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."
what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters?
That would be nice. We already know there's a special hell reserved for those who talk at the theater.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it's called the Alamo Drafthouse. [youtube.com]
This person is why Cell Phones need to be banned on airplanes in this country. If I had to listen to her talk endlessly on a flight I'd probably look for the nearest emergency exit and throw her out! Yeah, there'd be collateral damage but honestly if a person can't be bothered to not use their phone in a theater what makes you think that they'll be polite on a plane?
Re:what? (Score:4, Funny)
SO what you're saying is find the nearest emergency exit and throw her out? I'll keep that in mind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly. Correlation != Causation
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!
Re:Give me liberty or give me silence! (Score:5, Insightful)
My first cell phone, some twenty years ago, came with a guide that included an etiquite section. It suggested using an unused doorway or empty payphone box as a place to make a call in public.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try, as old as theaters, and not just movie theaters, either. There are lots of people who don't need a cell phone to babble on anywhere and everywhere.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. There is zero reason this needs to be legislated.
This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.
Don't worry, the next election will change *everything*! At least, that's what I hear every two years...
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather that congress focus on this than on more ways to waste tax dollars. There is a lot to be said for a congress that can't do anything.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Political bickering and gridlock in Washington are the only things preventing this country from going downhill even faster.
The absolute worst case scenario for the USA is that we ever elect a congress that can actually get anything accomplished.
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it would be awful if congress were to, say, spend enough time to rationally examine energy policy, and pass laws to encourage responsible nuclear power in addition to renewables.
Yeah, because that would totally happen.
In the real world, they would pass a 2,000 page Affordable Energy Act that no-one had read, full of pork for hamster farmers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you keep your expectations low, I guess you won't be disappointed. Too bad you live that way, though.
Live what way? With a realistic view of how the world works, based on decades of observation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was meant to be rhetorical.
How about "it will stave off our fiscal crises by a month, at least"?
If the country has to buy its own debt and pay interest to itself to avoid default, that is in many respects the same thing as printing money. Just wait until interest rates go up and people realize that we need to use most of our discretionary budget just to pay interest.
Re:what? (Score:4)
Also, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "rhetorical". I'll be there are a lot of words you don't know the meaning of. Natter on, I'm sure I'll read your reply.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And, we saw this brilliantly illustrated when Obama first hit office and Dems had control of both houses. We're feeling the effects now of obamacare which was rammed through.
Thankfully, even with majority in both houses, they didn't do more damage.
Sadly, the only way to overturn this mess, and get it out and maybe revised would be to have the Reps in control of all 3x branches. But, I'm afraid what else they'd do if they had that much control.
So, I'm afraid we're largely screwed on this one...
Good morning Vietraq (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, the only way to overturn this mess, and get it out and maybe revised would be to have the Reps in control of all 3x branches. But, I'm afraid what else they'd do if they had that much control.
Last time the GOP had the House, Senate, and Presidency, the United States got involved in Vietghanistan and Vietraq.
Re:Good morning Vietraq (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding right? The amount of money we spent and the amount of interest we will pay to fund the two wars dwarfs any economic damage that Obamacare supposedly will cause. We won't know the final cost of the wars since we will be paying for the casualties that return home for quite a long time.
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:5, Insightful)
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA
Are you KIDDING me? Better to spend $300M to get 44 people health care (and that's a moronic statistic, anyway - they spent too much money and the site isn't ready, but that's an NRE cost, not a per-person rate, DUH) than $5 TRILLION to get thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. For the cost of those wars the US could have fully insured every citizen in the US for years.
And name ANY direct harm that has actually come to anyone AS OF TODAY over the ACA (not some unproven conspiracy theory of future issues). Yes, millions of cancellations of policies have been announced (*not* enacted yet), but the vast majority of those people will end up with with cheaper policies with more coverage. Combine that with newly covered people and it will be a large net gain. Not comforting to those individuals who made out the worse for it, of course, but on the scale of 300M people that's how things go.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, so far...we're seeing pretty much the oppositeof this.
People that had perfectly good coverage, are seeing those policies being replace by the new ones, that often offer less choice, fewer doctors, but coming also with higher deductibles and more expensive monthly payments.
