🚀 go-pugleaf

>From Joe.Newcomer@CMU-10A Sun Jul 19 10:21:44 1981
That's the silliest reason I've heard for not thinking about what
is clearly a good idea!  The point is: current EMI requirements
are oriented towards ground-based equipment.  The requirements
for basing equipment on aircraft are NOT insurmountable; it is
just that they cost more and there is not a market (do you really
want to pay $75 for an FAA approved version of PONG instead of
$4.95 for the standard version?).  If the market is suddenly
there, you can bet that appropriately rated equipment will be
built.  If fact, if the technology of ground-air communication
becomes possible, there will be sufficient demand that soon a
LOT of portable terminal equipment will be approved.  After all,
there is ALREADY a lot of terminal equipment on aircraft; it is
just not available to passengers.  (For example, what is in Air
Force One?  Several terminals, to start with...)

This is another case of saying that we are limited because of
current cost-effective marketing.  The REAL question is "What
do we have to do to make terminals on airplanes practical?",
find the answers, and DO IT!

(By the way, the 10MHz I.F. frequency of FM radios caused at
least two midair collisions; you can be certain that the FAA
will be VERY demanding in what they will let on an aircraft.
It may be that for the first few years, only equipment
installed by the carrier will be usable.  But so what?  We
need to think about what such a mobile office needs, and
then make what it needs!)