Slashdot Mirror
New Rules May Raise Cost of Buying Gadgets Online
ericatcw writes "Buying your next laptop or smartphone online could suddenly get a lot more expensive if a little-known US Department of Transportation proposal to tighten rules around the shipment of small, Lithium-Ion battery-powered devices by air goes through, says an industry group opposing the move. The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage, according to the head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. The proposal is under review until March 12. It can be viewed and commented upon by members of the public."
Seriously. Look at it. Just look at it:
http://xkcd.com/651/
moox. for a new generation.
The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose), but the article's examples are all over the map. Some of the examples seem like the small-scale sort of thing that would indeed cause inconvenience to ban: individual electronic devices sent air-freight from NewEgg to a consumer, or spare batteries in checked luggage. But it also mentions that existing regulations exempt "a pallet containing thousands of lithium batteries" from hazardous-material reporting and packaging requirements... and in that case the change doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, because maybe a pallet with thousands of batteries really should be subjected to the packaging and reporting requirements?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage" If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?
Ban humans on flights. The even present threat of spontaneous combustion threatens us all.
I record my sleeptalking
. . . I find them much more annoying than exploding Lithium Ion batteries . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This would result in all the gadgets I use in flight (Nintendo DS, iPod, Laptop) to be stocked away, making airtravel an even bigger pain in the ass.
How many incidents with batteries occur anyway? The figures suggest that a small percentage of all batteries are potentially dangerous, and I've never seen figures of how many people die of these batteries. Small fires can be put out by the cabin crew, and it certainly sounds it's going to cost a lot more than it will generate in terms of safety
Forbid forbid forbid, that's all I hear coming out of the "land of the free" lately. I went to the US 2 months ago, and I have never heard "you can't" as often as I did when I was there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"Sec. 173.220 (d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec. 172.102, Special Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft."
Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc. are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries". And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft!!!
One could argue that they are not "machinery" in the conventional sense, but this is far too vague. In my experience, when the language of a law allows it to be enforced in some way, eventually it will be.
As a resident of Hawaii this proposal causes me great concern. The majority of the people here buy electronics items online that come by air shipping. The price is generally 10-20% cheaper online due to the high cost of living out here. It sounds like a real boon to the local merchants but it sucks for the consumer looking for the best prices. I know we're small but I hope they think of us before they enact this ban.
This was discussed ad nauseum at photography forums last year. Key is to read the actual proposal and not depend on the warmongerings of a journalist trying to attract more traffic to his site:
Cartridges packed with equipment to be packed in intermediate packagings together with the equipment they are capable of powering.
The fuel cell cartridges and the equipment must be packaged with cushioning material or dividers or inner packaging so that the fuel cell cartridges are protected against damage that may be caused by the shifting or placement of the equipment and the cartridges within the outer packaging.
All the rule is basically doing is requiring that batteries are transported in such a way that they cannot short out. Either by putting them in the device they are made for (so your gameboy is safe) or by putting them in a special container (the big Li-Ion batteries for SLR's come like that in the box anyway).
After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries. The requirements are minimal and reasonable and quite frankly I have yet to see anything shipped commercially that doesn't meet those standards.
Far more efficient than light rail would be a "separate security envelope" for commuter flights.
Requirements:
*Plane too small to take down a big building even with full fuel tanks. Think no more than 20-30 passengers. Sorry Southwest.
*Domestic flights only.
*No checked baggage, only carry-on, and only 1 or 2 full-sized items or equivalent. BUT items normally checked for size like golf clubs could be carried on. No items like guns and such, sorry, ship those ahead.
*Pre-screened, green-lighted passengers only, ID verified with fingerprint or other biometric to prevent boarding via identity theft. This will be designed for the regular business traveler, not vacationers. People who are rejected in pre-screening will have administrative appeals and can sue in federal court if necessary. This is to speed up the line by virtually eliminating passengers who need to be pulled off for watchlist reasons.
*There will be baggage screening and a last-minute, expedited passenger screening to check for recent events (did a passenger suddenly land on a watch list after he got green-carded?).
*Takeoffs and landings are at commuter-only airports or terminals or in a segregated security zone. While you aren't supposed to connect to a "non-commuter" flight, if you do, you'll have to go through "regular" security, so plan a 2+ hour layover.
This should cut the "arrive before departure" time down to 30 minutes or less. You'll still have to worry about parking, waiting on the tarmac, and the rental car though. The latter can be addressed by express bus or rail service from the airports to major in-city destinations, such as convention centers, sporting arenas and other venues on event days, major hotels, and major businesses that generate a lot of commuter traffic.
