jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Sigh
Why can't we just use our bloody cell phones already. Mythbusters proved that phones DON'T interfere. I'd rather use my OWN EVDO service than pay for theirs. However, back to reality, this is expensive. 10 dollars for three hours or less? Most flights from one side of U.S. to another are around 2 hours tops. This isn't much a bargain and I could only see business travelers utilizing this service. Maybe there's enough of them and a niche for it. I don't doubt they will make money. Will your average Joe use this much, probably not. The price is too high. I could settle with 5 dollars extra on top of the ticket. However, 10 dollars for maybe 1-2 hrs and 12.95 for international, isn't a good deal that will attract your normal customers. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by jc100  :Mythbusters proved that phones DON'T interfere. While I have my doubts that cell phones interfere with avionics, you have to keep in mind that the Mythbusters are not scientists and their results are not scientifically valid. Their testing in that episode is nowhere near as thorough as the type of testing that they do on planes and avionics. So, while their test showed no impact, a proper test may very well show interference.
As for using your phone in the air, even if you could, being in a tin can, moving at 400+MPH at an altitude of 20,000+ feet would make it a pretty crappy experience and it very likely would not work very well. Additionally, the problems cell providers would have on their networks as you phone/device switches from cell to cell are a good enough reason not to allow it.
As a side note, I agree with you comment about the price. The price point is high now, but it SHOULD come down over time. It is a new service with limited deployment. As the number of flights and users increase, price should, in theory, come down. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Well I agree and disagree some on the Mythbuster test. While they are not scientists, they do a good job of replicating results. Sure, someone's test might have showed different results, leading to the current bans. I don't dispute that. However, their test should at least serve as some credence to review the issue again. That is my point anyway.
As per hopping from tower to tower, that's what the airline is doing with EVDO already. I have that on my cell phone and the ability to use it on my laptop. I'd be doing no different than the airline itself. Jumping from tower to tower to maintain internet via my cell phone. Instead, I would have to pay them for a service I already have, in order to use it. Sure, that isn't the case with everyone, but the point stands, It's not reasonable in price (due to being new), and some customers already have the ability to do this on their own, if they were allowed. |
|
manhole
join:2000-09-12
Modesto, CA
clubs:
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Most flights from one side of U.S. to another are around 2 hours tops. I don't know what kind of planes you fly on, but flights that are coast to coast are much longer than 2 hours. From San Francisco to Boston took me around 5 and 1/2 hours. A large number of passengers gladly pay the $15 - $20 fee to rent the airlines portable movie players for entertainment, I would gladly pay $12.95 for unlimited broadband usage on a long flight going coast to coast. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Well you forget something manhole, MANY flights are not nonstop. My question then begins, is this for only ONE leg of the flight or both? I mean if it's 10 dollars each time you make a connection, that's not cheap. 20 dollars to use internet for 3-4 hrs? I was basing my facts on the basis you must change flights. Nonstop flights are only usually out of major areas and are much more expensive. Hence, the real question begins, is this for both parts of the journey or a single way? |
|
zno
join:2002-01-08
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Well I agree and disagree some on the Mythbuster test. While they are not scientists, they do a good job of replicating results. Sure, someone's test might have showed different results, leading to the current bans. I don't dispute that. However, their test should at least serve as some credence to review the issue again. That is my point anyway. As per hopping from tower to tower, that's what the airline is doing with EVDO already. I have that on my cell phone and the ability to use it on my laptop. I'd be doing no different than the airline itself. Jumping from tower to tower to maintain internet via my cell phone. unless you're jack bauer, i doubt your data card/cell phone will work in a flying aircraft. even if signals from the cell towers (which btw are installed horizontally) can reach your aircraft, signal from your handheld will probably not reach the ground. |
|
manhole
join:2000-09-12
Modesto, CA
clubs: | reply to jc100
I would assume it will not carry over, but who knows. If that is the case, use it on the longer of the two flights  |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | reply to zno
Yeah...
Good in theory (use own EVDO on flights) - Bad in reality.
I accidentally left my cell on during a flight a while back. When I opened my bag and found it (@ 30,000ft) - sure enough it was complaining about "no signal".
C'mon you're in a metal tube going 600mph 6 miles above the earth and you think the "built in" antenna on the cell would actually do anything??? |
|
Do some research
@nyct.net
| reply to jc100
I would have loved to have that service on my 14 hr. NON-STOP flight from NY's JFK to Tokyo on my way to Bangkok, another 7 hr NON-STOP FLIGHT last December!
Would love to have that option on the many NON-STOP flights I take to Tucson, Las Vegas, LA & Frisco too!
Oh and those NON-STOPS aren't always the most expensive. Check Jet Blue for one example.
Any business travelers wanna chime in? |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| I'm not saying there aren't low cost nonstops. However, my main point is that MOST are not low cost and MOST originate from only major hubs. Therefore, the bulk majority have to deal with transfers when flying. Who is going to spend 10 dollars PER FLIGHT to use this service being the avg flight maybe 1-1.5 hrs before transfer. This is by no means a bargain. Sure, it might get cheaper as it's widely adopted. Yet, at this point, the market seems to be business travelers only. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to Do some research
said by Do some research :
I would have loved to have that service on my 14 hr. NON-STOP flight from NY's JFK to Tokyo on my way to Bangkok, another 7 hr NON-STOP FLIGHT last December!
Any business travelers wanna chime in?
Not a business traveler any more, but I would posit that these antennas will not be installed across the Pacific Ocean.  |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Why can't we just use our bloody cell phones already. Take your EVDO-enabled phone seven miles from the nearest cell site, wrap it in aluminum foil and then drop it in a six foot deep hole. Please report back how much signal you have and what the data throughput is.
That is how your bloody cell phone will work enroute without expensive, low-capacity satellite repeaters onboard the aircraft.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
TexasPlus
join:2004-06-16
Bedford, TX
 ·Millenicom
·ViaTalk
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Well I agree and disagree some on the Mythbuster test. While they are not scientists, they do a good job of replicating results. I saw that episode. They did not use a modern airliner with modern avionic equipment in all phases of flight. While the Mythbuster test was entertaining, it was not anywhere close to a valid real world test.
--
"The world is a book; those who do not travel read but a single page." -St. Augustine |
|
