FCC, FAA Still Don't Want Cell Phones on Planes

mattnyc99 writes "Last month we learned that the UK has approved in-flight mobile, effective immediately. Popular Mechanics has a follow-up on why the phones-on-planes ban is here to stay in the United States. Statements from the FCC and FAA confirm that any chance to overturn it remains dead on arrival — even though new "pico-cell" networks cut down interference with phones on the ground. American Airlines is looking like it will have onboard Wi-Fi within the next couple months, just the same. PM does note, however, that if the European mobile rollout is a success, US carriers might just have to give into demand."

Comments

I don't want cell phones on planes.

[dattaway]

Imagine a two hour flight with everyone talking to their hands. Or the ones with blinking blue cockroaches in their ears talking to the seat in front of them. No thanks.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[bcat24]

I couldn't agree more. Don't get me wrong, I love my cell phone as much as the next guy. It's just that there are some places where non-emergency phone calls are inappropriate. Plane flights are bad enough without people chatting on their cell for hours on end.

In-flight wifi, on the other hand, sounds far more promising. I can imagine it being used for some really awesome things, like movie rentals that work directly with your laptop.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Caligatio]

Yea, this would drive me absolutely batty. Of course, if WiFi is OKed, that means that VoIP is possible.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[dotfile]

Amen, brother. I won't fly without my cell, but for God's sake don't make all of us listen to every idiot on the plane yelling into their effing phone. It's noisy and uncomfortable enough as it is.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[peragrin]

too much lag for VOIP though. IM would be okay as all you would get is the occasional laugh and lots of keyboard clicking.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[bluemetal]

I agree. As if screaming babies weren't enough.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Kral_Blbec]

I think 0 of the last 6 flights i have taken recently have had screaming babies in sound range.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[MoxFulder]

Is a bunch of people talking on phones any different than a bunch of people talking to each other? Yes. People talking on cell phones seem to lack a basic situational awareness and volume control. I don't mind real-life conversations all around me, not at all. But people on cell phones always seem to talk too loud, say inappropriate things, and have no awareness of the real world around them. I know I'm guilty of it myself...

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Omestes]

I don't fly that often, but I've noticed that planes are rather quiet most of the time. When people talk to each other on planes they do so in a conversational tone, or lower.

When people talk on cellphones they are LOUDER for some reason. Most people like to yell at their phones.

Cellphones also encourage people to babble constantly like idiots, for some reason.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Xenious]

I don't want calls available, but SMS and 2.5 or 3G data connectivity sounds good to me. I guess wifi would work just the same.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[LWATCDR]

The babies don't bother me. The Adults tend to be 10 times worse. I used to fly a lot. I never had a terrible problem with babies. Yes sitting next to a 450 lbs woman that thought a beach umbrella was carry on luggage. A jerk that not only yelled at me for putting my bag in the over head because it might crush his cell phone. A bodybuilder that started to cry when we hit a little rough air.
The wost had to be the guy that yelled at the two nuns with orphans. They made a tiny bit of noise and this guy started yelling them to shut them up.
Just being in the same plane with that guy has got to be really bad karma.
Babies? Heck they are babies, they don't know any better. It is the adults that make the flights hell.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[xstonedogx]

Yes, for a few reasons:

1. It's well established that it is more difficult for people to tune out one-sided conversations.
2. People use louder voices when talking on their cellphones than when talk to someone next to them.
3. Talking on the cellphone brings the focus outside their current environment, making cell-phone users less considerate of those around them.
4. People traveling alone generally don't talk with other people on the flight since they don't know anyone. So more people are going to be talking.

About the only positive cellphones can bring to airplanes in terms of annoyance is that the single travelers who feel they must talk to the person sitting next to them will finally have someone else to talk to.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Chris Burke]

Imagine a two hour flight with everyone talking to their hands. Or the ones with blinking blue cockroaches in their ears talking to the seat in front of them. No thanks.

For serious. I don't care what their excuse is, maintain the ban on cellphones! I've even pretended to agree with the technical reasons for the ban before when someone has asked me. "Oh, cell phones? Oh yeah, the FAA is right, they'll fuck a plane up. All those e-m wave frequencies can interfere with the avionics, and the tachyons generated will totally reverse the polarity of the flux capacitor."

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[gnick]

Exactly. I generally dislike cells - I think they're obnoxious, but acknowledge that they're great in emergencies and useful for people who want/need to be plugged-in all the time. Personally I find use in restaurants, etc. is a nuisance to other patrons. But that should not influence federal regulations. If enough patrons want a phone-free airline, I'd like to believe that we'd have phone-free flights (unlikely, but not enough reason to legislate). The only issues that should be considered by the FAA/FCC are safety and interference.

I think that forcing private businesses to disallow smoking is BS too, but at least they were trying to justify it through employee health complaints. Several of these comments seem to condone federal legislation to ban an annoyance in the name of safety. Gross.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Azghoul]

So because you don't LIKE it, it should be ILLEGAL and punishable by a court of law?

Okay. Tell us some of the things you DO like so we can fuck with them.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Sandbags]

I've got no problem sticking a pair of ear phones in, cutting on the noise canceling, and letting them all chat away at $0.50 a minute premium air time. All they're doing is improving the airport's profits, and as a result, some of that will lower my ticket cost in the future...

Free wi-fi on planes, that's what I'm waiting for. It might not be free for everyone, but with my bundled iPhone, home phone, and AT&T internet service plan, I don't pay for wi-fi at airports, starbucks, or any other AT&T hotspot... (and almost all of them are, including the big push for in-flight hot spots.

Also, if they let wi-fi happen, likely people will be using skype or cell phones with wi-fi talk capability... might as well charge them a premium rate to use a real cell phone.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Loki_1929]

"In-flight wifi, on the other hand, sounds far more promising. I can imagine it being used for some really awesome things, like movie rentals that work directly with your laptop.

Or voice over IP via a bluetooth headset paired to the laptop.

Wait a minute... D'OH!

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[mcmonkey]

When people talk on cellphones they are LOUDER for some reason. Most people like to yell at their phones.

Cell phones do not give the same feedback as most land line phones.

When you talk into a regular phone, your voice repeats back through your earpiece. This not only provides feedback on the clarity of your voice, it also provides psychological assurance that you can be heard.

When you talk into a cell phone, you voice is not repeated back to you. Since you have a hard time hearing yourself (compared to when talking on a regular phone) you naturally speak louder to compensate.

There is also the issue of the cell phone on the other side. Think about it, and you will probably catch yourself doing it automatically--when the person you are speaking with is using a cell phone, you add a little volume, presuming your audience does not have as clear a connection than they would have using a land line.

The solution is, when speaking, to concentrate on what you are saying and not how you hear your own voice. You can't rely on the feedback from your cell phone to regulate your volume. You have to assume the other person would tell you to speak up if they can't hear you.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Thirdsin]

Who modded this funny? Parent is exactly right... If this happens, watch how many people get detained mid flight and arrested after the plane has to make an emergency landing due to people telling eachother to STFU... Should be fun...

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[QuantumRiff]

But the FCC is doing the opposite. They have been cracking down on places like restruants that put in devices to block cell-phones. It isn't even the "A doctor might be sitting in the theatre watching a movie while he is on call for a heart transplant" kind of argument (which is really stupid, think of the children), its "Company Paid for a national license, we are here to enforce that nobody is blocking that license anywhere". If a restruant, or airline, or whatever wants to allow the use of cell phones, and lets people know, groovy, but if they choose not to, that should be respected also.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[GnarlyDoug]

I don't either. What does that have to do with the FCC banning them?

I believe that if everyday legal cell phone usage is no longer a credible hazard to the plane itself, then the FCC should not even have a say in it, any more than they should have a say in what color pants you wear on the plane. It should be outside of their jurisdiction at that point. As for dealing with rude people, that should fall to the other passengers or the airlines. That's the kind of little annoyances you have to deal with if you want freedom.

Allowing governmental agencies to regulate whatever they want just because it is popular is tyranny of the majority at best. Anyone who would support tyrannical behavior because they like the behavior being imposed is evil.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Alinabi]

Actually, plane flights are so bad, that nothing can make them worse. Someone talking on the phone next to me is nothing compared to the 4 year old kid behind me kicking my seat for 7 hours in a row. At least now I can use the dead time to call my mother, who always complains I don't call enough. The only question is: will I be able to take my knees out of my mouth to reach for the phone in my pocket?

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Pig Hogger]

All they're doing is improving the airport's profits, and as a result, some of that will lower my ticket cost in the future...

Since you believe that improving an airline's bottom-line will yield cheaper tickets, there's that nice bridge in San-Francisco (complete with "Free Tibets" banners) I want to sell you.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Captain Murdock]

In-flight wifi, on the other hand, sounds far more promising. I can imagine it being used for some really awesome things, like movie rentals that work directly with your laptop.

I can't imagine the bandwidth on a plane to be high enough for streaming video for many users at once. I can't see this happening for a while.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. Tell us some of the things you DO like so we can fuck with them.

Well, I like you.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[badasscat]

So because you don't LIKE it, it should be ILLEGAL and punishable by a court of law?

Uh, yeah?

That's why all laws exist. Enough people don't like something and it gets outlawed.

People don't *like* being robbed on the street. People don't *like* being stabbed. People don't *like* having their homes burglarized. Hence, all of these things are illegal.

If a large majority of people don't like hearing others yapping in their cell phones on a flight, then yes, it should be illegal too for that reason alone.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[johnlcallaway]

Given the choice between the person next to me talking to me for 8 hours about their insufferable life, or talking on a cell phone, I'll rather they talk on the cell phone. At least I can read my book or play DS or sleep.

I've never understood why people find cell phone conversations rude. I understand that people can be rude on the cell phone by talking too loud, or dangerous if driving. But rude just for calling their spouse from the store and asking wht brands of something she wanted was?? It's better than driving back home, asking her, and driving back to the store. In fact, it's reducing green house emissions!

Let people talk on the plane, maybe they won't spend the entire drive from the airport to the hotel chatting on the phone and being a hazard to other drivers.

I think the real reason it pisses people off is because they can't eavesdrop as well; they only get half of the conversation.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Shakrai]

They have been cracking down on places like restruants that put in devices to block cell-phones

Rightfully so, since those devices (AKA jammers) are illegally broadcasting on licensed frequencies. I don't generally care much for the business practices of the wireless industry but they did spend billions of dollars for those licenses and have legitimate grounds to be pissed if you throw your jammer onto their spectrum.

If you don't want people using cell phones in your establishment then make that a policy and ask people to leave who can't follow it. Or retrofit your building with a Faraday Cage (some theaters are doing this with new construction). Those are your legal options.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[PitaBred]

Meh. If they annoy me, I'll make it a three sided conversation. I can be just as annoying as the douche next to me, and I don't even need a phone. The difference is, I try not to be unless I have to be :)

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[tonyreadsnews]

If a large majority of people don't like hearing others yapping in their cell phones on a flight, then yes, it should be illegal too for that reason alone.
What about people who dont *like* being told they can't SMS, check email, or talk quietly on their phone because their on a plane?

But seriously. There are plenty of laws protecting minority rights and small groups of people against those that may not *like* something but in the interest of freedom, free speech and such, its NOT illegal. So I don't think that things like this should be illegal for that reason alone.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Chasuk]

I understand your sentiment, but I still disagree with you. First, for the people who are unable to regulate themselves, we unfortunately sometimes have to enforce courtesy. There is precedent, even. Talk too loudly for too long in a cinema, and they will remove you. This is solely because you are irritating other customers, not for health or safety. Second, my level of agitation would be nearly homicidal if I had to suffer some inconsiderate idiot's conversation for an entire flight.I would consider it an aural assault, truthfully. I can imagine a physical alteration if the flight lasted long enough. Label it trespassing in my aural space. We use similar sonic attacks to torture alleged terrorists, and, without any exaggeration, being subjected to someone's cellphone conversation for a prolonged period would be torture to me.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[mustafap]

>People don't *like* having their homes burglarized.

The word you are looking for is burgled.

