'Disruptive, irritating' in-flight cellphone call ban mulled by US Senate The US Senate is considering a bill that would ban in-flight cellphone calls. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) crafted the bipartisan legislation to outlaw voice calls on all commercial flights. The bill would still allow passengers to use mobile devices for texting, plus web browsing and other data …
I have misgivings at enshrining a nascent social convention in federal law. However, there does need to be some mechanism to allow those who wish to talk to do so without disturbing those who do not wish to hear people talking.
So I propose a dedicated space on airplanes for people who want to talk on their cellphones. In fact, to make it easily accessible, there should be multiple doors; say, two at the front of the plane, two over the wings, and two at the rear of the plane...
This post has been deleted by its author
So if you have an aisle seat, you're going to have to get up for the twat every time he makes a phone call.
What would be easier would be to have a law that says it's legal to punch anyone who uses a phone on a plane. And in case that person's someone you might feel guilty about punching (old ladies, pregnant women, children etc.) you should be allowed to stamp on the phone, or even better, be allowed to call or text anyone in the phone's address book and say what you want to them.
I realise this may not work well in practice.
This post has been deleted by its author
Not only has it lost its power, but it is likely to result in bodily harm to the old women.
Rules of courtesy become law because people are too damn stupid, selfish and down-right mean to care about harming other people.
That's why. ------------------------------------------------->>
Permit in-flight data, but for voice communications go back to the way that it was in the late '80s and early '90s and re-install airphones in every seat.
If something truly important happens that absolutely requires that you make that phone call, swipe your card and spend the $4.95/minute to make it. Otherwise, wait until the flight is back on the ground to use your mobile or email the people you need to contact and pass your messages to them in silence.
If you allow data but don't have a ban on calling, people could still Skype, Facetime, etc.
In fact, they're virtually certain to use that as I'm sure if they install a microcell on the airplane so that phones can operate beyond wifi it'll be just as pricey as the old Airphones hardly anyone ever used unless they were on an expense account.
Charge $$$ for voice calling, and introduce significant latency for data[*]. That ought to allow web browsing but make speech near-impossible. Hopefully only those on expense accounts and flying in the posh seats up front would be using voice calling, leaving the rest of us crowded in the back in relative peace.
[*] There's a chance that if it's satellite-based, there's already a significant latency, about 230ms out to a geostationary satellite and back plus whatever other processing time is required.
"[*] There's a chance that if it's satellite-based, there's already a significant latency, about 230ms out to a geostationary satellite and back plus whatever other processing time is required."
People can be patient enough to wait on the lag of a voice conversation. Sat phones are sometimes used in the news for video transmissions in remote locations where better equipment isn't available, so people are getting used to the idea of a laggy conversation.
"spend the $4.95/minute to make it"
I can already see the frowny faces of people holding their $2000+ phone bill their child ran up phoning their friend to gloat over spending $1000 on in app purchases to get the ultra deluxe Smurf apartment, recharges energy 5% faster.
Wont somebody think of the children!
What's sad here is, just like many laws in the US, some law has to be created to (try and) stop people from being inconsiderate or plain (plane) stupid. I hate the fact that the moron next to me feels that he is so important that he needs to check in or micromanage waaaaay to often than needed.
Hey hoss, the world goes on without you.you are NOT as important as you think you are, not even by half.
And what happens if they choose not to agree? Seriously, some little fish complains about some idiot fish with more clout? Money talks. That's what.
I can see how this ends. People with money will be allowed to blab all they want but let someone check on their sick mom and......
Paraphrasing the old adage: "Behind every great man is a great woman" - behind every screaming kid kicking the seat in front of it is an idiot parent. This "parent" (quotes intended) is usually of the kind that makes you start considering that the right to parenting should be subject to a license.
Having chosen not to have children myself, I have always thought there should be some sort of licence for parenting. It might even put an end to the f*ckwits who consider taking their little darlings to the pub and then ignoring them as a suitable alternative to babysitting.
> consideration for passengers who would otherwise be subjected to the chatter of others.
So a giant first step in that direction would be to outlaw US politicians - especially ones who appear on TV with half-arsed suggestions, opinions and comments. The ones who spend their whole terms asleep or crawling up to their rich masters sponsors - they're OK (apart from the damage they do to democracy, obv.)
As for the "cure" for all aircraft audio annoyances? Hearos
..onm the way to - well its not germane. I waiting for the lift..while some bloke burbled into his phone as blokes do. We got into the lift. I noticed it was lined in a delicately embossed stainless steel. I checked, yes, cold, its steel not plastic..the similarly clad doors closed, and the bloke, who had followed me in continued to talk for at least 20 seconds before stopping looking at his phone and them making a disgusted noise.
I refrained from a full Patagonian war dance, and confined myself to saying 'surprised you got any signal inside a totally metal box' ..
Theres the answer. conductive glass windows in the plane, and aluminium foil. No need for a law at all.
Great, provided that the only text alert allowed is a silent-mode vibration.
