In-flight Cell Ban Advances In Congress

narramissic writes "The awkwardly named Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (HANG UP) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote Thursday. The bill would make permanent the long-standing ban on in-flight cell phone calls by the FAA and FCC. 'Polls show the public overwhelmingly doesn't want to be subjected to people talking on their cell phones on increasingly over-packed airplanes. However, with Internet access just around the corner on U.S. flights, it won't be long before the ban on voice communications on in-flight planes is lifted,' said Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon who co-sponsored the HANG UP Act in a statement. 'Cash-strapped airlines could end up charging some passengers to use their phones while charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane,' he said."

Comments

or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

They could just let individual air lines react to market forces.

Re:or perhaps

[adpsimpson]

Then individual airlines could have clauses in their ticketing agreements like "Access for Suitably Surveyed Customers to Lousy Overcharged Wireless Networks.

Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws? PATRIOT, PRO-IP, CAN SPAM to name a few. If this law was called, for example, "On board communications act, 2008," I'd have a lot more time to listen to it.

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you think your voting record would look to the electorate if you voted against the "Protect Our Children from Internet Paedophiles and Terrorists" act? Even if that act was two hundred pages of paying for bridges in Alaska and allowing torture of US civilians without a warrant?

re:or perhaps

[dnwq]

They thought of that -

"The free market wasnâ(TM)t adequate to regulate smoking on planes and it wonâ(TM)t be sufficient to regulate cell phones either," DeFazio said. "I am pleased that we are taking steps to stop this disruption before it becomes an issue for American consumers."

Re:or perhaps

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws?

I was thinking about this recently after another story roused me into digging up the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act.

Turns out that while the contents of the bill end up integrated into the USC the title of the bill does not. So, at a minimum, congress can apparently use any stupid ass name they want without risking it becoming part of the official law. (That doesn't stop it from being documented in historical records of congress in the archives though, but only historians care about that.)

Re:or perhaps

[hummassa]

Have you tought that the Hill does not want you to "listen to it"? They want you to shut up and let they pass anything their heart desires and then you have to obey it.

Re:or perhaps

[sapphire wyvern]

What.

They really think that use of cellphones is on the same level as stopping a known carcinogen from cycling through the air of every one on board?

Good grief.

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

This article makes an excellent case for the addition of a 'retarded' tag

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Or preventing children's shrieks from piercing the ears of everyone on board?

Good grief.

Re:or perhaps

[Uniquitous]

I would support that legislation. Can we apply it to restaurants as well?

Re:or perhaps

[fortyonejb]

Having to listen to the 17 year old twit of a cheerleader next to me rambling on about her boyfriend and who he was or was not talking to at last weekends party would be much, MUCH more dangerous to my and her health than if she was smoking. I'm just sayin' is all...

Re:or perhaps

[mrops]

totally off topic, but your qoute reminds me of a story

Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."

Prisoner 650, missing since 2003 with her 3 children

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let's Roll"

Re:or perhaps

[Mr. Slippery]

They could just let individual air lines react to market forces.

Air travel is nowhere near a free market. So long as so much of the infrastructure - airports, air traffic control systems, air security and safety (which, living under flight routes, I take to be an important government job, at least until they let me install my own anti-aircraft battery) - is government provided, talk of "market forces" is just more of the Religion of The Invisible Hand.

Re:or perhaps

[johannesg]

They could just let individual air lines react to market forces.

I have no problem with that. Although it is difficult to bring a decent weapon on board a plane today, I am big and strong enough that I can strangle most cell-phone users with my bare hands and maybe a seatbelt (if it's a fatty). I imagine that after this has happened 4-5 times during a flight, the others might get the hint.

I would however suggest a new rule, which is that you can keep the seat of anyone you kill for legitimate reasons while in flight. And their laptop, of course - so you have a decoy for when you go through border security.

I mean, if ever there was an excuse for raging bloodlust, it is being packed into a tiny container with hundreds of other people, all yapping away at their cellphones... With no possibility of escape...

Re:or perhaps

[CastrTroy]

I'm not sure how things work in the united states, but it seems like up here in Canada, when they table a bill, it contains only relevant stuff so that the members of parliament, and the citizens, at least have a way of figuring out what's in the bill. Shouldn't it be against the law, or at least greatly frowned upon, to include a whole bunch of completely unrelated issues in a single bill?

Re:or perhaps

[lapagecp]

Ok I rarely pull the nanny state argument but this is rediculious. Its one thing to ban people smoking in a confined space filled with non smokers and its another to get congress together to ban people talking on their phones cause its annoying. This is a giant waste of time. How much money do you think it will cost to debate this in congress. Think of how much time and effort goes into each line item of a bill. Fix a bridge or something.

Re:or perhaps

[JasterBobaMereel]

Since banning smoking on planes the air quality has actually got worse because they don't have to constantly expel smoke and get fresh air into the system, they just recycle the cabin air ...

It's thought that this may be contributing to DVT ...

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

US Politics is quite unique in its widespread acceptance of completely unrelated amendments being appended to bills. It is on rare occasions useful but most countries either expressely dissallow it to help prevent corruption or frown upon it in all but those rare occasions.

I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where they go to Wasington D.C., noticing the bill with their unrelated amendment paperclipped the speaker proclaims "oh well, it's paperclipped."

Re:or perhaps

[CastrTroy]

That's when you get everybody in the plane going on a nice chorus of "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt", If people want to be annoying, we can show them what annoying really is.

Re:or perhaps

[springbox]

Because thinking of a backronym is the most important part of making a law

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly is 'they'?

Re:or perhaps

[Russ Nelson]

great idea, except then politicians would have to give up the thing that gets them contributions: control.

I see only one solution: revolution.

Re:or perhaps

[toriver]

The airline companies will just charge families extra for sitting in the "paedophile-free section"...

Re:or perhaps

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws? PATRIOT, PRO-IP, CAN SPAM to name a few.

It's because satire is a dead art in America. Only the Onion has any idea how to lampoon the absurdity in American politics, and slowly but surely, the real world is getting ever closer to the Onion's fantastic spoofs. Basically, you have no real media, no actual fourth estate, that is capable of holding your government up to independent scrutiny.

Re:or perhaps

[Provocateur]

I don't want market forces to determine this. I want Live TV survivor type shows to do that job. Consider this scenario:

One plane, with an open bar, and 6 seats. LA to NY. Each seat is equipped with a cell phone. Unlimited phone time. On the roster: 100 passengers. all waitlisted, 100 meters away from the plane, waiting on the tarmac. They get to use whatever means necessary to get to those seats. No rules. If clothes have to get ripped off in the process, so be it. THere is also a mud trough about 15 feet by 30 feet that they must cross...

I'd watch it. Fetch me those brewskis, Martha, this is going to be good TV.

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet this provids no protection for either of you if the 17 year old twit has her friend on the plain with her and you can hear both of them rambling.

Re:or perhaps

[Main Gauche]

"They could just let individual air lines react to market forces."

Or maybe at least a few politicians realize that, if airlines can so openly collude on prices, they can probably collude on any other policies that generates the most revenue.

You would agree that a monopoly airline would not have to react to "market forces" right? They could make whatever rules (e.g. charge for cell phone access) earn them the most revenues. Well what makes you think that a mere handful of collusive airlines acts much differently than a monopoly?

This is no free market. If you want a textbook example of barriers to entry, use the airline industry.

Re:or perhaps

[SpiderClan]

The best bet to avoid that is to vote for the "Stop tacking unrelated shit onto legislation" act, which everyone should vote for, anyway, since the current way things are done is just dumb.

Re:or perhaps

[mrdoogee]

I dunno, plains are pretty big. The one in the American midwest is almost 1000 miles wide. Now, a plane is completely different.

Re:or perhaps

[ravenshrike]

Incumbent senators and reps.

Re:or perhaps

[JavaStreet]

Then individual airlines could have clauses in their ticketing agreements like "Access for Suitably Surveyed Customers to Lousy Overcharged Wireless Networks.

Seriously, what's the obsession with rediculous names for laws? PATRIOT, PRO-IP, CAN SPAM to name a few. If this law was called, for example, "On board communications act, 2008," I'd have a lot more time to listen to it.

Seriously, most people actually believe the title of the bill. I have found that the title usually says the opposite of what the bill actually does.

Re:or perhaps

[anexkahn]

I second that!

Re:or perhaps

[Miseph]

Which is why you should elect the other guy. He totally believes that you should have a say in politics and doesn't want you to simply shut up and obey.

"The Other Guy in '08!"

Re:or perhaps

[kalel666]

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt

Holy shit! His name is my name too!

Re:or perhaps

[truesaer]

I totally agree, I too would much prefer the cancer to having to listen to some pompous salesman or 13 year old girl chatter on their phone for 5 hours.

Re:or perhaps

[SanityInAnarchy]

Given that:
  - It's noisy on planes
  - If you didn't bring headphones, you can ask for them
I'd say you don't have to listen to her at all, if you don't want to. The point is whether you not listening should also force her to not talk.

Re:or perhaps

[Rub1cnt]

So..I'm thinking of sponsoring some citizen sponsored legislation...and I have a foolproof method of getting it passed.. call it "the Civil Rights Act of 2008"...1200+ pages of no changes...and a few major changes interspersed throughout the bill..since no one really reads it. These changes being: Repeal the DMCA, Classify the RIAA/MPAA as extortionists and sponsor asset seizure of thier assets...and a few other juicy tidbits. Any sponsors?

Re:or perhaps

[tist]

That's a great idea! Then we would have the "family section" - so business travelers don't have to put up with screaming kids, the "crackberry section" (also the cell phone section) - for those who's connection to the office must be continuous else the entire organization will fail (or who are 17 yr. old girls), the "conducting business" section - for those business travelers who can only complete the big deal on a plane, the "sweethearts section" - this is slashdot, so you wouldn't understand, the section for "those who can have a conversation while both speaking simultaneously and without stopping to take a breath", and finally the "can I just get a little peace and quiet section so I can do a little work, read or sleep?" (where I will be).

Re:or perhaps

[Rub1cnt]

Coming from a group of IT geeks...how about this? It's radical, it's a bit of payback....How about we outsource congress? :)

Re:or perhaps

[Rub1cnt]

I for one support the Klingonizing of the American Airline system. This gives a WHOLE new slant to "upgrading to first class" :) Over the intercom is heard: "Next up in the central bar is the passenger from Coach 22A vs the Affluent media playboy in first class cabin 7 in a fight to the bitter end!" "Remember, in the ThunderBar, Two go in, one gets UPGRADED!"

Re:or perhaps

[Rub1cnt]

Up next on Survivor:Airliner....

Re:or perhaps

[torstenvl]

That's not exactly true. The names aren't usually codified, but occasionally they are. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. ch. 4, available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sup_01_47_10_4.html.

Even if the names themselves weren't codified, some statutes refer to legislation by name. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(4), available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986...").

Even if neither of those were true, however, the name of the legislation is often used by the judiciary to determine what Congress's intent was. See, e.g., Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf (resolving an ambiguity in the Communications Decency Act based on the name of the legislation).

So I don't think it's true that "only historians care" about the names of legislation, because judges care, and to the extent that judges are in charge of interpreting legislation and therefore determine what the law is, anyone interested in knowing what the law is cares.

Re:or perhaps

[nabsltd]

I think the "CAN SPAM" law pretty much does what it says on the tin...it allows even more people to send spam.

Re:or perhaps

[j01123]

Or maybe at least a few politicians realize that, if airlines can so openly collude on prices, they can probably collude on any other policies that generates the most revenue.

If that was the concern, then Congress could require airlines to allow passengers to use cell phones without being charged.

In fact, most airlines already have their own, extraordinarily expensive, in-flight phone services. You could make a much better argument that this existing state of affairs is the result of collusion, and that the best way to break it is to mandate free cell phone use on all flights.

Re:or perhaps

[immcintosh]

Or perhaps the people with the most money are going to be the rude asses talking nonstop of their cell phones, and your suggestion lets market forces prevail over common decency. I'd rather not take my chances!

Re:or perhaps

[jeepien]

I'm not sure how things work in the united states, but it seems like up here in Canada, when they table a bill, it contains only relevant stuff....

Things work differently enough that the verb "to table" has exactly the opposite meaning. In Canada, tabling a bill means bringing it to the table for discussion. In the US, tabling a bill means ending discussion, tossing the bill on the table, and forgetting about it forever.

Re:or perhaps

[saintsfan]

I agree, it seems like unnecessary regulation. Then again, a long flight with a dummy on a cell phone could drive someone crazy. I guess if passengers complained to the stuards, they could ask the person to hang up.

Re:or perhaps

[kbielefe]

Several of the states have constitutional provisions against it, but not the federal government. A regular law won't work because Congress would just change the law and go about business as usual. There are certain points in the process where only germane amendments can be accepted, but they are mostly to move things along and are easily circumvented at other stages.

The degree to which the practice is "frowned upon" is inversely proportional to the degree to which one agrees with the provision trying to be piggybacked. One side does it because the other side got away with it last time, and members of Congress have to resort to more and more tricks to get their ideas considered fairly.

The rules originated in a much more genteel time. Reading about the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, sure there was plenty of disagreement, wheeling, and dealing, but there were also times when delegates would completely change their mind based on another's argument, saying they hadn't thought of it that way before. While they pressed for their own interests, they also gave due consideration to the interests of others. Even though no one got exactly what they wanted, each state, southern or northern, large or small, had their most important concerns addressed to their satisfaction in the Constitution. The politics were heated, but ultimately cooperative.

The best word to describe the current state of Congress is "obstructionist." If you asked our current representatives to draft a constitution from scratch that could get successfully ratified, I doubt they could accomplish it. They rely on blocking each other, shutting down dissenting viewpoints, and cheap parliamentary maneuvers to sneak or ram their ideas in, depending on whether they are in the minority or majority, rather than persuasion and compromise.

Have you ever watched a modern Congressional "debate?" They aren't debates at all, but merely two sides taking turns giving speeches to the camera without any notice of each other, having already firmly made their decision before even entering the building.

Re:or perhaps

[Muad'Dave]

My latest favorite conspiracy theory revolves around the T.R.E.A.D. Act, which, as you can probably guess, deals with tires. The conspiracy part arises from embedding RFID tags in them to surreptitiously track people.

From this article:

"Tires have to have a unique identification number called a DOT number," he said. "Cars have a vehicle identification number. Under the TREAD Act, carmakers have to associate the unique number on each tire with the VIN of the car it's put on. RFID offers a cheaper way to do that association."

Re:or perhaps

[Muad'Dave]

How would it look to vote for the "Prevent Every Random Violation of Eager Redheaded Teens" Act?

Re:or perhaps

[John Betonschaar]

I don't know much about US air traffic, but where I come from (Europe) most of the time you don't have much of a choice when you have to fly to a certain destination. It's either fly directly from the closest airport to your destination, or add hours or even days to your trip to drive to another airport, changing planes etc. I hardly believe someone will drive from Amsterdam to Dusseldorf to catch a BA flight that first goes to Heathrow to change planes for a direct flight to LA, when they can also catch a direct KLM flight from Schiphol, Amsterdam, just to prevent sitting next to someone calling from the plane the entire flight.

So having 'market forces' decide will most likely result in people getting excessively annoyed by voice conversations on a plane...

Re:or perhaps

[WNight]

Exactly.

It's not like she wouldn't be saying exactly the same things to her friend if she were there.

People get so huffy over cell phones because they can, like cameras, it's a behavior they notice and can criticize, so they do. Talking is too normal to bitch about, but talking into a phone! The general human nature of wanting to make other people stop doing things they enjoy leads to trying to make the activity illegal.

Finally, as someone said at the top of the thread, can't we just let the market handle this? Let an airline run phone-free flights and let people choose? At least that way it doesn't require a law to enforce, just your contract with the airline.

There ought to be a law against crazy laws...

Re:or perhaps

[WNight]

That's why we should immediately terminate every government subsidy to the airlines.

Sure, tickets will be more expensive, but at least the airlines will have an incentive to try to save money. Tax money is addictive, you have no incentive to try to cut spending.

The video/tele/VR-conferencing industry should lobby to remove airline subsidies, the real costs of face-to-face meetings would help drive the creation of alternatives.

Re:or perhaps

[inviolet]

This is no free market. If you want a textbook example of barriers to entry, use the airline industry.

Do you know how many airlines are now operating? There are 18 major carriers, and dozens of regionals and commuters. Many of them are young, so whatever barriers you think there are, they aren't disproportionate to the number of players that the market needs in order to be efficient. In fact there are probably too many -- think about the cost of duplicating the maintenance, luggage, and ticketing infrastructure eighteen times.

And besides, do you know how hard it would be to orchestrate any sort of monopolistic action between 18+ players, when any single player could then jump the fence and spoil it?

Re:or perhaps

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The names aren't usually codified, but occasionally they are. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. ch. 4,

Ok, but from my way of looking at it, they realized they made a mistake by including the name so they completely nullified the entire chapter 7 years later just to fix that error. :)

Even if the names themselves weren't codified, some statutes refer to legislation by name.

Well, that's cheating. The reference to the ECPA does not come from the ECPA itself, it came from another bill passed almost ten years later in 1996. The ECPA did not include its own name in the statutes.

Even if neither of those were true, however, the name of the legislation is often used by the judiciary to determine what Congress's intent was. See, e.g., Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf (resolving an ambiguity in the Communications Decency Act based on the name of the legislation).

As we all know, that's just dumb given how frequently the names of bills are just political cover for changing the law to do the exact opposite, and in this case I think the court erred. But hell, reading that decision is weird. They sure seemed to rule the opposite of the way they were talking about the good samaritan clause.

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

That bill would never pass - STUSOL is a terrible accronym.

Re:or perhaps

[TheCastro]

You're just mad at cheerleaders because you never got to date one, and they probably made fun of you. You would have said some annoying girl or teenage drama queen or the such.

Re:or perhaps

[jelton]

I read the quote as: "Market solutions might work, but we don't want to have to pay extra for a no-call flight or section. Just like smokers shouldn't be able to pay extra for a smoking flight. Critics of this trend who babble on about freedom of choice and letting the market dictate what options exist for consumers are freedom-hating terrorists."

