In-flight Cell Ban Advances In Congress 404
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."
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.
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?
Re:or perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws?
I was thinking about this recently after another story roused me into digging up the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.
Turns out that while the contents of the bill end up integrated into the USC [wikipedia.org] the title of the bill does not. So, at a minimum, congress can apparently use any stupid ass name they want without risking it becoming part of the official law. (That doesn't stop it from being documented in historical records of congress in the archives though, but only historians care about that.)
Re: (Score:2)
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Prisoner 650, missing since 2003 with her 3 children [metblogs.com]
Re:or perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
re:or perhaps (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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?
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: (Score:2)
VPN Go!
To be fair, my boss is technically very competent so I've never had the problem of explaining something like this but I've never seen an easier way to use local stuff remotely.
At work, plug in, open outlook.
Away from work, plug in, run OpenVPN, open outlook.
Sorted.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While a majority may wish to have no cell phones on airplanes...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, however, any directions from the flight crew already have the force of law. If the airline simply made it a policy not to allow cell phone use it would be just as legally binding as an act of Congress, while retaining far greater flexibility -- for example, the airline could separate the cell phone users into their own section so as not to bother the rest of the passengers, as suggested in the summary.
This is similar to the concept of preferring municipal or state laws over federal ones for lo
Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)
in b4 all the obvious jokes about ass-searching (Wait what forum is this again?)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
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, Interesting)
The majority is ruling, and complaining, about a minority that is making itself so obnoxious as to border on rude
When the airlines cease operations, I'll sure be glad we have that HANG UP act to make everything better. I'm glad that with the documented illegal torture and sexual abuse of prisoners, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down more than 20% in the past year, massive inflation, job losses, and unprecedented foreclosure rates in some areas.... I'm really glad that congress can be trusted to tackle the real issues facing America today. The HANG UP act certainly ranks right up there with
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!
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not really sure how things like this cell phone ban, steroid use or a hundred other things I could talk about that they focus on become agenda - it appears to me that the gov't is trying to accomplish two things:
1. Power. The power that congress has has been a little unchecked and is abused
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This would get slammed in a court, so why should they even bother wasting our time and tax dollars?
How is it unconstitutional?
I regretfully agree with the posters here saying this is outside reasonable bounds of congressional interest, but at the same time I'm glad they're doing it. Otherwise, airlines would allow cell use despite the majority of passengers being against it. Allowing it is likely to piss off the other customers, but they know from experience that making customers angry doesn't hurt them. At the same time, it may get them a small number of new repeat customers (morons will spend 90% of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps because there's not a lot else to do. Seriously, you're stuck in a cramped airline seat. Why not catch up on your calls? As long as you're not swearing and/or speaking over-loudly, what's the big deal?
I know how this sort of movement takes root. You hear some loud wanker mouthing off all through a two-hour flight and you think "those things should be banned". You forget about the times you've taken a call from your daughter, quietly cleared up a little problem and rung off. Mobile phones are a part
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably true of anything, There are always people who will take ANYTHING and make it annoying, everyone just happens to have a cell phone nowadays so people who would have been idiots with overly loud mp3 players, portable dvd players, asking you every other word on a crossword, etc. just have a more common thing to annoy people with, I don't really think any of those things should be banned by the government.
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
Re: (Score:2)
What if you support the email server and it's down? There must be thousands of small firms that employ a single geek. Or those with no IT staff at all, where one member of staff with other responsibilities gets their hands dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I too like to keep my mobile on, on silent.
If I'm somewhere where a call shouldn't be recieved then anyone who needs to contact me will know me well enough to text.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Noise canceling headphones and an MP3 player...oh, perhaps not, the DHS might confiscate that...
Heh...perhaps the booze isn't a bad idea after all... >:-)
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."
Said like someone... (Score:2, Insightful)
that will probably never procreate. :-)
Let me draw this picture for you: kids are randomly noisy. There is absolutely nothing parents can do about kids' noise when they are up to it. Even a duck-tape-on-the-mouth kid makes a lot of noise. :-)
If you have some smart answer in the form of "if you do X, the kid will stay put", let me give you the news: it will not work. Kids only stay quiet... if they "want" to.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Said like someone who has procreated and doesn't control their kids.
Regular beatings.
Sound triggered shock collars.
