Searching \ for '[EE] Mobile phone - GPS Interference' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/sensors.htm?key=gps
Search entire site for: 'Mobile phone - GPS Interference'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Mobile phone - GPS Interference'
2006\04\05@065428 by Joe Mailer

picon face
Hello,

In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock.[1]

Do you think on any method to avoid this issues ?


Regards,
Hector Oron

[1] "Evaluation of a Mobile Phone for Aircraft GPS Interference", NASA/TM-2004-213001, March 2004

               
---------------------------------

LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com

2006\04\05@141254 by David Minkler

flavicon
face
Turn the phone off?

Joe Mailer wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2006\04\05@165411 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
How does that work? Don't they shield anything in airplanes?

2006\04\05@222527 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Joe Mailer wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock.[1]
>
> Do you think on any method to avoid this issues ?
>
>
> Regards,
>  Hector Oron
>
> [1] "Evaluation of a Mobile Phone for Aircraft GPS Interference", NASA/TM-2004-213001, March 2004

Sounds like (another) a good reason to turn the dang things off near
active avionics.

Simple enough -- when your life depends on an RF receiver operating
properly, turn off unnecessary transmitters nearby.  (Duh.)

Nate

2006\04\05@223748 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Sean Schouten wrote:
> How does that work? Don't they shield anything in airplanes?

Multiple answers:

- It's not possible to filter or shield away harmonics ON THE FREQUENCY
you're trying to receive.

- All transmitters and receivers also have IF frequencies that can be
involved in mixes, and interference problems.

- Shielding adds weight.  Aircraft engineers minimize weight.  Weight =
higher operating costs.

- Radio equipment meant for use in aircraft goes through EXTENSIVE
testing.  To test every cheap $20 cell phone that comes out every few
days, isn't going to happen.

- Operating a cell phone in flight, in a private or commercial aircraft
is illegal.

(Exception: AirCell and other companies manufacture "cellular" phones
based off of completely different cellular systems other than the
terrestrial-based ones.  They also go through the certifcation processes
listed above.)

There's more... but I wouldn't do justice to the engineers that
specialize in RF engineering for aviation...

Nate

2006\04\06@181832 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Sean,

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:54:11 +0200, Sean Schouten wrote:

> How does that work? Don't they shield anything in airplanes?

I think shielding an antenna is a bit of a tricky proposition!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\06@182452 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Joe (Hector?)

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:54:27 +0200 (CEST), Joe Mailer wrote:

> Hello,
>
>  In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones
had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock.[1]
>
> Do you think on any method to avoid this issues ?

Since it's illegal to use mobile phones (even to have them switched on) aboard an aircraft in flight, I don't
see that there is a problem!

> Regards,
>  Hector Oron

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\06@184528 by Dave King

flavicon
face
Thats on commercial flights and only in some countries.
Here (Canada)its legal to use one in flight non-commercial even
though the cell companies have a cow about it as they loose out
on some ld charges or roaming charges.

Dave




{Quote hidden}

2006\04\07@030246 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Dave King wrote:
> Thats on commercial flights and only in some countries.
> Here (Canada)its legal to use one in flight non-commercial even
> though the cell companies have a cow about it as they loose out
> on some ld charges or roaming charges.
>
> Dave

Or pehaps the cell phone at altitude simply blocks out 5 to 10 times the
number of receivers at towers that are designed for terrestrial
coverage, causing dropped calls and blockages for the people on the
ground who paid the same price as the doofus in the airplane, perhaps?

Everything's a "conspiracy" on the Internet...

They're not losing roaming charges or whatever silly idea's stuck in
your head.  The phone at altitude is screwing up how their network
ENGINEERED to function.

Your one phone call isn't worth dropping 20.

It's also not worth having the system try to deal with tower to tower
handoffs at 400-500 MPH ground-speed and having to tie up huge amounts
of network resources to take your call back to the PSTN switch it
originated from.

THINK about how the network works.

Low coverage line-of-sight microwave path engineering and planning by
competent engineers -- hard work -- blown away by some moron who thinks
he can't live without talking on a cell phone at 31,000' MSL.

Sit back, relax for two hours, and let the nice people in the front of
the aircraft and the myriad of engineers who created, designed and
tested the flight software and hardware -- do what they do best:  Take
you to your destination in a hollow aluminum tube at 500+ MPH above 2/3
of the Earth's atmosphere.

