House Committee Approves Bill Banning In-Flight Phone Calls 366
An anonymous reader tips news that the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill that would ban voice calls from mobile devices on airplanes. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote. Similar efforts are underway in the Senate. There was no opposition to Shuster's bill in the House committee, and the FCC received a flood of support for such a measure when they asked for public comment. In an op-ed published Monday, Shuster wrote, "In today’s world, enriched as it is by technology, we are bombarded by data, opinions, and potential distractions. Few limits to this flow of information are necessary, partly because people can typically turn it off, disconnect from it, or go elsewhere if they choose. But in the close confines of an airplane cabin – where passengers will still be able to use their mobile devices for texting, emailing, working, and more – there is no chance to opt out. So for those few hours of flight spent with 150 strangers, we can all wait to make that phone call. It’s just common sense and common courtesy."
What are they going to ban next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you love it when they're legislating "common courtesy"?
Re:What are they going to ban next? (Score:4, Insightful)
this has little to do with courtesy. You can talk on a phone and not be an ass (use noise canceling headphones, noise canceling microphones, keep your voice down, and talk.
Much more annoying are the kids on a college or high school trip who feel the need to shout at their friends 5 rows away. When you make it illegal for people to hold conversations at all, I'll get behind this.
Re: (Score:3)
This is basically how I feel about it. When I fly, I can occasionally hear conversations within a few rows, but the noise of the plane drowns out anything further away. The conversations I do hear don't really bother me, so I'm not sure why hearing half a conversation would be significant enough to warrant legislation. Granted, if somebody's loud and obnoxious about it, that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are they going to ban next? (Score:4, Interesting)
It doest seem stupid, but what other recorse is there when we're surrounded by the discourteous ? I fly all the time and I'm tired of getting into confrontatins with people who I'd like to turn their smart phone/laptop movie down or use earphones. I've had ass holes look me in the eye and just say, " It's not mine ".
Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication, and I have a hard time tuning things out pretty much all the time. In 99% of my life I can avoid it by personal choice, my own earphones, etc. But when I'm stuck on public transportation, I don't have that luxary.
Part of the problem is that this technology didn't exist when their parents were teaching them how to behave. So, we have problem where technology has outpaced common coutesy and politeness, and it is going to be a while before society catches up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your cologne is discourteous. We need to make cologne on airplanes illegal. So is your flatulence, let's make that illegal too
Those restrictions are not enforceable. It's not obvious who's wearing cologne or who farted. It is obvious if someone is speaking on a phone, and it's easy to make them stop.
Re: (Score:2)
It doest seem stupid, but what other recorse is there when we're surrounded by the discourteous ? I fly all the time and I'm tired of getting into confrontatins with people who I'd like to turn their smart phone/laptop movie down or use earphones.
Next time you fly, take along a roll of aluminum foil. When a problem arises, use the foil to tightly and completely wrap the annoying person along with his/her phone.
Re:What are they going to ban next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication, and I have a hard time tuning things out pretty much all the time. In 99% of my life I can avoid it by personal choice, my own earphones, etc. But when I'm stuck on public transportation, I don't have that luxary.
If you can identify the problem, you can solve it.
As often as I fly, I *rarely* have someone who blares noise out of a device loud enough to overpower the all-encompassing engine noise, and of those few, they were always kids. Those rare times were solved with a simple "...dude, turn that down." Most times, I'm the one with earphones in, or if sleeping, earplugs (which has the bonus of blocking out all noise.) I also make my life easier by taking flights that only business travelers would be on. That almost always gives me more room to stretch and sleep (as a bonus, there's rarely any screaming kids/babies on the red-eye flights.)
The vast majority of humanity is smart enough to realize that being jammed into tight quarters means that you have to pretty much be courteous. Anything else quickly escalates into something that gets you arrested and/or banned from flying.
