The battle continues at the Federal Communications Commission over whether a waiver of the airborne cellular rule granted to AirCell Inc. is proper.
Louisville, Colo.-based AirCell has proposed an air-to-ground communications system for use in general and commercial aviation markets that makes use of existing terrestrial cellular networks. The company has been operating under an experimental license for several years, and late last year was granted a waiver of the airborne cellular rule, allowing it to proceed with its system.
AirCell opponents, chiefly AirTouch Communications Inc., Ameritech Corp., AT&T Wireless Services Inc., Bell Atlantic Corp., BellSouth Corp., GTE Wireless Inc. and SBC Wireless Inc., claim the air-to-ground system could potentially cause serious interference within their networks. The opponents have asked the commission to stay its decision, a move AirCell claims could jeopardize its future.
Opponents are upset AirCell was granted the waiver without what they believe to be proper restrictions, saying the commission examined technical limitations that would have mitigated potential interference, and then failed to impose any limitations. The opponents also claim the commission granted the waiver with disregard for established cellular policies and rules.
Both AirCell and opponents of its system claim public-safety interests in defense of their position. AirCell says its system will provide weather and other information to pilots and act as a back-up communications system if an aircraft’s primary communications system fails. Opponents claim interference caused by the AirCell system potentially could disrupt emergency 911 calls being placed on the ground.
Furthermore, opponents point out that as a secondary interruptible service provider, AirCell’s system may not be a reliable safety mechanism.
“The (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau) ignored this serious problem,” said opponents in a petition. “It did not even recognize this issue, let alone attempt to explain why it is nonetheless telling pilots and passengers that their safety would now be enhanced by relying on secondary interruptible service that shares the heavily used cellular spectrum.
“If a new air safety service is in the public-interest goal of the waiver, it is not reasonable to squeeze the service onto spectrum that is not only licensed for terrestrial use but is in fact intensively used already,” said the petition.
Meanwhile, AirCell has asked the commission to reconsider two key stipulations of the waiver; first that a 168-mile notification distance requirement be cut roughly in half, and second, that the two-year duration of the waiver be extended.
“Given the ‘cloud’ hanging over AirCell’s continued commercial operations, the company will need to devote substantial resources, once again, to proving the need for and benefits of its technology rather than focusing on deployment, marketing and operational issues,” said AirCell in a petition filed at the FCC. “Potential investors in and customers of AirCell’s service have already questioned the impact of the two-year duration.”