Re:or perhaps

[Tolkien]

What the hell does POCIPT mean? Why should I vote for something I can't pronounce?

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. That decision is one of the more straightforward decisions on Section 230 immunity (or quasi-immunity). Easterbrook is renowned for being a good writer. The reasoning is this:

The Good Samaritan clause purports to give broad cover if providers decide to filter the content they host (e.g., if YouTube actively sought out porn uploaded to its servers and deleted it).

The Publisher clause might or might not give broad cover if providers decide NOT to filter the content they host.

If the Publisher clause does give broad cover, then there's broad cover if providers filter AND if they don't filter. Filtering takes effort. So if that's the case, providers probably won't filter.

But it doesn't make sense for legislation called the "Communications Decency Act" to set up a situation where providers probably won't filter out obscene materials. Therefore it doesn't make sense to read the intent of Congress as wanting to set up that situation. Therefore the Publisher clause can't be interpreted as giving broad cover.

Incidentally, this is the minority view on this topic. Almost all the other circuits have a broad-immunity rule or no rule yet at all.

Also incidentally, even though the Publisher clause was ruled not to give broad cover here, they still held that Craigslist wasn't liable.

Re:or perhaps

[Guppy06]

"They could just let individual air lines react to market forces."

If they did that, there'd be no airlines.

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

How would bridges to nowhere get built? Dammit man, you're screwing with our local economy with a proposal like that!

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Nasty story. Pity it's just some random anonymous person on the Internet making unsubstantiated claims. Forgive me if I don't rush out and join a mass protest just because someone on the Internet is convinced that 2 + 2 = 144,000.

Re:or perhaps

[Haeleth]

Firstly, people talking on cell phones talk louder than people talking to someone sitting beside them. Particularly when there's a lot of background noise, e.g. on a plane.

Secondly, many people find one-sided conversations harder to screen out than two-sided conversations.

Both these things combine to make the cell-phone case significantly more annoying.

Re:or perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know much about US air traffic

No... no you don't =(

Internet access just around the corner?

[ah81]

Lufthansa already did onboard wifi on flights to America, for only $20 a trip too. They stopped offering it because there was no demand!

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[Erie Ed]

After flying on Lufthansa i can safely say that the american airline companies can learn a lesson or two from them.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[mikkelm]

IIRC, there was plenty of demand on the planes that had them, but not enough overall demand from airlines for the Connexion by Boeing system it ran on. It was an excellent system, and I saw many people with their laptops out browsing webpages on the Connexion flights I found myself on.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[Anonymous Coward]

> After flying on Lufthansa i can safely say that the american
> airline companies can learn a lesson or two from them.

I agree, and Lufthansa is one of the worst of the European airlines. I simply do not fly on a US carrier anymore if I do not have to.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[jeremyp]

Only $20 per trip? Even if the cost to the airline justified the price, I think I'd probably just manage without World of Warcraft for the duration than pay $20 when the hotel at my destination will probably give it to me for free, or at least a lower price.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[ah81]

$20 for a 6 to 12 hour flight is an excellent deal. You pay $5 a damn minute to use the phone!

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[mrdoogee]

offtopic a bit, but whenever I hear Lufthansa, all I can think of is the Luftwaffe.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[TheRaven64]

$20 for a 7-hour transatlantic flight is under $3/hour - a lot less than a lot of WiFi hotspots. For personal travel, I probably wouldn't pay it, I'd just read a book on the flight. For business travel, being able to check and reply to my emails on the flight is probably worth $20.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[R3d M3rcury]

Depends on the length of your trip.

You're right. I wouldn't pay $20 for the three hour jaunt up the coast. I might pay the $20 for the five hour flight to Chicago. Depending on when it left, I'd probably pay $20 for the 12 hour flight to Taipei.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[pimpimpim]

Hmm, the "commies" in Europe let stuff just solve by itself using supply and demand, whereas the "land of the free" needs to think of joke laws to regulate this kind of stuff. Isn't anything what it's supposed to be anymore?

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[jeremyp]

Or you could save yourself $20 and do without the Internet for a few hours.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[jeremyp]

For business travel, being able to check and reply to my emails on the flight is probably worth $20.

No it isn't. Not unless you can demonstrate that answering your e-mails on the flight rather than waiting until the aeroplane has landed makes your company more than $20.

Re:Internet access just around the corner?

[XP_sucks]

Let see... the company is already paying me $75-100/hour just to sit in the plane. For another $3/hr I can get work done during the flight, that I have to do and that I would otherwise have to do once I land, rather than being able to do other stuff. Makes PERFECT sense for business traveler.

Good!

[Fungus King]

Why do people need to use their phones in-flight anyway? I can understand the need for communication for people travelling on business to keep in touch with their office, but what's wrong with e-mail? A large number of people find flying an uncomfortable/annoying/stressful etc experience as it is without having to hear people talk over everyone else so someone elsewhere can hear them. I know the modern world is fast-paced, but honestly, it can wait, can't it?!

Re:Good!

[Opportunist]

Did you ever try explaining to your boss how to use email on a foreign network?

Re:Good!

[bwalling]

While a majority may wish to have no cell phones on airplanes, it is no business of the government to pass a law regarding such a thing. If there were safety concerns, they could enter a say in the matter, but they have no business passing laws over a perceived desire for less chatter. This would get slammed in a court, so why should they even bother wasting our time and tax dollars?

Re:Good!

[LukeWebber]

Perhaps because there's not a lot else to do. Seriously, you're stuck in a cramped airline seat. Why not catch up on your calls? As long as you're not swearing and/or speaking over-loudly, what's the big deal?

I know how this sort of movement takes root. You hear some loud wanker mouthing off all through a two-hour flight and you think "those things should be banned". You forget about the times you've taken a call from your daughter, quietly cleared up a little problem and rung off. Mobile phones are a part of life, and there are always tossers who will piss you off in the way they use them, but that's just business as usual. deal with it and move on.

Re:Good!

[adpsimpson]

I totally agree with you - I hate overuse of mobile phones (ok, I'm British) in public places.

However, I own a mobile phone, and at times I've been known to use it. In a public place. Maybe even on a bus or train. And I might even start by saying "I'm on the train..." And this may be more convenient than other methods - it's the only way I have of communicating from, eg, an airport or a bus-stop, it's instant, it's voice communication, it's reasonably cheap, it takes no setup, etc etc.

Making them illegal in any situation is not a sensible reaction. The law smacks of the "Get off my lawn" attitude of people who hate everything the "youth" do "nowadays," and react to new technology by banning it, instead of rational law-making for the good of society.

A much better solution exists on most long-distance trains in the UK now, where there are 'silent' carriages. When travelling with friends, I'd never go in them, as I'm probably one of the people they target. But when I'm alone, I love the ability to travel quietly.

Re:Good!

[Albanach]

What if you support the email server and it's down? There must be thousands of small firms that employ a single geek. Or those with no IT staff at all, where one member of staff with other responsibilities gets their hands dirty.

Re:Good!

[Ngarrang]

While a majority may wish to have no cell phones on airplanes...

The majority is ruling, and complaining, about a minority that is making itself so obnoxious as to border on rude. If these cell phone talkers had any sense of respect of others and would turn off their digital leash for the flight, we wouldn't have this problem. But, noooo, we get hear all about Aunt Edna's colonoscopy and your cousin Fred's erectile dysfunction problem.

Re:Good!

[Fungus King]

Personally I think it's the business of the government to protect the interests of the majority... maybe... I'll have to think about that a bit more.

Anyway. I'm English and there might be a different majority opinion in this country compared to the US (where I'd expect a more 'it's our right to use our phones on the plane'-type stance)... my personal opinion is that using a phone in a situation where you have to raise your voice significantly to be heard above the ambient noise - and subsequently by everyone else - is pretty rude - which is why I wouldn't inflict my conversation on anyone else (unless it's absolutely necessary, but it's hard to conceive of a situation where that might be the case).

Perhaps it's a bit like the smoking ban in this country - most people don't want to breathe the smoke of others, the majority are happy about the ban, but there's a loud collection of unhappy smokers (obviously). To be honest they can moan all they want, it's not like the government's confiscated their cigarettes!

Re:Good!

[Fear the Clam]

Did you ever try explaining to your boss how to use email on a foreign network?

+1 Insightful, been there, got the tee-shirt, and chewed through it in frustration

Re:Good!

[Mateo13]

I find it stressful to walk around in a city I'm not familiar with. Maybe they'll pass a law for me that says no one can talk on a cell phone on the side walk next. What biz it is of the governments to tell me where I can and can't use my cellphone?

Re:Good!

[jcrousedotcom]

You hit the nail on the head - but they have proven many times that they really don't care about what is really important. They are too worried that someone might be using steroids to hit one more home run.

I am not really sure how things like this cell phone ban, steroid use or a hundred other things I could talk about that they focus on become agenda - it appears to me that the gov't is trying to accomplish two things:

1. Power. The power that congress has has been a little unchecked and is abused for both professional and personal gain tons of time. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

2. Justification. They need to justify why they are there. It is kind of like when the Hollywood types talk about things they have little or no knowledge of. They are trying to justify their position or title.

I don't know what the fix is for the government thing. Unfortunately it is few and far in between folks that actually care. Look at the voting rates. I truly think that we could eliminate a good portion of our deficit spending just by not wasting tax dollars on things like this Cell phone ban.

Just my two cents. Thanks for letting me use my soapbox. :)

Re:Good!

[jeremyp]

I'm English too, but I disagree with you.

The government has no business legislating against rudeness. Talking loudly on a mobile phone is obnoxious and rude, but so is talking loudly. Are you going to make that illegal? What about listening to MP3 players? Or queue jumping? Or picking your nose? Or farting?

Smoking in an enclosed space is obnoxious and rude, but it is also harmful. That's why it is banned in the workplace in the UK.

Re:Good!

[DDLKermit007]

Eh? The government is by the people, for the people. If a cellphone ban is representative of anything, it's representative of a FUNCTIONING system. The government types sit up in first-class or have jets chartered. This cellphone thing means nothing to them. The majority wanted it made law to not allow smoking in many states if the business serves food, and shockingly it happened! I don't smoke personally nor really agree with say my own state's law (Nevada) where you can't even smoke in bars if they have food (it's a bar for christ's sake!). It's majority rule at the end of the day.

The MAJORITY doesn't want to hear about your kid's tooth they lost, or uncle Thom's rectal exam. To be honest I'm with them on the sentiment. If I'm stuck in one location for hours on end I'm getting some sleep. Anything urgent will be in voicemail or text message form when you land. You sure as hell won't be doing anything about it before you land. And if your really too important to be disconnected that long, you one need a reality check, and two you should send someone "less important". God knows the world can't go on without you if that plane were to crash!

I'll take that soap box and burn it for you thank you very much. Threadjack a real instance of government gone awry please. This is not one of them.

Re:Good!

[Shakrai]

The majority is ruling, and complaining, about a minority that is making itself so obnoxious as to border on rude. If these cell phone talkers had any sense of respect of others and would turn off their digital leash for the flight, we wouldn't have this problem. But, noooo, we get hear all about Aunt Edna's colonoscopy and your cousin Fred's erectile dysfunction problem.

Then wouldn't it be more logical for the airline to ask that person to desist from the obnoxious conversation then to get Congress to ban the usage of something that most people are quite capable of using without annoying those around them?

Re:Good!

[Ngarrang]

Then wouldn't it be more logical for the airline to ask that person to desist from the obnoxious conversation then to get Congress to ban the usage of something that most people are quite capable of using without annoying those around them?

Next time a cell phone talker lights up their phone next to you on a bus, the street, anywhere...ask them in a pleasant voice to stop talking on the phone, it is causing noise pollution. Let me know the response you get.

The last time I did just that, using words like 'please' and a pleasant tone of voice got me a look that "f--- you" and they kept on talking.

Re:Good!

[Grey_14]

mm, Now that's a no-fly list I could get behind: "I'm sorry sir, you can't board this plane as apparently you are a registered ass-hat"

in b4 all the obvious jokes about ass-searching (Wait what forum is this again?)

Re:Good!

[Shakrai]

Next time a cell phone talker lights up their phone next to you on a bus, the street, anywhere...ask them in a pleasant voice to stop talking on the phone, it is causing noise pollution. Let me know the response you get.

The last time I did just that, using words like 'please' and a pleasant tone of voice got me a look that "f--- you" and they kept on talking.

You don't have a right to complain about it on the street as the street is a public place the last time I checked. On the bus or airplane you can complain to the driver or flight attendant. If they refuse to do anything about it then next time fly/ride on a carrier that does.

In short let the marketplace decide and don't turn to the Government to outlaw something that's merely annoying and not actually dangerous or harmful. I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty tired of the nanny state.

Re:Good!

[Grey_14]

That's probably true of anything, There are always people who will take ANYTHING and make it annoying, everyone just happens to have a cell phone nowadays so people who would have been idiots with overly loud mp3 players, portable dvd players, asking you every other word on a crossword, etc. just have a more common thing to annoy people with, I don't really think any of those things should be banned by the government.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it that really makes a cell phone conversation (proposed illegal) more annoying than an in person conversation (legal)? It's either the volume of the voice, or the annoyance of having to eavesdrop on a fragmented conversation. Sorry, the gubment can't help with #2, because it's noneyerdamnbusines.

The answer to the volume problem is the make the amplifiers in cellphone earpieces louder, and the mic's more sensitive and directional. A lot of the mics use so much compression that all the ambient noise around the talker gets brought up to the same level as the speaker, causing them to have to yell, which has a barely useful effect.

Re:Good!

[DDLKermit007]

Seriously? The plane will land in a few hours. If your too important to be disconnected for that long, you need to send someone less important, and do a reality check. It's all about choices. People on international flights need not be making calls especially. Those 10+ hour flights have 1/3-1/2 the passengers sleeping at any given time. Those sleeping passengers will happily show the first person who makes a voice call to some fresher air the moment you start up a conversation on Skype. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!?!?!?

Re:Good!

[aj50]

VPN Go!

To be fair, my boss is technically very competent so I've never had the problem of explaining something like this but I've never seen an easier way to use local stuff remotely.

At work, plug in, open outlook.
Away from work, plug in, run OpenVPN, open outlook.

Sorted.

Re:Good!

[Colonel Korn]

This would get slammed in a court, so why should they even bother wasting our time and tax dollars?

How is it unconstitutional?

I regretfully agree with the posters here saying this is outside reasonable bounds of congressional interest, but at the same time I'm glad they're doing it. Otherwise, airlines would allow cell use despite the majority of passengers being against it. Allowing it is likely to piss off the other customers, but they know from experience that making customers angry doesn't hurt them. At the same time, it may get them a small number of new repeat customers (morons will spend 90% of each flight shouting into their cell phones) if they allow cell phone use and other companies don't.

Re:Good!

[Mr. Slippery]

What biz it is of the governments to tell me where I can and can't use my cellphone?

The same biz of the of the governments it is to tell you where to can and can't take a piss.

Taking a piss on the street is annoying to other people. Smells bad, offensive to the senses. It might not be a big thing if one person does it once in a while (and the law should reflect that, making allowance for emergencies), but if everyone does it, quality of life for all is degraded.

Jabbering on your phone in an otherwise quiet place is annoying to other people. Sounds bad, offensive to the senses. It might not be a big thing if one person does it once in a while (and the law should reflect that, making allowance for emergencies), but if everyone does it, quality of life for all is degraded.

Re:Good!

[johnlcallaway]

What a bullshit answer. The majority has no right to tell the minority what to do *if it doesn't affect their health or safety*. What you are saying is that if the majority wanted to, they could outlaw soapbox protesters also, simply because they are rude and obnoxious.

What people are really pissed about is that they can't eavesdrop on both sides of the conversation most of the time. Not everyone talks on the cell phone above the levels of a normal conversation.

What's next, outlawing crying babies?? Or mother's that yell at their kids on a flight??

People who get that upset over cell phone users need to get over their need to control other people and work on learning to live with a variety of different people, including those that are rude and obnoxious.

Re:Good!

[afidel]

Yes, he has two options and they are both extremely easy. He connects to the network and then either launches his Notes client and selects internet profile or he goes to our secure gateway and launches Notes from the nfuse page. It's been even easier when I did Exchange administration, just use a URL for RPC over HTTPS and then have internal and external front end servers, then the client acts the same way no matter where it is.

Re:Good!

[c]

> If there were safety concerns, they could enter a say in the matter

Preventing a suicide bomber phoning in a detonation sequence to his/her luggage bomb in the cargo hold when passing over a sufficiently populated "target area"?

Yeah, movie plot. The person could make the call from the bathroom, or the ground, or just use a timer and hope the plane it on time. But it's a lot less far fetched than, say, someone blowing up the plane with a mixture of water and shampoo. And they have laws against that.

Anyhow, there is a real safety concern; preventing the inevitable lynchings that'll happen when the same assholes that spend an hour annoying you at a restaurant do the same thing for the three hours they're stuck on a tarmac waiting to be told that the plane they're on actually isn't going anywhere.

c.

Re:Good!

[jcnnghm]

That's not the issue. The issue is that the government has absolutely no business passing laws to ban things that aren't dangerous, simply because they may annoy someone. This situation is ridiculous. It starts with smoking in bars, then cell phones, what's next? This isn't an issue that requires legislation. And I can think of a perfectly good reason to make a call, to let the person picking you up know that your flight is delayed.

I am tired of the erosion of personal freedoms by the democrats on the grounds that something may offend or annoy someone. This is, at best, a slippery slope. Do you ever do something that could potentially annoy someone else?

Re:Good!

[deblau]

Personally I think it's the business of the government to protect the interests of the majority... maybe...

On this side of the pond, we threw out that way of thinking a long time ago. Otherwise, only white men with a freehold estate would be voting these days. (Although with the current administration, you have to wonder if they wouldn't head back that way if they could.)

I think it's the business of the government to help the people help themselves, not to "help" them (by force of regulation) according to whichever way the prevailing political winds happen to be blowing at the time. If anything, the US has become too majoritarian lately. I think this is due in large part to six years of one political party in power. (It happened during the 90's too, when the Democrats controlled Congress with Clinton in the White House. We've really been too majoritarian for most of the last 16 years at least.)

