Inflight Connectivity, hunger for hype, telecommunications law? Do we really need a bogeyman?

I had the pleasure of meeting RunwayGirl and Winglets747 from FlightGlobal during the Paris Air Show. We had an interesting discussion on Inflight Connectivity and the developments surrounding it. One interesting question that came up is, "Why can't Australian airlines provide GSM connectivity through the satcom?" (Hey, they already got it installed)... afterall, Emirates is already providing it through Aeromobile on flights to/from/over Australia. Another point that came up was whether WiFi services could be provided instead for Australian airlines.

As interesting as the discussion went, one thing keeps bugging me. Everytime I explain to someone about Indonesia's Telco laws (Law No. 36/1999), people kept saying, "Oh your country is so protective", or "Oh, you're a monopoly, riiight!", or even, "Gee, your country is so backward when it comes to global trade."

So, tonight, I decided to have a look into how Australian law affects their airlines on connectivity, and how it differs from Indonesia.

The law in Australia separates telecommunications into two parts:

1. The physical act of telecommunications, this is covered by the Radiocommunications Act of 1992. (RCA)

2. The service act of telecommunications, this is covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1997. (TCA)

What is interesting is that RCA defines Australian territory to include space outside the atmosphere above Australia (S18 RCA), but TCA does not cover anything above the stratosphere (S28 TCA).

TCA covers the use of radiocommunications facilities from a point in Australia to another point within Australia or outside. It covers basic telephony services, public mobile telecommunications services, and satelite based facilities (but there are some exemption provisions).

A lot of the contents of the laws are similar with Indonesian law (Law No. 36/1999 regarding Telecommunications). However, the Australian law does not appear to restrict Airtime charges for services used by an Australian company to have to be purchased from or paid to an Australian owned company (but I'm not clear on whether the service company has to be Australian or not), although S65 TCA does mention "Conditions about Foreign ownership or control". And if one thinks about "using an Australian companies" as an intermediary, it's covered by TCA under S87.

International (Foreign) operators and/or their local partners providing services to Australian companies must watch out for TCA S367, which covers "National Interest", to which the Australian government can always intervene at will.

OK, so that doesn't pose too much of a problem for airlines to use OnAir or Aeromobile services for Australian airlines (especially for domestic flights) right? Well, let's have a look at RCA.

There are a few differences between the Australian RCA and Indonesia's Telco laws the radio station permits and spectrum frequency use for airborne mobile satellite services. RCA does not cover foreign aircraft flying to/from/through Australia (RCA S32). The Indonesian law, only provides exemption on the telco certification end for foreign aircraft flying in/to/from Indonesia, so there is a little bit more flexibility with RCA. So, Australia's RCA is less strict than Indonesia's Telco law right?

Errr... not really.

• RCA S16 covers Australian companies using their equipment even outside Australia, Indonesia's telco law only covers airtime when talking about use outside Indonesia for Indonesian companies.
• RCA covers one way emissions (forgot which section), and Indonesia's telco law covers only two way communications (and one-way for broadcast service, but excludes foreign broadcast). Theoretically, GPS receivers, should fall under RCA too! (But again, there are probably sections covering that as exempt).
• Both countries have Spectrum usage charges (RCA S67 for Australia).
• Both countries require the spectrum license to be issued to local residents/companies (RCA S69A for Australia)

I guess, the only difference is, Australia can issue the spectrum licenses for Iridium or Inmarsat-4 services to more than one company for each service, while in Indonesia, each spectrum license for a particular service can only be issued to one company (and one company cannot hold more than 1 foreign satellite spectrum license to prevent monopolistic practices).

Locals here complain, "Oh that means our Telco law makes our local companies not competitive!" Well, I think Australia's RCA makes them less competitive than ours!

Nothing is stopping airlines in Indonesia, or Australia, from providing onboard connectivity provided they follow the respective laws. From what I know, one mining charter airline in Australia already has connectivity installed using the local SatCom providers. Why won't Qantas or Jetstar or Virgin do the same? When it comes to GSM connectivity, why can't they work with the Australian mobile providers for it?

The same questions apply to Indonesia... We already have the highest number of Blackberry addicts outside the Americas, one of the largest social media population in the world (according to Facebook users and Twitter users), why can't the airlines provide onboard connectvity?

Well, the answer is, THEY CAN! But, the question really is more on "Do they want to do it the right way and the lawful way?"

In the case of Garuda Indonesia, the CEO had stated in the past that Garuda plans to introduce onboard connectivity services. In an article dated 18 June 2010, it was revealed that Garuda was preparing to spend US$17.5 million on connectivity. The telecommunications regulators in June 2010 stated that onboard connectivity services can be provided as long as they comply with the applicable telecommunications law. This means that, the service provider for the Satellite service must have the permits, the cellular service must be provided by local operators, and same with the internet service (non-cellular). Back then, no company has the permits for the satellite service. Local cellular provider, Indosat, had agreed to provide onboard connectivity services with Aeromobile and that they would offer the service to Garuda, unfortunately, Indosat has no permits for the satellite services required. This was what prompted the Telco regulator in Indonesia to "warn" everyone about the permits.

