Senators Propose Bill Prohibiting Phone Calls On Planes 513
SonicSpike writes with news that two U.S. Senators, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have proposed legislation to ban cell phone calls while aboard an airplane. This follows a recent announcement from the FAA increasing the range of electronic gadgets travelers can use while flying, and a vote by the FCC to consider allowing phone calls during flight. However, even as those government agencies work to lift regulations on in-flight technology, the Department of Transportation is pondering a in-flight call ban of its own, saying it might not be "fair" to consumers to have to listen to other passengers talk on the phone throughout a long flight. FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "If we move beyond what we do here today and actually update our rules to allow voice calls on planes we can see a future where our quiet time is monetized and seating in the silent section comes at a premium."
Re:Cell Signal.. (Score:4, Informative)
Not that way, no. The plan is to give the plane a small mobile cell of its own, connected to the wider network via satellite backhaul.
Re:Planes have had phones for years (Score:5, Informative)
The cost moderated the usage so much that they're mostly no longer enabled even if they're present. The remaining service will be shutting down completely at the end of this year.
Give me liberty or give me silence! (Score:5, Informative)
Talking on a cellphone in public should be a federal crime. In fact, let's give up all our freedoms in order to avoid minor annoyances!
Hypocrite Feinstein (Score:5, Informative)
I have personally witnessed Diane Feistein bumping off a confirmed passenger (an associate who had booked a seat near me), and refusing to turn off her electronic equipment (A Kindle) during landing operations on a commercial flight (when it was prohibited to leave it on during takeoffs and landings). Who the F**k is this person to make this kind of policy when she can't think of anyone but herself when it comes to behavior on an airplane?
Re:Good morning Vietraq (Score:4, Informative)
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.
And, just to remind you, Hillary, and Company supported the wars. And saying she didn't know GWB was lying, that is just remember, her Husband was President and knew all about Saddam and OBL, so she SHOULD have known. But then again "What difference does it make!!!!!"
Okay. Time for some fact checking. First, the full quote from Nancy Pelosi (not just the part that Michele Bachmann used and made famous) was: ”We’ll have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Nancy Pelosi claims that she was saying that the American people wouldn’t see all the advantages of HCR until after it was passed, not that Congress had no idea what it said. I personally read it as her saying that during the debate in congress there were so many people saying false things about the healthcare law that not all of the benefits (or drawbacks) would be recognized by the public until they were enacted in law.
Second, Oregon has roughly 30,000 paper health care applications waiting for approval. Additionally at least 70,000 more people have signed up for Medicaid in response to informational letters the government sent out to eligible citizens. Given that the uninsured population of Oregon is roughly 500,000, I'd say those numbers are a pretty good indication that the program is both wanted and needed.The fact that the website is broken is a travesty, particularly given the amount of money (more like $150 million, according to the paper) paid to Oracle to get it to work.
However, the fact that a private contractor failed to construct a website does not mean the law is bad. It means we need better private contractors. Hopefully Oregon will figure out how to deal with Oracle and either get their money back, a working website, or both (the same could be said for the federal health exchange website).
Finally, as to your last point. You're saying that former President Bill Clinton was up to date on the most recently collected highly classified intelligence about Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and WMDs. And that he told his wife all about it. You do remember that the war in afghanistan started a year after he left office, and the war in Iraq started two years after he left office? Things can change a lot in a year, especially when an event like 9/11 shifts the focus of the intelligence community. I think you're overestimating the power and knowledge of former presidents.
Some sources: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html [oregonlive.com] http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-healthcare-exchange-website-never-worked-no-subscribers-130601969--sector.html [yahoo.com] http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/12/30000_cover_oregon_enrollment.html [oregonlive.com] http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/ [politifact.com]
Re:Good morning Vietraq (Score:3, Informative)
Please cite examples that aren't Fox News on this? And I'm sure we can trade plenty of "anecdotes" either way - for example, a friend of mine just used the Texas exchange and her premium went down from over $1000 a month to about $300. But that's mostly irrelevant, since anecdotes aren't statistics, and the point is to increase the overall coverage and decrease the overall cost. And ANY conclusion about that right now (when it's only in the 2nd month of enrollment and NO old policies have actually even expired yet) is ridiculously premature.
Also, "perfectly good coverage" is kind of a joke. The reason many policies were cancelled is because they were so bad they didn't pass the minimum requirements for policies under the new law (which isn't particularly stringent, anyway), or the insurance companies were just revamping their policy offerings and expected people to sign up under the new (sometimes nearly identical) ones. Such a conspiracy theory without hard evidence...
And really, "if ACA actually starts to work as planned"? The Federal website != The ACA. There are plenty of state exchanges that are working fine - but even those aren't "the ACA". The ACA is a *law*, not some website.