We've lost the need to compromise, and the 50.1% in the majority (whichever majority that happens to be) keep screwing over the 49.9% in the minority, just because they can. Is it any wonder that the approval ratings of the President and Congress are so low?

Re:Good!

[ShannaraFan]

Next time you're sitting at a stoplight, look at the drivers of the other cars. Just a couple days ago, as opposing traffic was turning left on green, I counted FOUR of six drivers with a phone jammed in their ear. Last trip to the grocery store, I had to force my way past a woman grazing in one of the aisles, elbows resting on the shopping cart, yakking obliviously on the phone. Last week, while biking home from work one day, on a paved trail that cuts through a wooded park, I had to yell out "passing on the left!" three times to a teenager on a bike, weaving from side-to-side while yakking on the phone.

The problem with phones, I think, isn't the talking, is the fact that people tend to become oblivious to their surroundings when using one.

Re:Good!

[Nimey]

No, because we use VPN. I have had to explain to my lusers how to connect to wireless on a foreign network, though. That's a lot of fun.

Re:Good!

[LukeWebber]

Exactly! So those people using mobile phones while driving or biking should be fined and/or lose their licenses. The woman in the supermarket I can't help you with, but I say you should go ahead and rear-end her and see if they convict. I'll stand as a character witness if you pay my airfares.

But when you're jammed into an airline seat, I don't think it's an issue of public safety.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am on board with banning the cellies also. Some assbag next to me earlier this year was doing a drug deal on his cell phone once we landed and were taxiing. He was loudly talking to someone about how to cut it up and how sticky and smelly this certain type is etc.. He was swearing constantly the whole time f*** this mother f*** that G** D*** Mother F***** etc...

He is free to do that but I am not free to shove the phone up his ass or better just take the damn thing and tell him he can have it back after we get outside. Even worse is there were to little girls in the seat in front of us - probably 10 or 12 years old.

IF this assclown would have been allowed to use his phone for the entire flight (LA to ATL 5+ hours) I _guarantee_ there would have been a problem.

Re:Good!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Perhaps it's a bit like the smoking ban in this country - most people don't want to breathe the smoke of others, the majority are happy about the ban, but there's a loud collection of unhappy smokers (obviously).

Despite being against smoking, I do have some sympathy for smokers subjected to high excise duties, import restrictions and especially public smoking bans. Don't get me wrong. I find smoking in a place where people are eating or drinking to be very irritating and offputting. We have to acknowledge, despite smoking industry propaganda, the very real effects on health caused by first and second hand smoke.

On the other hand, there are still a lot of smokers out there. And despite all the evidence, I don't see any good reason why they should not be allowed to smoke if they so choose. It's not my or anyone elses right to tell them what they can and cannot do. Similarly, if pubs and bars wanted to cater to smokers, I think they should have been allowed to. The smoking license could be made substantially high to discourage licening, but I still think there should be a choice.

On the matter of charging smokers, smoking companies, and establishments or the privilage to buy, sell or host smoking. I think it's fine to put hefty excises on this industry and this habit. It's fine because smokers end up costing our health and social system billions in later life, as the effects of their habit finally kick in. They should pay up front for these costs before they happens.

Re:Good!

[Hatta]

As a non-smoker, I don't want to breathe the smoke of others, but I damn well better have the right to do so if I wish. It's called freedom.

Re:Good!

[DavidTC]

Which is possibly a good reason to ban the operation of cell phones in the situations you list, but hardly a logical reason to ban them on airplanes, where people failing to pay attention is not a concern.

However, people failing to pay attention to their surroundings because they are idiots is just a modern problem of life. The other day, I could not get out of the grocery store with my shopping cart because some moron was standing in front of the door and talking to someone else. I actually had to interrupt them and ask them to not stand in such an obviously stupid place to stand.

I don't know if I've been become more aware of this, or if people have actually become less observant, but it's the sort of crap that really pisses me off and seems to be happening more and more...people just being stupid and inconveniencing others for no reason at.

Such behavior is more destructive than people inconveniencing others for their own gain. If it's for their own gain, we can, and do, structure society so that they actually gain little from that behavior. In extreme cases they are arrested.

If it's not for any reason at all, but simply because they are fucking stupid, we can't 'discourage' the behavior in any way, as they are not aware they are doing it.

Re:Good!

[Clever7Devil]

Where is this "majority" concept coming from? Now given, I'm your average /. junkie reading comments on his phone, so no, I didn't RTFA. Is there some survey results in there showing that more people want no cell use on planes than do?

Does anyone believe that in today's society a majority of people wouldn't use their phones given the chance?

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to take the time to respond rationally, on just how wrong you are. But it would take too long.

You sir, are a fucking moron.

Re:Good!

[Freeside1]

And if your really too important to be disconnected that long, you one need a reality check, and two you should send someone "less important". God knows the world can't go on without you if that plane were to crash!

Hate to quote a john Travolta movie, but "If you're important enough, people will wait."

Re:Good!

[SpiderClan]

You're sitting in a cramped airline seat next to someone else. From their perspective, speaking at all is probably speaking over-loudly.

Re:Good!

[JesseMcDonald]

In this case, however, any directions from the flight crew already have the force of law. If the airline simply made it a policy not to allow cell phone use it would be just as legally binding as an act of Congress, while retaining far greater flexibility -- for example, the airline could separate the cell phone users into their own section so as not to bother the rest of the passengers, as suggested in the summary.

This is similar to the concept of preferring municipal or state laws over federal ones for local issues. A ruling body closer to the problem will tend to come up with a better solution, and if the decision turns out to be a poor one in retrospect it only affects that one area (city, state, or, in this case, airline) instead of everyone.

Re:Good!

[n3tcat]

So you're fundamentally opposed to the laws regarding "disturbing the peace" then eh?

Re:Good!

[oyenstikker]

why should they even bother wasting our time and tax dollars?

Because it is an election year and most voters never actually think about what the government is doing or the ramifications.

Re:Good!

[MacDork]

The majority is ruling, and complaining, about a minority that is making itself so obnoxious as to border on rude

When the airlines cease operations, I'll sure be glad we have that HANG UP act to make everything better. I'm glad that with the documented illegal torture and sexual abuse of prisoners, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down more than 20% in the past year, massive inflation, job losses, and unprecedented foreclosure rates in some areas.... I'm really glad that congress can be trusted to tackle the real issues facing America today. The HANG UP act certainly ranks right up there with

1. S.RES.440: A resolution recognizing soil as an essential natural resource, and soils professionals as playing a critical role in managing our Nation's soil resources.
2. S.RES.262: A resolution designating July 2007 as "National Watermelon Month".
3. H.RES.216: Congratulating the men's volleyball team of the University of California, Irvine, for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship.
4. S.RES.180: A resolution recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and designating May 2007 as "Idaho Potato Month".
5. H.RES.630: Congratulating the Warner Robins Little League Baseball Team from Warner Robins, Georgia, on winning the 2007 Little League World Series Championship.
6. H.RES.970: Expressing support for designation of June 30 as "National Corvette Day".
7. H.RES.1050: Recognizing Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as being home to the earliest known reference to the word "baseball" in the United States as well as being the birthplace of college baseball.
8. H.RES.89: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day should be established as Dutch-American Friendship Day to celebrate the historic ties of the United States and the Netherlands.
9. H.RES.892: Expressing support for designation of a "National Funeral Director and Mortician Recognition Day".
10. H.RES.483: Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of Big Bend National Park, established on June 12, 1944.

Re:Good!

[mrdoogee]

It is doubtful is the majority has ever been right. ~Arnold Toynbee

Re:Good!

[Paradise Pete]

Similarly, if pubs and bars wanted to cater to smokers, I think they should have been allowed to.

I used to own a bar in California. The way that the smoking ban got passed there was through the argument that the environment was bad for the employees. FWIW, I quickly went broke and had to go back to work as a programmer. In hindsight, I'm a much better programmer than I ever was at being bar owner. And I don't reek of smoke and booze, so that's a plus right there.

Re:Good!

[Attila the Bun]

Why do people need to use their phones in-flight anyway?

For the same reason people need to use their mobile phones whilst driving, whilst eating, whilst on the toilet, whilst using the other phone...

It's one of the basic human urges: eating, sleeping, reproducing, and yaking. Modern technology is working steadily towards a device which will make it possible to satisfy all four urges simultaneously.

Re:Good!

[smoker2]

If the majority wishes no cell phones on planes, then it is precisely the job of government to enforce it. That's what the government is for - to enforce the wishes of the majority. Otherwise we can get rid of the government and let "market forces" dictate everything. See how that turns out.

Re:Good!

[Archangel Michael]

Ever tried to have a cell conversation next to one of those obnoxious cell phone users? They talk so loud that you can't hear the person you're talking to, so you end up screaming into the phone annoying the person on the other end.

I tell you, some people!

Re:Good!

[smoker2]

2 points
Yes pubs and bars should be allowed to cater for smokers. There was nothing to prevent bars from being non-smoking before the ban. So what it boils down to is not "You may not smoke in here" but "you may not smoke anywhere". The non-smokers get their way wherever they go, while the smoker has no rights at all. The notion that non-smokers stayed away from pubs before the ban is ludicrous, and there seem to be less non-smokers in certain pubs now than before the ban.

Secondly, you talk about paying the upfront costs of smoking. Do you realise how much tax there is on a packet of cigarettes ? And that is in addition to each smokers normal contributions. You think the NHS is in financial trouble now, wait until they finally ban tobacco. All the non-smokers will finally realise how much they have been subsidised.

I smoke (duh), but even before the ban, if I was in public premises (library, supermarket, post office, plane, restaurant) or in the company of non-smokers, I would refrain from lighting up. It was no big deal. But having gone from acting responsibly to enforced denial, I am feeling slightly pissed off. The one place where it is nice to have a smoke is in the company of friends while having a drink. That has been taken away completely. No-one was ever forced to go to a bar or a pub, so why deny the wishes of a large number of people. The government claims it is to "protect" the workforce in those establishments. Well the place I go to drink has smokers for bar staff, and the owners smoke too. If smoking is on the decline, then over time there will be less smokers available to fill those positions, and the pub will become non-smoking naturally. No one is going to place ads for bar staff stipulating that they must be smokers as it would be illegal. But instead of that gentle approach, the facility was turned off.
The pub where I drink appears to be empty if you look through the window from the street. If you go out the back door into their garden, you find everybody out there, even the non-smokers (coz that's where the action is). Stupid rule thought up by selfish people.

Re:Good!

[DrgnDancer]

If e-mail is that god-awfully important then the employer should be paying for enough redundancy to support the system. Seriously. For most small businesses that only have the budget for one geek or have a staffer that handles the e-mail server the far larger risk is that the server itself throws a hard drive or CPU, or the network dies. Besides, what are you going to do? Unless the problem is a trivial one (i.e. the Postfix Daemon died and needs a restart) chances are you'll need a physical presence on site to fix it anyway.

If e-mail is so critical to a company's function that it CANNOT go down, it should be hosted off-site by a company that is being paid to give "five nines" of reliability, or it should be a redundant system with at least two machines and two admins (or an admin and a second guy who knows enough to restart daemons or reboot the machine at a minimum). Even if the airlines allow you to use your cell, what happens if you forgot to charge it? Or you dropped it in the toilet? Or it just decides it no longer wishes you to be able to talk on it anymore and will now reboot continuously until you can return it to factory defaults (as mine did on a trip once. It was essentially a brick till I could get it back to the office and reinstall everything)? Relying completely on the ability to reach and talk to one guy is a really stupid way to run a critical service.

Re:Good!

[jcrousedotcom]

Feel free to burn the soapbox. :)

Having said that - I still stick to my statement that it should not be the goal of the government to *legislate* trivial things like cell phone use - not when it doesn't involve a safety issue.

I am 100% with you and many other who talk about how rude people are when they use their cell phones in an manner which is disruptive and loud. Please understand, I am with you all the way. It just becomes a slippery slop.

Maybe I am living in a Ron Paul world - but I just wonder why our tax dollars are being spent on some of these things when clearly they are not part of the constitutional role of government. I could hit a whole bunch of issues that are not the role of the Federal Government yet they have made it as such.

That makes it 4 cents. :)

Re:Good!

[rtechie]

Otherwise, only white men with a freehold estate would be voting these days.

At no point in US history were the MAJORITY of Americans landed white men. The United States started with a SMALL MINORITY (landed white men over the age of 35) voting and then expanded it slowly over the years to white men in general, then white women, then everyone else.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

you're comparing an airline's ability to create it's own policies to someone on a public street? and this is the logical path to having congress act? you are a fucking moron.

Re:Good!

[Doghouse Riley]

What works for me is this:

Carry a mini voice recorder in my backpack or briefcase.

Upon encountering a cellphoneassclown, ask politely that the shouting cease.

If it does, issue resolved.

If it does not, extract the recorder and pointedly switch it on, aiming it at the cellphoneassclown.

Estimated success rate 80-90% in my experience.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time a cell phone talker lights up their phone next to you on a bus, the street, anywhere...ask them in a pleasant voice to stop talking on the phone, it is causing noise pollution. Let me know the response you get.

Next time I see you talking to a passenger on the buss I'll ask the same thing. Sure, some people talk louder on a phone, but not everyone. We have a right to talk and whether or not the person is next to us or on a phone makes no difference. Also, I hope you don't have young kids or ever bring them to a nice restaurant or on a plane, because kids are FAR more noisy and obnoxious than most people on their phones.

Re:Good!

[porpnorber]

I'm English too, but it seems that there are several circumstances under which it would be worth apologising to the person in the next seat and making a phone call. When my flight has been delayed and I am saving someone else from waiting for three hours at the airport. When my mother, travelling with me, has an unexpected reaction to her medicine. When the person I have not seen for six months needs to know that I will be arriving at terminal three, not terminal four, and we have to arrange another place to meet in the thirty minutes before I catch my flight out. Or when I realise that yes, indeed, I left the gas on.

If we could trust the airlines to be reasonable and flexible in the interpretation of the rules (just as, one hopes, one won't get ticketed when pressed into service as an ambulance), it would be another thing. But in these days of exploding shoes(?!) this is no longer the culture of air travel.

Re:Good!

[torstenvl]

This would get slammed in a court...

Really? Yeah... don't think so buddy.

Re:Good!

[Singularitarian2048]

People need to use their phones because flights are boring and talking to friends is fun. You wouldn't stop people from talking to each other on the airplane. So why would you stop one person on the airplane from talking to someone not on the airplane? What's the difference?

People are so quick to control the way other people behave.

The way to settle this is to let individual airlines make their own policies, with the goal of maximizing profits. If people really don't want cell phone use on airplanes, then an airline which implements that policy will make more money.

Re:Good!

[Lodragandraoidh]

Give it another 10 to 15 years, and most of those buffoons will be either retired or dead. By then we also might have some advanced technology that obviates speaking or typing into a device...

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you ever try explaining to your boss how to use email on a foreign network?

Does "foreign" mean it's not an IPv4/6 network? Otherwise, the boss already has the laptop you've spent countless hours teaching him how to turn on the wifi "thingy", it can't be that difficult.

Re:Good!

[TheRaven64]

The notion that non-smokers stayed away from pubs before the ban is ludicrous,

Is it? I go to pubs a lot more than I used to before the ban. I can go and sit in a pub for a few hours and not come out stinking of smoke, which is a huge improvement. Prior to the ban, I used to avoid the smokiest pubs totally and spend less time in the less-smoky ones.

It's fine to say 'the market' should take care of this, except that the market didn't produce any non-smoking pubs and did force non-smoking pub workers to inhale second-hand smoke.

and there seem to be less non-smokers in certain pubs now than before the ban.

Not surprising. I now don't go to my local as much as I did, and go to one a bit further away that serves better beer but was previously so smoky that I didn't want to spend more than a minute or two there at a time.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's evil to ban things because you personally believe "no-one NEEDs it". The logic never stops: no-one "needs" to HAVE a cell phone, to call on a cell phone, to call on a cell phone on a plane ... or even to be on the plane in the first place.

People can complain about all of these: cell phones give you brain cancer. Cell phone calls are rude. Cell phones will contribute to noise pollution on planes. Planes consume valuable oil, contributing to greenhouse gases, and can be used as weapons of mass destruction. No-one "needs" any of these things; let's ban them.

Not.

Re:Good!

[celle]

Actually the smartest thing for that guy to do in response to your request would be to ignore you. Unless you grab his head, snap his neck(too quick olive fork better), and leave him for the vultures, most don't give a damn anyway. You don't have an absolute right to quiet just like he doesn't have an absolute right to be annoying. In the end it comes down to who has the biggest stick and is willing to use it. If you don't like the behavior of people on the bus(oversensitive vs insensitive clods), walk or get a bicycle/horse/car and drive yourself.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

A large number of people find flying an uncomfortable/annoying/stressful etc experience as it is without having to hear people talk over everyone else so someone elsewhere can hear them.

Since when is hearing people talk stressful? Are you also in favor of making it illegal for people to talk to other passengers?

Re:Good!

[Arterion]

We're in a democracy. If the majority of the people say they want the government to step in and do this, then not only does the government have businesses to do it, they have a sworn oath to do it.

The government is supposed to just be a tool to exercise the will of the people. In this case, I think it's doing something right. I'm not trying to claim they, overall, are very competent in that role, but in this case I think they are.

Re:Good!

[sesshomaru]

Hmm... that's funny. I thought America was a Federal Republic that was Constitutionally designed to thwart the will of the majority. Otherwise, why give Kansas two Senators?

Re:Good!

[foniksonik]

What about people who don't find it annoying to hear others talk on a phone (as opposed to talking to the person next to them?) and would like to get on with their life despite the fact that they are stuck on a plane for hours...

Why can't those who want peace and quiet simply put on some headphones? That's what I do at work when I need a break from the constant noise around me...

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Personally I think it's the business of the government to protect the interests of the majority... maybe... I'll have to think about that a bit more.
>Anyway. I'm English

And that's why you have 1/5th of the world's CCTV cameras, yet your country has a crime rate higher than Canada, a country where CCTV is rarely found and when it is, is fought by a government appointed privacy commissioner.

