FCC To Consider Cellphone Use On Planes

aitikin writes "The Federal Communications Commission is expected to propose allowing passengers to use their cellphones on airplanes. While phone use would still be restricted during takeoff and landing, the proposal would lift an FCC ban on airborne calls and cellular data use by passengers once a flight reaches 10,000 feet. From the article: 'The move would lift a regulatory hurdle, but any use of cellphones on planes would still have to be approved by the airlines, which have said they would approach the issue cautiously due to strong objections from their customers. Airlines would have to install equipment in their planes that would communicate with cellphone towers on the ground.'"

Comments

please don't

[TheMeuge]

I think this would lead to in-flight homicide.

Re:please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just research:

Does wearing the phone as a suppository enable the user to fly?

Re: please don't

[MrKaos]

I think this would lead to in-flight homicide.

I can imagine a situation where someone who can't exert any impulse control gets on a mobile phone while the rest of the cabin is trying to sleep, a very real risk of on-board assaults from tired and frustrated travelers.

Re: please don't

[Joining Yet Again]

The real risk is that the plane is full of polite British travellers who are too reserved to punch the caller and instead just tut noisily for 12 hours.

The safety demonstration needs to include a demonstration of how to safely and effectively disable the goatfucker who takes out his 'phone. Perhaps it could include step-by-step advice on how to break the equipment without causing a fire hazard by piercing the li-ion battery.

Re: please don't

[icebike]

Well if the on-board femtocell repeaters work well enough, you won't have people shouting into their phones, other than to overcome cabin/engine noise. I could see requiring earbuds, (and who wouldn't want that anyway).
With ear buds, you can carry on a conversation just as quietly as talking between people sitting adjacent.

But it requires a good connection. I rather suspect the airlines will put in repeaters than promptly price it out of most people's comfort zone.

The most annoying thing would be people putting it on speaker phone so they could check something on their calendar while they talk. Gurrrrrr!

Re: please don't

[causality]

I think this would lead to in-flight homicide.

I can imagine a situation where someone who can't exert any impulse control gets on a mobile phone while the rest of the cabin is trying to sleep, a very real risk of on-board assaults from tired and frustrated travelers.

If I were on the jury I'd refuse to convict those guilty of assault, provided they used no (improvised) weapons and stopped once their point had been made.

It's a shitty sign of the times that, so often, you can no longer politely ask someone to stop being annoying. They'll get "offended" and belligerent instead of being enough of a person to recognize that you had cause. Accepting a legitimate and polite correction is now viewed as a sign of weakness or submission. That's the cause of a great deal of violence, in fact nearly all violence that is not state-sponsored.

The social fabric is currently as unsustainable as the financial edifice of society. It makes me wonder if it will change course. What you said about impulse control has everything to do with having a little discipline and personal responsibility (it wouldn't take much). These things aren't "fun" or "entertaining" to acquire so more and more people can't be bothered. Am I alone in witnessing how tragic this is? Assholes with phones here, idiots gathering to chat and blocking doorways there, someone running off the road (or over the median) because their call or burger or makeup is more important to them elsewhere -- these little things are merely symptoms.

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shitty sign of the times that, so often, you can no longer politely ask someone to stop being annoying. They'll get "offended" and belligerent instead of being enough of a person to recognize that you had cause. Accepting a legitimate and polite correction is now viewed as a sign of weakness or submission. That's the cause of a great deal of violence, in fact nearly all violence that is not state-sponsored.

So pretty-please, with sugar on it, shut the fuck up.

Re: please don't

[drakaan]

(paraphrasing) "Damn. You sent in the wolf? Shit, that's all you had to say!"

Re:please don't

[Mashdar]

Better shove the participant out of the aircraft door just to be sure.

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

The real risk is that the plane is full of polite British travellers who are too reserved to punch the caller and instead just tut noisily for 12 hours.

The safety demonstration needs to include a demonstration of how to safely and effectively disable the goatfucker who takes out his 'phone. Perhaps it could include step-by-step advice on how to break the equipment without causing a fire hazard by piercing the li-ion battery.

effectively disable the goatfucker? Nice.

People sit in a tube with 150+ other people at night and expect it to be as peaceful as their own private bedroom? Ah, reality doesn't have an altitude limit there, genius.

And if external noise bothers you that much and you don't own headphones, then you're far too fucking stupid to fly.

Re:please don't

[thegarbz]

And you'd be wrong. Seriously America is behind the times on the issue. I've taken several international flights where cellphone use was permitted and a) it didn't lead to endless chatting due to obscene international roaming calls, and b) if someone was on the phone more than 2-3 seats away you couldn't hear them anyway over the noise of the engines.

Re: please don't

[gl4ss]

well just about every plane I've been on already has expensive calling options..

just don't fly domestic(roaming is friggin expensive too, especially if you don't know when you're switching to roaming since the call is on..)

Re: please don't

[noh8rz10]

you could dump your drink on him or her. that would do the trick for the phone without actual violence. Also, it is within the capability of most hominids.

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

The question I wonder is, when are we going to see cellphones implement sidetone? Or perhaps there might be apps for that on Android and iOS...

Re: please don't

[Cyberax]

A lot of people ALWAYS scream into mobile phones. I _know_ that I can whisper into the microphone and it will be picked up just fine, but lots of people seem to think that you have to speak LOUDLY.

Re: please don't

[tlhIngan]

Well if the on-board femtocell repeaters work well enough, you won't have people shouting into their phones, other than to overcome cabin/engine noise. I could see requiring earbuds, (and who wouldn't want that anyway).
With ear buds, you can carry on a conversation just as quietly as talking between people sitting adjacent.

It doesn't matter how good the connection is - idiots still SHOUT INTO THEIR PHONES for whatever reason. Either they have poor volume control (and never developed their "inside voice") or, as has been seen everywhere, they just don't care.

Re: please don't

[icebike]

Its because you are having trouble hearing.
I once had an employee who talked at the top of his lungs on the phone, land line.
I ordered him an amplify phone receiver, and the difference was like night an day. He was slowly going deaf, and didn't realize it.

If planes required ear buds, there would be a lot more peaceful flights. But you know that won't happen.

Re: please don't

[Cyberax]

Doesn't matter. There's no sidetalk (i.e. you can't hear yourself) on the mobile phone, so lots of people scream even with earphones.

Re:please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Correctly modded insightful rather than funny.

Re: please don't

[bob_super]

"you see officer, he started fiddling with an electronic device which stores enough power to threaten the aircraft's integrity. We had to stop him"

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how good the connection is - idiots still SHOUT INTO THEIR PHONES for whatever reason. Either they have poor volume control (and never developed their "inside voice") or, as has been seen everywhere, they just don't care.

Or they call for the sole purpose of getting an ego boost from everyone around hearing whatever nonsense they spew out. "I am heard, therefore I am".

Re: please don't

[gtall]

Yeah, that's exactly why I get on a plane, to have an unending conversation with my seat mates and allow them to honk on about anything that goes pop in their brains. Forget it.

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Could the planes set up the equipment to restrict cell phone calls to 5 minutes or less with 1 call per hour? Although nothing prevents someone from using multiple cell phones, but it would be a way to discourage "chatting".

5 minutes would be plenty of time for a passenger to call and give an update. When I traveled by bus (back to family) when I was in college, I think I only texted or called to give an update to someone who was picking me up. I would find it rude to carry a conversation on a phone while next to people.

Can the equipment determine the difference between calling and surfing the web by phone? Using apps to bypass call restrictions could be an issue.

