Americans To FCC Chair: No Cell Calls On Planes, Please

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans To FCC Chair: No Cell Calls On Planes, Please

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 17, 2014 @04:43AM from the we-only-want-what-we-can't-have dept.

jfruh writes "Who says Americans are politically apathetic? The FCC's proposal to allow cellular data — and, if the airline allows it, voice calls — on airplanes unleashed a flood of responses even before the official comment period began this week. The sentiment was overwhelmingly opposed to people talking on phones in flight. Some correspondents spun terrifying hypotheticals about yapping teens, some accused FCC chair Tom Wheeler of flying on private planes and being out of touch with the full-on horror of in-flight chatter, and one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times."

340 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Allow it... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2014-01-17 04:44 · Score: 1

Allow cell phone calls on airplanes, but only from inside a soundproof booth in the back of the plane.

--

Technoli
1. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Then people can fight over the booth.. Wonder how much it would cost to retrofit every plan with a sound-proofed 'room'.
2. Re:Allow it... by Penguinisto · 2014-01-17 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nice compromise, but seating space is already at cattle-car tightness now. I can only imagine what it would squeeze everyone down to if you had to accommodate a frickin' room with soundproofing.
  Personally, and as a guy who travels on business a lot, I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
  Why? Two reasons:
  1) people are annoying enough - imagine 100-200 of them in a tiny cabin practically yelling into their cell phones.
  2) I love not having to answer emails or phone calls while in-flight.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
3. Re:Allow it... by gstoddart · 2014-01-17 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Allow cell phone calls on airplanes, but only from inside a soundproof booth in the back of the plane.
  Preferably one which is neither pressurized nor filled with air, and equipped with an ejection mechanism.
  Nobody wants to be stuck on a long flight with some wanker who insists on being on a conference call the whole time. Or some idiot having a fight with his wife. Or someone making kissy-face noises to his girlfriend.
  Things will eventually get ugly, and people will get hurt if this happens. I figure under one month before someone completely loses it.
  As evidence for this, I remind you someone got shot for texting in a movie theater during the trailers this week. Now, imagine people in a cramped space who have been in airports and airplanes for 8 hours.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Allow it... by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-17 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  " (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it. We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
5. Re: Allow it... by Scowler · 2014-01-17 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or, you know, make sure all passengers are able to request noise-canceling headphones, free of charge. Any frequent and sane flier carries these as a rule, of course.
6. Re:Allow it... by NMBob · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Oh great. That's called a lavatory. They'll all be sitting in there yapping while a line forms. Oh wait, you're not allowed to form a line anymore. Airline issued stadium pals?
7. Re: Allow it... by SylvesterTheCat · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  Nice idea, but it doesn't work.
  I fly a fair amount.
  The "noise" that noise-cancelling headphones cancel are sounds that have a consistent volume, like the constant drone (no pun intended) of the aircraft engines. The headphones do not cancel sounds like other people's conversations, at least not very well.
8. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the plane will be made to leave.
  Now there's something we can all agree on!
9. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  This is nonsense. I demand that people never talk on phones while in public! Why? Because I don't like it and don't want to hear it, that's why! You may not like it, and it may be more annoying in such a closed-in place, but it's absolutely nonsense to ban something just because you don't like it.
  Home of the idiots.
10. Re: Allow it... by djdanlib · 2014-01-17 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  Yup, frequent and sane fliers do. The rest of us who might fly once or twice in our lifetimes would prefer not to hear conference calls on that 12 hour day of flying.
11. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm... Talk in a movie theater, get throw out and land on the sidewalk.
  Talk on a plane, get thrown out and land on the sidewalk (or ocean, or whatever).....30,000 feet later.
  Seems reasonable. Although, in a movie theater, the rest of the patrons do not get thrown out as well. Which would also cut down on the airline's repeat customer possibilities.
12. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  "(data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
  Good thing I got skype...
13. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  " (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it. We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
  I'm not disagreeing with the general point you're making, but... just how many times did you see cinemas enforce the "no yapping on the phone during the feature"-rule? Me, I have seen that happen exactly 0 times.
14. Re: Allow it... by Scowler · 2014-01-17 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  You are right (they are particularly bad at muffling baby cries to any degree, it seems), but they don't need to be perfect. Especially so if there is a decent selection of stuff to listen to on the armrest jack. Just good enough to keep sanity above zero is what is needed.
15. Re:Allow it... by c · 2014-01-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way
  Well... I'd like to think the FAA should become involved. Allowing behaviour which is pretty much guaranteed to piss of passengers and crews to the point of pulling out weapons (i.e. that shooting in a Florida theater the other day over texting) should be considered a flight safety issue and should be regulated by air safety authorities.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
16. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Either way, if it is not for safety, but annoyance, how enforceable is it going to be? I've seen flight crew struggle to tell passengers to turn off their phones now when it is supposed to be about safety. Once in flight, they can't throw someone out like at a movie theater. Legally, passengers are supposed to respond to instruction from the crew, but is the airline going to want to make a big legal mess over the issue? The crew can kick the person off the flight once they land, but unless the person was staying on the same plane with the same crew, is the airline going to take the effort to blacklist someone from other flights? Probably doesn't matter anyway, as if they find a way to make money from it, they won't be interested in what the majority want if charging the minority makes them more money.
17. Re: Allow it... by beelsebob · 2014-01-17 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because someone curling up to go to sleep wants to wear headphones.
18. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you put parents with small children back in that booth, too.
19. Re:Allow it... by malignant_minded · 2014-01-17 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Im sorry but that doesnt seem to hold weight. Thanks for not wearing deodorant, you smell terrible, I cant believe I have to sit next to you for 6 hours, I could murder you. Should the FCC deal with BO as well?
20. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way
  Well... I'd like to think the FAA should become involved. Allowing behaviour which is pretty much guaranteed to piss of passengers and crews to the point of pulling out weapons (i.e. that shooting in a Florida theater the other day over texting) should be considered a flight safety issue and should be regulated by air safety authorities.
  Wait, so you want federal enforcement of texting in theaters just because someone might overreact? If I shoot someone cutting in line at a public restroom, should the government step in to enforce orderly lines?
21. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-17 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety.
  No, the FCC's job here is to regulate the use of a limited public resource so that it remains productive and usable. The only "safety" feature of the FCC rules are the standards for RF emissions to protect people from injury from RF energy.
  The current cell phone ban from the FCC has nothing to do with safety, it is a side effect of the existing regulation based on ITU treaties regarding the use of specific bands of of frequencies. The allocation for a major part of the cell phone frequencies is LAND mobile. That excludes use while airborne. A secondary justification is the design of hundreds of existing cell systems, which were designed with LAND mobile users as the intended target, so there are technical issues with simply changing the allocation to AIR mobile.
  It is the FAA that is tasked with safety regulations for aviation. The vast majority of such regulation occurs as the direct result of an accident or incident, such as the FAAs new policies for medical certificates that forces anyone with a BMI of 40 or more to prove they DO NOT have sleep apnea. Too many pilots falling asleep at the wheel, something has to be done.
  
  We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
  There is now precedent for "or shot". I'm still undecided if that is too severe or just the right deterrent.
22. Re:Allow it... by DickBreath · 2014-01-17 06:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  > Wonder how much it would cost to retrofit every [airplane] with a sound-proofed 'room'.
  
  I wonder how much it would cost to outfit that sound-proofed booth with a trap door floor?
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
23. Re:Allow it... by paiute · 2014-01-17 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  Allow cell phone calls on airplanes, but only from inside a soundproof booth in the back of the plane.
  Mile-High Booth
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
24. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Airlines deal with BO on their own without legislation. If you complain to a flight attendant about a passenger that smells, they'll usually deal with it. The problem with phone use in cabins is that it's a potential revenue source for airlines. That will trump passenger safety or sanity.
25. Re: Allow it... by DickBreath · 2014-01-17 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  > Any frequent and sane flier carries [nose-cancelling headphones] as a rule, of course.
  
  You have the cause and effect reversed. Sanity is not the reason for carrying the headphones. Carrying the headphones is the reason for the sanity.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
26. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Allowing behaviour which is pretty much guaranteed to piss of passengers and crews to the point of pulling out weapons (i.e. that shooting in a Florida theater the other day over texting) should be considered a flight safety issue and should be regulated by air safety authorities.
  AFAIK they don't allow weapons on planes, so I doubt that will be a real problem.
27. Re:Allow it... by DickBreath · 2014-01-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  ${brand-name} Airlines is proud to introduce new, convenient, complimentary child muzzles.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
28. Re:Allow it... by RobertLTux · 2014-01-17 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No thats the CDC (assuming they smell like they are ROTTING)
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
29. Re:Allow it... by wagnerrp · 2014-01-17 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Bath salts only make people from Florida behave like flesh eating zombies. They don't actually become the living dead.
30. Re: Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, but your music does a good job at drowning that out. I realize you might not want to drain the battery on your phone, tablet, and/or laptop the whole time to have music. So that's why I also have an iPod Shuffle. A little mp3 player like that will last all day long on one charge. You are allowed to keep those on the whole flight now. So you only have to take them off when you want to listen to the pilot make an announcement, or listen to the flight attendant to make a drink order, or something. The rest of the time, headphones on, music playing.
31. Re:Allow it... by malignant_minded · 2014-01-17 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Doubtful, if that many people are complaining to the FCC then those potential customers will likely not use those airlines that allow talking which is bad for their bottom line. Again as others have posted it would be similar to movie theaters which do not tolerate cell phones. In theaters were it is not enforced customers just wont go if its an issue to them. Airlines could maybe do something to work around these issues perhaps acting as a relay for cell towers to boost signal for passengers but having a data throughput that prevents data streams for anything larger than the control channel packets giving you SMS.
32. Re:Allow it... by Festering+Leper · 2014-01-17 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Excluding carry-on pipe bombs and armed air marshalls I'm guessing a fist fight or stabbing is the best we can hope for.
  
  --
  if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, just put ".com" at the end of everything you say.com
33. Re:Allow it... by c · 2014-01-17 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK they don't allow weapons on planes, so I doubt that will be a real problem.
  They don't allow most lethal weapons on planes. Plenty of other weapons are available. Fists, feet, luggage straps, pens, etc.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
34. Re:Allow it... by AK+Marc · 2014-01-17 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
  
  Yes. That's what I came to say. The FCC/FAA should "allow" it, and the airlines should ban it, unless they have the last 2 rows set aside for cell-users. Unless they can monetize it (like the in-plane phones always legal), there's no reason to allow it. People don't use the phones on the plane because $2 or $5 per minute or whatever is enough to deter nearly everyone. But someone with 1000 minutes (5% used) would have no such dis-incentive.
  
  We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
  God no. The theaters refuse to enforce their own rules. And if a patron takes it upon themselves to point out the rules, they are assaulted (and shots are fired). I would pass a law making it explicit that if the theater has documented rules they refuse to enforce, any altercation caused by breach of those rules has all the civil liability fall first to the theater. I think that's fair, and would have prevented the most recent incident.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
35. Re:Allow it... by c · 2014-01-17 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Should the FCC deal with BO as well?
  I said FAA, not FCC.
  But yeah, you could also just let the airlines deal with it. I don't know how much I trust them to get it right, though.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
36. Re:Allow it... by hubie · 2014-01-17 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  If you're old enough, you might remember when airplanes had smoking and non-smoking sections separated by an imaginary barrier between two rows (restaurants used to do that too, it was like they thought there were little Maxwell's Demons whacking the smoke particles back as they tried to drift out of the smoking area). I can see the airline industry going in that direction with cell phones. Of course they'll charge extra for it, but I'm not sure if you'll have to pay more to sit there or not sit there.
37. Re: Allow it... by AK+Marc · 2014-01-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  The noise-canceling headphones are often advertised as amplifying the perceived volume of voices (which would include cries) because they minimize the interfering sounds.
  
  The "best" solution is the in-ear plugs, with muffling noise-canceling headphones on top. You drop the total sound, and kill the hum and such.
  
