Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Transportation Government

Americans To FCC Chair: No Cell Calls On Planes, Please 340

Posted by Soulskill
from the we-only-want-what-we-can't-have dept.
jfruh writes "Who says Americans are politically apathetic? The FCC's proposal to allow cellular data — and, if the airline allows it, voice calls — on airplanes unleashed a flood of responses even before the official comment period began this week. The sentiment was overwhelmingly opposed to people talking on phones in flight. Some correspondents spun terrifying hypotheticals about yapping teens, some accused FCC chair Tom Wheeler of flying on private planes and being out of touch with the full-on horror of in-flight chatter, and one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans To FCC Chair: No Cell Calls On Planes, Please

Comments Filter:
  • by jratcliffe (208809) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:47PM (#45987473)

    While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.

    • Mod Parent up.

      It also occurs to me that with net neutrality now banned, the obvious way to do this would be to invite people to use an in-plane wifi that blocks skype and other voice chat programs.

      Come to think of it, an in-plane satellite based high latency wifi system you wouldn't even need to filter for, it just plain wouldn't work.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jratcliffe (208809)

        Couple of things:

        1. Net neutrality isn't banned, it's just that the FCC would need to issue new rules to enforce it. The court specifically said that the FCC _could_ enforce net neutrality rules, if it classified ISPs under title II (as common carriers).

        2. Even if the rules had remained in place, it wouldn't have prevented inflight providers from blocking certain apps for network performance reasons (Gogo does this this today with video services like Netflix or HBO Go), so long as they were evenhanded abou

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday January 17, 2014 @06:49PM (#45992531) Journal

        Mod Parent up.

        Mod the GrandParent down.
        Just off the top of my head, here are two things the FCC regulates because of annoyance:
        http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials [fcc.gov]
        http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list [fcc.gov]

        Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you're not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.

        If no-phone-calls is a good public policy, then there's absolutely no reason to leave its enforcement in private hands.
        Make it a law and put the weight of the State behind it.

    • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice.gmail@com> on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:57PM (#45987659)

      I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?

      Once the FCC and FAA concluded it was no longer a safety concern, their remit for control of it expired and the only entities that could ban it on "annoyance" grounds would be the airlines that operate the aircraft.

      • by Scowler (667000) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:07PM (#45987803)
        Public libraries often ban talking on cell phones, and not on any safety grounds.
        • by Dan East (318230) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:41PM (#45988337) Homepage Journal

          Yes, but individual public libraries aren't the federal government banning them wholesale across an entire swath of private property. Individual libraries have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps they would want to provide specific areas where people could use cell phones, thus people that don't want to be around them can simply stay away from that area. Similarly, why couldn't airlines sell seats in specific sections of the plane (the back perhaps?) where cell phone calls were allowed? That shouldn't be up to the FCC since cell phones have been proven to not crash airplanes through their EMF emissions.

        • by bondsbw (888959)

          But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking". The first is the expression of thought which aligns more with the interpretation of speech in the first amendment. The second is an act of producing sounds from your mouth, which is banned without regard to content.

          • by bondsbw (888959)

            And then again, I don't know if public libraries actually kick you out if you are talking.

            The librarian may request you to stop talking or to go outside to talk, and others may give you an evil eye, but I'm not sure I've heard of the police dragging someone out. Even if that happened, I would think it would be on grounds of disturbing the peace.

          • "But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."

            There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?

            • by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Friday January 17, 2014 @03:32PM (#45990025)

              "But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."

              There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?

              Doesn't matter. Free speech isn't anything you folks are arguing about. Free speech is not being arrested by the Government for expressing your opinion. Even then, good luck threatening to kill someone, or the famous "Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater".

              Free speech was never about a person's unadulterated right to say whatever they want, whenever they want to, and no response from anyone else allowed.

              All of which is to say that if some asshat starts talking on their phone in the plane, and the other passengers beat the bejabbers out of him, the asshat can have them arrested for assault, but his freedom of speech has not been abridged.

              No corporate attorney duplicity needed.

        • In many Asian countries, people are polite enough to not talk on a phone when on a bus or train. In America, everyone feels entitled to be an ass whenever they want.