Some things you simply cannot avoid: screaming babies who aren't old enough to have figured out that whole ear-popping thing, rambunctious toddlers/kids, the morbidly obese dude who smells like a garlic factory and drapes over both armrests, the occasional half-drunken dumbass(es) on the way to some booze-cruise, and suchlike. You simply make do stand your ground etiquette-wise, and most importantly know when to ignore it and when to get involved. Anything else can be solved with a quick ring-up of the steward/ess (because anything above that involves an air marshal, and again, most folks are smart enough to realize that it only gets ugly beyond that point.) If all else fails and there's an empty seat somewhere else, you can move to that seat.
IMHO though, the absolute best way I've found to ensure courtesy in a flight is to chat up everyone around me as they sit down. They either join in and courtesy kicks in (since you're no longer some nameless stranger), or they do their level best to tune you out (which means they don't want to get your attention, so they'll be very quiet, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree with you, but on public transportation, you actually do have the luxury of using headphones to isolate yourself from others, as well as the inherent noise of the aircraft. I've done it many times. Noise-cancelling headphones would be even better.
Re: (Score:2)
So should this extend to private flights?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What are they going to ban next? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused (Score:2, Flamebait)
I've looked through the Constitution, but I don't see where Congress gets the power to ban telephone calls on planes.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress has the authority to regulate the airspace and, as such, regulates the rules of commercial air travel.
PRIVATE planes can make all the calls they want. (And, of course, texting while piloting a plane is the cause of many air accidents and therefore should be banned...)
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress has the authority to regulate the airspace and, as such, regulates the rules of commercial air travel."
NO, it doesn't. Congress has the authority to regulate certain aspects of interstate travel that relate to commerce. THAT IS ALL.
Granted, they have assumed the authority to regulate airspace. But that doesn't mean that the authority really, lawfully exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh... so I can smoke in airplanes then as it's my constitutional right?
Re: (Score:3)
If the airline is willing to take the risk of losing repeat customers by allowing you to do so; yes.
Re: (Score:2)
In your own airplane, sure - smoke all you want, as long as your cockpit doesn't end up looking like a scene out of a Cheech and Chong movie, no problemo.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Smoking is prohibited under the guise of aircraft safety, which does fall under federal regulation. And even if it didn't, at this point in time, no airline would allow it. The FAA has already cleared phones on safety grounds, so this law banning in flight calls (as opposed to in flight data communications) is probably on shaky ground. It may be mooted as I think most airlines will ban voice calls anyway.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
They have used the commerce clause as an excuse to regulate just about everything imaginable under the sun, but I will repeat: that doesn't mean they really have genuine, lawful authority over it. Constitutional scholars are generally in agreement that the commerce clause was never intended to give the Feds the kind of authority SCOTUS claimed in Wickard v. Filburn.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude - "Interstate Commerce" is the backdoor password to all kinds of unconstitutional crap (e.g. drinking age laws, etc).... pity the US Supreme Court has yet to put at least some sort of definitive stop to that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought drinking age laws were coerced on the States with the threat of pulling road funding rather than mandated through the Interstate commerce clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus don't forget that the domestic telephone network exists nationwide. Even if airlines were magically exempt, telephones still could be regulated.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
"Congress can, under its deliberately broad Constitutional power to regulate commerce, regulate the fsck out of airlines."
The power to regulate commerce was not "deliberately broad" at all. On the contrary, it was deliberately narrow. Your source doesn't know his history worth a damn.
Framers didn't intend their intent to be a guide, huh? (Your source's argument.) Not only is that a blatant logical contradiction all by itself, it is contrary to actual historical fact. Let me give you a quote from one of those very framers:
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson"
Further, the 1798 Act your "unreasonable man" mentions did in fact happen. But among other errors, he says it was government-funded, but it was NOT. It was an insurance policy paid for by those sailors' own wages. You can find this out in 30 seconds by reading about it in Wikipedia. So much for his scholarship.