The irony is, now that there IS a satellite service provider in Indonesia with the right permits, that can provide onboard connectivity, Garuda seems uninterested.

V-Australia and Qantas had previously announced that they were to use OnAir and Aeromobile, but nothing can be found in their websites today, except that V-Australia states it as "Coming Soon". Perhaps, they ended up falling to the same "trap"? Maybe, in the frenzy to gain media hype on providing this latest "in-thing" in the airline industry, they too, like Garuda, forgot, that airlines need to comply with more than just the respective aviation laws, and that, when they decided to provide connectivity service, they forgot about the telecommunications law when they made the announcements?

On another confusing note, during Paris Airshow 2011, Air Asia announced that they were going to provide connectivity, initially on AirAsiaX, and later on to AirAsia's shorthaul networks. It was announced that they were going to provide the service "leveraging on their EFB connectivity technology", which means, using FlightFocus's Iridium connectivity. I hereby pose a question, what happened to the Air Asia connectivity plans with OnAir that was announced on 24September 2010? It appeared that they went one step further than most, in partnering with local Malaysian mobile service provider, Maxis, for the GSM connectivity, but, look at AirAsia's website today, or talk to the crew, no one seems to know about it! Is it because they didn't talk to or couldn't get an agreement done with Inmarsat-4 rights holder for Malaysia (Telekom Malaysia?) or was it because the service wasn't profitable?

If it wasn't profitable, perhaps they should have attended the "Airline Retail Conference" in London last weekend?

So, what have these airlines really missed? Anyone?

I have returned from Paris Air Show 2011... somehow!

My Twitter followers would have noticed that I have disappeared from blogging this past 10 days, to attend the Paris Air Show. I have now returned and hope to share with all of you some of the stuff I did/found/whatever when I was there, as well as the other stuff that went around that deserves a blog entry.

In the meantime, I bring you some nice stuff already posted by FlightGlobal and their blog team (who really dominated the #PAS11 twitter timeline!!!!!):

This is a video of what amazing gem FlightGlobal had in their Chalet! During the trade days, the FlightGlobal chalet was a favourite place for me to visit. I must thank the FlightGlobal team for their hospitality throughout the show! Food, drinks, and the FLIR Camera... the best way to watch the flying displays when the weather is rather murky!

Day 1 Flying Display

Now here are the wrap ups by Jon Ostrower (@FlightBlogger) and Mary Kirby (@RunwayGirl) 

Day 1.5 wrap up!

Holy Crap! Mary, I still can't believe you said that!

Final Trade Day Wrap Up!

I didn't have timeto visit AviationWeek's chalet. I owe someone there lunch! @AvWeekRupa, don't kill me! Next time OK? What you said about Bus #152 during the tweetup saved our team a lot of grief at the end of Day 1!

Here is a video on the awesome Eurocopter X3 by AviationWeek:

Interestingly, it was the subject of the conversation with the taxi driver on the way back from the Tweetup! (And oh, did I mention a 5 Euro "discount" from the driver?)

Paris Air Show 2011, an amazing experience! And thanks to the fellow Tweeps who directly or indirectly helped our team a lot through the week! @AvWeekRupa, @FlightBlogger, @Ghimlay, @LizMoscrop, @NigelMcD, @RunwayGirl and others I've missed. Till next time!

I am now home, and stuck on what to do with what to post on the blog... well, my luggage being left behind by someone in Paris CDG didn't help! I guess we, the DNK and Indoflyer Teams who went, will need to wait for the luggage to arrive first!

Scaremongering on Cellphones & Airplanes: The difference between Good Journalism and Bad Journalism

Cellphones and airplanes has always been a hot issue. But I came across an link on a friend's Facebook this afternoon and I was in disbelief.

"How just ONE mobile phone can make a plane crash, leaked study reveals" (Daily Mail article)

So, just one mobile phone or electronic device during a flight, can cause a plane's system to shut down. Sure, a lot of the electromagnetic interference from mobile phones or smart gadgets have been deemed "unrepeatable in laboratory conditions hence unable to be confirmed or dismissed as dangerous", and that everyone has been siding on caution. But, with all these new developments in cabin services,THE HOT ITEM for the industry has been CONNECTIVITY and WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY for IFE, and whatever you can think of!

If you read and believe what that Daily Mail article contained, I can't blame you for thinking that someone decided to put everyone in danger... but seriously, it is NOT that simple, and not that dangerous, provided everyone obey the rules on when you can and cannot turn on your mobiles or personal gadgets.

