Cellphone use

[pittss1c]

I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get busted?
If so... what happened to them?

Mike

[Mxsmanic]

pittss1c writes:

> I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.

Note that that are FCC regulations, not FAA regulations. The FCC is
considering lifting them under intense commercial pressure to allow
cellphone use aloft, even though most air travellers are apparently
opposed to the idea of lifting the ban.

One study found that an average of four cellphone calls are made from
aircraft per flight these days, despite the ban.

The FAA allows airlines and pilots (of GA aircraft) to ban the use of
electronic devices that may interfere with the safety of the flight,
but it doesn't specifically forbid or allow individual items, with a
handful of exceptions. It's up to the operator or pilot to decide.
Airlines and aircrews often have no clue as to which devices are truly
dangerous or safe and seem to rely on superstition to a large extent.
I've always found it odd that cellphones seem to scare them less than
laptops and GPS receivers, even though cellphones are among the rare
electronic devices that actually produce RF energy in quantity.

> I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get busted?
> If so... what happened to them?

I've never heard of it. If someone did get in trouble, it would be an
FCC violation, not an FAA violation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Montblack]

("pittss1c" wrote)
>I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
> I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get busted?
> If so... what happened to them?


They're taken up to 8,000 ft and ..."dropped".

As with their Runway Incursions Project (R.I.P.) the goal here, of the FAA,
is the "fewest" dropped callers.


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
are over-loaded.



"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...
|I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
| I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get
busted?
| If so... what happened to them?
|
| Mike

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
> pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
> are over-loaded.
>
>
>
> "pittss1c" > wrote in message
> ...
> |I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
> | I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get
> busted?
> | If so... what happened to them?
> |
> | Mike
>

Except, of course, that very few people have cell phones anymore (at least,
as defined by the regulations that prohibit "cell phones" in the air).

Just because you are used to calling the thingy a cell phone doesn't make it
a cell phone.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> Except, of course, that very few people have cell phones anymore (at least,
> as defined by the regulations that prohibit "cell phones" in the air).

What kind of phones do they have?

The most common portable telephone system in the world is GSM, and
it's a cellular system.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[peter]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
> > Except, of course, that very few people have cell phones anymore (at least,
> > as defined by the regulations that prohibit "cell phones" in the air).
>
> What kind of phones do they have?

The FCC distinguishes between the regulations that govern the original
cellular band around 800 MHz and the newer PCS band near 1900 MHz.
Most sections of the regulations look identical for operation in these
two regions of the RF spectrum, but the prohibition on airborne use is
absent from the newer PCS regulation. So use of a "cellular" phone
using the PCS band while in a private plane should be ok, but you may
encounter reception problems for various technical reasons (the base
station antennas are optimized for coverage near the ground and are
concentrated along highways and urban areas). But many current phones
will automatically switch to the original cellular band if no carrier
is found on the PCS bands - and that would violate the FCC rules.
>
> The most common portable telephone system in the world is GSM, and
> it's a cellular system.

GSM is a particular technology that can be used in either the cellular
or PCS bands, and the frequencies differ a bit in other countries
(Europe uses 900 MHz and 1800 MHz). Other technologies used for "cell"
phones include CDMA, TDMA, and the older analog AMPS. All are
"cellular" in the sense of dividing an area into multiple cells and
reusing the available bandwidth to increase the number of calls that
can be carried. But the rules differ depending on the frequency being
used and the country where the service is offered.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Aluckyguess]

Ok peter, I have Cingular and want to amplify my single in my house what amp
to I need.


Thanks
"peter" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>>
>> > Except, of course, that very few people have cell phones anymore (at
>> > least,
>> > as defined by the regulations that prohibit "cell phones" in the air).
>>
>> What kind of phones do they have?
>
> The FCC distinguishes between the regulations that govern the original
> cellular band around 800 MHz and the newer PCS band near 1900 MHz.
> Most sections of the regulations look identical for operation in these
> two regions of the RF spectrum, but the prohibition on airborne use is
> absent from the newer PCS regulation. So use of a "cellular" phone
> using the PCS band while in a private plane should be ok, but you may
> encounter reception problems for various technical reasons (the base
> station antennas are optimized for coverage near the ground and are
> concentrated along highways and urban areas). But many current phones
> will automatically switch to the original cellular band if no carrier
> is found on the PCS bands - and that would violate the FCC rules.
>>
>> The most common portable telephone system in the world is GSM, and
>> it's a cellular system.
>
> GSM is a particular technology that can be used in either the cellular
> or PCS bands, and the frequencies differ a bit in other countries
> (Europe uses 900 MHz and 1800 MHz). Other technologies used for "cell"
> phones include CDMA, TDMA, and the older analog AMPS. All are
> "cellular" in the sense of dividing an area into multiple cells and
> reusing the available bandwidth to increase the number of calls that
> can be carried. But the rules differ depending on the frequency being
> used and the country where the service is offered.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>

