Slashdot Log In
In-flight Cell Ban Advances In Congress
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Aug 01, 2008 06:01 AM
from the myopia-has-a-new-name dept.
from the myopia-has-a-new-name dept.
narramissic writes "The awkwardly named Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (HANG UP) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote Thursday. The bill would make permanent the long-standing ban on in-flight cell phone calls by the FAA and FCC. 'Polls show the public overwhelmingly doesn't want to be subjected to people talking on their cell phones on increasingly over-packed airplanes. However, with Internet access just around the corner on U.S. flights, it won't be long before the ban on voice communications on in-flight planes is lifted,' said Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon who co-sponsored the HANG UP Act in a statement. 'Cash-strapped airlines could end up charging some passengers to use their phones while charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane,' he said."
Related Stories
[+]
Air Traffic Controller Lands Stricken Plane By SMS 177 comments
There's a new reason to hope that the no-cell-chatter bill now under consideration in the US doesn't bring with it a Faraday-cage mandate, and that reason is landing safely. Reader ma11achy writes with an excerpt from a scary story (with an SMS-based happy ending) from the Irish Times: "Five people on a flight from Kerry to Jersey received mobile phone text instructions from a quick-thinking air traffic controller when he guided them in to a safe landing at Cork, after the plane lost all onboard electrical power, communications and weather radar soon after take-off from Kerry airport."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
or perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
They could just let individual air lines react to market forces.
Re:or perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Then individual airlines could have clauses in their ticketing agreements like "Access for Suitably Surveyed Customers to Lousy Overcharged Wireless Networks.
Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws? PATRIOT, PRO-IP, CAN SPAM to name a few. If this law was called, for example, "On board communications act, 2008," I'd have a lot more time to listen to it.
Parent
Re:or perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you think your voting record would look to the electorate if you voted against the "Protect Our Children from Internet Paedophiles and Terrorists" act? Even if that act was two hundred pages of paying for bridges in Alaska and allowing torture of US civilians without a warrant?
Parent
Re:or perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:or perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
The best bet to avoid that is to vote for the "Stop tacking unrelated shit onto legislation" act, which everyone should vote for, anyway, since the current way things are done is just dumb.
Parent
Re:or perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
re:or perhaps (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:or perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
What.
They really think that use of cellphones is on the same level as stopping a known carcinogen from cycling through the air of every one on board?
Good grief.
Parent
Both are hazardous to your health (Score:3, Insightful)
One (smoking) is hazardous to the health of everyone on the plan, while the other (cellphone use) is mostly hazardous to the asshat who is yelling into his phone about his golf game yesterday. I say it's hazardous to his health because if I am sitting next to him I am going to shove his phone into whichever of his bodily orifices I can fit it into nice and snugly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
False! (Score:5, Informative)
This is an urban legend.
The pressurization system does not work that way. It has to be continually fed ram air from outside the aircraft and/or high-pressure bleed air from the engines to make up for the air that leaks out of the aircraft. If the airlines tried to simply "recycle the cabin air" the air would leak out of the airplane and the cabin would become unbreathable in a matter of minutes. See Payne Stewart and Helios 522 for examples of how quickly the cabin can lose pressure when not maintained.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"They could just let individual air lines react to market forces."
Or maybe at least a few politicians realize that, if airlines can so openly collude on prices, they can probably collude on any other policies that generates the most revenue.
You would agree that a monopoly airline would not have to react to "market forces" right? They could make whatever rules (e.g. charge for cell phone access) earn them the most revenues. Well what makes you think that a mere handful of collusive airlines acts much diffe
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people need to use their phones in-flight anyway? I can understand the need for communication for people travelling on business to keep in touch with their office, but what's wrong with e-mail? A large number of people find flying an uncomfortable/annoying/stressful etc experience as it is without having to hear people talk over everyone else so someone elsewhere can hear them. I know the modern world is fast-paced, but honestly, it can wait, can't it?!
Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)
Did you ever try explaining to your boss how to use email on a foreign network?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you ever try explaining to your boss how to use email on a foreign network?
+1 Insightful, been there, got the tee-shirt, and chewed through it in frustration
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think it's the business of the government to protect the interests of the majority... maybe... I'll have to think about that a bit more.
Anyway. I'm English and there might be a different majority opinion in this country compared to the US (where I'd expect a more 'it's our right to use our phones on the plane'-type stance)... my personal opinion is that using a phone in a situation where you have to raise your voice significantly to be heard above the ambient noise - and subsequently by everyone else - is pretty rude - which is why I wouldn't inflict my conversation on anyone else (unless it's absolutely necessary, but it's hard to conceive of a situation where that might be the case).
Perhaps it's a bit like the smoking ban in this country - most people don't want to breathe the smoke of others, the majority are happy about the ban, but there's a loud collection of unhappy smokers (obviously). To be honest they can moan all they want, it's not like the government's confiscated their cigarettes!