This is NOT an environment where added risk is necessary or intelligent.

Nate

2006\04\07@093214 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
On 4/7/06, Howard Winter <spam_OUTHDRWTakeThisOuTspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Sean,
>
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:54:11 +0200, Sean Schouten wrote:
>
> > How does that work? Don't they shield anything in airplanes?
>
> I think shielding an antenna is a bit of a tricky proposition!



Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't you need to put the antenna on the
*outside* of the fuselage of the aircraft to be able to get a GPS signal in
the firstplace? Does a GSM phone operating at an interfering frequency
actually have enough power to penetrate the skin of the aircraft from inside
to outside and still manage to cause that much interferance?
I presume that they actually DO use shielded cables in aircrafts because of
all of the possible EMI from communication equiptment (UHF, VHF, etc...) and
other sources. How couldn't they?

Sean.

2006\04\07@095222 by Sean Schouten
face picon face
On 4/6/06, Nate Duehr <.....nateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com> wrote:
>
> Sean Schouten wrote:
> > How does that work? Don't they shield anything in airplanes?
>
> Multiple answers:
>
> - It's not possible to filter or shield away harmonics ON THE FREQUENCY
> you're trying to receive.


Logical.


- Shielding adds weight.  Aircraft engineers minimize weight.  Weight =
> higher operating costs.


Shielding also equals reliability which equals security which is kind of
important in the commercial airline industry. What about all the
'cross-system' EMI generated by on board communications equipment,
computers,  LCD-back light HV power module, etc... ?? maybe I am just
paranoid?? :-D


I think I might pop 'round to a friends this weekend and ask his father
(whom has been working in the avionics field for a good number of years)
what the deal is with shielding sensitive electrical equipment in aircraft.
I am almost certain that they do, I just don't see them doing otherwise;
it's just not right.

Sean

2006\04\07@095914 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> > How does that work? Don't they shield anything in airplanes?
>>
>> I think shielding an antenna is a bit of a tricky proposition!
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't you need to put the antenna
>on the *outside* of the fuselage of the aircraft to be able to get
>a GPS signal in the firstplace? Does a GSM phone operating at an
>interfering frequency actually have enough power to penetrate the
>skin of the aircraft from inside to outside and still manage to
>cause that much interferance? I presume that they actually DO use
>shielded cables in aircrafts because of all of the possible EMI
>from communication equiptment (UHF, VHF, etc...) and other sources.
>How couldn't they?

Sure they will use shielded cable, apply all the grounding tricks, and
generally make everything as quiet as possible RF wise.

However you then end up with a heap of "slot antennae" in the aircraft skin,
in the form of holes for windows. Various skin effects, and other things
that will come and bite you in the rear when you are not looking (think in
terms of what gets done to the B-2 Bomber to make it radar invisible) which
will re-radiate any rf at certain critical frequencies will all come to make
things go wrong at the most critical moment.

Also think in terms of those bulges you see in various cables on your PC,
which contain a ferrite choke to stop interference going down the OUTSIDE of
shielded cable. Just because something is shielded, doesn't stop the cable
from carrying something you don't want to somewhere you don't want it.

RF gets a name for being a "black art" for a reason ;)

2006\04\07@111300 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Sean Schouten wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Aviation electronics must pass a rigid gauntlet of radiation and EMI
tests. If you design
for aircraft, you are no longer in Kansas, Toto.

Newer types of shielding are made from carbon foams, and add almost no
weight whatever.

--Bob

>Sean
>  
>


--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
.....attachKILLspamspam.....engineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\07@115502 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
You might consider that without doing a *very* complex analysis, you
have no idea what happens to your cell phone signal.

So here's a possibility:

You're sitting in seat 35F.  You turn on your phone.  It has to go
through several layers of aluminum before going to the cell tower, and
even then the signal is choppy so your phone goes to full power,
nevermind the frequent channel switching that goes on due to roaming
to a new tower every second or perhaps 10-50 times per second.

Unbeknownst to you, the crew, and the cell phone companies, you happen
to be sitting at a spot in the aircraft which forms a nice dish and
aims/magnifies your signals such that they get conducted to a piece of
avionics *very* well.  This could be through a cable joint (maybe an
old connector is acting as a nice antenna) or directly on the PCB or
components thereon.