  Though I don't get along well with noise canceling headphones. The ones I had (not inexpensive ones) introduced a high-pitched whine when on. It was worse than the plane sounds I was trying to drown out. I keep meaning to try them again, but they are too expensive to buy just for a trial, and nobody else I know has a pair to borrow.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
38. Re:Allow it... by AcidPenguin9873 · 2014-01-17 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  You need to go to better movie theaters. Alamo Drafthouse is the best and got some good publicity when they did this a couple years ago.
  http://drafthouse.com/blog/entry/she_texted._we_kicked_her_out
39. Re:Allow it... by jythie · 2014-01-17 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this really strikes me as an FAA matter rather then an FCC one. The FCC's domain is determining if cell phones interact with flight systems, and it pretty much ends there. The FAA on the other hand might have the authority to re-ban them. I am actually not sure on that though.
40. Re: Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  I dont like being killed.
  And killing is banned.
  I think rules/banning is exactly what majority does/does not like
41. Re: Allow it... by lgw · 2014-01-17 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  My phone has really long battery life when in airplane mode with the screen off. Most of the power use by phones is the various radios and the screen (and CPU needed to do anything interesting on the screen). I've found that 6 hours of listening to audiobooks while travelling barely makes a dent, noticeably less battery drain than when my phone is on normally and not being used.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
42. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  just use the pilot's cockpit.
43. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  " (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
  
  disagree. it's the FCC's job to regulate the airwaves, a scarce public resource. it's FAA's job to regulate aircraft safety, as well as annoyances etc. it's also the airlines job to make money, and hopefully they would make more money with a "no phone talking" plane. Although they used to have smoking planes...
44. Re:Allow it... by FictionPimp · 2014-01-17 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  As there is no technical reason not to, the FCC should allow cell phone usage on planes. Then the companies can make the decision if they want to allow cell phone use on their planes. This is called free market. In this way americans that want cell phones on planes can pick carriers who allow it, and those of us who do not can do the same.
45. Re:Allow it... by aevan · 2014-01-17 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Except that was in Canada. The bomber politely declined the bomb's return, admitted it was 'a fair cop' and went on his flight explosiveless.
46. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm... Talk in a movie theater, get shot by crazy people who are "standing their ground".
  
  there, fixed that for you. at least on an airplane everybody's gone through an xray machine.
47. Re:Allow it... by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-17 07:02 · Score: 2
  
  "If you complain to a flight attendant about a passenger that smells, they'll usually deal with it."
  One has to ask... how? Do they hose the offending passenger down with Febreze?
48. Re:Allow it... by Kaenneth · 2014-01-17 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you'll have to pay more to sit there or not sit there.
  Yes to both. Quiet area fee, or Talk Zone fee, pick your poison.
49. Re:Allow it... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2014-01-17 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  The airlines could make money auctioning off short periods of time in the booth for passengers on flights with screaming babies or young kids who are getting antsy and bored. "How much for 15 minutes away from the babies in the third row? Bidding starts at $50."
50. Re:Allow it... by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-01-17 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, so you want federal enforcement of texting in theaters just because someone might overreact? If I shoot someone cutting in line at a public restroom, should the government step in to enforce orderly lines?
  Part and parcel of the whole civilization thing, I guess. Because they do egulate somewhat the usage of cell phones. Which ties back to the regulation of Radio frequencies, which ties back to the freedom to use them.
  And while it is simple to say "The guvernmintz infringing on mah freedomez" with this regulation, I can guarantee that if not regulated, there would be no one catching cell phone calls or texts within any theater or plane
  No regulations no laws regarding the airwaves? It's Jamming time.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
51. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  They take them off the plane.
52. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  there, fixed that for you. at least on an airplane everybody's gone through an xray machine.
  No, they haven't. Only the carry-on bags go through an x-ray. The people go through either a metal detector or millimeter wave scanner. Or get a pat-down. Or get waved through because they have the right credentials to get waved through.
53. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  You're ignoring capitalism and the nature of airlines. These are the companies that used to give free meals and free checked bags. Now you get charged for a little bag of peanuts and many charge for the first bag if you don't have frequent flyer status. If it makes money, they'll do it, all of them. If one airline doesn't do it, their shareholders will bitch that they're missing a revenue opportunity.
  Many airlines currently are selling onboard Internet service (using companies like GoGo). SMS service would be technically more complicated than merely relaying towers, and it wouldn't be as much of a cash cow as voice calls.
54. Re:Allow it... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2014-01-17 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's the lavatory.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
55. Re:Allow it... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2014-01-17 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
  If this annoyance leads to air rage incidents, flight diversions, passenger stress/ panic attacks and more flight diversions, will it become the FCC's job to look at it then?
  Keep in mind the FCC's rules goven the flights of billions every single year. That's a lot of places for yapping on cell phones to become a problem.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
56. Re:Allow it... by Deadstick · 2014-01-17 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  it was like they thought there were little Maxwell's Demons
  Ventilation air in an airliner exits at the tail, and the smoking section was aft, so smoke diffusion didn't make a lot of headway against it. Nothing to prevent a restaurant arranging their ventilation similarly.
57. Re:Allow it... by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-17 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Take them out on the wing and let them air out?
58. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, the magic invisible hand of the free market. Are you serious? All carriers will offer this. It's a revenue source. Your choice will be flying on planes with phones, or driving there yourself.
59. Re:Allow it... by JSC · 2014-01-17 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, only from a booth on the OUTSIDE of the plane.
  
  --
  Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
60. Re:Allow it... by Richy_T · 2014-01-17 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  So much straw...
61. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  You've really not already seen people talking on phones on planes? They've had the seat back phones for decades at this point.
  But yes, I too worry about how many more people will be talking on phones given how much cheaper cell phone calls are than those seat back phones (something like 25 cents a minute). Not an FCC area, but airlines would be foolish to allow excessive voice communications. Greyhound buses seem to tackle the issue well, with the general request that phone calls be kept brief and volume kept down, with a word from the driver if that isn't adhered to. Flight attendants could be that reminder when it's an issue.
  I wouldn't have too much of an issue with a hard and fast "no voice comms" rule, but like I said, we've had phones on planes for ages...might want to avoid being more heavy handed than necessary.
62. Re:Allow it... by Triklyn · 2014-01-17 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  coulda said the same thing about getting shot in a movie theatre... only in florida.
63. Re:Allow it... by penglust · 2014-01-17 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  They already have a room with a trap door. And when you flush the sucking sound can be heard through out the plane. Just need to sound proof it now.
64. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  thank you for purposely missing the point.
65. Re:Allow it... by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  So should chatter not be allowed on airplanes either? What is the difference in noise level between somebody talking on a phone and somebody just talking to somebody else?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
66. Re:Allow it... by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  How do you propose doing that while the plane is in the air? Or are you suggesting capital punishment without even the benefit of a legal trial?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
67. Re:Allow it... by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who resorts to violence over somebody who is simply being annoying has pretty damn serious anger maanagement issues that will land them in jail in a lot of jurisdictions if they actually do so.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
68. Re:Allow it... by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  The theaters refuse to enforce their own rules.
  Maybe the ones you go to. Good ones will.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
69. Re: Allow it... by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'd dare say that a majority of people don't give a shit what most other people do on a plane, as long as it isn't compromising plane safety, since they aren't actually sitting close enough to most of the people who might disturb them to care. Thus, banning them would be a response to a vocal minority. The only reason the majority wouldn't object is because they don't care one way or the other what most of the other people are doing in the first place.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
70. Re: Allow it... by Joce640k · 2014-01-17 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  You are right (they are particularly bad at muffling baby cries to any degree, it seems), but they don't need to be perfect. Especially so if there is a decent selection of stuff to listen to on the armrest jack. Just good enough to keep sanity above zero is what is needed.
  What if we don't want to pound our ears into submission because of the constant background yammering?
  What exactly is wrong with just having peace and quiet?
  
  --
  No sig today...
71. Re:Allow it... by Joce640k · 2014-01-17 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
  Skype?
  Incessant "whatsapp" beeps...? How many of those beeps could you listen to on a 12 hour flight without beating somebody to death?
  
  --
  No sig today...
72. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-17 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  thank you for purposely missing the point.
  And what point was that? Aren't you the same guy who didn't catch on to the fact that Gitmo isn't closed and we're still in two wars in the middle east?
73. Re:Allow it... by murdocj · 2014-01-17 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying that since we can't avoid all annoyances, we should just accept every possible annoyance. That's what you want?
74. Re: Allow it... by murdocj · 2014-01-17 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Wow... a rational comment on Slashdot!
75. Re:Allow it... by murdocj · 2014-01-17 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Fine. I'll follow you around for a day screaming in your ear. We'll see how long you go before you completely freak out.
  This isn't walking past someone talking on their phone in public... this is 6 hours of listening some moron who thinks the world will end if they can't talk on the phone. Banning this kind of thing because lots of people don't like it is an excellent idea.
76. Re:Allow it... by murdocj · 2014-01-17 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you never sat in such a plane. I did. Trust me, all of the smoke did not "exit aft".
77. Re:Allow it... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2014-01-17 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Talking on a phone is probably louder, since it takes a certain level of volume for the phone to even pick up your voice.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
78. Re:Allow it... by malignant_minded · 2014-01-17 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, I'm saying it isn't the FCC's job. http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do Also I misread the parent's post where they actually mentioned FAA in reply to the GPs FCC response. I still stand by my original statement though, I don't see how it would really be FAA's role either. Someone talking on a phone isn't really a safety issue just because someone loses their cool.
79. Re:Allow it... by hubie · 2014-01-17 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing to prevent a restaurant arranging their ventilation similarly.
  I didn't fly much as a kid, but I can certainly attest to the fact that most restaurants that we went to either did not rearrange their ventilation systems, or they did not work as intended. This was in the 1970's when it seemed like every other person smoked, and no restaurant was going to dump any extra money into their air handling systems when all they needed to do was put up a velvet rope to show you where the non-smoking section was.
80. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're confusing me with somebody else.
81. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  why would cell phone conversations be more annoying that in-person conversations? cell phones never bothered me. obv cell phones shouldn't be used in theaters, but nobody should be talking at all in theaters.
82. Re:Allow it... by mysidia · 2014-01-17 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
  I think it's simple then... the FCC should say cell phones are allowed on an airplane, BUT only with written revokable permission, and the name of the passengers' documented by the airline. If the airline wishes to allow someone to use a cell phone, then they can issue written permission to every passenger that requests to use their cell phone.
  If at any time, any member of the airline staff revokes permission from a passenger, and the passenger refuses to comply continues to use the cellular data -- then it should be a crime.
83. Re:Allow it... by Archfeld · 2014-01-17 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you can make them stop talking on their cell phones can you make them just STFU period ? Not allow any conversation on a plane because it might offend some douchebag corn-hole. If someone is yelling say something, if someone is talking on their phone quit fsck'n eavesdropping and mind your own damn business. People are nosey bastards who think things are their issue when they are not. The theatre is a TOTALLY different situation, and hardly should be compared to a plane or bus or any other place 'normal' conversations are on-going.
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
84. Re:Allow it... by Grishnakh · 2014-01-17 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Nice compromise, but seating space is already at cattle-car tightness now. I can only imagine what it would squeeze everyone down to if you had to accommodate a frickin' room with soundproofing.
  Not only that, but who gets to use the room? Half the passengers will want to go in there and stay for the whole flight. People aren't usually fans of confined spaces, but when the alternative is being jammed between two smelly obese people for the entire flight, they'll happily opt for the soundproof room they can get to themselves. They'll just go in there and go to sleep.
  It's bad enough when a few drunks get on a plane and yammer away for half the flight even after the flight attendant tells them multiple times to sit down and shut up because other passengers are complaining; having lots of people jabbering on their cellphones will make plane travel 10x more miserable than it already is.
85. Re:Allow it... by Grishnakh · 2014-01-17 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm... Talk in a movie theater, get shot by crazy people who are "standing their ground".
  Only in Florida (and probably Texas too).
86. Re:Allow it... by Grishnakh · 2014-01-17 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Your reply is like telling someone in Boston to stop complaining about Best Buy and go shopping at Fry's instead.
87. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-17 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was you. And exactly what was the point you thought you were making that you think I deliberately ignored?
88. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  the point was about the "stand your ground" law and how it results in murders like the guy in the movie theater recently. the point was not a comment about airport screening technologies.
89. Re:Allow it... by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2014-01-17 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, first class was and is up front and those businessmen would smoke cigars and cigarettes in first class. That air drifted back right into my nose securely located in economy class further back.
90. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  2) I love not having to answer emails or phone calls while in-flight.
  Then feel free to turn off your damn phone.
91. Re:Allow it... by colinrichardday · 2014-01-17 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  FAAs new policies for medical certificates that forces anyone with a BMI of 40 or more to prove they DO NOT have sleep apnea. Too many pilots falling asleep at the wheel, something has to be done.
  Does that apply to passengers as well?
92. Re:Allow it... by thegarbz · 2014-01-17 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Nice compromise, but seating space is already at cattle-car tightness now. I can only imagine what it would squeeze everyone down to if you had to accommodate a frickin' room with soundproofing.
  Personally, and as a guy who travels on business a lot, I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
  Why? Two reasons:
  1) people are annoying enough - imagine 100-200 of them in a tiny cabin practically yelling into their cell phones.
  2) I love not having to answer emails or phone calls while in-flight.
  I love the way you extrapolate to something being allowed to everyone yapping on their phone. Try catching a crowded train to work one day and count what percentage of the people on the train are talking on their phone. Not knowing Americans in my own experience it's about 3%. That's right the number of people likely to be yapping on their phones is likely to be counted on one hand, maybe 2 when you're getting close to landing. This doesn't even take into consideration if there is an additional charge for using the microcell service.
  Other parts of the world allow phones on flights. I've made one myself last time I flew to Europe. The call lasted 50seconds and then I went back to my book. I think I saw one other person make a call on the plane.
  Maybe you're just surrounded by yelling arseholes?
  As for not answering calls, are you that incapable of keeping your phone in flightmode during the flight? I mean I get it technology is addictive, but I don't run off to some third party asking them to cut my service every time I want a few hours peace.
93. Re:Allow it... by XcepticZP · 2014-01-17 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  What an absolutely ridiculous way to butt in your opinions of "stand your ground" laws. Completely off-topic to both the article and the AC comment you responded to when you initially brought it up.
94. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-17 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Does that apply to passengers as well?
  Passengers do not need FAA medical certificates to ride in an airplane, and the FAA doesn't care if passengers fall asleep and fly 100 miles past the destination.
95. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  correct on all points. I'm very lonely and need attention.
96. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-17 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  the point was about the "stand your ground" law and how it results in murders like the guy in the movie theater recently.
  Funny how you modified someone else's statement and then claimed that it didn't apply to aviation because everyone goes through xray machines, if your point was solely that someone who YOU call crazy shot someone else for TEXTING (not talking) in a theater. Mentioning one situation and then saying why it wouldn't apply to this one is not a very good way of emphasizing the first thing. You can understand why I might ignore your unfounded wrong accusations while simply pointing out the more incorrect statement that was yours.
97. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-17 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  the point was about the "stand your ground" law and how it results in murders like the guy in the movie theater recently.
  Funny how you modified someone else's statement and then claimed that it didn't apply to aviation because everyone goes through xray machines, if your point was solely that someone who YOU call crazy shot someone else for TEXTING (not talking) in a theater. Mentioning one situation and then saying why it wouldn't apply to this one is not a very good way of emphasizing the first thing. You can understand why I might ignore your unfounded wrong accusations while simply pointing out the more incorrect statement that was yours.
  the FAA/FCC statement was factually correct. The stand your ground thing was a gentle reminder to the more rabid posters on this story that really bad things can happen when somebody hates somebody else who interrupts their flight/movie/whatever.
  it's ok to make two different points on different topics, both of which are good.
  Separately, I appreciate the way you engage with my posts, even across stories. I'm glad you find me regularly insightful (as do many people who mod me up often).
98. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  You have to ask before the doors close. And it needs to be pretty obvious and immediate BO, "regular" BO you have to live with. Ie, crazy cat-lady BO, not fat-guy spending five hours in an airport security line BO.
99. Re:Allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be dense. You have to complain prior to them closing the door.
100. Re:Allow it... by Hal_Porter · 2014-01-17 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Which would also cut down on the airline's repeat customer possibilities.
  Are you kidding me? Watching some Gordon Gecko wannabe get stuffed screaming into an airlock by the stewardesses because he refused to stop using his phone would be the greatest thing ever.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
101. Re:Allow it... by Dan541 · 2014-01-17 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why should I have to pay for someone elses Baby? Charge the parents.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
102. Re:Allow it... by Dan541 · 2014-01-17 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Do they hose the offending passenger down with Febreze?
  I would happily pay triple my ticket price just to see that.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
103. Re:Allow it... by Redmancometh · 2014-01-17 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  They already do this with wifi. $15 for 30 minutes on American Airlines dafuuq.
104. Re:Allow it... by knorthern+knight · 2014-01-17 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  > " (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
  Guess what VOIP is? That's right, data.
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
105. Re:Allow it... by mark-t · 2014-01-17 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  How is complaining prior to them closing the door relevant to people talking on their cell phones while it's in flight, which is the primary subject of this discussion?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
106. Re:Allow it... by mysidia · 2014-01-17 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
  Ever heard of Skype? We can use data to have loud obnoxious voice calls.
  We can also probably do the same with existing airline-provided WiFi.
107. Re:Allow it... by mysidia · 2014-01-17 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Now there's something we can all agree on!
  Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing at Honolulu International airport, delaying our arrival at San Diego, to remove a number of air travelers from the flight, who have been talking loudly on their cell phones. Today we have (First Name) X. (Last Name) from (City, State), and (First Name 2) X. (Last name 2) from (City, State).
  We apologize for the inconvenience. Rest assured, these individuals have been added to the Department of Homeland Security no-fly list, and will not be annoying you any further, with distracting cell phone calls, on any of our future flights.
108. Re:Allow it... by dkf · 2014-01-17 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing at Honolulu International airport, delaying our arrival at San Diego, to remove a number of air travelers from the flight, who have been talking loudly on their cell phones.
  Landing's going to be inconvenient to the other passengers. Just push the asses out the door and let them make their own way from there.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
109. Re: Allow it... by VortexCortex · 2014-01-18 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  The headphones do not cancel sounds like other people's conversations, at least not very well.
  I just use simple foam ear plugs. If one pair doesn't work, just keep cramming more in their mouth until they shut the hell up.
110. Re:Allow it... by kelemvor4 · 2014-01-18 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  " (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
  The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it. We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
  Right on. I don't want cell phones being used in planes either. However, I agree it's not the place of our government to outlaw something that is merely annoying.
  