The majority of Britons wanted the police to watch what their neighbors do 24x7. They got that. The majority also realized that this is morally improper, so the majority decided to use the veil of reducing the crime rate (in reality, the crime rate, at best, has remained steady with CCTV) to get what they wanted.

One could argue CCTV has prevented an increase in the crime rate, but perhaps your country needs to find out what makes it so incredibly dangerous it needs TWENTY-FIVE TIMES more cameras to control your citizens than the average country.

Or you could just agree with me, and realize that the majority of people in your country (*and mine!*) are curious to know what their neighbors are doing and are willing to do immoral things to find out, as long as they know they won't get the blame.

Re:Good!

[Wordplay]

To be fair, I'm fine with them flying -away-. Let's just keep them from flying back.

Re:Good!

[Grey_14]

Thank you good sir, for not taking the easy joke!

Re:Good!

[R3d M3rcury]

Agreed. But, unfortunately, most people don't understand this.

How many times have you heard stories people getting all upset because the flight attendant told them to do something they didn't want to do.

Heck, start with the current ban on cell phones. Cell phones are supposed to be turned off. Yet people get indignant when they are told to turn off their cellphone. Heck, for some fun reading, check out this website run by NASA. Do a query for "cell phone" and check out the problems airlines have with passengers who currently refuse to follow the law.

At least the airlines have the law on their side at the moment. Imagine how bad it would be if they didn't...

Re:Good!

[vldmr_krn]

Personally I think it's the business of the government to protect the interests of the majority... maybe... I'll have to think about that a bit more.

It's in the interest of the majority to not have the will of the majority imposed on them. Particularly not with the big stick.

my personal opinion is that using a phone in a situation where you have to raise your voice significantly to be heard above the ambient noise - and subsequently by everyone else - is pretty rude

Most people, when they realize that they are coming across as rude to others, change their behavior. The occasional jerk is not a problem you can solve through the legal system.

Perhaps it's a bit like the smoking ban in this country - most people don't want to breathe the smoke of others, the majority are happy about the ban, but there's a loud collection of unhappy smokers (obviously).

I'm a smoker, and New York has a public indoor smoking ban--unless the merchant has purchased a license, like Karma and a few others have. Public indoor smoking is now opt-in rather than opt-out, which I approve of. It also means that organizations I transact business with are now paying licensing fees which will be used to create more jobs within the government bureaucracy. Have you had many dealings with government employees? What defines their culture is indifference to how satisfied their customers are.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were safety concerns

Oh there are - mostly concerning some loud obnoxious asshat getting his face punched in.

Re:Good!

[AmaranthineNight]

Actually, black men could vote before women. See the 15th and 19th amendments to the US constitution for details.

Re:Good!

[rtechie]

Actually, black men could vote before women.

Many would argue, myself included, that Jim Crow-type laws prevented blacks from full exercising their voting rights until the 1960s. Even today, voter suppression of non-white Americans remains a serious issue.

Re:Good!

[zippthorne]

I would love to fly on an airplane that was quiet enough for me to be annoyed by other passengers talking on their cell phones.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your right to a quiet ride does not rupercede their right to talk on a phone.
Be conservative in what you do, liberal in what you accept from others.

Re:Good!

[TheMysteriousFuture]

setup RPC over HTTPS. Also now known as "Outlook Anywhere".

(Obviously) proxies the RPC traffic over HTTP. Much nicer then screwing with VPN's.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

No farting on planes! Ban the Bean!

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we make a law to shut people up who are NOT on a phone? I've already cooked up an acronym:

Stupid Human Up To THE Fucking Uncivil Cock Kunt Unmistakably Pissed-off

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't reek of smoke and booze, so that's a plus right there.

How is that a plus?

We need these laws why?

[HungryHobo]

If people really don't want to be bothered by cellphones then the airlines could just ban people from using them on the plane and use this as a selling point.
Why does the government have to poke at this one?

Re:We need these laws why?

[v1]

Because too many people don't think they can survive without their cell phone. One friend I invited over for some LAN gaming, his cell phone kept ringing while we played. Next time we played, I insisted he turn it off. "What happens if there's an emergency? What if my brother's been in a car accident?" "I don't know, are you a surgeon and do you have a chopper standing by in my back yard? Shut it off."

He still snuck it back on a little bit later and got TWO more calls during the game. (didn't answer them, but stopped playing a few sec each time to look at the caller ID) Some people need to learn to live without a cell phone occasionally. For a few though I think it borders on addiction, "I can quit anytime, just not right now."

Re:We need these laws why?

[deraj123]

And I agree with everything you just said. Except the implied notion that this somehow requires a law.

Re:We need these laws why?

[Swizec]

I always have my phone on me in case there's an emergency or whatnot, but I usually don't receive any calls and if I'm doing something I'll let it ring ... then I can see there's an emergency if they call ten times in a row and finally decide to answer it. But still, I need it on and within reach all the time, just in case.

Re:We need these laws why?

[gk4]

I agree that we don't need a nanny government to prohibit us from talking on a mobile phone during flight; however, I believe it is poor etiquette to use a phone on any public transportation. Instead they can text, email, or instant message without bothering anyone else. :-) In short, let the airline / market control it.

Re:We need these laws why?

[HungryHobo]

I too like to keep my mobile on, on silent.
If I'm somewhere where a call shouldn't be recieved then anyone who needs to contact me will know me well enough to text.

Re:We need these laws why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the "Paris Hilton icon because she always has a chopper standing by in her back yard" bit.

Re:We need these laws why?

[MillionthMonkey]

If people really don't want to be bothered by cellphones then the airlines could just ban people from using them on the plane and use this as a selling point.

I was on a flight a few years ago when cellphones were still banned. The plane was about to take off on the runway and this dude got a call from his broker and started yapping about stocks and how much to put in this and that and meanwhile they started announcing pointedly over the loudspeaker "please put all cellphones away now, so we can take off".

The guy acted like no one was on the plane with him. People in the seats around him started to snap at him to put his phone away, and a stewardess came over and started pestering him SIR SIR PLEASE PUT THE PHONE AWAY and he wouldn't shut up even as she tugged at his shoulder. This actually kept the plane from taking off for about ten minutes. I was amazed- I would have crumbled under that much social pressure. He obviously didn't give a shit about anyone on the plane and must have figured he wasn't going to see any of us again.

I would have kicked his ass of course, but on the flight out, another guy was on the plane with his girlfriend and was really, really drunk, and loud. They both were but he in particular was really wasted. He wouldn't shut up and they got into a big squabble. That went on for a while too. They were really getting into it to the point where everyone on the plane was looking at each other in amazement, and I actually saw a stewardess on a little phone behind that curtain up front telling someone "we have a problem here..."

Finally the chick sitting in the window seat next to these two decided she'd had enough, and yelled at them to STFU just as the air marshal was coming up the aisle from behind. He ushered all three of them off the plane. Having seen that, I didn't say anything to the guy on his phone.

Re:We need these laws why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because too many people don't think they can survive without their cell phone. One friend I invited over for some LAN gaming, his cell phone kept ringing while we played. Next time we played, I insisted he turn it off. "What happens if there's an emergency? What if my brother's been in a car accident?" "I don't know, are you a surgeon and do you have a chopper standing by in my back yard? Shut it off."

He still snuck it back on a little bit later and got TWO more calls during the game. (didn't answer them, but stopped playing a few sec each time to look at the caller ID) Some people need to learn to live without a cell phone occasionally. For a few though I think it borders on addiction, "I can quit anytime, just not right now."

Get a cell phone jammer. Seriously. Makes is all so very simple.

Re:We need these laws why?

[v1]

I always have my phone on me in case there's an emergency or whatnot,...But still, I need it on and within reach all the time, just in case.

I think that is the problem, fear of the unknown emergency. What if there was a fire at the chemical plant by your kids' school? How about a hostage situation at your spouse's workplace? What if I told you I could sell you a device that would be guaranteed to alert you of these dangers that your cell phone might not? How much would you be willing to pay for it?

The only reason we have this problem is that cell phones make it marginally easier for us to keep slightly better informed live. Heck, if you carried around a walkman you could get the above information if you kept tuned to a local station. You should run out and get one immediately! I mean really, what if there's an emergency or whatnot, you need it on and in within reach all the time, just in case

I think the whole thing is silly. People are so wound up and fragile nowadays that they are even afraid of missing out on being afraid.

Kick the habbit. Stop being a puppet to the fear of the unknown.

The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children!

No seriously, think about shutting up the fucking children. At least people on phones don't squeal for no reason. Normally.

Re:The Children

[Frosty Piss]

No seriously, think about shutting up the fucking children. At least people on phones don't squeal for no reason.

I never travel without ear plugs and a black-out mask. Or is that the alcohol... But seriously, kids travel. Plan ahead for your sanity.

Re:The Children

[HungryHobo]

I can get behind this 100%.
Nothing like a screaming infant with an apathetic mother on a 4 hour bus ride with a 5 year old running around trying to break things and being ignored.
Seriously, if you can't take care of them don't procreate.

By the end of it all I could think of was that poster with "Silence is golden.Duct tape is silver."

Re:The Children

[deraj123]

Troll?? If the issue is people on planes being annoyed because of other people making noise, then children are right at the top of this list.

Re:The Children

[Svartalf]

Noise canceling headphones and an MP3 player...oh, perhaps not, the DHS might confiscate that...

Heh...perhaps the booze isn't a bad idea after all... >:-)

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this is the forum to even talk about anything regarding raising children correctly. Most folks on slashdot should probably start with trying to get a girlfriend (or maybe even start with having a conversation with a "real live girl") before being experts on raising children.

Re:The Children

[DDLKermit007]

Shit, try being on an international flight with fuckwits who bring their kids who are under 4 on the plane. Bringing these little kids on a plane due to the pressurization & depressurization is borderline child-abuse in my mind. Kids that young just don't understand why their ears hurt, and thus they scram their heads off continually. This is specially a problem on international flights. If you can afford to leave the country, HIRE A BABYSITTER!!!

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if you can't take care of them don't procreate.

How do you find out whether you can before you do?

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just ban fucking children? Surely a win-win for all concerned.

Re:The Children

[gauauu]

If you can afford to leave the country, HIRE A BABYSITTER!!!

And the people that are relocating their families should just, what, Fedex the kids?

Re:The Children

[Drogo007]

last time I travelled with children (18 month old twins) I brought along a bottle of earplugs with enough for almost the entire plane to pass around - just in case I couldn't keep them reasonably quiet.

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like a screaming infant with an apathetic mother on a 4 hour bus ride with a 5 year old running around trying to break things and being ignored.
Seriously, if you can't take care of them don't procreate.

And I suppose you never screamed when you were a cute little baby?

Re:The Children

[Lodragandraoidh]

Hmmm - seems society is coming full circle: booze was a common companion on long trips in the last century before mobile phones...

As for children - I have them and there is no peace until they leave for college or you die. Even if they leave, they will still call, borrow money, and - shudder - visit! So death looks like the peachy end of that deal.

Re:The Children

[Igmuth]

I'm pretty sure fucking children is already banned in most countries.

why are we banning cells?

[nimbius]

we've tried to ban them in courtrooms and civic buildings as well as on public buses. I keep wondering why someone talking on a cell-phone bothers us so much?
is it because we cant see the person on the other end?
if two people next to me were talking about business on a flight, i would ignore it. why is a cellphone any different?

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Zarhan]

Because for some reason, when two people are talking right next to one another, they tend to whisper or at least talk in low voice.

For some reason, give someone a cellphone and if they are not downright shouting their voice somehow still seems to carry at least a few rows. You can observe this every day in any bus/train. Even though the other end will definitely hear you even if you talk at low volume.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[HungryHobo]

Perhaps there is not in fact anybody on the other end and the person with the phone is just a mental patient who is holding the phone to his head to make it less obvious that it's the voices he's shouting at.
And you wouldn't want an escaped mental patient walking around now would you!
I mean think of the CHILDREN! They might get killed and eaten by insane people!

good thing they're bringing in this law.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[HungryHobo]

It's more because celphones are often too quiet.
if I put it on speaker phone I talk normally, if I've got it on normal I talk like a retarded deaf man.
It's cause if you can't hear the other person clearly because of noise on their end etc then you tend to adjust your voice as you would if you were having trouble hearing someone next to you talking.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Antony-Kyre]

Instead of a legalized ban, why don't airlines make their own rules permitting cell phone use?

Re:why are we banning cells?

[antifoidulus]

Maybe its because, for the most part, if both parties are in a public place they tend not to talk about shit that shouldn't be aired in public. I mean I really don't want to be stuck in a plane listening to you chat with your doctor and friends about that STD you just caught(I have actually heard conversations to this affect).

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Sir_Lewk]

No. It's because idiots think telephone lines are tubes through which you yell. Talk normally and turn up the speaker on the phone if necessary.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though the other end will definitely hear you even if you talk at low volume.

But I have to speak up - it's long distance!

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have. And what is the punishment if you break that rule? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

If they make it a law, it will have teeth, and after a few people get prosecuted for it, people might actually get the hint.

Of course, this is like any other BS type law - I suspect no enforcement, and thus it will be ignored.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[squiggleslash]

Is it that people talk loudly on cellphones and therefore you notice, or is that that some people talk loudly on cellphones, but people who talk quietly on cellphones don't attract attention, so the only people on cellphones you notice are those that speak loudly?

I don't buy the "Cellphones make people rude and loud" claim. I don't get complaints, rude stares, or any other signs my use of my cellphone is causing annoyance but I see others subjected to that treatment when they really are loud and annoying. I have to assume that I, like probably 95% of the population, am simply invisible, because I don't speak loudly into my phone, I keep my conversations in public short, and my cellphone uses vibration to notify me of calls rather than a loud, annoying, ring.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[hummassa]

Actually, people that talk about their STDs in the phone are prone to talk about that in loud voice when having a public conversation, also [citation needed]. Cell phone ban will do no good.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[HungryHobo]

I keep it on max volume (which for non speakerphone is way too low).
What do you do if the person on the other end says "I can't hear a word you're saying, stop whispering"
I know a few fuckers who I have to deal with on the phone who are almost inaudible at any volume, speakerphone or not since they believe the phone to be some kind of magical device which can hear their thoughts even if they're on a busy street or a construction site.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Antony-Kyre]

What is this law then? Is it an all-out ban? Or does it make it illegal IF, and ONLY IF, the airline makes the ban in the first place?

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Slashidiot]

Yes, with this law, it will be perfectly legal to hold a brick to your ear and talk loudly to it. If what bothers people is noise, ban noise. Don't just arbitrarily ban one of the causes of the noise.

I swear honest to god, that if this gets through, I'm going to take a fake mobile phone and talk to it, with some musical parts, all the way from NY to LA.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[itsdapead]

we've tried to ban them in courtrooms and civic buildings as well as on public buses. I keep wondering why someone talking on a cell-phone bothers us so much?

Its nothing to do with the cell phone. Many people simply enjoy the sound of their own voice so much that, as soon as they get into a conversation they lose all awareness of their surroundings, including any regard for people trying to (a) serve them or tell them something important (b) get some coffee from the jug they've been standing in front of holding an empty cup and nattering for 10 minutes, (c) walk through the narrow doorway that they've chosen for their debating chamber or (d) who just want to hear themselves think. If I ever tried to work as a waiter I'd probably last about 30 minutes before getting fired for asking a table full of valued clients if they could JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP FOR 30 SECONDS WHILE THEY ORDERED! (unless its that US restaurant chain who's USP is being rude to customers).

Now, when people do this face-to-face this is all part of the rich tapestry of human nature and we all tolerate it as part of the normal rules of civilization. However, when people start doing it with Scary New Technology that changes the rules, and people who weren't even aware of the tolerance they exhibited towards flesh-and-blood ratchetjaw artists feel entitled to whinge.

Basically, then, this HANG-UP act is really the GETOFFMYLAWN act - but because it concerns Scary New Technology nobody questions whether lawmakers should be wasting their valuable time addressing the petty peeves of Grumpy Old Persons.

Banning them in courtrooms is slightly more understandable but pointless since judges and magistrates (I presume) already have the power to sling out anybody who disrupts proceedings,

In the UK, some train companies purport to have "quiet" carriages with no phones allowed. That would be fine if there was choice involved, i.e. the trains weren't routinely so overcrowded that you grab the first seat you can find and are thankful. It would also be more understandable if they turned off the fricking tannoy in the "quiet" carriages or (as happens in more train-oriented countries in Europe) restricted themselves to announcing the name of the next station without turning it into a 2 minute monologue (no, really, I was planning to leave my belongings on the train and then fall down the gap between the train and the platform...)

Re:why are we banning cells?

[ZorinLynx]

This is because most cel phones don't have sidetone. Sidetone lets you hear yourself on the phone, and was originally invented in the early 1900s (!) just for the purpose of keeping folks from screaming.

The lack of sidetone on modern cel phones is unacceptable. This is 100 year old technology, damnit!

Re:why are we banning cells?

[xaxa]

In the UK, some train companies purport to have "quiet" carriages with no phones allowed. That would be fine if there was choice involved, i.e. the trains weren't routinely so overcrowded that you grab the first seat you can find and are thankful. It would also be more understandable if they turned off the fricking tannoy in the "quiet" carriages or (as happens in more train-oriented countries in Europe) restricted themselves to announcing the name of the next station without turning it into a 2 minute monologue (no, really, I was planning to leave my belongings on the train and then fall down the gap between the train and the platform...)

...and the rest, it's almost as bad as flying, and even more unnecessary. "I'd like to welcome the passengers who've joined us at Bedford to this East Midlands Trains service to Sheffield, calling at Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, and due to arrive in Sheffield at twenty-one thirty-six. First class accommodation is towards the rear of the train in coaches A, B and C, and standard class accommodation is in the front of the train in coaches E, F, G, H, J and K, L and M. The buffet car is coach D, between first and standard class, where we are serving a selection of hot drinks and snacks. I'd also like to remind passengers to keep their luggage with them at all times throughout the journey. Please read the safety leaflets provided. Coach M is a quiet coach, please refrain from talking or using mobile phones in this coach. Thank you."
It's all repeated on the electronic display in every carriage anyway, and if you can't see that then you needed help boarding the train anyway. All that's needed is "This train calls at Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield", preferably read out by a monotonous recorded voice that's easy to blank out once you're used to it (incidentally, this is what the shorter distance commuter trains round the south-east seem to prefer).

