Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Says No to Mobile Phones on Airplane

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the flights-are-for-napping dept.

GayBliss writes "CNN is reporting that the FCC has decided to keep a rule in place that would ban mobile phone usage on airplanes. The FAA has a similar ban, but for different reasons. 'In an order released Tuesday, the agency noted that "insufficient technical information" was available on whether airborne cell phone calls would jam networks below. [...]Unlike the Federal Aviation Administration, which bans the use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices for fear they will interfere with navigational and communications systems, the FCC's concern is interference with other cell phone signals on the ground.'"

17 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Hooray! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've commented before about some of the hassles of travel lately (and some of the possible solutions), and all I have to say about the FCC maintaining the ban of cell phones on planes is thank you!. Aside from the "insufficient technical information" statement, this ruling is going to prevent someone from having violence done to them because of their inane constant droning to any and all within earshot. I once had the displeasure of sitting on a plane on the tarmac for two hours while our flight was delayed and the pilot allowed everyone to use their cell phones. It was torture as most folks were not talking on their cell phones to arrange transportation or take care of business, but they were talking (loudly) about everything and nothing and forcing those around them to have to listen! Even worse, people began trying to speak over one another and the volume gradually increased until there was an amazing din of people calling their friends to say "Hey! Hey! Betcha can't guess where I'm calling you from! An airplane! Ha ha ha ha, yeah and on my own cell phone even!". It was a horrible forced invasion of personal space and ever since then I had been hoping that the FCC would not allow this to become a common occurrence.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Hooray! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell yes, people do this in the terminal. Many have written before about the death of courtesy, but at least in the terminal you can walk to another part of the terminal and distance yourself from the person. The problem in an airplane (particularly in coach class) is that you are sitting in forced proximity to the offending person.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:Hooray! by Paulrothrock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's times like that I am most thankful for the invention of the iPod. Nothing like creating a personal space in a public space.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    3. Re:Hooray! by Romancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quote: I think in the long run people would develop proper protocol and act appropriately...

      Seriously?

      Do you even read the slashdot comments? Or just try to drive to the store and have people cut you off, walk out in front of you, or park their cars on the painted lines at an angle?

      There is a small percentage of people on Earth that can actually understand their effect on others AND have consideration enough to act appropriately.

      I think that the majority of the people out there care just enough about others to not piss people off so much that they'll get beaten, but not by much. And these same people are so oblivious of their surroundings that they don't notice that the people that they honk at and yell at are doing the exact same things that they just did.

      That's why we have to have laws that wouldn't be there if people would just take it upon themselves to act appropriately.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    4. Re:Hooray! by x2A · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't get this whole deal with people on mobile phones, as if it's any different from sitting next to two people talking directly to each other. The only difference is whether you can hear the other side of the converstation or not. All I can figure out is that not being able to hear the other side of the conversation makes the brain curious and fix on what's being said more, making you more aware of it. Personally I don't really care, so I have no more of a problem tuning it out as I would do if I was sitting next to two people having the same conversation.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    5. Re:Hooray! by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can talk to a person sitting next to you in a whisper. They get a lot of other clues (facial expressions, unconscious lip reading) that fill in a lot of the details.

      On a cell phone you tend to talk louder to be sure that you're heard. You're dealing with a tiny microphone. You're also dealing with a tiny speaker; when you're having trouble hearing you tend to talk louder in the belief that they must also be having trouble hearing you.

      So a perfect cell phone would indeed be no more of a nuisance than a conversation with a seat mate, but at least some people talk a lot louder than that. It may actually be no louder than ordinary conversation, but a cramped space (restaurant, airplane) requires hushed tones.

    6. Re:Hooray! by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I personally have yet to find myself bothered by a cell phone conversation in a restaurant, though I've heard plenty of anecdotes. It's probably the case that 98% of all people talk at a reasonable level into their phones and that the entire problem is attributed to a small subset of people who are rude in general and have just been given an opportunity to make that fact known.

      Like the way every baby I've ever noticed is screaming. There may be perfectly polite infants on airplanes, but I'd never notice them.

  2. Insufficient technical information by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Insufficient technical information exists to say that they do interfere with ground signals or even the navigation and communications systems used to justify the FAA's ban.

    So why the ban? Erring on the side of caution? Gimme a break. There's gotta be another reason that nobody's talking about.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Insufficient technical information by Orange+Crush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's still a valid question: why would a cell phone on an airplane cause more interference to cell phones on the ground than another cell phone on the ground would cause?

      I believe the main concern that a cellphone at high altitude will be able to "see" lots of towers that look almost equally good and be prone to jumping back and forth between them at a much much higher rate than the networks were designed for, interfering with peoples' ability to make calls on the ground.