  Unfortunately, you can't make an airline passenger leave a plane in flight.
  
  Do cell phones really get enough signal to operate on a plane?
111. Re:Allow it... by c · 2014-01-20 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who resorts to violence over somebody who is simply being annoying...
  That's not the point.
  The point is that if you have behaviour that is known to pretty near universally annoy the shit out of people, and that behaviour isn't a consequence of some kind of necessity (i.e. the reason we cut crying babies a lot of slack), and you combine that behaviour with a pile of stressed out people in an enclosed, unescapable environment for a few hours, then you're inevitably going to have some nasty situations.
  No, that doesn't excuse people resorting to violence, but so what?
  The fundamental goal of flight safety is to take reasonable steps to prevent problems from happening in the first place. I'd like to think that something like this is a no-brainer for the airlines, but I'm not entirely sure I trust them not to fuck it up somehow for reasons involving money (i.e. "yeah, you can talk on your phone, but you'll have to use our premium wi-fi calling service at $x/minute").
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
112. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-21 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  the FAA/FCC statement was factually correct.
  Bullshit. Nobody goes through xray machines before boarding an airplane. Your claim that they all go through one is patently absurd.
  
  The stand your ground thing was a gentle reminder
  It was patent nonsense, as well as being factually incorrect. The shooting was not because someone was talking in a theater, it was because they were texting and when confronted it turned physical. You'd be less wrong if you had claimed the person was shot for breathing in a theater, because although that wasn't the actual cause of the shooting, he was breathing.
  
  it's ok to make two different points on different topics, both of which are good.
  And when both are nonsense?
  
  I'm glad you find me regularly insightful
  I find you moronic and ignorant, especially in this thread and in the other one dealing with Obama's lies and your support of them.
113. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-21 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong and wrong. The FAA / FCC comment was insightful although I confused the xray machine with the nudie scanners. the point still applies. forest and trees, man.
  for the theatre thing, first off talking ~ texting, both are annoying to people but are nothing to be shot over. second, no evidence of a physical confrontation. third, the guy could have gotten a manager at any point. the manager could have resolved it easily with no deaths. stand your ground is an offense to human dignity.
114. Re:Allow it... by Obfuscant · 2014-01-21 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong and wrong. The FAA / FCC comment was insightful although I confused the xray machine with the nudie scanners. the point still applies. forest and trees, man.
  You were factually incorrect whether you cry about confusing xray with some "nudie" scanner or not. Not everyone who boards an aircraft has been through your "nudie" scanners, either. Many times I've been waved through a simple metal detector instead of the millimeter wave devices, and some people don't even get that much. And what does the FCC have to do with any of this?
  
  for the theatre thing, first off talking ~ texting, both are annoying to people but are nothing to be shot over. second, no evidence of a physical confrontation.
  
  That's nice, but you claimed he was shot for talking, and that is simply not true. And another untruth is that there was no evidence of a physical confrontation. The reports are clear that there was a physical confrontation, including the fact that the wife of the shooting victim was actively restraining her husband at the time she was shot (in the hand).
  
  third, the guy could have gotten a manager at any point. the manager could have resolved it easily with no deaths.
  And you've now ignored the fact that the "guy" tried to get a manager and could not find one. But this is still all irrelevant to you being incorrect in both the "FAA/FCC comment" and in the way you modified someone else's comment to create your straw man. The argument I have with your statements is not about the event or appropriateness of the response, but the complete nonsense you've used to support your arguments.
115. Re:Allow it... by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-21 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  you are a troll and are trying to incite me to anger by being difficult. guess what I do not respond to trolls.
116. Re:Allow it... by AK+Marc · 2014-01-22 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  So are all the people arguing with you.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by jratcliffe · 2014-01-17 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.
1. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2014-01-17 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  Mod Parent up.
  It also occurs to me that with net neutrality now banned, the obvious way to do this would be to invite people to use an in-plane wifi that blocks skype and other voice chat programs.
  Come to think of it, an in-plane satellite based high latency wifi system you wouldn't even need to filter for, it just plain wouldn't work.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
2. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Richard_at_work · 2014-01-17 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
  Once the FCC and FAA concluded it was no longer a safety concern, their remit for control of it expired and the only entities that could ban it on "annoyance" grounds would be the airlines that operate the aircraft.
3. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Scowler · 2014-01-17 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
4. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Skater · 2014-01-17 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
  Well, how many times has the government been sued for that very same issue until now?
5. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  That's fine, right up until 1 airline allows it, and you start seeing their flight prices just a nudge below everyone elses. Mark my words, in flight calls WILL become a selling point for the airlines somewhere down the line.
6. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed, however airlines don't really ban things. Oversized bags are still allowed in overhead bins despite a continuous cycle of recorded warnings and fake displays illustrating what an oversize bag is.
7. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by alen · 2014-01-17 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  forever
  if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time. even on the ground cellular service is not 100% reliable on every square inch of the USA
8. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by ShanghaiBill · 2014-01-17 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call?
  Why can't the emergency message be sent as a text? Also, the airlines could allow phone calls in part of the plane, such as the back 10 rows. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
9. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Scowler · 2014-01-17 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Public libraries often ban talking on cell phones, and not on any safety grounds.
10. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  You mean like extremely loud adverts at night in the middle of a very quiet film? Seeing as people are assholes, you'd rather they get to do what they like when the like despite it being totally unacceptable? You obviously don't fly much, does your mom still walk you to the school bus?
11. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by mjr167 · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  But but but... the government has to tell us how to live our lives. Without the government we won't know how to treat other people or that we are supposed to breath air to survive. Could you imagine the chaos if the government told us they did not require us to breathe air? People would try to breath sand in the unregulated aftermath.
12. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Scowler · 2014-01-17 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Prohibition of calls for safety reasons is a pretty solid legal wall. Well, that wall isn't there any more.
13. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by jratcliffe · 2014-01-17 05:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Couple of things:
  1. Net neutrality isn't banned, it's just that the FCC would need to issue new rules to enforce it. The court specifically said that the FCC _could_ enforce net neutrality rules, if it classified ISPs under title II (as common carriers).
  2. Even if the rules had remained in place, it wouldn't have prevented inflight providers from blocking certain apps for network performance reasons (Gogo does this this today with video services like Netflix or HBO Go), so long as they were evenhanded about it (i.e. not saying "Netflix is fine, but no HBO Go, since Netflix is paying us and HBO isn't").
14. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Oligonicella · 2014-01-17 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  And they will scrape up that small percentage who don't find it annoying. The rest shall fly in peace.
15. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  They should require it to be prominently displayed during ticket purchase whether or not voice is permitted.
16. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  How would you even do that anyway. The engine is so frikkin loud on a plane I wouldn't be able to hear the person I'm talking to... The mic can probably filter out the plane so they can hear me but that does nothing for me hearing them.
17. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by gnasher719 · 2014-01-17 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
  How is that different from a user whose phone battery ran out? Or one who forgot to top up his pay-as-you-go plan? Or one who has turned off their phone in a cinema? Has any cinema ever been sued because someone was unable to take an emergency-related call? What about a person who doesn't have a mobile phone?
18. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Talking on a cell phone should be treated the same as it is in movie theaters here...the person should be escorted to the door and made to leave the plane. And I don't mean if its on the ground...and no parachute!
19. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by ErichTheRed · 2014-01-17 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  "That's fine, right up until 1 airline allows it, and you start seeing their flight prices just a nudge below everyone elses. "
  Very good point. I'm in the airline IT business. Airlines may be deregulated in the US, but every time one does something, the others follow. If Delta raises or lowers their fares by $10, United will do the same thing, often the same day. Same thing goes for inflight service changes -- if something that was free suddenly becomes an "ancillary revenue stream," you can bet that the other carriers will do this as soon as they can make the systems changes necessary to collect said fee. There are a couple of low cost carriers (Southwest, JetBlue) that don't exactly follow this model, but service is so homogenized that all the carriers might as well merge. So if one carrier starts allowing calls, everyone will, but i don't know if people will take that one lying down. The airlines have all been cutting capacity and stuffing more people into coach for years -- this would be a pretty big slap in the face IMO.
20. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Sloppy · 2014-01-17 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's the FCC. Their argument will be that they're banning a radio tech (and in a specific context, without regard for what ever someone is saying over that radio), not speech itself. See that person in the seat next to you? Tell 'em how unfair King George's tea taxes are, and how unfair it is that Parliament doesn't ave a seat for us. The FCC won't stop you.
  The reason we should shoot this down, is that there's no technical reason to ban the tech. The FCC doing this is merely a horrible. unnecessary, and un-American. But it's not unconstitutional. It's not as though the framers ever thought to add "don't be evil." They just assumed we didn't want evil government. Little did they know.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
21. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Dan+East · 2014-01-17 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, but individual public libraries aren't the federal government banning them wholesale across an entire swath of private property. Individual libraries have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps they would want to provide specific areas where people could use cell phones, thus people that don't want to be around them can simply stay away from that area. Similarly, why couldn't airlines sell seats in specific sections of the plane (the back perhaps?) where cell phone calls were allowed? That shouldn't be up to the FCC since cell phones have been proven to not crash airplanes through their EMF emissions.
  