"Please mind the gap between the platform and the train" would also be much better if it was only said when there is a gap (a blind friend agrees -- now that they play it at most stations it's less useful than before). And just "mind the gap", we all know where it is.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the people in the seat next to you will likely be discussing the inane details of their tedious and meaningless lives at maximum volume, not business. That is why.

P.S. - Affirmative Action = Reverse Jim Crow

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the 'short platform' announcements for Loughborough and (on my services) Beeston. I get an East Midlands Train every day and after doing it for about an year I'm *just about* able to tune out the anouncements. But this morning was something else - the guy making the anounncement stopped - totally randomly, not at natural places - about every five words, and then paused for about five seconds. After a bit the effect was such that everyone was laughing (Is he ever ..... going to make it ..... to the end ..... of this sentence?)

Re:why are we banning cells?

[itsdapead]

I'd like to welcome the passengers who've joined us at Bedford to this East Midlands Trains service

OK, so that's spooky. Maybe the phenomenon is localized to this particular stretch of track....?

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Sax Maniac]

A land line echoes your voice back into your earpiece, so you speak at a normal volume. My cell phone doesn't, and so the effect is (right or wrong) you feel like you cannot be heard. Most people don't realize this and just shout to get the same level of feedback in their own ears. I know about this effect, yet still, it takes a lot of conscious effort to talk quietly on the cell phone. Cell phone companies could fix this in an instant.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[loraksus]

You're right. I especially notice this when I turn on my cell phone jammer. Then, about 20 seconds later, the problem takes care of itself.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[DavidTC]

The punishment for breaking the rule before takeoff is being removed from the plane.

The punishment for breaking the rule after takeoff should be them taking your cell phone and not giving it back. Or alternately barring you from flying on them in the future.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[DavidTC]

I don't buy the "Cellphones make people rude and loud" claim. I don't get complaints, rude stares, or any other signs my use of my cellphone is causing annoyance but I see others subjected to that treatment when they really are loud and annoying. I have to assume that I, like probably 95% of the population, am simply invisible, because I don't speak loudly into my phone, I keep my conversations in public short, and my cellphone uses vibration to notify me of calls rather than a loud, annoying, ring.

No shit. There is a certain subclass of morons who think they should talk loudly into a cell phone. This subclass overlaps strongly with the subclass of people who are not observant and don't realize that half the damn plane can hear them. (As people who were observant would have noticed others do not speak loudly into their phone.)

There are plenty of responsible people who are very aware others can hear them, and talk at less than normal conversational levels. The only way that could annoy people is if they were listening in and got annoyed they only heard half the conversation, and I think we can all determine who the rude person is in those circumstances.

There are legitimate safety issues with cell phone usage, like while driving, and there are places where any cell phone usage, like any conversation, should be banned, like a theater.

Anyone who wants to ban them where people can talk is just an asshat. You want to stop morons from talking too loudly on the phone, inform them they are talking too loudly on the phone, and allow the attendants to make them stop if they continue to annoy people.

People who are not observant and do not realize how their behavior affects others is a major problem in society, and it won't change until normal people start being 'rude' and informing them their behavior is not acceptable.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[tiananmen tank man]

Cell Phones are banned in court rooms because they are recording devices.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this up!

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have. And what is the punishment if you break that rule? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Ejection from the aircraft at 30,000 feet would do the trick.

Re:why are we banning cells?

[Rub1cnt]

The other party in that instance referenced above: "Hello HArold?! I can't hear you, stop screaming, and roll up the car window, I can't hear you over the wind!"

Charge me to sit in the no-phone section?

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks. I already get that for free. And if that ever changes, I'll just not fly with that airline, or not fly period. I don't mind driving cross-country to go on a vacation. And in the unlikely event that I do find myself stuck on a plane next to some jackass that can't remove their phone from their ear for 3 fucking hours, I'll just ask them to please be considerate of the people around them, or put on my headphones, or just start watching a movie on my laptop at maximum volume.

Re:Charge me to sit in the no-phone section?

[mea37]

Well, the whole "charge for cell use, and charge for no-phone section" idea is nothing but an economic fantasy concocted to sound plausible ("yeah, they'd like to get you coming and going") and make this law sound like a better idea than it is.

No matter what line items the airlines may throw at you, overall cost of flying (on average) is going to rise and fall per the market. If tomorrow they can charge everyone a $15 fee, that's $15 less in base fare increases (or an opportunity to advertise a $15 lower fare to draw customers from the competition).

Now, they might charge a fee for using phones, or they might charge a fee for a no-phones section. Which they would charge depends on which group is statistically likely to part with more money. That's basic price discrimination, and it really can make the airline more money (at the expense of a subset of passengers).

Satphone

[Anonymous Coward]

You could always bring a satellite phone with you, apparently Iridium phones work well on planes. and since its not a common "cell phone" its unlikely to be covered by the ban.

beside calling on it is so expensive you won't stay on it long enough to annoy anyone.

Re:Satphone

[piltdownman84]

From my experience with Iridium everyone else on the plane is most likely going to kill you. The unit we have in our office almost requires the user to yell into the phone for the other person to understand what your saying. That and almost everything has to be repeated as the call quality is so low.

Acronym bills -- Does it serve a purpose?

[Erik Soderstrom]

US politics is full of hackers. GNU's Not Unix. WINE Is Not an Emulator ... then all these bills like HANG UP, PATRIOT Act and so on. It seems they are named that way so that congress doesn't need to read them. "What? Of course I'm a patriot! Lets vote for it!". Not that I disagree with the contents of "HANG UP"...

Sure go ahead

[clarkkent09]

Cash-strapped airlines could end up charging some passengers to use their phones while charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane

Thereby enabling smarter airlines such as Southwest to take an ever greater market share by not doing stupid things like that.

A phone-free section of the plane?

[damn_registrars]

I'm not sure how that would be possible, or make a difference. Considering the tight confines of an airplane (for most US trips), if you have more than 3 people talking on phones at a time they'll likely be shouting soon to hear themselves over the other conversations. At which point everyone who isn't part of those conversations can no longer hear anything but those conversations.

It should be obvious why passengers prefer other people not use cell phones in flight. There is no way to escape other peoples' calls when you have dozens to hundreds of people stuffed into a flying sardine can.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[adpsimpson]

You're right!

While you're at it, the last time I visited the US I was mildly frustrated at having to wait for a taxi, I was a bit annoyed that the local Starbucks served their coffee slightly on the cool side and I wasn't too amused by some people not holding the door open for me when I was only a few feet behind them.

Cor blimey, there's some laws needed there! Let's call them FAST TAXIS, HOT COFFEE and OPEN DOORS! Then the world will stand up and listen!!

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[Kibblet]

They used to have smoking and non smoking sections in a plane -- this would work much better.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[TheJasper]

In the netherlands the intercity trains have a quiet section. In theory there is no talking or audio devices w/o headset (and not turned up so loud that you can still here it). It doesn't always work but it is nice...

It could work better on planes where stewardesses are more likely to enforce it.

Considering the tight confines of an airplane (for most US trips), if you have more than 3 people talking on phones at a time they'll likely be shouting soon to hear themselves over the other conversations.

there is no need to shout. Yes, people talk to loud on phones. I notice it about myself. It's something to work on. People talk on planes all the time without shouting however. Also, there is quite a bit of white noise from the engines, wings...This shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

The interference to the aircraft's systems is the issue, cellphone are radio transceivers.
I know we think it's so they can sell their services, and maybe some of that is true
but No ..A cellphone can indeed potentially interfere and get into the aircraft electronics or control / navigation systems Period
, and each individual aircraft and cellphone can potentially allow or cause this interference .
I need not say that this interference it can be deadly

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[cheroke]

Phone-free, internet-free, alcohol-free, smokers-free, noisy_children-free and other.. rooms will help us :) Seriously, the problem is in people's minds, their respect for others. There's always at least one person who doesn't care of anything and who will talk on his phone anyway.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[damn_registrars]

In the netherlands the intercity trains have a quiet section.

I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.

Yes, people talk to loud on phones.

Feel free to try to train people to talk at normal volumes on cell phones. Let me know how that goes.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[ncc05]

On the Acela ("high" speed train that runs up and down the Northeast Corridor), they have a quiet car. I was traveling back from Philly and just after New York some guy enters the car blathering on his cell. Approximately 2 seconds later he was forced into a different car (there are doors between cars). So we have this in the US as well.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[TheJasper]

I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.

Its separate cars or at least partitioned and social pressure mostly. On planes the main annoyance would be if you were on the border area. A curtain also does quite well in noise reduction.

Yes, people talk to loud on phones.

Feel free to try to train people to talk at normal volumes on cell phones. Let me know how that goes.

I'm training myself and hope to lead by example. I for one welcome our quiet-while-talking-on-the-cell-phone overlords...especially since I plan on being one of them ;)

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[xaxa]

In the netherlands the intercity trains have a quiet section.

I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.

I assume the same as the UK, where one coach generally has "Quiet coach" notices. You're not meant to talk, use phones, or listen to music in them. On a busy train it doesn't really work, but if there's somewhere else to sit people generally respect it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FGW_HST_Standard_Class_coach_A_headrest_cover_2005-06-09.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FGW_quiet_carriage_-_Help_us_keep_the_peace.jpg

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[DDLKermit007]

And this is why I love Japan. People are generally polite. I can count on my hand how many times I've seen someone talking on a cellphone on the trains here. No law needed. Just people acting how they would like you to act to them. And it was always someone not Japanese who used a cellphone. It's sad when a foreigner in another country can't stand other foreigners because they are usually an embarrassment.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[TheJasper]

I do not have a problem with people talking on cell phones any more than I do them talking to each other. One is the same as the other. Volume is another issue.

It is nice when people keep to acceptable social norms however. If people in Japan do not talk in the train then a foreigner shouldn't either. As a guest you should be on your best behavior...

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[ztransform]

No law needed.

Are you sure there's no law? When I was using the Yamanote and Keihin-Toohoku JR lines in Tokyo (in March 2008) the carriages had clear signs stating mobile phones were not to be used in the seated areas (but it was permissible in some entrance ways).

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[ztransform]

If people in Japan do not talk in the train then a foreigner shouldn't either. As a guest you should be on your best behavior...

I'd love somebody to explain that concept to the Nigerians in Rappongi, who seemed to find that randomly assaulting a white guy (me) was somehow acceptable!

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[DDLKermit007]

Sad to hear that. That's one reason I personally just stay away from other foreigners. I'm not racist, but especially the Nigerians. I can't ignore statistics. Plus I automatically stay away from the likes of Roppongi & Ginza due to the high number of foreigners in both locations.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[DDLKermit007]

Notice those are touristy lines. They need those for the douche foreigners who don't have manners. Get away from the tourist traps, and those signs become less, and less prominent. If there's an emergency, people will make a call. No ones going to fine them as far as I know. On the flip-side though, I love the smoking bans on the street in many locations. Those have actual laws. Don't work 100% of the time, but pretty damn near. Smokers can be "cool" huddled into those weird "smoking zones" scattered around the place.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[ztransform]

I loved Tokyo and was so amused by the street smoking ban signs embedded in the pavement that I took a photo!

It seemed to me that older men disregarded the smoking bans but most of the rest of society managed to adhere.

Re:A phone-free section of the plane?

[spockman]

Myth Busters said this does not interfere at all. http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/03/20/mythbusters-cell-phones-on-planes/

Not a good use of law

[Richard_at_work]

Seriously, this is not something that should ever be legislated about - its a decision to be taken by the individual airlines based on feedback from their customers, not something they should be bound to enforce. What next, body odour legislation?

Re:Not a good use of law

[soupforare]

...its a decision to be taken by the individual airlines based on feedback from their customers, not something they should be bound to enforce.

Remember when no one cared about smoking bans? Yeah, that was just the tip of the iceburg.
It gets worse from here on out. Pretty soon you won't be able to grab some in-and-out before your flight, either. Ohshi~

Re:Not a good use of law

[Richard_at_work]

And laws banning smoking are also something I am against - especially as you say people ignored the voluntary bans, showing that the people were against them...

Re:Not a good use of law

[ztransform]

And laws banning smoking are also something I am against - especially as you say people ignored the voluntary bans, showing that the people were against them...

The problem with smokers is that they don't care about non-smokers. A ban is required because smokers wouldn't otherwise voluntarily consider the well being, comfort, and health of non-smokers. No ban would be required if smokers were able to be considerate.

Most men understand that women don't want to be wolf whistled down the road. One section of society, therefore, restrains themselves for the benefit of another. Smokers, by and large, do not want to restrain themselves.

I'm fully supportive of the ban and would like even more punitive measures to be taken against smokers. Why be merciful with those who have shown no mercy?

Re:Not a good use of law

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fully supportive of the ban and would like even more punitive measures to be taken against smokers. Why be merciful with those who have shown no mercy?

Are you referring to the smokers or yourself?

Re:Not a good use of law

[smoker2]

The problem with non-smokers is that they don't care about smokers. A ban is required because non-smokers wouldn't otherwise voluntarily consider the well being, comfort, and health of smokers. No ban would be required if non-smokers were able to be considerate.

Most men understand that women don't want to be wolf whistled down the road. One section of society, therefore, restrains themselves for the benefit of another. Non-Smokers, by and large, do not want to restrain themselves. They want to impose their own lifestyle on others.

I don't support the ban and would like even more punitive measures to be taken against non-smokers. Why be merciful with those who have shown no mercy?

Re:Not a good use of law

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Vegas, people ignore the involuntary bans too. Bars don't have ash trays because it's a "caught red-handed" thing but even large chain bars give people rocks glasses to ash into. Casinos and bars that don't serve food were excluded from the ban, but not many places enforce it anyway.

VOIPs On A Plane

[acadermic]

Are they going to ban VOIP calls too? What are we really banning here?

Unconstitutional

[QuantumG]

Freedom of speech. Freedom of association. Fucking hell.

Re:Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconsitual my ass
Does your freedom of speech include harmimg passengers because yur FKNG cellphone which is a radio transmitter Interferes with the aircraft systems !
Why can the aircraft use their pay cellphone system and you cant use yours ?
Because theirs been tested with that aircraft and known not to interfere with its systems, , Each cellphone carried on by a passenger is a new potential problem. disaster that's why !

Re:Unconstitutional

[QuantumG]

The real danger is iPods. Hard drives are basically just spinning magnets.

Private pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a private pilot and an still Amateur radio operator, I used radio transceivers in my airplane Don't fly anymore too expensive
A cellphone is a UHF/microwave radio transceiver ,
The Cellphone makes my VOR VHF .ominrange navigational system spin like a Top so I know that cellphone radio frequencies can interfere with aircraft navigation
Also ,I learned that my cellphone is Never off ! It was turned off and still interfering with the aircraft navigation . This time it caused my transponder to report the wrong altitude to air traffic control ,they replied Check your transponder it's reported wrong altitude , had me falsely at 45,000 feet while flying at 2500 Ft! ,I had to remove the battery,from e cellphone to turn it off and the aircraft transponder began working again
Not only should cellphone not be allowed on aircraft THe FAA needs to know that some/ many transmit even when off for various reasons , so the batteries should also be removed , Personally, I Would want them confiscated at the airport as Off in too manycses is not really Off . I see firsthand the harm they can do
the FAA needs to make an FCC rule /law OFF must mean OFF cant transmit
  , I know they do this for police wiretaps \ if they want a wiretap on a cellphone
the Cellphone company or police can command the microphone and or camera on even when the phone is off
Don't believe it Huh?
Your cellphone carrier can update all of your cellphones firmware whether on or off, if oyu think they cant turn on the microphone and listen as well, your living in dreamworld ,

Re:Private pilot

[hummassa]

Good luck removing the battery from an iPhone :-)

Re:Private pilot

[Ragzouken]

I think there's a mobile interfering with your text input too.

Re:Private pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I fly frequently in a private playing with my father and ive never heard of this cellphone issue and we've had 3 or more phones in at a time????

Re:Private pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

The issues are complicated , It wont interfere in many planes , but it can in others .
A private pilot is much safer, if he does have interference he can stop using the cellphone/transmitter
buit in a big passenger aircraft if a passenger phone or otr electronics interferes, what them ?

I think all radio transmitters not part of yjr cockpit cellphone or otherwise need to be banned on all aircraft ,

Consider,
  All
  Electronics has some radio frequency that will interfere with it , wiring acts as random length tuned antennas
Even on those pieces of equipment tat are quote shielded or tested for interference, some radio frequency likely exists that might get into them.

Re:Private pilot

[karmatic]

After a couple changes for readability purposes:
Your cellphone carrier can update all of your cellphones firmware, whether [the phone is] on or off. If you think they can't turn on the microphone and listen as well, you're living in [a] dreamworld.

It's already happened.

Some phones do have the ability to have updates pushed down to them by the carrier. Generally speaking, phones with internet ability are more likely to allow this - the more "corporate friendly" the device, the easier it's likely to be.

Personally, I'm a (palm) Treo user - it doesn't have daemons listening which would allow the carrier to do this, even if I have internet access. Firmware updates are a big deal - it's not something that can be done remotely. Applications can be downloaded using the browser, but it's a manual process.

Windows mobile phones generally don't have this functionality, either - it would be difficult to hide, and there are too many things that could go wrong, as well as differences in hardware. Java-based phones make this easier.

The perfect example of this is the BlackBerry - they even Advertise this functionality.

Re:Private pilot

[karmatic]

Phones can cause interference, but it really depends. The plane makes a difference (bigger planes tend to have less issues), as does the phone.

As an extreme example, I have a phone that was dropped a couple times - when it's about to get a phone call, it makes loud noises on any speakers within 10 feet.

I had it configured to use email (timed pull); in a conference room, it kept setting off the polycom phone speaker every time it would try to pull data. Had to leave it in the next room.

When I replaced that phone with one of the same model, I could leave it 6 inches from the speakers and get a slight hum.