Re: please don't

[MrKaos]

If I were on the jury I'd refuse to convict those guilty of assault, provided they used no (improvised) weapons and stopped once their point had been made.

It's like people who fly while they have the flu, is their trip so important that they have to infect a whole cabin packed full of people so they can suffer to.

It's a shitty sign of the times that, so often, you can no longer politely ask someone to stop being annoying. They'll get "offended" and belligerent instead of being enough of a person to recognize that you had cause. Accepting a legitimate and polite correction is now viewed as a sign of weakness or submission. That's the cause of a great deal of violence, in fact nearly all violence that is not state-sponsored.

People who lack humility are afflicted with this, they make enemies for themselves by saying they don't want to cause a confrontation and then set about doing so. As for annoying people I have little tolerance, although my size and build usually means that a short look in the eyes of the offender is enough to stop them.

The social fabric is currently as unsustainable as the financial edifice of society. It makes me wonder if it will change course. What you said about impulse control has everything to do with having a little discipline and personal responsibility (it wouldn't take much). These things aren't "fun" or "entertaining" to acquire so more and more people can't be bothered. Am I alone in witnessing how tragic this is? Assholes with phones here, idiots gathering to chat and blocking doorways there, someone running off the road (or over the median) because their call or burger or makeup is more important to them elsewhere -- these little things are merely symptoms.

I don't think you are alone. I notice that these people seem to think that their time is more valuable than anyone else. Those who expect me to change direction for their conversation get a rude shock when I continue to stare at eye level as if I haven't even noticed they were there whilst I continue my stride, I like my body language to read "get the fuck out of my way" and I do not deviate.

I noticed every morning a driver who would read while the lights were red and wait until someone honked him before driving off delaying everyone behind. An opportunity arose when he was first at the lights, so I honked him while they were still red (it was safe enough not to cause an accident) and he drove off, he was so conditioned. I laughed so hard at his fury, however it seemed fitting.

You are right about social etiquette, discipline and personal responsibility especially seen with people on laptops in cafes as if they a writing a huge fucking novel or on their phone closing a multi-million dollar deal when they are just slaves to the shiny...

Re:please don't

[morgauxo]

How about data allowed, voice not. That would probably make more sense as a rule of the airline, not something for the FCC to mandate.

Re:please don't

[morgauxo]

Funny, people's cellphone use doesn't really seem that annoying on a train...

Re:please don't

[dysmal]

I have full confidence in my fellow Americans to exercise their right to be an asshat at 30,000 feet. If people can't stay off the phone at the movie theater, what makes anyone think they'll be considerate of those that surround them in "cattle class" on planes?

Re: please don't

[Entropius]

Even with a perfect link cell connections are shit. Compare what your cellphone sounds like to Speex 16kbps; it's remarkable.

Re:please don't

[BitZtream]

So basically, you don't have issues with cell phones on flights because your cell phone providers are so ridiculously over price that its a non-starter.

We don't have your roaming issue. You can be on a jet aircraft for 8 hours here and never leave your home area. There are no roaming fees in our country, which is likely larger than your entire continent.

God I wish you European fucks would stop trying to compare yourselves to the way things are in North America. We have freaking counties larger than some of your countries. You have no idea what its like to live with an actual rural population or a road in your country that you can drive on for more than a couple hours without hitting the border.

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just be honest and say "please turn your phones off during the night period", and make that an airline regulation enforced by the staff with discretionary "I really really need to" leeway. Sure for an overnight flight that might mean no phone calls are permitted, but that's no different than normal flights so nothing lost.

I don't think it's rude or bothersome to talk on the phone during the day, even for a long time. I wouldn't personally but I don't begrudge it, that's what headphones are for. Try sitting next to someone who's not flying solo, you will find they are talking to each other constantly, if it's a group they are moving between isles all the time as well. It's just how flying works. Expecting silence in a small space filled with strangers is silly.

Re: please don't

[tlhIngan]

Even with a perfect link cell connections are shit. Compare what your cellphone sounds like to Speex 16kbps; it's remarkable.

It better be when Speex gets 4x the bandwidth of GSM compressed voice (which really only gets around 2.4-4kbps). It's also why they quantize the hell out of the speech and filter the audio - I think the voice filters are actually narrower than a landline.

Re:please don't

[Registered Coward v2]

So basically, you don't have issues with cell phones on flights because your cell phone providers are so ridiculously over price that its a non-starter.

We don't have your roaming issue. You can be on a jet aircraft for 8 hours here and never leave your home area. There are no roaming fees in our country, which is likely larger than your entire continent.

There probably will be a roaming charge on planes because the airline will control the plane to tower link. More than likely they will lease out space on the aircraft, similar to the old Airphones that were in each armrests and cost a lot to use. The vendor will need to recoup the costs airline charge plus make a profit. I would even hazard to guess the phone company would simply add in a new feature they can charge for as well. Want to be able to use your phone on an airplane and pay a gazzlion dollars a minute? No problem, that's $5 a month for the "We charge that much because we can" add-on to your existing plan. They make money and avoid changing your plan T&Cs so you can't refuse the change and drop them without paying an early cancellation fee.

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the word, "negro".

Re:please don't

[Actually, I do RTFA]

So sorry that having a large country traversable without roaming charges is somehow keeping us behind those sophisticated Europeans.

Re: please don't

[Hork_Monkey]

You're not taking into account that many people are unable to speak quietly while on a phone, when they are able to in other situations.

Re:please don't

[thegarbz]

Huh? European? From what I recall you're not allowed to use phones on European airlines either. They are equally behind the times.

But you raise an interesting point. Maybe this isn't a problem for me since unlike in America, in my non-European country not everyone is a self righteous arsehat.

Re:please don't

[thegarbz]

Huh? Transverse the country? I was on an international flight. And didn't we just feature an article a few days ago saying the Europeans were also only at the "considering" stage of lifting the call band in airlines?

I guess you didn't read that fucking article :-)

Also never underestimate capitalism. From what I recall some American only last year got stung with a $80000 phonebill while using his mobile phone on a cruise ship that hadn't left the dock yet, but he was connected to the ship's microcell which caused him to get billed at international roaming rates. That's typically what happens when you use a micro-cell which relays via satellite, ... like the airlines do.

Also why the hell does everyone in this thread think I'm European?

Re:please don't

[thegarbz]

Actually $27000

Re: please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's like people who fly while they have the flu, is their trip so important that they have to infect a whole cabin packed full of people so they can suffer to."

Tell that to my boss, he's the one who made me fly.

Re:please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It will.

Here comes the flood....

[metrix007]

Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...

Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them, or having to put up with watching or listening to whatever movie they put on, or other conversations, or bullshit safety messages, etc etc.

It adds convenience for people. If you don't like it, nothing changes. Use earbuds/headphones/eyemask as per normal.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[TheMeuge]

Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...

Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them

Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person... and you're trapped next them for the next n hours.

Put the phone down. It won't hurt. I promise.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or not

“It’s very emotional in the United States,” said Benoit Debains, the chief executive of OnAir. He insisted that the anxiety was overblown. For one thing, he and other industry executives said, standard cabin noise covers up much conversational noise, yet people with cellphones pressed to their ears in that environment somehow do not feel the need to speak louder to compensate.

“I remember on the first flight we did, we asked one guy, ‘What do you think about using the phone for voice in the cabin?’ He said he was against it. But we said, ‘You know, the guy across from you has been using his phone for the last five minutes.’ ”

Emirates executives have even heard from skeptical pilots and flight attendants who mistakenly believed “the system was on but nobody was using it” on a particular flight, he said. “And I was able to go back to them and say, well 63 people had their phones on, and there were 22 phone calls and 68 messages.”