[tony roberts]

> It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
> pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
> are over-loaded.
>
I don't understand this.
Consider that many new headsets actually have a cellphone interface.

and consider that here in Canada it is not illegal, and I use mine lots
- plugged right into my headset.
I don't understand how it could be legal here if it really did overload
towers. So what is the REAL reason?

Hmmmm . . . the plot thickens :)



--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Judah]

tony roberts > wrote in news:indiacharlieecho-
15CF69.22341329122006@shawnews:

>> It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
>> pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
>> are over-loaded.
>>
> I don't understand this.
> Consider that many new headsets actually have a cellphone interface.
>
> and consider that here in Canada it is not illegal, and I use mine lots
> - plugged right into my headset.
> I don't understand how it could be legal here if it really did overload
> towers. So what is the REAL reason?

Cell phones would not be restricted according to the FAA in VFR conditions,
or in IFR if the electronic device was determined not to cause
interference.

I haven't seen it myself, but I was told that there was a "MythBusters"
episode where the guys demonstrated that certain cell phones interfere with
the ILS, causing the needle to deflect at least 50' to one side of the
runway.

For a very long time, I believed that the real reason that the airlines
made you turn off your cell phones and electronic devices on takeoff and
landing was because they wanted your undivided attention while they show
you how to buckle your seatbelt and pull the rip cord on your life vest.
But I could also see where if it is truly interfering with ILS equipment it
would need to be off on final...

"§ 91.21 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-
registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate
or an operating certificate; or

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Portable voice recorders;

(2) Hearing aids;

(3) Heart pacemakers;

(4) Electric shavers; or

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft
has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator
of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case
of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or
other operator of the aircraft."

[[email protected]]

tony roberts wrote:
> > It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
> > pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
> > are over-loaded.
> >
> I don't understand this.
> Consider that many new headsets actually have a cellphone interface.
>
> and consider that here in Canada it is not illegal, and I use mine lots
> - plugged right into my headset.
> I don't understand how it could be legal here if it really did overload
> towers. So what is the REAL reason?
>
> Hmmmm . . . the plot thickens :)
>

I have heard that the real reason is that the towers are overloaded -

- with handovers.

The call has to be handed from tower to tower as the user
moves. The system was designed to cope
with walkers, people in cars, but not jets at 600mph.

I have no idea if the above is really true but it does make
some sort of sense to me.

On a related but unrelated topic -

One of the mysteries of life is that you can be in say London,
turn off a mobile phone, put it in a bag and go to Sydney.
When you get there you turn the phone on and if a few seconds later
your boss in Moscow calls you the call can be successfully routed
and your phone rings.

[N2310D]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> tony roberts > wrote in
> news:indiacharlieecho-
> 15CF69.22341329122006@shawnews:
>

>
> I haven't seen it myself, but I was told that there was a "MythBusters"
> episode where the guys demonstrated that certain cell phones interfere
> with
> the ILS, causing the needle to deflect at least 50' to one side of the
> runway.

I did see it. First, you have MUST keep in mind that the experiment,
while planned and controlled, was NOT realistic and the results were
inconclusive.
With that said, the receivers were cobbled together from off-the-shelf
from used avionics components. The system, under "normal" operation, with a
"normal" cell-phone did nothing to the glide slope or OBS. It was only when
the cobbled-up ILS was subjected to boosted energy on the cell-phone
frequency that some deviation occurred.
Note that the experiment ended up with a BUSTED! conclusion and caveats
from Jamie that the Mythbusters proved nothing.