Burglarized is when someone breaks in and redecorates.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[hedwards]

Actually, that's not completely true. The FAA has a responsibility to keep cell phones and other similar devices off of planes as long as they haven't been demonstrated to be safe. There is no specific rule or law which says that they have to allow the phones on once they've been proven to be safe. By your logic the FAA doesn't have the right to keep smoking off of planes either. And would have to offer at least flights which allowed smoking on them. I mean after all planes flew for quite a while without banning cigarettes on board, so why should they be allowed to not overturn ban as well?

There are other things which the FAA has banned or has kept banned which aren't a safety issue. Except for it being against FAA regulations, there isn't any reason why an airline couldn't choose to have a smoking booth on a plane. It could scrub the air and prevent the fumes from getting to the rest of the plane.

Booze on planes is another example, it's still legal to serve it on a plane even though it is an increasingly dangerous practice. In the past when things were less stressful, lines were shorter, planes were less packed and more likely to leave on time, alcohol wasn't much of an issue, as long as only reasonable amounts were served there wasn't much of an issue. These days though, the number of incidents involving alcohol and disruptive or dangerous behavior are much more likely than they used to be.

Allowing cell phone calls on planes is something which a huge number of people don't want, and they don't want it because it is an extremely disrupting and stressful thing to have to put up with. There may eventually be a compromise which allows calls in a certain section or in a phone booth type thing.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[a whoabot]

They have the right to choose how photons movie in my house? I think it's reasonable to allow people to broadcast whatever frequencies they want in the range of their own property...

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Rival]

we unfortunately sometimes have to enforce courtesy. There is precedent, even. Talk too loudly for too long in a cinema, and they will remove you. It seems to me like that would work just as well on a plane.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Achromatic1978]

Ugh I want to punch them both

Wow. Classy.

How bout you toddle on over to CF Hardcore? I'm sure they'd love someone like you.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[mobby_6kl]

> Uh, yeah?

Not in a liberal society. "I don't like that" just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly.

And seriously, comparing murder to someone talking on the phone is completely retarded. Do you really not see the difference between depriving someone of their life or property and being slightly annoyed by a nonviolent behavior?

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[jackbird]

Because people just have to fucking yell into the things.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[gnick]

Talk too loudly for too long in a cinema, and they will remove you. Exactly. The theater removes you. Not the police. Thus the difference between the airlines and the FAA/FCC.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Dan667]

If those people do these things then pass Gas. If people need a real reason to worry about, give them one.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[pimpimpim]

For this reason several European airplane companies (e.g. Lufthansa) won't start with it. They did costumer surveys and found out that their clients were overall not interested.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Martin Blank]

It's not reasonable, because you generally can't confirm that it is limited only to the building in which you broadcast the signal. You can put up a mechanism to block leakage from the jammer, but at that point, the need for a jammer is obviated, because the signal isn't going to get out anyway.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Martin Blank]

The airlines looking to put in WiFi are explicitly blocking VoIP traffic using proxies, specifically to save bandwidth that would otherwise be chewed up by people talking. VoIP may not be a major strain on most land links, but it can be much less bursty than web traffic, and since at least some of the systems being examined will use satellites, it will be a more precious resources on the planes.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[OrangeTide]

I ain't going on a cell phone permitted flight unless we can start smoking or bringing our own liquor on the flights too. Need something to keep me from strangling other passengers.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[LWATCDR]

Yea then when there kids get older those mothers will probably let them play on your law.
I suggest next time that happens you throw your truss at them. If that doesn't work then throw your teeth at them.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Dash Hash]

I think that forcing private businesses to disallow smoking is BS too, but at least they were trying to justify it through employee health complaints.

Yes, because people with more than a mild case of asthma have nothing better to do but sit in their homes all day because nicotine addicts simply cannot go without their health-damning condition that could potentially kill somebody who got an unfortunate face-full of smoke.

I have a somewhat severe issue with asthma, and I never went to restaurants because of the issues with smoke. It didn't matter that there were no-smoking sections, the smoke still drifted through the air (especially at the places that didn't even bother to try filtering the air). I would be dancing in the streets if smoking were banned in all public places, inside and outside both (actually, let's make it completely illegal, similar to so many other harmful and addictive substances).

There's nothing more fun than being a prisoner in your own home because the smokers are too Holier-Than-Thou to give a flying fuck about the people around them who have severe issues with breathing.

To put it all in fewer words: YOUR RIGHT TO KILL YOURSELF IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY RIGHT TO LIVE.

Get over the "smokers' rights" bullshit.

Back on topic, I'm fortunate that I don't have to fly too often, but when I do, I'll be triple-checking to make sure I have my MP3 player, extra batteries and a good set of headphones if cellphones are permitted on flights. At least people talking on their phones won't risk putting people in the hospitals.

Several of these comments seem to condone federal legislation to ban an annoyance in the name of safety. Gross.

I really, really hope that was sarcasm, but considering the rest of your post...

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[uranus65]

My dad seemed to think that speaking louder made one more understandable to non-English speaking people.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Rakarra]

Lucky. On my last plane flight I walked down the aisle towards my seat, noting there was screaming baby towards the front of the plane.. annoying, but fortunately 10 rows away from my seat. When I finally got to my seat though, I noticed it had been taken. There was an old Chinese couple who were tourists sitting in my seat and the seat next to it, and from what I gathered by examining their tickets they had bought seats separately and so were located on opposite ends of the plane. But they seemed rather nervous (probably because they were stealing my seat) and seemed (feigned?) to speak no English and very clearly did not want to be separated). So rather than make a scene, I agreed to switch tickets (the thought of spending the next four hours sitting next to an angry Chinese tourist didn't appeal either). So I walked back to where the woman was supposed to be sitting and settled down... in the seat directly in front of the howling baby. I got owned.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[cyanyde]

Imagine a remotely detonated bomb.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[smellsofbikes]

I grant that this isn't the case on commercial airliners made since about 1955, but for the record smoking is significantly harmful to vacuum-based flight instruments. They're powered by the vacuum differential between the cabin and the manifold vacuum or vacuum pump, so they suck air out of the cabin continuously into a mass of very precise bearings and airways, and the crap in cigarette smoke jams the bearings, leading to much earlier failure of gauges like your artificial horizon.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Nethemas the Great]

Better the crazy guy talks to his hand than to me. But seriously what's wrong with my blinking blue cockroach...?

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Dash Hash]

One person is not the problem, just as one person is almost never the problem.

The problem is when a large number of you wretches get together in an enclosed place and smoke to your hearts' content.

Of course, if you actually believed what you were saying in your post, you wouldn't have posted AC. At the least, I (a pussy, according to you) had the balls to attach my name to my belief, which seems to be more than you, the Anonymous Coward, are willing to do.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[gnick]

Or retrofit your building with a Faraday Cage (some theaters are doing this with new construction). I'm on board 100%, but I'd really like to see announcements before I enter an establishment that's passively blocking cell phone/pager signals. If my need to receive a page/call outweighs my need to see a movie, I'd like to know my options ahead of time. Some people need to be on call and should be notified if they wander out of range unexpectedly.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[mog007]

Not in the United States of America. We have Common Law here, and it boils down to a protection of rights, not an avoidance to things people don't like. You are not allowed to rob me on the street because you are taking away my property from me. Stabbing someone, and trespassing are also violations of a person's personal sovereignty. We don't have one monarch in the United States, we have about 300 million. We're all monarchs of our own property, be it our homes, our cars, or our bodies.

Religious evangelists annoy the hell out of me, but they're still allowed to retain their right to say whatever the fuck they want, even over the air waves that the FCC monitors. Why should a person who irritates you with a cell phone be any different? Cell phones are banned in every movie theatre I've been in, and not because of laws, but because it's good for business. I'm sure Delta would enact a similar company policy if they got enough bitching from customers who are irritated by cellular phones, but please, don't ask for laws. I can pick and choose my airline, but I can't pick and choose my laws.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[jseale]

Well isn't it obvious that the airlines would eventually have to follow Amtrak's lead, by putting a 'quiet room' somewhere on the aircraft like Amtrak does on its trains? I know this might not work except on a larger aircraft such as a 787 or an A380, but it's just a thought.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Chewbacon]

I can see a someone having a heated argument over the phone in flight being a potential problem. I'm uncomfortable enough on planes, but the legitimacy of interference between cellphones and navigational equipment has always been something I've questioned to the point I think it's Verizon trying to support their $7-10/min charges. Off topic here, but my father works in europe and flies a lot. On his last trip home (the states) he said some guys from Bulgaria caused a lot of problems on board. Bad enough TSA agents were called to meet the plane when it landed. The Bulgarians stood up demanding to get off the plane, but as soon as armed TSA goons showed up they demanded the boys, "GET THE FUCK ON THE FLOOR. HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK!" A few incidents like that could hinder some cellphone related behavior.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[juan2074]

If you must take a call on the airplane, please step outside -- to be polite.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Z34107]

Maybe "WiFi" is just a $60 Linksys router in the aft? Wouldn't that be hilarious, but as another poster mentioned, perhaps useful for in-flight rentals.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A proprietor would be wise to post such a sign, however...

Your need to be on call is your problem. It is not the proprietor's problem. It is not the government's problem. Why would you rely on either to take care of your responsibility?

If you need to be on call buy a device or service that notifies you when you are out of range. You'll be paying for the service you need and not forcing other people to take care of your responsibility at their own cost.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Incster]

In-flight wifi, on the other hand, sounds far more promising. I can imagine it being used for some really awesome things, like movie rentals that work directly with your laptop. Or making Skype calls.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[downhole]

I don't. Think about what the potential consequences are. It's generally somewhere between difficult and impossible to guarantee that a jamming signal is going to affect ONLY your property. Also consider the widely varying reception characteristics of phones and the variety of carriers and where they have their base stations. For practical purposes, if you have a jamming signal strong enough to make sure that no phone can connect to any base station within your property, you will almost certainly interfere with at least some phones on some carriers a considerable distance away from your property.

Now, if we take that situation and combine it with an environment where this is legal, then how many establishments in a given area will do this? What will the results be of multiple jamming businesses/homes in a small area? Given the uncertain characteristics of jamming described above, it's likely that if several businesses in an urban area start trying to jam, the entire cellular network could be rendered useless over a pretty large area. I'm not generally in favor of Government intervention, but I think that having cellular networks (and other wireless communication systems) that work reliably over a wide area is more important then someone's supposed right to broadcast anything at any frequency and power level they want.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[F34nor]

Well, WiFi means Skype, Skype means phone calls, and phone calls are well... phone calls. The reason they don't want cell phones is the rapid motion of handsets from tower to tower increases network stress drastically.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[NekSnappa]

Of course they have to talk louder. The person on the other end of the conversation is a long way away.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[FredFredrickson]

To put it all in fewer words: YOUR RIGHT TO KILL YOURSELF IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY RIGHT TO LIVE.
Get over the "smokers' rights" bullshit.
Amen to that. I believe in rights and all, but it's clear that it's no longer a right when it encroaches on my rights - such as the right to breathe, or live.

Smokers are all under this belief that they just HAVE this right to always smoke no matter what. We wouldn't need legislation if smokers had manners, but honest to god, I haven't met too many smokers who give half a crap. They don't want anybody standing between them and cigarettes.

And me? I just don't feel like the cancer. And that IS my right.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Eddi3]

You are given the luxury of super fast, trans-continental transportation, over distances that would otherwise take days or weeks to travel. If you don't like the conditions, pay for a first class ticket. Or better yet, don't fly at all.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Sandbags]

I don't expect a 1:1 return, but I expect if the airline makes a billion from in-flight calls, they'll pass on a couple of million in tickt price discounts. Remember, they're pretty tightly regulated, and too much profit has to be spent somewhere. I imaging a lot of it would go first to system improvements, newer planes, updated airports, but eventually (as I said, in the future) it would have an impact on ticket prices.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[coyote_oww]

You should be ok on this, You'll get the same notice you would if you walked into any other service "black hole" - you get no bars of connectivity.

Happens to me all the time at work. Though the building wasn't deliberately engineered that way, it's still effective at blocking cell signals from T-Mobil.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[LunaticTippy]

I think the problem largely is crappy audio. I have to ask people to repeat what they said a lot, and I get asked a lot to repeat myself. The dropouts, noise, and plain old low fidelity make it impossible to understand. When this happens enough times I find myself talking louder and louder, even though that isn't the problem.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[gnick]

It should definitely occur as a voluntary courtesy on the part of the owner - He certainly has no obligation to do anything. But I could see it benefiting him too - Personally, I'd be pleased to learn that a movie theater was passively disrupting cell-phone service within the building.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[blueskies]

Plane flights are bad enough without people chatting on their cell for hours on end.