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm English too, but I disagree with you.
The government has no business legislating against rudeness. Talking loudly on a mobile phone is obnoxious and rude, but so is talking loudly. Are you going to make that illegal? What about listening to MP3 players? Or queue jumping? Or picking your nose? Or farting?
Smoking in an enclosed space is obnoxious and rude, but it is also harmful. That's why it is banned in the workplace in the UK.
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority is ruling, and complaining, about a minority that is making itself so obnoxious as to border on rude. If these cell phone talkers had any sense of respect of others and would turn off their digital leash for the flight, we wouldn't have this problem. But, noooo, we get hear all about Aunt Edna's colonoscopy and your cousin Fred's erectile dysfunction problem.
Then wouldn't it be more logical for the airline to ask that person to desist from the obnoxious conversation then to get Congress to ban the usage of something that most people are quite capable of using without annoying those around them?
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then wouldn't it be more logical for the airline to ask that person to desist from the obnoxious conversation then to get Congress to ban the usage of something that most people are quite capable of using without annoying those around them?
Next time a cell phone talker lights up their phone next to you on a bus, the street, anywhere...ask them in a pleasant voice to stop talking on the phone, it is causing noise pollution. Let me know the response you get.
The last time I did just that, using words like 'please' and a pleasant tone of voice got me a look that "f--- you" and they kept on talking.
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time a cell phone talker lights up their phone next to you on a bus, the street, anywhere...ask them in a pleasant voice to stop talking on the phone, it is causing noise pollution. Let me know the response you get.
The last time I did just that, using words like 'please' and a pleasant tone of voice got me a look that "f--- you" and they kept on talking.
You don't have a right to complain about it on the street as the street is a public place the last time I checked. On the bus or airplane you can complain to the driver or flight attendant. If they refuse to do anything about it then next time fly/ride on a carrier that does.
In short let the marketplace decide and don't turn to the Government to outlaw something that's merely annoying and not actually dangerous or harmful. I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty tired of the nanny state.
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)
in b4 all the obvious jokes about ass-searching (Wait what forum is this again?)
Parent
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
It's called freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
Living in freedom includes other peoples right to be obnoxious, as long as they don't force you to be near them while they are. And NO, voluntarily flying around in airplanes is not being forced to anything.
By the way, you premise is wrong. If the majority had such a big problem with people talking on airplanes, airlines would offer talk-free sections, or even talk-free flights, in order to attract more of the silent fliers.
Outlawing discomfort is a slide t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a bullshit answer. The majority has no right to tell the minority what to do *if it doesn't affect their health or safety*. What you are saying is that if the majority wanted to, they could outlaw soapbox protesters also, simply because they are rude and obnoxious.
What people are really pissed about is that they can't eavesdrop on both sides of the conversation most of the time. Not everyone talks on the cell phone above the levels of a normal conversation.
What's next, outlawing crying babies?? Or mot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is this "majority" concept coming from? Now given, I'm your average /. junkie reading comments on his phone, so no, I didn't RTFA. Is there some survey results in there showing that more people want no cell use on planes than do?
Does anyone believe that in today's society a majority of people wouldn't use their phones given the chance?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I totally agree with you - I hate overuse of mobile phones (ok, I'm British) in public places.
However, I own a mobile phone, and at times I've been known to use it. In a public place. Maybe even on a bus or train. And I might even start by saying "I'm on the train..." And this may be more convenient than other methods - it's the only way I have of communicating from, eg, an airport or a bus-stop, it's instant, it's voice communication, it's reasonably cheap, it takes no setup, etc etc.
Making them illegal in
We need these laws why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If people really don't want to be bothered by cellphones then the airlines could just ban people from using them on the plane and use this as a selling point.
Why does the government have to poke at this one?
Re:We need these laws why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because too many people don't think they can survive without their cell phone. One friend I invited over for some LAN gaming, his cell phone kept ringing while we played. Next time we played, I insisted he turn it off. "What happens if there's an emergency? What if my brother's been in a car accident?" "I don't know, are you a surgeon and do you have a chopper standing by in my back yard? Shut it off."
He still snuck it back on a little bit later and got TWO more calls during the game. (didn't answer them, but stopped playing a few sec each time to look at the caller ID) Some people need to learn to live without a cell phone occasionally. For a few though I think it borders on addiction, "I can quit anytime, just not right now."
Parent
Re:We need these laws why? (Score:4, Insightful)
And I agree with everything you just said. Except the implied notion that this somehow requires a law.
Parent
The Children (Score:5, Funny)
Think of the children!
No seriously, think about shutting up the fucking children. At least people on phones don't squeal for no reason. Normally.
Re:The Children (Score:5, Funny)
I never travel without ear plugs and a black-out mask. Or is that the alcohol... But seriously, kids travel. Plan ahead for your sanity.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
last time I travelled with children (18 month old twins) I brought along a bottle of earplugs with enough for almost the entire plane to pass around - just in case I couldn't keep them reasonably quiet.