Sure, we might get a few million new people on with insurance (if ACA actually starts to work as planned)...but at the co
Re: (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 e
Re: (Score:3)
So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.
Oregon has enrolled thousands of people. ACA is unrelated to OR's ability to manage an IT project. They are separate and unrelated issues.
Re: (Score:3)
We're feeling the effects now of obamacare which was rammed through.
Yes, yes... because the Republican solution to the country's healthcare issues (and/or anything else having to with people who are not rich and/or white and/or corporations) was/is *so* much better. Remind me what that was/is again, other than "let them eat cake"?
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
"let them eat cake"
I thought the Republican plan was "let them eat rats (from the gutter they are living in)."
Re: (Score:3)
Rammed through?
Only due to 60 votes being the "new normal" to get any legislation to a vote.
So it was only ramming through if we agree the GOP was *again* making egregious misuse of the filibuster. Otherwise, it's just business as usual for both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. There is zero reason this needs to be legislated. This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.
This is also a useful reminder from Lamar Alexander that Republicans are lying when they say they favor less government.
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
"such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition"
I propose an exception - if the violation happens before take-off, they should have to wait until the plane reaches a certain minimum altitude before the forcible disembarkation.
Re: (Score:3)
The cargo hold is pressurized, but not climate-controlled. The only safe path to the outside world that can be used in flight is the sewage dump system, and the entry to it is only so big...
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
How dare you let businesses determine their own methods of business. You NEED the government to tell you how to run your business since you suck at running it and some lifetime politician knows more about your business then you do.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
An airline?
You really don't want to go there. These are some of the most heavily regulated businesses on the planet. The companies in question might not even mind given the kind of chaos that could ensue otherwise.
Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.
It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.
Re: (Score:3)
Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.
It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.
Really? Have you *seen* the proliferation of charges the airlines invented, to boost the bottom line? They must employ the equivalent of Einsteins and Shakespeares of customer ripoff to come up with those.
Airlines want the CYA of being told what to do (Score:5, Insightful)
...even if "being told what to do" means they decide internally but have a Federal organization slap their letterhead on it and make it a Federal rule/policy.
There will probably be a lot of high-mileage and influential business customers who want to talk on the phone. These people are the gravy for airlines in terms of income and that can get expensive if they switch to another carrier who will allow these calls. Making their own policies that risks exposing them to a competitive disadvantage is something they don't want.
If they do allow calls with their own policy, they then risk the public relations nightmare of bad press and public opinion. Of course they don't really care about vacation travelers opinions very much since they aren't the high margin business customers, but they also don't want the negative PR generally.
It's just so much easier for them on this issue if they don't have to decide on their own and they can just point to a regulatory rule.
Re: (Score:3)
My phone gets switched off the moment I go through security. IT does not get switched on again until I'm waiting for my bags to appear.
60K flyer here. I find it useful to turn it on once we're wheels-down - The airline mobile sites are very useful to get gate and delay information for my connecting flights.
PS Surprised to hear that, as a 100K flyer you check bags. I probably only check 1/10 flights, when I'm gone more than four sleeps and need a suit - But perhaps you're more longhaul. My 60K was s
Re: (Score:3)
...such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
Preferably while in mid-air.
But all life is sacred, right ???
Now disembarking their CELL PHONE in mid-air would require a much smaller airlock to prevent the cabin from depressurizing, and would ensure that a first offense (on a particular flight by a particular passenger) likely would be the LAST offense on that flight by that passenger. [If we made it that ALL that passenger's phones were disembarked, it WOULD be the last offense.]
On a more serious note, we don't need this type of law. All we need is for airlines to have a clearly s
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I still had my mod points.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a restaurant, I can ask my waitress to tell you to STFU. If she fails to, I can (and will) walk out.
You already can't use your phone in a movie theater.
Being stuck on a plane for several hours while some sales wanker is on a conference call -- well, let's just say the cabin crew might have to break up a few fights and deal with the fallout of someone who has had enough. After you've won buzz-word bingo for the 3rd time in 15 minutes, it wears thin, and people have already been stressed out by the process of going through the airport.
