FCC to Vote Thursday to Allow Voice Calls on Planes

unless planes get microcells or wifi calling services become more common, people will not automatically become chatty kathys on a plane. Has anyone but me actually tried to see how high you can go before cell service cuts out?

It depends upon many factors (cell density, speed, weather, direction, altitude, frequency, airline type), but in a vast majority of cases over 5,000 ft in a 737ish plane over 200 knots, forgetabout it. You can go higher on puddle jumpers or private aircraft in some cases, typically w/ slower speeds.

This is from experience back in the day in the AF, however newer systems use less transmit power, however digital correction is better, so who knows.

It has been corrected that in 9/11 that all but 1-2 calls were actually made by Airfones, not cell. The one confirmed one was under 5k and the plane was not flying at standard cruising speed.

However, if this gets lifted, then there would be little stopping cell companies from innovating and solving the direction and multi-cell issues as they already do that w/ on flight today or augmenting sat. They will probably develop directional antenna repeaters just like they use for wifi and cell2sky today.

my old Iphone 4 lost cell service at about 8500 feet, and my SGS3 loses it at about 9500 feet. since cell phone towers are aimed at the horizon and semi-directional, its not surprising they won't work at higher altitudes. I just wonder how far away the towers were that I was connecting to...

Certain things stop working at different altitudes but by the time you hit 5500-6000 feet nothing works. Interestingly enough @ 10k feet I could see 1000s of WIFI access points while running netstubler and using the built in wifi in my laptop. I would have thought that the altitude and metal body of the plane would have kept me from seeing most APs.

That depends on the quality of your phone. I was able to send and receive SMS at crusing altitude with my Moto Droid X. My POS Galaxy Nexis on the other hand, that thing can't even get a GPS lock held up to a window, and barely works on the ground once they close the door.

35k feet is about seven miles, figure the actual distance to base stations on the ground to be about 150-200% of that (you aren't likely to get usable signal from a tower directly below the plane, since the antennas are aimed at he ground), so 10 to 15 miles, which is nothing for a cell phone with a clear LOS.

The biggest issue (aside from phones with garbage radios like the Gnex) is your phone being overwhelmed by seeing more base stations than it can cope with. Burst transmissions like SMS should work, but holding a call to stations on the ground would probably be out of the question. I've never tried it though.

If this goes through it'll be with picocells aboard the aircraft, and probably involve an "exclusive" agreement between your airline and a particular carrier, with a monthly feature charge and/or hefty per minute roaming rates.

my old Iphone4 had service up to 8500 feet, and my SGS3 had service up to about 9500 feet.cell phone tower are semi-directional signals, which is why they only work up to a certain height, no matter what. Most wifi routers have/broadcast an omni-directional signal, meaning it goes in all directions, including up. Cell phone towers are usually aimed at or just above the horizon they can see.

They would have to put small cells on the plane. All the carriers should do wifi calling, but that's another story. And go no, I hope they don't put this on planes. They're bad enough as it is. I don't think the carriers would allow it, as most people don't want it.

Is this a legitimate need or a way to make money?

Looking up the ponies in the race...

and money wins by a mile.

This is about allowing capabilities that likely have little to no technological impact. The carriers will worry about making the money.

Exactly.

This isn't about profit, it's more like "your phone can do this, so why do we have a restriction?"

How I feel about people talking on their phones on the plane.

Just what we want. People yakking it up on a flight.

Texts are quiet and private!*

*NSA and U.S. Government notwithstanding

I agree.

It's bad enough when you're stuck in the checkout line at the supermarket and the person behind you won't stop yapping for a minute. Can't imagine getting stuck in a plane for hours with a yapper in the next seat.

You must not fly much. I fly all the time. People talk non stop. I use to here people exchange life stories and why they are travel to the location we are headed or came from. I finally spent the cash on Noise Cancelling Headphones. Adding calls wont change the amount of talking.

I've only flown a few times and it was long before cell phones were popular. In fact phone booths were the norm when I went on my first flight. I don't mind talking to people, strangers, travelers, shoppers etc. But the incessant blather on cell phones in a closed space makes me batty, probably because I'm getting old and cantankerous.

When bluetooth headsets became popular, downtown Philadelphia was filled with people walking around and talking but not looking at me and it was disturbing at first. I still enjoy privacy when I talk on the phone unlike others. I think I'm in the minority.

This vote does not mean there will, or will not be calls on flights. The FCC, job is to make decisions on the legal, aspect with regard to safety. It would still be up to the Air-line policy to allow, or not allow. If there is not substantial evidence of a safety issue, they should change the rule, and let the Air-lines make their own decision based on customer demand.

Do you really think the airlines will make decisions based on customer demand? The airlines will make decisions based on MONEY, period. Prime example, baggage fees. I don't remember customers demanding to pay baggage fees out the nose.

Your statement shows an ignorance of basic economic principal. It's the same thing. Customer demand is expressed in dollars, or lack there of. "Customer demand" is not whatever you individually, demand at any given moment.

I, just as well, could have said "...and let the Air-lines make their own decision based on profitability."

Our ignorance to what capitalism is, and the failure to realize the benefit it has bestowed upon the world, has caused the word "profitability" in this context, to have a negative connotation. But both sentences have the same meaning.

I'm sure it will be some company that will install the equipment to link cellular equipment in the plane to ground facilities will charge a nice hefty fee to your phone bill and split the profits with the airlines like GoGo does with the Wi-Fi.

I'm sure using a cell phone on a plane will cost extra on your phone bill.