You were on the right track but how about this? "Plane flights are bad enough without people chatting for hours on end." Ball gags should be mandatory if talking is your problem. Let's not patch around the problem. Cell phones should be legal, but everyone has to wear ball gags. I never understood the people that were fine with people gabbing to each other, but hate people that talk on cell phones.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[blueskies]

And that is different then those gabby older women who talk really loud and screechingly laugh even louder?

I think the really annoying part for most people is that they can't eavesdrop on both ends of the conversation....

Funny Larry David clip: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/clips/how-to-deal-with-obnoxious-bluetooth-headset-talkers-321179.php

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[blueskies]

I love when people present false dichotomies. If you don't like this comment, don't read slashdot. Or better yet, don't read at all!! Oh and i almost forgot, move to canada if you don't like it!

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Pig Hogger]

The whole system is in shambles, courtesy of the deregulation.

30 years ago, when you flew somewhere, every ticket cost the same price, a price set by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Since no airline had a price advantage, they competed on service.

You had free drinks, free meals and whenever something fucked-up, they really took care of you.

But the best side of regulation was that US airlines had the newest fleet in the whole world! Now, how does this sounds in terms of safety? It's pretty significant.

Then, they deregulated. The "frea mahkit" decided everything. US airlines were free to do as they chose. So, instead of buying aircraft, they bought airlines. The net result? After 20 years of deregulation, US airlines went from the youngest fleet to having the oldest fleet in the world! And if you wanted to fly on a godforsaken place well outside of the profitable networks, you got to pay through the nose.

It is cheaper for me to fly to Europe than to fly to my sister's, even though she lives a 12 hour drive away!!!

Airlines bleed money, and too much of this money is taxpayer's money. Enough is enough, the "frea mahkit" has amply demonstrated it's utter, total, absolute, complete and indomitable failure. Bring back regulation; that's the only thing that will prevent the emergency nationalization of airlines.

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[tjb]

Ya know what, I'll take my cheap tickets, screw the service. How much did it cost to fly from San Jose to JFK (non-stop even!) in 1976? $1000? $3000?

Today, you can do it for ~$200 round trip. Which is freaking awesome. Its only 5 hours each way, I can suck it up and deal. Quit being such a whiner.

(and the last trip I took was San Francisco to Munich. $710 round trip on United. How much was that one in 1976?)

Re:I don't want cell phones on planes.

[Azghoul]

Thank you, sir.

At least one person understands.

Funny that.

[Wowsers]

What a strange co-incidence, I don't want phones on a plane either. I don't want to hear 400 calls of "Hello, you never guess where I'm calling from."

Re:Funny that.

[4D6963]

"Hello, you never guess where I'm calling from."

"Can.. Can you hear me now? ... Can you hear me now?"

Re:Funny that.

[Loki_1929]

I have that beat pretty handily. A couple years ago, when EVDO was something even geeks were fairly new to and the general public hadn't a clue, I logged into a MUD I play on from the middle of the Hoover Dam and did a "you'll never guess where I'm logging in from!" deal on public channels.

I'm such an ass.

Ill pass, thanks.

[spotdog14]

i cannot imagine how horrible a 3 hour delay on the aircraft will be then! wifi i can see, laptops, internet = good. Cellphones = bad. Unless of course we all get 1st class seats and our own little curtains.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

i cannot imagine how horrible a 3 hour delay on the aircraft will be then! wifi i can see, laptops, internet = good. Cellphones = bad.

And when I make VoIP calls using a microphone..?

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[bcat24]

i cannot imagine how horrible a 3 hour delay on the aircraft will be then! wifi i can see, laptops, internet = good. Cellphones = bad.

And when I make VoIP calls using a microphone..?

You better hope I'm not sitting behind you when you try that. (Last time I checked, cluesticks weren't on the list of banned weapons. :D)

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[morgan_greywolf]

My understanding is that airlines will be blocking VOIP.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[Hatta]

From your link:

Much of the argument comes down to the potential annoyance of having a "Chatty Cathy" sitting next to you, talking away for the entire coast to coast trip. In that case they may also have to ban babies from traveling, not to mention those fliers who insist on playing their iPods at maximum volume, and of course all those end-of-season football team get aways.

That man is brilliant. Any chance we can get him appointed to the FAA?

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[geminidomino]

Hell, I'd rather have "Chatty Cathy" gabbing away to her sister in Peoria rather than trying to make conversation with me while I'm trying to spend some quality time with Soma and Professor Layton...

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[cowscows]

Then a stewardess walks over and tells you to stop, just the same as if you opened up your laptop and started playing music out of its speakers. Even if the FAA said that it was ok, I'd hope that most of the airlines would have the good sense to not allow it on their flights. The technology that you use to make that call isn't really relevant.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The technology that you use to make that call isn't really relevant.

Then what, exactly, is relevant?

I thought the whole point of not allowing cell phones was that they cause interference. If wifi doesn't, and I can send VoIP over that wifi, how would that magically start causing interference?

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[Hatta]

If you ignore people, they stop talking at you soon enough.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[riceboy50]

That is a good point. But, at least for the time being, the average person isn't likely to be using VoIP; thus vastly fewer and probably more technologically savvy people making voice calls in flight.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[Afrosheen]

If only that worked for bastard children that are somehow hard wired to rhythmically kick your seat when you're in front of them. The more you ignore them, the more they kick.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[cowscows]

The FAA might only mention the interference as the reason, but I think that's just a small part of it. The annoyance factor is a really important reason. The FAA just doesn't want to come out and say it, because there's tons of jackasses out there who would cry about how their freedom of speech is being infringed, and how unfair it is, etc. It's easier to just shush those people by telling them that it's a safety issue. If it was really that much just a safety issue, I would think they'd have modified either the plane's systems or the phone system. Even if nobody in the aircraft is getting calls, a plane is most certainly in the path of numerous random cellphone signals pretty much all the time.

My example in my previous comment was about playing music over your computer's speakers. That certainly doesn't create any sort of interference with the aircraft's systems, but they'll still tell you to stop, because it's not fair to the other passengers to subject them to that noise. The same goes with people making phone calls, and from that perspective, the technology behind the call doesn't really matter. Either way the person gabbing on the phone is annoying all the other people packed in around them.

It's a shame that some people are either ignorant or indifferent to the point where society basically has to make up laws for fake reasons in order to force common courtesy. But that's how the world works I guess.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Last time I checked, cluesticks weren't on the list of banned weapons.

Based on my observations, no one has gotten within 20 feet of a TSA agent with one on their person.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[jroysdon]

Hmm, but if I use my VPN I can use my Cisco IP Communicator all encrypted and they can't block it without blocking my entire VPN access, which they can't block as I'll just revert to SSL mode.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[geminidomino]

If you ignore people, you tune them out soon enough.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The annoyance factor is a really important reason.... tons of jackasses out there who would cry about how their freedom of speech is being infringed

Oh, god forbid you should ever be annoyed!

Hey everyone! Bill of rights is off! It's more important that cowscows not be annoyed!

My example in my previous comment was about playing music over your computer's speakers. That certainly doesn't create any sort of interference with the aircraft's systems, but they'll still tell you to stop, because it's not fair to the other passengers to subject them to that noise.

Then be honest about it, if that is really the reason.

Or how are they able to get us to turn our speakers off, if we're all such jackasses that we need the government to lie to us to stop us from talking on the phone? Seriously, if they can tell us "Please turn your speakers off, you're annoying other passengers", they can do the same for a phone call -- although with the noise of the plane, I'm not sure I'd notice or care, in either case.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[cowscows]

Look, I don't think I have some sort of right to coast through life without ever being inconvenienced, but airline travel is a very specific situation. It's something that ends up being pretty close to essential for various aspects of some people's lives, yet as individuals we don't have much control over the conditions in which we fly. And you're making the same stupid argument that I talked about before. Oh no! The Bill of Rights is no more! The country is doomed!

They can instruct us to do things, but sadly, not everyone listens. There are plenty of stories in the news of people becoming unruly and even violent while on planes, and once the plane is airborne it's a really difficult situation to deal with. You've got a bunch of people crammed into a small uncomfortable space for long periods of time. A portion of them are generally nervous about flying, if not outright afraid.

I think you underestimate the sense of entitlement that many people seem to have about their phones. Have you seen deli's and similar places with big signs that say basically "if you're talking on your phone while you're at the counter, we're going to skip over you."? And yet people don't listen, or they ignore it, or they'll respond with attitude when called on it. People have the right to be dicks if they want to, and that's fair. If you're not being nice on my property, then I have the right to make you leave. If it's not my property, then I have the right to leave and get further away from you. But on an airplane, 6 miles up in the air, there's nowhere for either of us to go. Since it's so much harder to deal with conflicts in the air, it makes a ton of sense to me to take some steps to avoid those conflicts. Some of those steps don't make much sense under normal conditions. But neither do 90% of the measures you already have to deal with even before you board the plane.

Re:Ill pass, thanks.

[SanityInAnarchy]

And you're making the same stupid argument that I talked about before. Oh no! The Bill of Rights is no more! The country is doomed!

Whether you can see it or not, it is a reduction in rights, and it should be carefully considered. Given that a plane is effectively private property, it is entirely within the rights of the airline to impose their own rules, and again, entirely unnecessary for the government to lie for them.

I think you underestimate the sense of entitlement that many people seem to have about their phones.

Before it was phones, it was cigarettes. And I'm fairly sure those were not banned for any safety reason -- I would imagine it has a lot more to do with the fact that if someone's smoking on a plane, there's really nowhere that smoke won't get to.

If you're not being nice on my property, then I have the right to make you leave. If it's not my property, then I have the right to leave and get further away from you. But on an airplane, 6 miles up in the air, there's nowhere for either of us to go.

There is the possibility of banning you from flying with that airline again.

Since it's so much harder to deal with conflicts in the air, it makes a ton of sense to me to take some steps to avoid those conflicts.

And yet, I don't consider our government blatantly lying to us to be an acceptable step, full stop.

Look, I really don't care -- as long as I can still use a laptop, even an entirely disconnected one, I'm fine. If I can't do that, I'll bring a book. And I'm pretty much never bothered by conversations happening near me on a plane -- there's enough white noise from the engine that I can ignore it.

And consider -- they do allow air phones. It would also work well to simply ban voice calls and mandate text messages, if you're bothering someone. It simply doesn't add up -- it may be a reason you appreciate the cell phone ban, but it's not a reason it exists.

I just find it a bit disturbing that you're OK with a blanket government ban on a particular activity, under false pretenses, merely because it's annoying.

I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plane

[OYAHHH]

> US carriers might just have to give into demand

Well, as far as I'm concerned, they already have. I don't want some blabber-mouth next to me trying to yell over the jet's noise for a cross country trip.

Now, if they want to instigate a cell-phone free area at the front or rear of the plane like they used to do with smoking versus no-smoking sections then I say go-for-it...

The actual reason...

[RJBeery]

It isn't cell tower overload - it's control over information. When there are problems with the plane that may be known by people on the ground the last thing they need is a bunch of cell phones ringing to cause absolute panic. Can you imagine being in the air on 9/11 and getting a phone call from your screaming family as they told you what was on the news?

Re:The actual reason...

[Duradin]

You mean getting told that the terrorist doesn't intend to hijack the plane and take it to Cuba, instead he means to fly it into a building and kill everyone on board? Ya, that's information I really don't want to know.

Re:The actual reason...

[smooth wombat]

Except for the fact that in the case of one plane, the one that went down in PA, some people on the plane were able to call out and notify authorities of their hijackings and provide some information as to the number of hijackers, weapons, etc. In the case of the hostesses, they used on board phones, not cell phones, but some passengers did call their family and/or authorities.