Regardless, your phone can readily cause enough interference to be a
problem, even with the normal shielding that takes place.  No faraday
cage is perfect, and in the business world the one that's cheap and
still "good enough" is the one that's used.  Given that cell phones
are not allowed in flight (by the FCC & cell companies that *own* that
spectrum, IIRC, due to the way cell phone networks operate) then the
aircraft designers need not design the equipment to, as a standard
feature, deal with the problem specifically.

Furthermore, even if they did, a lot of the equipment currently in
service  was designed during the time of 800MHz cellular.  You can put
some big holes in an 800MHz faraday cage, which are very transparant
for modern digital frequencies.

As far as the specific issue of protected cables and antennas on the
outside, I can see a situation where the GPS receiver (located inside
the craft with the cell phone) was susceptable to interference, and
perhaps not even from the cell phone band but from the mixers and PLLs
involved inside the cell phone.  In this case is seems to be a
particular model of GPS receiver.

All in all, I prefer "better to be safe than sorry" over "Let's let
people do whatever they want until we discover a problem."

-Adam

On 4/7/06, Sean Schouten <EraseMEdev.seantechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't you need to put the antenna on the
> *outside* of the fuselage of the aircraft to be able to get a GPS signal in
> the firstplace? Does a GSM phone operating at an interfering frequency
> actually have enough power to penetrate the skin of the aircraft from inside
> to outside and still manage to cause that much interferance?
> I presume that they actually DO use shielded cables in aircrafts because of
> all of the possible EMI from communication equiptment (UHF, VHF, etc...) and
> other sources. How couldn't they?

2006\04\07@133709 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> Aviation electronics must pass a rigid gauntlet of radiation and EMI
> tests. If you design
> for aircraft, you are no longer in Kansas, Toto.

Big time.  Many budding avionics companies have gone under over the
years who had great "ideas" but no clue how to execute -- when it came
to TSO and other certifications.

> Newer types of shielding are made from carbon foams, and add almost no
> weight whatever.

True Bob... today.

At least half (if not more) of the operating commercial airliner fleet
was built at least, 20 or more years ago.

If everyone's willing to pay triple (or more) for a ticket than they do
today, we can retire all the old aircraft, use fiber optics where ever
possible, and shield the hell out of the aircraft's systems with modern
technology, and we'll still have:

1. Problems with RF interference from cheap cell phone devices.
2. The cell devices will cause huge problems for the network designed
for terrestrial RF coverage.

In other words -- none of the problems surrounding the oh-so-innocent
question "Why can't I use my cell phone in an airplane" are even
remotely trivial.

Various techniques have been talked about, including placing micro-cells
on aircraft that would command the phones to use minimum power and would
use a completely un-related technology to "standard" cellular which
would relay the calls earthward... amongst others.

Additionally people have looked at "certifying" certain phones for use
aboard aircraft, but in an industry based on selling the customer a new
device filled with ever more non-telephone features every year -- and
one that can't support the cost of their own networks without multi-year
contracts and kickbacks...

I doubt the average consumer would be willing to pay the price really
necessary for such a device certification program.  $500 phone?  $1000?
 What would you pay?  Is it more than the per-minute cost of just
picking up the GTE AirFone in the seatback when you need it?  (Yep.)

Look at the price difference between an Aviation-certified GPS and the
$80 GPS at your local WalMart to get an idea of the multiplication
factors we're talking about here in price.

The bigger problem is the social one.  You really want the pompous drunk
businessman in 1st Class talking so loud on his phone that you can hear
him in seat 23D?

But ultimately, just like everything else in our modern pampered life --
it's about money.

Want to use your cell phone in flight?  You could lead the charge to
push prices up dramatically for the other 200 people on your aircraft
who just want to get from point A to point B... or you could just fly in
a privately owned/operated aircraft and buy the appropriate technology.

Other interesting "stuff" is the recent introduction of 802.11x
networking aboard commercial aircraft.  (I believe Lufthansa is doing
this in a pilot program on some International flights.)

Almost as much engineering involved, but because IP is the great
equalizer... it's far more cost-effective and useful, but still
expensive.  But certainly smarter from a purely business perspective
than doing all the engineering required for three people to talk on a
cell phone.