The article mentioned incidents caused by these gadgets and I have no doubt that the causes were what is written. My friends who fly around the world as crewmembers, also know the dangers of these interference. One had his ILS receiver dying just as he intercepted the glideslope on an approach to a Turkish airport with hills and mountains on the sides of the approch path. These interferences, he claimed, happen so often, his cabin crew knows which rows are the most likely suspects... and they were mostly mobile phones.

I recently flew on Emirates from Jakarta to Hamburg via Dubai, and back. On all the flights, the aircraft were equipped with On-board GSM service provided by Aeromobile. Yes, you read it right... ON BOARD MOBILE PHONE SERVICE, using YOUR OWN MOBILE PHONE! All the approaches done into Dubai and Jakarta that I was on, were ILS approaches. My aircraft did not go-around because the ILS receiver blanked out during approach, nor did any of the flights suffered deviations from their designated flight path on all phases (unless instructed by the ATC or deliberate deviations to avoid weather)

I even switched my mobile phone on during the flight, and I am still alive and well today.

So why did I make it and those 75 incidents had to suffer? The answer is simple. I did not switch the phone on between the ground and 10,000ft as per the publicly announced instructions. Why?

The aircraft had onboard Picocells, which are basically, mini-BTS, the stuff your mobile phone logs on to. The wonderful thing about the Picocell is that at 30,000ft, your phone does NOT go to full power and search for a far-away BTS to log on to, but after an initial scan, it will detect the Picocell, and latch on to it at low power. The risk of interference is therefore reduced to acceptable levels.

Airlines have to use certified equipment for on-board cellular service, which will not leak back RF energy into the aircraft onboard systems. Once that is equipped on the aircraft, the system has to prove that it will not interfere with critical systems when it is used. If during a particular phase of flight it does cause interference, then that system cannot be used during that particular phase of flight.

Now, this is why there is still that 10,000ft rule. Below 10,000ft, crew workload is high and they can do without any interference from these on-board wifi or cellular systems. The risks of interference also increases as you go lower because there is a higher chance that your phone would pick up a ground BTS instead of the onboard Picocell. Now that, could cause these problems that the 75 flights endured.

In this video interview, world leading journalist on In-Flight Connectivity, Mary Kirby of FlightGlobal, talked to AeroMobile CEO. It was revealed then (early April 2011, a mere few days before I took that Emirates flight), that over 5.5 million different Emirates customers had used the AeroMobile onboard cellular service. Not one of their flights, had to go through an interference incident (well, not that we hear of anyways)

If Emirates did not apply that 10,000ft rule, perhaps we'd have one as a smoking hole in the ground thanks to mobile phone interference by now. Thankfully, none has occured. I would put the clean record as a sign of passenger compliance to the rules set forth by Emirates on Onboard mobile phone use. The universal rule apply, follow the applicable policy of the airline you're flying on!

Whether you believe that Daily Mail article as gospel or not, whether you are a smartphone internet & social media addict to the level that you need to constantly tweet and post a Facebook status every other minute or not, you are, in all countries, obliged by law to follow instructions of the crew. That includes whether or not you can use your mobile phone or not on that flight, and when you can, please follow the instructions on when you can and cannot use it! Our side of the deal as passengers really is that simple!

Throughout my career, I have been asked by journalists of various sorts to comment on a development, or an incident, or an accident. Whilst I enjoy all my encounters with good journalists (ie: objective but sharp in getting to the truth), I never enjoy being contacted by the bad ones (ie: subjective, not interested in the real truth, and agenda ridden!). What good journalists and I have in common is that we do like to get to the bottom of things and do so objectively. Therefore it irks me when I end up seeing a good journalist complaining about a piece of bad journalism, and when I agree with the former, sitting around and letting it go by might me betraying the truth, or at least MY truth (as this is my blog).

This is what ticked me off in the end, seeing:

@RunwayGirl: RT @sooneralison: Evidence of in-flight interference http://t.co/wZqJQu8 via @msnbc // A flawed article, with NO mention of pico cell tech

If that shortened link expired by the time you read this blog post, here it is Hang up and fly right: More evidence of in-flight interference

I tweeted the link to the Daily Mail article above, and the common word used to describe these two articles are:

SCAREMONGERING!(I'd never thought good journalists would use that phrase as well!)

No, this industry isn't interested in putting your lives at risk. Aviation is like banking, once you lose trust, all hell breaks loose! The challenge for the In-flight Connectivity industry, and the aviation industry in general, is how to bring you the latest technologies to bring you more convenience, without putting your life at risk!

Boeing didn't wait for a plane to crash before issuing a service bulletin on WiFi interference for a particular type of cockpit instruments display...

Now if you're scared about high-speed internet bringing planes down from the sky, you should rethink about using some 4G internet service!