I realize you mean the other way, someone calling you, for why cell phones shouldn't be used on planes due to the panic issue, but I'm still against them being used. Not that I have any inclination to fly anytime soon but if I did, I get enough of someone else's yammering walking around stores. I don't need to be confined for a few hours with no way to get away from, "Yeah, I be tellin her dat she ain't gonna be good wif him. Uh huh."

Re:The actual reason...

[geekoid]

Sigh, yeah, jump to the wild ass conspiracy. well done~

Look, Cell phones can interfere with certain equipment. Having seen this happen in a test lab I consider the European airlines are being irresponsible.

No, it's not common, and no it's not every phone. In fact it's usually some run of a phone that wasn't manufactured to spec.

A single routers can be shielded, 100's of in use cell phones can not.

Re:The actual reason...

[daveo0331]

That's exactly what happened on flight 93, and those phone calls are a big part of the reason why that plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania instead of wherever the terrorists intended to crash it (speculation is they were heading for the US Capitol).

Re:The actual reason...

[SanityInAnarchy]

A single routers can be shielded, 100's of in use cell phones can not.

And 100's of in-use wifi cards can? It's not just the router that's generating a signal...

Re:The actual reason...

[fox_91]

Flight 93 crashed because the people on board, tried to retake the aircraft, causing the terrorists to crash the plane in the battle, not because someone made a phone call. At worst the phones cause instrumentation interference (The right models running at the right Mhz/Ghz) you can still fly a plane, just not properly navigate it.... Cell phones don't just cause the plane to fall from the sky.

Re:The actual reason...

[Kral_Blbec]

Ya, we shield the router so no signals can get through to the sensitive equipment! Then we just run a cable to all laptops on board.

Re:The actual reason...

[0123456789]

I think that that is what the parent meant; due to the passengers being able to make those phone calls, they knew about the other hijackings and attempted to retake the aircraft, thus disrupting the terrorists' plan.

Re:The actual reason...

[RJBeery]

Again, it's not whether *I* would want to know the info, it's whether the AIRLINE would want you to know...

Re:The actual reason...

[Spasemunki]

... and the reason that the passengers and crew attacked the hijackers instead of cooperating was that someone got a call from family on the ground informing them that the hijackers were going to crash the plane into an occupied building, instead of flying it to a neutral country to negotiate. The passengers cooperated, thinking that like most of the hijackings of the 70's and 80's there would be a negotiated settlement, until they started getting information from the ground that indicated otherwise.

None of which is really relevant to this debate; in a serious 9/11 type emergency, people are going to ignore any regulations on phone use anyway, and smart hijackers are likely to start confiscating phones.

Re:The actual reason...

[edwdig]

Flight 93 crashed because the people on board, tried to retake the aircraft, causing the terrorists to crash the plane in the battle, not because someone made a phone call.

The passengers tried to retake the plane because they made phone calls and found out what happened to the other hijacked planes. No one is saying the act of making a phone call lead to the crash, it was the information learned during the call.

Re:The actual reason...

[sheepzilla]

Or, on the other hand, couldn't you say that if the passengers of a plane had more contact with the wider world, it might make co-ordinated hijacking more difficult?

Re:The actual reason...

[badasscat]

It's a particular type of signal being generated on a particular (popular) cell phone frequency that's the problem. I believe it's actually 800mhz GSM where the interference occurs. It's the same frequency that also messes with hospital equipment.

From what I've read, the EU has required extra shielding on planes that need it in order to implement cell phone calls. I would think that'd be kind of a nightmare for planes that do double-duty domestic and international (or for planes that *could* do both - it'd limit an airline's sub inventory if an otherwise perfectly capable plane didn't have the proper shielding for domestic duty).

Also, airliners don't seem to have a problem even if they're unshielded as long as the wiring is in good condition. The problem is a lot of older airliners might have wiring that's starting to fray and insulation that's worn. 20+ years of vibration and rubbing can take the insulation off of any wire. Wiring is supposed to be inspected at regular intervals but a lot of it is tough to get to and it's in bundles, so you can't really see every individual wire over its entire length.

So yeah, it *is* more dangerous to fly with cell phones on than without, and it's more dangerous than wi-fi cards that operate on a different frequency (and not in "burst" mode, or whatever these GSM phones do).

Re:The actual reason...

[bill_mcgonigle]

You mean getting told that the terrorist doesn't intend to hijack the plane and take it to Cuba, instead he means to fly it into a building and kill everyone on board? Ya, that's information I really don't want to know.

You mean you wouldn't take action against the hijackers if you knew you were headed for, e.g., the Sears Tower?

Because no one comes from UK to US

[techpawn]

The concept of it's okay to chat away on your phone in the UK on the plane but not in the US won't peeve ANY international travelers. Of course they will happily fly into the US where they have to turn off their phones and succumb to more invasive security then take their business to another country.

Re:Because no one comes from UK to US

[Colonel Korn]

Security in the UK is more of a hassle than in the US, and in France and Germany it's much worse. The general experience in airport terminals is much worse in the European train station-based terminals, in which you can't start walking the 5-20 minutes (at Heathrow) to your gate until about 45 minutes before your flight, which is then always late due to delayed boarding.

And no, I don't think that cell phones bans on planes in some countries will keep international business out of them.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I spend almost 3 hours a day on commuter trains. My most hated phrase, ever, is "NO!! I HAVE PLENTY OF TIME!! I'M ON THE TRAIN!!"

UMA WiFi phones or Skype anyone?

[whoever57]

Does that mean that I can use a UMA phone (eg. T-Mobile's Hotspot@Home service) or Skype while in flight?

The problem with the UMA service is that there is no way to do a web-based sighnup from the phone. I did once experiment with trying to change the AC address of my PC to match my phone's MAC address, then sign up, but I was not successful. On reflection, I should probably have turned off my phone while the PC had the same MAC address.

The concern is..

[esocid]

I can't remember who I remember hearing this from, but during some flight I recalled some flight personnel talking about it and the reason behind it being that not all cell phones are alike and not all plane equipment is alike. The testing needed to be completely sure that there wouldn't be any sort of interference would be horrendously laborious, not to mention that something new comes out just about every month. I can't vouch that this is absolutely true, but I do see where they are coming from.
Plus like one of the above posts said, I don't want Mr. "I'm an important asshat" blabbing on his bluetooth earpiece while I'm trying to sleep. People don't have common sense so let's just leave it at that.

Re:The concern is..

[esocid]

Also forgot about the varying frequencies and networks that cell phones use, CDMA, PCS, 2G, 3G...etc.

Re:The concern is..

[Sandbags]

The issue was with old, pre-CDMA cell phones and extremely old avionics, like those found in small and mid-sized non-comercial aircraft about 40 years ago.

Modern cockpits have been retrofitted with systems that shield from various types of this radiation and signal interference, and the older touchy meters are only found in old, personally owned aircraft today. Also, not a single one of those old phones that DID cause the interference is in use today since those old networks were dismantled years ago.

This is what happens when people who do not understand technology are allowed to make decisions for people that do.

People forget to turn on or off their cell phones on every flight I've been on for years... I'll hear voicemail chimes start going off about a mile from the ground, typically about 10 minutes or so before landing. I'll also catch kids whipping out phones to play games in-flight, phones that I know for certain don't support radio-off airline operation modes.

Not one plane has complained about avionic radio interference. With tens of thousands of people in the air every day, and at least one person on every flight forgetting to turn it off (or leaving it on on purpose), we'd have heard about an issue.

If the medical industry was held to the standards of the FAA, we'd just now be seeing asprin appear on store shelves for the first time.... 45 billion test cases, not one single failure, but ya never know... we need to do more testing....

Re:The concern is..

[Detritus]

Not one plane has complained about avionic radio interference. With tens of thousands of people in the air every day, and at least one person on every flight forgetting to turn it off (or leaving it on on purpose), we'd have heard about an issue.

You aren't looking very hard. I've read reports of that sort of incident in the Aviation Safety Reporting System. They aren't common, but they do happen. As a general rule, passenger radios (transmitters and receivers) should be turned off during flight, especially during takeoffs and landings. FM broadcast band radios are well known for their potential to cause interference via local oscillator radiation.

Re:The concern is..

[kvap]

> interference

The feedback section in the latest (April) issue of IFR magazine (http://www.ifr-magazine.com) contains a report indicating that a turned on Blackberry on board an aircraft was causing intermittent loss of the weather radar and GPS equipment (pilot determined it was whenever the flight was overflying cell phone towers and the equipment required multiple "reboots").

While it can be argued that the quality of the equipment and proximity of the Blackberry to the antenna probably caused the problem, it's easy to see why the FAA has concerns in this area. They want to be certain that such an occurrence (like leaving a Blackberry on) won't result in any accidents or incidents.

That said, I would venture a guess that many airline flights every day have some passenger that has left their Blackberry on and it checks for email periodically during the flight. Most likely those Blackberry units in the passenger compartment are far enough away from antenna to cause any real problems.

Re:The concern is..

[merreborn]

I also have to wonder if damaged/defective cellphones may generate noise on unpredictable frequencies.

Re:The concern is..

[mcrbids]

The issue was with old, pre-CDMA cell phones and extremely old avionics, like those found in small and mid-sized non-comercial aircraft about 40 years ago.

Oh, you mean like a '68 Piper Cherokee? I flew one about 3 weeks ago. I was a bit surprised when the pilot actually took a call on his phone shortly after taking some aerial photographs. No effect though, so while I supposed pre-CDMA might have been a problem, it certainly isn't anymore.

People forget to turn on or off their cell phones on every flight I've been on for years... I'll hear voicemail chimes start going off about a mile from the ground, typically about 10 minutes or so before landing.

On one flight, one of the SouthWest airline pilots was sitting 2 or 3 rows ahead of me. Well AFTER the "turn your phone off now!" notice, and while we were busy burning down the runway through, and well after, takeoff, the pilot was yapping away on his cell phone...

Re:The concern is..

[twistedcubic]

Yeah, but that's o.k. because Southwest pilots and flight attendants are cool and laid-back :)

Re:The concern is..

[pipingguy]

I think you mean that *some* people don't have common courtesy.

Re:The concern is..

[tiananmen tank man]

If this concern you bring up is true, then they should be banning cellphones on planes instead of water bottles.

Re:The concern is..

[beegle]

The issue was with old, pre-CDMA cell phones and extremely old avionics, like those found in small and mid-sized non-comercial aircraft about 40 years ago.

Some of which are still flying. The rule is there because nobody can ensure that the airplane you're on and every other nearby plane at the airport are safe.

Also, not a single one of those old phones that DID cause the interference is in use today since those old networks were dismantled years ago.

For values of years ago that include two months ago. There were people using those networks up until the last day, too. In the more rural parts of the country, an old analog phone was often more useful than a newer phone.

Re:The concern is..

[Sandbags]

FM and many other forms of broadcast can cause interference. The reports your reading only state "interference" but not specifically from cel phones.

Takeoff and landing, they make you turn everything off and put it away anyway (and you should). This is not so much an interference risk, but in the case of an issue, to keep small objects from flying around the cabin and slamming into people...

Re:The concern is..

[Sandbags]

The analog network I'm referring to is the one dismantled before the one they just dismantled this year. The one that supported the old "bag" car phones... That wnet offline nearly a decade ago... pre-CDMA analog.

There are still some planes flying without updated aviaonics, but none of them are permitted to fly in commercial airports, only at private fields. The landing systems, beacon requirements, communication, and other systems in planes, even ones 40 years old or more still flying, have all been stripped and upgraded within the last 25 years. One of the processes was not only to upgrade tower, ground, and plane communication systems, and avionic readouts, but also to better shield all of those systems. If they don't have these new systems, they can't be tracked properly by tower systems (they can be seen by radar, but not properly identified, nor communicated with in existing FAA solutions)

Re:The concern is..

[Detritus]

I'm looking at an ASRS summary report right now and the #1 cause of interference to aircraft systems is, guess what, cell phones!

NASA/CR-2001-210866, Personal Electronic Devices and Their Interference With Aircraft Systems

Re:The concern is..

[theLOUDroom]

The problem with your statement is that it ignores probability.

Even it it was punisable by death to have a "live" cellphone on a plane, it would still happen.
People forget. Even if only one in ten thousand forget, that's enough to guarantee that there will be multiple active cellphones in the sky at a given point in time.