He added, “They were thinking it must be broken because they don’t hear anybody using it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/technology/29phones.html

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Qzukk]

Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person

And they'll be screaming over the jet engines on top of that tendency.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[metrix007]

Some people talk louder on the phone. Not all, or even most people.

There have been phones on planes for some times now. It hasn't hurt anyone.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...

Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them, or having to put up with watching or listening to whatever movie they put on, or other conversations, or bullshit safety messages, etc etc.

It adds convenience for people. If you don't like it, nothing changes. Use earbuds/headphones/eyemask as per normal.

Translation: Metrix007 expects you to put up with his personality disorder, but doesn't want to have to put up with yours.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[blackraven14250]

Of course there's no problems. Of all the flights I've taken, I haven't seen a single person ever use the in-seat phone.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

“I remember on the first flight we did, we asked one guy, ‘What do you think about using the phone for voice in the cabin?’ He said he was against it. But we said, ‘You know, the guy across from you has been using his phone for the last five minutes.’ ”

Draw your own conclusion as to why he was against it.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you've been on a plane? The things are so damn loud that you could not possibly have a cell phone conversation during flight. Cue two people in the same row trying to have a conversation.

At least on the Amtrak you can actually go to the sections between the cars and use your phone, and nobody else has to listen to you.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[icebike]

standard cabin noise covers up much conversational noise, yet people with cellphones pressed to their ears in that environment somehow do not feel the need to speak louder to compensate.

And right there you have the crux of the problem. This guy does not understand human nature.
When people can't hear, they shout.

Without a headset requirement, there will be shouting.
And most phone speakers are so weak you have trouble hearing in even a slightly loud environment. People will resort to the speaker phone function and then you get to listen to both sides of every conversation at once.

The best way to get people to talk softer is to require them to use earbuds or headsets.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[artor3]

The CEO who stands to make tens of millions of dollars from this says its a good thing? Well, gee, guess I better just take his word for it.

Anyone who talks on the phone next to me on a plane will have my elbow in their side for the duration of the phone call. It's only fair.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...

Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them

Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person... and you're trapped next them for the next n hours.

Put the phone down. It won't hurt. I promise.

I'm not quite sure what century most are arguing about, but I promise you it isn't the current one.

Who the hell talks into a cell phone anymore? All I see is mumbling, headphones, and soon-to-be-arthritic thumbs.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be ignoring almost everything he wrote.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just volume, often times its content as well⦠When both conversation partners are in the same area they (for the most part) act as a check on the other person, preventing either of them from getting involved in conversation topics that might beâ¦unpleasant⦠for anyone else in the vicinity. However if you put one of the people in an entirely different place, perhaps a place where they have some privacy(aside from the NSA of course :P) then that person no longer feels any sort of social pressure to keep the conversation pleasant. And humans being humans, if the person you are talking to is talking about something nasty, then naturally it piques your interest and you start to forget where you are, as our monkey brains haven't quite evolved to adapt to phones quite yet. The result is people discussing problems in public that they really shouldn't. I have heard people talking about their STDs on a cell phone, not something I think said person would have been discussing if the other person had actually been in the same room.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[redmid17]

International airline have been doing this for years. They don't have complaints. I'll take real world experiences, which have been studied out, over someone whiner's random post on ./. Normally I'd be all anti-establishment, but the potential backlash is really too much for them to ignore if it's an actual problem.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[artor3]

You're a sucker.

This is a cash grab. They will charge big bucks, and the business commuters will pay, because their company will want them in meetings. You think the airlines give two shits about degrading service? If it scares off a few passengers, what do they care? They don't want volume, they want margin. And most people who fly have no choice anyway.

I've taken quite a few international flights, and never seen a phone call. Perhaps there are some locales that allow them, and maybe they don't get complaints. Just like restaurants don't get many complaints about diners on phones. People just sigh and accept a bit of misery, because they don't want to make a scene by complaining.

So life will get a bit more hellish for everyone, while a select few benefit. And you'll cheer from the sidelines because the man who profits most from this told you that it's a good thing.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[wonkey_monkey]

Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person...

I heard that part of this is because mobile phones, unlike fixed line phones, don't echo back what you say. We (us old fogies, anyway) are so conditioned by years of hearing our own voice coming back out of the speaker (albeit at a low level) on a fixed line that when we use a mobile phone, our brains immediately think it's not working and we crank up the volume.

I said we CRANK UP THE VOLUME.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[murdocj]

Two problems with phones: first , people seem to have the need to scream into them. Second, it is extremely annoying to just hear one side of a conversation. No, it does not add to convenience to have to listen to 3 people around you talking loudly into the phones. It makes an uncomfortable experience even more uncomfortable. People can live without their phones for a couple of hours. Really.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[gl4ss]

uh they want volume? that's what most airlines have been tweaking for, which is why they try to fill the last spots with practically free tickets(price of airport fees).

and who charges those bucks? not the airline, at least in eu. you have to watch out for roaming fees though.

do you know who was previously charging big bucks? why the fuck do you think the inflight entertainment controller had a dialpad and the unit a credit card reader built in ? ? ?

Re:Here comes the flood....

[paulpach]

Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...

Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them

Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person... and you're trapped next them for the next n hours.

Put the phone down. It won't hurt. I promise.

And how is this any different from a bus or a train?
Seriously have you ever refrained from taking a bus because someone might be on the phone?
And yes, sometimes not being able to use the phone for hours does hurt.

Someone chatting a couple seats away from you won't hurt. I promise.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Registered Coward v2]

Or not

“It’s very emotional in the United States,” said Benoit Debains, the chief executive of OnAir. He insisted that the anxiety was overblown. For one thing, he and other industry executives said, standard cabin noise covers up much conversational noise, yet people with cellphones pressed to their ears in that environment somehow do not feel the need to speak louder to compensate.

“I remember on the first flight we did, we asked one guy, ‘What do you think about using the phone for voice in the cabin?’ He said he was against it. But we said, ‘You know, the guy across from you has been using his phone for the last five minutes.’ ”

Emirates executives have even heard from skeptical pilots and flight attendants who mistakenly believed “the system was on but nobody was using it” on a particular flight, he said. “And I was able to go back to them and say, well 63 people had their phones on, and there were 22 phone calls and 68 messages.”

He added, “They were thinking it must be broken because they don’t hear anybody using it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/technology/29phones.html

Darn. Here I wa stinking of a new app that let you upload one side of the overheard conversation and create the other for humor, fun, and profit when you share it via Phoneagram (tm).

Re:Here comes the flood....

[Le Marteau]

"Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them,"

Yes, it is different. On a phone conversation, you can only hear one side of the conversation. Our minds tend to try to fill in the blanks and attempt to make sense of the conversation, which does not occur when you can hear both sides of a conversation.

So yes, phone conversations ARE more annoying than "in person" conversations.

Re:Here comes the flood....

[redmid17]

It might be a cash grab, it doesn't mean you're not a moron for thinking the sky is going to fall

Trigger Happy

[Anonymous Coward]

*ringtone*
*pulls out GIANT brick phone*

What!?!

No!!!!

I'm on an airplane!!!!

I'm on an airplane!!!!

No!!!

What?!?!?!?

I'm on an airplane!!!!

Yes, an airplane!!!

No, I can talk!!!!

What?!?!?!?!

No, I can talk!!!!