  --
  Better known as 318230.
22. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by bondsbw · 2014-01-17 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking". The first is the expression of thought which aligns more with the interpretation of speech in the first amendment. The second is an act of producing sounds from your mouth, which is banned without regard to content.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
23. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by CanHasDIY · 2014-01-17 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
  Only if you insist on a direct, literal interpretation of that part of the First Amendment.
  Which seems kinda silly.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
24. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Scowler · 2014-01-17 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Cinemas don't prevent you from walking outside the theatre half-way through the movie.
25. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by bondsbw · 2014-01-17 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  And then again, I don't know if public libraries actually kick you out if you are talking.
  The librarian may request you to stop talking or to go outside to talk, and others may give you an evil eye, but I'm not sure I've heard of the police dragging someone out. Even if that happened, I would think it would be on grounds of disturbing the peace.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
26. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by TimothyDavis · 2014-01-17 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  They shouldn't ban it - they should just charge an arm and a leg for the service. Something like $5 per minute.
  Phones at the seats are not new to airplanes. The prior phones were too expensive for any casual use - though I have never flown first class, so I don't know if people were being annoying with them up there.
27. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.
  Actually it is a safety issue on airplanes. Fly as much as I do and you see many wankers that just will not put down the phone when the cabin attendants are doing the safety review. I have seen some wankers that find a need to continue to talk on their phones up to the point the plane comes to the runway threshold in preparation for takeoff.
  Sorry. In the event of an emergency, I do not want my path to an exit blocked by some wanker that keeps waving their hand at me and silently mouthing, "It's important." The problem would be worse if the wanker was the person sitting next to exit (or even in the Exit Row) and it was part of their responsibility, as mentioned during the cabin attendant's safety review, to assist in opening the exit.
  If talking on cell phones comes to airplanes that I fly on, I hope, like another poster has mentioned, that the rest of us are given the authority to eject that passenger....or at least force them to fly on the airplane while grasping tightly to the leading edge of the wing. problem solved.
28. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2014-01-17 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Feel free to leave the plane to take your call.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
29. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by khallow · 2014-01-17 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time.
  They are. The phone is just a cell phone.
30. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Princeofcups · 2014-01-17 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  In many Asian countries, people are polite enough to not talk on a phone when on a bus or train. In America, everyone feels entitled to be an ass whenever they want.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
31. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  So a 120lb flight attendant asks a 230lb man to quiet down and he refuses. Now what? If she invokes "company policy" he continues to refuse and says he'll find another airline for his future needs. The only tool at her disposal is to say "Federal violation."
  Yes, damn straight it's an FCC concern!
32. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  "But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."
  There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?
33. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Sloppy · 2014-01-17 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call?
  If you leave it to the market and then a passenger chooses to buy a ticket on a no-phones airline, then it's the call receiver who is responsible for declining the emergency call. "Our customer wanted to be in a phoneless environment and paid for that, furthermore demonstrating his preference. Sue him for not taking your call."
  Furthermore, it's hard to imagine any scenario where anyone could ever have a reasonable expectation for being able to take an emergency call. Even if I fab an extreme over-the-top example (as I, like anyone, would love to do).
  Guy happens to be the Last Doctor In The World. He says, "I want to fly on someone else's airplane, but I want to not listen to anyone else talking." So he buys a ticket on a no-phones airline. While waiting in the terminal, he turns off his phone. One second later, the President's wife calls him, and leaves this voice mail: "The President is choking on pizza! What do I do? WHAT DO I DO!?" but since the doctor turned off his phone, he doesn't see the call come in. He boards his flight, oblivious to the coming disaster.
  Mid-flight, one of the passengers starts talking to another passenger. The doctor screams, "hey, shut the fuck up!" and everyone quiets down, because you never know when you might want to be on The Last Doctor In The World's good side. The captain makes an announcement over the intercom. The doctor glares, hatefully. He doesn't make a scene, but he writes the captain's name in his no-treatment book. The engines drone on, and he grimaces with discomfort, noting he's never going to treat anyone who works at Boeing, where they make such loud engines.
  An hour later, he gets off the plane. He turns on his phone, and sees a bunch of voicemails from the First Lady. He calls her back. "Get your husband to cough up the pizza," he offers, rolling his eyes, but his advice has arrived too late. The president has already asphyxiated to death.
  Unfortunately, right after the president's death, a bill arrived on his desk, which would have outlawed mass puppy shredding. It didn't get signed quickly, because it took a while for the then-vice-president to catch up. So one hundred thousand puppies where shredded, while it was still legal to do so. One of those puppies had an important passphrase tattooed on its ear, but now it has been shredded. Without the passphrase, no one was able to stop the nuclear launch that resulted in the deaths of three billion people.
  One of the people whose gardener died in the nuclear war, sues Samsung for designing a phone that has an off switch, based on the idea that people HAVE TO receive emergency calls, no matter what anyone (even the owner of the phone) wants.
  You're on the jury. What's your decision? If you rule in favor of the plaintiff, Samsung owes someone $3 to replace the plant that the dead gardener never got around to watering. And I will harbor a hypothetical-$3 grudge against you, from now to the end of time. OTOH, if you rule for the defendent, then I agree with you, my friend. What's it going to be?
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
34. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  What emergency requires calling a person on an airplane? They're not going to come to anyone's rescue.
35. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't mind the government telling us that breathing is good, because that might lead to many lunatics stopping breathing out of deranged hatred of their own elected government, just like the nuts who intentionally eat garbage when it's suggested that they eat healthy food.
36. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  I doubt it's due to politeness more so than it is due to efficiency. In many Asian countries, people text instead of make calls.
  In many Asian countries, people have jobs and busy schedules. People's schedules don't line up to allow many calls.
  So people resort to texting, where you can read/reply at your own pace. Usually costs less than voice calls too. And you won't ever miss a call because you were talking to somebody else.
  Really, refer to your local teenagers, sitting together, yet all staring down at their own devices.
37. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  lolwut?
38. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by AK+Marc · 2014-01-17 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  There's nothing that someone trapped in a plane could do about an emergency. Well, all the business people will claim that the sales call was an emergency, but if your kid is home bleeding out, any call to you should have been made to 911, and after that, call the phone and leave a message, you'll get it when you land, when you can conceivably go to the hospital or whatever. Knowing your kid is near death 4 hours sooner has no effect on the situation.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
39. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Warhawke · 2014-01-17 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Time, place, and manner restrictions. If there is something about the location, time, or manner in which the speech is made that is compelling enough to warrant a restriction, the government has the right to restrict such speech. Critics consider this to be a carte blanche to government regulation of content and speech, but it is also what prevents you from violating city noise ordinances and from screaming incessantly in a court room. It also is what creates so-called "speech-free zones." I personally would like to see the issue left in the hands of airline policy, but because airlines are common carriers and there is something compelling about being trapped in an aluminum tube with hundreds of potential chatterboxes, I can definitely see the government believing it has the right to regulate speech to prevent common-law based nuisances.
  Case in point, a bill has been proposed to prevent phone use on airplanes despite the FCC's proposed lift on restrictions. The bill is co-sponsored by Lamar Alexander and Dianne Feinstein. Any topic that can get those two muppets to agree and side with one another must be a topic of nuclear concern.
40. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  the airlines should make a stand here. texting or mobile data? sure why not. but there should be absolutely no phone calls. it's up to the airline to ban it and enforce the rule.
41. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Nethead · 2014-01-17 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Boeing doesn't make engines. GE and Rolls do.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
42. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Cid+Highwind · 2014-01-17 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  We shall all fly at the lowest common denominator, because that's how the US airline industry works. No airline enforces the rules on carry-on bag size so everyone can get on and off the plane in less than 20 minutes, or offers no-crying-baby flights, or more legroom, or still serves real food in coach. If one allows phone calls, the rest will within a week.
  
  --
  0 1 - just my two bits
43. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  This doesn't seem like a very likely scenario.
44. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-01-17 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
  You don't understand freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is that you cannot be arrested by the Government for what you say. It is definitely not that you can say whatever you want, and there is no response by others. You call out the CEO of your company, call them an idiot, and if they fire you, you cannot claim that your right has been violated.
  In addition, the airline is not required to accomoodate all your desired methods of "speech".
  Once the FCC and FAA concluded it was no longer a safety concern, their remit for control of it expired and the only entities that could ban it on "annoyance" grounds would be the airlines that operate the aircraft.
  What I think would be good is the requirement that every time some asshat takes their cell out of their pocket to make a call, everyoine else should break into a LOUD chorus of "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall. " Until the inconsiderate asshat puts their phone away. Either that, or give everyone a mp3 player with babies screaming to play whilst said asshat tries to talk.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
45. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-01-17 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."
  There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?
  Doesn't matter. Free speech isn't anything you folks are arguing about. Free speech is not being arrested by the Government for expressing your opinion. Even then, good luck threatening to kill someone, or the famous "Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater".
  Free speech was never about a person's unadulterated right to say whatever they want, whenever they want to, and no response from anyone else allowed.
  All of which is to say that if some asshat starts talking on their phone in the plane, and the other passengers beat the bejabbers out of him, the asshat can have them arrested for assault, but his freedom of speech has not been abridged.
  No corporate attorney duplicity needed.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
46. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason
  The right of free speech does not include forcing someone to listen. Free speech does not guarantee the audience of your choice, or any audience at all.
47. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  This is the EXACT right answer.
  If an airline decides to allow in-flight calls, then some will go to it so they can talk, others will avoid it.
  Choice! Dear lord, choice, what terror is this?
48. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Richy_T · 2014-01-17 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Many airplanes already have phones built into the seat you can swipe a credit card in to make calls. With this in mind, on what basis do you propose that they ban the use of cell phones.
  (Not that I'm an advocate, just pointing out a flaw in the logic).
49. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Triklyn · 2014-01-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  noise complaint. try standing in front of someone's house in the dead of night and just screaming at them. see what happens.
50. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  There's a technology wall. You can't simply say at above 1000 feet or so, just turn on your phones and make calls. Terrestrial cell sites can't support this. The airline needs to install equipment to act as femtocells in the cabin and relay the traffic to special ground stations. So even if the "ban" is lifted, there's no obligation to support calls, emergency or not.
51. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  Or if they need that kind of reliability, Sat phones have great coverage.
52. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  So what happens when you fly out of American airspace on an American airliner?
53. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  I have no idea what this is, but it made my afternoon.
54. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
  They are not banning speech, they are possibly banning phones. Talk all you want - to the guy in the neighbour seat. Or the whole plane, if you're loud.
  You have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to phones beyond the free call when they arrest you.
55. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  No, I'm pretty sure we shouldn't allow people to open the door mid-flight.
56. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  If a person refuses to reduce their noise level, yes... they will kick the person out
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
57. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Last_Available_Usern · 2014-01-17 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  This is the best thing I've read all week. Thank you.
58. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  "I'm a doctor, Jim, not an aircraft mechanic."
59. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by mark-t · 2014-01-17 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  If I'm talking to somebody else and you're standing next to me, I'm not forcing you to listen. People with enough to occupy their mind can easily tune out their surroundings.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
60. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Scowler · 2014-01-17 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I disbelieve the part about losing the nuke code because of the lost puppy. Surely the NSA secretly tracks all puppy-imprinted information (as well they should, as reportedly one Al Qaida member was a puppy lover, and therefore all puppies are suspect), and should be able to find this code in their database in this worst case scenario.
61. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by silas_moeckel · 2014-01-17 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Funny my local libraries have spaces for people to speak. Adhoc conference rooms where groups can get together. The childrens area has presenter space, and small rooms for children to young to be quiet. Yea if your disturbing the peace they will ask you to move it to somewhere appropriate and escalate from there if they refuse.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
62. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by t20alex · 2014-01-17 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Hahahha, best thing to read at work on a Friday afternoon 30 mins before signing off. Thank you sire!
63. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by idontgno · 2014-01-17 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Between you and me, I don't think she studied at an accredited institution"
  -- "Doctor" Ada Straus' bodyguard, Fallout New Vegas
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
64. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by sjames · 2014-01-17 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is a safety issue. Too many obnoxious chatterers creaming into their cellphones about that nasty zit on their butt or what the latest stupid spoiled whore has been up to might cause other passengers to drink too much then hulk out on the plane.
65. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2014-01-17 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Fewer lunatics? Still trying to see the downside.
66. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by TubeSteak · 2014-01-17 10:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Mod Parent up.
  Mod the GrandParent down.
  Just off the top of my head, here are two things the FCC regulates because of annoyance:
  http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
  http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list
  
  Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you're not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.
  If no-phone-calls is a good public policy, then there's absolutely no reason to leave its enforcement in private hands.
  Make it a law and put the weight of the State behind it.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
67. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anubis+IV · 2014-01-17 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  By the time you got to the puppy slaying, I absolutely lost it. I had to stop for a few minutes when I saw I was on the jury, since I couldn't read anything through the tears. I haven't laughed that hard in months. Thanks.
68. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Skynyrd · 2014-01-17 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  As long as the airline rules can be enforced by the feds. I want to see an arrest, by federal agents after the plane lands, of the first caller who won't hang up.
  If we don't give the airlines the teeth enforce their rules, they are pointless.
69. Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by shikaisi · 2014-01-17 16:46 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure where these polite Asian countries are that you are referring to, unless possibly you mean Japan. Certainly in China people have no qualms about talking on their phone anywhere, even in the middle of an opera. "Guess where I am. I'm at the opera! Listen!". She seemed quite put out when I glared at her for that. Seriously, most Americans are a picture of self-restraint when it comes to cellphone use compared to almost anywhere in Asia outside of Japan.
  