To put it bluntly, the "unreasonable man" doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Up until about 5 years ago, it was common to see phones on certain long haul planes in the backs of seats. Hell, a subplot of Die Hard 2 revolves around the fact that this existed. Why is this a problem now and not then?
Cost. The phone in the back of the seat cost about a dollar a minute (or more) to use. Great for making a quick call to someone to say your flight changed, was late, is early, whatever. Not good for chatting inanely. Self-limits people wanting to just yak continuously.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
I've looked through the Constitution, but I don't see where Congress gets the power to ban telephone calls on planes.
Holy crap! You're right! There's nothing in the Constitution about specific situations and technologies that didn't exist at the time. Those things must be completely impossible to regulate. Someone tell all the justices on the Supreme Court that 0123456 has completely revolutionized Constitutional Law and saved us from a thousand years of tyranny our that our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, never intended as they saw all laws as being tied to the circumstances of their present and past. Thank G
Re: (Score:3)
Article I, Section 8. Between the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to do this.
It's weird how people screaming the loudest about the constitution seem to know the least about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't forget to ban ugly flight attendants and especially male flight attendants.
Yet they've had airline phones for years (Score:5, Insightful)
They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.
And how is it any worse to be trapped on a plane with such idiots than on a bus? At least on a plane you're only stuck with them for a couple hours, not all day on an overland trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked you can't get from LA to Europe on a bus or train. (Technically you could get there on a boat, but it takes *forever*.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that a US domestic law would apply to the overseas portion of the flight. The airline may still have a policy prohibiting in-flight voice calls, but I don't think the law would apply.
Re: (Score:2)
They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.
And how is it any worse to be trapped on a plane with such idiots than on a bus? At least on a plane you're only stuck with them for a couple hours, not all day on an overland trip.
Airline phones = Way Expensive = Nobody used them = No Problem
Idiots on a bus = People who don't have enough money to fly = Fewer people used them = Not as big a problem.
See also; As a rule of thumb if you can afford to fly you're not taking the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots on a bus = People who don't have enough money to fly = Fewer people used them = Not as big a problem.
Not true. Have you looked at the prices for Greyhound tickets? It's really no bargain, especially when you consider the ridiculous amount of time it takes to get anywhere since they stop at every podunk town in between.
The people who ride the bus are people who aren't able to fly for various reasons, usually because they don't have proper ID (e.g., illegal immigrants).
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but the airlines get to charge for those. They can't risk having their monopoly evaporate.
Re: (Score:2)
They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.
When's the last time you've flown? Because while at one time they did have such phones, I haven't seen one in years and I do fly at least once a year, sometimes internationally. Surely you do know that when you have pay airline prices to use their phones, when they were available, no person in coach was going to talk more than a few minutes due to the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (Score:4, Informative)
> yet they've had airline phones for years.
You can still use those phones:
"`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill Text [loc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.
Those were never a problem because no one ever used those phones. They were so ridiculously expensive that no one bothered. I really wonder how much money was wasted outfitting planes with those things, only to remove them later (I haven't seen a plane with those in years). With the new rules allowing the use of phones on planes at all times, people will start using them for talking during the flight, which will ann
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't like what Obama is doing they could always impeach him for it,
Are you seriously suggesting that the criterion for impeaching a President be lowered from treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors all the way down to "don't like what he's doing"? Just askin'. Be careful what you ask for.
than the impeachment of Clinton over a reflexive lie about sex.
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. As a lawyer, he knew he should not make "reflexive lies", whatever the subject was. If it was something he felt he needed to be lying about, why was he doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is really annoying you on a phone, all you have to do is start saying the same words they are, back at them. This will highly distract them to the point they can't keep up a conversation.
Even better - scribble it all down verbatim, or point a voice recorder (or the one on your smartphone) at them, and make a point of ensuring they see you do it.