Mark my words, I bet it would take less than 2 years before the first in-flight murder of a cell phone user or something silly like that. Because the people who feel they can't avoid using their cell phones often have absolutely no awareness of those around them, because they feel whatever they're doing is so important that the rest of us should have to put up with it.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a train line that came up with a novel idea: on part of the train you can use your cellphone, and on part of the train you can't! Gee, what a concept. Maybe we could let the airlines figure this out, rather than having Congress make laws.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a train line that came up with a novel idea: on part of the train you can use your cellphone, and on part of the train you can't! Gee, what a concept. Maybe we could let the airlines figure this out, rather than having Congress make laws.
Amtrack does not charge extra for "quiet cars". You can bet your ass an airplane would charge you for some peace and quiet.
Also, on a train you can get up, move around, and there is lots of room between seats. On a plane you are pressed right up against the asshole yammering on his phone right next to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually they should charge for the right to use the cell phone, and have a cell phone reserved area.
Only people that really need to make calls will pay. Maybe that's the way congress should legislate, the fundamental right is the right to quietness, but give the airlines leeway to charge for customers who insist in making phone calls in flight.
A long time ago there were smoker and non smoker areas, so dividing a plane into two areas is not a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a thought. An aeroplane is a public place, and you should not necessarily expect quiet on a plane. What next, do you ban people talking to each other on planes because is disturbs your peace and quiet?
Why not buy some earplugs if you want to drown out the noise around you? Why not let people use their time as productively as they wish.
If it is a red eye flight, then I fully agree that people should be quiet at certain times. but to mandate it for all flights, whatever the time is ridiculous.
Re: what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, and the trumpet player who's travelling to his next performance should be allowed to make productive use of his time by practicing. It's not like you have a right to peace and quiet at the expense of his convenience.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're still missing the point. (God I hate airplanes so freakin much)
An airplane is NOT a public space.
It's a pressurized little container where people are jammed packed like little fucking sardines. The average seat size has been reduced due to greed, while the average ass size has only gone up.
So it's greatly uncomfortable as it is. Let's add to it ridiculously uncomfortable seats, and the fact they can recline annihilating the space for the passenger behind you. Your option? Recline your seat as well to reclaim the space. Last row that can't recline. You're fucked dude.
You got problems with poor circulation and neuropathy? Ehhh, fuck you and stay sitting period. You can't even get up to stretch your legs unless it's the weak pretense of going to bathroom, and there are only two of those SOB's on most flights.
Then there is biggest restraint. It's a pressurized fucking container moving 500+ mph through the sky and you can't leave .
It's not a public space by any stretch of the imagination. It's an agreed upon temporary prison not designed for comfort at all with the sole purpose of ferrying your ass as fast as possible between two points.
So let's be pragmatic in the approach and not so high and mighty about who gets to do what and how freedom shall not be tarnished and the wings of liberty can't lose a feather.
Can I leave that environment at any time when some asshat like you thinks I should just spend my money for sensory deprivation equipment because you want to dominate the space with your loud incessant talking on the phone? You might want to think that through for a sec....
Cuz... I will fucking kill you. They will pull you off that plane with peanuts jammed up your nose, and that life raft/vest/fart-catcher sticking out your ass. Ohh, and I will be wearing your fucking ears around my neck as a sign of my kill.
I'm not trapped on that plane with you, you're trapped on that plane with me. I'm uncomfortable. I'm pissed off that the TSA didn't lube up on that pseudo random investigations they do for security theater. I'm possibly a little dehydrated cuz I didn't want to spend 10$ for a bottle of water and $3m USD for that turkey panini to raise my blood sugar up. It's not just me either. Keep that in mind.
You're general audience is pissed off (at least to some extent), frustrated, uncomfortable, hungry, dehydrated, dealing with snotty children and babies, and CAPTIVE . Good luck if you want to be the asshole and become the center of attention.
P.S - Having a conversation with another travelling passenger at a reasonable volume is just fine. You should just be civilized and keep in mind that nobody has the choice but to put up with you, and they have no where to go.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the people who feel they can't avoid using their cell phones often have absolutely no awareness of those around them, because they feel whatever they're doing is so important that the rest of us should have to put up with it.
This. I know someone that operates a hotel (and sometimes I used to help at the front desk). Often heavy smokers (and you can smell them as they walk up to the desk) specifically request a non-smoker room because they don't have to smell smoke. More often than not, they seem to end up lighting-up in that room because they just couldn't resist and they get indignant when the hotel attempts to fine them for smoking in a non-smoker room. The most common excuse was it was cold and didn't want to get dressed to go outside and I couldn't wait (as if that is somehow a valid excuse).