  --
  No left turn unstoned.
70. Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-29 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent down, great grandparent up!
  He didn't start out his post by saying "While I agree with the FCC on loud commercials and the do not call list"...
Can't people be disconnected? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:49 · Score: 0

Seriously. Even on trans-pacific 12+ hour flights, its *nice* to be disconnected once and awhile, let alone little domestic hoppers. Put down your cell phones, Google glAss, 3G tablets. Read a book (or eReader), disconnect.
1. Re:Can't people be disconnected? by PrimaryConsult · 2014-01-17 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  International flights would probably still be mostly silent, for quite a few reasons:
  1. The attendants enforce closing the window shade and limited conversation to help passengers sleep, this would be no different.
  2. International roaming charges for every country who's tower you've connected to (not to mention the massive battery drain in an environment with limited charging options)
  3. The FCC has no say in the matter once you're out of the US anyway, until all the countries follow the same rules they still need to be most restrictive...
Allow. by nblender · 2014-01-17 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Allow people to make phone calls while in-flight... However, they should be asked to step outside for the duration of their phone call.
1. Re:Allow. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Eliminating the talking on an airplane is like eliminating the smooth jazz at the dentist. YOU'RE STILL AT THE DENTIST.
  Stop fooling yourself and face reality. FLYING IS HELL. From the moment you set foot in the airport, to the moment you step out of the airport on the other end, you are entirely at the mercy of both government AND the aviation industry. They OWN you for that time. Therefore, your only recourse is to bang it out as efficiently as possible. Put your effort into efficiency planning, rather than micro-managing the other patrons of hell, who are just as miserable and frustrated as you are.
  Given the choice between a 10-hour obligation to the best seat in hell, or a 5-hour obligation to the worst, which would you choose? Now that's a trick question, because THEY BOTH PUT YOU IN HELL.
Cage? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:53 · Score: 0

Can't they run mesh over the windows and make the interior a faraday cage or something?
1. Re:Cage? by ElementOfDestruction · 2014-01-17 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  All I asked for were sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads!
  
  They are mutated sea bass.
  
  Are they ill-tempered?
  
  Very.
Get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:53 · Score: 1

I would much prefer that people be allowed to talk on their phones. Then I do not have to have them chatting me up while I am trying to read or enjoy some music.
1. Re:Get over it by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-17 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  I would much prefer that people be allowed to talk on their phones. Then I do not have to have them chatting me up while I am trying to read or enjoy some music.
  Um. RIght. Chatting you up.
  The Elle forum is --> thataway.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. The same people who support this ban are the same people who will bore you for hours with their stories about the insurance convention in Tulsa where they met such-and-such famous person who was just SO interesting, blah blah blah, oh and by the way do you need any life insurance?
3. Re:Get over it by bjwest · 2014-01-17 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  How are they chatting you up if you're wearing headphones? Just ignore them, and if they tap you on the arm to get your attention, ask them not to touch you. Besides, I'm sure they aren't talking at the top of their lungs at you, but most likely are while on the phone.
  
  --
  
  --- Keep the choice with the user..
Smell of Astroturf? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's really that big a problem? Kinda like the relaxation of pocketknives rule? With respect to anyone so offended, it ain't a movie theater. Shut up, buy some earplugs, and deal.
1. Re:Smell of Astroturf? by RobertLTux · 2014-01-17 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  okay hows about this lets say you have a 5 by 10 section of airplane (total 50 seats) of those 12 folks are trying to deal with Pteromerhanophobia claustrophobia and or acrophobia (and may be drinking) also you have 9 vets with cracked heads (PTSD and Schizoaffective with a side order of Bipolar) add to to that a few GangBangers.
  Do you really want to be in seat F5 when somebody has a panic attack (in D2) and starts getting violent??
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
2. Re:Smell of Astroturf? by mythosaz · 2014-01-17 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Even texting on cell phones in theaters get you shot now, so...
  ...I guess that'll work for airplanes too.
Really? by east+coast · 2014-01-17 04:54 · Score: 1

People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?

I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
1. Re:Really? by CanHasDIY · 2014-01-17 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?
  I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.
  The FCC does not produce legislation, Congress does.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  The FCC does, however, produce administrative rules and regulations, which is what Congress has empowered/enabled it to do. These rules and regulations (and the usual interpretations and precedences) get added to the corpus that is Administrative Law.
3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?
  This. Exactly this.
  People end up with a nanny state because too many people want a nanny, even as adults.
4. Re:Really? by east+coast · 2014-01-20 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I misstated my point but that doesn't make the overall tone of what I'm saying any less relevant. I could spend all day on slashdot pointing out where people have fumbled with the nomenclature but still have a valid point.
  
  --
  Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Imagine by Rik+Sweeney · 2014-01-17 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

A night flight. The plane is quiet.
Suddenly,
"Yeah, I couldn't sleep... No, they've fed us.... HA HA HA HA HA!!! Yeah, that's right! HA HA HA HA HA!!! I know what you mean and there's that.... HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Do you remember that?... HA HA HA HA HA!!!"

--
Summation 2
1. Re:Imagine by ciderbrew · 2014-01-17 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying knifes, sticks & fire should be allowed on planes..... Hmm I agree.
2. Re:Imagine by quixote9 · 2014-01-17 05:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Exactly. So much for it not being a safety issue. Homicides are a safety issue.
3. Re:Imagine by mjr167 · 2014-01-17 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A night flight. The plane is quiet.
  Suddenly...
  Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
4. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  A night flight. The plane is quiet.
  ...
  You obviously don't fly much.
  The idea that one person in the row in front of you talking on a cell phone is somehow more annoying than the two people in the row behind you gabbing away with the light on is insane.
  If you want Airlines to enforce "quiet time" that's fine. (they could start by cutting out those @$@#$ PA announcements) But to suggest that cell phone usage would be different than all the annoyances in the cabin already misses the point.
5. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  As a United 1k flyer, if you fly mostly business traveler routes, the night flights (red eyes) are generally very quiet. Cell phones will disturb this. This obviously doesn't apply to things like flights out of Florida or Vegas which are always noisy.
6. Re:Imagine by wiredog · 2014-01-17 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  The plane is quiet.
  I don't think anyone is going to be sleeping after the engines have shut down.
  
  --
  
  Best Slashdot Co
7. Re:Imagine by Dan+East · 2014-01-17 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's the downside of not owning your own airplane. Sucks doesn't it?
  
  --
  Better known as 318230.
8. Re:Imagine by UnknownSoldier · 2014-01-17 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not any worse then some baby crying the whole time and won't STFU when you're trying to sleep / read / meditate / etc.
9. Re:Imagine by MobyDisk · 2014-01-17 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  And imagine how much worse it would be if the person was using a cell phone too!
10. Re:Imagine by CanHasDIY · 2014-01-17 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  A night flight. The plane is quiet.
  Suddenly...
  Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
  What's your point? That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
11. Re:Imagine by orgelspieler · 2014-01-17 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  You realize this happens on planes already, right? People are loud, rude, obnoxious, drink-spilling, stinky, barfing, etc. on airplanes all the time.
  I was flying back from Canada, and the guy in the next seat was buying booze for the whole row. It was a night flight (not a red-eye), and we were a little loud. Not rowdy, mind you, just a little animated. You know what happens when somebody gets loud on a plane? The flight attendant asks you to be more quiet and respectful of the other passengers. It only takes one such warning to settle down, because there is the implied threat of getting detained at landing if you don't shut the hell up right now (especially on an international flight where your constitution rights can pretty much be disregarded).
12. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  A night flight. The plane is quiet.
  Suddenly...
  Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
  Oh how I long for the days when unused pillows were scattered about the cabin....and possibly one comes to rest on the face of that loud little tyke....
  [Off-topic: ya gotta luv it when the /. catcha engine breaks down and the MP3 button pops a window saying the video is corrupt. Geez...another DICEism??]
  Captcha (finally works): trapped (exactly how I felt when it didn't work
13. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Ban those too.
14. Re:Imagine by orgelspieler · 2014-01-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Very true. We had to catch a red-eye out of Vegas one time on the way back from Hawaii. Man, that was rough. There was a bachelor party that boarded just before we took off. The flight attendant did the best she could, but every half hour or so, she'd have to go back there and hush them up. Here I was thinking my 2 year old was going to be the loud one on the flight, but he slept like a... well, you know.
15. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Right because that scenario never happened before cellphones were invented...
16. Re:Imagine by LMariachi · 2014-01-17 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  A baby’s crying is involuntary, it can’t decide not to. An adult’s phone usage is the opposite.
17. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  And is it the job of the FCC or the airline to prevent this scenario?
  Movie theaters seem to be doing just fine without FCC regulations.
  Personally, I try to sleep on most flights and would probably be quite annoyed by adding phone chatter to the already noisy plane cabin, but I really don't think the FCC should be trying to regulate things like this.
18. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  A babyâ(TM)s crying is involuntary, it canâ(TM)t decide not to. An adultâ(TM)s phone usage is the opposite.
  It's not involuntary. The adults show chose to bring a child to young to clear the pressure build up in it's inner ear made a decision to subject that child to significant pain and to an entire plane of people to the child's crying. Some people are just ignorant assholes, which is why we ban things.
19. Re:Imagine by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-01-17 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  A theater. The room is quiet.
  Suddenly.
  "Yeah, did you hear what Jack said about Arlene? I mean what the fuck, can't that dump shit keep his mouth shut?"
  Oh noes! Quick, get the government to pass a bunch of laws banning cell phones in theaters!?
  Synopsis: Who fucking cares, that's what social pressures are for, and if that doesn't work the airlines can deal with it when people complain.
20. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?
  It seems quite silly to insist that someone can only bite you but cannot slap or poke you.
21. Re:Imagine by Threni · 2014-01-17 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno - it seems a lot of adults are operating pretty close to their base instincts all the time these days. The gap is closing!
22. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  No, a garotte will be sufficient. And quiet.
23. Re:Imagine by shikaisi · 2014-01-17 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you fly on United you've suffered enough already.
  
  --
  No left turn unstoned.
24. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-18 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  A night flight. The plane is quiet.
  Suddenly,
  "Yeah, I couldn't sleep... No, they've fed us.... HA HA HA HA HA!!! Yeah, that's right! HA HA HA HA HA!!! I know what you mean and there's that.... HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Do you remember that?... HA HA HA HA HA!!!"
  Exactly the same thing can happen with a neighbour as with a phone call. There is little difference and the people wanting to ban cell phones are somewhat silly.
They just want to be able to turn off their phones by Drewdad · 2014-01-17 04:55 · Score: 1

Imagine your boss calling you in the middle of a three-hour flight....
213 times? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 04:57 · Score: 0

one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times.
Someone counted them? I guess they have to give the interns something to do.
1. Re:213 times? by ciderbrew · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  The sad thing is, there are people in this office that would have printed and counted by hand :(
2. Re:213 times? by Richy_T · 2014-01-17 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  This is the government. They hired a subcontractor to write an application to count them. It was to within two significant figures by version 3.0.
3. Re:213 times? by Convector · 2014-01-17 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you have to admire the restraint, but I think this calls for a more forceful protest.
4. Re:213 times? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. Summary says that the person concluded their letter with 213 o's. I'm still wondering if that letter was actually handwritten...
Regulate Manners by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:07 · Score: 0

So what people want is for the government to use their massive power over us, to enforce proper manners.
Ever wonder where the Nanny state came from? Democrazy.
YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by areusche · 2014-01-17 05:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

I seriously wonder why this debate continues. I've left my phone on and tried to use it during flight. I can't get a signal. Period. This entire debate is superfluous unless the airlines want to put microcells on the places and charge an arm and a leg for it like they used to for the in seat phones. If the call is that important, they can pay the $5 a minute to make the call.
1. Re:YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you think it'd cost so much?
  Southwest only charged $5/flight for wifi.
2. Re:YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by qzzpjs · 2014-01-17 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was my perception as well. The plane would be passing cell towers pretty fast so keeping a steady signal on the phone is going to be very hit or miss depending on what the plane is flying over. They would have to put local cells repeaters on the planes with a satellite connection to make it reliable. And a nice $1-5/min charge to discourage its use so it doesn't annoy other passengers.
  I always thought the whole reason for putting away devices during takeoffs and landings was more of a safety issue to stop things from flying around the cabin if the plane is in trouble. But I guess if your plane is going down, a flying ipad isn't going to make it much worse...
3. Re:YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by graybilldustin · 2014-01-17 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  At some point you can potentially grab a faint cell signal, but cell towers are a few hundred feet in the air, pointed down, they are not pointed up to reach 40k feet. I have flown on a private plane NUMEROUS times at 25k feet, and only once was able to send a text message, I was never able to make a cell phone call. I'm glad at least someone on this thread was smart enough to know this because I was getting pretty irate reading through the comments. The 'calls' the FCC is talking about allowing would be while taxi-ing(sp?), taking off, and landing. Basically anything below 1000 ft. I think you can all live through that.
4. Re:YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by PrimaryConsult · 2014-01-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of plane crashes *do* have survivors... and the ones that didn't were often hit by $RANDOM_FLYING_OBJECT.
  That said, there's pretty much no difference between an iPad and hardcover book anyway... except someone is more likely to try and hold on to their $400 ipad versus a $3 used book, even if there are better things you could be doing with your hands during an emergency, like flailing them about randomly.
5. Re:YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by Richy_T · 2014-01-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. But once calls are allowed, it's possible that the carriers would rejig their towers to catch them (or add extra towers to do so).
6. Re:YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well...that's not exactly true. If the plane has Wi-Fi and you have a decent mobile provider that allows you to seamlessly make calls over Wi-Fi... *cough* T-Mobile
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-17 05:08 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
More distressing than apathy by operagost · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is worse than apathy.
Americans are now wholly incapable of thinking for themselves. Instead of insisting that airlines provide the service they want, and voting with their money, they want to tell the government to force everyone to go along with those who shout the loudest. If there's no safety issue with cell phones, is it even the government's business? Most airlines will ban phone usage, except perhaps in business class or wherever else warranted. Some won't, and for those who can't cut the (totally nonexistent) cord they'll choose those airlines.
I find it hypocritical that anyone who believes in personal liberties should support the government regulating behavior they find annoying.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
1. Re:More distressing than apathy by GrumpySteen · 2014-01-17 06:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment. That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying" and is exactly the type of regulation that the FCC was intended to oversee.
  In the time since those regulations were put in place, it's become increasingly clear that cell phones won't cause interference with the plane's equipment. The FCC is now considering revising the regulations according to the new information. This is what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.
  In the process of reconsidering those regulations, they asked for input from the public. This is also what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.
  It's not the FCC's fault that a bunch of people freaked out and submitted "OMG Nooooo!" comments that had absolutely nothing to do with what the FCC is actually regulating. I feel sorry for whoever has to sort through all of those comments to see if there is anything valid buried in them.
2. Re:More distressing than apathy by YumoolaJohn · 2014-01-17 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment.
  Hopefully they had strong evidence to back up that idea to begin with.
  
