because you are not the only paying passenger on that flight. Unless you pay for a different class, you shouldn't receive any preferential treatment.

That is what you just don't get, let alone what parents go through when flying with their children.

BL.

Okay
I will
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.