HELLO?

[bitt3n]

HELLO! GLADYS? I'M ON THE PLANE! I CAN SEE CLOUDS! ONE LOOKS LIKE A RUTABAGA! DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS ANYTHING? SO HOW WAS YOUR DAY? WAIT SOMEONE NEXT TO ME IS TRYING TO GET MY ATTENTION. EXCUSE ME CAN'T YOU SEE I'M ON THE PHONE? HOW RUDE!

great, now I have to bypass the yelling filter... sdlfjals;kdfjakl; sklsfdlkas; lsdksdk lsk dslk sdl ksdlk; dsl;sd ldslklsd klds;l dsl;k ksdkl;sdlkdskl; sd;klsdk l; sdkllks;d skdl; skldkl;ds k;ldskldsklsfjlskdfk sdl lks dklds lks;dlk ds ;klsdlk dsdkls slkldkslk;d;klsdkl dsl;skd l;kds ksdl; sdkldslk sldk;l kdsk;lsd lkkl;ds ds ;klsd kl;kdsl; k;ldsksd kl k;sdkl;sl;kd klsd;lkds l;kdslk sd;lkk; lsd;lkds l;ksd;klds ;klsdkldsl;k sd ;lksd ;klsd l;ksdl;k sd lk;dsl ;ksdl ;kds l;kds l;kdskl ;sdklsd k;l;sdkl;klsd;klsd kl;ds k;lds; lksdkl; ds;kl sdkl ;sdl ksd klsd; lkdsk ldsklsd;lkds ;lkds ;lkds ;klds; lksd;kl

Bus

[profplump]

Cell phone use is allowed on busses (metro and inter-city), and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem there. Why should I assume that planes would be significantly worse?

Re:Bus

[Anonymous Coward]

Plane rides take a lot longer, and you can't move around as much.....

Re:Bus

[Nidi62]

Cell phone use is allowed on busses (metro and inter-city), and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem there. Why should I assume that planes would be significantly worse?

In buses you don't have to talk over the sound of jet engines or air whipping by at 500mph. Especially if you are flying in a plane with fuselage mounted engines like MD-88/90s/DC-9/717 and are sitting near the engines.

Re:Bus

[Anonymous Coward]

Metro and inter-city rides will often take longer than a plane flight.

Re:Bus

[rahvin112]

You can change your seat on the Bus and you don't typically ride the bus for 4 hours.

There are two VERY big reasons. I don't want to sit next to a guy discussing his hemorrhoid problem with his wife (or having a shouting argument with her) when I can't get away from him.

Re:Bus

[msobkow]

On the bus, you can get up and take another seat away from the asshole with the phone.

Re:Bus

[profplump]

That's right. You only have to speak over the sound of the diesel engine, the wind noise, the traffic noise, and the road noise.

Airplane cabins are probably someplace in the 70-80 dB range, depending on the type of plane and where you are sitting. That's just about what you'd expect from moderate traffic that includes large vehicles or high speeds. I'm sure there are some buses that are quieter than planes, but it doesn't strike me as a major difference.

Re:Bus

[profplump]

In a metro system of even moderate size you can be on the same bus traveling in the same direction for 2+ hours. That's not a long plane ride, but it's not a trivial amount of time either. And inter-city routes can obviously be much longer.

Re:Bus

[profplump]

Says a man who has obviously never take a bus from Minneapolis to St. Louis -- 18 hours over 3 buses, sitting shoulder-to-shoulder the whole way with no more freedom to move around than you'd have in a plane.

And that's not even a long bus trip.

Re:Bus

[neonmonk]

Yes it is.

Re:Bus

[noh8rz10]

yeah but air travel sucks. even before you get on the plane you're hauling your bags to the airport, waiting an hour at security, some guy's grabbing your nuts. Then the plane is cramped and you're jammed in with other people. it's hard to get up let alone walk around. planes are a much more stressful experience than buses.

Re:Bus

[xaxa]

Says a man who has obviously never take a bus from Minneapolis to St. Louis -- 18 hours over 3 buses, sitting shoulder-to-shoulder the whole way with no more freedom to move around than you'd have in a plane.

And that's not even a long bus trip.

That is a very, very long bus trip by the standards of almost all the world.

A short bus trip is the one I'm late for: 12 minutes to get to work.

The longest trip I've ever made by bus was about 10 hours.

Re:Bus

[Anonymous Coward]

On the bus, you can get up and take another seat away from the asshole with the phone.

With the number of free seats finite and the number of assholes not necessarily equal to one, you might have an interesting optimisation problem to solve.

Re:Bus

[Entropius]

I'd rather put up with two hours of airline passengers than thirty minutes of the sorts of respectable citizens that ride the bus in Washington anywhere east of Rock Creek Park. People eat fried chicken and throw the bones on the bus floor and guffaw at each other; last time a lovely lady told the driver to "shut the fuck up and drive" after he told her to stop bothering all the other passengers.

What?

[s.petry]

Can you speak a bit louder? There is this loud whirring noise in the background!

Re:What?

[metrix007]

Must be on your end, since I have a decent microphone in my phone.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have recorded videos in an airplane, there was absolutely no noise at all. Any half decent noise cancellation can deal well with airplane noise.

Re:What?

[s.petry]

It was a joke.. *sigh*

Re:What?

[wonkey_monkey]

there was absolutely no noise at all.

Then your mic is broken. Duh.

Verbal diarrhea

[Mister Liberty]

Cell phones not a problem on busses and trains?
Have you ever took a train during rush hour?
Terror right there.

Re:Verbal diarrhea

[mjwx]

Have you ever took a train during rush hour?

*taken. Granted, your grammar is still better than most of those talking on phones in public.

Re:Verbal diarrhea

[Anonymous Coward]

They most certainly do. That is why there are 'Quiet' carriages on the trains that I use. The Railway company is even thinking of putting a transparent film over the windows that will block mobile phone signals.

As someone who travels a lot on business (190,000+ miles last year) my phone gets switched off the moment I go through Security. It stays off until I start waiting for my bags. Doing so gives me 'me' time. Not time on the job.
I don't work while I'm flying etc either. I listen to music, read a book or simply sleep.

IMHO there are far too many people out there who are addicted to their phone. Be it making calls or faffing around with Twats or FaceRot posts, they spend far too much time satisfying their addiction to be useful for anything else. These people need treatment not removing one of the few places where they have to STFU for the duration of the flight.

I can only say that I am glad that I retire next year and I won't have to worry about all this any more.

Re:Verbal diarrhea

[Anonymous Coward]

He dun took the train, ain't nothin wrong with that.

Re:Verbal diarrhea

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DR: You whippersnappers get off my lawn *shakes cane*

Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[billrp]

I thought there's little or no signal strength at 10,000 feet above ground level, wireless antennas are designed for ground coverage, not reaching anything in the sky.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is slashdot, but c'mon. In the summary:

Airlines would have to install equipment in their planes that would communicate with cellphone towers on the ground.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[sconeu]

Dude, I can understand not RTFA. But it's there in TFS. They'll have microcells on the plane.

Of course, the question is, CDMA or GSM?

And I don't want the guy next to me shouting into his phone for the next 5 hours.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[DarwinSurvivor]

Even the summary mentions the planes needing special equipment to talk to the towers on the ground.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[billrp]

If you look at wireless signal strength maps like this http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cell-air.htm you will see there are gaps in vertical coverage - where there's no signal. So I don't see how even any special equipment in planes can work with such low signal levels. (The old airfones used a different communication connection)

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is "yes", and probably multiple bands of each to ensure compatibility with all phones.

