Slashdot Mirror
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."
They could just let individual air lines react to market forces.
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?!
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?
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.
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?
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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.
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.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Its called baby benadryl, perhaps we should mandate its use on board planes. ;-)
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.
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.
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?
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
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.)