Nate

2006\04\07@134307 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Nate wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] Mobile phone - GPS Interference' on Fri, Apr 07 at 12:40:
> If everyone's willing to pay triple (or more) for a ticket than they do
> today, we can retire all the old aircraft, use fiber optics where ever
> possible, and shield the hell out of the aircraft's systems with modern
> technology, and we'll still have:

Since I don't fly, I'm willing to pay up to 8 times my current
expenditure on airline tickets if it'll make things safer and shiny
new.

--Danny, who enjoys multiplying by zero

2006\04\07@135123 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> Regardless, your phone can readily cause enough interference to be a
> problem, even with the normal shielding that takes place.  No faraday
> cage is perfect, and in the business world the one that's cheap and
> still "good enough" is the one that's used.  Given that cell phones
> are not allowed in flight (by the FCC & cell companies that *own* that
> spectrum, IIRC, due to the way cell phone networks operate) then the
> aircraft designers need not design the equipment to, as a standard
> feature, deal with the problem specifically.

Nit-pick.  At least here in the U.S. (every country is different), the
FCC doesn't "own" spectrum, they regulate it.

The Citizens of the United States "own" the spectrum, and the cell
companies paid money in an auction to have the privilege of using that
portion of the spectrum.

(Well -- except for Nextel, who bent the rules and is still to this day
causing interference problems to various Public Safety and other
agencies... that's a multi-million dollar "toxic waste cleanup" effort
now to move Public Safety to 700 MHz as TV vacates it, and move Nextel
too.  An amazingly shrewd "spectrum grab" by Nextel that will long-term
cost them far less than the cleanup will cost taxpayers.)

This "lease" model works pretty well at the above VHF frequencies that
don't travel very far -- it breaks down a bit and requires much more
international cooperation for lower frequencies that naturally travel
further.  And all models break down along borders... :-)

Anyway... RF spectrum management is a very interesting topic, but
probably not appropriate for PicList EE...?

In the U.S., it gets more complex in that the FCC only handles "public"
spectrum, generally.  NTIA handles "government" spectrum, and the two
definitely overlap.

One example: The U.S. Amateur Radio allocation in the UHF band is
actually "Secondary to be treated as Primary" since NTIA "owns" (note
the quotation marks) that UHF spectrum in the U.S.

In certain areas of the U.S., Amateur Radio puts up with Naval Radar and
other pulse-type emission interference that's considered the Primary
user of the spectrum.  NTIA asks their users to "treat Amateurs as
primary" in the spectrum for long-term historical reasons, but they
don't have to... and Amateurs have to tread lightly around these users,
as most (if not all) are Military.

Nate

2006\04\07@135319 by Mark Samuels

picon face
>> Aviation electronics must pass a rigid gauntlet of radiation and EMI
>> tests. If you design
>> for aircraft, you are no longer in Kansas, Toto.
>
> Big time.  Many budding avionics companies have gone under over the
> years who had great "ideas" but no clue how to execute -- when it came
> to TSO and other certifications.
>

That's why my company only makes products for experimentals... no yellow
tags for us!


2006\04\07@141125 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Danny Sauer wrote:
> Nate wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] Mobile phone - GPS Interference' on Fri, Apr 07 at 12:40:
>> If everyone's willing to pay triple (or more) for a ticket than they do
>> today, we can retire all the old aircraft, use fiber optics where ever
>> possible, and shield the hell out of the aircraft's systems with modern
>> technology, and we'll still have:
>
> Since I don't fly, I'm willing to pay up to 8 times my current
> expenditure on airline tickets if it'll make things safer and shiny
> new.
>
> --Danny, who enjoys multiplying by zero

Don't worry...

You're still paying for runways, towers, TRACONs, Centers, Flight
Service Stations (recently "privatized" to LockMart -- think it'll be
any cheaper?), Meteorologists, air traffic controllers, airways
facilities engineering staff, and all of the managers for all of the
above.

I'm sure I forgot a few.  Oh yeah, all those FAA RF certifcation labs
and people watching over the avionics designers... they're in there
somewhere too.  :-)

(Gotta love civilization, eh?)

Nate

(LockMart = Lockheed-Martin... "Your neighborhood source for discount
military hardware!  Our prices are falling, along with our bombs!")