Larger planes tend to have

Re:Private pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes they can hide it !!
It has nothing to do with the Manufacturer or Os or type of phone. ,If it's within 5 years old it can likely be remotely. controlled, the idea started as an ides to stop piracy .
As far as firmware updates being hard ..
That is limited to the persons skill level and training ., You need to talk to some embedded engineers who never use an OS or an application program of any type .such as those who program your cars electronics.
I know It's hard for a PC only programmers to comprehend, but suffice it to say these guys are the people with the kind of skills to write hardware drivers .
To even a great PC programmers, Hardware drivers remain some some type of Magic
that they need some API etc to interface with .
we don't need no stinking API"s
I have been programming embedded systems for 20 years , and we never use any OS called Linux or windows or any Os at all .the firmware is the OS itself.
Contay to what yy might think..
Yes we can update the firmware remotely
and you will not see it, I know!
Turning on the microphone is as easy as writing a one or Zero to the Enable TX register.
and some cell tower have Rf channels devoted to law enforcement surveillance , They also put pickups on telephone poles ,
You need a device called a spectrum analyzer to see your phone is transmitting , there need not be any other indication its transmitting !
Display= off Microphone = on , set Channel to Surveillance channel 1
The update function and Monitoring of the microphone and camera is built into the phones firmware , simply because they can update it on the fly or this functionality was always there .
  It doesn't need to rely on any high level stuff Java , OS browser or application program at all.
  When law enforcement wants in, they just update the firmware and/or enable the monitor bit and your phone is under their control and your under surveillance . , Consider the firmware to be like your computers BIOS , You have no control over it

Re:Private pilot

[eli pabst]

MythBusters did a thing on this and couldn't get any noticeable changes in any of the navigation equipment. Their conclusion was that most of the equipment was too well shielded. Maybe on a small private plane that might be different.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html

Re:Private pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt that cellphone and that plane or planes were not interfered with in the few locations they tried
But radio interference is based on location, distance proximity, the type and manufactuer of the electronics things like placement of wires that act as antennas , I don't doubt their results were valid
  And aircraft are tested for this interference again in a limited way
  Aircraft wire placement is somewhat random random even between the same aircraft models

I know as an Rf engineer that saying this is representative of all aircraft and cellphones is incorrect
RF (radio freebies is like lightning made of the same stuff) , Where it goes and why is very complicated and each cellphone is unique all have some level of spurious frequency output as do any and all transmitters .
    A cellphone is a transmitter , Knowing what I do,and in deference to what this TV show said . I want cellphone use on airplanes banned

Re:Private pilot

[foniksonik]

I suspect that modern large planes don't suffer from the problems you are describing.... since NOBODY turns off their phone completely on planes now and i've yet to see a plane disaster caused by a cellphone problem.

So your anecdotal evidence while it may be true for your plane does not fit the evidence for large commercial jets.

Reminds me of a story

[damn_registrars]

the person with the phone is just a mental patient

When I took Psych 1001, our lecturer told us a story of a patient in NYC with a history of talking to the voices in his/her head. Patient (not of said lecturer) went to therapist for help with said voices. Patient was otherwise "normal", had traditional job, paid bills, lived independently, etc... But of course had a hard time fitting in while talking to voices.

Therapist suggested patient buy a used cell phone, and talk into phone (without turning it on or calling anyone) whenever the need arose to talk to the voices. It worked well, since of course society generally considers it normal to talk into cell phones.

Except the patient was also using it on the subway, where signals are apparently very hard to get. Other passengers asked the patient what service he/she was using that had usable signal down there.

Re:Reminds me of a story

[PhotoGuy]

Therapist suggested patient buy a used cell phone, and talk into phone (without turning it on or calling anyone) whenever the need arose to talk to the voices. It worked well, since of course society generally considers it normal to talk into cell phones.

I sure hope that story is apoc... ummm. apocryph... ummm... is of dubious authenticity.

Voices in your head is a serious sign of schizophrenia, which can result in some very dangerous behaviour. It should be treated, not just by covering one symptom.

It's like dealing with Billy's constant desire to shoot things, by giving him a water gun. The problem is still there, and will likely result in a tragedy if not dealt with.

Re:Reminds me of a story

[damn_registrars]

Well, as I said, its a story that was relayed to me. I don't know the final outcome. I don't know the people directly involved.

And why is the government involved again?

[Bogtha]

Polls show the public overwhelmingly doesn't want to be subjected to people talking on their cell phones on increasingly over-packed airplanes.

It's not the government's job to protect people from mild annoyances. If it's really true that the public "overwhelmingly" dislikes this, then that's a market the airlines can capitalise on. The market should solve this, and if it doesn't, tough.

What next? The government monitoring the Internet and fining anybody who says LOL U WAT? 'Cause, you know, that irritates me, and apparently I have the right not to be irritated. Next up: passing the Freedom from Arm Rest Theft act.

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL U WAT?

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[Nimey]

LOL. You expect the airline industry to do something to make flying less annoying?

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL WUT, Hitler?

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[GrumpySteen]

Of course it isn't. The government protects people from terrorism by creating new and meaningless annoyances like the TSA. Would would the government want to protect people from itself?

BTW... the TSA's new official response to questions about the necessity of their measures is now "LOL U WAT?"

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FART? Sorry, I just don't think people will want to get behind you on that.

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up: passing the Freedom from Arm Rest Theft act.

Ahhh, the great FART act. That's an act that I would truly rather NOT get behind.

Re:And why is the government involved again?

[IcePop456]

Why would we expect an industry that competes to point where they set prices that cause them to lose money would adopt policies and procedures that are in the best interest of the majority? My feeling is that a couple high paying business people would be willing to pay extra for the right. One airline would adopt and the rest would try to follow. According to the CNBC show on American Airlines, some flights are profitable by a few hundred dollars. One less passenger and it is a loss. Charging for cell phones would probably have a significant impact on their bottom line....

Yea, explain that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could always bring a satellite phone with you, apparently Iridium phones work well on planes. and since its not a common "cell phone" its unlikely to be covered by the ban.

beside calling on it is so expensive you won't stay on it long enough to annoy anyone.

Try explaining that to the stewardess.

Re:Yea, explain that.

[DavidTC]

That is why I kept my phone not only in 'airplane mode' but out of sight as I listened to mp3s and watched TV on it the last time I flew.

And despite what the article says, all but the cheapest phones now have that. Basically any phone that you can install Java programs on will have an airplane mode so you can play them on an airplane.

I've got to say

[SirShmoopie]

I've pretty much got to the point where apart from international flights I prefer to take the train.

Ok its slower, but its less crowded, much more comfortable, and the prices compare favourably.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but the days when I'm willing to be hassled at an airport and crammed in like sardines on an overpriced flight just to get somewhere faster are long since gone. I want a decent seat, a bar I can walk along to, hot food that I don't have to eat from a tiny tray on my lap, and leg room.

Actually, I say slower, but sometimes, given delays and cancellations on flights, the train has been faster.

wrong approach

[speedtux]

This is the wrong way of going about it. Outlawing cell phones may hurt SMS and email, but it won't outlaw IP telephony or boisterous conversations. Inconsiderate behavior can't be banned by banning a technology. If you don't want people to talk loudly in airplanes, then that's what you need to regulate.

I think air planes should have quiet sections, sections where no noisy phones, noisy babies, or conversations are permitted. If you make noise in the quiet section, it's no different than any other violation of air line rules.

Congress could mandate the existence of such quiet sections on large airplanes, just like they did for non-smoking sections.

Re:wrong approach

[afxgrin]

Well, go read the piece of legislation, find out if there's no hidden sections that restrict the use of other data transfer technologies, and either submit an article to /. explaining what you found or go make a million dollars.

Said like someone...

[hummassa]

that will probably never procreate. :-)

Let me draw this picture for you: kids are randomly noisy. There is absolutely nothing parents can do about kids' noise when they are up to it. Even a duck-tape-on-the-mouth kid makes a lot of noise. :-)

If you have some smart answer in the form of "if you do X, the kid will stay put", let me give you the news: it will not work. Kids only stay quiet... if they "want" to.

Re:Said like someone...

[HungryHobo]

Said like someone who has procreated and doesn't control their kids.

Regular beatings.
Sound triggered shock collars.
Wanna bet on how many shocks before they're quiet as mice?

On a less brutal note try some regular fucking discipline.
My sister somehow manages to raise 2 extremely well mannered children without ever raising a hand to them. I was surprised how much power "the naughty step" had over a pair of 3 year olds. In short she doesn't give in and let them be little brats like some parents do. If they're being a problem she doesn't stare vacantly into space and pretend that nothing's happening like many many shitty parents out there.

Yes I don't plan to ever procreate.

Re:Said like someone...

[Farmer Tim]

Even a duck-tape-on-the-mouth kid makes a lot of noise.

Cover the nostrils too. Then the noise stops after a minute or so.

Re:Said like someone...

[HungryHobo]

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

Re:Said like someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Said like someone who has procreated and doesn't control their kids.

It's always the typical response of negligent parents to blame anyone but themselves. In his case, the "unruly, uncontrollable" child. And without discipline early in life, as teenagers, then said parent shifts the blame to society. Wash, rinse, repeat for next kid.

Re:Said like someone...

[Shakrai]

On a less brutal note try some regular fucking discipline.

Just what kind of "regular fucking discipline" do you purpose to use on an infant? The GP was talking about the screaming infant not the obnoxious three year old. Newsflash: babies cry. Exactly what kind of "discipline" do you purpose to use on an infant that's making noise?

Re:Said like someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm young and don't have children my self, but I used to think that all kids were noisy annoying creatures. It's been my experience lately that there are some children that are not noisy and generally misbehaved. I would think the children's raising and their parents have a big part to play about how their children behave.

Re:Said like someone...

[iamwhoiamtoday]

I breath Oxygen you insensitive clod!!

Re:Said like someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

On a less brutal note try some regular fucking discipline.

Just what kind of "regular fucking discipline" do you purpose to use on an infant? Newsflash: babies cry. Exactly what kind of "discipline" do you purpose to use on an infant that's making noise?

Ok. Since we're in the newsroom and the ticker is, well, ticking to beat the band, let's take a moment at look back at your overwhelming stupidity; I mean "noise".

So. You freely admit that there are a few things that we can all agree on about "infants."
They:
A)Babies let out a banshee howl like their entire body is slowing being roasted over a fire: AKA "cry"
B)Common discipline is ineffective.
C)For Some reason you think it's a good idea to mix air travel and the above individual.

So, explain to me, knowing full well that an infant is totally immune to any discipline (except shaking), and will screech like a dying weasel for the entire flight....why the hell would you take an infant on a airplane? Are you just a sadistic SOB that is completely sociopathic and uncaring of the absolute misery that you inflict on fellow passengers?

I mean...we could maybe forgive you if you were dense enough to not realize your mistake, but doing so knowing full well the outcome is almost a premeditated attack on your part.

Re:Said like someone...

[Shakrai]

So, explain to me, knowing full well that an infant is totally immune to any discipline (except shaking), and will screech like a dying weasel for the entire flight....why the hell would you take an infant on a airplane?

Because if you try to put them in a box and Fedex them across the country you usually attract unwanted attention from CPS? Just deal with it.... some people have to travel with their infant for whatever reason. Infants cry.

Re:Said like someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Infants cry.

Wow. If that is your entire argument, no wonder you were dumb enough to have a child, not to mention take it on a plane.

It's pretty obvious that I win this argument by default. GG

Re:Said like someone...

[Shakrai]

If that is your entire argument

Should there be more to it? Infants cry. Parents sometimes have to travel with their infants. I don't enjoy the sound of a streaming baby all that much but I'm not going to throw a hissy fit about it.

no wonder you were dumb enough to have a child, not to mention take it on a plane.

A) I don't have kids yet, B) "It"?

It's pretty obvious that I win this argument by default. GG

Yes, the anonymous coward whose argument boils down to "people should never travel with their infants" wins the argument by default. I bow down to your infinite wisdom and realize the folly of my own position -- clearly we need to outlaw traveling with infants.

Re:Said like someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

A) I don't have kids yet

Thank God, Gods, Buddah, et al.

B) "It"?

*double checks*
Yes. That's what I typed. Good eyes on ya. I can tell by the "I see what you did there." comment.

Yes, the anonymous coward whose argument boils down to "people should never travel with their infants" wins the argument by default. ... clearly we need to outlaw traveling with infants.

Damn. And you were so good and reading and comprehending what I had written previously.

Just like the other....what is it now? A dozen?
Just like the other commenters on this part of the discussion of this article, my argument is not that "people should never travel with their infants", it's that infants shouldn't travel, pay attention now, on a plane .

Thankfully, I can go ahead and get to bed now, since you fully admit that

the anonymous coward...wins the argument by default

In addition:

[You] bow down to [my] infinite wisdom and realize the folly of [your] own position

Awesome! Glad we're in agreement.

Re:Said like someone...

[Shakrai]

Just like the other commenters on this part of the discussion of this article, my argument is not that "people should never travel with their infants", it's that infants shouldn't travel, pay attention now, on a plane .

Yeah because driving from New York to California is such a viable alternative.....

Re:Said like someone...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There is absolutely nothing parents can do about kids' noise when they are up to it.

They can beat them!

Re:Said like someone...

[Hatta]

Why yes, it is. People do that all the time. Frankly, it's a far superior alternative to air travel, with an infant or without.

Re:Said like someone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, it's a far superior alternative to air travel, with an infant or without.

This.

Re:Said like someone...

[Shakrai]

Why yes, it is. People do that all the time. Frankly, it's a far superior alternative to air travel, with an infant or without.

Hey I've driven across the country before (without an infant) and it's actually a pretty good time. I just take exception to this idea that people shouldn't travel by air with their infants.

I don't relish the sound of a screaming baby any more than the next guy but it's not realistic to expect that they never travel by air. In the grand scheme of all that sucks with air travel (TSA screeners with a chip on their shoulder, horrible take-it-or-leave-it customer service, lost luggage, fees for your first piece of luggage, fees for water which you aren't allowed to bring yourself, etc, etc, etc) I place crying infants towards the bottom of the list.

Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of children than most people but it seems to me that this problem could be solved with a pair of headphones and an mp3 player.

Re:Said like someone...

[hummassa]

Feel free to take it and leave the planes for people with or without kids.

Re:Said like someone...

[hummassa]

Notice that I didn't say "all" kids are noisy. I said that they are randomly noisy. As I put in another post, babies can be quiet or noisy -- without any parental intervention -- during and 8-hour flight. Toddlers and infants can be quiet or noisy. Even a well-educated 8yo can have inner ear pain and cry loudly and uncontrollably during a long flight.

Re:Said like someone...

[hummassa]

beating them usually gets the noise louder :-)

Re:Said like someone...

[Hatta]

I plan on it. There's very little anyone could do to entice me onto a plane again. For all I care the entire airline industry could die in some sort of fiery explosion.

Re:Said like someone...

[oyenstikker]

When I saw parents in public with kids who are screaming for no apparent reason, I used to feel bad for the kids, figuring there must be a reason.

Now that I am a parent, I feel bad for the parents. Your kids yell and scream, often because they want something and do not yet have the ability to communicate what they want, nor the self awareness and self control to handle the situation gracefully. Believe me, the parents would love to know how to make the kid happy, for the sake of themselves, their children, and everybody within ear shot. But the little things have minds of their own.

Re:Said like someone...

[DrgnDancer]

You know. I don't have kids. I do, however, know enough people with kids and have enough younger siblings and cousins to realize that sometimes the 18 month old baby is going to cry. Sorry, gonna happen. There is absolutely nothing you can do to "discipline" a kid under about 3-4 that will not make matters worse. if you're in a restaurant or a store a responsible parent will, when this happens, take the kid outside, or even take them home. When you're on a plane there's just not much they can can do. Even a "good" or "well disciplined" child, at a very young age, is going to have temper tantrums or just be cranky (especially if they've been sitting on a airplane for 4, 5 ,6 or 12 hours).

I'm not saying that there aren't some shitty parents out there, but it sure as hell is ALWAYS the parents fault when the baby is crying on the airplane. The older a kid is, the more you can expect from them, but it's pretty hard to reason with someone who hasn't quite figured out that all those sounds you make actually form meanings.

(My favorite will always remain the children who, as they being removed from the store, restaurant, or whatever for misbehavior, are screaming at the top of their lungs "NO MAMA! I'LL BE GOOOOD! NOOOO!" as if this is helping their case)

Re:Said like someone...

[DrgnDancer]

So really, like, when my friends grandfather in Ireland died he should have:

a) Left his 7 month old to fend for itself.
b) Driven across the Atlantic Ocean.
c) Taken a boat across and hope granddad didn't smell too bad by the time he got there.
d) Flown with an infant

Hmm.. tough one. Let me think...

It's great to say people shouldn't fly with infants, but in actual practice when you have an infant people still (inconveniently IMHO) die, get married, have kids of their own, and otherwise do things that require your presence. Sometimes those people live outside of driving distance. It's a terrible inconvenience to you I realize. Now some people try to abuse their freedom to travel and bring infants on vacations and other non-essential travel, but that's what you get when you give people "rights", they think they apply all the time. Sigh.

(For the record, I do not have children)

No VoIP

[Oh no, it's Dixie]

(1) IN GENERAL- An individual may not engage in voice communications using a mobile communications device in an aircraft during a flight in scheduled passenger interstate air transportation or scheduled passenger intrastate air transportation.

(2) VOICE COMMUNICATIONS USING A MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE-

`(A) INCLUSIONS- The term `voice communications using a mobile communications device' includes voice communications using--

`(i) a commercial mobile radio service or other wireless communications device;

`(ii) a broadband wireless device or other wireless device that transmits data packets using the Internet Protocol or comparable technical standard; or

`(iii) a device having voice override capability.

`(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include voice communications using a phone installed on an aircraft.

Looks like no VoIP, folks. However, the wording of this bill leads me to believe that airlines will soon push in-flight calling through the airplane phones.

Re:No VoIP

[hanshotfirst]

(B) EXCLUSION- Such term does not include voice communications using a phone installed on an aircraft.

Nice loophole... just put on your bluetooth earpiece for the call and hold the airplane phone handset to your head for looks.

I smell a lobbyist... Sounds like this bill is really designed to protect the airlines' phone service, by keeping it the exclusive air-land communication medium in-flight?

