I dont know if cellphone signals interfere with aircraft radio signals or not. Even if they did not, I'd be better safe than sorry. If allowing cellphones in-flight hasnt caused any accidents, doesnt mean you allow business to overtake safety issues. Let the technical experts from neutral bodies like IEEE decide and not marketing executives and their "paid" technical researchers. The question that begs to be probed is - when has the need for permitting cellphone communication come from air passengers? Did we ask for it? I dont think so! So a "need" is created as another aspect of "user in-flight experience" and "staying in touch/be connected" imperative (read AeroMobile's marketing language) and "demand" generated. Naturally, this will make more people to clamor for and seek such services from their airlines. What exorbitant costs are charged now (higher even by standard international roaming charges) will obviously see a reduction when more airlines adopt (or even make it a standard on-board services feature 'coz the competition mandates it) this questionable feature. Maybe, the passengers who avail this service currently just use 'bare-minimal' talk-time to avoid the high cost (and that in-turn keeps the avionics safe :P). Just see which airlines/countries have adopted it (clever strategy by AeroMobile or OnAir??), how technically sound and competent are their respective aviation regulatory authorities to carry out independent research to validate what these companies claim? Why hasnt US FAA validated this technology yet? Of-course, the GSM technology in use maybe advanced and technology has been known to improve human safety, but at times it's better to go with common-sense - which no technology can promise! I'm sure AeroMobile and/or OnAir and similar companies (perhaps even in consortium with airlines or their promoters/investors) may have funded the satellite transponders they use (just read how Inmarsat went from being a not-for-profit international organization to a LSE-listed publicly traded company). And we know who dictates the stock markets - the banks (the guys who'd have loaned/financed AeroMobile as a start-up)! AeroMobile (part of Telenor) along with OnAir are 2 of the only 3 companies which offer International Air GSM coverage (check gsmworld.com for GSM coverage maps). MCP, another Telenor group company, along with OnAir are 2 of the 8 companies which provide International GSM coverage at Sea. Moreover, AeroMobile is also part of Panasonic group, whose group company Panasonic Aviation is the World's largest supplier IFE (in-flight entertainment systems to airlines) systems. Who stands to gain (and make loads of money!) if these existing IFE's are provided with IP-based connectivity and Internet access?? I might rather turn on my music, or watch a movie and simply shut-up and doze-off!! And oh! if the airplane is going down, then i might want to turn-on my cellphone and actually use AeroMobile's service to make that one last call.... to let God know that i'm coming home now!! LOL!! Disclaimer: I'm no conspiracy theorist or a cynical douchebag ;)

great... just great... another opportunity for my boss to call me and give me work... i hope i never have the misfortune of travelling in such an aircraft! hope they ban such non-sense! :-/ Also, i bet roaming rates are gonna be crippling! :(

You'll agree that the vast majority of services are "generated demand." That being the case, in-flight phones are just one more thing — you roll out the service, the customers will come. The only reasonable+unanswered question is "why not." I was hoping the IEEE article would be authoritative, but it's not, unfortunately. My point is (mainly) that if the reason for a policy cannot be stated, it should be left at "we don't allow it" — and I haven't been able to find a proper explanation of how interference _can't_ be avoided. I'd like to read about it if there's a free paper.