People addicted to telephones, texting and internet games would seem to fit this profile better than they would probably want to admit.
Re: (Score:3)
Oooohhhh... that one.
I was in an older hotel once and a couple across the border from Mexico would not stop smoking in the non-smoking room next to me. The smoke would come under the door and across through the ventilation.
Complained at least 9 times till they moved me to a bigger suite across the hotel... since they could not get this guy to stop smoking. I knew he was Mexican and across the border (they come over to spend money in the large outlet malls) since he would scream every time they knocked on th
Re: (Score:3)
Disingenious example. Those phones are $5 a minute.
That can't be compared to a situation where everyone can Skype for free.
Re: (Score:3)
A closer analogy would be long distance bus journeys. Why are they not worried about quiet time when you are on a bus for 3 hours?
Re: (Score:3)
does the legislation have an provision for providing in-flight calls from more expensive seats?
because fuck, if you just swiped a credit card then inflight calls were available from most "normal",non-budget airline, flights for about two decades now..
and if that provision is there we know exactly who is lobbying for it. an airline could easily ban phone calls on it's flights if it wants now though, but it's a competitive disadvantage if it's not forced on all.
they're not going to ban chatting, snoring, cryi
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, please!!
I once had a screamer behind me on an early flight, and I was not feeling that well.
I rang the flight attendent, and when she came to me, I asked her if we could "please put the kid in the overhead compartment".
It was just loud enough for the parent behind to hear, who *finally* started to try to control the kid....and the flight attendant smiled at me and said "I think you need a bloody mary", and went to get me one.
If you can't or won't control your kids, please keep them at home until they can maintain themselves in public.
I actually miss smoking sections in restaurants for this reason, it was much better to eat there as that most parents wouldn't eat in the smoking section. And when I worked in the business back while in school, I found the smoking section folks drank more alcohol and tipped better too, but that's another topic altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually miss smoking sections in restaurants for this reason, it was much better to eat there as that most parents wouldn't eat in the smoking section. And when I worked in the business back while in school, I found the smoking section folks drank more alcohol and tipped better too, but that's another topic altogether.
Here's my tips to finding good restaurants to eat at in places with a smoking ban.
#1 - Preference restaurants with bars and sit in/at the bar. This one is the big one since children are not allowed in the bar and many restaurants that feature a bar area are also sufficiently separated from the general dining area so that even if the restaurant would match a later criteria it's still a good choice.
#2 - Avoid restaurants with a children's menu or have a quantity of items priced under $10. The lack of low pric
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't or won't control your kids, please keep them at home until they can maintain themselves in public.
There is another side to that story. I've been a business traveler for a lot of years, earning Platinum status with Skyteam year after year. I was always annoyed by parents traveling with kids... Until I became a father myself. Unfortunately, it is not always an option to "just keep them home". Family living abroad, a death in the family, there are many reasons why infants and toddlers need to travel.
Having that said, your frustration should be aimed at the parents who are unprepared. When my (now 2 year old) daughter travels, 90% of our carry-on is toys and food to keep her silent. And usually there are two 10-minute moments that every kid cries: take-off and landing, for obvious reasons. And even the landing noise can be mitigated by feeding the child, especially if it is still an infant. However, I have seen parents doing nothing when their kid screams so loud that the vibration becomes a hazard for the engines. That, my friend, is the person you should vent your frustration at. These parents should be banned from airplanes, and parenthood altogether. The kid is not the nightmare, the parent is.
On her latest trip, last week from AMS to SFO, my wife was actually complimented about our daughter's behavior by passengers around them. The trick? A fully charged Ipad Mini fully loaded with Dora the Explorer movies.
Re: (Score:3)
Theres some kind of irony in you crying about this in public.
Re: (Score:3)
Planes are not the same thing, can you get up and walk out of a plane if the staff can not or will not deal with unruly passengers. on a flight you are imprisoned with everyone else and yes we need regulations to force us to act civilly to each other. It has become quite obvious that in America people have decided that they can and will be assholes to any and everyone if they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was "The United States of Anything I Don't Like Needs to be Made Illegal Because I'm a Self-Righteous, Entitled Douchebag".
i'll make sure my kids make lots of noise (Score:3)
since its ok to talk on a cell phone, ok for my kids to vocalize themselves as well
Re: (Score:2)
I will make sure to bring my fog horn on board too!
