 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:52:06 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> >>
>>> > I knew it was comming, didn't know it was here.
>> Yeah, Delta has been doing it for about a year on selected flights, and
>> over the holidays, Google sponsored it (so it was free).
>>
> In the UK, on some trains, there are some coaches that are designated
> "quite zones". No laptops, music players or phones are allowed. You even
> have to turn your book pages quietly.
There are times I'd really like that, especially flying. :-)
>> Interestingly, they seem to block wifi-capable cell phones (my cell
>> wouldn't connect to it), but my eReader (based on Android, same as my
>> phone) had no problems - so I sent text messages using my Nook (via
>> Google Voice) to let people know my flight was delayed but that we were
>> finally en route.
>>
> Do you mean that your phone could not get onto the internet? A
> colleague, who could not get a phone signal at a hotel I stayed at
> recently, was able to phone home (to France) via Skype on the hotels
> WiFi.
Yes, my phone couldn't connect to their wifi to get on the 'net. It
would get an address and then immediately be dropped. I'm guessing they
have something that knows the MAC address ranges for various devices and
blocks the ones that are cell phones - probably so people don't have to
remember to turn off their cell signal (which you're still not allowed to
use).
> Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
> manage to phone home and leave messages?
There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't likely
to make things worse.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 8:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:52:06 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2011 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I knew it was comming, didn't know it was here.
>>> Yeah, Delta has been doing it for about a year on selected flights, and
>>> over the holidays, Google sponsored it (so it was free).
>>>
>> In the UK, on some trains, there are some coaches that are designated
>> "quite zones". No laptops, music players or phones are allowed. You even
>> have to turn your book pages quietly.
>
> There are times I'd really like that, especially flying. :-)
>
I know what you mean. :-)
>> Do you mean that your phone could not get onto the internet? A
>> colleague, who could not get a phone signal at a hotel I stayed at
>> recently, was able to phone home (to France) via Skype on the hotels
>> WiFi.
>
> Yes, my phone couldn't connect to their wifi to get on the 'net. It
> would get an address and then immediately be dropped. I'm guessing they
> have something that knows the MAC address ranges for various devices and
> blocks the ones that are cell phones - probably so people don't have to
> remember to turn off their cell signal (which you're still not allowed to
> use).
>
Nanny State ;-)
>> Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
>> manage to phone home and leave messages?
>
> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't likely
> to make things worse.
>
I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:21:05 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> Yes, my phone couldn't connect to their wifi to get on the 'net. It
>> would get an address and then immediately be dropped. I'm guessing
>> they have something that knows the MAC address ranges for various
>> devices and blocks the ones that are cell phones - probably so people
>> don't have to remember to turn off their cell signal (which you're
>> still not allowed to use).
>>
> Nanny State ;-)
Thhhpt! :-) Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P
>>> Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
>>> manage to phone home and leave messages?
>>
>> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
>> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't
>> likely to make things worse.
>>
> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem - the two reasons I've
heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard fly-
by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I used
to) and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones
switching towers so quickly. The latter probably isn't as big of a
concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems
(per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal from
one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost immediately.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>> Nanny State ;-)
>
> Thhhpt! :-) Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P
>
Reel it in, I've got a bite. ;-)
>> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
>
> I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem -
That surprises me.
> the two reasons I've
> heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard fly-
> by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I used
> to)
I've been in a turbine control room when someone used a hand held radio.
The dials went round the clock and the annunciator board lit up like a
Christmas tree. So I can see that being possible.
> and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones
> switching towers so quickly. The latter probably isn't as big of a
> concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems
> (per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal from
> one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost immediately.
>
I can't see that being much of a problem to life and safety.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't likely
> to make things worse.
The primary reason not to do this is that your phone will be in range of
many more towers than you normally would be. For some cell systems, this is
a Bad Thing, for performance, capacity, and possibly even for routing. It
probably has nothing to do with the actual plane electronics.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:31:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
>> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't
>> likely to make things worse.
>
> The primary reason not to do this is that your phone will be in range of
> many more towers than you normally would be. For some cell systems, this
> is a Bad Thing, for performance, capacity, and possibly even for
> routing. It probably has nothing to do with the actual plane
> electronics.
Well, I do recall that the Mythbusters tested this myth, and it rated
"plausible" with relation to the electronics. Still, I've been on plenty
of planes where people have not turned off their phones and they all made
it to their destination without incident...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:06:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>>> Nanny State ;-)
>>
>> Thhhpt! :-) Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P
>>
>>
> Reel it in, I've got a bite. ;-)
>
>>> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
>>
>> I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem -
>
> That surprises me.
It would depend on the tx strength of the signal, but it doesn't surprise
me.
What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in
my phone is useless.
>> the two reasons I've
>> heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard
>> fly- by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I
>> used to)
>
> I've been in a turbine control room when someone used a hand held radio.
> The dials went round the clock and the annunciator board lit up like a
> Christmas tree. So I can see that being possible.
I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals
flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed
to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.
>> and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones
>> switching towers so quickly. The latter probably isn't as big of a
>> concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems
>> (per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal
>> from one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost
>> immediately.
>>
>>
> I can't see that being much of a problem to life and safety.
True.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in
> my phone is useless.
Not all of them are. My brother has a trace from his exercize watch that
shows him flying across country.
> I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals
> flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed
> to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.
Especially that in which the general public will be flying. I'm not
surprised there are industrial settings where following the rules is more
important than in an airplane passenger compartment.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:31:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
>>> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't
>>> likely to make things worse.
>> The primary reason not to do this is that your phone will be in range of
>> many more towers than you normally would be. For some cell systems, this
>> is a Bad Thing, for performance, capacity, and possibly even for
>> routing. It probably has nothing to do with the actual plane
>> electronics.
>
> Well, I do recall that the Mythbusters tested this myth, and it rated
> "plausible" with relation to the electronics. Still, I've been on plenty
> of planes where people have not turned off their phones and they all made
> it to their destination without incident...
Um, yeah. That's waht I was saying. It's not a problem for the airplane.
It's a problem for the phone carriers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 11:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:06:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> That surprises me.
>
> It would depend on the tx strength of the signal, but it doesn't surprise
> me.
>
In the UK, you’re lucky if you can get reception in a park never mind a
plane.
> What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in
> my phone is useless.
>
Never tried. Any excuse to switch it off.
>
> I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals
> flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed
> to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.
>
OK these were handhelds with power to reach the horizon.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