What would be nice is on your third outgoing call (or after 10 minutes airtime per flight hour) to polite inform both parties that taking phonecalls on public transport is rude, and that the guy on the phone is a douchebag. Have the message get more obnoxious after each call.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[canadiannomad]

Since I doubt they could get away with informing the parties that the call is rude, I think a little message every minute with the price of the call so far would be good.
1st minute
"This call has cost $10.00"
2nd minute
"This call has cost $25.00"
3rd minute
"This call has cost $45.00"

...
>:)

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[DarwinSurvivor]

I'm fully aware of the "doughnut effect" of wireless. By "special equipment", they probably mean a point-to-point system that connects to the tower grid, not the towers themselves.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[wonkey_monkey]

So I don't see how even any special equipment in planes can work with such low signal levels.

The article seems to suggest communication will be through a third party, not direct to cell towers (and not to cell towers at all, if you're calling a fixed line).

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[wonkey_monkey]

Actually it probably goes from plane to third party to cell tower - that would be simpler than the third-party handling the call.

Re:Is there wireless signal above 10,000 feet?

[BitZtream]

Thats what happens for the inflight wifi already, just talks to cell towers that have some antenna pointing more towards the sky rather than along the ground plane.

brave new world

[itchybrain]

1970s: "Would you like smoking or non-smoking?"

2010s: "Would you like quiet or non-quiet?"

2090s:"Would you like stasis or non-stasis?"

I see $$$ signs!

[csumpi]

Airlines will love this. Even at $1/minute, passengers will rake up pretty good bills by the end of the flight. And I doubt they will stop at a buck a minute, because above 10k feet, well, they got you by the balls.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the airline mafia were behind this, with large paychecks for the FCC officials who push this through.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[Nidi62]

Airlines will love this. Even at $1/minute, passengers will rake up pretty good bills by the end of the flight. And I doubt they will stop at a buck a minute, because above 10k feet, well, they got you by the balls.

Many airlines already have phones installed in the backs of seats that passengers can use, and have for some time now. You pay for them by credit card. In the countless times I have flown I have yet to see someone actually use them. I can assure you the airlines have not been raking in the money with that.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was used by business class travelers. If you're already paying $5k for the ticket, expensing $50/call to remain productive during a flight isn't a massive imposition.

The reason why it was VERY expensive is because it was using satellite bandwidth. Before Iridium.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[mjwx]

Airlines will love this. Even at $1/minute, passengers will rake up pretty good bills by the end of the flight. And I doubt they will stop at a buck a minute, because above 10k feet, well, they got you by the balls.

Many airlines already have phones installed in the backs of seats that passengers can use, and have for some time now. You pay for them by credit card. In the countless times I have flown I have yet to see someone actually use them. I can assure you the airlines have not been raking in the money with that.

Yes, but the psychology is different.

With the existing phones you have to physically pay before hand. It doesn't matter what the cost is, having to shell out coin before hand is a serious psychological block.

Now if you allow people to use their own phones, even if it's at a higher cost (roaming charges) people wont think about the cost because they dont have to pay it up front. Instead they'll just bitch about "bill shock" when they receive a $1400 mobile phone bill from making phone calls through out their flight.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[Anonymous Coward]

So get the person at the other end to call you - they can't charge you for an incoming call. What I can see airlines doing is having "no mobile phone" zones, and charging extra, in the way they used to have "no smoking" before that was banned on the entire plane.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[petman]

The phones on the backs of seats can only be used to make, not receive, calls. OTOH, with cellphones, the airlines can impose a surcharge for both outgoing and incoming calls, much like with carrier roaming. There's also data roaming. So yes, the airlines to stand to make big bucks on this if they play it right.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[Anonymous Coward]

So get the person at the other end to call you - they can't charge you for an incoming call.

Good one! I can't believe this hasn't already been modified +5 funny! You're just not getting any respect.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[isorox]

Airlines will love this. Even at $1/minute, passengers will rake up pretty good bills by the end of the flight. And I doubt they will stop at a buck a minute, because above 10k feet, well, they got you by the balls.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the airline mafia were behind this, with large paychecks for the FCC officials who push this through.

I don't know about US plans, but typical intercontinental roaming rates for UK phone contracts are well above $2 a minute, nearer $3.

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[isorox]

Airlines will love this. Even at $1/minute, passengers will rake up pretty good bills by the end of the flight. And I doubt they will stop at a buck a minute, because above 10k feet, well, they got you by the balls.

Many airlines already have phones installed in the backs of seats that passengers can use, and have for some time now. You pay for them by credit card. In the countless times I have flown I have yet to see someone actually use them. I can assure you the airlines have not been raking in the money with that.

Well I have used them, they're fine for a quick call, but they're hard to hear over the low quality and loud engines.

BA have phased them out on the new planes, and turned them off about a year ago on the old planes.

But then I remember flying back in 2008 on TAP when in flight mobiles were allowed. The problem wasn't people talking, it was the teenagers who didn't know how to put their text message tone on "silent"

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[wonkey_monkey]

they can't charge you for an incoming call.

Oh ya think?

Re:I see $$$ signs!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can control the calls you receive (turn on airplane mode) so long as you realize they will be too expensive for you, though.

Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[ad454]

There was never any safety issues with using a cell phone anytime during flight. If there was, don't you think that planes would be dropping like flies from every nutcase and terrorist turing on (or leaving on) their cell phones?

It was disallowed because it cut into airline revenue from expensive airplane to satellite phones. However now that airlines are deploying micro-cells, with huge roaming fees, guess with, its now magically time to remove cell phone restrictions. But only when the planes are above 10000 feet, in order to allow these micro-cells to override ground based cell towers, and insure roaming revenue.

Below 10000 feet, the in-flight cell phone ban must remain in place, since it is much easier to bypass the micro-cells in planes and connect directly (and cheaply) to a ground based cell towers.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Nidi62]

But only when the planes are above 10000 feet, in order to allow these micro-cells to override ground based cell towers, and insure roaming revenue.

Below 10000 feet, the in-flight cell phone ban must remain in place, since it is much easier to bypass the micro-cells in planes and connect directly (and cheaply) to a ground based cell towers.

Or, you know, the aircraft is still climbing and is therefore more likely to encounter problems. Fewer distractions means the passengers can listen to crew instructions instead of posting last minute "OMG I'm gonna die!" selfies to Instagram. 10k feet is cruising altitude, and is also when passengers are allowed to move around (and also when flight crew starts moving around as well-they stay seated as well during climbing/descending).

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Ichijo]

It's an example of the wealthy oppressing the poor, like laws that prohibit crossing the street between intersections even when it doesn't violate any vehicle's right of way. Or laws that require bicyclists to stick to the right edge of the roadway when other slow-moving vehicles don't have to.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Joining Yet Again]

If you think it's easy to connect a call at 9500 feet, you're high.

Also cellphones distract people way more than talking in person - and we don't want 300 people distracted during take-off and landing, just in case there are hiccups.

Finally, it's the worst time for something to go wrong. So, while modern planes shouldn't have a problem with calls being made/received, you still want to check.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Anonymous Coward]

No that's the tinfoil hat reason.

The actual reason is that if screws up the ground based cell towers, which used to be a lot more true in the AMPS era because the antennas were not sectorized and power was measured in watts.

Current TD-LTE, standard can hit 160 watts.Old AMPS was 250 watts and could reach 25 miles. That includes straight up in the air. One analog cell phone left on in the air, results in every single tower with line of sight of the plane to try and handover to it. It just screws things up too much.