Re:i'll make sure my kids make lots of noise (Score:5, Insightful)
s/fog horn/vuvuzela
No jury in the world would ever convict the guy that kills you.
What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
People do tend to be less considerate of bystanders when making phone calls than when talking to someone who is actually in the room in my experience; you'll see someone who's having a perfectly reasonable conversation with somebody at dinner, then turn away to answer their phone and jump up an order of magnitude in loudness. I think it's the fact that one side of the conversation is private to the other people in the room; it triggers some sort of general "private talk" flag in the brain that makes you automatically and quite unconsciously begin talking as though there was nobody else there.
Re: (Score:2)
People on cellphones talk louder, for one thing. And hearing only half of a conversation is way more distracting and annoying than hearing both sides.
Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. But they seem hell-bent on not doing it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes common courtesy, but there are so f*cking many jerks and morons that have no clue what courtesy is...
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress regularly has to regulate what anyone would consider common courtesy.
What do you think the Do Not Call list and the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act are?
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that a law against phone calls on planes is stupid, I wouldn't lump the Do Not Call list into that. With phone calls on planes, consumers have a choice. You can not fly on or complain to airlines that permit this. If they get enough complaints/lost revenue, they'll ban it without the need for legislation.
With the Do Not Call list, though, there were companies calling people to solicit them. These people didn't have the option of just not getting these calls. You could demand to be taken o
Planes have had phones for years (Score:4, Insightful)
Not cell phones, but there have definitely been phones available. Some planes even had handsets embedded in the back of the headrests.
Also, I have always left my phone on in flights. It doesn't get a signal at altitude, and definitely not over the middle of the ocean. It's really only when you are near takeoff or landing.
Re:Planes have had phones for years (Score:5, Insightful)
Not cell phones, but there have definitely been phones available. Some planes even had handsets embedded in the back of the headrests.
And their high cost has moderated their usage. Cell phone usage would be quite different.
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.
Re:Planes have had phones for years (Score:4, Interesting)
Most airlines have or are adding Internet service to their planes, and some are contemplating using it to provide a cellular microcell (acts like a tower and connects to your cellular provider over Internet). I think the plans right now are to set it up as a third party cell and you'd get charged roaming rates on it if you used it. But it's not difficult to conceive a future where the roaming rates have been scaled back to a few cents/min or eliminated altogether from the cellular carriers competing (hah!) and deciding to just pay the airlines to provide their service.
Just make it expensive... (Score:3)
So, just have a fair warning to consumers, that each call will cost $10 a minute (via various methods, including text messages to those phones that are turned on). Then, only those people who actually have a pressing need will use the phones in flight. Solves the problem for me.
Moreover, if noise worries you, then get a pair of earplugs. And/or don't fly (the engines are almost always the noisiest thing on airplanes for me).
Re: (Score:3)
... including text messages to those phones that are turned on ...
I think the point of the legislation is to get people to use text rather than voice, text having near zero impact on your fellow passengers.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why so many people suggest getting earplugs. I've tried your suggestion, and it doesn't work. Earplugs do not cancel out all noise. You would still be able to hear someone next to you on their phone. And if you were able to cancel out all the noise, then what you would hear is the sound of your own breathing and possibly your heartbeat. This will actually drive you crazy after a while.
Better yet ... (Score:3)
gasbags make mountains out of molehills (Score:3)
quiet time huh? don't fly much?
Join the conversation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine who lives in NYC told me about a time he was riding a bus (may have been driving it...he worked as a bus driver for a long time) and this woman was talking in detail about her visit to the gynecologist and all the odd discharges she was having...
An old dude on the other side of the bus yells out "DAMN WOMAN, NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS WITH YOUR STANK PUSSY!" and everyone applauded. XD
Umm, no. (Score:2)
I commute to and from New York City on a train every day. I've seen fights almost break out from rude people yapping on phones. Allowing phone calls on planes is a very bad idea. Nobody wants to listen to other people yap on a phone during a three hour flight.