I once had the misfortune to be in the Quiet Coach of a train with some idiot who, fine, wasn't *talking* on his phone, but his text alert was the Tarzan yell. After him getting about a dozen texts in five minutes I asked him politely to turn the bloody sound off to which he replied "Oh, sorry, I didn't know it was bothering anyone..."
They treat people like considerate members of society who would be able to use their phones, but would do so in a manner that would be mindful of their fellow passengers.
Of course pass a law that would allow cabin crew to stun gun the token obnoxious arsehole <- Being rude, noisy, shoving their chair back without being mindful of the situation etc etc etc
This post has been deleted by its author
I ride the train fairly often, and they allow cellphone use. I have found that a good way to quiet a motor-mouth is to simply show an active interest in their conversation. Open a pad of paper and start taking notes if they don't get the hint. Write down what they say and underline it for full effect. Nod your head in agreement. Toss in an occasional verbal "Amen!" for emphasis.
That WW2 slogan is very apt here. It is not only talking on phones in confined spaces that can end up cousting you or your company money, just loudly (or not) discussinb the meeting/deal that you have just done is downright dangerous. In the confines of an Aircraft? You should be ejected at the earliest opportunity.
I overheard a conversation between two Civil Servants on a train from Manchester to Euston. They were discussing with a good deal of glee how they were going to screw the company into the ground so that they made less then $5 profit on an item costing $2000.
I called the MD of the company who was livid. The Company withdrew from the deal. I got a bottle of Champers for my trouble and the Army lost the use of a really nice bit of kit simply because of the careless talk in a confined space.
Since then (that was in the early 1980's) I never talk business while travelling on a train or by Air. If I could make/receive phone calls while flying, I will have no hesitation about extending that rule to include my mobile phone.
You know it make sense.
Since it is difficult to tell what constitutes "careless talk", I prefer not to talk about anything at all when travelling using mass transport. It drives my wife mad, especially when I send her a text advising her that what she is at the side of me talking about is too personal/trivial/important/revealing, and that I would like her to stop talking about it - but it works! I certainly never use the phone when anyone else can hear ... and that includes when I'm at home talking to our mutual friends!
Paranoia is a survival tactic.
Yea, you shouldn't make laws on this, it should be up to the airlines, if someone thinks they will get a competitive advantage by banning calls themselves then let them try that and the market will naturally decide by how many people choose to fly with which airline. However if no one changes their actions and all carry on talking, clearly no one really cares.
This is why you should always carry Noise canceling headphones.
When the noisy person starts up, you pop a fresh battery in, press the button on the top, wait for the red light to come on indicating that the unit is ready, then ram the whole shebang down their gullet until the noise stops.
You hostess has thoughtfully provided a little plastic package of "cheese" to keep their jaw open if they start biting your fingers, or just get another passenger to help - you'd be surprised how public spirited your fellow passengers can be.
Ever BEEN on a plane?
Voice calls in that sonic nightmare matters not an iota. You need ANC to take out the screaming kids, snoring buffons, drunk iDrones, and nattering salespeople - sorry "stewards". Not to mention those humungous noise generators on the bloomin' wings!
Thinking that a phonecall which most people will try once, not hear a frak of what the other say and give up, require a LAW shows that someone need upgrade their government to v2.0.
@Windrose
While I never discount the possibility that I am just very odd, I've always though that there was a reason why mobile phone calls annoyed and distracted me so much. That was more or less confirmed by two studies; the first, conducted in 2010 at Cornell, the second in 2013 at USD.
They're easy enough to find but the conclusion are exactly what people could tell you - having to listen to mobile phone calls is distracting in ways that ordinary, two-sided conversations (or other audible annoyances) are not.
The proposed explanations from both groups was that the brain is automatically trying to process language and when only half a conversation is audible, the brain has to try harder.
This has always been my assumption too - language processing often seems to happen sub, or semi-conciously, but when you hear what the Cornell researchers called a 'halfalogue', the extra work your brain is doing to try and process it brings it up to a level where your far more aware of it.
Not that I am against a reduction of all such annoyances in planes and other confined, public spaces - trains, buses, restaurants, shops, cafes, etc... - but I, personally, find mobile phone calls to be a special type if annoyance, and it seems I am not alone in that.
This is why you should always carry Noise canceling headphones.
When the noisy person starts up, you pop a fresh battery in, press the button on the top, wait for the red light to come on indicating that the unit is ready, then ram the whole shebang down their gullet until the noise stops.
You hostess has thoughtfully provided a little plastic package of "cheese" to keep their jaw open if they start biting your fingers, or just get another passenger to help - you'd be surprised how public spirited your fellow passengers can be.
----
GENIUS!
It would be easy to block the ports used by Skype and other VOIP apps. Also, if voice calls are banned, flight attendants could tell people that have found a way around the blocks to shut up and put their toys away. You don't want to piss off the flight staff. If you make them mad enough, they call ahead and have you met by the coppers to participate in a little chat for an hour or two.
"You don't want to piss off the flight staff. If you make them mad enough, they call ahead and have you met by the coppers to participate in a little chat for an hour or two."