Most sectorized cell towers do not point up, they point in 15 to 90 degree angles (which is why you see more antennas on the top of buildings near shopping and are pointed in a way that usually limits the transmission reach to about 2 miles. Basically each tower is setup for customer efficiency.

As for satellite phones on airplanes, nobody ever uses those, and not just for cost reasons. How often do you think 2 hours into your flight, you need to call your mom to wish her a happy birthday? Not very, you can wait till you get home. People only make emergency calls on phones they don't own. How often do you see people use pay phones? Even before cell phones, you never saw every single payphone in use. The last two times I used a payphone, both were on transit ... One was a ship (ferry) and the other was at an airport lobby. Both were because I had thought I had lost some item at the airport, and it was cheaper to make a long distance call from a payphone than it was my cell phone. FYI, cell phones on ferries work, but only if you're within ... 2 miles of land. The internet service provided by the ferry is done over GSM, same with the internet service on Amtrak (train.)

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think it's easy to connect a call at 9500 feet, you're high.

Well yeah. 9500 feet high. You just said that.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[tompaulco]

10k feet is cruising altitude

Looks like we're going to need a bigger plane. The only planes that would be cruising at 10k feet would be non-pressurized ones. Even on a short hop, a jet is going to be cruising at least 25,000 feet.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[thegarbz]

It was disallowed because it cut into airline revenue from expensive airplane to satellite phones.

Sorry to spoil your capitalist conspiracy but it was banned due to the technical issues around the air interface. Specifically Cell Reselection became a major headache where the signal would rapidly hop from one tower to the other. Changing cells presents quite a burden on the infrastructure as calls are re-routed and resources are allocated. A plane full of talking phones while flying over a city will very quickly lead to dropped calls as 15 subscribers bounce to a cell at the same time and then move on seconds later.

Then there's also issues regarding the radio signal itself. There's cells on the market specifically intended to be installed on high-speed rail lines. They throw most other requirements out the window in favour of high gain and directionality (reduce the number of handovers required in a trip), and using fancy patented radio voodoo to get the GSM to work at a speed higher than 250km/h.

See for a long time you couldn't use your phone on a high-speed rail either. Well it wasn't banned, but it just plain didn't work for more than a few seconds at a time.
The existence of micro-cells and re-routing calls via satellite overcomes these technical hurdles.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

I connect all the time at 9500 feet. Maybe because I live in Cripple Creek, CO.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[BitZtream]

just in case there are hiccups.

This sort of thing keeps coming up, but its a stupid statement.

You know what you, as a passenger get to do when the aircraft has issues on its climb out? If the pilot can't solve them on his own, you die. Thats what happens.

Nothing they are going to tell you is going to save your life if they're telling you on the climb out when the shit goes down. Its already too late. You'd be much better off not knowing whats going on and being in a state of ignorant bliss.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[BitZtream]

Sorry to spoil your capitalist conspiracy but it was banned due to the technical issues around the air interface. Specifically Cell Reselection became a major headache where the signal would rapidly hop from one tower to the other.

Sorry to spoil your ignorance, but that hasn't been a problem in 15 years.

Whats more, all the existing data links in aircraft ... use cellular. New Boeing and Airbus aircraft have their own cell phone number for fucks sake. GoGo inflight wifi? Cellular.

This DoS attack against the cell system was solved before phones where '1g', let alone anything digital or anything modern.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know and it has been proven that cell phones work well at 32,000 feet. It was proven time and time again on Sept 11, 2001 when the terrorist took over the 3 airplanes.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Joining Yet Again]

You'd be much better off not knowing whats going on and being in a state of ignorant bliss.

Any pilot who thinks like that ought never to be flying a passenger-carrying plane. It's no wonder there are so many people with irrational fear of flying, if there is an attitude of ignorance is good.

But no, if there's a need for passengers to take action - which will be to save themselves after the pilot's saved the plane - the last thing you want them doing is clinging to their iPhones.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[thegarbz]

Erm nice try but other than the 777 and the A380 which I don't know anything about, external communications with aircraft work over radio and satellite, which ... has it's own phone number. Imagine that.

Claiming it isn't an issue and ignoring the technical realities isn't doing you any favours, and the technical realities is that as new services have come out the problem has actually gotten worse. 3G and LTE especially send far larger packets leading to higher error rates when moving quickly. As for solving the DoS (you're denying yourself, not someone else) you should really try having a conversation from a high speed train, or in a small aircraft which doesn't have a micro cell on it. Then you may re-evaluate what you consider as "solved".

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[hawaiian717]

The Gogo network may be cellular, but their network is designed to hit a target flying 500 miles per hour at 39,000 feet. Plus, the base station on the aircraft concentrates the traffic, which means there's one air-to-ground link per plane, rather than per handset as would be the case of someone using an unauthorized cell phone inflight today.

It's also not true that all the existing inflight data links are cellular. Southwest uses Row 44, which provides a satellite based solution. JetBlue is planning to launch, if it hasn't already, a satellite-based system with ViaSat.

There are other, older, slower options for inflight data access that are satellite based, but we're talking about dialup speeds here.

Re:Ban Removed Due to New Revenue From Micro-Cells

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right on some points. There is a speed limit for GSM (and other standard) to work, but that's the speed between the cell phone and the cell tower.

In general, the plane is not going directly towards the cell tower, but fly over the towers, so the relative speed is much lower than aircaft speed. That kind of trick is heavily used in France close to TGV tracks (about 300 km/h), the towers are not close to the tracks.
Having forgot to turn off my cell phone on some international flights, I can assure you it's working fine (at least for receiving SMS).

In case the plane is going directly toward the cell tower, your main concern might not be a cell phone problem.

Telco Billing

[MrKaos]

If you consider it when a cellular phone is in the air it is an equal distance from several towers, so it is effectively difficult for the telcos to bill the users properly and the airline to get a cut - so tell people it's a safety issue and they can't use it. More likely the safety issues, which bring an airline down because of on-board mobile phone use are yet to be discovered.

Just hope I'm not on the aircraft that reveals the problem.

Re:Telco Billing

[Austrian Anarchy]

If you consider it when a cellular phone is in the air it is an equal distance from several towers, so it is effectively difficult for the telcos to bill the users properly and the airline to get a cut - so tell people it's a safety issue and they can't use it. More likely the safety issues, which bring an airline down because of on-board mobile phone use are yet to be discovered.

Just hope I'm not on the aircraft that reveals the problem.

That was one of the rumors as to why the ban went into effect in the first place, "Big Telco" didn't like it. Never saw anything factual to support that theory,* just what people were saying, even the owners of the cell phone store where I worked briefly in the 1990s.

*Not that it can't be true, I just never saw any documentation supporting it, and I never really looked.

There is an antisocial behavior precedent

[bradm]

In the bad old days, when there was another antisocial behavior that profoundly affected the innocent victims in adjacent seats, we divided the plane into smoking and non smoking sections. There was leakage from section to section, but at least it wasn't in your face.

Many Amtrak trains have a highly desirable "quiet car",which helps to separate those the see the trip along the east coast as a continuous sales call opportunity from those that see the trip as a continuous concentration or sleeping opportunity.

So, I'm all for allowing calls on planes, provided I can book a seat in the STFU section for no extra cost. Especially if it saves me from taking a transatlantic flight surrounded by a gaggle of teenagers that think it's a Beatles concert and not a redeye.

