Slashdot Mirror


Senators Propose Bill Prohibiting Phone Calls On Planes

SonicSpike writes with news that two U.S. Senators, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have proposed legislation to ban cell phone calls while aboard an airplane. This follows a recent announcement from the FAA increasing the range of electronic gadgets travelers can use while flying, and a vote by the FCC to consider allowing phone calls during flight. However, even as those government agencies work to lift regulations on in-flight technology, the Department of Transportation is pondering a in-flight call ban of its own, saying it might not be "fair" to consumers to have to listen to other passengers talk on the phone throughout a long flight. FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "If we move beyond what we do here today and actually update our rules to allow voice calls on planes we can see a future where our quiet time is monetized and seating in the silent section comes at a premium."

25 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!

    1. Re:what? by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters?

      That would be nice. We already know there's a special hell reserved for those who talk at the theater.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:what? by glavenoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.

      --
      I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
    3. Re:what? by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. There is zero reason this needs to be legislated.

      This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:what? by edibobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should ban talking altogether. Terrorists have been known to use speech in training as well as in the execution of terrorist attacks. Child pornographers and drug cartels are also frequent users of speech.

    5. Re:what? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.

      How dare you let businesses determine their own methods of business. You NEED the government to tell you how to run your business since you suck at running it and some lifetime politician knows more about your business then you do.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    6. Re:what? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!

      In a restaurant, I can ask my waitress to tell you to STFU. If she fails to, I can (and will) walk out.

      You already can't use your phone in a movie theater.

      Being stuck on a plane for several hours while some sales wanker is on a conference call -- well, let's just say the cabin crew might have to break up a few fights and deal with the fallout of someone who has had enough. After you've won buzz-word bingo for the 3rd time in 15 minutes, it wears thin, and people have already been stressed out by the process of going through the airport.

      Mark my words, I bet it would take less than 2 years before the first in-flight murder of a cell phone user or something silly like that. Because the people who feel they can't avoid using their cell phones often have absolutely no awareness of those around them, because they feel whatever they're doing is so important that the rest of us should have to put up with it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:what? by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it's called the Alamo Drafthouse.

      This person is why Cell Phones need to be banned on airplanes in this country. If I had to listen to her talk endlessly on a flight I'd probably look for the nearest emergency exit and throw her out! Yeah, there'd be collateral damage but honestly if a person can't be bothered to not use their phone in a theater what makes you think that they'll be polite on a plane?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    8. Re:what? by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a train line that came up with a novel idea: on part of the train you can use your cellphone, and on part of the train you can't! Gee, what a concept. Maybe we could let the airlines figure this out, rather than having Congress make laws.

    9. Re: what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, and the trumpet player who's travelling to his next performance should be allowed to make productive use of his time by practicing. It's not like you have a right to peace and quiet at the expense of his convenience.

    10. Re:what? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it would be awful if congress were to, say, spend enough time to rationally examine energy policy, and pass laws to encourage responsible nuclear power in addition to renewables.

      Yeah, because that would totally happen.

      In the real world, they would pass a 2,000 page Affordable Energy Act that no-one had read, full of pork for hamster farmers.

    11. Re:what? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the one about the theater specifically, is surely about as old as affordable cell phone service.

      Try, as old as theaters, and not just movie theaters, either. There are lots of people who don't need a cell phone to babble on anywhere and everywhere.

    12. Re:what? by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can't or won't control your kids, please keep them at home until they can maintain themselves in public.

      There is another side to that story. I've been a business traveler for a lot of years, earning Platinum status with Skyteam year after year. I was always annoyed by parents traveling with kids... Until I became a father myself. Unfortunately, it is not always an option to "just keep them home". Family living abroad, a death in the family, there are many reasons why infants and toddlers need to travel.

      Having that said, your frustration should be aimed at the parents who are unprepared. When my (now 2 year old) daughter travels, 90% of our carry-on is toys and food to keep her silent. And usually there are two 10-minute moments that every kid cries: take-off and landing, for obvious reasons. And even the landing noise can be mitigated by feeding the child, especially if it is still an infant. However, I have seen parents doing nothing when their kid screams so loud that the vibration becomes a hazard for the engines. That, my friend, is the person you should vent your frustration at. These parents should be banned from airplanes, and parenthood altogether. The kid is not the nightmare, the parent is.