Civil libertarians will have a fit on the pre-screening and fingerprint requirements, and I'm all for removing them if it won't defeat the purpose of reducing net travel time compared to the status quo. The alternative is keeping the status quo or very expensive new rail (which will likely have its own security- and security-theater delays).
By the way - I probably would not fly in the face of fingerprint requirements on general principles, but many people would and it would make overall air travel more efficient.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Spoken like someone who is too self-important and socially inept to ever get to the point of being a parent."
Spoken like a parent who cannot control their screaming snot monsters and thinks that having them around is a blessing for bystanders.
If it screams, stop it from screaming.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
From TSA: Primary lithium batteries cannot be extinguished with firefighting agents normally carried on aircraft, whereas lithium-ion batteries are easily extinguished by most common extinguishing agents, including those carried on board commercial aircraft.
Primary lithium cells are non-rechargeable cells (what devices use them?); most cells carried on board would be lithium ion. Given that a fire from one could be extinguished it seems that since it would be more easily discovered early in the cabin vs in cargo a cargo ban seems reasonable. I fly a lot and can carry all my battery needs in carry on luggage; in fact I never check luggage unless absolutely necessary.
As for cargo flights, where significant amounts of batteries would be carried, figuring out how to safely do it seems reasonable. Given the lack of problems so far it would seem that significant changes would not be needed; but one can never be sure of what a change in regulation will cause. Perhaps fire suppression systems in containers carrying batteries? Then again, that will take space away from goods and result in higher per item transportation costs.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Come on guys. Use your Geek fu. This isn't hard:
... duct tape.
Got batteries with accessible conductors - use duct tape to cover them.
Got annoying, noisy children or adults - use duct tape to cover them.
Got a terrorist trying to blow up the plane - tape 'em to the seat with
Just give out a roll to each flight attendant and you're golden. Nothing hard about this at all.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Li-Ion batteries are available in standard sizes as well, some are AAA sized. They run $3 - $6 online. Many of those special batteries are, in fact, just aaa or aa sized LiIon batteries sealed into a proprietary carrier and marked up a few thousand percent (since the new "battery" is oh-so-special). The only thing that's "special" about the chargers for those is that they are designed to fit that proprietary carrier (and ONLY that carrier) and so they get marked up as well.
Looking at the battery for the SD600, a pair of standard CR10440 LiIon batteries would be smaller and last a bit longer (CR10440 is aaa sized).
LiIon also come in a AA size and others. I have yet to see a "special" battery that couldn't have been be replaced by mass manufactured off the shelf batteries. Either the engineers are all stone cold stupid (seems unlikely) or it's a scam. Probably some pretentious "designer" who doesn't care at all about usability thinks that putting a round battery in would make the product seem "common" or "cheap".
If that was a common thing, you could easily get replacement batteries for your laptop at the drug or grocery store. You could interchange batteries between your still camera, video camera, laptop, flashlight, etc. etc. A charger that works on all of them would be $10-$15.
Before you say they do it to protect the device from the wrong type of batteries (since a "aaa" LiIon is 3.7V rather than 1.5 or 1.2), the device already has to gracefully handle undervoltage.
That sounds like it would make a lot of sense. Amtrak already has a route from Fort Worth to San Antonio, the "Texas Eagle", but it's dog slow. According to Amtrak, a one-way trip from FW to SA is $30, but takes 7 hrs, 45 min. According to Kayak, I can get a flight from DFW to SAT for about $155 one way, but it only takes an hour of flight time. According to Google, it would take about 4 hrs to drive one way. It seems like if you could build along the existing rights-of-way for the existing rail, you could put in an pretty awesome high-speed rail system for not-so-much money. One way to work it might be through the "Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority". They are primarily focused on toll roads around Austin, but could provide a venue to study high-speed rail capabilities.
Air travel in Texas is messed up anyway. I went to visit my sister in Austin, and it was cheaper to fly to Austin, through DFW, than it was to get a direct flight to DFW and drive down.
I don't know why people worry about this kind of thing being made law. Why am I not worried? Think about it.
Who are the people who use planes all the time? Business people, government workers.
And who are the people who need to use their laptops on all those plane trips? Business people, government workers.
And who are the people in real control of all of the laws in the country? That's right, the wealthy business people, the lawmaking government workers.
In 2010+, No law or regulation is ever going to happen that makes air travel require you to not have a working computer. It is just not realistic given the players involved.