Re:There is an antisocial behavior precedent

[Joining Yet Again]

I'd prefer a "loud car" in trains, with the assumption of civil behaviour required in all others. And each seat in the "loud car" should have a lubed crowbar embedded in it, provided to help the loud passengers remove their heads from their own backsides.

Re:There is an antisocial behavior precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution:

Last ten rows are families with small children and cell phone calls. Put a soundproof partition in front of them and ban both in all other rows.

Re:There is an antisocial behavior precedent

[ChunderDownunder]

I've taken a night train across Canada. Insomniacs, infants and phone users were courteous enough to venture to the refreshments lounge, where they were screening the BTTF trilogy.

On buses and cattle-class planes there's generally no common area to rest away from one's seat.

Why not just 3G/4G and SMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that I can't imagine the pain of sitting next to a chatty teenager on a multi-hour flight, why not just let SMS and/or 3G/4G through and block voice? If you need to send a text, check email, download porn, whatever, then go for your life, but please don't make me listen to the voices of the unwashed rabble

Good Lord Stop Teasing Me!

[Austrian Anarchy]

I've been hearing this for DECADES and it never happens.

Re:Good Lord Stop Teasing Me!

[isorox]

I've been hearing this for DECADES and it never happens.

Choose a different carrier if you're that bothered. Emirates offer it on 300 flights a day.

Re:Good Lord Stop Teasing Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

They fly everywhere I do and ignore the FAA rule? Seriously?

Re:Good Lord Stop Teasing Me!

[isorox]

They fly everywhere I do and ignore the FAA rule? Seriously?

Emirates have an amazing network, if you're happy to change once you can get from pretty much anywhere in the world to anywhere else. Nairobi to Berlin? Tokyo to Manchester? Sydney to Delhi?

Emirates couldn't give a stuff why the FAA say, just like delta couldn't care less about what the CAA says.

Re:Good Lord Stop Teasing Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

They fly everywhere I do and ignore the FAA rule? Seriously?

Emirates have an amazing network, if you're happy to change once you can get from pretty much anywhere in the world to anywhere else. Nairobi to Berlin? Tokyo to Manchester? Sydney to Delhi?

Emirates couldn't give a stuff why the FAA say, just like delta couldn't care less about what the CAA says.

Light must bend when it passes your skull. So you are under the impression that the whole freaking universe flies Nairobi to Berlin? Tokyo to Manchester? Sydney to Delhi? Guess again Einstein, There is an entire world that does not share your San Francisco practicality. So here is another suggestion, let airlines provide the services that they want to provide and compete on that basis.

Re:Good Lord Stop Teasing Me!

[isorox]

They fly everywhere I do and ignore the FAA rule? Seriously?

Emirates have an amazing network, if you're happy to change once you can get from pretty much anywhere in the world to anywhere else. Nairobi to Berlin? Tokyo to Manchester? Sydney to Delhi?

Emirates couldn't give a stuff why the FAA say, just like delta couldn't care less about what the CAA says.

Light must bend when it passes your skull. So you are under the impression that the whole freaking universe flies Nairobi to Berlin? Tokyo to Manchester? Sydney to Delhi? Guess again Einstein, There is an entire world that does not share your San Francisco practicality. So here is another suggestion, let airlines provide the services that they want to provide and compete on that basis.

Err, those are examples. And EK do fly San Francisco to Dubai too, which allows connections to that part of the world.

I believe Virgin (UK), Ryanair (Ireland), Qantas (Austrailia) and Qatar (Qatar) all offer, or offered, in flight mobiles too, at least on some planes, and I know the last TAP (Portugal) flight I was on offered it. The fact others haven't tells me that the commercial demand just isn't there, but on the whole there's no global problem with carriers offering it.

No doubt you'll come up with some obscure example like "I want to fly from Hicksville to Bogata on a Star Alliance carrier and they don't offer it unless I choose a seat near the front but I prefer to be behind the wing as I get a better view".

Hearing half a conversation

[tepples]

Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them

Hearing half a conversation is worse than hearing a whole conversation.

Please don't

[EmperorOfCanada]

I am calling all scientists out there to fudge their data and show that the moment a call exceeds 30 seconds that the plane is more likely to crash than not. Can you imagine an 8 hour flight beside some bubble brain blabbing the whole time on their phone:

"Mary said, to John that I told Sue what Jane said about Mark... Yeah I would so love to get high with him. Did you see what Mary was wearing at John's on Friday, I wouldn't be caught dead in that, it is sooooo 2012. I gave my phone to this geeky neighbour who I have friendzoned soooo hard; so anyway he put this giant battery in it so I can now talk for like 2 days straight. Anyhoo I have those new shoes, ya the ones with the red, anyway I got them and they hurt my feet so much and after I went home with that guy... no I don't know his name.. well anyway the ass made me walk down his 2 mile long driveway the next morning and now they're ruined, ya you're right I should sue him. So now I have to ask my baby daddy to buy me another pair, or I won't let him see his kid at my step-mother's. Ya I spent my whole paycheque on them. I don't know, do you know, then who knows, do you know anyone who knows someone who knows. Ya so anyway all the people on this plane are so boring, no Vogue, No Elle, Nothing. The only thing I can see is some guy near me reading something called the Eco Mist. Boring. It has a picture of that Hispanic guy who's president or something......."

NO!

[Hamsterdan]

There's *no* reason for using a cell phone on a plane. Besides, some of those birds are pretty old and were designed before cell phones existed.

Re:NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's *no* reason for using a cell phone on a plane. Besides, some of those birds are pretty old and were designed before cell phones existed.

So, I'm guessing these old birds shouldn't be allowing advanced stuff like streaming radio, video, tablets or laptops on board, right?

The age of the plane is about as relevant as the age of your underwear. If you're that worried, maybe you shouldn't be flying in a 30-year old tube at 35,000 feet.

Re:NO!

[isorox]

There's *no* reason for using a cell phone on a plane.

Citation needed.

Here's a reason: I want to phone home and talk to my wife and child
Here's another reason: I want to join a conference call, which is tricky enough to arrange in the first place with people in the States, Europe and Asia all on it.

Re:NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed one: fuck you I'm important look at my phone!

if turning on your phone could crash the plane...

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't al-qaeda just buy like 30 tickets and all turn their phones on at the same time?

NO WAY IN HELL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this will pretty much guarantee I'll NEVER fly again (unless forced to for work.) It's bad enough the second the plane hits the ground everyone whips out their phones to have inane babble conversations with loved ones for minutes on end subjecting you to have to listen to half a conversation. Is there ANYTHING that can't wait the 5 minutes until we taxi to the gate and you get OFF the plane before calling to discuss???

There seriously are going to be HUGE fights on planes if they allow this crap...

Getting a signal to the ground

[sandbagger]

>Airlines would have to install equipment in their planes that would communicate with cellphone towers on the ground.

How those people aboard the doomed aircraft on Sept 11 were all able to make phone calls again?

Re:Getting a signal to the ground

[isorox]

>Airlines would have to install equipment in their planes that would communicate with cellphone towers on the ground.

How those people aboard the doomed aircraft on Sept 11 were all able to make phone calls again?

By flying low. I rarely get a signal above 10k foot, and have never managed to get one above 20k foot.

This will self correct

[erice]

For the first few weeks it may be obnoxious. Then the chatterboxes will get their bills. There will be much screaming (not on the airplanes) and word will get around that using a cell phone on an airplane is really expensive and not something that one should actually do unless the matter is urgent.

You know, sort of like the air phones we have now.