          • by shikaisi (1816846)
            I'm not sure where these polite Asian countries are that you are referring to, unless possibly you mean Japan. Certainly in China people have no qualms about talking on their phone anywhere, even in the middle of an opera. "Guess where I am. I'm at the opera! Listen!". She seemed quite put out when I glared at her for that. Seriously, most Americans are a picture of self-restraint when it comes to cellphone use compared to almost anywhere in Asia outside of Japan.
      • by Sloppy (14984)

        It's the FCC. Their argument will be that they're banning a radio tech (and in a specific context, without regard for what ever someone is saying over that radio), not speech itself. See that person in the seat next to you? Tell 'em how unfair King George's tea taxes are, and how unfair it is that Parliament doesn't ave a seat for us. The FCC won't stop you.

        The reason we should shoot this down, is that there's no technical reason to ban the tech. The FCC doing this is merely a horrible. unnecessary, and

      • I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?

        Only if you insist on a direct, literal interpretation of that part of the First Amendment.

        Which seems kinda silly.

    • I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
      • by Skater (41976)

        I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.

        Well, how many times has the government been sued for that very same issue until now?

      • by alen (225700)

        forever

        if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time. even on the ground cellular service is not 100% reliable on every square inch of the USA

        • by khallow (566160)

          if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time.

          They are. The phone is just a cell phone.

      • I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call?

        Why can't the emergency message be sent as a text? Also, the airlines could allow phone calls in part of the plane, such as the back 10 rows. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

      • I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.

        How is that different from a user whose phone battery ran out? Or one who forgot to top up his pay-as-you-go plan? Or one who has turned off their phone in a cinema? Has any cinema ever been sued because someone was unable to take an emergency-related call? What about a person who doesn't have a mobile phone?

      • by Sloppy (14984) on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:10PM (#45988825) Homepage Journal

        but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call?

        If you leave it to the market and then a passenger chooses to buy a ticket on a no-phones airline, then it's the call receiver who is responsible for declining the emergency call. "Our customer wanted to be in a phoneless environment and paid for that, furthermore demonstrating his preference. Sue him for not taking your call."

        Furthermore, it's hard to imagine any scenario where anyone could ever have a reasonable expectation for being able to take an emergency call. Even if I fab an extreme over-the-top example (as I, like anyone, would love to do).

        Guy happens to be the Last Doctor In The World. He says, "I want to fly on someone else's airplane, but I want to not listen to anyone else talking." So he buys a ticket on a no-phones airline. While waiting in the terminal, he turns off his phone. One second later, the President's wife calls him, and leaves this voice mail: "The President is choking on pizza! What do I do? WHAT DO I DO!?" but since the doctor turned off his phone, he doesn't see the call come in. He boards his flight, oblivious to the coming disaster.

        Mid-flight, one of the passengers starts talking to another passenger. The doctor screams, "hey, shut the fuck up!" and everyone quiets down, because you never know when you might want to be on The Last Doctor In The World's good side. The captain makes an announcement over the intercom. The doctor glares, hatefully. He doesn't make a scene, but he writes the captain's name in his no-treatment book. The engines drone on, and he grimaces with discomfort, noting he's never going to treat anyone who works at Boeing, where they make such loud engines.

        An hour later, he gets off the plane. He turns on his phone, and sees a bunch of voicemails from the First Lady. He calls her back. "Get your husband to cough up the pizza," he offers, rolling his eyes, but his advice has arrived too late. The president has already asphyxiated to death.

        Unfortunately, right after the president's death, a bill arrived on his desk, which would have outlawed mass puppy shredding. It didn't get signed quickly, because it took a while for the then-vice-president to catch up. So one hundred thousand puppies where shredded, while it was still legal to do so. One of those puppies had an important passphrase tattooed on its ear, but now it has been shredded. Without the passphrase, no one was able to stop the nuclear launch that resulted in the deaths of three billion people.

        One of the people whose gardener died in the nuclear war, sues Samsung for designing a phone that has an off switch, based on the idea that people HAVE TO receive emergency calls, no matter what anyone (even the owner of the phone) wants.

        You're on the jury. What's your decision? If you rule in favor of the plaintiff, Samsung owes someone $3 to replace the plant that the dead gardener never got around to watering. And I will harbor a hypothetical-$3 grudge against you, from now to the end of time. OTOH, if you rule for the defendent, then I agree with you, my friend. What's it going to be?

