Slashdot Mirror


FCC Says No to Mobile Phones on Airplane

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.'"

22 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.

    7. Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think mine beats both those stories: someone I know made $35,000 in one day based on insider information he gleaned from an overheard cell phone conversation. Some loudmouth exec spilled the beans, they were either going to beat or miss earnings by a large amount, I can't remember which, and this guy was able to figure out who he worked for based on looking what the guy was working on on the flight. Yes, it was quite a gamble, and the guy was a daytrader anyways so he had enough liquidity to do this, but still..

  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.

    1. 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!

    2. Re:Insufficient technical information by FrankSchwab · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, a little understanding of how the cell phone networks work would help here... The number of channels (frequencies, if you will) available to a single cell site is limited. Let's say that Verizon is assigned (by the FCC) sufficient bandwidth to have 100 simultaneous calls in the city of Phoenix. Now, they could (like the Television stations) place a gigantic antenna on the top of the biggest mountain in the city, thus covering an area of, say, 100 miles radius. They would only be able to have 100 customers talking at a time; not a very good situation. So, Verizon gets smart. They put 1000 antennas around the city, on very short towers so each one covers, say, 1 mile. Now each of these antennnas can support 100 customers talking at a time, and Verizon can now have 100,000 customers talking simultaneously. With some overlap on the towers, Verizon can tell that you're driving towards the edge of the coverage of one tower, and seamlessly tell your phone to change channels and start talking to a new tower. Ever had your call dropped while driving along? Probably because the tower you were coming into range of was full, or there was a software glitch in the handoff to the new tower. Now, let's assume you are flying over Phoenix, talking to the wifey about what the rugrats did today. The channel that you're using cannot be reused by any of the 1000 cell towers in the city, because all of the cell towers have a clear line-of-sight to your airplane. You have just taken up cell phone bandwidth equivalent to 1000 customers. That's why the FCC is concerned. /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
  3. only because Samuel Jackson showed up and said: by physicsboy500 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I'm sick and tired, of these muthaf**king phones, on these muchaf**king planes!" The sequil comes out this August!

    --
    The original generic sig.
    1. Re:only because Samuel Jackson showed up and said: by KernelMuncher · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cell Phones on a Plane

      Staring Samuel Jackson

      Plot: FCC gives clearance to use cell phones while in the air. The first NY to LA flight on a 747 has 400 people talking at the same time. After 30 minutes passengers start to get frustrated with each other. Fist fights break out. Soon it turns into the Ultimate Fighting Championship in the air.

      Sequel: Snakes with Cell Phones on a Plane

  4. 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!
  5. Re:Why cellphones on a plane? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Funny

    so why not just use the wired phones that are already installed on the plane?

    The per-minute cost is approximately infinity billion dollars.

  6. As a significant business traveler by blantonl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .. I cannot tell you how elated I am to hear this news.

    Nothing amuses me more than the high-end muscle-man salesman that strolls through an airport terminal with a bluetooth device in his hear, extolling the virtues of his latest deal that he closed, how drunk he got the night before, and where he was heading next. All the while strolling like there is something up his but, and his hands are waving in the air like he's swatting flies or something buzzing around his head - maybe it's his arrogance.

    But while it is amazing, it is also irritating, and the thought of having to deal with that type of behavior AFTER the door is shut scares the living hell out of me. The only people that might benefit from something like this rule change would be Bose - as I'm sure they would sell 1000's of additional Acoustic Noise Canceling Headphones.

    Furthermore, being that you would be 6 miles up in the sky, in an aluminum shielded tube, I cannot even imagine that you would get good coverage from within the airplane. I'm willing to bet that maintaining a call even for just a few minutes would be a hassle. Imagine that beefy salesman screaming into his bluetooth headset "can you hear me... hold one, let me get up and find a better signal" - all the while he's walking up and down the aisle, "Can you hear me NOW?" and holding the phone up to an airplane window in the galley.

    Man it would be a disaster. He would either get his ass kicked by someone, or lose the deal because he thought he could hold the con call from the airplane.

    Thank You FCC. you did everyone a favor.

    --
    Lindsay Blanton
    RadioReference.com
  7. Re:frequencies by Radon360 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Aircraft communications and navigation typically take place at VHF frequencies, between 108-132MHz. Voice communication is almost always AM in this frequency range.

    Cell phones ~824-894MHz (traditional cellular) ~1900MHz (PCS - Sprint, Verizon, et al) - In the United States, anyway.

    Regardless, the issue isn't interference with Avionics and communication, but the implications it would have on the cell network with one handset being able to reach (interfere with) hundreds of towers at one time.

  8. Re:Cellphones were used during the 9/11 hijackings by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This isn't scientific evidence of mobile phone interruption from planes, but just about everytime a plane would fly over my apartment while on (low) approach to MSP my own calls would drop. It only happened as I heard the planes overhead -- never any other time.

    Now, I know that people (like my father) refuse to turn their phones off while in flight because "the FCC doesn't know their heads from third base" (as he likes to state so frequently) but for me, while living there, it sucked.

    I have planes on approach to MSP where I live now but I rarely use my mobile for voice calls so I don't notice the dropped calls as much and/or because they are at a much higher altitude and aren't flying as frequently over that route, I don't notice the problem.

  9. 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.

  10. FAA and FCC both ban cell phones on airplanes... by allanc · · Score: 4, Funny

    But what about the FBB? Is the FBB cool with them?

  11. Re:unfortunately... by loganrapp · · Score: 4, Funny

    d) Take out your cell phone, act like you're calling, and say, "hey, some douche bag is on the phone, so I guess that means I can do it, too!"

  12. 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