Re:No VoIP

[LMacG]

I was under the impression that most of those airphones were being decommissioned because they weren't making any money to begin with. However, looks like Verizon just sold that business, and perhaps the new owner, JetBlue's LiveTV, will do something interesting.

Re:No VoIP

[Anonymous Coward]

NetBIOS Rulez the airwaves then (but not over TCP/IP)!

Antique navigation....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cellphone makes my VOR VHF .ominrange navigational system spin like a Top ....

Airlines and modern planes use GPS or inertial navigation in some cases.

I'm a pilot too, but the radio navigation in your typical 50s, 60s, 70s, and even later era rentals is stone knives and bearskins compared to what the airlines are using.

A cell has never interfered with my GPS. Now, the radios on the other hand, I would get horrible interference when my instructor once took a call - on the ground of course.

Re:Antique navigation....

[Anonymous Coward]

My specialty in EMC
Electromagnetic compatibly, Newer electronics is even more susceptible to interference due their increased complexity and mass of wiring act as antennas
it is incorrect to assume that every aircraft electronics systems can resist radio/ RF interference to the same level .
Each aircraft is individual as is each transmitter /cellphone
  Radio transmitters do not exist that have no spurious outputs and potential unwanted radio receivers are every electronic system in the aircraft , All transmitters transmit on more than their design frequency,albeit lower power . yes modern aircraft have been tested at cellphone radio frequencies when designed, but not after modifications/ repairs changes So just because you didn't see your GPS fail What about the other electronics systems?
  Electronic engine control, servo systems ?to name a few , The wrong interfering frequency can potentially get into the aircraft electronic system , Cellphone are designed to Minimize spurious outputs but yet spurious RF outputs can never be removed ,and what frequency those output not only on the manufacturer , but the condition of the individual cellphone
Its not Just GPS it's all electronics in the plane ,
Regards

Moviehouses anyone???

[bangenge]

Why can't we do this in theaters? Seriously???

Re:Moviehouses anyone???

[DDLKermit007]

Because cellphone jammers are illegal in the US. In Japan the main cellphone company installs jammers in movie theaters & those kinds of places. I love this place^^

Re:Moviehouses anyone???

[geekoid]

A) Is this really a problem? I haven't been bothered by someone using a cell phone in a movie theater in ages.

B) Have you complained to the Movie House owners?

They could toss someone out, if the have a policy on this issue.

Re:Moviehouses anyone???

[I'm not really here]

Plain and simple: No one wants to be liable for someone missing a call that causes someone's death. (doctor on call, friend calls to say she's committing suicide, I'm sure that the creative people here can come up with more). Basically no one wants to be responsible for a death due to trying to eliminate an annoyance.

Re:Moviehouses anyone???

[riceboy50]

Wait. So you're saying this is illegal to buy in the US? I have not seen or heard of such a law.

Re:Moviehouses anyone???

[DDLKermit007]

Quite illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_jammer

pff

[amnezick]

1. halt airplane noise (as in "turn off engines")
2. stand airplane noise for a while (as in "everybody screams")
3. everyone tries to use cells to phone family so issue fines
4. profit

So screaming babies are okay....

[voss]

but me calling my loved ones isnt?

The proposed law proposed still allows talking on a phone installed on an aircraft.

You can be loud and obnoxious on the phone in the air all you want as long as your willing to pay $6 a minute!

Re:So screaming babies are okay....

[91degrees]

Well, you don't absolutely need to call your loved ones if you're on a plane. Some people do absolutely need to bring babies. If you can find a reliable means to prevent babies from screaming then I'd be all for it.

Re:So screaming babies are okay....

[voss]

Its called baby benadryl, perhaps we should mandate its use on board planes. ;-)

Re:So screaming babies are okay....

[karmatic]

Some people do absolutely need to bring babies. If you can find a reliable means to prevent babies from screaming then I'd be all for it.
A plastic bag?

Re:So screaming babies are okay....

[geekoid]

Your setting up a false Dichotomy.
Babies and phones are separate issues.
And yes, people should be able to use their Cell phones if they talk in a norm conversational tone.

I think the people are pissed becasue they can't snoop on your entire conversation.

Re:So screaming babies are okay....

[Bloke down the pub]

If you can find a reliable means to prevent babies from screaming

Boobies. Works for some adults too. So they say.

Next time on Congressional Report...

[Kashell]

Senator Batman says, "We can't let those evil cell phone talkers on these planes! Let's spend a few billion dollars to prevent it! (I can do this, because secretly I'm Bruce Wayne.) TO THE BATMOBILE!!

two words

[Anonymous Coward]

ear plugs

Re:two words

[ztransform]

ear plugs

Ear plugs attenuate sound, not eliminate it. When the noise in an aircraft cabin is approximately 90 decibels and ear plugs attenuate in the order of 26 decibels then the resulting sound will be approximately 64 decibels.

Even though the resulting sound transmitted to the ear drums is lower through the ear plugs the composition of the noise is largely the same, that is speech on top of engines.

Ear plugs would not resolve the nuisance and distraction of cell phones.

Both are hazardous to your health

[dreamchaser]

One (smoking) is hazardous to the health of everyone on the plan, while the other (cellphone use) is mostly hazardous to the asshat who is yelling into his phone about his golf game yesterday. I say it's hazardous to his health because if I am sitting next to him I am going to shove his phone into whichever of his bodily orifices I can fit it into nice and snugly.

Re:Both are hazardous to your health

[PachmanP]

But then you could be considered a violent passenger and they'd taser you and land the plane as soon as possible.

Re:Both are hazardous to your health

[davester666]

Except what makes this stupid is that most every single plane I've flown in, except for I think the twin engine turboprops which are rather loud, have a phone embedded in the back of the row of seats in front of me.

The sole reason nobody uses them for any length of time is the absolutely crazy per-minute fee they charge.
And who thinks it will be any cheaper to make/receive a call on your cell phone instead of the built-in phone?

Aside from the initial 'novelty' aspect, which quickly blows over once reports of how expensive it is come out, most of the time you'll only hear beeps for text messages and peoples crazy ringtones. Now, the ringtones themselves are reason enough to ban this support...

Re:Both are hazardous to your health

[Anonymous Coward]

... I am going to shove his phone into whichever of his bodily orifices I can fit it into nice and snugly.

Yeah, sure you are. After you try, and the man pops your eyeball out whilst still talking on the phone, you'll wish you'd kept your fantasies in check.

That the best you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

An overwhelming number of people dislike getting bird poop on their arms and oh ... lots of other things. So how about this shiny new laws?

Prevent Excrement on The Arm (PETA)

New act needed

[YourExperiment]

I suggest we are in need of a Free Up Congress to Keep Yammering On but Ultimately Come to Understand their Naming's Terribly Stupid act.

Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they not have more pressing issues then cell phones on planes? Are they gonna blame Bush for this problem too? We elect these people to high office to solve complex and pressing problems and this is what we get? Amazing. I live in Oregon, Representative Peter DeFazio is a freaking self-serving nut job. Someone on his first-class flight back to D.C. must have disturbed his 5 martini ride.

WTF?

[consonant]

Cash-strapped airlines could end up charging some passengers to use their phones while charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane

BZZT! wrong! How about you only charge passengers to use phones and seat THEM in an appropriately equipped area? Don't make this shit opt-out.

Or naaah, they can just start charging extra now for passengers to not get hit by stewards/stewardesses with fly-swatters. Or maybe for a tiny extra fee, you could be seated in an area where they don't randomly throw passengers out..

Re:WTF?

[greyhoundpoe]

Or naaah, they can just start charging extra now for passengers to not get hit by stewards/stewardesses with fly-swatters. Or maybe for a tiny extra fee, you could be seated in an area where they don't randomly throw passengers out..

I see you fly United too.

Cellular phones work in flight?

[Anonymous Coward]

I havent flown commercially since i started carrying a cell but my experiences with small planes is that once your above 4000ft (AGL) your out of service??

They're

[Anonymous Coward]

just ignoring the lift on banning drilling until it expires. There were a couple of stupid over-reaching bills on the table lately.

You can't legislate manners

[barzok]

However I'm not at all opposed to vigilantes addressing the issue on their own.

In cattle class? Don't worry.

[mcbridematt]

Some airlines (Singapore Airlines and Emirates) already have in flight phone services in every seat. You swipe your credit card and get billed $6US/minute or something equally outrageous. I haven't travelled internationally in a while, but when it is available the phone is intergrated into the remote for the passengers IFE screen.

If they charge that much, we can assume they will do the same for in flight mobile phone use (or even more; the equipment needs to be paid somehow). OK, they'll probably charge a bit less for US Domestic where some specialised infrastructure is being developed, but still, its going to cost a bit of money. This kind of equipment doesn't necessarily pay for itself, remember Boeing's Connexion?

So, the most likely target audience and users of such service will be those in Business or First class, who on the airlines mentioned above, already enjoy some (or huge) degree of space separation from other passengers. They probably already do use these in-air phones and don't hear any whining about it..

Not banned in trains

[justleavealonemmmkay]

It is not banned in trains where it is cheap. Why should it be banned in planes where it is prohibitively expensive ?

Re:Not banned in trains

[Colonel Korn]

It is not banned in trains where it is cheap. Why should it be banned in planes where it is prohibitively expensive ?

Cell use is banned on a lot of commuter trains in Europe and the US, but that's done by the train operator, not the government.

call 'em up

[Rinisari]

Why the hell do we need federal legislation to stop people talking on cell phones on planes? Why? There is absolutely NO reason for any federal legislator to be spending any time even THINKING about such farcical laws.

State legislators could go crazy with it, but it barely affects them.

Airlines need to take a stand here and tell the federal government that they can govern themselves.

I don't like to speak of slippery slopes, but what's next? Congress declaring that no one can use laptops on a plane? that no one can use iPods on a plane? that no one can have CD players on a plane? that no one can have books on a plane (it might incite a riot!)?

Total and utter crap. Call your senators/reps, folks.

Social engineering is the answer, not laws.

[Uniquitous]

What we need is a sustained campaign of advertising and PSA's centered around the message: "Don't be an ass." Kind of like the "turn off your cel phone" blurb they show before the feature starts at the movies. Or to quote Flickr, "You know that guy. Don't be that guy."

Re:Social engineering is the answer, not laws.

[Shados]

And in theaters that don't enforce the "turn off your cell phone" thing by kicking people who abuse theirs too much, there's always a BUNCH of asses talking their butts off during the movie.

You need teeth. In this day and age, a lot of people go by the "if I can do it without getting in trouble, I'll do it" moto. Being "nice" is a suggestion observed by a minority.

Re:Social engineering is the answer, not laws.

[Creepy Crawler]

I'll tell you how to deal with them.

"No ticket"

Is talking impermissible?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is talking on a cellphone fundamentally different from talking to, say, a friend of yours next to you?

Re:Is talking impermissible?

[Hognoxious]

It's mentally more invasive because you only get half the conversation; we aren't evolved for that.

That and the fact that people using cellphones always SHOUT.

Fascism

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

It's awesome that the central government makes laws about things like this. It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy to have the State go to the trouble of making these things into crimes and not letting market forces and property owners decide things like this on their own. This is another example of why the State is our Savior (Peace be upon it).

Re:Fascism

[Joe Tie.]

And people don't get that this is happening, constantly, at every level. Even the local government in most places is absolutely ridiculous in terms of passing pointless laws.

And nobody's mentioned 9/11?

[optimus2861]

I'm amazed this could get through a post-9/11 Congress. Y'know, the day that big government failed spectacularly to protect its citizens, but the passengers of flight 93 used their cell phones to find out what was going on and put a stop to it?

So from that it naturally flows to ban cell phone use on airplanes. Brilliant thinking there.

Re:And nobody's mentioned 9/11?

[geekoid]

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc

It's called freedom...

[dk.r*nger]

...making itself so obnoxious as to border on rude.

Living in freedom includes other peoples right to be obnoxious, as long as they don't force you to be near them while they are. And NO, voluntarily flying around in airplanes is not being forced to anything.

By the way, you premise is wrong. If the majority had such a big problem with people talking on airplanes, airlines would offer talk-free sections, or even talk-free flights, in order to attract more of the silent fliers.

Outlawing discomfort is a slide to fascism, just hope and pray that you, your job/profession or some vice you have won't become a discomfort to a majority someday.

Who Cares About Passengers? How About Drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a shit about passengers yapping on cell phones on planes - they aren't the ones flying the plane! How about a federal HANGUP act for drivers of cars?!?

How about talking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just ban talking too? If you're going to be annoyed because Joe is talking on his cell phone, you should be just as annoyed that Bill and Mary have been talking the whole damn flight. Why won't they SHUT THE FUCK UP and let me sleep?

Screaming babies, of course, should be left in the luggage compartment

Re:How about talking?

[ztransform]

Can we just ban talking too?

I'm all for this. A quiet section of the aircraft for singles, a mid section for couples, and the rear for rugby teams and babies.

Actually talking is one thing, but high pitch leakage from headphones turned right up to combat engine noise is much worse. And I couldn't image the annoyance cell phone ring tones and SMS alerts would be.

Screaming babies, of course, should be left in the luggage compartment

It's sad but most screaming babies don't even pay for a ticket as children under a certain age go free. I seriously wonder why any parents really need to travel with a young baby that will serious disturb in the order of one hundred people, particularly on long haul flights. It is an extremely selfish act by the parents involved.

I wonder if certain long haul flights, like Los Angeles to London, could be closed to babies except for one flight per week.

Re:How about talking?

[geekoid]

Oh suck it up.
People need to travel.
You freakin' whiner.

False!

[Suzuran]

This is an urban legend.

The pressurization system does not work that way. It has to be continually fed ram air from outside the aircraft and/or high-pressure bleed air from the engines to make up for the air that leaks out of the aircraft. If the airlines tried to simply "recycle the cabin air" the air would leak out of the airplane and the cabin would become unbreathable in a matter of minutes. See Payne Stewart and Helios 522 for examples of how quickly the cabin can lose pressure when not maintained.

Overpacked Airplanes?

[jlf278]

I'm pretty sure they still only pack them to capacity.

freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ain't it great to be free?

Ever stop and consider your kid's feelings?

[Suzuran]

Babies cry on airplanes because their ears are not able to adjust to the change in cabin pressure. The cabin pressure altitude can be as high as 8500 feet on a normal flight. The engine noise doesn't help either. The kid is scared and in pretty severe pain throughout the trip. But hey, you don't have to worry about it, go ahead and put your personal convenience above your kid's well-being. You're only the parent, you don't have to be inconvenienced because you have a kid - That's the rest of the world's problem.

It takes a village to ignore a screaming baby on an airplane!

Re:Ever stop and consider your kid's feelings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'all are missing the point.

"SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL WITH AN INFANT."

There, maybe you got the point now.

So, in the case where "SOMEONE HAS TO TRAVEL WITH AN INFANT" what do you propose they do? How do I drive from New York to London when my family relocates there with my 3 month old child, 5 and 7 year olds, because my husband's job was moved there, and they have to be in their new school for the next school year?

See, an example. Please tell me how to solve that one without interfering with all the self-victimizing people out there who apparently live on this board. Just generalizing now, but it appears geeks are far, far less tolerant of things and much more demanding that their own behaviorial problems are met while totally disregarding others.

I.E. you're a bunch of self-centered brats yourselves who probably should travel on airlines.

Re:Ever stop and consider your kid's feelings?

[Suzuran]

What part of AIR TRAVEL IS EXTREMELY PAINFUL FOR BABIES do you not understand? You're calling me an intolerant self-centered brat because I don't want you to put your child in extreme pain for your own personal convenience? A BABY IS PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY EQUALIZING PRESSURE IN THEIR INNER EAR BY THEMSELVES - They're too small for their eustachian tubes to open far enough to pass air quickly enough. The experience can be traumatizing. There is even potential for permanent ear damage. Parents can sometimes induce equalization by causing baby to suckle or chew during the climb and descent, but they usually aren't told how or when to do this. It may not work depending on the physiology of your baby. Once you are halfway to cruise altitude is too late to learn that baby has ear problems. Don't gamble with your child's hearing just to save time. It's a few days or hours for you if you win, but it's a lifetime with bad or no hearing for THEM if you lose.

There is such a thing as a SHIP that crosses the oceans periodically carrying passengers. (No, not cruise ships. Passenger ships. Google is your friend.) It's not cheap and it's not fast, but it doesn't put your baby in immense pain. Which is worth more to you?

If you can't afford passage by ship and don't want your child to suffer, you have to wait. Sorry, sometimes life doesn't work in your favor. Raising children is hard. You can't always take the easy way out. (Don't let this discourage you. Stick it out and raise the kid right. Be persistent and firm. Don't believe that "it takes a village" garbage - Take initiative and be independent. Anyone can raise your kids badly, but only you can raise them right. They'll thank you when they're old enough to understand.)

Re:Ever stop and consider your kid's feelings?

[HungryHobo]

Oh sometimes children have to travel but it pisses others off when the parent is sitting stating into space pretending their 5 year old brat isn't kicking the chair of the person in front and they're making no fucking effort to comfort/quiet the 5 year old screaming at the top of her lungs. These are what we call SHITTY PARENTS.

9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do people need to use their phones in-flight anyway?"

On Sept. 11, 2001, the passengers aboard United 93 learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon via cell phone.

If they had not known that the hijackers had intended to use their plane as a kamikze-cruise-missile, they probably wouldn't have done anything.

Where various government agencies such as the FBI, CIA, DoD, INS, FAA, etc. had failed, the only people who managed to successfully fight back and thwart the terrorists' plans were ordinary civilians armed with information.

Of course, in typical bureaucratic fashion, the response has been to give more money and power to various government agencies, while working to ensure that we behave like a herd, not a pack.

Can I get myself added to the no-fly list?

[Quattro Vezina]

I have refused to fly for several years due to increasing security regulations (the last time I was on a plane was in 1999). This is just more of the same.

I don't want to take the chance my employer will try to make me fly somewhere. Is there somewhere I can apply to have myself irrevocably added to the no-fly list?

Re:Can I get myself added to the no-fly list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Take a Qu'ran and some hand-wired electronics to an international airport and try to get tickets to a country in the Middle East.

Re:Can I get myself added to the no-fly list?