It's even better than that. After that conversation you'll find that NO airline is willing to take your custom - meaning the journey home will take "rather longer than expected".
on a plane is bad.
wait until you're in hospital after getting the news you have a 100% chance of dying by new year unless you have emergency heart surgery.. and its already december.......
And while you're trying to sleep and stay calm, the deaf old git in the bed next to you has a phone that shouts out the number being dialed, has the speaker set to max, and the ringtone set to something like the resus code the hospital uses when the patients start dying......
Mind you, gave me a laugh when I was talking to the doc the next day about me having to sleep at the nurses station because of noisy old git, the git's phone went off and the doc thought it was the resus alarm.. git lost his phone about 10 seconds afterwards
Shouty... for all those people who cant put their phones down or set them to silent .. ever
This has nothing to do with courtesy, it nips the new allowances in the bud before they're established, and then you'll NEVER get rid of them.
Much like disallowing GPS receivers - can't have the passengers knowing where they are now can we? Or disallowing those newfangled walk-mans, can't have the passengers bopping along to that rock and roll music, when they should be watching the "safety" video that's laced with ads. Won't someone think of the sponsors??
No, they want to nip it in the bud now, otherwise you'll let through other things, like crying whiny babies that vomit, or worse still, the adult crying whiny babies that have consumed alcohol and then vomit.
Next thing you know plane passengers will expect to travel with lugguage - be it leather or be it around your waist.
No, the Senate is saving us from ourselves, and we should be bloody grateful.
All of them
"Welcome to your CORPORATE SLOGAN flight, here at CORPORATE SLOGAN we take .. so list to theis CORPORATE SLOGAN safety video ... thank you for flying CORPORATE SLOGAN"
Followed by a bunch of ads for CORPORATE SLOGAN's car hire partners
I stopped flying United because it became like a giant game of "Simon Says". - Do you want fly the friendly skies sugar in your fly the friendly skies coffee?
Of course, the Senators will be permitted to continue using their phones on their private jets, but that's because rich people are better than us therefore deserve more freedom. Yes, what the plebs need is more laws to tell them how to better to behave like the unthinking cattle they are.
Seriously, is that the only thing congress can occupy itself with? Are there no other laws of importance?
Look, I am the first person to dislike cell phone chatties. Yack, yack, yack.
A law giving backing to an airline ordering a passenger to shut it off? Yes, by all means. Kinda like the laws that say bouncers are allowed to throw someone's sorry butt out of the club.
But there is something fundamentally wrong when enforcing interpersonal courtesy is perceived to the job of the legal system.
@JLV
It is a bit of a tricky situation, I'll grant you that.
However, such a law would not be even close to unique. There are already scads of laws that exist to protect the sensibilities and peace of the public.
What, after all, do public nudity laws aim to do except enforce "interpersonal courtesy"? It doesn't hurt anyone for someone else to walk around naked. Indeed, you have far more ability to 'just not look' at a naked person on the street than you do to 'just not listen' to a mobile phone being used in a pressurized cylinder hurtling through the air at three quarters the speed of sound.
Free speech is tempered by the need to uphold the freedoms of those who would have to hear your speech and that is nothing new. But this proposed law is not really about free speach anyway - it's far closer to noise laws that exist in almost all communities.
Free speech says that you can sing a song about your hatred of the government; it does not say that you can play that song at full volume outside my bedroom window.
"Keeping phone conversations private on commercial flights may not be enshrined in the Constitution, but it is certainly enshrined in common sense," said Alexander.
Shall we amend the Constitution with a common sense clause? Do these people not have the common sense to find more useful and appropriate work?
Let the airlines take care of the problem. Calls will have to route through aircraft equipment . At least one airline even charges for water, so why not make some money and charge for "talk time"? A reasonable charge might be $5/minute. That would assure you could make an emergency call but would cut down on the frivolous use. The cell phone companies could even make money on it with an additional "surcharge" on your monthly bill, similar to charges for data.
there was never any real safety issue with cell phones in the first place.
I'm willing to grant a blanket rule against using cell phones for safety reasons. But if the cell phone or no cell phone rule is all just down to personal preference, let the airlines sort it out for themselves. If there's a competitive advantage either way they'll find it.
" This all makes it sound like there was never any real safety issue with cell phones in the first place."
There wasn't. It's interference related (it's perfectly legal to use a mobile phone under 5000 feet AGL)
There were only 666 analogue channels, and only about 100 at most allocated to any one provider. Frequencies get reused every 3rd cell or so
A single analogue mobile phone in use in the air blocks the channel it's using over more than one cell. At 30,000 feet that means that channle becomes blocked across doznes of cells. Have a few dozen airborne phones in use and you have a region-wide DDoS attack.
The 9/11 passengers were able to make calls because there weren't very many of them making calls.
GSM/CDMA phones work differently and part of that "differently" is that they won't establish a voice link with any stationary base station if they're travelling at more than about 200mph. This is a limitation of TDMA which became a virtue (but it's a real bugger if you're riding on a TGV as they approach 200mph and voice calls can get "iffy". I prefer to watch the scenery but sometimes you really do have to take calls)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