Simply put, if this was really the problem people make it out to be, planes would be dropping out of the sky like flies. It's possible to theorize about all sorts of crazy instances where something bad might happen, but the reality is:
If there was a significant problem, we'd already be seeing it. Just think about how many people carry a cellphone on their person every waking hour of their day. Then pick some small percentage of people who will forget to turn them off. Even 0.001%. You would still end up with phones in the sky all over the place.

Wi-fi is Ok, But no to phones

[Apoorv Khatreja]

It's obvious. We get enough of that in public buses and malls already. Now we can't even take a flight in peace?

I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[zymano]

These also show up at the library and bookstores.

STFU already.

Someone needs to tell off these annoying Aholes. Especially women who babble endlessly about stupid trifling crap.

I about blew my lid at the library once. There is a big sign that even says turn off your phones , guess what , they still IGNORE it.

And those stupid ringtones!!!

Start fining these assholes!

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[geekoid]

Just ask them to leave the library.
However, in a book STORE you really ahve no business telling people who the can and can not talk to.
If they were talking to a friend next to them, would you tell them to leave?

well, sure, you would your a selfish jerk. Most people wouldn't.

And your complaining about ring tone, sweet. I hope someday the concerns that I have that anger me are as trivial as yours.

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[4D6963]

And those stupid ringtones!!! Start fining these assholes!

I agree, it's about time the government does something about these people are obviously unable to decide what's a ringtone and what's a cheesy song you should only listen to when you're home alone and with headphones on.

I suggest a few categories in order to define fines. Category A would be stupid rap and pop songs, with a $10 fine, Category B would be really cheesy love songs and the likes, $25 fine, and Category C would be Crazy Frog, make it a 3-strike felony.

Anyone caught in 2008 with Crazy Frog as their cell phone ringtone deserves 25-to-life. Really.

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[zymano]

Asking someone to leave a library is not kosher. Thats up to the heads.

I need to bring Ipod into the bookstore where people might be trying to read a few pages and start singing to the tunes.

You are the real selfish jerk. Calling others who want some peace from technogadgetry as selfish is audacity.

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[Omestes]

As one of the few Americans who still enjoys silence, and peace and quiet, you are the selfish jerk here. Yes, that was flamebait, but justifiable. All of these cell-phone drones think that they should be able to do whatever they want just because they can, with no respect for others. To me this is the definition of selfish.

Why should I be forced to listen to your private conversations every time I go anywhere?

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[russotto]

All of these cell-phone drones think that they should be able to do whatever they want just because they can, with no respect for others. To me this is the definition of selfish.

Imagine, being permitted to speak, in public no less???!!! Very selfish.

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[Pig Hogger]

Just ask them to leave the library.

Feh. Once, I a library, I committed the cardinal sin of letting my cellphone ring (oh! The humanity!) As I headed to the bathroom 15 feet away, the noise made by the five employees who told me how sinful I was and to get out was much louder than my telling who called me to wait until I got to the can...

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[Nosferatu Alucard]

Where does "Journey - Ask The Lonely" fall in your list?

I'm a nice guy though, my phone is on vibrate whenever I am in a public place or expecting it to ring. The ringtones are for when my phone is across the room or walking around, since I can't feel the vibrations while standing.

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[avandesande]

I don't understand it either. Why can't people be alone for more than a minute at a time? What are we, a bunch of babies?

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[zymano]

If I am in the toilet stall right next to you and i have trouble dropping one because of your voice then i am going stick your head down the toilet.

Re:I hate loud stupid Cellphone users

[g253]

Especially women who babble endlessly about stupid trifling crap

So, you mean women in general then?
;)

Government Intervention

[manekineko2]

It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.

Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce.

Unless the cell phones present a safety concern, I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to be involved in banning in-flight cell phone use. If the free market turns out to be interested in having quiet flights without cellular phone use, then I'm sure carriers will be more than happy to offer flights and/or cabins that ban cellular phone use. There are already laws that make not complying with flight attendants a crime. If the market turns out to be more interested in the convenience of using phones on planes, then who are you to be telling them through the use of legalized government force to prevent airlines from serving those markets?

Other than the interference with navigational controls and ground based towers, which are supposed to be eliminated with the pico-cells, and which we'll soon get to the bottom of with the UK legalizing, I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this. The blurb about terrorism concerns and remote detonating bombs sounds like more pointless scare-mongering with no increase in security. The article itself admits that people are already surreptitiously using cellular phones.

It's nice that most Slashdoters don't want cell phones on planes, but it's downright screwed up to use governmental force to make everyone go along with it without a public purpose behind it.

Re:Government Intervention

[Gat0r30y]

You make an excellent point, but frankly, I'm just surprised that two massive government bureaucracies agree on something. By the way, my transmission lab professor once explained to me the intricacies of why cellphones aren't allowed on planes (incidentally, the very same reasons she did not allow cells into her lab, your phone rang in there, you were kicked out for the whole day!)-
1) It happens that most cells operate at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency as the GPS unit in the plane, and on the off chance that the two signals could interfere with each other during takeoff/landing the benefit does not outweigh the risk.
2)If you let them in, everyone is gonna be miserable listening to some prick blather on for half the day
3)You aren't supposed to go that fast while on a cell phone (this is just about on planes, not in transmission lab) - you switch towers too often, and it causes all sorts of shenanigans in the signals (this of course has been resolved by the brits by putting a PICO on the plane itself).

Re:Government Intervention

[morgan_greywolf]

The blurb about terrorism concerns and remote detonating bombs sounds like more pointless scare-mongering with no increase in security.

Well, it actually is possible to use a cellphone to remote detonate a bomb. Simply wire the 'ringer' speaker to the detonator (you may need a transformer to alter voltage and current characterists) call the phone from the ground and ... boom! In fact, terrorists have already been doing this for quite sometime.

Of course, you still have the problem of getting the explosive past the TSA and, additionally, since cell phones are already surreptitiously being used on planes anyway...the risk is probably not a lot different with and without legal cell phone use.

Re:Government Intervention

[geekoid]

I love how you lump us into one pool of the same mind~

"I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this."
As someone who has tested phone that were pulled from plane when the nav system started getting quirky, I would say yes, it is a government issue.

When pico phone come out, is everyone going to immediately get one?

"The blurb about terrorism concerns and remote detonating bombs sounds like more pointless scare-mongering with no increase in security."
true.

"but it's downright screwed up to use governmental force to make everyone go along with it without a public purpose behind it."
true, but there is a public purpose behind it.

Just so you know, sometime some model aren't manufactured to spec, and those cause a problem.
When I was involved, Nokia had a 'bad' st of phones. They were notified, and fixed it with the manufacturer. That was a while ago, and they weren't the only one, just the ones I looked at.

Re:Government Intervention

[morgan_greywolf]

Actually, come to think of it, you WOULD NOT have to get the explosive past TSA. Since this is remote-detonated, simply sticking the bomb on the plane while it was in a repair hangar would be enough. Heck, the would-be terrorist could just get a job as an airplane mechanic or a parts delivery person or something.

Re:Government Intervention

[TheRealMindChild]

I think the original reason for banning was being unsure whether it interfered with the operation of the plane. Sure, it PROBABLY won't, and on paper it shouldn't (just like needing to turn your cell phone off around explosive detonators), but no one was/is willing to take the chance until someone with authority could flat out say "It WON'T happen".
 
Now that we have finally gotten there, the majority still wants to keep the cell phone ban, but for more social reasons. They don't want to have to deal with jackasses all around them squawking like parrots, causing an already uncomfortable ride more uncomfortable. I honestly don't think anyone actually CARES who enforces it... just that it is enforced. So, sure, take it out of the FCC's/Uncle Sam's hands. I don't think anyone here would argue. They are just expressing, whoever's job it is to make this decision, be it the airline or whoever, WE STILL DON'T WANT CELL PHONES ON PLANES.

Re:Government Intervention

[indros13]

An excellent point.

Perhaps a compromise is to have airlines give announcements like in movie theaters - "please turn off your cell phones for the enjoyment of the other passengers." Or as another post suggested, let airlines ban cellphones as policy.

After all, a 2005 survey found that 63% of Americans do NOT want cell phones use to be allowed on planes.

Then again, with that kind of majority, maybe we should just pass a law...

Re:Government Intervention

[0xABADC0DA]

Unless the cell phones present a safety concern, I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to be involved in banning in-flight cell phone use. After hearing the "brrr brrr br br br br" come from all sorts of speakers -- even with the phone several feet away -- I feel like just having the battery in a cell phone is unsafe. Plane or not.

Re:Government Intervention

[GodfatherofSoul]

Gawd I hate Libertarians. If the last 7 years should have taught you anything, it's that government regulation is GOOD and blindly relying on profit motive to fix the ills of the world is BAD.

it's downright screwed up to use governmental force to make everyone go along with it without a public purpose behind it.

I think the posters have outlined enough of the public concerns.

Re:Government Intervention

[Forbman]

Plus, a GSM pico cell on planes might work fine in the US also, but we also have CDMA carriers (SprintNexTel, Verizon). So...what then? Probably lucrative to US airlines to do "exclusive" deals with AT&T, most likely...

Re:Government Intervention

[ptbarnett]

It happens that most cells operate at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency as the GPS unit in the plane, and on the off chance that the two signals could interfere with each other during takeoff/landing the benefit does not outweigh the risk.

No, cellphones operate in the vicinity of 800-900 MHz and 1.8-2.0 GHz, depending on which country you are in and which service provider you are using. GPS operates in the vicinity of 1.2 and 1.5 GHz. There are also the aircraft navigation and communication bands in the vicinity of 120 and 240 MHz.

You are probably thinking of WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. that operate in the unlicensed ISM band near 2.4 GHz.

However, it's possible that a malfunctioning cellphone (or even one working as designed) can emit a harmonic that falls into the aircraft navigation or communication bands.

You aren't supposed to go that fast while on a cell phone (this is just about on planes, not in transmission lab) - you switch towers too often, and it causes all sorts of shenanigans in the signals (this of course has been resolved by the brits by putting a PICO on the plane itself).

The FCC's problem with cell phones at altitude in a plane is blanking out multiple cell stations/towers, even across different cell phone systems in adjacent areas. The systems are implemented to cope with people in tall buildings and on top of mountains, but don't necessarily anticipate the guy flying over at 35,000 feet.

Putting the pico-cell on the plane addresses both problems, because the cell phone knows to cut back to minimum transmit power. If you try to use one on a plane at altitude, it will likely transmit at full power in an attempt to contact a tower -- and is much more likely to cause interference with avionics and terrestrial cell systems.

Re:Government Intervention

[msimm]

Maybe it's my threshold level, but I don't see a lot of such comments. But either way, I don't see the point of confusing a healthy distrust of government as anti-government. I think if you ask the average slashdotter if they support total deregulation they'd probably laugh at you. The only thing we trust less then government is unchecked business, you do the math.

Re:Government Intervention

[manekineko2]

I love how you lump us into one pool of the same mind~ I love how you read only what you want to see. There is a definite time and place for this argument you are forwarding, this is not it.
From my original post: It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.

Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce.

"I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this."
As someone who has tested phone that were pulled from plane when the nav system started getting quirky, I would say yes, it is a government issue.

When pico phone come out, is everyone going to immediately get one? I also love how you not only haven't read my comment, but you haven't read the article. The pico cell is a part of the plane, not the phone. In my own comment I stated that the safety concerns will soon be addressed by observing the UK deregulation experiment. Furthermore, the article states that the FCC will not revisit the issue even if safety concerns prove not be an issue.

Re:Government Intervention

[Original Replica]

If there are no safety issues involved, then the FCC and the FAA have no place in the discussions.

Sometime when people are forced to stay in close proximity to very annoying people, safety becomes a concern. I've seen tensions escalate very quickly when someone on a subway tells another passenger to turn down their headphones, and subway rides usually last less than half an hour. However, as the repercussions for getting into a fistfight on an airplane are more severe, so too must the regulations on other behaviors be more severe, since the normal coarse for the societal correction of unacceptable behavior is being artificially suppressed.

While many passengers would be grateful for the first person to punch out some cell phone screamer an hour into the flight, that person would still be facing serious legal trouble upon landing. As a fistfight between passengers is not a danger to the airplane's ability to complete it's flight, that would have to be unregulated along side the no cell phones rule.