I'm very certain that most folks are eager to stop talking so loudly if they knew their words were recorded, no matter how trivial the conversation.
If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why must it be a law? Shouldn't airlines be free to implement their "please don't talk other passengers' heads off" policy ?
Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? (Score:3)
Because I hate it when people start talking on their cellphone in a theater during a feature presentation!
There oughta be a LAW .....
Yep, it's about that stupid. Theaters have done just fine throwing people out of movies without the help of legislation for many decades.
Re: Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly, most planes are not equipped with rear exit stairs or I would support this common-sense solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? (Score:2)
They're banned in movie theaters within reason and if enough people complain or even one complains enough, you get thrown out for safety reasons.
Shame DB Cooper had to go and ruin it for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because of importanter-than-thou shitheads who fly MUST make this phone call RIGHT DAMN NOW DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM AND HOW MUCH I MAKE? For assholes like that, "policy" isn't enough, it needs to be law.
Fuck that guy, he can wait. Or, he can make calls from his office and fly overnight.
We need more legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban voice calls on planes, in airport lounges, subways, resturants and cinema. We need legislation so that the state and lawyer can become involved in the enforcement of manners. Also we need laws on the correct position of toilets seats, cutlery positions after meals and the poking and prodding of bodily orrifices in publice places. Conversations on planes should be banned as well as they annoy surrounding passengers as well as children, infants and movies..........Or we could just ensure that airlines provide earplugs on request.
Re: (Score:2)
So people upset about loud phone calls on planes.. (Score:2)
... and yet they're OK with the TSA sticking fingers up your bucket?
Nanny State (Score:2)
So a republican is legislating good manners? I thought they were against the government telling us how to live our lives.
What's wrong with allowing the airlines set the policy on their own planes?
Re: (Score:2)
So a republican is legislating good manners?
A Republican sponsored the bill (i.e., rubberstamped his name to a document written by a lobbyist), but it has no chance of passing without support from members of both sides of the One Party.
I thought they were against the government telling us how to live our lives.
Then you've made the fatal error of actually believing something a politician told you. Don't worry, it happens to the best of us, all you can do is learn from your mistakes and try to avoid making the same ones again.
What's wrong with allowing the airlines set the policy on their own planes?
Realistically? Nothing.
From a federal government perspective? 'Because then we only have most of the p
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different? Regardless of who wrote the bill, this republican senator decided that it was worth legislating.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are all about legislating morality; where'd you ever get the idea they were against the government telling us how to live our lives? You're thinking of the Libertarians, which the Republicans are not like (though they like to give lip service to some libertarian ideals).
Of course, the Democrats like to tell us how to live our lives too, just in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
why do neo-cons insist on destroying America (Score:2)
Likewise, that the DOD MUST build another 1000 M1A2 tanks, even though the DOD has 3000 of them and desperately wants to bring the line down for several years to make changes to the tank so that it can handle IEDs and other items.
And the same group of ppl that refuse to deal with our illegal alien issues.
And The same ones that built the NSA to spy on Americans and foreign leaders.
And the same group that destroy
Re: (Score:2)
These GD neo-cons are destroying America.b
That statement belies the fact that the GD neo-'progressives' are just as bad, if not worse.
Diane Feinstein; 'nuff said.
I call BS. (Score:2)
Phone Booths (Score:2)
How about adding old fashioned phone booths to airplanes? I can already see the Dr. Who episode...
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the episode you're thinking of was Time Flight. They put the TARDIS aboard a Concorde and flew 140 million years into the past.
Legislating Courtesy (Score:2)
Will never work. No more than you can legislate away hatred and bias.
I hate the calls but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I hate and despise people that are rude enough to use a phone on an airplane.
But when Republicans talk about unwarranted government intrusion on our lives, THIS is what they should mean. Not healthcare, not abortion, not welfare. THIS is exactly the kind of laws that our founders were afraid of.
We should not be making rude behavior, no matter how rude it is, a crime.