[Judah]

"N2310D" > wrote in news:%XEbh.17633$Uz.2268@trnddc05:

> I did see it. First, you have MUST keep in mind that the
> experiment, while planned and controlled, was NOT realistic and the
> results were inconclusive.
> With that said, the receivers were cobbled together from
> off-the-shelf from used avionics components. The system, under
> "normal" operation, with a "normal" cell-phone did nothing to the
> glide slope or OBS. It was only when the cobbled-up ILS was
> subjected to boosted energy on the cell-phone frequency that some
> deviation occurred.
> Note that the experiment ended up with a BUSTED! conclusion and
> caveats from Jamie that the Mythbusters proved nothing.

Like I said, I hadn't seen the details.

I will say this - I used to have a Nextel phone with the walkie-talkie.
That thing interfered with everything from Computer Monitors to Doctor's
Office PA Systems. I have a Verizon phone now that is pretty benign, but I
never left that Nextel on when I was IFR - it wasn't worth the risk...

At the same time, the Nextel interfered with stuff that was at most 3'
away from me. In the pilot's seat, I could see a potential risk. I can't
imagine if I was sitting in the 1st row of a 737, let alone the 17th row,
anything I'm carrying will interfere with the GPS in the cockpit past the
galley, the toilet, the entry doors, and the piece of cardboard with the
metal bar they call a cabin door... I'm still pretty convinced that this
is at best a case of overprotection by the FAA to prevent risk from an
unknown (who knows what frequencies the phone companies will start
offerring service on?) and more likely a case of maintaining an outdated
rule because it allows Flight Attendents to do their briefing without
having to talk over a plane full of people on their cell phones...

Not much different than the "Seatbacks Upright" thing. Do you really think
it is a critical safety hazard that if the crew needs to evacuate the
passengers, the average person won't be able to navigate their way past
the 2" tilt of the seat in front of them. It rights itself when you push
it up...

[Jose[_1_]]

> Do you really think
> it is a critical safety hazard that if the crew needs to evacuate the
> passengers, the average person won't be able to navigate their way past
> the 2" tilt of the seat in front of them. It rights itself when you push
> it up...

Not with a 200 pound oaf asleep in the seat.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

>> Do you really think
>> it is a critical safety hazard that if the crew needs to evacuate the
>> passengers, the average person won't be able to navigate their way past
>> the 2" tilt of the seat in front of them. It rights itself when you push
>> it up...

It's not navigating after the plane is stopped that they are worrying
about, it's the crash.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The FAA allows airlines and pilots (of GA aircraft) to ban the use of
> electronic devices that may interfere with the safety of the flight,
> but it doesn't specifically forbid or allow individual items, with a
> handful of exceptions. It's up to the operator or pilot to decide. [..]

I was reading through ASRS pages a few years ago, and there was a
special report listing cellphone related entries. You can probably
Google it up. Pilots would note navigation equipment going wacky when
a passenger used their phone.

There was one particular report that stuck in my mind. It was a
flight trying to use the autoland feature in almost zero visibility
conditions. They reported that each time they got close to the ground
the autopilot would go wacky and try to drop them in. They aborted
landing twice and finally the copilot went back to the first-class
section (I think 747 upper deck) and noticed that a lady was trying to
call her friends each time to say they were landing! He made her turn
the phone off and they landed okay on the third try.

Of course, it could be coincidence. But from the reports, a lot of
pilots just don't like taking the chance when things are a little
tight.

Kev

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

>>> Do you really think
>>> it is a critical safety hazard that if the crew needs to evacuate the
>>> passengers, the average person won't be able to navigate their way
>>> past the 2" tilt of the seat in front of them. It rights itself when
>>> you push it up...
>
> It's not navigating after the plane is stopped that they are worrying
> about, it's the crash.

So in other words, if the plane goes slamming into the ground at 150 Knots
(at least), the 2 extra inches of foam seat in my face is going to make
the difference between life or death?

From

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b737.htm

"29 October 2006; ADC 737-200; Abuja, Nigeria: The aircraft crashed
shortly after takeoff on a scheduled domestic flight from Abuja to Sokoto.
There was a storm in the area at the time of the crash. Initial reports
indicate that there were four survivors among the 110 passengers and
crew."

I guess the 106 people who died must have been sitting behind people who
didn't put their seat backs up...