Re:Government Intervention

[manekineko2]

What, you don't see a lot of pro-tech, anti-government regulation, or pro-banning cell phones on flights comments?

Are we posting on the same website right now?

Re:Government Intervention

[Azghoul]

It's never a good idea to pass laws based on a large majority's preference...

Re:Government Intervention

[manekineko2]

Yes, the public purpose from other posters apparently being "I don't like it, it would bother me and be too noisy." Which is clearly a decision that is too important to entrust to those dirty profit seeking corporations, with their motivations to please customers in order maximize profits.

Re:Government Intervention

[manekineko2]

Of course, 5 wolves and a sheep could also vote on what to have for lunch.

Maybe we shouldn't just pass a law for whatever the majority thinks unless it's a matter of major public concern such as safety, especially when it comes to restricting the rights of others (in this case the rights of the airlines to make the decisions for themselves).

Re:Government Intervention

[jareth-0205]

It happens that most cells operate at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency as the GPS unit in the plane, and on the off chance that the two signals could interfere with each other during takeoff/landing the benefit does not outweigh the risk. Hang on.... since when do aircraft use GPS for takeoff and landing? There's no way it can be accurate enough to do that! From what I remember there are transponders in the runway that the aircraft use, not GPS.

If you let them in, everyone is gonna be miserable listening to some prick blather on for half the day So what? How is this difficult from the bus, or the train? We don't regulate politeness.

You aren't supposed to go that fast while on a cell phone (this is just about on planes, not in transmission lab) - you switch towers too often, and it causes all sorts of shenanigans in the signals (this of course has been resolved by the brits by putting a PICO on the plane itself). So... er... your point is moot then?

Re:Government Intervention

[DaFallus]

I don't know, having your cell phone jammed into your god damn eye socket seems like it would be a pretty big safety concern to me. Then again, if they did allow this, I would just have to pack some noise canceling headphones to block out the sound of my own voice as I sing as loudly and as off key as possible.

Re:Government Intervention

[russotto]

1) It happens that most cells operate at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency as the GPS unit in the plane, and on the off chance that the two signals could interfere with each other during takeoff/landing the benefit does not outweigh the risk.

Whoever told you that was full of crap. GPS does not operate at cell phone frequencies, and neither cell phones nor GPS operates at 2.4Ghz. And the regulations pre-date the use of GPS on most planes.

Re:Government Intervention

[internic]

Well, it actually is possible to use a cellphone to remote detonate a bomb. Simply wire the 'ringer' speaker to the detonator (you may need a transformer to alter voltage and current characterists) call the phone from the ground and ... boom!

1) If the cell phone is used as a detonator in the checked luggage (or stashed by maintenance, or whatever) you could detonate it using a call from a phone on the ground just as easily. I don't see what that has to do with a ban on cell phone use in the cabin (given that phones are apparently able to at least sporadically contact ground networks).

2) It should be a relatively simple matter to make cargo containers block out all RF. In fact, if they're metal (and I think they are) they probably already do. If they don't, that's really foolish, because you definitely could remote detonate a bomb on a plane using other RF technology.

Re:Government Intervention

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.

Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce.

First, you must understand that every crowd generally has many ranges of different demographics, here, different people respond to different stories. I mean, the people that post in a story about the RIAA might openly talk about how they get their illegal copies of music, but those that post about a company violating the GLP license might have a different take on copyright laws and licenses. There may well also be people that have reconciled or justified both views as well.

One response to your observation is that most of the technologies "we" like don't involve devices that irritate everyone that's in the same, and sometimes, the next room, the devices that do make noise are usually used in private, not blaring or chirping in public. I wouldn't mind if they had wireless internet, but I'd hate to be in the same cabin as people running their phones in PTT mode, loudly chirping away and broadcasting the other end of the conversation for everyone to hear. I'm actually not sure how effective phones will be given how loud airplane cabins are, though not loud enough to drown out conversations you don't want to listen to, but loud enough to make listening through the earpiece a chore.

Re:Government Intervention

[morgan_greywolf]

That still doesn't cover the 'sneaking into the repair hangar as a tech' angle I mentioned above.

Almost any Slashdot reader has enough or could easily obtain enough knowledge to fake being an avionics tech. Now realize that many real terrorists have engineering backgrounds.

Damn. I'm freaking myself out here. I've got tingles down my spine now.

Re:Government Intervention

[internic]

I'm not disagreeing that it's a potential danger, but this doesn't seem to have any relevance to the article.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[Duradin]

I'd rather have a screaming baby free area. Cell phone blather mouths are annoying but they barely register on the wailing infant scale of annoyance.

There is also a correlation between screaming babies and puking babies. I'd pay extra for a baby fluid (and solid) free flight.

Talking of Non-Talking

[DaveInAustin]

Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time. Since we don't have smoking sections anymore, how about a quiet section. Amtrak and the TGV have a quiet cars. Smoke travels almost as well as sound. And if noise really troubles you, pick up some noise-blocking headphones or just some earplugs. Just don't wind up like this guy

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[jdigriz]

I'd pay up to 50 bucks extra per ticket not to have to listen to the bores next to me jibber-jabbering. Noise-canceling headphones don't work that well versus irregular noise like human speech. Bring back the phone booth! Of course maybe it would work just as well if I offered the 25 dollars to my seat neighbors directly to stay off the phone.

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[Skidge]

We used to have quiet cars on the commuter trains around here, but they discontinued them due to the increasing amount of people who were taking the trains. I guess they couldn't spare the space for the non-talkers with the ever-increasing number of talkers on the train. It was a sad day when that happened, and for a long time afterwards, there were nasty looks shot about the formerly-quiet cars as people blabbered into their cell phones.

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[Omestes]

I think that guy is my new hero.

Why the hell are people so frightened of silence?

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[pipatron]

Why the hell are people so frightened of silence?

It makes them have to think...

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[The End Of Days]

Why are people so frightened of other people talking? Didn't your mothers teach you how to ignore things?

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[Pig Hogger]

Amtrak and the TGV have a quiet cars. Smoke travels almost as well as sound.

Actually, no. When trains had smoking/nonsmoking sections, the air-conditionning was setup so that the nonsmoking section had a slightly positive air pressure compared to the nonsmoking, so that the smoke could never drift in the nonsmoking compartment.

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[Omestes]

Its hard to ignore some 16 year old girl screaming the intimate details of her sex life at her hand, 2' away from you.

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[Jerry Beasters]

EXACTLY! It's your responsibility to make sure outside sounds don't disturb you. In a public place, including a train, no one else has any obligation to how you think they should act. As I already said to someone in the comments, get off you high fucking horse.

Re:Talking of Non-Talking

[Achromatic1978]

Well, if you can't ignore it, turn it into a positive: record it, and sell it on a website!

"Give in to demand?"

[billlava]

I don't think US airlines will ever have to give in to demand... What are their customers going to do? Go on a European airline for their flight from LA to Denver?

Re:"Give in to demand?"

[Skidge]

If demand is such that people will pay more for it, they'll definitely give in. The airlines aren't exactly loath to add extra charges if they can get away with it.

Much simpler...

[SanityInAnarchy]

If cell phones are banned, they can still charge you a dollar a minute for the official in-flight phone service.

I really don't think there's any safety-related reason, even your "control of information" theory, especially if Oceana^WEurope is allowing them. Seriously, Britain seems almost more paranoid about terrorism than the US.

Re:Much simpler...

[AJWM]

Seriously, Britain seems almost more paranoid about terrorism than the US.

While I think Britain has gone way overboard in its domestic surveillance and control efforts, it does have historical reason to be more paranoid about terrorism -- namely decades of IRA bombings. (The deservedness or not of which is a separate issue.)

Technical difficulties

[Corpuscavernosa]

Verizon has enough problems switching between towers without dropping calls while I'm moving in my car. On a plane? Shit...

Re:Technical difficulties

[techpawn]

On a plane? Shit...

Oh no! does anyone here speak Jive?!

Re:Technical difficulties

[torqer]

You wouldn't be switching between towers at all. I'm pretty sure the summary mentioned "pico cells" which are basically mini towers. They don't need to be nearly as strong as a real tower because the even the longest plane in the world is only 75 meters (Airbus 340-600).

Perhaps thinking of them as repeaters is more effective. All of the phones on the plane connect to that one tower (pico cell), and then sends all of the communications to the ground.

Re:Technical difficulties

[torqer]

I duzn't wanna use mah' cell phone on some plane. What it is, Mama! ah' likes de boogie fum de co'po'ate leash.

Cell phones seem mostly harmless

[jd]

Sure, you'll get a lot of irritating jabbering, but you get a lot of that anyway, and I can usually hear the sound from the headsets in the next two or three seats, so I'm used to being irritated. I'm rather more concerned with the fact that the FCC started asking about wiring and suddenly all the airlines are inspecting like mad. I'm also rather more concerned with the fact that I cannot get a reasonable quote on the radiation exposure to passengers on international flights. The difficulty in getting that number makes me think that for some long-haul flights, air crew and possibly passengers are exceeding safe limits. Air crew in particular, as they fly a lot. I'm also rather more concerned with "air rage", where passengers - usually drunk from the duty free - go berserk. With the increased restrictions on movement on aircraft, I imagine the death rate from deep vein thrombosis has also risen. There have also been reports in the press about passengers being able to gain access to aircraft control wiring in some cases. Aircraft systems operate on ARINC busses, which are just very expensive RS-232 links with a published protocol.

So, between mechanical issues, mental issues and medical issues, I just can't see how cell phones could add a whole lot of risk.

Re:Cell phones seem mostly harmless

[ColdWetDog]

I'm rather more concerned with the fact that the FCC started asking about wiring and suddenly all the airlines are inspecting like mad

Well, that's the FAA and airline safety is their job. They are supposed to be looking at real and potential problems and mitigating them.

I'm also rather more concerned with the fact that I cannot get a reasonable quote on the radiation exposure to passengers on international flights. The difficulty in getting that number makes me think that for some long-haul flights, air crew and possibly passengers are exceeding safe limits.

Have you accepted Google as your personal search engine? You should consider this and be at peace with yourself.

I'm also rather more concerned with "air rage", where passengers - usually drunk from the duty free - go berserk.

So the idea of a drunken madman either trying to negotiate his cell phone or trying to turn off Chatty Cathy's strikes you as a good idea?

With the increased restrictions on movement on aircraft, I imagine the death rate from deep vein thrombosis has also risen.

Your imagination exceeds your critical thinking skills by a large margin. Your Search Engine of Choice can bring you back to something resembling reality.

There have also been reports in the press about passengers being able to gain access to aircraft control wiring in some cases. Aircraft systems operate on ARINC busses, which are just very expensive RS-232 links with a published protocol.

"Sir, sir - I say, yes - you with the breakout box, oscilloscope and wire cutters - would you mind putting all that stuff back inside the fuselage panel and returning to your seat?"

Thanks, but I'll reserve my imaginative moments to trying to figure out how to smuggle some shigawire on board. "No mamm. I don't know what happened. On moment she was jabbering on her phone and the next time I looked up her hand was on the carpet."

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[Original Replica]

I know a number of people who ride the commuter trains, and more and more of them are starting to carry these handy little devices. No, no one cares about how legal these are or are not. Turn them on just long enough for the offending phone to lose the call, and they are undetectable.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[qmaqdk]

Now, if they want to instigate a cell-phone free area at the front or rear of the plane like they used to do with smoking versus no-smoking sections then I say go-for-it... This is actually in place in the trains in Denmark. The seats don't cost more, and everyone who sits there are all looking for peace and quiet, so it works quite well.

Auugh! No!

[NotBornYesterday]

Make the damn cell phone addicts pay extra to fly cell-class!

The Real Reason

[amplt1337]

But if we allow cell phones on domestic flights, who'd use the $5-a-minute credit-card-op plastic phone from the seat in front of you?

Re:The Real Reason

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Who uses them in the first place?
I've been on several dozen flights--even flew first class a couple times--and I've never, ever seen anyone use the in-flight phone.