  That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying"
  And yet a lot of people are claiming that cellphones should stay banned because they find it annoying.
3. Re:More distressing than apathy by GrumpySteen · 2014-01-17 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC has a duty to invite public comment on proposed regulations. It's not their fault that a lot of people submitted idiotic comments.
4. Re:More distressing than apathy by YumoolaJohn · 2014-01-17 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC has a duty to invite public comment on proposed regulations.
  I don't have a problem with that part of it. Just the stupid comments.
5. Re:More distressing than apathy by CCarrot · 2014-01-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is worse than apathy.
  Americans are now wholly incapable of thinking for themselves. Instead of insisting that airlines provide the service they want, and voting with their money, they want to tell the government to force everyone to go along with those who shout the loudest. If there's no safety issue with cell phones, is it even the government's business? Most airlines will ban phone usage, except perhaps in business class or wherever else warranted. Some won't, and for those who can't cut the (totally nonexistent) cord they'll choose those airlines.
  I find it hypocritical that anyone who believes in personal liberties should support the government regulating behavior they find annoying.
  And besides, I'd much rather them talking on their phone than trying to talk to me. At least then I can put in my headphones and ignore them with a clear conscience, instead of feeling that I have to be polite and at least pretend to listen to their stories...there's one on every plane, and they always sit beside me for some reason.
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
6. Re:More distressing than apathy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Instead of insisting that airlines provide the service they want, and voting with their money, they want to tell the government to force everyone to go along with those who shout the loudest.
  Go along with those who shout the loudest? Sounds like they're against those who shout the loudest.
7. Re:More distressing than apathy by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2014-01-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment.
  Also that the cellphones, when located in an aircraft, had a field-of-view including a large number of cell towers and could chew up a slot or two in each of them. One airliner full of people with operating cellphones, passing over a city, could make a substantial dent in the city's cellphone capabilities and produce a LOT of dropped calls - some of them potentially emergency calls.
  These were both reasonable with the original, analog, cellphone network, where the phone-to-cell uplink was a narrowband FM signal capable of transmitting substantial power. (The "interferes with avionics" concern might have been more "can't prove it's safe but it looks risky" than "proved it's a problem", but the multi-cell interference issue was apparently an observed effect.)
  The modern broadband digital systems, whether CDMA or OFDM based, spread the energy out over a broad spectrum and re-focus it internally in the receiver. These far less of a risk for interference with other radio-sensitive devices. (Meanwhile such devices have also been improved when it comes to rejection of extraneous interference.) (You'll notice that hospitals have, for a while, been deploying WiFi - also an OFDM system - internally, and have been much more permissive about where they'll let you operate a cellphone.) These systems also are less prone to being interfered with by other, weaker, cellphone signals.
  With the recent retirement of the analog cellphone network (causing even multi-mode phones to cease transmitting in that mode), the problem-child mode has gone away. So it's entirely reasonable for the rule-making bodies to drop the mandate that the cell phones be shut off, and the Airlines to follow suit where they trust this analysis. (Delta, for instance, still wants phones turned off, or in "airline mode" if they have it, during the ground-to-cruising-altitude phases of the flight. They trust it while cruising, but not in the more critical near-ground phase.)
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
8. Re:More distressing than apathy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-18 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  I find it hypocritical that anyone who believes in personal liberties should support the government regulating behaviour they find annoying.
  You miss the point entirely. Perhaps you were to busy talking on your cell phone to comprehend the issue at hand.
  The Common Law has a long history of including mechanisms to protect people from "nuisances", or from things that are "annoying", in situations where it is unreasonable to ask the person being annoyed to simply go somewhere else. This has been part of the US legal system for most of US history (you can readily find law books that discuss the existing laws and practices).
  However, it is clear that such laws are generally a failure and we need something stronger.
  People like you often forget that a huge aspect of freedom of speech is the freedom to not speak, and to not be forced to participate.
  In other words, the freedom to NOT be forced to be part of an audience is just as important as the freedom to be engage in speech. It's a fundamental right, and as such is due protection under the 9th Amendment, as a right retained by the people, and the 10th Amendment, as a right reserved to the people.
  Unfortunately, in part due to the ignorance of people like you, the right to not be forced to be part of audience -- like so many other rights in this sad age -- is routinely violated. This right is violated when people send unsolicited advertisements or spam by any form of mail, it's violated when people put up billboards or huge signs visible to the public, it's violated when businesses make unsolicited calls to people (or repeatedly call the wrong people, something debt collectors have been known to do), or go door to door. This right is violated when people talk on their cell phones in trains, or buses, or planes where other people -- exercising their right to travel -- have no choice but to listen due to the enclosed space. This right is also violated when political parties or religious organizations either call people in their homes or go door to door soliciting or proselyting.
  Just as your freedom to wave your fist around ends when it enters somebody else's personal space, so too does your freedom to engage in conversation end when somebody else has no choice but to be part of that conversation. All rights have limits.
  Fixing the cell phone issue is just a first step in reclaiming a major civil right from the abuse it has been subject to for decades.
  We have two choices: either we allow the government to limit these forms of "forced participation" in an audience, or we allow people to take care of it themselves (perhaps by relaxing the rules regarding what is considered assault, or perhaps by simply allowing jammers). Which do you think will work better?
9. Re:More distressing than apathy by operagost · 2014-01-20 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the totally unneeded history lesson. I knew all that, but if it made you feel better to totally restate my post, then God or Spaghetti-Monster bless you. I was focusing on the response to the survey, not the impetus for it.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Busses allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:09 · Score: 0

This doesn't seem to be a problem on long haul bus rides. There's a social contract and most people don't make calls on the bus. I don't see how legalizing it on planes would make a difference.
Then again there was that analogy about the Israeli day care in freakonomics. Once they started charging for parents being late, it became 'ok'. And there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Maybe by legalizing it on planes, it would then change things so that people thought it was socially acceptable to rave about their lives in otherwise quietly confined spaces (like busses). Don't lose your head man.
1. Re:Busses allow it... by PrimaryConsult · 2014-01-17 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  On the bus, the driver has to listen to the same chatter the passengers do. If a passenger is too annoying they'll just pull over and wait for them to get off the phone. At this point even the apathetic passengers will "help" enforce the social contract...
2. Re:Busses allow it... by gstoddart · 2014-01-17 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't seem to be a problem on long haul bus rides.
  Well, I've been on city buses and seen all of the annoying behavior happen lots of times.
  I was in a store today, and someone was talking loudly on their bluetooth headset quite loudly the whole time I was in the line at the cash.
  Locked in an airplane with some inconsiderate idiot who insists on yammering away on his phone the entire time ... no bloody way.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Busses allow it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  FUCK YOU and your damn social contract.
Who really gains from this? by faffod · 2014-01-17 05:11 · Score: 1

Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materials available while traveling. Please don't knee jerk away a gain for consumers.
1. Re:Who really gains from this? by ttucker · 2014-01-17 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materials available while traveling. Please don't knee jerk away a gain for consumers.
  Nobody wins. Airlines are prevented from providing inflight cellular service. Consumers are prevented from having more choices.
  
  Unless the executive branch of government wants more control of our personal lives, in that case at least some entity wins.
No talking... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:13 · Score: 0

The problem I've seen with all of the discussion on this is that everyone seems to discuss it as if it were a voice-only kind of scenario. In all actuality, I don't think that most people would have a problem with phones and other mobile devices, in silent or quiet mode, used for text-based communications. I travel a significant amount every year and while the chatty A-Hole sitting next to me yelling into his phone (which currently happens quite often during boarding) would definitely cause a significant amount of tension, someone sitting next to me texting away wouldn't bother me in the least.
1. Re:No talking... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Texting would be about the same as someone doing work on his/her laptop ... something that I see in every flight I take. Not an issue at all.
  So I agree that there is no issue with silent communication is acceptable ... but voice would be a be adding to the annoying factor.
Yes allow it. No Big deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:15 · Score: 0

There's no difference between someone calling in a flight or a bus ride or a train. And I can sleep during those modes of transportation just fine. Sure, you get one jerk that does talk loud or a bunch of babies crying through the trip, but that is hardly because of cell phone use..
An interesting factoid... by toonces33 · 2014-01-17 05:15 · Score: 1

Many cellphones - even if in airplane mode - still allow the GPS antenna to be used. You won't be able to download maps while in airplane mode, but if you are just using a simple app like "GPSTest" (which displays coordinates/speed), it works just fine.
1. Re:An interesting factoid... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  That's because GPS is a receive-only mode. It doesn't transmit anything. It picks up the cluster of satellites, and uses the time-phase relationship between the signals to calculate where you are.
2. Re:An interesting factoid... by hankwang · 2014-01-17 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not all planes are equal. In some I get gps reception, but more often than not there isn't a single satellite in view, even with the receiver held against the window.
  I think windows in newer planes have an infrared-reflecting coating for thermal insulation, which happens to reflect gps waves as well. I've the same issues in trains, by the way.
  
  --
  Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
3. Re:An interesting factoid... by swb · 2014-01-17 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  On my last flight I was able to track my position on the iPhone Maps application.
  I don't know, but it looks like the US states map is built in because I was expecting a blank screen or the checkerboard.but I had the vanilla states map without any problem.
  Accuracy (based on the little circle on the map) wasn't good, maybe a couple hundred miles, but at least I had some idea where we were.
4. Re:An interesting factoid... by richlv · 2014-01-17 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  sounds reasonable - it is not transmitting anything, and flight mode should only disable transmitting capabilities
  
  --
  Rich
Re:SMS: Yes Talking: No by ttucker · 2014-01-17 05:16 · Score: 1

I would be fine with SMS texting only. But allowing people to talk on their phone, would be a huge discomfort to passengers. The problem is most people (including me) talk louder when on the phone. A little of this falls on the lack of good technology to allow quiet conversations to take place on phone calls. In the end I hope FCC continues the ban of talking on the phone while in flight, but allowing texting.
The silly thing about this debate is that the FCC regulates RF spectrum, and the FAA regulates aviation safety, but the only thing anyone can say about cell phones on airplanes is that people use them in an annoying manner... sometimes. Complain to your airline, friends, business associates, and family... but please do not stand in the way of technology to prevent what you think might be a mild annoyance.
not their job by Xicor · 2014-01-17 05:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