People get agitated enough being cramped into small seats with no leg room. Lets just add to the agitation my making the person next to you annoy the hell out of you by yapping on the phone to their friend.
Cell Signal.. (Score:2)
Is this even feasible? with most flights you're 5-7 miles above the ground. IIRC, cell phone signals radiate mostly parallel to the ground. Can you even get a cell signal in a plane? I don't fly much, and the times I've had I never turned my cellular radio on in my phone.
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: (Score:3)
Acutally you can sometimes get a cell signal from a phone on a plane (some lightly used rural towers can pretty high power/range). Unfortunatly the high-altitude and velocity of a plane used to confuse cell networks (esp., the tower-handoff protocols between say a 3G and a CDMA tower on a multi-mode phone) and consume too much of the tower's antenna power-bandwidth envelope leaving less for other calls. Because so many folks leave their cell-phones onboard planes, nowdays many networks are configured dete
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Charge $10/minute (Score:5, Funny)
Airline keeps half. The rest is distributed to the people sitting next to the person making the call.
Distraction Bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Both Alexander and Feinstein have issues that they'd rather the media not look at right now. Alexander's chief of staff was just arrested on child porn charges, and Feinstein...I don't think I have to mention, here on /., why people hate Feinstein.
So they've come together with a "you know that thing that people really hate? Let's ban it!" bill meant to get their names in the headlines next to something they think people will like. It's just a stunt. Pay no heed to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, if it works for the Administration why not for the Senate?
Foamies (Score:2)
I use foam ear plugs and sleep through most flights. I stay up late, crash on the plane perhaps with the help of some Dramamine, and I don't care what the other passengers do.
Let them have their communication so I may have mine when I wish.
Don't believe it for a second (Score:3)
I can't overexaggerate how much I love the zone of silence in my daily bus and train rides, or the pristine calm of the city sidewalks.
Give me a fucking break. Suddenly the Senate is concerned for my delicate ears? More likely: an airline was cutting a deal with a carrier to sell AirTalk (tm) in-flight voice at $3.99 a minute and doesn't want to be undercut.
Ban their use for talking! (Score:3)
Oh, God! That's all I need. Cramped in a tin can with a pack of bored nitwit talkers for a five hour flight to the west coast. There is absolutely no need for this at all.
But then there will be all of the amusing fights that will surely follow. Maybe I ought to get an upgraded device to record videos. :)
Yeah. I've changed my mind. Allow cell phone calls on a plane.
Nine Eleven (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Babies (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Senator Feinstein,
Could you please pass a law to create a new felony for crying on a plane. All there uneducated babies are really, but really annoying me when I am trying to browse porn sites while in the middle of a transcontinental flight.
Kind regards,
- x0ra
Phone Zones (Score:3)
Maybe the best compromise would be to have phone booths, where you can go in and make your call? Anywhere else in the plane there would be no signal. Now how to make it so people share the space respectively?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's difference between talking on a phone and talking to someone I am traveling with as far as noise disruption?
Because of low (or absent) sidetone on cell phones, people tend to speak much more loudly than they would in a regular conversation. Additionally, if the connection is poor people tend to shout. This is why most people find cell conversations disruptive.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with the bill, but there is a difference to the third-parties.
Firstly, everyone talks louder on the phone. They don't realize it and deny it left-and-right, but they do. Add to that, they will be compensating for the engine noise so it's going to be a lot of "can you hear me, what about now, is that better" So you have increased volume.
Second, you have the issue of "half a conversation" messing with your brain. Hearing another conversation isn't so bad, hearing only HALF the conversation (the guy on the phone) and your brain tries to piece together w t h they're talking about or what the person on the other-end-of-the-phone is saying. It's an automatic thing, so it adds to the annoyance.
Lastly, not too many people talk to their strangers / neighbors for more than a few minutes. Sure people talk, but for the most part people just want to veg out and rest / read / watch the movie / etc. Bring in the phones, and LOTS of people will be talking.
Personally I'm fine with the way planes have been... the talking is at a minimum so I can at least try to get some rest. Instead now you will have people going on and on about mundane stuff.
At least... hopefully the teens and younger will be Texting instead of calling... so I don't have to hear all of the "Oh My Gawd did you see what she was wearing" BS.