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

If he is like me the number of folks I've given my mobile number is very
limited. He probably doesn't give it out to many.

Clueless2 wrote:

wrote in message
...

Being called on my mobile is rarely convenient to me, so I wonder why
you think the opposite.

So why do you bother giving out your mobile number if this is really so?

If he is like me the number of folks I've given my mobile number is very
limited. He probably doesn't give it out to many.

Clueless2 wrote:

wrote in message
...

Being called on my mobile is rarely convenient to me, so I wonder why
you think the opposite.

So why do you bother giving out your mobile number if this is really so?

You are very lucky. I get a couple of wrong numbers a month.

Clueless2 wrote:

wrote in message
...

I am registered with TPS on all phones so I
don't get marketing calls,

That's luck, not TPS. I get calls on TPS-registed numbers every week.

Then I must be very lucky since having purchased my first mobile phone
(Orange Motorola brick with a flip) in 1994 I have never received a
marketing call or a wrong number!

Miguel Cruz wrote:

wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Also, European customers are already trained to pay through the nose to
place local phone calls, so it's a lot easier to get them to go along with
this.

Yes indeed. Calls to any landline number in the UK costs 1p (that's
1.5 cents) per call, however long the call. I'm sure you smug gits pay
far less.


I guess not - I don't have a mobile, but from one landline to another it's
MYR0.04/minute here. That's about 0.57 pence, so by the second minute you
win, leaving us not only smug but poorer.
miguel

For that kind of per minute fee I'd expect to be calling somewhere like
Thailand from the US.

Miguel Cruz wrote:

wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Also, European customers are already trained to pay through the nose to
place local phone calls, so it's a lot easier to get them to go along with
this.

Yes indeed. Calls to any landline number in the UK costs 1p (that's
1.5 cents) per call, however long the call. I'm sure you smug gits pay
far less.


I guess not - I don't have a mobile, but from one landline to another it's
MYR0.04/minute here. That's about 0.57 pence, so by the second minute you
win, leaving us not only smug but poorer.
miguel

For that kind of per minute fee I'd expect to be calling somewhere like
Thailand from the US.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:

wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Also, European customers are already trained to pay through the nose to
place local phone calls, so it's a lot easier to get them to go
along with
this.


Yes indeed. Calls to any landline number in the UK costs 1p (that's
1.5 cents) per call, however long the call. I'm sure you smug gits pay
far less.



I guess not - I don't have a mobile, but from one landline to another
it's
MYR0.04/minute here. That's about 0.57 pence, so by the second minute you
win, leaving us not only smug but poorer.
miguel


For that kind of per minute fee I'd expect to be calling somewhere like
Thailand from the US.


..57 pence is under a US penny.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:41:13 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Miguel Cruz wrote:

wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Also, European customers are already trained to pay through the nose to
place local phone calls, so it's a lot easier to get them to go along with
this.

Yes indeed. Calls to any landline number in the UK costs 1p (that's
1.5 cents) per call, however long the call. I'm sure you smug gits pay
far less.


I guess not - I don't have a mobile, but from one landline to another it's
MYR0.04/minute here. That's about 0.57 pence, so by the second minute you
win, leaving us not only smug but poorer.
miguel

For that kind of per minute fee I'd expect to be calling somewhere like
Thailand from the US.

You have rather unrealistic expectations if you expect to call
Thailand from the US for USD0.01 per minute.
--==++AJC++==--

"AC" wrote in message
...
I think we've had this convo before...

Signal strength drops off inverse squarely to distance, no? A sixth grader
can do the math there. Also, the body of a jet could theoretically act a
bit
like a waveguide (lossy, and wrong size - sure)... This could have the
effect of unwanted mixing, and addition, especially from spurious
harmonics.

Nonsense. Unwarranted supposition piled on to
wild hand-waving. Even if we granted to "body of
a jet acting as a waveguide" bit, this utterly ignores the
fact that the passenger cabin is nicely separated from
any electronics on which the airliner depends by -
guess what? - a nicely conductive bulkhead.

RFI IS awash our daily lives, but most of the EM nature, is not digital in
nature, like most cellphones. The immunity of aircraft (some built in the
60s) to a phenomenon of the mid 90s (popularity wise) has not yet been
tested properly with the right science.

Again, nonsense. Since the "cell phone interfering
with avionics" notion came up quite some time ago,
it's actually received considerable testing. The
notion that somehow being "digital in nature" (RF is
RF, actually - the fact that the signal carries information
which is digitally encoded is completely irrelevant)
poses some special concern is also not based in any
real understanding of the systems involved.

How about we use common sense, and exercise prudent caution until the
science is in, now - eh?

Excellent advice. And as I've said here many times
before, I am not advocating the use of cell phones or similar
wireless devices on board aircraft contrary to airline or
FCC requirements. However, I'm also not going to
sit idly by and see a bunch of pseudoscience get people
overly worried about their flying, either.

Bob M.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:18:10 +0100, "Clueless2" no.spam wrote:

So why do you bother giving out your mobile number if this is really so?

Perhaps I'm not specially selfish?

Huh? You mean you are so generous that you give out your mobile phone
numbers to your friends and family so that they can call you at their
expense? You will be boasting about calling your relatives on Christmas day
to wish Happy Christmas having reversed the call charges!

Bob Myers wrote:

"AC" wrote in message
...

I think we've had this convo before...

Signal strength drops off inverse squarely to distance, no? A sixth grader
can do the math there. Also, the body of a jet could theoretically act a
bit
like a waveguide (lossy, and wrong size - sure)... This could have the
effect of unwanted mixing, and addition, especially from spurious
harmonics.

Nonsense. Unwarranted supposition piled on to
wild hand-waving. Even if we granted to "body of
a jet acting as a waveguide" bit, this utterly ignores the
fact that the passenger cabin is nicely separated from
any electronics on which the airliner depends by -
guess what? - a nicely conductive bulkhead.

Now I'm curious. What do you think that they add to the fiberglass to
make the bulkheads conductive and grounded?

RFI IS awash our daily lives, but most of the EM nature, is not digital in
nature, like most cellphones. The immunity of aircraft (some built in the
60s) to a phenomenon of the mid 90s (popularity wise) has not yet been
tested properly with the right science.

Again, nonsense. Since the "cell phone interfering
with avionics" notion came up quite some time ago,
it's actually received considerable testing. The
notion that somehow being "digital in nature" (RF is
RF, actually - the fact that the signal carries information
which is digitally encoded is completely irrelevant)
poses some special concern is also not based in any
real understanding of the systems involved.

How about we use common sense, and exercise prudent caution until the

science is in, now - eh?

Excellent advice. And as I've said here many times
before, I am not advocating the use of cell phones or similar
wireless devices on board aircraft contrary to airline or
FCC requirements. However, I'm also not going to
sit idly by and see a bunch of pseudoscience get people
overly worried about their flying, either.
Bob M.