      On her latest trip, last week from AMS to SFO, my wife was actually complimented about our daughter's behavior by passengers around them. The trick? A fully charged Ipad Mini fully loaded with Dora the Explorer movies.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. Wait, what? by chinton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they really have nothing more pressing to deal with than legislating common courtesy?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congress regularly has to regulate what anyone would consider common courtesy.
      What do you think the Do Not Call list and the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act are?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. Join the conversation by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the person next to you is talking on the phone just join in. Comment on what they say, ask what the other person said, etc. Someone rude enough to have a phone conversation in a crowd won't catch the sarcasm, but at least you'll annoy them as much as they annoy you.

  4. Re:Really? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's difference between talking on a phone and talking to someone I am traveling with as far as noise disruption?

    Because of low (or absent) sidetone on cell phones, people tend to speak much more loudly than they would in a regular conversation. Additionally, if the connection is poor people tend to shout. This is why most people find cell conversations disruptive.

  5. Re:Planes have had phones for years by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not cell phones, but there have definitely been phones available. Some planes even had handsets embedded in the back of the headrests.

    And their high cost has moderated their usage. Cell phone usage would be quite different.

  6. Re:Really? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't agree with the bill, but there is a difference to the third-parties.

    Firstly, everyone talks louder on the phone. They don't realize it and deny it left-and-right, but they do. Add to that, they will be compensating for the engine noise so it's going to be a lot of "can you hear me, what about now, is that better" So you have increased volume.

    Second, you have the issue of "half a conversation" messing with your brain. Hearing another conversation isn't so bad, hearing only HALF the conversation (the guy on the phone) and your brain tries to piece together w t h they're talking about or what the person on the other-end-of-the-phone is saying. It's an automatic thing, so it adds to the annoyance.

    Lastly, not too many people talk to their strangers / neighbors for more than a few minutes. Sure people talk, but for the most part people just want to veg out and rest / read / watch the movie / etc. Bring in the phones, and LOTS of people will be talking.

    Personally I'm fine with the way planes have been... the talking is at a minimum so I can at least try to get some rest. Instead now you will have people going on and on about mundane stuff.

    At least... hopefully the teens and younger will be Texting instead of calling... so I don't have to hear all of the "Oh My Gawd did you see what she was wearing" BS.

  7. Distraction Bill by Antipater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both Alexander and Feinstein have issues that they'd rather the media not look at right now. Alexander's chief of staff was just arrested on child porn charges, and Feinstein...I don't think I have to mention, here on /., why people hate Feinstein.

    So they've come together with a "you know that thing that people really hate? Let's ban it!" bill meant to get their names in the headlines next to something they think people will like. It's just a stunt. Pay no heed to it.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  8. Airlines want the CYA of being told what to do by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...even if "being told what to do" means they decide internally but have a Federal organization slap their letterhead on it and make it a Federal rule/policy.

    There will probably be a lot of high-mileage and influential business customers who want to talk on the phone. These people are the gravy for airlines in terms of income and that can get expensive if they switch to another carrier who will allow these calls. Making their own policies that risks exposing them to a competitive disadvantage is something they don't want.

    If they do allow calls with their own policy, they then risk the public relations nightmare of bad press and public opinion. Of course they don't really care about vacation travelers opinions very much since they aren't the high margin business customers, but they also don't want the negative PR generally.

    It's just so much easier for them on this issue if they don't have to decide on their own and they can just point to a regulatory rule.

  9. Re:i'll make sure my kids make lots of noise by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    s/fog horn/vuvuzela

    No jury in the world would ever convict the guy that kills you.

  10. Re:Good morning Vietraq by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.

    You're kidding right? The amount of money we spent and the amount of interest we will pay to fund the two wars dwarfs any economic damage that Obamacare supposedly will cause. We won't know the final cost of the wars since we will be paying for the casualties that return home for quite a long time.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  11. Re:Good morning Vietraq by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA

    Are you KIDDING me? Better to spend $300M to get 44 people health care (and that's a moronic statistic, anyway - they spent too much money and the site isn't ready, but that's an NRE cost, not a per-person rate, DUH) than $5 TRILLION to get thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. For the cost of those wars the US could have fully insured every citizen in the US for years.

    And name ANY direct harm that has actually come to anyone AS OF TODAY over the ACA (not some unproven conspiracy theory of future issues). Yes, millions of cancellations of policies have been announced (*not* enacted yet), but the vast majority of those people will end up with with cheaper policies with more coverage. Combine that with newly covered people and it will be a large net gain. Not comforting to those individuals who made out the worse for it, of course, but on the scale of 300M people that's how things go.

  12. Re:Give me liberty or give me silence! by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My first cell phone, some twenty years ago, came with a guide that included an etiquite section. It suggested using an unused doorway or empty payphone box as a place to make a call in public.