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

>
> "29 October 2006; ADC 737-200; Abuja, Nigeria: The aircraft crashed
> shortly after takeoff on a scheduled domestic flight from Abuja to Sokoto.
> There was a storm in the area at the time of the crash. Initial reports
> indicate that there were four survivors among the 110 passengers and
> crew."
>
> I guess the 106 people who died must have been sitting behind people who
> didn't put their seat backs up...




One does not logically follow from the other.

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> One does not logically follow from the other.

Hey - are you MX-ing me?

;)

[Newps]

Judah wrote:
> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>One does not logically follow from the other.
>
>
> Hey - are you MX-ing me?






And an abbreviation was born...

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> There was one particular report that stuck in my mind. It was a
> flight trying to use the autoland feature in almost zero visibility
> conditions. They reported that each time they got close to the ground
> the autopilot would go wacky and try to drop them in. They aborted
> landing twice and finally the copilot went back to the first-class
> section (I think 747 upper deck) and noticed that a lady was trying to
> call her friends each time to say they were landing! He made her turn
> the phone off and they landed okay on the third try.

I would be wary of using anything that is designed to transmit radio
waves near avionics unless it were certified for such use, so cellular
telephones do make me uneasy.

The irrational prohibitions are those against devices that are not
transmitters, such as laptops, GPS receivers, and the like. But most
air crews haven't a clue in this domain so they ride on superstition;
some airlines do the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Not much different than the "Seatbacks Upright" thing. Do you really think
> it is a critical safety hazard that if the crew needs to evacuate the
> passengers, the average person won't be able to navigate their way past
> the 2" tilt of the seat in front of them.

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> So in other words, if the plane goes slamming into the ground at 150 Knots
> (at least), the 2 extra inches of foam seat in my face is going to make
> the difference between life or death?

Like I said, some people don't take things seriously.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Ok I am flying my plane at 12,000 feet and the phone might talk to
several towers, thats frowned upon. Now, I hike about 2 miles and climb
the Grand Teton mountian to almost 14,000 feet, use my phone and it's
ok. I am getting confused again. <G>
Jim Macklin wrote:
> It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
> pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
> are over-loaded.
>
>
>
> "pittss1c" > wrote in message
> ...
> |I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
> | I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get
> busted?
> | If so... what happened to them?
> |
> | Mike

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ok I am flying my plane at 12,000 feet and the phone might talk to
> several towers, thats frowned upon. Now, I hike about 2 miles and climb
> the Grand Teton mountian to almost 14,000 feet, use my phone and it's
> ok. I am getting confused again. <G>

Well, a) you probably won't get very good phone reception at 12,000' AGL,
and b) cells are designed taking the terrain into account. Assuming you get
cell reception at the peak of Grand Teton Mt, it's because the cellular
network was designed with that location in mind, and specifically does not
have too many towers serving that location.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> pittss1c writes:
>
>> I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
>
> Note that that are FCC regulations, not FAA regulations.

Only partially correct. There are two issues.
The FAA has rules that cover all electronic devices. It requires
the operator to determine they are acceptable (with certain blanket
exceptions).

The FCC has a rule against airborne cell phone use ONLY for the
800 MHz AMPS band. This was primarily established to protect
the systems from interference. Since nobody is really using
analog cellular much anymore (the FCC no longer requires the
carriers in the 800 MHz band to provide any analog compatility)
the law is largely obsolete.

> The FCC is
> considering lifting them under intense commercial pressure to allow
> cellphone use aloft, even though most air travellers are apparently
> opposed to the idea of lifting the ban.

Actually, the FAA is getting a lot of heat to allow it. Unfortunately,
many of the digital services (like GSM) just don't work at altitude.
In the old analog days not that long ago (hence the guys on flight 93)
it did work, but it chewed up a lot of system capacity.

> The FAA allows airlines and pilots (of GA aircraft) to ban the use of
> electronic devices that may interfere with the safety of the flight,

More specifically it REQURIES THEM TO FORBID THEM.

> but it doesn't specifically forbid or allow individual items, with a
> handful of exceptions.

Actually, there is serious industry pressure to add cell phones to the
list of exemptions.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The irrational prohibitions are those against devices that are not
> transmitters, such as laptops, GPS receivers, and the like. But most
> air crews haven't a clue in this domain so they ride on superstition;
> some airlines do the same.
>

You would think that the digital cell phones would be low power
enough, yet my GSM cell phones have always annoyed the hell out
of come low level audio (portable MP3 player docks and the like).
The sound is pretty distinctive. It's even gotten into my airplane
audio. It's a reminder for me to shut off my phone.