Lies

[mcelrath]

Mostly, I'm sick of being lied to in the "safety" spiel at the beginning of every flight. As TFA states, there is no corroborating evidence of interference with the plane's navigation systems. If there were, the FCC is not doing their job of certifying devices, and some heads need to roll over there.

I have no problem with turning them off, but stop telling us everything is for our "safety" and herding us like scared little sheep. People deserve to be treated intelligently, and with respect.

Re:Lies

[Detritus]

That isn't the FCC's job. The FAA certifies the hardware, including radios, used on an aircraft. The FCC's standards for consumer electronic equipment are not very stringent. They also lack the money and people needed to take an aggressive approach to enforcement.

Re:Lies

[mcelrath]

So 8 people accidentally leave their phone on in their purse/bag/backpack and the plane goes down? Never happened. People leave their phones on all the time. In Europe it's CD players they're terrified of. They fly the same planes the US does, Airbus and Boeing.

...the FCC and the FAA do not harmonize their regulations

As I said, heads need to roll. If there is actually a safety concern, the FCC and FAA are not doing their jobs.

Noisey enough already

[realsilly]

Airplanes are already cramped enough, oxygen levels per person were reduced years ago and the the planes are just loud enough already. Can you imagine a Red Eye across country, you're expecting to sleep through it (go go time travel), only to not sleep because some chatter bug is to hyperactive and must call every freaking friend / family / relative / wrong number imaginable to chat?

I can hear that high pitch whiny "Oh my Gawd, guess what so-and-so did?" "Eeeewww, I know." Blah Blah Blah.

I can just here the corporate asshole laughing about stealing some account from his co-worker. Augh.

No Cell Phones on Planes. PLEASE.

NV headphones don't block conversations

[Joce640k]

Those headphones only block constant background noise - which is the only noise which doesn't bother me!

Re:NV headphones don't block conversations

[Abcd1234]

He said noise blocking, not noise canceling. Think earplugs combined with headphones. Far superior to noise canceling phones, don't require any power whatsoever, and work fairly well versus speech (as well as any earplugs do, anyway).

Personally, I favour Shure, mainly because their soft plugs are better than virtually anything else on the market.

Mythbusters episode covered this

[dontmakemethink]

There was a Mythbusters episode (season 4 episode 6) where they got serious interference under test conditions with actual airplane instruments, but were unable to interfere with the instruments on an actual plane. They concluded that even though they couldn't create a hazardous situation, it would be an extremely bad idea to take the risk, since it is plausible and there's only one way to find out!

They also made a good point that air travel would be prohibitively expensive if insurance companies required airlines to verify that every component of every plane in their fleets were impervious to cel phone interference. That makes the $5 plane phone seem a lot less sinister.

Re:Mythbusters episode covered this

[ookabooka]

They were using older equipment. LORAN IIRC. I also think they were using the (mostly deprecated) old analog frequencies that car-phones and brick phones used to use. Also I think that they were spamming noise with and RF source (in the appropriate band) during some of the tests rather than using just the cellphone.

I'd have to re-watch the episode to make sure, but as I recall it was an extremely unlikely chain of events that is essentially impossible today with our GSM phones and GPS navigation.

Re:Mythbusters episode covered this

[Bagheera]

I remember the Mythbusters episode in question, and the conditions they were able to get "significant interference" in was Grant's mockup cockpit. While he put all the pieces together, he didn't put them together with the same levels of shielding that a real aircraft would have. When they moved to a borrowed corporate jet, they got no results as you pointed out. The difference being that an aircraft's controls and instruments are well shielded from stray RF interference.

I seem to remember their conclusion was based more on FAA regulations than anything else.

The reality is people leave their cell phones on all the damn time on aircraft. Phone signals are notorious for getting into nearby speakers and headphones, and I can't count the number of times I've heard the distinct "Dit-Di-Dit-Di-Dit" tones coming through my earphones. Did the plane fall out of the sky? Of course not! But the commercial airline and aircraft manufacturing industries are understandably conservative when it comes to safety. The type acceptance already included a broad range of tests to make sure the aircraft would reject unwanted interference, but they'd rather be safe than very, very, sorry.

Unfortunately, they already bend over for the Cellular Phone industry as it is. Why else would it be OK to use a cell phone on the ground a moment after landing, but NOT ok to use an iPod? The phone's orders of magnitude more likely to cause interference, yet the airline knows it won't. The difference here being that the cell system's happy to accomodate a bunch of people on a taxiing jet, while they have issues dealing with one crossing cell sites every 30 seconds.

Honestly, I'm perfectly happy to see the ban remain in place as long as possible. It's bad enough dealing with the clowns on phones trying to get in last minute calls before takeoff and all trying to talk over each other. Letting them do it in flight is just asking for -someone- to see if a cell phone can be jammed so far down someone's throat it comes out their butt.

Cheers,
Bagheera

Re:Mythbusters episode covered this

[Tatsh]

People actually listen to Mythbusters?

Re:Mythbusters episode covered this

[Jon_Hanson]

That's because cell phone towers concentrate their signal towards the ground where the users are. The article talked about putting a picocell in the aircraft that would give a connection to everyone's phone. You wouldn't want ground-based towers providing cell phone service to airplaces anyway. At 30,000 feet you're going to be in range of hundreds of towers and that's likely to confuse your phone and the network.

Re:Mythbusters episode covered this

[dontmakemethink]

I think your point about jamming phones down people's throats has as much or more merit as the potential for them to cause interference. I sure appreciate any sleep I can get on a plane, and even ringing cel phones will screw that up. Hysterical passengers have brought down more planes than idle cel phones (forced them to land for security purposes).

On my last flight I was coughing like crazy because my gate got changed and I had to run a little over a mile in under 10 minutes wearing winter clothes and hauling my carry-on etc. The flight ended up returning to the airport because there was a small fire somewhere on the plane, they sad it was the air conditioning (but who really knows). The passengers were more concerned with me, worried I was going to make them sick. I'm just not in olympic shape! And the mild smoke fumes sure didn't help.

Air travel makes people paranoid, even before 9/11, steps should be taken to minimize the threat of basic human nature. Cel phones don't help. Need to contact someone? Buck up and use the plane phone. Don't like it? Take a train.

What would make more sense is to have text messaging available, or better yet wi-fi. Oh, it's already in the works...

Re:Mythbusters episode covered this

[dontmakemethink]

I meant "covered it" from a journalistic perspective. How many experiments have you done on the subject? Should the Mythbusters decide whether cel phones should be allowed or not? They would be the first to say HELL NO!

The bottom line is they did demonstrate an undisputable example of cel phone frequencies really screwing with aircraft instrumentation. Like it or not, that's informative. They may be hacks in the scientific community, but they don't pad their stats or rig their experiments to achieve specific results. That's the entire appeal, they're regular curious nerds like us, with a budget and production crew.

I'm not even really a fan, I just have a lot of open time in the early evenings, as a touring musician and sound tech. I'll take Mythbusters over Survivor and Deal Or No Deal any day! (and my drummer is an incurable Discovery Channel addict)

What good is onboard Wi-Fi if...

[stewbacca]

...you don't have any flights?

American Airlines is looking like it will have onboard Wi-Fi within the next couple months, American Airlines is looking like it won't have any flights left, after canceling over 1000 flights this week so far.

Cellphones are just plain irritating

[LM741N]

And not because I can hear someone talking. Its the principle of it. I live near a beautiful huge park and within the last 5 years I've started seeing more and more people in the park constantly on their cell phones. I always thought the idea of going to the park was to get away from all of that. Airline travel is so miserable these days that I can't imagine adding one more inconvenience to it. Gee, can you use cell phones on cruse ships?

Re:Cellphones are just plain irritating

[Azghoul]

You should be happy that people are actually using the park.

Re:One good thing...

[geminidomino]

Sure, as long as her BT id is set to "That cute blonde in 23-d."

Demand?! Fah!

[Kelz]

>>"PM does note, however, that if the European mobile rollout is a success, US carriers might just have to give into demand."

Demand and US cell phones really doesn't compute, and I can't remember the last time that an airline or cell phone carrier gave in to "demand". Hell, 3g was just rolled out where I live, a major metropolitan area, and Europe is starting to roll 4g.

Re:One good thing...

[s0litaire]

That's half the fun ;)

I got the solution right here...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they start allowing cellphones on planes, then from now on every time I am scheduled to fly somewhere, I will ensure that I eat a couple of bean burritos before boarding the plane. If the person sitting next to me on the flight starts yapping on the phone and disturbing me, then I'll start farting at them.

Interference

[Phil Urich]

I thought the whole point of not allowing cell phones was that they cause interference. If wifi doesn't, and I can send VoIP over that wifi, how would that magically start causing interference?

Indeed, as far as I know the problem mainly is that one of the attributes of GSM is that does burst transmissions; that's how one of my friends always knows a second beforehand that she's about to get a call because her Clock Radio does a weird buzzing, the interference is in the audio stage of the electronics. Thus the pilots get annoying noises in the headphones if calls are coming in/out near them (proximity matters, although I don't know what the range tends to be).

This gets discussed from time to time on Off The Hook, I think they mention it in either the March 19th or March 26th episode because some of them were planning on flying out to Notacon on the private plane one of them has.

You've ALWAYS been able to make calls on ground

[wsanders]

There have never been any restrictions on calls on the ground, as long as the plane is not on the runway. When was the last time anyone got stuck in the air for three hours? That does not happen anymore.

Re:First

[Foobar of Borg]

Anonymous First Post?

No, but if they allow cell phones on planes, we'll hear a lot of idiots saying "Hey, first call!"

911 question: how did they call from planes?

[ClioCJS]

How did all the people on the 911 planes use their cellphones to call their families at the last second? How did those on Flight 93 get news about 911, so that they could crash the plane in Shanksville? Who gets reception on a plane?

Wi-fi vs. cell phone distinction

[belg4mit]

I'm curious about the logic of the pro wi-fi anti-cell folks here.
Several have hinted at this stance, but I've not seen much justification.
If you only have wi-fi, aren't the tweens just going to use skype
or some other internet telephony? Or will the wi-fi be throttled
to say 56k, and only be adequate for web-surfing?

i know why

[the brown guy]

FCC, FAA still don't want cell phones on planes because...They can charge people $9 CAD a minute (thats like $20 USD or something) to use their in-flight phones.

See: restaurant smoking bans

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Well, basically, there is probably a loud (figuratively AND literally) minority that really wants cell phones and a quiet majority who finds them annoying but doesn't consider it a deal-breaker. So an airline that allowed cell-phones would take a minor hit from those of us who hate blather, but that would be more than matched by the many people (especially business-class yammering jerks) who would love to talk on planes. As a result, the vast majority of planes would probably allow phones.

This is basically the same dynamic as smoking bans in restaurants. As long as smoking isn't banned by the government, lots of bars and clubs felt obligated to allow it, because losing all your smoker patrons (and their friends) would be a bigger hit than losing those people who absolutely can't stand being in a smoky bar. Thus, a whole lot of bars allowed smoking.

But lo and behold, once statewide or citywide smoking bans go into effect, all businesses are hit equally, smokers whine a bit, and nonsmokers get to go home without smelling like an ashtray. Same effect in reverse here: if the phone ban is lifted, all the sudden every flight in the nation is filled with cell talkers, and the rest of us are stuck grumbling about it.

Re:Auugh! No!

[jdigriz]

When I own an airline, I'll get right on that!

Bad reasons

[Sloppy]

Tech reasons are legitimate (if debatable) and (thankfully) probably solvable:

The agency [FCC] had long opposed cellphones on planes because of potential interference with ground-based networks, until new tech solved the problem. The key is pico-cell technology--cellphone calls are routed through a small receiver on the plane, which relays transmissions to the ground via a separate air-to-ground network. That lowers the power of the cellphone signal and reduces the chances of interference with other cellphone calls on the ground.

If the plane is so fragile that tiny battery-operated transmitters can mess it up, then ok, make people turn those off.

But these are all totally bullshit reasons:

The FCC received around 8000 comments, a large number of them from individuals opposed to the prospect of cellphone cacophony at 30,000 ft. The Flight Attendants Association also filed strong objections, saying it feared a sharp rise in rage incidents. And there was even a security warning from the Department of Homeland Security, which said terrorists could use mobile devices to detonate onboard explosives more easily--and coordinate attacks.

