BBC News: Opposition to mobile phone chat on planes

NFH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25058358

I imagine these technophobes are the same type of people who object to mobile phone coverage on the Tube. But in the air, the cost is prohibitive enough to prevent passengers from making long calls that irritate fellow passengers. As far as I know, the two main providers of in-flight mobile coverage, OnAir and AeroMobile, don't supply SIM cards so all users have to pay high roaming charges. I don't see what the problem is.

digp

its not needed

NFH

digp wrote: »

its not needed

How did you arrive at this simplistic conclusion? Are you assuming that other people's communications needs concur with your own?

Jon_01

Having just spent an train journey with some business johnny 2 rows behind me for an hour wittering on his phone to anyone that would answer about getting stock of tiles from Geneva to Brum. I think any phone calls on planes would be a nightmare.
The business types don't care about the cost as they aren't paying it. And I have no wish to hear them for hours on end.

At least in a train you can snatch the bloody thing out of their hand and toss it out the window. I can't see that working at 30,000 feet (well, apart from the once )....

NFH

British Airways has disabled voice calls on its LCY-JFK route since it launched this service four years ago. Although British Airways says that Skype is unavailable, this is not true because Skype is peer-to-peer. However, I couldn't get Skype voice calls to work because the latency was 3,000ms round-trip, although Skype text chatting worked fine.

zagfles

If flying over land the mobiles could presumably pick up networks on the ground, so it may be no more cost prohibitive than roaming in the country being flown over. Making calls from the air has been possible from most (non budget) airlines for at least 10 years, using handsets provided by the airline. But very rarely used (in economy anyway) due to the cost.

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25058358

I imagine these technophobes are the same type of people who object to mobile phone coverage on the Tube. But in the air, the cost is prohibitive enough to prevent passengers from making long calls that irritate fellow passengers. As far as I know, the two main providers of in-flight mobile coverage, OnAir and AeroMobile, don't supply SIM cards so all users have to pay high roaming charges. I don't see what the problem is.

At least on the tube, or a train, you can usually go and sit elsewhere if some PITA big-shot is shouting down the phone...and trains often have "quiet zones" where mobile use is prohibited.

NFH

zagfles wrote: »

If flying over land the mobiles could presumably pick up networks on the ground

Not true. Above 10,000ft, you're lucky to receive an occasional SMS, and you can forget making phone calls and certainly not data. Even at the top of the tall buildings in Canary Wharf, I struggle to get a signal sometimes because the signals from mobile phone transmitters radiate mainly horizontally, not vertically.

Jon_01

When I started training at Orange (please don't throw things, I don't work there any more!), we were told that 'the speed of the network' was 56 mph. In that, if you were moving faster than that you couldn't get a reliable connection.
I have no idea if that was true then or is now? But I'm sure most aircraft go a bit faster than that?

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

Not true. Above 10,000ft, you're lucky to receive an occasional SMS, and you can forget making phone calls and certainly not data. Even at the top of the tall buildings in Canary Wharf, I struggle to get a signal sometimes because the signals from mobile phone transmitters radiate mainly horizontally, not vertically.

Passengers on the 9/11 flight UA93 made mobile calls at 40,000 feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

NFH

Jon_01 wrote: »

When I started training at Orange (please don't throw things, I don't work there any more!), we were told that 'the speed of the network' was 56 mph. In that, if you were moving faster than that you couldn't get a reliable connection.
I have no idea if that was true then or is now? But I'm sure most aircraft go a bit faster than that?

There is some truth in this. On Eurostar, it can be sporadically difficult to get a signal, particularly for data, at 186mph (300km/h). If you are approaching a transmitter which is right beside the track (or going away from it), then you will struggle to use your phone. However, if the transmitter is a long way from the track, then your speed relative to the transmitter is a lot less, and so it's possible to use your phone. It is one of the rare scenarios where it's better for a transmitter to be further away. The same principle applies when in the air.