the fcc is not responsible for making laws preventing annoyance... they are responsible for safety. it shouldnt be up to the FCC to ban talking on cell phones, it should be up to the airline to decide whether they want to ban talking or not.
1. Re:not their job by GrumpySteen · 2014-01-17 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC regulations were put in place because there were concerns that cell phone transmissions could interfere with airplane equipment, which is a safety issue and, as you pointed out, that is their job.
  It's becoming increasingly clear that cell phone transmissions are extremely unlikely to cause any interference, so the FCC is reconsidering the regulations and asked for public input. That is also their job.
  What the FCC isn't responsible for is a bunch of idiots submitted stupid comments... and yet here you are blaming them for it.
2. Re:not their job by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-01-17 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Where did he blame the FCC for anything? He's saying people are entitled whiners who want to run to Uncle Sam to fix any slight inconvenience that annoys them.
3. Re:not their job by Xicor · 2014-01-17 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  im simply saying that it isnt up to the FCC to decide to ban cell phones (for annoyance purposes), it should be up to the airlines to decide if they want to allow cell phone usage, which would ultimately decide the majority of their clientele.
4. Re:not their job by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-18 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  it shouldnt be up to the FCC to ban talking on cell phones, it should be up to the airline to decide whether they want to ban talking or not.
  No.
  Every human society has a small percentage of people that are sociopaths. In the final analysis, the primary purpose of government is to protect the remainder of society from these people. That's why we have government.
  Actions such as murder, kidnapping, fraud, and so forth are things sociopaths do to others, because to the sociopaths, by definition, other people are not real. Societies have their governments enact laws prohibiting these behaviours, and create police forces to enforce those laws, to protect the rest of of society from the sociopaths.
  Similarly, we have our governments create and enforce laws limiting the conduct of business to protect the rest of society from those sociopathic business executives that, as a result of mental illness, think it's ok to destroy the environment, plunder people's retirement funds, overwork or harm their workers, and so forth, all in the name of making a buck.
  Those people that talk at length on their cell phones, in crowded places, where other people have no choice but to listen, are treating other people as if they were not real, as if they were not present and simply didn't exist.
  Hence, the people misusing their cell phones are engaging in sociopathic behavior.
  The mental illness here is not as serious as that which causes a person to become a serial killer or a terrorist, but there's still mental illness present. It's like the difference between a bad case of the flu, and heart disease. They both suck, but one is far worse than the other.
  It is entirely appropriate for government to take action in such situations. This is simply yet another example of government going exactly what it is supposed to be doing. It's why we have government in the first place.
  The alternative to government action is to relax the rules regarding assault, or the use of cell phone jammers, to allow the victims -- those who are forced to be part of the audience to the cell phone conversation, with no option to leave and go somewhere else -- to protect themselves from those who seek to abuse them. Do you really want to start down that road?
I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. by ErichTheRed · 2014-01-17 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Thankfully I have a shorter commute these days, but my last job involved an hour-and-a-half trip each direction on the train. The thing that bothered me most wasn't the time, the crowded trains, the hours i had to get up in the morning. No, it was the people yapping on their phones. Imagine a 5:50 AM commuter train with totally dead people half-asleep, then some idiot starts screaming into their phone and doesn't shut up for the entire trip. Now imagine that same scenario, but now you're inches away from that idiot crammed into a coach seat for a 14 hour flight to Japan. I fly a fair amount of these incredibly long trips for work, and I think I'd rather poke a hole in my eardrums with a sharp instrument than listen to 14 hours of inane banter or some exec screaming at his subordinate or assistant.
People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore, and (b) no one wants to hear about the divorce case you're working on, the colon polyp you had removed, your escapades out at the bar last night, your cat, your dog, your kids or any of the large number of conversations I've heard.
The other thing that's nice for the truly crazy business people I know (I'm not one of them) is that airplane time is dead time -- no one is sending you messages, no one can reach you, etc.
1. Re:I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-17 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore
  I heard this was because mobile phones don't echo (instantly) back your own voice like a landline does. Either the echo convinces your brain that you're talking too loudly, or the fact that you don't hear it on a mobile phone convinces your brain that something's broken and you need to shout louder. I'd guess the former, given that today's young'uns still seem to be doing it, dagnabbit.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Just join in the phone conversation. Whenever they say something on the phone, reply back as though it were directed at you. The obnoxious talker's brain probably isn't any better at filtering out your responses than your brain is of filtering out his half of the conversation --- a few well-times responses can throw someone into complete confusion as they subconsciously try to follow two conversations at once. Bonus points for getting them to curse "you" out, then realize they were still shouting into the phone.
3. Re:I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  The other thing that's nice for the truly crazy business people I know (I'm not one of them) is that airplane time is dead time -- no one is sending you messages, no one can reach you, etc.
  Not to mention the fact the people talking loudly on a train might be tolerable because you can move about on a train. The last train trip I took was years ago, but my friends that still ride on trains tell me they don't have the onerous rules that exist on airplanes. I don't know about riding on a bus with loud talkers.
  As for the businessman that enjoys flying because of the "get away from it all" factor...that's me. If I can't move around on an airplane, much less find a different seat, then the absolute last f**king person I want to sit next to is the clown that talks on the phone the entire flight.
  I can tolerate the "plus sized person" sitting in the coach seat next to me. That happens and there's not much you can really do about it.
  I can tolerate the "blabbering buffoon" that tries to make conversation with me for the entire flight because I dig out my headphones and plug them into my ears, even if I am not listening to anything. Call it a "silent sendoff".
  I can't do anything about the crying babies or the whining kids...and they tend to me much less of a problem than you think. You will eventually "tune them out" or they stop because (1) they get tired; (2) they get food; (3) they just stop. Unfortunately the same can't be said about wankers on phones during flight.
  Then there is this poster that nails the issue: people don't need to yell into phones anymore. And the following comment saying the "echo" (actually it's called "sidetone") is not immediate. Both are accurate, but for different reasons. Yelling into the phone makes no difference to the phone or it's transmit power; it makes it easier for the person speaking to hear themselves. I see delays in "sidetone" as a random problem, but it's usually due to the physical distance between the callers, or possibly because the carrier has technical issues or a "junky system" (their phones or carriers might be doing a poor handset to IP conversion and back again).
4. Re:I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Thankfully I have a shorter commute these days, but my last job involved an hour-and-a-half trip each direction on the train. The thing that bothered me most wasn't the time, the crowded trains, the hours i had to get up in the morning. No, it was the people yapping on their phones. Imagine a 5:50 AM commuter train with totally dead people half-asleep, then some idiot starts screaming into their phone and doesn't shut up for the entire trip.
  Hey shit head, it's a shared space. It's not a public library. It's not your bedroom. It's a train. Why should your preference for quiet trump their preference to be able to communicate with the friends. You're the same kind of asshole that would get annoyed if 2 friends had a conversation in person on the train. Just because you want to waste your commute doing nothing, doesn't mean you get to force that kind of waste of life on others. People like you give me the shits. Get a pair of earmuffs instead of being melodramatic about poking holes in your eardrums you spoilt infant!
  And yes I have the same 3 hours of hell every day. I also get annoyed by some of the things others do. If you think a cell phone conversation is annoying try the Chinese water torture that is some idiot leaving the fake typing noises on their android phone on and typing for the whole commute so that half the carriage can hear it. THAT is unnecessary. And yet I don't feel the need to cry about having quiet in the carriage because I don't fucking own the thing.
5. Re:I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  I think I would probably find you to be an annoying person. So I think they should ban you from any flights because, well, you annoy me.
  You entitled, whiny ponce.
Americans are psycho. Really. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:22 · Score: 1

Damn straight. "I only like some of the offerings on the market, not all of them" is a "you problem," not a government problem.
I remember when the same kind of nanny state shit happened with smoking in bars, in my city. Some bars prohibited smoking. Some bars allowed it. It was perfect: Everyone was happy and could drink at (or work at, or own) exactly the kind of place they wanted. Everyone wins. If you wanted to smoke, you could. If you didn't want to breathe someone else's toxic exhaust, you didn't have to. Everyone was happy except the Nazis, that is, who wanted to go to smoking-allowed bars and have there not be smoke there. So now all the bars in my town are non-smoking, not because that's what the customers or the owners or the staff wanted wanted, but because that's what the voters' representatives wanted. Ridiculous.
Airlines that want to have a "no sanity-shattering cocophany" can attract the customers who value that. Airlines that want to have a "sure, spend the flight yapping about bullshit" service can attract the customers who value that. Everyone wins and no customers will ever have any reason to complain about anything, if we go that way.
So: what the fuck, my fellow Americans? Is this land of the free, or not? What kind of country do you want to live in? You people sure like to bitch about losing freedoms, but you constantly advocate against freedom too, and keep re-electing Republicrats. STOP BEING SO PSYCHO!!
cell phone conversations are allowed on trains by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

and i don't find them the least bit annoying.
i think it would be very similar for airplanes.
1. Re:cell phone conversations are allowed on trains by UnknownSoldier · 2014-01-17 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Please mod parent up.
2. Re:cell phone conversations are allowed on trains by PrimaryConsult · 2014-01-17 06:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The popularity of QuietCars on trains (even commuter trains now) seems to indicate that they *are* annoying enough...
3. Re:cell phone conversations are allowed on trains by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Ambient noise level in an airplane: 95-105 dB
  Ambient noise level on a moving train: 60-70 dB
  So it's 4-16 times as loud on a plane (meaning people have to talk over the background noise), with nearly double the passenger density in economy, assuming both are full. But then, commuter trains are rarely full and planes are almost always full. Huge difference.
It's a bit sketchy, but I think you can by monkeyhybrid · 2014-01-17 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've never tried to make a call but I have happily sent texts during a flight before. I can't say I paid much attention to it at the time, but I'm pretty sure I had a good bar or two of reception, at least whilst over land, so I'm guessing a call could have worked ok too. I'm sure the sitting-in-a-metal-tube thing won't help but presumably the windows allow enough RF to pass through.
Also, some of the passengers of 'flight 93' made calls to their loved ones during the 9/11 hijackings.
1. Re:It's a bit sketchy, but I think you can by HBI · 2014-01-17 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  Post 9-11, the cell towers ignore anything moving over a certain speed. Pre-9-11, no such thing
  You'll note cell reception returns when the plane is about to land and the speeds are down sufficiently.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
2. Re:It's a bit sketchy, but I think you can by areusche · 2014-01-17 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  Service provider, type of plane, and how high? I doubt you'll be able to do it. There's also some debate about how the "flight 93" survivors made their calls. Something that the 9/11 truth guys bring up. If you're flying a typical flight at cruising altitude you will be too high to make the calls. You were probably low enough to make the calls. Here's an interesting read on the whole flight 93 call thing: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
Darth Vader wrote in? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-17 05:39 · Score: 2

one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times.
Ah. The voice of reason.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Is this really a *problem*? by BenSchuarmer · 2014-01-17 05:41 · Score: 1

Airlines have had wired phones on seat backs for years without any problems or public outcry. The only difference between them and cell phones are that the users don't have to pay the airline to use their cell phones.
Sure it's annoying to have the person next to you yacking on a cell phone, but it's also annoying to have them snoring, talking loudly, crying, etc.
We need to stop making a big deal out of the fact the we're annoyed and appreciate the fact that we can travel thousands of miles without anybody die from scurvy, malnutrition, or attacks from unfriendly people or wild animals.
Wait, wait, there's more by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:42 · Score: 0

Why not go the other way? We should be stripped naked, strapped into cages, and loaded in the most efficient way possible. You want food? You'll get the IV. Have to go to the bathroom? It will trickle through the cage, don't worry.
The FCC shouldn't have to deal with people complaining about using their phones. The FCC should just decide if it causes electrical interference if someone uses their phone while on the plane. Let the airline company decide how to implement cellphone usage. It would be like the FCC stating that you can't use a cellphone while in a theater - it just may get your killed (too soon?)
Change in "Airplane Mode" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:42 · Score: 0

Airplane mode would need to be changed by handset manufactures.
When Airplane Mode is "on":
A. Cellular antenna is now on.
B. All sounds, and vibrations made by the handset are turned off, except via the headphone jack.
C. When an incoming phone call comes in, there is no visible indicator of an incoming call, there is no way for the phone to answer the incoming call or to see that someone called. An optional outgoing recording to the caller that the user is in airplane mode may be supported.
D. Microphone is disabled and not available to any data apps.
E. Text messages can be sent and received, but all sounds and vibrations are still disabled in Airplane mode (except via headphones)
F. When Airplane mode is turned off, Missed messages and Voicemail indicators become visible.
G. Switching in and out of Airplane mode could be automatic for some phones as traveling at Airplane speeds and rapidly switching cell phone towers could be determined pretty easily. This would stop cheaters.
Better hardware or education by aviators99 · 2014-01-17 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Philosophically speaking, it doesn't make sense to ban people talking on the phone and not ban people talking to the person next to them. I've never heard anyone asking the FCC (or slightly more reasonably the FAA) to regulate the volume people can speak on the plane.
Practically speaking, people tend to speak more loudly when they are speaking on the phone. Normally, this is not necessary. Part of the problem is that unlike landlines (remember them?), you don't get the feedback in the earpiece of your own voice when you're speaking on a mobile phone. Psychologically, this creates a desire to "speak up". This could be helped immensely big changing the way the hardware works.
You could also require the use of some sort of external headset that provides feedback and eliminates background noise better than the existing phones.
Most importantly, educating people that they don't need to speak that loudly into mobile phones could go a long way. And not only on airplanes.
1. Re:Better hardware or education by LMariachi · 2014-01-17 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Being forced to hear only one end of a conversation is vastly more irritating than hearing both parties.
2. Re:Better hardware or education by aviators99 · 2014-01-17 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  That just means you're nosey! :-)
  But I'll extend my comparison to someone talking to themselves. There's no rule against that either.
3. Re:Better hardware or education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  > Part of the problem is that unlike landlines (remember them?), you don't get the feedback in the earpiece of your own voice when you're speaking on a mobile phone.
  My mother speaks just as loudly when she is on her celluar phone as when she is on her land-line phone. (She has a land-line phone because she lives in a bowl in BFE and does not have cell reception at her house.)
  A good gut check for your theory would be to ask yourself if kids who have never used a land-line phone speak loudly into their cellular phones. If the answer is often yes, then your theory is wrong.
  Please come up with some other folk-wisdom explanation for the phenomenon.
4. Re:Better hardware or education by Qzukk · 2014-01-17 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  WHAT I CANT HEAR YOU I'M SITTING OVER THE WING BY THE ENGINES SPEAK UP
  too many caps in my message so here are some lowercase letters to average out the volume.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
5. Re:Better hardware or education by aviators99 · 2014-01-17 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  My mother speaks just as loudly when she is on her celluar phone as when she is on her land-line phone. (She has a land-line phone because she lives in a bowl in BFE and does not have cell reception at her house.)
  A good gut check for your theory would be to ask yourself if kids who have never used a land-line phone speak loudly into their cellular phones. If the answer is often yes, then your theory is wrong.
  Please come up with some other folk-wisdom explanation for the phenomenon.
  The real question is whether or not these same kids speak more loudly into their mobile phones than when then are gabbing with their friends, for which there is no ban request. And in my experience, it's just as loud.
  Also, I *did* say that it was "part of the problem", not the whole problem, and I suggested education in addition to technology.
Annoying but Not Dangerous by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-01-17 05:44 · Score: 2