Wanna bet on how many shocks before they're quiet as mice?
On a less brutal note try some regular fucking discipline.
My sister somehow manages to raise 2 extremely well mannered children without ever raising a hand to them. I was surprised how much power "the naughty step" had over a pair of 3 year olds. In short she doesn't give in and let them be little brats like some parents do. If they're b
Re: (Score:2)
On a less brutal note try some regular fucking discipline.
Just what kind of "regular fucking discipline" do you purpose to use on an infant? The GP was talking about the screaming infant not the obnoxious three year old. Newsflash: babies cry. Exactly what kind of "discipline" do you purpose to use on an infant that's making noise?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of AIR TRAVEL IS EXTREMELY PAINFUL FOR BABIES do you not understand? You're calling me an intolerant self-centered brat because I don't want you to put your child in extreme pain for your own personal convenience? A BABY IS PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY EQUALIZING PRESSURE IN THEIR INNER EAR BY THEMSELVES - They're too small for their eustachian tubes to open far enough to pass air quickly enough. The experience can be traumatizing. There is even potential for permanent ear damage. Parents can
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.
Re:Said like someone... (Score:5, Funny)
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Troll?? If the issue is people on planes being annoyed because of other people making noise, then children are right at the top of this list.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more because celphones are often too quiet.
if I put it on speaker phone I talk normally, if I've got it on normal I talk like a retarded deaf man.
It's cause if you can't hear the other person clearly because of noise on their end etc then you tend to adjust your voice as you would if you were having trouble hearing someone next to you talking.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because most cel phones don't have sidetone. Sidetone lets you hear yourself on the phone, and was originally invented in the early 1900s (!) just for the purpose of keeping folks from screaming.
The lack of sidetone on modern cel phones is unacceptable. This is 100 year old technology, damnit!
Re: (Score:2)
I keep it on max volume (which for non speakerphone is way too low).
What do you do if the person on the other end says "I can't hear a word you're saying, stop whispering"
I know a few fuckers who I have to deal with on the phone who are almost inaudible at any volume, speakerphone or not since they believe the phone to be some kind of magical device which can hear their thoughts even if they're on a busy street or a construction site.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this law then? Is it an all-out ban? Or does it make it illegal IF, and ONLY IF, the airline makes the ban in the first place?
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I swear honest to god, that if this gets through, I'm going to take a fake mobile phone and talk to it, with some musical parts, all the way from NY to LA.
Re: (Score:2)
we've tried to ban them in courtrooms and civic buildings as well as on public buses. I keep wondering why someone talking on a cell-phone bothers us so much?
Its nothing to do with the cell phone. Many people simply enjoy the sound of their own voice so much that, as soon as they get into a conversation they lose all awareness of their surroundings, including any regard for people trying to (a) serve them or tell them something important (b) get some coffee from the jug they've been standing in front of holding an empty cup and nattering for 10 minutes, (c) walk through the narrow doorway that they've chosen for their debating chamber or (d) who just want to hea
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, some train companies purport to have "quiet" carriages with no phones allowed. That would be fine if there was choice involved, i.e. the trains weren't routinely so overcrowded that you grab the first seat you can find and are thankful. It would also be more understandable if they turned off the fricking tannoy in the "quiet" carriages or (as happens in more train-oriented countries in Europe) restricted themselves to announcing the name of the next station without turning it into a 2 minute monologue (no, really, I was planning to leave my belongings on the train and then fall down the gap between the train and the platform...)
...and the rest, it's almost as bad as flying, and even more unnecessary. "I'd like to welcome the passengers who've joined us at Bedford to this East Midlands Trains service to Sheffield, calling at Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, and due to arrive in Sheffield at twenty-one thirty-six. First class accommodation is towards the rear of the train in coaches A, B and C, and standard class accommodation is in the front of the train in coac
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right!
While you're at it, the last time I visited the US I was mildly frustrated at having to wait for a taxi, I was a bit annoyed that the local Starbucks served their coffee slightly on the cool side and I wasn't too amused by some people not holding the door open for me when I was only a few feet behind them.
Cor blimey, there's some laws needed there! Let's call them FAST TAXIS, HOT COFFEE and OPEN DOORS! Then the world will stand up and listen!!
Re: (Score:2)
In the netherlands the intercity trains have a quiet section.