2006\04\07@141143 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Mark Samuels wrote:
>>> Aviation electronics must pass a rigid gauntlet of radiation and EMI
>>> tests. If you design
>>> for aircraft, you are no longer in Kansas, Toto.
>> Big time.  Many budding avionics companies have gone under over the
>> years who had great "ideas" but no clue how to execute -- when it came
>> to TSO and other certifications.
>>
>
> That's why my company only makes products for experimentals... no yellow
> tags for us!

Smart.  ;-)

Nate

2006\04\07@144042 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Dave,

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:45:20 -0700, Dave King wrote:

Previously I said:

> > Since it's illegal to use mobile phones (even to have them
> > switched on) aboard an aircraft in flight, I don't
> > see that there is a problem!

> Thats on commercial flights and only in some countries.
> Here (Canada)its legal to use one in flight non-commercial even
> though the cell companies have a cow about it as they loose out
> on some ld charges or roaming charges.

That would be: "On commercial flights only in some countries" - in the UK it's illegal to be airborne by any
means with a mobile phone turned on.  Apart from any RFI problems (which aren't usually a problem in a glider
or under a para-wing) it screws up the design of the cellular network, which reuses frequencies in such a
pattern that a single phone on the ground can only receive a given frequency from one mast at a time.  Fly
above the countryside and you're suddenly visible for vast distances, mangling the system as it tries to work
out which transmitter you are actually talking to.  It's a bit like a DoS attack on the Internet...

And it's certainly nothing to do with roaming charges - there aren't any in the UK!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\07@145252 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Sean,

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:32:12 +0200, Sean Schouten wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Yes, you're right.

> Does a GSM phone operating at an interfering frequency
> actually have enough power to penetrate the skin of the aircraft from inside
> to outside and still manage to cause that much interferance?

Of course - the phone's signal must be penetrating the fuselage to work, and the power that it has at a few
dozen feet away is vastly greater than that arriving from the NavStar satellites hundreds of miles above.  The
signal doesn't have to actually interfere in the sense of being at the frequency of the wanted signal, it may
just be so powerful that it swamps the front-end of the GPS receiver (the GPS antenna usually has an amplifier
in it too, which doesn't help with this problem!).

> I presume that they actually DO use shielded cables in aircrafts because of
> all of the possible EMI from communication equiptment (UHF, VHF, etc...) and
> other sources. How couldn't they?

Yes, very much so, but even if every piece of equipment and every cable was 100% shielded (practically
impossible) an antenna is designed to pick up a radio signal, so that's what it does!  And there are many more
antennae than just GPS on an aircraft, of course - Comms. radios, weather radar, ILS, (is MLS working yet?),
VOR, DME, Beacon receivers, ADF (not used much these days, especially by airliners) and between them they
cover from the AM "Medium Wave" broadcast radio band up to several GHz.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\08@032936 by Peter

picon face

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> Sure they will use shielded cable, apply all the grounding tricks, and
> generally make everything as quiet as possible RF wise.

*Grounding* tricks ? ;-)

What's the dc resistance of a commercial aircraft from wing tip to wing
tip and from nose to tail ? A few ohms ? Oops, better keep that
uncontrolled ground current well under an amp or so.

Peter

2006\04\08@161725 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face
>The Citizens of the United States "own" the spectrum, and the cell
>companies paid money in an auction to have the privilege of using that
>portion of the spectrum.


       Really ? What if you bother to really think about it ?

       The companiy is forced to pay the government the price of a
'license'. And then the company charges its customers to recoup that
expense. So, the money that the government collects ***comes from the
citizens***

       It's utterly absurd that, if the citizens own the spectrum as yuo
say, they must pay for using it (as they actually do).

       The spectrum is effectyvely owned by the govt. and the 'citizens'
are TAXED for the 'privilege' of using it.

       Sorry I shattered your rosy colored glasses.


J.



       



2006\04\08@165905 by Vic Fraenckel

flavicon
face
> The spectrum is effectyvely owned by the govt. and the 'citizens'
>are TAXED for the 'privilege' of using it.