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        There's nothing that someone trapped in a plane could do about an emergency. Well, all the business people will claim that the sales call was an emergency, but if your kid is home bleeding out, any call to you should have been made to 911, and after that, call the phone and leave a message, you'll get it when you land, when you can conceivably go to the hospital or whatever. Knowing your kid is near death 4 hours sooner has no effect on the situation.
    • by mjr167 (2477430)
      But but but... the government has to tell us how to live our lives. Without the government we won't know how to treat other people or that we are supposed to breath air to survive. Could you imagine the chaos if the government told us they did not require us to breathe air? People would try to breath sand in the unregulated aftermath.
    • They shouldn't ban it - they should just charge an arm and a leg for the service. Something like $5 per minute.

      Phones at the seats are not new to airplanes. The prior phones were too expensive for any casual use - though I have never flown first class, so I don't know if people were being annoying with them up there.

  • Allow. (Score:5, Funny)

    by nblender (741424) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:51PM (#45987551)

    Allow people to make phone calls while in-flight... However, they should be asked to step outside for the duration of their phone call.

  • People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?

    I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.
    • People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?

      I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.

      The FCC does not produce legislation, Congress does.

  • Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:54PM (#45987589) Homepage

    A night flight. The plane is quiet.

    Suddenly,

    "Yeah, I couldn't sleep... No, they've fed us.... HA HA HA HA HA!!! Yeah, that's right! HA HA HA HA HA!!! I know what you mean and there's that.... HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Do you remember that?... HA HA HA HA HA!!!"

    • So you're saying knifes, sticks & fire should be allowed on planes..... Hmm I agree.
    • Re:Imagine (Score:5, Funny)

      by quixote9 (999874) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:08PM (#45987823) Homepage
      Exactly. So much for it not being a safety issue. Homicides are a safety issue.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mjr167 (2477430)

      A night flight. The plane is quiet.

      Suddenly...

      Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?

      • A night flight. The plane is quiet.

        Suddenly...

        Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?

        What's your point? That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?

    • by wiredog (43288)

      The plane is quiet.
      I don't think anyone is going to be sleeping after the engines have shut down.

    • by Dan East (318230)

      Yeah, that's the downside of not owning your own airplane. Sucks doesn't it?

    • Not any worse then some baby crying the whole time and won't STFU when you're trying to sleep / read / meditate / etc.

    • by MobyDisk (75490)

      And imagine how much worse it would be if the person was using a cell phone too!

    • You realize this happens on planes already, right? People are loud, rude, obnoxious, drink-spilling, stinky, barfing, etc. on airplanes all the time.

      I was flying back from Canada, and the guy in the next seat was buying booze for the whole row. It was a night flight (not a red-eye), and we were a little loud. Not rowdy, mind you, just a little animated. You know what happens when somebody gets loud on a plane? The flight attendant asks you to be more quiet and respectful of the other passengers. It only ta

  • I seriously wonder why this debate continues. I've left my phone on and tried to use it during flight. I can't get a signal. Period. This entire debate is superfluous unless the airlines want to put microcells on the places and charge an arm and a leg for it like they used to for the in seat phones. If the call is that important, they can pay the $5 a minute to make the call.
    • by monkeyhybrid (1677192) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:24PM (#45988105)

      I've never tried to make a call but I have happily sent texts during a flight before. I can't say I paid much attention to it at the time, but I'm pretty sure I had a good bar or two of reception, at least whilst over land, so I'm guessing a call could have worked ok too. I'm sure the sitting-in-a-metal-tube thing won't help but presumably the windows allow enough RF to pass through.

      Also, some of the passengers of 'flight 93' made calls to their loved ones during the 9/11 hijackings.

      • by HBI (604924)

        Post 9-11, the cell towers ignore anything moving over a certain speed. Pre-9-11, no such thing
        You'll note cell reception returns when the plane is about to land and the speeds are down sufficiently.