What is worse, the same effect could have been done in an ethical manner. Simply require that all phone calls be done next to but not in the bathroom. Or, if you want to make it a money maker, pass a law that requires airlines to collect a $5 per minute tax for phone calls made in flight - and allow the airlines to add their own fee on top of that, up to a maximum of $20 per minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you want to make it a money maker, pass a law that requires airlines to collect a $5 per minute tax for phone calls made in flight - and allow the airlines to add their own fee on top of that, up to a maximum of $20 per minute.
To me this seems just as unamerican bad as banning it. In fact I think it is actually worse.
I think the "american" way to do it would be to allow airlines to make their own rules. If customers feel so strongly about banning phone calls in the air, then they have every reason to make this against the rules. Let the airlines figure out what customers want. Congress should stay out of it ompletely.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are an established way to ameliorate the "Tragedy of the commons" and this is a prime example of the "Tragedy of the commons" (see wikipedia). Sound is a clear common good that people can abuse, turning silence into a cacophony.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think charging to do something is worse than banning it completely, then I have a serious objection to your ethical standards. Taxes are an established way to ameliorate the "Tragedy of the commons" and this is a prime example of the "Tragedy of the commons" (see wikipedia). Sound is a clear common good that people can abuse, turning silence into a cacophony.
In certain cases (including this one), yes. Usually when you tax people to *ameliorate* the tragedy of the commons, the money is supposed to go to actually ameliorating it, rather than just going to the government.
So if you tax smoking, you are supposed to use this money to help offset the cost smokers might put on the healthcare system or educate young people to the dangers of smoking. If you just tax smoking and put the money in the general fund, then it's just a money grab.
Taxing airplane phone calls a
Is this why they are employed by us? (Score:2)
Does it matter? (Score:2)
Since most airlines have in-flight phones anyway these days?
Posting title is deceptive (Score:3)
If you read the article itself you will see that the bill actually bans voice communications through mobile electronics - not just phone calls. As written it would appear the bill would ban phones as well as skype, hangouts and other voice related calls. I suppose this cascades right over to video calls as well.
I find it rather questionable that just months after the FCC finally admitted that there was no reason to ban mobile electronics the "authorities" are once again making a move to regulate mobile electronics. It's not even based on a rationale reason, instead the reason has now become "because I don't like it". Makes one wonder if a constitutional argument can be made here based on freedom of speech - this seemingly is an infringement without justification. Not that Congress has ever cared about such things before.
What happens with all those phones installed on the backs of the seats in the older variants of planes? I flew last year and saw them, although it's not clear to me whether or not they have become decorative or still function.
Courtesy shouldn't be law (Score:2)
You aren't supposed to use a phone in a theater. It's courtesy not to use a phone in lots of cases.. in the line while waiting for your sandwich, in a meeting or conference with lots of other people, etc.
Make a courtesy area that people are allowed to use their phone and make an airline rule that you can't use a phone and that is fine. Making it illegal because you think it's rude is ridiculous. What if there is an ACTUAL emergency. My parents aren't very good with text and they always know when I'm on
so what Todd Beamer et al. did should be a crime? (Score:2)
Every time I think Congress couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Next step; pass law forcing airlines to duct tape the mouths of anyone not in first class, you know, for "safety" reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem quite sad and questionable why airlines don't simply make this a policy, instead of it needing to be made federal law. I guess no one really trusts the airlines to do something sensible like that.
Re:In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. There is no First Amendment issue here. You can talk all you want OFF the plane. There are dozens of limitations on talking / speech now that are perfectly valid - the idea behind the first amendment is to prevent the government from muzzling dissent. You can dissent all you want. Just not in the middle of the road. Not in the middle of a theatre. Not on an airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
He's got a point there. There's no law saying you can't talk in the middle of a theater (during a showing); such a thing would probably violate the 1st Amendment. However, theater owners are free to implement policies against such disruptions, and are able to throw you out if you violate their policies, and this is the reason you can't actually talk in a movie: you'll be asked to leave (maybe, these days a lot of theaters do a terrible job of enforcing such rules).