I think you fail to understand the situation. First of all, in the United States the GOVERNMENT IS THE PEOPLE and we have seen fit to license the service provider to use our spectrum under certain conditions in order to build, maintain and make a PROFIT on an enormously expensive infrastructure. This infrastructure is put into place in order to provide a SERVICE to those who WISH to avail themselves of that service. In other words , we are paying for the service NOT the spectrum. In the United States, a publically held company is required to make a profit in order to keep it's investors. I understand that in socialist countries this concept is not desirable or understood. In these countries the state is seperate from its sheople.

Please do not critize that which you apparently do not understand.

Vic Fraenckel
________________________________________________________

Victor Fraenckel - The Windman        
victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com
KC2GUI                                                  

2006\04\08@193844 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> The Citizens of the United States "own" the spectrum, and the cell
>> companies paid money in an auction to have the privilege of using that
>> portion of the spectrum.
>
>
>         Really ? What if you bother to really think about it ?

You assume I haven't?

>         The companiy is forced to pay the government the price of a
> 'license'. And then the company charges its customers to recoup that
> expense. So, the money that the government collects ***comes from the
> citizens***

The ones using the service that ended up on those frequencies, perhaps
-- but not all citizens.  There are plenty of people that don't have,
want, or need cellular phones here.

The company charges a lot more than they paid to the government for the
frequency use to their subscribers for access to the overall cellular
service.  It's a business.  They're attempting to make a profit, and one
of their fixed costs is the cost of "leasing" the spectrum from the
government.  Similar to the rent they pay for tower space from land
owners, or the power bill they pay every month to the electric company.

>         It's utterly absurd that, if the citizens own the spectrum as yuo
> say, they must pay for using it (as they actually do).

I didn't say it was a good system.  I was just explaining that the FCC
doesn't OWN anything.  They're the government appointed regulators of
spectrum use here in the United States.

Auctioning off spectrum is one of the "businesses" I don't think the FCC
should have ever gone into, but they're doing it.  They should have
remained impartial regulators, and money shouldn't be the object of
their focus when allocating spectrum, but ... the winds of political
change have made that role for the FCC a long-distant past.

The "leased" spectrum only applies to cellular, and perhaps in some
ways, Broadcast.  Some RF-based services pay little to nothing for their
spectrum use, other than licensing fees to cover the costs of operating
the central clearinghouse of licenses.

And again the FCC only handles public spectrum use.  Government spectrum
is handled completely differently.  The FAA doesn't lease or pay for the
spectrum they use to handle Aviation safety and navigation services, for
example.

>         The spectrum is effectyvely owned by the govt. and the 'citizens'
> are TAXED for the 'privilege' of using it.

No, taxes are lower because the company paid up-front for the frequency
use, and the users of the spectrum pay more than enough to cover their
cellular company's expenses for spectrum use.

The cellular companies spend far more money on their network hardware,
real estate/land use, and other expenses, than they do on spectrum use
fees.  Their customers pay back all of this, plus more, for the service
of having a cellular phone that works in whatever coverage areas the
cellular company chooses to service.

>         Sorry I shattered your rosy colored glasses.

Not really -- I have no idea what you think the issue is at hand, nor do
I care in the slightest.

Nate

2006\04\10@163949 by Peter

picon face

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Juan Garofalo wrote:

>        The companiy is forced to pay the government the price of a
> 'license'. And then the company charges its customers to recoup that
> expense. So, the money that the government collects ***comes from the
> citizens***

Grin. It's actually even worse than that. The frequencies are sold to
the highest bidder in an auction, bidder who does not know how much they
are worth. It's a future, and he gambles on the value. Since the highest
bidder wins, it is guaranteed that he has evaluated them *too high* when
compared to the others. And *this* is the money they need to recover
from service prices, and make some profit (taxed too, of course). This
is a proven recipe to ensure that effectively maximum prices and maximum
taxes will be paid on the set or 'services'.

Peter

2006\04\21@084159 by Joe Mailer

picon face
Howard Winter <@spam@HDRWKILLspamspamh2org.demon.co.uk> escribió:On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:54:27 +0200 (CEST), Joe Mailer wrote:

Since it's illegal to use mobile phones (even to have them switched on) aboard an aircraft in flight, I don't
see that there is a problem!

What about terrorists ? I can't take my bottle opener to the plain, but i can carry my GSM phone. Is it stupid ?

Also, the problem is not only for avionics but for other motion systems, as cars, vans, busses, trucks, etc.

               
---------------------------------

LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...