Make the planes repeaters back to the ground

[Anonymous Coward]

If they made the planes repeaters back to ground based phones, you could pretty much cover every square foot of North America with cell service. You are almost always within line of sight to a commercial aircraft everywhere and at any time in NA.

Possibly an early test flight?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was on an American Airlines flight from Rochester to Chicago back in 2005 where they let people use their phones on board. I only remember it because it was so out of the ordinary but people went ahead and pulled out their phones and were talking like it was nothing. I pretty much hated it because there was some lady right behind me that was on the phone literally the entire flight from the time they announced it was okay to when she had to stand up to get her luggage to leave the plane. Towards the end she was just giving an up to the minute update of what the plane was doing, as if she couldn't hang up the phone.

Apologies to George Carlin...

[maiden_taiwan]

Them: "Mind if I yak on my cellphone in this enclosed space?"
You: "Mind if I fart?"

Re:Apologies to George Carlin...

[StikyPad]

Go ahead. There's a reason the air circulates from ceiling to floor.

legality doesn't make it reality

[gaiageek]

The FCC making it legal is one thing. Airlines allowing it is another. Given the overwhelmingly negative response I've seen on this so far today, I think it's pretty safe to say that any airline that decided to allow passengers to make calls on their phones would risk losing business -- especially the business of frequent flyers. People who fly a lot tend to be quite familiar with the annoyances of flying, so why would they want to fly an airline that potentially adds another?

What I haven't seen mentioned is whether you'd have to pay a premium for such calls. Assuming you have to pay cruise ship rates (over $2 a minute), that would definitely discourage people from making long chit-chat phone calls to pass the time of their flight. Likewise, I'm sure a time limit on calls could be easily implemented. With such conditions in place, I'd probably be ok with it, and I'd certainly appreciate it if I was ever in a situation where I really needed to make a phone call en route to my destination.

Re:legality doesn't make it reality

[Anonymous Coward]

The world would be a better place without bureaucrats, self-appointed experts, and threads full of opinionated losers who want to tell everyone else what to do and how they can do it. Particularly can't stand "progressives" who seem to be basically against freedom and against progress.

Re:Here comes the flood, FFC follows Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason the FCC is bothered with this is because Europe removed the ban (the BBC reported it, not sure if /. bothered posting a story about it) however there is a ban for takeoffs and landings.

And if they allow you to bring MP3 or digital player, instead of putting up with the person around you either yelling on the phone, or yapping about petty shit, you could wear headphones, some planes allow headphones to watch a movie or show. If it becomes a problem and there are enough complaints the airliners may want to create a lounge room for those that need to yap on there phones. I could care what people do, I can ignore it, but if someone feels comfortable yapping on there phone next to total strangers it explains a lot when it comes to US citizens not really objecting to NSA surveillance.

Ambient chatter

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to hearing one end of dozens of silly conversations.
"No, I love you more than you do me."
"Yes, I'm on a plane."
"Goo goo gaa gaa."
"No, my wife can't date while I'm away."

Calm your fucking tits, people

[Travelsonic]

People act like the FCC and.or FAA changing things will be the end of the world. These changes won't prevent airlines from acting their own policies, and odds are they will have their own rules... and why the hell would you want the FCC governing this - and not the airlines?

No

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no no no no no.

Questions?

Fucking wonderful

[Murdoch5]

What we really need is something that will make flights more annoying, more loud, more horrible to sit through. Just turn the phone off, you don't need to be one it and just relax until you get to your destination.

Re:Fucking wonderful

[rhalstead]

You can relax in todays packed, cattle car environment with little room to move, no leg room, and some fat guy taking up half your seat?

Re:Fucking wonderful

[Murdoch5]

LOL the cell phone is just going to take away the last possible amount of relax I could get.

In-flight WiFi

[brunes69]

You know, a lot of people in here are complaining about in-flight cell use being annoying. But we have had in-flight wifi for awhile now, and you can use the phone over that service any number of ways. Is that being abused?

TO me, the solution is simple.. you enable the access, but you disallow people from making or taking voice calls via simple airline policy. Text only. This allows people to use their own text and data plans and keeps the annoyance factor to the same level as wifi.

Re:In-flight WiFi

[StikyPad]

It's not being abused because a) the bandwidth is so low and the latency is so high that it doesn't work unless you get lucky, and b) most people don't know what you're talking about. Mostly b.

American Airlines has a policy

[Muad'Dave]

I flew on American Airlines last week (after the recent relaxation of in-flight electronics rules). They offered WiFi on the plane for 'a nominal fee', but specifically prohibited VOIP and other phonecall-like behavior.

I HOPE that sets a precedent - I REALLY do not want to be on a plane with cell phone yakkers.

Re:American Airlines has a policy

[BitZtream]

And did this plane have phones in the back of the seat in front of you, that they had no problem if you used while paying a ridiculously high rate?

They aren't trying to stop you from making a call, they're trying to force you to make the call through their service in order to collect ridiculous fees. The nice side effect is that those ridiculous fees keep almost everyone from doing it. But make no mistake, its all about the money from the airlines perspective.

Re:American Airlines has a policy

[Muad'Dave]

And did this plane have phones in the back of the seat in front of you ...

No, it did not. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a 'flight phone' in a seat. I think most airlines have ripped those out in favor of 'entertainment centers'.

America is bigger than that

[alispguru]

US phone plans typically have no roaming charges over the 48 states - it's easy to spend six hours in the air with no cost increase for cell phone use, and thus no deterrent to yacking.

In Europe, it's hard to take a flight over an hour without crossing an international border.

Re:America is bigger than that

[thegarbz]

Depends on how this system will work. If the plane is equipped with a micro-cell which relays via satellite like the ones I've been on then it won't matter where you are. You're roaming.

You may end up like this guy who thought he was still local as his cruise ship hasn't left the port yet and then got slapped with $27000 worth of roaming charges because he was connected to the ship's microcell and was steaming data via satellite.

At Last!

[Anonymous Coward]

A justification for armed on-flight air marshals...

For the love of gawd, no. Please, no.

[Jawnn]

I have to put up with rubes and their mobile phones in restaurants and stores, sharing with everyone within earshot their most personal, and almost always painfully banal, conversations. Please do not subject me to that for hours on end in an aluminum tube at 35,000 feet.

What, I can't hear you...What?!

[cj9er]

Really, REALLY??!!! It's bad enough hearing the douche on their iPad or table playing Fruit Ninja with the volume at MAX

Reflections on 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is currently impossible to make calls from an aircraft without installing special equipment to talk to cell towers on the ground, how did people on the planes during the 9/11 attacks manage to make so many calls to their friends and families? Doesn't this lend further weight to the already overwhelming evidence that the official story is a bunch of crap?

A Big Market for...

[Polo]

I think there is a big market for microphones that can pick up words without having to actually speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocal_recognition

Make it go away

[Anonymous Coward]

This will cause the end of civilization. What, politics beat this to the punch? Never mind.

Cell Phones on Planes

[Jerome from Layton]

If you are my age then there are memories of an age where people could smoke on airliners. The booking agent would ask "Smoking or Non-Smoking?" So, the modern version could be "Cell Phone or No Cell Phone?" Maybe they could put seats in the baggage hold for the Jabberwockies.

Mine used to disconnect

[rhalstead]

If I left my phone on in my own plane, the phone would show now servive, usually above 5000. At 10,000 and above, it was a lost cause. OTOH How'd you like to be on one of those cattle cars with half the passengers using cell phones?