Astronomers Criticise Cellphone Use On Planes

[zavvy]

<b>Astronomers Criticise Cellphone Use On Planes</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />Using cellphones on aeroplanes could drown out faint radio signals from space, astronomers are warning. They told a US agency considering lifting in-flight restrictions on cellphones that special devices should be installed on planes to limit damage to research if the regulations change.<br /><br />US law currently prohibits aeroplane passengers from using cellphones because they may interfere with critical aircraft electronics. But the dramatic use of cellphones by passengers on the planes hijacked on 11 September 2001 spurred many people to petition the government to change this policy.<br /><br />"It was not the cellphones that caused those planes to crash," says Paul Feldman, a telecommunications lawyer at the firm Fletcher, Heald and Hildreth in Arlington, Virginia, US. "For better or worse, there's an increasing expectation that people can use their cellphones everywhere, all the time."<br /><br />Now two government agencies - which would probably both have to agree to lift the ban - are reviewing the issue. The Federal Aviation Administration may reverse its policy depending on the results of a study on how cellphones affect flight safety. The study should be finished in January 2006.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has asked for public comments on the possibility of lifting its restrictions, which were originally put in place because of the strain that cellphone use could put on ground-based wireless networks.<br /><br />Newborn stars<br />In late May 2005, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Radio Frequencies submitted comments on the proposed FCC changes. It pointed out that, as well as emitting radiation at their fundamental operating frequencies, cellphones leak radiation at integer multiples of these frequencies, called harmonics. <br /><br />The second harmonic happens t

 

[CalliArcale]

There's also concern from the FTC that widespread in-air cellphone use could be detrimental to cell phone systems themselves, because people will move rapidly between cells. The system was not designed with that in mind, and its dynamic nature may make that an inefficient arrangement. In addition to making life easier for radio astronomers, that picocell concept could also solve the passing-between-cells problem and the problem of producing interferences for the airplane's avionics.<br /><br />It is a fact that the radio wavelengths are becoming severely polluted. Light pollution is bad enough in the visible spectrum, but that's nothing compared to the radio spectrum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>It is a fact that the radio wavelengths are becoming severely polluted. Light pollution is bad enough in the visible spectrum, but that's nothing compared to the radio spectrum.</i><p>Take a gander at this: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf</p>

 

[nexium]

Also the antennas of many cells are designed not to look nor transmit more than about 5 degrees above the horizon. That means a plane 7 miles up can only communicate with cells more than 100 miles away = noisy communications even at max cell phone and cell tower power. Surface cells need to be designed to work with overhead aircraft pico cells (or directly with airbourn cell phones), or existing surface cells redesigned, which will degrade performance to surface customers. We stopped using Cingular because communications was unreliable inside our house which is only 7 miles from the center of a large city, so some cells, are already marginal. Verizon works well everywhere we have tried to use it, but I'm sure Verizon also has some dead spots.<br /> In any case, retrofit costs will be passed on to people who do not want to use cell phones in airplanes. and that is unfair besides injuring radio astronomy, ham radio and others that deal in very weak signals. Neil

 

[alokmohan]

Serious new type of pollution.

 

[vogon13]

In my area, Verizon is so much better than Cellular One as to make me wonder about the folks who stick with C1. But even Verizon has dead spots. I live just south of a big one (miles across). Don't know what the answer is, towers dot the landscape as it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

My house seems to be a dead spot for almost everybody -- including some folks with short-wave radio. It's weird. We've got Verizon, and it's rare to have more than one bar at the house. Verizon seems to have great service everywhere else, though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

What next....