Talking on an airplane should be covered
Whose phone is banned? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whose phone is banned? (Score:5, Funny)
Hear Hear!!
I once had to ring the flight attendant button on an EARLY flight out, and when she came I asked if we could please put the screaming child just behind me in the overhead compartment.
Thankfully this worked, the flight attendant smiled at me and said it looked like I needed a Bloody Mary, and got me one...and the lady behind me finally started to quieten her offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
Inexpensive ear plugs work reasonably well. I've actually been glared at by the parent(s) who seemed to think entertaining their spawn was a public requirement as I stuck my ear plugs in my ears. Personal music works, too, but may harm your hearing if loud enough to drown out the kid. Back when you had to turn off such things during climb out and descent was also a problem.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry; Freedom of Screech is protected by the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they ban them too, one shouldn't really need to make a call like they used to. E-mail and texting should handle the duties those phones were required for.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. With new FCC rules allowing people to use their phones and other mobile devices in-flight (without turning them off during takeoff and landing), people don't need to talk anyway, they can just text or email from their smartphone. These forms of communication are totally silent and won't bother surrounding passengers the way loudly talking on a phone does.
Re: (Score:3)
It's very likely the airlines or the companies that provide the current phone technology heavily lobbied for this. It would be interesting to track the money pushing this.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't lobby for all the comments on the FCC's website against the idea of allowing people to talk on the phone on planes. People have had enough of the poor experience modern flying is, and are demanding some standards to keep it from getting any worse. This one is perfectly sensible; with the new mobile devices rules, people can feel free to text or email during the flight all they want. They don't need to talk.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, do they still have those phones in the seats on any airlines anymore?
I've not seen those for at least a decade or more.
Re: (Score:2)
I fly all the time and I haven't seen those built in phones in many years.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not a frequent flyer, but I have been on more than my fair share of cross-country and transcontinental flights, particularly in the past 10 years. I have yet to witness anyone using one of those built-into-the-seatback telephones. Perhaps that's because I don't fly first class, which is where all the people are who can afford $5.00+ per minute for a phone call. Even when I was flying for company business, the company's default policy was to disallow reimbursement for airplane phone charges. Has any
Re:nobodies phone is banned (Score:5, Funny)
Until you can board a plane without a ticket, and without going through TSA, an airplane is not a public place, and the first amendment does not apply. Please read it, thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hooray for common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like cell phone use on an airplane any more than the next guy, I also don't feel like it is congresses job nor right to pass such a law. Airplanes are private property, owned by a private company. It should be left to the company to decide whether to allow cell phone usage on the plane or not. I don't understand how this isn't common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the bleeding shit does Congress *need* to do this? Why can't this be left up to the airlines as a business decision?
Because, if you bothered to RTFA, Congress and the FAA have received thousands of complaints asking them to do this very thing. Perhaps they are just trying to do what their constituency wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that this was not an issue with the (expensive) wired satphone handsets that are already in many airplane cabins.Passengers were somehow able to avoid making a nuisance of themselves with wired handsets... what makes mobile phones so different?
Different frequency bands, the sat phones were standardized and approved by the FAA, there's only one antenna to shield against (or plan for)...
Lots of surprisingly valid technical reasons, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Society needs a punching bag. Preferably an enormous, lard filled, squishy one.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard economy class seats on United are about 18" between the armrests. What would make someone who had to be at least 30" across the hips, think he could fit into that seat? Was he hoping for an empty seat next to him? Did he think he could lift the armrest and take half the adjacent seat? What i
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple: when people talk on the phone, they talk several times louder than they do to someone sitting next to them. I don't know why this is, but it just is.
Re:Talking (Score:4, Insightful)