Be aware of this FCC ruling

this topic has run its course

people going to hotels KNOW to be aware of the FCC ruling against blocking cell pone signal

BUT just because you go somewhere and it doesn't work,
does NOT mean you are blocked
simple over crowding of a busy network will disrupt your service

last year in qaurtzite i had great data service

this year, my data service was real slow
BUT this year there was a bonanza of people
more people than in any recent year
every night after 11pm my data would speed up
after a bunch of people turned off thier hotspots and went to bed

Had this happen at a very popular central Oregon coast park. The unsecured WiFi sites I connected to around the park the year before were still there and unsecured but I couldn't connect. My only choice was to pay the park for their WiFi service. Didn't have my smart phone then to try tethering.

How bout' those Dodgers eh?
:)

Cellphone service was never designed to work in an airplane
Whether or not you can get a signal, below 5000 ft
The airlines never needed to jam anything
The service they now provide uses additional equipment , to provide cellular service, which you would otherwise not have flying at the normal altitudes for passenger jets
At those altitudes you would not have service period, with out their equipment to provide service
Nobody forces you too buy an airline ticket, and nobody forces you too buy the service , they are not jamming your cell phone just to sell you service, your cell won't work at that altitude

Planes in flight , are a totally different deal , than a hotel blocking your cell signal from the local tower

End of subject

n7bsn said

Yuppers, tell a pilot the airline has put an "radio" that is always on in the aircraft and watch his reaction!

Is it a radio or not? Is it always on? What were the pilots' reactions when they discovered this?

The point is that we're told that cell phones can't be used aboard aircraft because they interfere with the navigation of the plane. We're supposed to just buy this at face value and comply. Then the airlines stick this huge RADIO on the airplane to make money which, through some magical avionics trick, does not interfere with the navigation radios. I contend that whatever shielding they installed to allow this also shields their precious avionics from cell phone signals, iPod signals, WiFi signals on laptops and tablets and baby monitors.

There only interference I've ever experienced in a plane was the "phitt-phitt-phitt" in my headset when my cell phone was trying to connect to a tower, and on rare occasions I have gotten cell service below 5000 AGL.

And it is part of this thread. The thread concerns a ruling that says a business cannot jam or prevent the usage of a hotspot. The airlines have been doing this for years. It doesn't matter whether or not the hotspot will work on an airplane. If I had a hotspot that would work on a plane, I would not be able to use it, but I would be able to buy service from the airline. So, once again, my question. Does this ruling apply to the airlines?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 1st off that is not a satellite antenna, its an omni (newer generations are servo'd beams) directional antenna pointed at the horizon talking to a terresterial system. Exactly as i said above if you had paid attention. 2nd there are no "hotspots" on an airlner unless they are created by a passenger phone, and even then there is no cell service, hence no hotspots. Check your facts before spouting off. Jamming WiFi or cellular is illegal.. PERIOD. Read the rules !

Further, if you had any understanding of what comprises a "Hotspot" beyond switching on the 2.4Ghz WiFi from your phone, this debate wouldn't be happening. You clearly have no idea how a cellular system works and what happens when an airborne cellphone or MiFi literally hits 500+ cell sites.

Whatever point you're trying to make ain't cuttin it and its not part of this thread anyway. Seriously.. Do some homework

Obviously thats a WiFi antenna for the service they provide onboard. What exactly do you think they would be jamming inside of a shielded metal tube?

BTW- That is not a WiFi antenna either. It's for a inter-tied terrestrial data network that specifically provides WiFi on board aircraft.

In other words, a radio. In fact a radio with enough watts to transmit a muxed signal 22,000 miles into space. If you're trying to convince me or anyone else reading this thread that the airlines will not try to block personal hotspots when and if they become legal to use on an airliner, then no one is drinking that Kool-aid. They are the originators of the nickel-and-dime service model.

To explain some rules and such.. The FCC licenses cell phone companies, Cell phones provide data as well as voice to your phone or hot spot.

The reporter who wrote the headline is clueless and thus assumes that the Mariott was blocking Wi-Fi, they were not, they were blocking Wireless (Cellular) data. forcing patrons to by their Wi-Fi.

Blocking a licensed radio service is PROHIBITED by the FCC and thus the Marriott got slapped on their corporate wrist.

As for airlines: The use of personal electronics, at specific times during the flight, is prohibited by other rules, due to the possibility it might interfere with flight systems. SOME airlines are now starting to be a bit more free with when you can and can not turn on your phones (Since they are finding that they do not cause the interference they feared) but it will take time before they stop asking you to turn everything OFF.

Any Cell-phone (Be it data of voice) blocking is a federal crime.

I am glad the FCC took action,, I wish they had made the bill bigger.

SCVJeff wrote:

DutchmenSport wrote:
Fine should have been much more...like a couple million.

The FCC often has a very tough time making a reasonably technical case against a judge that simply doesnt understand the ramifications of the charges, and they are often reduced or tossed out, so they get what they can get. Doesn't really matter at this point, they've been found guilty of jamming, and that is a federal offence. The next time around wont be pretty for them at all.

At the end of the day there is nothing preventing them (Marriot or anyone else) from constructing screen rooms around any room or facility they choose and theres nothing the FCC could do about it because thats not considered jamming in their eyes and involves no active electronics. They dont oversee construction techniques.

That is so true. One of the reasons that white collar crime or fraud is often difficult to get a conviction. We have been involved in some pretty sophisticated frauds that are hard to understand if you are trained for it much less convince a jury how it happened.

jplante4 wrote:

n7bsn wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:

jplante4 wrote:
I wonder if this will apply to airlines as well.

Airlines dont block anything

Yuppers, tell a pilot the airline has put an "radio" that is always on in the aircraft and watch his reaction!

Then what's transmitting through this big antenna???

Obviously thats a WiFi antenna for the service they provide onboard. What exactly do you think they would be jamming inside of a shielded metal tube?

BTW- That is not a WiFi antenna either. It's for a inter-tied terrestrial data network that specifically provides WiFi on board aircraft.