Cellphones on plane would be annoying, but as long as it's not dangerous, that's purely a business problem. The FCC shouldn't be getting involved with enforcing various people's aesthetics on others; that's not it's job.
213 times? by hduff · 2014-01-17 05:48 · Score: 1

I like that person.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I have to wonder though by kilodelta · 2014-01-17 05:53 · Score: 1

About how many signed the petition to the FCC to implement Common Carrier status on ISPs.
What about Wifi? by number17 · 2014-01-17 05:53 · Score: 1

With many airlines now offering Wifi on board people will sidestep the any phone ruling. A skype call on your laptop using a headset is exactly the same as a phone call but without all the cellular issues.
I'm guessing you have little imagination by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:54 · Score: 0

Train ... where you can move to another car or get off at the next stop and take the next train
Airplane ... where you can't move to another area (and less likely to be able to change sits) and can't step out.
BIG differences ... that that is not even close to a diff list.
Public Transit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 05:55 · Score: 0

I take public transit every day where folks are already alowded to talk on cell phones. Most folks, by most I mean 99% of the time, are curtious and don't yap in the phone next to so many folks.
Clearly the folks complaining about this aren't public transit users.
Simple solution by NEDHead · 2014-01-17 05:57 · Score: 2

Make those drop-down oxygen masks a little bigger, and they can double as CONES OF SILENCE. These will work especially well with the rumored iShoe phone
That scene from Commando.... by Maltheus · 2014-01-17 06:01 · Score: 1

...where Schwarzenegger kills that guy sitting next to him on the plane. That would be me. And I don't want to go to prison. I would only fly on airlines that prohibit it. But based on the disdain they show for they customers, I'm sure they all would allow it.
Loathesome but not their problem by blue9steel · 2014-01-17 06:03 · Score: 1

Look, I don't like the idea of people yapping away next to me on a plane but it's just not the FCC's job to regulate annoyance. Their job in this context is to ensure safety, if cellphones are safe to use on planes then from an FCC perspective they should be allowed. The airlines on the other hand are a whole different ball of wax and should implement strong rules to preserve the customer experience.
Can't people take life slow? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:16 · Score: 0

Seriously. Even for your job, its *nice* to relax from the frantic pace of modern life once in a while, let alone vacations. Get off your 737s, supersonic passenger jets, rocket ships. Take a drive (or train), slow down.
The point: Asking for other people to share your opinions is silly and will change nothing.
There IS a long-term technical solution to this by PuffyStuffy · 2014-01-17 06:20 · Score: 1

The biggest gripe about phone users is that they speak more loudly than people conversing in person. This is due to inherently poor connection quality. Why is it that cellphone technology still limits voice bandwidth to just a few KHz? It's insane that voice quality hasn't tracked technology improvements over the years. The way to get people to speak more quietly on phones is to: a) Improve voice quality to reliable VOIP-levels (or just use VOIP to begin with, already available on most smartphones) b) Employ background noise rejection at the source (already available on most smartphones) Even after (a) and (b), people will probably speak loudly out of habit. So, (c), echoing the speaker's voice, robustly-amplified, in his/her earpiece may be needed as a reminder to speak quietly. Plane passengers speak to each other in person all the time. And quite loudly, too, to be heard over engine noise. Properly leveraging technology could make it so that cellphone talkers on planes would be MUCH quieter than these in-person conversationalists. If only the industry would actually bother applying this technology to the important-but-less-glamorous aspects of smartphones, namely, voice.
Internet on planes TODAY by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:33 · Score: 0

We have internet on our planes in Europe today, I can use Skype and make video/voice calls... No difference.
Phones on planes by QuasiSteve · 2014-01-17 06:49 · Score: 1

I remember the first few times I flew out to the U.S., and almost all of the seats actually had phones in the headrest of the chair in front (where later they would put some nice monitors for in-flight entertainment, or nothing at all if you fly cheap). The only barrier to using them was that you'd need to slide a credit card through a slot and pay up the wazoo to use them. Even so, there were sure to be plenty of busy business people aboard, and they didn't use them either.
As it is, the only instance that I recall even seeing them used is on two movies: Red Eye, and Inception.
Though I agree that airlines should probably ban their use unless on the ground, just making it stupendously expensive to use them (and I see no technical reason they couldn't - just call it roaming charges) seems like a pretty good deterrent.
It's not just the volume by Radical+Moderate · 2014-01-17 06:50 · Score: 1

Hearing half a conversation can be very distracting, it's how we're wired.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
"Hi Mom. this is Mark Bingham"... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 06:57 · Score: 0

LOL
Re:They just want to be able to turn off their pho by hypergreatthing · 2014-01-17 06:57 · Score: 1

Imaging not picking up. Wow what a concept.
Call me crazy by DarthVain · 2014-01-17 06:58 · Score: 2

But isn't this all moot? Unless you are using a satellite phone how exactly is a cell phone supposed to get a signal within a flying plane? I am no expert, but isn't the signals transmitted by ground based stations? I am not sure that they A) have the range, or B) are omni-directional (i.e up). Perhaps at low altitude close to a tower, or on the runway, but I am not sure how well cell technology is going to operate at 30,000ft over nothing.
http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
Seems to indicate that it may be possible, but likely not, and even if it was, impractical.
Wifi is an interesting idea, as it could be used for connectivity. Then again the connection that is used is a satellite one, which likely has some bandwidth restrictions, and is likely costly to operate beyond a certain point.
So for the most part this is a moot argument in the first place.
1. Re:Call me crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's not if you've read a newspaper anytime in the last five years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picocell
  Emirates has allowed phone calls inflight since 2008.
Oh no, we lost an 'O' by Triklyn · 2014-01-17 07:48 · Score: 1

anybody else amused by the incremental error of changing 212 FTA to 213 for no apparent reason?
1. Re:Oh no, we lost an 'O' by Triklyn · 2014-01-17 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  nm completely correct, but talk about minutiae.
FCC's role by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-01-17 07:48 · Score: 2

The FCC's role in all of this should be is there a safety reason not to allow the phones on planes. The fact that it will be annoying and obnoxious should be left up to the market to decide. If some airlines offer cell free flights, and the public wants that, then those airlines will profit by increased ridership. If not, then their competitors will benefit. Not every problem needs to be solved by the government.
I bring a cell phone jammer with me on the train by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:04 · Score: 1

I wouldn't feel comfortable bring one on a plane though, for safety issues.
Some Americans are god damn stupid. by RightSaidFred99 · 2014-01-17 08:27 · Score: 1

Really, wtf is wrong with people? The FCC's job is not to determine if cell phones annoy you. It is to determine their safety.
If you don't want people talking on cell phones then talk to the airlines or in the worse case, still lame and stupid, Congress to pass a law.
The low level of basic civics knowledge in this country is astounding.
No FCC value judgments of the public interest by oldsaint · 2014-01-17 08:32 · Score: 1

The FCC asserts, on the one hand, that it “is considering whether advances in technology no longer warrant – on a technological basis – the prohibition of in-flight mobile phone use. This is purely a technical decision.” (FAQ: What has the FCC proposed?) And yet in the NPRM the Commission makes a sweeping and non-technical assertion that “we find that it is in the public interest to bring the benefits of mobile communications services on aircraft to domestic consumers.” (79 FR 2616) The FCC cannot make such a finding; the public interest in this issue goes far beyond the technical considerations for which it has expertise. And indeed the Commission has not actually made a true finding of the public interest, nor even attempted to do so. The Commission has repeatedly and expressly absolved itself of the responsibility of weighing, or even considering, the costs to the traveling public of cellphone use on aircraft. And while it makes passing reference to “public safety” and “law enforcement” (79 FR 2626) its use of these terms does not include concern for the safety of passengers from emotional disruption, confrontation and potential violence on board aircraft, or of the law enforcement responsibilities of aircraft crew in such circumstances. If the FCC must remove a technical barrier to cellphone use, so be it, but it should not purport to have made a public interest value judgment upon such use.
Re:SMS: Yes Talking: No by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 08:49 · Score: 0

If a phone user annoy you on a plane (or the bus) just shout "TURN THAT PHONE OFF NOW".
Phone Discrimination by worthlessturd · 2014-01-17 09:10 · Score: 1

If the issue is having to listen to phone conversations on a plane, then when are the airlines removing all the phones on the backs of the seats?
A plan to make more money? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 09:36 · Score: 0

Is it possible, the airlines themselves are lobbying for this? They are charging $15 for 3 hours of Internet. Everyone doesn't have laptops on them, but everyone has their phone.
Could they possibly put some kind of "phone proxy" or something you call into with your phone that makes calls for you. Or some other sort of repeater, and then charge people $15 EACH to make cell calls for the duration of the flight?
I'd Rather They Be Passionate About Net Neutrality by tmlrv · 2014-01-17 09:54 · Score: 2

Getting up in arms about cell phones on planes is all fine and good. Frankly, however, I'd rather see people be getting upset about the net neutrality ruling and demanding the FCC appeal the outcome. That will have a greater long term impact than conversations on planes.
Cost of talking on a plane by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 10:50 · Score: 0

I don't think people realize how expensive it will be to use your cell phone on the plane. Extra equipment will be needed to be able to handle regular cell phone signals for airplanes and where exactly do you think that money is going to come from?
I imagine something like roaming charges used to be, only likely even higher.
Farking allow it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 12:39 · Score: 0

It if can talk to the person sitting next to me or even across the isle, fucking allow me to use my phone. To anyone who says otherwise either doesn't fly often, has not flown recently or have their hearing aids up to much.
There have been phones on planes for years, granted they are like $5 a minute to use.
It is NOT the FCC's job to make people polite. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 13:37 · Score: 0

Period.
Annoy the neighbors by ehiris · 2014-01-17 14:06 · Score: 1

I like the announcement on the Tokyo bus to the city.
"Do not use mobile phones as they annoy the neighbors"
They also had seatbelts.
So civilized....
99% of politics is driven by lobbies and money by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-17 20:03 · Score: 0

Come on this is some kind of little fight between some aggressive cell carrier and gogo/boingo. Im sure the same issues came up about people using cell phones in other spaces as well when they first became prevelant. I fly all the time - and is there a comment period on banning people who have two drinks and proceed to loudly share life stories to their flight neighbors? Thats a regular occurence, and it never fails - people feel the need to talk loudly on aircraft, cell phone or not. If someone is really too loud, the attendant can tell them to quiet down. Have quiet hours on red eyes. Or you can simply ask someone to quiet down yourself - do you really need the government to do that for you? Is a flight a library? Can we ban the people who sit in the terminal and complain about delays, as if it helps? How about banning loud futile displays of emotion after being charged for luggage after you decide to bring 75lbs of baggage for your weekend vacation? I would bet that these are the same annoying people who actually took the time to write a letter to the fcc to complain.
People are confused by Karmashock · 2014-01-17 20:09 · Score: 1

The arguments against phone calls on planes seem to be mostly about the irritation factor of phone calls.
That is not a safety concern and therefore is not something the federal government needs to regulate.
NOTE just because the federal government says something is legal on a plane doesn't mean the airline needs to allow it.
Which means, the FCC can allow phones on the planes and then the airlines can decide if they're going to allow it themselves.
I agree phone calls would be annoying on a plane. However, I don't think most could credibly complain about texting or screwing around with a tablet.
Seriously, people need to learn the difference between something being bad enough that an establishment should discourage it and being bad enough that the federal government should make it a federal regulation/law.
Talking on a phone while flying while annoying is not worthy of a federal ban on the practice. Anyone advocating otherwise is either an intellectually lazy idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about or they're fascists. Sounds extreme but that's an extreme abuse of federal power for relatively petty purposes.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Earplugs - have you heard of them? by Orp · 2014-01-18 01:04 · Score: 1

Yes, cell phones on a plane are a bad idea, but I've been using earplugs since forever and good ones (that seal well) will pretty much drown out everything... loud engine noise, screaming children, etc.

It would also help if the airlines charged a fee to access the cell repeater on the plane like they do with wifi. That might at least keep the most inane conversations from happening. Or not.

--
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
FCC rules are not about aircraft safety by stoatwblr · 2014-01-18 06:08 · Score: 1

The ban on using mobile phones was NEVER for safety reasons. It was to prevent widespread co-channel intereference between analog cells.
You CAN use a mobile phone perfectly legally in the air - as long as you are under 5000 feet above ground level. The reasoning for that is that an analog mobile phone is unlikely to cause blocking of the channels in use on adjacent cells (Analog systems reuse their channels every 2-3 cells)
Digital TDM systems are far less prone to such interference, so the issue no longer matters (they don't work at all if phones are travelling faster than ~200mph relative to the base station, which already causes trouble on EU high speed trains).
Whilst I can sympathise with submitters not liking the idea of asshats bellowing on their mobiles, that's not within the remit of the FCC. Given that aircraft have to be fitted with mocrocells in most cases it's simply amatter of cabin staff switching voice service OFF (many do at night/quiet periods in jurisdictions where airborne mobiles are allowed). In any case the useage fees will discourage heavy use. They generally run to about $3/minute for airborne use.