Re:The Children (Score:5, Funny)
I can get behind this 100%.
Nothing like a screaming infant with an apathetic mother on a 4 hour bus ride with a 5 year old running around trying to break things and being ignored.
Seriously, if you can't take care of them don't procreate.
By the end of it all I could think of was that poster with "Silence is golden.Duct tape is silver."
Parent
Re:Said like someone... (Score:5, Funny)
Even a duck-tape-on-the-mouth kid makes a lot of noise.
Cover the nostrils too. Then the noise stops after a minute or so.
Parent
Re:Said like someone... (Score:5, Funny)
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Parent
Sure go ahead (Score:4, Insightful)
Thereby enabling smarter airlines such as Southwest to take an ever greater market share by not doing stupid things like that.
A phone-free section of the plane? (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be obvious why passengers prefer other people not use cell phones in flight. There is no way to escape other peoples' calls when you have dozens to hundreds of people stuffed into a flying sardine can.
And why is the government involved again? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the government's job to protect people from mild annoyances. If it's really true that the public "overwhelmingly" dislikes this, then that's a market the airlines can capitalise on. The market should solve this, and if it doesn't, tough.
What next? The government monitoring the Internet and fining anybody who says LOL U WAT? 'Cause, you know, that irritates me, and apparently I have the right not to be irritated. Next up: passing the Freedom from Arm Rest Theft act.
No VoIP (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) IN GENERAL- An individual may not engage in voice communications using a mobile communications device in an aircraft during a flight in scheduled passenger interstate air transportation or scheduled passenger intrastate air transportation.
(2) VOICE COMMUNICATIONS USING A MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE-
`(A) INCLUSIONS- The term `voice communications using a mobile communications device' includes voice communications using--
`(i) a commercial mobile radio service or other wireless communications device;
`(ii) a broadband wireless device or other wireless device that transmits data packets using the Internet Protocol or comparable technical standard; or
`(iii) a device having voice override capability.
`(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include voice communications using a phone installed on an aircraft.
Looks like no VoIP, folks. However, the wording of this bill leads me to believe that airlines will soon push in-flight calling through the airplane phones.
New act needed (Score:3, Funny)
Can I get myself added to the no-fly list? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have refused to fly for several years due to increasing security regulations (the last time I was on a plane was in 1999). This is just more of the same.
I don't want to take the chance my employer will try to make me fly somewhere. Is there somewhere I can apply to have myself irrevocably added to the no-fly list?
Re:why are we banning cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because for some reason, when two people are talking right next to one another, they tend to whisper or at least talk in low voice.
For some reason, give someone a cellphone and if they are not downright shouting their voice somehow still seems to carry at least a few rows. You can observe this every day in any bus/train. Even though the other end will definitely hear you even if you talk at low volume.
Parent
Re:why are we banning cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it that people talk loudly on cellphones and therefore you notice, or is that that some people talk loudly on cellphones, but people who talk quietly on cellphones don't attract attention, so the only people on cellphones you notice are those that speak loudly?
I don't buy the "Cellphones make people rude and loud" claim. I don't get complaints, rude stares, or any other signs my use of my cellphone is causing annoyance but I see others subjected to that treatment when they really are loud and annoying. I have to assume that I, like probably 95% of the population, am simply invisible, because I don't speak loudly into my phone, I keep my conversations in public short, and my cellphone uses vibration to notify me of calls rather than a loud, annoying, ring.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why are we banning cells? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps there is not in fact anybody on the other end and the person with the phone is just a mental patient who is holding the phone to his head to make it less obvious that it's the voices he's shouting at.
And you wouldn't want an escaped mental patient walking around now would you!
I mean think of the CHILDREN! They might get killed and eaten by insane people!
good thing they're bringing in this law.
Parent
Reminds me of a story (Score:5, Interesting)
the person with the phone is just a mental patient
When I took Psych 1001, our lecturer told us a story of a patient in NYC with a history of talking to the voices in his/her head. Patient (not of said lecturer) went to therapist for help with said voices. Patient was otherwise "normal", had traditional job, paid bills, lived independently, etc... But of course had a hard time fitting in while talking to voices.
Therapist suggested patient buy a used cell phone, and talk into phone (without turning it on or calling anyone) whenever the need arose to talk to the voices. It worked well, since of course society generally considers it normal to talk into cell phones.
Except the patient was also using it on the subway, where signals are apparently very hard to get. Other passengers asked the patient what service he/she was using that had usable signal down there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, there was plenty of demand on the planes that had them, but not enough overall demand from airlines for the Connexion by Boeing system it ran on. It was an excellent system, and I saw many people with their laptops out browsing webpages on the Connexion flights I found myself on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its called baby benadryl, perhaps we should mandate its use on board planes. ;-)