I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.
Yes, people talk to loud on phones.
Feel free to try to train people to talk at normal volumes on cell phones. Let me know how that goes.
Re: (Score:2)
In the netherlands the intercity trains have a quiet section.
I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.
I assume the same as the UK, where one coach generally has "Quiet coach" notices. You're not meant to talk, use phones, or listen to music in them. On a busy train it doesn't really work, but if there's somewhere else to sit people generally respect it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FGW_HST_Standard_Class_coach_A_headrest_cover_2005-06-09.jpg [wikimedia.org]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FGW_quiet_carriage_-_Help_us_keep_the_peace.jpg [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not a good use of law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...its a decision to be taken by the individual airlines based on feedback from their customers, not something they should be bound to enforce.
Remember when no one cared about smoking bans? Yeah, that was just the tip of the iceburg.
It gets worse from here on out. Pretty soon you won't be able to grab some in-and-out before your flight, either. Ohshi~ [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Freedom of speech. Freedom of association. Fucking hell.
Re: (Score:2)
The real danger is iPods. Hard drives are basically just spinning magnets.
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.
I've got to say (Score:2, Interesting)
I've pretty much got to the point where apart from international flights I prefer to take the train.
Ok its slower, but its less crowded, much more comfortable, and the prices compare favourably.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but the days when I'm willing to be hassled at an airport and crammed in like sardines on an overpriced flight just to get somewhere faster are long since gone. I want a decent seat, a bar I can walk along to, hot food that I don't have to eat from a tiny tray on my lap, and leg room.
Actua
wrong approach (Score:2)
This is the wrong way of going about it. Outlawing cell phones may hurt SMS and email, but it won't outlaw IP telephony or boisterous conversations. Inconsiderate behavior can't be banned by banning a technology. If you don't want people to talk loudly in airplanes, then that's what you need to regulate.
I think air planes should have quiet sections, sections where no noisy phones, noisy babies, or conversations are permitted. If you make noise in the quiet section, it's no different than any other viola
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice loophole... just put on your bluetooth earpiece for the call and hold the airplane phone handset to your head for looks.
I smell a lobbyist... Sounds like this bill is really designed to protect the airlines' phone service, by keeping it the exclusive air-land communication medium in-flight?
So screaming babies are okay.... (Score:2)
but me calling my loved ones isnt?
The proposed law proposed still allows talking on a phone installed on an aircraft.
You can be loud and obnoxious on the phone in the air all you want as long as your willing to pay $6 a minute!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its called baby benadryl, perhaps we should mandate its use on board planes. ;-)
New act needed (Score:3, Funny)
WTF? (Score:2)
BZZT! wrong! How about you only charge passengers to use phones and seat THEM in an appropriately equipped area? Don't make this shit opt-out.
Or naaah, they can just start charging extra now for passengers to not get hit by stewards/stewardesses with fly-swatters. Or maybe for a tiny extra fee, you could be seated in an area where they don't randomly throw pass
You can't legislate manners (Score:2)
However I'm not at all opposed to vigilantes addressing the issue on their own.
In cattle class? Don't worry. (Score:2)
Some airlines (Singapore Airlines and Emirates) already have in flight phone services in every seat. You swipe your credit card and get billed $6US/minute or something equally outrageous. I haven't travelled internationally in a while, but when it is available the phone is intergrated into the remote for the passengers IFE screen.
If they charge that much, we can assume they will do the same for in flight mobile phone use (or even more; the equipment needs to be paid somehow). OK, they'll probably charge a
call 'em up (Score:2)
Why the hell do we need federal legislation to stop people talking on cell phones on planes? Why? There is absolutely NO reason for any federal legislator to be spending any time even THINKING about such farcical laws.
State legislators could go crazy with it, but it barely affects them.
Airlines need to take a stand here and tell the federal government that they can govern themselves.
I don't like to speak of slippery slopes, but what's next? Congress declaring that no one can use laptops on a plane? that no
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: (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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in theaters that don't enforce the "turn off your cell phone" thing by kicking people who abuse theirs too much, there's always a BUNCH of asses talking their butts off during the movie.
You need teeth. In this day and age, a lot of people go by the "if I can do it without getting in trouble, I'll do it" moto. Being "nice" is a suggestion observed by a minority.