      • by areusche (1297613)
        Service provider, type of plane, and how high? I doubt you'll be able to do it. There's also some debate about how the "flight 93" survivors made their calls. Something that the 9/11 truth guys bring up. If you're flying a typical flight at cruising altitude you will be too high to make the calls. You were probably low enough to make the calls. Here's an interesting read on the whole flight 93 call thing: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html [wtc7.net]
  • I would be fine with SMS texting only. But allowing people to talk on their phone, would be a huge discomfort to passengers. The problem is most people (including me) talk louder when on the phone. A little of this falls on the lack of good technology to allow quiet conversations to take place on phone calls.

    In the end I hope FCC continues the ban of talking on the phone while in flight, but allowing texting.
    • by ttucker (2884057)

      I would be fine with SMS texting only. But allowing people to talk on their phone, would be a huge discomfort to passengers. The problem is most people (including me) talk louder when on the phone. A little of this falls on the lack of good technology to allow quiet conversations to take place on phone calls. In the end I hope FCC continues the ban of talking on the phone while in flight, but allowing texting.

      The silly thing about this debate is that the FCC regulates RF spectrum, and the FAA regulates aviation safety, but the only thing anyone can say about cell phones on airplanes is that people use them in an annoying manner... sometimes. Complain to your airline, friends, business associates, and family... but please do not stand in the way of technology to prevent what you think might be a mild annoyance.

  • This is worse than apathy.

    Americans are now wholly incapable of thinking for themselves. Instead of insisting that airlines provide the service they want, and voting with their money, they want to tell the government to force everyone to go along with those who shout the loudest. If there's no safety issue with cell phones, is it even the government's business? Most airlines will ban phone usage, except perhaps in business class or wherever else warranted. Some won't, and for those who can't cut the (to

    • by GrumpySteen (1250194) on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:09PM (#45988811)

      The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment. That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying" and is exactly the type of regulation that the FCC was intended to oversee.

      In the time since those regulations were put in place, it's become increasingly clear that cell phones won't cause interference with the plane's equipment. The FCC is now considering revising the regulations according to the new information. This is what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.

      In the process of reconsidering those regulations, they asked for input from the public. This is also what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.

      It's not the FCC's fault that a bunch of people freaked out and submitted "OMG Nooooo!" comments that had absolutely nothing to do with what the FCC is actually regulating. I feel sorry for whoever has to sort through all of those comments to see if there is anything valid buried in them.

  • Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materia
    • by ttucker (2884057)

      Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materials available while traveling. Please don't knee jerk away a gain for consumers.

      Nobody wins. Airlines are prevented from providing inflight cellular service. Consumers are prevented from having more choices.

      Unless the executive branch of government wants more control of our personal lives, in that case at least some entity wins.

  • Many cellphones - even if in airplane mode - still allow the GPS antenna to be used. You won't be able to download maps while in airplane mode, but if you are just using a simple app like "GPSTest" (which displays coordinates/speed), it works just fine.

  • not their job (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Xicor (2738029)
    the fcc is not responsible for making laws preventing annoyance... they are responsible for safety. it shouldnt be up to the FCC to ban talking on cell phones, it should be up to the airline to decide whether they want to ban talking or not.
  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:20PM (#45988025)

    Thankfully I have a shorter commute these days, but my last job involved an hour-and-a-half trip each direction on the train. The thing that bothered me most wasn't the time, the crowded trains, the hours i had to get up in the morning. No, it was the people yapping on their phones. Imagine a 5:50 AM commuter train with totally dead people half-asleep, then some idiot starts screaming into their phone and doesn't shut up for the entire trip. Now imagine that same scenario, but now you're inches away from that idiot crammed into a coach seat for a 14 hour flight to Japan. I fly a fair amount of these incredibly long trips for work, and I think I'd rather poke a hole in my eardrums with a sharp instrument than listen to 14 hours of inane banter or some exec screaming at his subordinate or assistant.

    People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore, and (b) no one wants to hear about the divorce case you're working on, the colon polyp you had removed, your escapades out at the bar last night, your cat, your dog, your kids or any of the large number of conversations I've heard.

    The other thing that's nice for the truly crazy business people I know (I'm not one of them) is that airplane time is dead time -- no one is sending you messages, no one can reach you, etc.

