Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cowperson
Where do you get "lower altitudes" from the links I provided?
|
i didn't.
i got 30,000 feet, which seems to be some kind of breaking point for cellular communications.
http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/...nal_contact_2/
Calling From 30,000 Feet
Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.
Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”
as far as i know the main impedement to cell call range is trees, hills, etc. so line of sight miles of nothingness shouldn't hurt, obviously. i mean ham operators have talked to the space shuttle.
but the hand-off nature of cellular, plus the speed of the plane, etc. contribute to nearly every cell-phone expert i hear from denoting 30,000 feet as a point at which the calls are very unreliable. this number keeps coming up.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...air-cell_x.htm
The FCC bans use because of ground concerns. Cell phones often don't work at 30,000 feet, but when they do, signals can reach hundreds of towers at once, clogging networks.
.
honestly, without the 30,000 feet bugaboo, i'd believe it.