WIRELESS CARRIERS URGE FCC ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST AIRCELL

Most recent petition filed by 3 largest U.S. wireless carriers sought declaratory ruling that AirCell was violating Communications Act and FCC rules through service that used: (1) Ordinary, unmodified cellular handsets. (2) Equipment to jam and block commercial wireless frequencies. (3) Airborne cellular repeater and translator units that violated orders authorizing AirCell service. AirCell CEO James Stinehelfer told us company’s service plans, which had drawn interest of commercial airlines following Sept. 11 attacks, were within parameters of its waiver and that it would seek further FCC approvals if electronic countermeasures were installed.

AT&T, Cingular and Verizon told FCC that their filing was made on emergency basis because AirCell late last month told airline trade group it could provide cellular service to ordinary cellphones while in flight, using aircraft-mounted translator/repeaters and blocker/jammer units along with its network of participating ground stations. Carriers told FCC that waiver held by AirCell covered only specially designed terminals meeting certain technical requirements, “not the use of ordinary cellular handsets.” Carriers said waiver didn’t allow company to roll out any translator/repeater or blocking and jamming units in aircraft. “Nothing involving these elements was ever proposed or tested,” carriers said: “There simply is no record to support such operations.” AT&T, Cingular and Verizon contended that FCC waiver was based on AirCell representations that ordinary handsets wouldn’t be used. Waiver of FCC’s rules was needed in first place because they barred use of cellular mobile units while in flight. Carriers also took exception to part of company’s presentation to World Airline Entertainment Assn. technical committee July 30 that said system had been flown and demonstrated. Experimental authorization granted by FCC doesn’t allow that and such testing never was covered in AirCell’s interim progress reports to FCC, emergency petition said. Companies sought FCC declaration that such service was unlawful and that issues be referred to Enforcement Bureau.

“The use of cellular blocking and jamming equipment anywhere in the United States is specifically barred by provisions of the Commission’s rules and the Communications Act,” petition said. “Such equipment is deliberately designed to interfere with authorized, licensed services. AirCell’s use of such equipment is intended to block terrestrial base stations from locking onto AirCell calls.” Carriers also contended that any proposal that would involve translator and repeater units on aircraft to relay communications between callers’ handsets in flight and ground stations would entail operation of unlicensed transmitters, which is against law.

AirCell’s Stinehelfer said that since Sept. 11 terrorist attacks most major airlines had been reviewing their policies on use of personal communications devices or cellphones. To that end, Stinehelfer said World Airline Entertainment Assn., which has 100 airline members, approached AirCell about available technology that would allow airlines to “legally and safely” allow onboard cellphone service, Stinehelfer said. Since AT&T Wireless pulled out of air-to-ground in- flight telephony market with its Claricom system, Stinehelfer said 40% of aircraft were left without in-flight phone service, with GTE’s AirFone largest remaining operator. He called emergency petition “totally without merit… The primary purpose of these kinds of filings are twofold -- they would like to keep us out of the airline business and they would like to discover more about our proprietary technology.” Testing under experimental licenses has been under terms laid out by FCC, Stinehelfer said. Electronic countermeasures or jamming haven’t been tested in light, he said: “We have done testing on the ground and we will continue to do it in the lab. The use of electronic countermeasures will be required or necessary for use of some of the communications devices in the aircraft.”

That’s area that would remain for FCC review if AirCell opted to use some type of countermeasure signal, Stinehelfer said. “We have not asked the FCC what is allowed or is not allowed,” he said. Point of such countermeasures would be to prevent illegal use of other cellphones that hadn’t received FCC waiver to be used in flight, he said. Otherwise, he asked, “how do you protect the aircraft or the terrestrial systems?” Stinehelfer said AirCell would respond to Aug. 29 petition by 3 wireless carriers next week at FCC but declined until then to comment on charges they raised on use of ordinary cellphones and repeater issue. In next 3 months, he said, AirCell anticipates making announcement about tests with 2-3 major airlines to demonstrate system and assess passenger demand. He said one factor that had generated more interest among airlines was that communications between cabin crew and ground had become more challenging since stepped-up security measures following Sept. 11. Pilots have VHF radio links but when bulletproof door separates cockpit from rest of crew, airlines are interested in alternative ways to communicate in event of emergency.

Carriers said system pitched to airline association went beyond design parameters on which original waiver was based. Original 1998 waiver granted by Wireless Bureau said concerns that led FCC to ban use of ordinary cellphones on aircraft in 1991 don’t exist with AirCell system, which has specially designed phones for use aboard aircraft. Waiver also said AirCell equipment included specially designed aircraft antenna to avoid causing harmful interference to terrestrial wireless systems. One factor cited was that AirCell’s airborne mobile terminals operated with lower transmitter power than regular cellphones to mitigate possibility of interference from reverse link transmissions, emergency petition said. Wireless carriers said FCC allowed AirCell to operate system without licensee status because each base station in its system would be under control of authorized terrestrial cellular operator. “Under AirCell’s new scheme, however, the repeater will be operated without control by any terrestrial provider -- and it will transmit without regard to whose territory it is flying over,” petition said.

FCC is expected to respond to D.C. Circuit remand on AirCell waiver by end of year, several sources said. AirCell had told Wireless Bureau last month that it planned to “necessarily continue” to operate under its existing temporary waiver as Commission considered remand issues. AT&T Wireless, Cingular and Verizon last month told FCC that it should order AirCell to halt testing and development. Earlier this year they had argued that FCC shouldn’t extend waiver allowing AirCell to operate because agency hadn’t yet responded to D.C. Circuit remand.