    • People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore

      I heard this was because mobile phones don't echo (instantly) back your own voice like a landline does. Either the echo convinces your brain that you're talking too loudly, or the fact that you don't hear it on a mobile phone convinces your brain that something's broken and you need to shout louder. I'd guess the former, given that today's young'uns still seem to be doing it, dagnabbit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:24PM (#45988103)

    and i don't find them the least bit annoying.

    i think it would be very similar for airplanes.

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:39PM (#45988301) Homepage

    one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times.

    Ah. The voice of reason.

  • Airlines have had wired phones on seat backs for years without any problems or public outcry. The only difference between them and cell phones are that the users don't have to pay the airline to use their cell phones.

    Sure it's annoying to have the person next to you yacking on a cell phone, but it's also annoying to have them snoring, talking loudly, crying, etc.

    We need to stop making a big deal out of the fact the we're annoyed and appreciate the fact that we can travel thousands of miles without anybody

  • by aviators99 (895782) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:43PM (#45988383) Homepage

    Philosophically speaking, it doesn't make sense to ban people talking on the phone and not ban people talking to the person next to them. I've never heard anyone asking the FCC (or slightly more reasonably the FAA) to regulate the volume people can speak on the plane.

    Practically speaking, people tend to speak more loudly when they are speaking on the phone. Normally, this is not necessary. Part of the problem is that unlike landlines (remember them?), you don't get the feedback in the earpiece of your own voice when you're speaking on a mobile phone. Psychologically, this creates a desire to "speak up". This could be helped immensely big changing the way the hardware works.

    You could also require the use of some sort of external headset that provides feedback and eliminates background noise better than the existing phones.

    Most importantly, educating people that they don't need to speak that loudly into mobile phones could go a long way. And not only on airplanes.

    • by _Ludwig (86077)

      Being forced to hear only one end of a conversation is vastly more irritating than hearing both parties.

  • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:44PM (#45988405) Homepage

    Cellphones on plane would be annoying, but as long as it's not dangerous, that's purely a business problem. The FCC shouldn't be getting involved with enforcing various people's aesthetics on others; that's not it's job.

  • I like that person.

  • About how many signed the petition to the FCC to implement Common Carrier status on ISPs.
  • With many airlines now offering Wifi on board people will sidestep the any phone ruling. A skype call on your laptop using a headset is exactly the same as a phone call but without all the cellular issues.
  • by NEDHead (1651195) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:57PM (#45988603)

    Make those drop-down oxygen masks a little bigger, and they can double as CONES OF SILENCE. These will work especially well with the rumored iShoe phone

  • ...where Schwarzenegger kills that guy sitting next to him on the plane. That would be me. And I don't want to go to prison. I would only fly on airlines that prohibit it. But based on the disdain they show for they customers, I'm sure they all would allow it.

  • by DarthVain (724186) on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:58PM (#45989557)

    But isn't this all moot? Unless you are using a satellite phone how exactly is a cell phone supposed to get a signal within a flying plane? I am no expert, but isn't the signals transmitted by ground based stations? I am not sure that they A) have the range, or B) are omni-directional (i.e up). Perhaps at low altitude close to a tower, or on the runway, but I am not sure how well cell technology is going to operate at 30,000ft over nothing.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html [911myths.com]

    Seems to indicate that it may be possible, but likely not, and even if it was, impractical.

    Wifi is an interesting idea, as it could be used for connectivity. Then again the connection that is used is a satellite one, which likely has some bandwidth restrictions, and is likely costly to operate beyond a certain point.

    So for the most part this is a moot argument in the first place.

  • by Dcnjoe60 (682885) on Friday January 17, 2014 @03:48PM (#45990215)

    The FCC's role in all of this should be is there a safety reason not to allow the phones on planes. The fact that it will be annoying and obnoxious should be left up to the market to decide. If some airlines offer cell free flights, and the public wants that, then those airlines will profit by increased ridership. If not, then their competitors will benefit. Not every problem needs to be solved by the government.

  • by tmlrv (129747) on Friday January 17, 2014 @05:54PM (#45991619)

    Getting up in arms about cell phones on planes is all fine and good. Frankly, however, I'd rather see people be getting upset about the net neutrality ruling and demanding the FCC appeal the outcome. That will have a greater long term impact than conversations on planes.

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss

Working...