Using mobiles in an aeroplane... NOT dangerous after all! (apparently)

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:16:11 +0800, Chris Blunt
wrote:
Do they still not have mobile coverage there on the London Underground
yet?


Not yet but it's likely to be very soon.

I know Valencia's metro system in Spain has it, it's very impressive.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:16:11 +0800, Chris Blunt
wrote:
Do they still not have mobile coverage there on the London Underground
yet?


Not yet but it's likely to be very soon.

I know Valencia's metro system in Spain has it, it's very impressive.

Hi,

I hope it stays as it is. No one will die if they can't use a phone
for a few hours. (No one had problems in the pre-cell era.) Fly time
is one of the few times that I get to rest. I don't want to hear

Agreed. Just imagine a domestic Alitalia or Volareweb flight...

Ralph

Hi,

I hope it stays as it is. No one will die if they can't use a phone
for a few hours. (No one had problems in the pre-cell era.) Fly time
is one of the few times that I get to rest. I don't want to hear

Agreed. Just imagine a domestic Alitalia or Volareweb flight...

Ralph

anon wrote:

Joseph wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:36:27 -0400, nobody wrote:

And the general philosophy is that unless you
have begun a dialing sequence with a "1", you should not be billed some
special amount.

This is *generally* true. However, in some jurisdictions such as Los
Angeles, San Francisco, New York City and in Chicago (the larger
cities) prefacing an area code with a 1 only signifies that an area
code and seven digits follows. 1 plus area code plus 7 digits is very
possible to be a "local" number in any of the above cities.

Many locations charge long distance for calls in the same area code that
don't require dialing a 1. The additional cost is due to distance
(outside of local calling area), not due to an area code change.

Strange. Locally, the 1 prefix indicates only that the call will have a
charge. I have some numbers within the same area code that have a
charge and require a 1 prefix while 10 digit calls to most parts of two
additional area codes do not require a prefix.

anon wrote:

Joseph wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:36:27 -0400, nobody wrote:

And the general philosophy is that unless you
have begun a dialing sequence with a "1", you should not be billed some
special amount.

This is *generally* true. However, in some jurisdictions such as Los
Angeles, San Francisco, New York City and in Chicago (the larger
cities) prefacing an area code with a 1 only signifies that an area
code and seven digits follows. 1 plus area code plus 7 digits is very
possible to be a "local" number in any of the above cities.

Many locations charge long distance for calls in the same area code that
don't require dialing a 1. The additional cost is due to distance
(outside of local calling area), not due to an area code change.

Strange. Locally, the 1 prefix indicates only that the call will have a
charge. I have some numbers within the same area code that have a
charge and require a 1 prefix while 10 digit calls to most parts of two
additional area codes do not require a prefix.

Awe gee! And I was just getting started on writing a nice book
centering on a bunch of terrorists leaving their cell phones on planes
and then calling them to bring down planes all over the US.

Bob Myers wrote:

"Marx Peterson" wrote in message
om...

Now, thats proof that mobiles CAN cause interference and if theres any
risk I'd rather not be flying with a plane full of people chatting
away on their mobile phones

It would be REALLY nice if people didn't make up
their minds on this, though, without being at least
somewhat familiar with the details of the technology
involved. I believe that's why some of us went to school
for a number of years to get our engineering degrees, right?

The operative word in your story is "nearby." ANY device
capable of emitting radio-frequency energy is in theory
capable of interfering with other devices which have the
ability to detect such energy and possible misinterpret it.
However, people fail to realize that we are literally awash
in RF - it's all around us - and the risk of Something Bad
happening from the unintended reception of this energy is
a question of just how strong the field in question is IN
THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY of the potential "victim
device."

A cell phone is not a particularly strong emitter of RF, nor
is it, in any conceivable location within the passenger cabin
of an airliner, anything remotely like "nearby" to vulnerable
equipment. If you believe that a plane in flight (and especially
during takeoff and landing) is somehow especially vulnerable
to cell phone frequencies, you should be MUCH more worried
about said aircraft flying over (and in some cases of departure
and approach paths, right next to) active cell sites, which are
producing a good deal stronger fields than your little cell
phone might ever possibly make, by a considerable margin.
If you really feel you just MUST worry about something, you
should worry about something with a greater risk of actually
happening - like, say, the plane being struck by a meteorite,
or an earthquake causing the runway to fall to pieces just as
you're touching down.

Let's at least TRY to be somewhat reasonable in our fears, OK?

Bob M.

Awe gee! And I was just getting started on writing a nice book
centering on a bunch of terrorists leaving their cell phones on planes
and then calling them to bring down planes all over the US.

Bob Myers wrote:

"Marx Peterson" wrote in message
om...

Now, thats proof that mobiles CAN cause interference and if theres any
risk I'd rather not be flying with a plane full of people chatting
away on their mobile phones

It would be REALLY nice if people didn't make up
their minds on this, though, without being at least
somewhat familiar with the details of the technology
involved. I believe that's why some of us went to school
for a number of years to get our engineering degrees, right?

The operative word in your story is "nearby." ANY device
capable of emitting radio-frequency energy is in theory
capable of interfering with other devices which have the
ability to detect such energy and possible misinterpret it.
However, people fail to realize that we are literally awash
in RF - it's all around us - and the risk of Something Bad
happening from the unintended reception of this energy is
a question of just how strong the field in question is IN
THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY of the potential "victim
device."

A cell phone is not a particularly strong emitter of RF, nor
is it, in any conceivable location within the passenger cabin
of an airliner, anything remotely like "nearby" to vulnerable
equipment. If you believe that a plane in flight (and especially
during takeoff and landing) is somehow especially vulnerable
to cell phone frequencies, you should be MUCH more worried
about said aircraft flying over (and in some cases of departure
and approach paths, right next to) active cell sites, which are
producing a good deal stronger fields than your little cell
phone might ever possibly make, by a considerable margin.
If you really feel you just MUST worry about something, you
should worry about something with a greater risk of actually
happening - like, say, the plane being struck by a meteorite,
or an earthquake causing the runway to fall to pieces just as
you're touching down.

Let's at least TRY to be somewhat reasonable in our fears, OK?

Bob M.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
Strange. Locally, the 1 prefix indicates only that the call will have a
charge. I have some numbers within the same area code that have a
charge and require a 1 prefix while 10 digit calls to most parts of two
additional area codes do not require a prefix.

I the USA, there are areas where the telcos offer local metered service
where
almost all local calls are charged. So I would guess the "1" wouldn't be
needed.

Elsewhere in north america however, the 1 is still necessary to make any
call
that will incurr a charge specific to that call. It is also a technology
issue: the 1 routes your call to the switch that will record the call data
for
billing purposes, whereas when you don't do the 1, you bypass that
overhead.

So International calls are free ?
011-xx etc

"nobody" wrote in message
...
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
Strange. Locally, the 1 prefix indicates only that the call will have a
charge. I have some numbers within the same area code that have a
charge and require a 1 prefix while 10 digit calls to most parts of two
additional area codes do not require a prefix.

I the USA, there are areas where the telcos offer local metered service
where
almost all local calls are charged. So I would guess the "1" wouldn't be
needed.

Elsewhere in north america however, the 1 is still necessary to make any
call
that will incurr a charge specific to that call. It is also a technology
issue: the 1 routes your call to the switch that will record the call data
for
billing purposes, whereas when you don't do the 1, you bypass that
overhead.

So International calls are free ?
011-xx etc