[Quattro Vezina]

Awesome.

I almost burst out laughing in the office after reading your post.

Why do you think...

[hummassa]

... that you have more right to be on a plane than my 2yo daughter?
News for you: you DON'T
Why do you think it's a good idea to travel 3000 miles with your 2yo in a car or train?
News for you: it isn't.
Planes are a reasonably quick and safe way to get from A to B. Me and my kids have every right to go from A to B in a reasonably quick and safe way, provided we have paid the fare. End of story.
Kids cry.
Infants and toddlers cry.
Even extremely well-mannered 8yo kids cry if they have some ear pain while inside a plane.
And they all have the same travelling rights as you.
Your options are: earplugs and earphones. Deal with it.

Re:Why do you think...

[NeoSkandranon]

Both your "rights" to fly are precisely zero don't forget. Using the services of the airlines is a privilege.

(Not implying that this is what you do, but:) What I don't understand is why anyone would, knowing their child doesn't handle event X well (be it flying, or ANYTHING) and is prone to cry, still persist on pulling the kid into that situation.

Re:Why do you think...

[HungryHobo]

If I sit screaming for hours on end I'll be kicked off(bus) or banned(plane), your child is not held to the same standards as me, hence I can expect the parents to make some sort of reasonable fucking effort to quiet/comfort their younger children and tell the older ones to toughen up and shut the fuck up.

News for you: it isn't.

For the lazy parent it isn't, for me it is.

Re:Why do you think...

[HungryHobo]

Also if your kids really have to travel on a plane and they're going to be in pain for hours, for their sake and the sake of other DRUG THEM. GIVE THEM PAINKILLERS.

ah but no, drugs are bad, mkay.

Re:Why do you think...

[hummassa]

What if the pain start while inside the plane? Do you happen to carry some morph or oxycodone with you all the time? Don't be silly. My argument is: even non-lazy parents can have a tough time taming noisy but normally quiet kids. One of the hazards of a plane travel is putting up with some hours of kid noise. Live with it or don't fly, it's your choice -- just please don't whine and don't pass judgment in something you don't know jack about.

Re:Why do you think...

[HungryHobo]

What if the pain start while inside the plane?
You'd have to be pretty thick to not see it coming, how hard is it to plan ahead?
Very it seems if you're a shitty parent.

Think about this: to save yourself the fucking cost of a babysitter or longer ground journey YOU ARE RISKING YOUR CHILDS HEARING!
If they're too young to equalise the pressure on their ears then it can do serious damage to their hearing, PERMANENT DAMAGE YOU SHITTY SHITTY PARENT.

Re:Why do you think...

[hummassa]

You are acting like an idiot and I am thru talking to you.
You won a solitary place in my killfile.
Congrats.

Power...I seek power!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Here's a novel idea: Keep your damned nose out of it. Any little stupid thing that some power-hungry idiot can latch onto becomes a potential for a law.

It's bad enough you shouldn't use a cell phone in a doctor's waiting room or a hospital. Not because you might mess up his equipment. Rather because it irritates cranky old coots.

Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFS:

"'However, with Internet access just around the corner on U.S. flights, it won't be long before the ban on voice communications on in-flight planes is lifted,' said Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon who co-sponsored the HANG UP Act in a statement."

Did a congressman just admit that they were spinning their wheels by working on passing legislation that would eventually be overturned anyway? With $4/gallon gas, out-of-control deficit spending, and Congress about to take a 5-month vacation, I'm glad they have their priorities straight.

Airplane Noise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered what it is in airplanes that makes such a hellish noise. Now I know, it's the cellphone users!

edit

[GungaDan]

delete "Fedex" insert "drug." It's safe and humane, and has the added bonus of not making me shove your screaming fucking brat up one of your bodily orifices.

This is BS

[geekoid]

Safety is the only reason not to allow them.

If someone is having a loud conversation, then ask them to quite down. If the won't then the flight attendant should take the phone.

Normal conversation tones is fine, regardless of where someone is.

This is getting stupid. There is nothing like listening to to people ahve a loud conversation, then start getting all upset at the guy sitting at his table talking into his cell phone at a proper volume for the enviroment.

I don't even have a cell phone. I have people to handle that sort of business for me.

I ahve the most to gain from this and I can see it's BS.

Re:This is BS

[afxgrin]

I can't say safety is a strong argument anymore.

All the major passenger aircrafts depend on high frequency AC sources from the turbines to power the aircraft. Most of the equipment on-board should be shielded/designed to handle high frequency RF for that reason alone. If the shielding/design provides the equivalent of a low-pass filter to the equipment, then higher RF sources like cell phones should also be shielded against by default.

Hell, I imagine the cabin would act like a giant waveguide anyway. Just make sure there's no communication, control, power cables within a wavelength spacing or two from the cabin walls. Just-in-case of some sort of evanescent wave coupling between the cabin and the cables. Aside from that, I can't think of any other reason besides the overall cost of inspecting all these aircraft for problems like this.

Obviously someone should be paid to sit testing electrical leads with an oscilloscope for a wide variety of aircraft before anything like this should be approved.

free country?

[robmclaughjr]

Here's a T-Shirt I'd like to see "IF I CAN'T TALK TO MY KID ON MY CELL PHONE, I SURE AS HELL AIN'T TALKING TO YOU!". Go ahead, take away my cell phone. I'll increase my hostility to those nearby. Why would I interact with the as*wipe in the next seat if I can't talk to someone I actually care about? They should call it the "Inflate the Hate" bill. They used to give tickets to cars going over 5mph for scaring the horses. That's the same mindset.

What's next?

[Doug52392]

What's next, the Halting Public Noise to Give Us Peace (HPNG UP) Act, that bans talking on cell phones IN PUBLIC? Or how about the Halting Children's Noise to Give Us Piece Act (HCNGUP) Act, that bans annoying kids from talking in public (or online)???

I admit, I find it annoying that people can sometimes get carried away on their phones and forget they're in a public place, but that's no excuse to ban them!

Eh...

[rtechie]

Perhaps this will be an issue when there's one national airline in the US, but I can't see this going anywhere right now. The airlines make a lot of money selling in-flight phone and internet service in a vain attempt to stay solvent, I don't see them abandoning revenue streams.

Yay! Free for all!

[ColdWetDog]

I propose a slightly more advanced solution - take the first-come-first-served approach at Southwest Airlines and ramp it up a notch.

Aspiring passengers go through security and get into the boarding area. They are then given a selection of axes, cutlasses, shirken or whatever close-in weapon you choose (out of a TSA approved list). Fifteen minutes before takeoff, the gate critter announces that boarding has started. Survivors get seats. Anyone wanting to use a cell phone in flight has to defend their turf. Therefore, no yacking 13 year old cheerleaders. No out of shape salesmen. (Oops. No slashdotters either.)

Aye Mateys!

We can call it AirDarwin.

Think I'll back down on the coffee this morning. Next one is just going to be a double shot.

Red Wine + Ambien + The Tragically Hip = Serenity

[armchair99]

Seriously, no need for a cell phone ban. Flying internationally as often as I do, I have developed a sure fire cure for screaming kids, bitter flight attendants that should have retired in 1985, rude passengers and, if need be, cell phone addicts. I call it the better living through chemistry method.

• Establish yourself as a force to be reckoned with by identifying and staring down any suspected loud miscreants when boarding ("There's a crazy guy in 12C!".)
• Avail yourself of the drink cart. ("Not only is he crazy but he's drinking!")
• Take one legally obtained, by prescription 10mg Ambien for flights of more than 8 hours (half a tab if less).
• Avail yourself of the drink cart yet again. ("The crazy guy's getting drunk!")
• Don noise cancelling headset connected to fully charged iPod playing your favorite tunes.
• Check eyelids for light leaks for 3 minutes.
• Enjoy complete unconsciousness and serendipitous dreams.
• Be awakened and chastised for using an electronic device below 10000 feet by one of the aforementioned bitter flight attendants as the aircraft descends on approach to your destination!

Jerks

[hondo77]

What about a bill to ban the loud, drunk jerks on my last flight? Why did I have to tell the flight attendants that I was wearing headphones to keep from disturbing my neighbors and that the "party" in front of me were disturbing their neighbors with their singing? Couldn't the flight attendants have figured that out for themselves?

First Amendment? What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"

Oh, except for if it's on planes. Because, you know, people have some mythical "right to not be annoyed or hurt or offended" here in 2008. Right.

Citizens Raging Against Phones

[HTH NE1]

Lazlow: Ants, killer bees, fat people, what's plaguing you? Call now! Chatterbox, hello, you're on the air...
Caller: Err yes...I'd like to say something about these damn people trains and buses in this city who yammer on and on into cell phones. I'm really glad to hear about what your having dinner! What we should do, is herd them up, and put them on island. I am the President of a group called Citizens Raging Against Phones."
Lazlow: "C.R.A.P."?!?
Caller: Exactly!
Lazlow: "Your organization's called 'CRAP,'...wh...what kind of moron are you...you wanna round people up for using a phone?!? But you...your calling up on a phone t...to tell the world about it! I...I mean, how many people are there in this 'CRAP'?
Caller: Citizens are raging against phones, Lazlow!!
Lazlow: How many people?
Caller: There are three of us. It's hard organizing meetings without the phones though. We've had to resort to carrier pigeons, and they keep disappearing.
Lazlow: What are you speaking to me on? What...what's that in your hand?
Caller: I am not the problem! You are! And you're perpetuating the downfall of mankind! Liberty City was great before phones ruined everything.
Lazlow: Liberty City was a church, a cow pasture and 3 houses when the telephone was invented!
Caller: Liar!!
Lazlow: You're the liar!
Caller: Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Lazlow: What are...are you three years old?!?
Caller: Lazlow's a liar, Lazlow's a liar!! I bet that isn't even your real name.
Lazlow: Shut up!!
Caller: You shut up!!
Lazlow: Stupid!
Caller: Nanny nanny boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo!
Lazlow: Ohh...we're going to commercials!

Is your job affecting your health? Do you become fatigued? Does working take time away from family and social events like watching wrestling?...

Broken thinkiing

[Aphoxema]

"Honey, there's terrorists on the plane, we really should call someone."

"We can't, it's against the law! I don't want to get put in prison!"

"They killed the pilots, I don't think they had a chance to warn anyone!"

"Haven't you heard of HANG UP? We're not breaking a federal law and that's final."

*Increasingly* over-packed?!

[xav_jones]

What the?! I guess previously they were only a little over-packed -- say 5 or 6 people standing in the aisles -- but I guess now they are really over-packed with upwards of 20 or 30 taking up the aisles and any free overheard storage space.

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pleased with this decision. If the airlines won't stop it, then the only other entity that can is the government.

one comment of Scalia's I like

[Trepidity]

Although he's a bit of an ass in general, I do like a comment of his on the subject, from his majority opinion in United States v. Williams (2008) in which he with dry sarcasm refuses to use one of these silly acronyms:

"After our decision in Free Speech Coalition, Congress went back to the drawing board and produced legislation with the unlikely title of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 650. We shall refer to it as the Act."

the airline doesn't want to deal with it

[Trepidity]

The airlines would much rather it be federal law so that they can deflect blame: "hey, we're going to have to ask you to turn that off; sorry, it's federal law". It's more messy on their end of it's just corporate policy, as then they have to deal with obnoxious cell-phone users complaining about and/or refusing to obey their policies.

Screw Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace!

[WGFCrafty]

And give Imagine Whirled Peace a try.

It's really good.

it does seem to vary by parents, though

[Trepidity]

No so much in the sense of disciplining kids, as in treating them as thinking human beings who're expected to act intelligently. There's a remarkable correlation between intelligence and demeanor of the parents and that of the kids, which I don't think is wholly genetic: for example, I've traveled near university professors with children a number of times and very few times had any complaints. Compare to the experience traveling near the children of stock brokers on the one hand, or Jerry Springer types on the other.

noise from conversations is ...

[Weezul]

so. not. what. the. inter. state. commerce. clause. was. written. for.

If this survives the courts, I'm going to sue some crying baby's parents.

"Detachable Penis", sayeth King Missile....

[Synonymous Bosch]

Firstly, this bill doesn't go far enough. Ban the use of mobiles, blackberries, whatever in pubs, on busses, at sporting events. Force these loud talking assholes to take their hands off their surrogate cocks for a few minutes and give the rest of us some peace.

Secondly, if airlines are going to have phone and phone-free sections, I demand smoke and smoke-free sections so i can have a cigarette mid-flight.

If the phone users can indulge their compulsive behaviours inflight, I want to indulge mine.

inb4 masturbation (oh wait, wrong forum)

Planes have PHONES!!

[TheCastro]

Last time I checked I could run my credit card through the phone attached to the seat in the middle of the plane and complain away. Also some Arabic airline was saying they were going to allow cell phones and internet access onto planes. Whoa, you mean I can't steer or cause a plane to crash by using my phone, cd player, laptop, or gameboy?

What about general aviation

[ghjm]

What if I'm the pilot and sole occupant of my airplane? Is it now illegal for me to use my phone in flight? Also, is it prohibited to TALK on the phone, or to USE the phone - such as for Blackberry emails?

Note that the "you're traveling too quickly between cell towers" or "your broadcast covers too large an area" objections don't apply - I'm at 3000 feet traveling at 100 mph. So this is (or should be) purely an FAA, not an FCC matter.

-Graham

My cold dead hands

[Anonymous Coward]

How DARE the government interfere with my cell phone rights! Don't they have something to do in IRAQ?!? What about those drunks and gossipy old women who won't shut UP! Squalling kids?!? Keep THEM off the plane.

If I'm doing a deal, calling my scumbag ex or checking to see if the kid did the household chores it's MY business and NOBODY can tell me otherwise. If some loser turns and says to me I'm disturbing their loser sleep, they can just poke out their loser eardrums and walk their loser selves next time!

If somebody is whining that they can hear my conversation way up in the pilots loft or back there in the turd closet then they can just return to their vow-of-silence monastery they came out of! And don't try any of that celljammer.com crap cause I got a 6th sense for those sorts of things and I'll SUE your assh off!!!

Marketing ploy?

[Maverynthia]

Meh, sounds like a marketing ploy to con more money out of people traveling. Cell phone or no cell phone section. Really I think they should enforce a cell policy that requires people to talk at a normal low level rather than yelling most people seem to do. THEN and only then if they refuse that they are forced to hang up. If I had my way, I'd have a children and NO children section. As those things are FAR more annoying, especially with the way parenting is. Either that, or a bill to beat the annoying kid into silence 'cuz mommy dunt wanna'.

Hey! Let's Roll! Eva hear of Flite 93?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first indication that the Saudi Terrorists of Al Qaida was takin over planes was from cell fones. Now the rule is no phones!? Wonder if the Al Qaida have infiltrated the United States House of Ripoff da voters and commit treason on them? After all, stopping the ability to warn is a surefire way to make absolutely sure they suck-seed the next time they try to hit the capitol....where the Quisling politicos work to make the pro Al Qaida law that facilitated Al Qaida's and their fellow travelers and useful fools' terror operations.

Planes already have that phones people CAN TALK ON

[paulkoan]

Is it perhaps that people talk more loudly on mobile phones than they do the ones built into the seat of every plane I have flown on in years?

Perhaps people speak more quietly when being charged a fortune per minute?

Perhaps it is unacceptable for "poor" people to talk loudly about something inane in the cabin than the rich people we must suffer today?

Frankly, I don't want someone next to me trying to talk over the white noise of a plane into a phone for an entire flight - that way leads to international incidents. But this bill is the height of hippocracy.

As usual, follow the money to find the imperative.

Bollocks.

[hummassa]

The planes are there,
I have the money for the fare,
I have the right to fly.
I may have a good reason to fly with my kids (someone mentioned relocating intercontinentally, but going to a nice Disney vacation is a reason good enough) and I may not have someone I trust my baby with.
I have the right to fly and I have the right to put myself (and my baby) to the discomfort of a 13-20 hour flight anytime my heart desires.

You fell for the "Using the services of the airlines is a privilege" line. This is really sad. You have the _right_ to come and go. Using the services of the airlines is a right, provided you can pay for them.

You don't know me.

[hummassa]

So, go call anyone else a lazy parent. I am a seasoned, experienced parent of two well-mannered kids. I participate in every aspect of their upbringing, with love and discipline. And I still know they can be uncontrollable on ocasion.

If I sit screaming for hours on end I'll be kicked off(bus) or banned(plane), your child is not held to the same standards as me, hence I can expect the parents to make some sort of reasonable fucking effort to quiet/comfort their younger children and tell the older ones to toughen up and shut the fuck up.

The thing you chose to ignore is: the reasonable effort is sometimes not enough; hell, sometimes, even the extraordinaire effort to comfort/shut them up is not enough.

oh come on now...

[afxgrin]

Are you seriously trying to argue that having to hear some teenager ramble on for hours is not worth having the ability to use your own cell phone on a flight?

Just put some headphones on otherwise, there's some nice noise cancellation ones out there...

I think you're seriously underestimating the work time loss, and personal time losses, traveling business people have to absorb. Keeping in touch with other people, being able to call governmental organizations, other businesses, ... all these reasons should be important enough to ignore the rambling airhead.

Oh yeah, nerds don't have a life outside of work, so they wouldn't be trying to make last second plans for where they're traveling to.

My favourite is when you're at a hub for an airline, and your layover wait time for the connecting flight is the same or longer than the time to drive to your destination from that airport.

Maybe I think it would be a good thing to see a group of people on a flight confront an obnoxious cell phone user.

People - this is a grandpa law. Just because grandpa doesn't have a cell phone or a social life doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to have one. Welcome to what people have been doing on the subway and the bus for years.

In-flight cell phones would be an excellent and easy economic productivity stimulus. Meanwhile they're talking about gas holidays! Are your politicians retarded!? Don't answer that question please.

DNS attack

[Anonymous Coward]

offtopic a bit, but whenever I hear Lufthansa, all I can think of is the Luftwaffe.

Lufthansa, Lufthansa, Lufthansa (feel your mind melting, mofo!) Lufthansa, Lufthansa

What about

[andreyvul]

an in-flight snake ban?

or

"Get these motherfucking cell phones off this motherfucking plane!"