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
> pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
> are over-loaded.
>
Well the issue is that in analog cellular there are a finite
amount of talk channels and they use spatial diversity and
adaptively reducing power to reuse the channels in a metropolitan
area. A plane at altitude even at minimum power is heard equally
well over a wide number of base stations.

Of course, it's more involved now with digital modulations.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> You would think that the digital cell phones would be low power
> enough, yet my GSM cell phones have always annoyed the hell out
> of come low level audio (portable MP3 player docks and the like).
> The sound is pretty distinctive. It's even gotten into my airplane
> audio. It's a reminder for me to shut off my phone.

I think that interference comes from chip-modulation RFI in the phone.
I note that it's extremely sensitive to distance, which implies that
it has nothing to do with the actual transmitted energy. Laptops and
other types of computers also generate this kind of audio-frequency
interference. I don't think it bothers most avionics, but I'm not
sure (which means that I'd avoid it).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Ok I am flying my plane at 12,000 feet and the phone might talk to
> several towers, thats frowned upon.

At least in GSM, this doesn't actually happen. The telephone rapidly
zeroes in one one base station, and stays with it until power
requirements dictate a handoff (I can't remember if the receiver or
the base station initiates the handoff). It doesn't talk continuously
with multiple base stations, even if multiple stations are in range
(and typically multiple stations _are_ in range, even on the ground).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The irrational prohibitions are those against devices that are not
> transmitters, such as laptops, GPS receivers, and the like. But most
> air crews haven't a clue in this domain so they ride on superstition;
> some airlines do the same.

Not irrational at all. Just because something isn't called a
transmitter, doesn't mean it isn't one. Laptops, GPS receivers, many
radios, are all inadvertent transmitters. Laptops because of their
onboard computer clocks at maniacal rates. Many types of tuners also
produce interference frequencies.

One of the most popular projects in 60s electronics magazines was for
non-transmitting (passive tuning) airline receivers you could use on a
plane.

Kev

[Alan Gerber]

Kev > wrote:
> Not irrational at all. Just because something isn't called a
> transmitter, doesn't mean it isn't one. Laptops, GPS receivers, many
> radios, are all inadvertent transmitters. Laptops because of their
> onboard computer clocks at maniacal rates. Many types of tuners also
> produce interference frequencies.

Not to mention - how many people turn off their laptop's Bluetooth or
Wi-Fi when they're on an airplane?

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>

>
>Not to mention - how many people turn off their laptop's Bluetooth or
>Wi-Fi when they're on an airplane?
>


http://home.zcu.cz/~honik/fun/images/kreslene_vtipy/bluetooth_in_airbus.jpg

[Kev]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >Not to mention - how many people turn off their laptop's Bluetooth or
> >Wi-Fi when they're on an airplane?
> >
> http://home.zcu.cz/~honik/fun/images/kreslene_vtipy/bluetooth_in_airbus.jpg

Ooooooo. That's funny !!

Kev

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It is an FCC rule because cellphone tower are designed to
>> pick up a limited number of calls and at altitude the towers
>> are over-loaded.
>>
>>
>>
>> "pittss1c" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> |I know there are regs against cellphone usage in aircraft.
>> | I was wondering... has anyone ever known someone to get
>> busted?
>> | If so... what happened to them?
>> |
>> | Mike
>>
>
> Except, of course, that very few people have cell phones anymore (at least,
> as defined by the regulations that prohibit "cell phones" in the air).
>
> Just because you are used to calling the thingy a cell phone doesn't make it
> a cell phone.

But you never know. What if you use real cell phone and accidentally
overload some high-altitude tower? Who'll pay the costs? Tax-payers?

L.

[Newps]

Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:


>
> But you never know. What if you use real cell phone and accidentally
> overload some high-altitude tower? Who'll pay the costs? Tax-payers?

What costs?

[Montblack]

("Newps" wrote)
>> But you never know. What if you use real cell phone and accidentally
>> overload some high-altitude tower? Who'll pay the costs? Tax-payers?

> What costs?


Oh, come on!

Overage charges, of course. :-)


Montblack
Wait ...I've got more.