    2. Re:Insufficient technical information by FlyByWire63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a pilot (25 years and counting), I've not had much luck with my cell phone(Verizon) working above 10,000 feet. That's in a plane that has a lot of glass space. I'll get a signal for 5 to 10 seconds and then the call will be dropped. This isn't over the middle of nowhere, it's over central Ohio! I've tried it in several locations where I've flown including the Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Chicago areas and I keep getting the same result. In some cases, I have no luck above 8k ft. I typically fly light singles and twins, so there isn't as much aluminum shielding around me as there would be in a jet. I think that once you reach a certain altitude, your phone hits too many cell sites at once and the whole system becomes confused, so in retaliation, your call is dropped. I'm not sure what the ERP of a cell phone would be at or above 10k ft. On a jet at 39,000 feet shielded with plenty of aluminum, I seriously doubt you would get any usable signal anyway. And yeah... I can see the headline when some passenger pummels another to death with a copy of the Sunday New York Times for pontificating on a cell phone during a flight!

  3. Good by wiz31337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't want to be stuck inches away from someone talking way too loud for several hours anyway.

    Business travel is stressful enough the way it is and being "out of touch" from the office may be the best part of the trip. If they allow cell phones on airplanes that means I will be expected to work while I am on the plane as well. Get 20 people on a plane doing that and it is going to be really annoying to everyone else.

    --
    /whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
  4. this will be moot when in-air wifi rolls out by daniel422 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All I can hope for is that they continue to ban the use of headsets. I don't mind someone emailing or (OMG) IMing. At least it's quiet and I'm not held hostage to their innane conversation. Didn't I just see a story on this that several airlines are rolling out wifi? And the difference is....? I guess it's slightly lower power, but wifi runs the same interference risks as cell phones.
    As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded. I seem to recall a "Mythbusters" episode (yes.. the paragons of the scientific process) that also confirmed this. The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No. Airline communications? No -- totally different frequency band. Somebody give me a good example of where your cell phone was interfering in ground based systems while in your car (not your unshielded car stereo with a GSM phone). There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air. And no -- there is NO problem with communicating with a cell tower several miles DOWN -- with nothing in your way except the airplane fuselage. You'd actually get pretty good reception. Antenna sensitivity is also a function of height (and how much is in the way).

  5. Right Decision, Wrong Reason by illegalcortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's exactly what I was saying. Why don't the FAA just come out with a ban that's simply based on this reasoning? Loud talking is banned in public libraries and cellphone use is banned in moving vehicles in some states, so why can't they ban cellphones on planes? I think if you took a poll of most psychologists, I think they'd back you up that having to listen to a plane full of people's cellphone conversations is like sitting on a powder keg.

  6. Re:unfortunately... by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone who talks on a cell phone in a movie theater or brings an infant to a movie theater is an asshat.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  7. Selfish 'dotters and "Air Rage" by eepok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hasn't it been a generally accepted concept of Constitutional philosophy that only harmful actions are to be banned and/or prosecuted? You guys are saying "Thank god they're banning it... people with cell phones annoy me so much!", but the use of a cell phone is not in itself bad. In fact, talking about inane subjects on a cellphone in a confined space is by all means supported by law unless it interferes with necessary functions (which the ban may or may not be saying).

    Since when does the Slashdot community suggest and support that behavior be regulated? What next: No homosexuality because it's icky for it to go "in there"? No driving at the speed limit because you're late and it's annoying when other people don't understand that YOU didn't get up on time in the morning? Shall we now force people to speak with a specific accent because you don't like a regional diction?

    At no point should it EVER be the government's responsibility to enforce "polite behavior" because you /may/ get this "air rage". It's your problem to deal with the situation-- politely if you choose to practice what you preach. Note, however, that if you choose to be violent, YOU will be held accountable.

    Grow a pair, complainers, and solve your own social problems.

  8. Re:unfortunately... by Psmylie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I just avoid going to movies that are "kid-friendly" (anything pixar, for example) during a time when there are likely to be more kids around. Midnight showings are good for that.

    As far as just putting your phone on vibrate... no, just turn it off. Those incredibly bright flashes of light as people check their phones is nearly as distracting as the ringing itself. My opinion, if you can't spend 2 hours without a phone, then just wait for the damned movie to come out on DVD.

    --

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

  9. Re:unfortunately... by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another person in the car is fully aware of whats going on in the vehicle.

    1) They are a second set of eyes.
    2) When something tricky is happening, like you having to slam on your breaks, they quickly shut up and let you concentrate on the immediate danger, where as the person on the phone keeps on talking, completely oblivious to anything that is happening.