Noise sucks. But it's a fact of life. There are plenty of other places where people talk too, but we don't use government force against those people to make them shut up. What the hell is so special about an airplane? And if we do somehow come up with an argument about airplane specialness (e.g. an annoyed person can't walk out, once stuck in there), is it really a cellphone issue? There are still the inflight payphones that need to be banned, and let's get serious, there are still people being allowed to talk with one another. If people talking is really an intolerable problem, TSA should be fitting everyone with a gag when they board.

Re:Bad reasons

[The End Of Days]

I also have to wonder - why do 8000 crybabies get to set the policy for the rest of us? There is no right to be free of annoyance.

Missing the real point

[Gription]

The real issue weapons on planes...

Think about it. If they allowed people to yammer away (loudly) on their cells on airplanes (where we can't get away from them) the FAA/TSA would have to let us take our guns on the plane to shut them up!

Re:Missing the real point

[kehren77]

The real issue weapons on planes... Think about it. If they allowed people to yammer away (loudly) on their cells on airplanes (where we can't get away from them) the FAA/TSA would have to let us take our guns on the plane to shut them up!

I thought we needed to carry guns on planes to defend ourselves from the snakes.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[gad_zuki!]

If you use that on a plane dont be surprised if you end up in prison. I seriously doubt those things are 100% safe when it comes to avionics.

Re:One good thing...

[eln]

Sure, you spend the whole flight chatting up the "hot chick", and when the plane is getting ready to land, you tell her to meet you at the airport bar. You get there, and find the hairy 350 pound dude with sweat stains in the pits of his shirt that was giggling and shoving your seat forward the entire flight waiting there for you.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[dfm3]

Now, if they want to instigate a cell-phone free area at the front or rear of the plane like they used to do with smoking versus no-smoking sections then I say go-for-it...

Now there's a good idea. But let's make most of the plane phone-free, and require people to step out onto the wing to make a call.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[PitaBred]

I'd say that they're just as safe as any cell phone would be. They don't use much more power. The trick would be getting something that looks like a remote bomb detonator through security.

hardware hackers

[sgt scrub]

as many hardware hackers there are reading /. i would think this response would already be here...

It would be very easy to disguise a device that effects aircraft instruments as a cell phone.

Re:It's called EARPLUGS.

[PitaBred]

I used to think that way. And then a co-worker had a suitcase dropped on his head when he had his noise-canceling headphones on. I'm sorry... I use my ears to tell what the hell is going on around me because 90% of the upright-walking monkeys out there are too retarded to be trusted with even theoretically simple tasks, like pulling something out of the overhead bins without dropping it. I would also expect some common courtesy... I don't watch videos on the plane without headphones (that don't block all noise), I don't elbow the person next to me, and I don't kick the seat in front of me. We've all gotta share the same small space for a non-trivial amount of time... if people are too stupid and self-important to not be douches to those around them in those situations, we need to start making rules so that they HAVE to be courteous. Such as keeping cell phones disallowed.

Re:A demonstrative comment from TA

[PitaBred]

And you, an apparent douchebag, obviously don't mind someone kicking the back of your seat or sleeping leaning on you.

Wait, you do? Almost like someone is invading your space in an already too-close situation? Imagine that.

No, VoIP will be blocked

[walterbays]

They'll block VoIP in the initial sky Wifi: http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1506

I read a suggestion that when someone has a loud "private" conversation, you simply join into the conversation as they clearly intended all their neighbors to do by talking so loudly:

• "Oh you're right about that. I wouldn't put up with it for a minute. You should just tell him where to go."
• "How long has your sister had this disease?"
• "That's great news for you. I sure hope none of your competitors find out that you're going to bid 20k. Will you give me a call later and tell me how it comes out?"

Re:No, VoIP will be blocked

[mysidia]

You mean they'll try to block VoIP?

Until passengers figure out some creative tricks...

Like say tunneling VoIP over HTTP

Shut the hell up

[SoulMaster]

I want to know how many people who are opposed to cellphones on planes fly more than 2 or so times per year.

I'd wager that the frequent flying business people, who are the bread and butter of the airline industry are silent only because they lack the time to write the letter saying how much they love it.

John Q. and Suzy Public need to shut the hell up until they are top tier elite on any given airline. Let's wait and see how much they cry when all the flight prices double, and they just can't fly anymore 'cause that's coming.

My 2 cents.

Re:Shut the hell up

[cloudance]

Ok, I'll bite:

Me: Currently and for the past 5 years, United 1K (that's minimum 100 segments or 100,000 miles/year)
          2006 and 2007 Contenental Platinum (minimum 70,000 miles in a year in addition to above).
          Marriott Double Platinum (single platinum requires 100 nights a year+, dbl.plat. requirements are "undocumented")
          Hertz Gold President's Circle

          My current year-to-date mileage as of 31 March 2008: 47,393 BIS all on United
          This does not include the 6 segments (3 flights) I've taken since April 1 or the one I have at 3:40pm (EDT) today.
            (for those not used to the BIS acronymn, that's "BUTT IN SEAT", no bonus miles included)

For the past 3 years in a row, I've done between 150,000 and 210,000 miles BIS. I should cross over my million miles lifetime on United sometime in October if the current schedule continues. This does not include other airlines.

Scariest part of ALL those miles? Every last one of them from the past 4 years is *INSIDE* the contenental United States (although I expect a couple of international legs this year).

All that having been said:
IN NO F-ING WAY DO I WANT CELL PHONES ON MY FLIGHTS!!!!! NO WAY, NO HOW.

I'll take internet access in a heartbeat (play online poker as I traverse the country, catch up on /. etc) But please no phones!

Read www.flyertalk.com (home of all true road-warriors) if you want to answer your question SoulMaster...the airplane rides are our only down-time. We need to be left alone to decompress. If you could read the UAL Communispace (an invitation only site for top-tier UAL flyers to talk to management), you'd find the same. They asked us, the vote was 99.9% against cell, and 99.9% FOR internet with restrictions on VOIP. We all have noise cancellation or blocking headsets/earphones to shut out the world of other people talking, babies crying etc... we have to.

But please god, no cells on flights.
D.

so we have proof now

[commodoresloat]

Except for the fact that in the case of one plane, the one that went down in PA, some people on the plane were able to call out and notify authorities of their hijackings and provide some information as to the number of hijackers, weapons, etc. So it's true what they've been telling us all along -- cell phone usage on the plane leads to crashes!

Seems rather silly

[Tired and Emotional]

The two places for which a "cell" phone seems perfectly named are in the local police lock-up and in the back of a plane, and they won't let you use one in either.

No Problem

[shadwstalkr]

I don't have a problem with airlines allowing cellphone usage, as long as they charge $25/hour for the convenience, or the same as whatever ridiculous rate they'll charge for WiFi. Personally, I'm waiting for the credit card slot on the emergency oxygen masks.

Think about it

[GuNgA-DiN]

Why the HELL would you want cellphones on a flight anyway? You're flying from LA to NY and you got the ditzy college bimbo to your left and the sleazeball sales guy to your right. Six hours of this shit and I'd want to kill some people:

---------------------

Bimbo: "She like totally went to the store, and saw this like totally hot guy there. And I was like you want me to go to the store and like buy some milk? What-ever.I'm just, like, so there, you know?"

Sleazeball: Your name is "you're wanting", and you can't play the man's game, you can't close them, and then tell your wife your troubles. 'Cause only one thing counts in this world: get them to sign on the line which is dotted. You hear me you fuckin' faggots?

Bimbo: Okay, so you're probably going, "Is this like a Noxzema commercial or what?" But seriously, I actually have a way normal life for a teenage girl.

Sleazeball: That watch costs more than you car. I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close! You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you cocksucker? You can't take this, how can you take the abuse you get on a sit? You don't like it, leave.

Why not hospitals too?

[dontmakemethink]

Are airplane passengers in any less grave peril?

Do hospital patients/visitors have any less need to communicate?

Are medical devices any less shielded from interference?

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[MattskEE]

These devices are useful for people who are too scared or shy to approach people and ask them to hang up. Some people will hang up if you ask them, especially if you are polite. Others will not. And do you know why they will not hang up? It is because they have a right to use their phone on the train and in other public areas, and your needs and desires do not supersede theirs.

I highly doubt that you refuse to go to public areas where people are speaking amongst themselves, so why would a cellphone conversation be so much more aggravating that you would even want one of these? You don't know what you are interrupting, it could be an extremely important conversation, either business or personal, or it could be completely mundane. Either way, you don't have any right, legal or moral, to stop those conversations.

So please, stop being arrogant and laboring under the misconception that your desire for the absence of human voices on public transportation makes it all right to break the law and use one of these devices.

Re:I don't want to listen to my neighbor on a plan

[lareader]

Most of us DO know what we are interrupting, since that person is TALKING REALLY LOUDLY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE MAGIC MEN IN THE MAGIC DEVICE USE PIXIE DUST TO SEND THE WORDS TO THE OTHER PERSON.

No, it's not legal. Yes, it's rude. Yes, you may be an ass. Unfortunately, the same people that will not shut up about how high they are gonna get next Saturday are the same persons who will get pissed off if you should dare ask them to keep it down, or tell them that a public area might not be a good place to talk about drugs or personal problems.

Of course, the best thing to do is to join in the conversation - make the other party aware that there are others listening. That usually helps - and pisses off people.

But if you are afraid that someone will use violence against you, and you still want to terminate their phone call, then go ahead and use a device such as this. It is, as you pointed out, no different from being ass - except you are anonymous, and as the 'net shows us, everyone can be an ass when they're anonymous.

Doesn't really matter...

[FlyByWire63]

As a pilot for 27 years, I have tried to use a cell phone even from small aircraft flying at lower altitudes. Above 8,000 ft., I have never been able to maintain a connection for more than a few seconds after which the phone disconnects. Above 10,000 ft., I can't even get a signal. So, I believe the cell phone argument on planes is just a moot point.

The only way to get cell phones to work (especially in large passenger aircraft) would be to have an on-board repeater of some sort. And, given that airlines aren't really bursting at the seams with cash right now, I don't think it's something you will see very soon.

The Bus Uncle in the skies?

[Igarden2]

Anyone not acquainted with The Bus Uncle phenomenon is directed to search Wikepedia for it. Then ask if you really want to sit near a "Bus Uncle" on an airplane.

Cell Phone Suck

[bill_mcgonigle]

But people on cell phones always seem to talk too loud

That seems to be a problem with the cell phones themselves. Ever been in an Army tank? They make headgear that lets you talk quite clearly on the radio while in a tank, which is bone-jarringly loud. That kind of tech could probably be in a cell phone, except everybody is always trying to angle for 'free cell phones' and so they're cheap and the ones you pay for are trying to compete with that. Bummers. Anybody know of good Bluetooth headgear?

say inappropriate things, and have no awareness of the real world around them.

OK, technology can't actually solve those problems.

Re:Cell Phone Suck

[MoxFulder]

That seems to be a problem with the cell phones themselves. Ever been in an Army tank? They make headgear that lets you talk quite clearly on the radio while in a tank, which is bone-jarringly loud. That kind of tech could probably be in a cell phone, except everybody is always trying to angle for 'free cell phones' and so they're cheap and the ones you pay for are trying to compete with that. Bummers. Anybody know of good Bluetooth headgear? Cool! But don't those headsets require integration into a helmet for proper speaker/mic placement? And they probably cost several thousand $ too...

say inappropriate things, and have no awareness of the real world around them.

OK, technology can't actually solve those problems. Hehehehe...

How 'bout a device in your phone that will give you an electric shock... with Bluetooth integration? If you're annoying your neighbors, they can anonymously send you a mild shock. That'll train people out of it!!!

Red Pill

[bill_mcgonigle]

Damn. I'm freaking myself out here. I've got tingles down my spine now.

That's the feeling of realizing you're not perfectly safe on an airliner and can never be. You might also realize that the problem of airplanes-as-weapons was solved over Shanksville, PA by ordinary Americans an hour after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and that re-enforced cockpit doors make that scenario highly unlikely, yet we're spending trillions of dollars pretending it hasn't been solved. How deep exactly does the rabbit hole go?