Slashdot Mirror
House Committee Approves Bill Banning In-Flight Phone Calls
An anonymous reader tips news that the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill that would ban voice calls from mobile devices on airplanes. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote. Similar efforts are underway in the Senate. There was no opposition to Shuster's bill in the House committee, and the FCC received a flood of support for such a measure when they asked for public comment. In an op-ed published Monday, Shuster wrote, "In today’s world, enriched as it is by technology, we are bombarded by data, opinions, and potential distractions. Few limits to this flow of information are necessary, partly because people can typically turn it off, disconnect from it, or go elsewhere if they choose. But in the close confines of an airplane cabin – where passengers will still be able to use their mobile devices for texting, emailing, working, and more – there is no chance to opt out. So for those few hours of flight spent with 150 strangers, we can all wait to make that phone call. It’s just common sense and common courtesy."
Don't you love it when they're legislating "common courtesy"?
They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.
And how is it any worse to be trapped on a plane with such idiots than on a bus? At least on a plane you're only stuck with them for a couple hours, not all day on an overland trip.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Why must it be a law? Shouldn't airlines be free to implement their "please don't talk other passengers' heads off" policy ?
Congress has the authority to regulate the airspace and, as such, regulates the rules of commercial air travel.
PRIVATE planes can make all the calls they want. (And, of course, texting while piloting a plane is the cause of many air accidents and therefore should be banned...)
Ban voice calls on planes, in airport lounges, subways, resturants and cinema. We need legislation so that the state and lawyer can become involved in the enforcement of manners. Also we need laws on the correct position of toilets seats, cutlery positions after meals and the poking and prodding of bodily orrifices in publice places. Conversations on planes should be banned as well as they annoy surrounding passengers as well as children, infants and movies..........Or we could just ensure that airlines provide earplugs on request.
Up until about 5 years ago, it was common to see phones on certain long haul planes in the backs of seats. Hell, a subplot of Die Hard 2 revolves around the fact that this existed. Why is this a problem now and not then?
No shit. Why can't the airlines just develop no phone talking policies. Do we really need to make this a law?
Because I hate it when people start talking on their cellphone in a theater during a feature presentation!
There oughta be a LAW .....
Yep, it's about that stupid. Theaters have done just fine throwing people out of movies without the help of legislation for many decades.
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
If the airline is willing to take the risk of losing repeat customers by allowing you to do so; yes.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Nonsense. There is no First Amendment issue here. You can talk all you want OFF the plane. There are dozens of limitations on talking / speech now that are perfectly valid - the idea behind the first amendment is to prevent the government from muzzling dissent. You can dissent all you want. Just not in the middle of the road. Not in the middle of a theatre. Not on an airplane.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Dude - "Interstate Commerce" is the backdoor password to all kinds of unconstitutional crap (e.g. drinking age laws, etc).... pity the US Supreme Court has yet to put at least some sort of definitive stop to that shit.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Look, I hate and despise people that are rude enough to use a phone on an airplane.
But when Republicans talk about unwarranted government intrusion on our lives, THIS is what they should mean. Not healthcare, not abortion, not welfare. THIS is exactly the kind of laws that our founders were afraid of.
We should not be making rude behavior, no matter how rude it is, a crime.
What is worse, the same effect could have been done in an ethical manner. Simply require that all phone calls be done next to but not in the bathroom. Or, if you want to make it a money maker, pass a law that requires airlines to collect a $5 per minute tax for phone calls made in flight - and allow the airlines to add their own fee on top of that, up to a maximum of $20 per minute.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If you read the article itself you will see that the bill actually bans voice communications through mobile electronics - not just phone calls. As written it would appear the bill would ban phones as well as skype, hangouts and other voice related calls. I suppose this cascades right over to video calls as well.
I find it rather questionable that just months after the FCC finally admitted that there was no reason to ban mobile electronics the "authorities" are once again making a move to regulate mobile electronics. It's not even based on a rationale reason, instead the reason has now become "because I don't like it". Makes one wonder if a constitutional argument can be made here based on freedom of speech - this seemingly is an infringement without justification. Not that Congress has ever cared about such things before.
What happens with all those phones installed on the backs of the seats in the older variants of planes? I flew last year and saw them, although it's not clear to me whether or not they have become decorative or still function.
Article I, Section 8. Between the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to do this.
It's weird how people screaming the loudest about the constitution seem to know the least about it.
Until you can board a plane without a ticket, and without going through TSA, an airplane is not a public place, and the first amendment does not apply. Please read it, thanks.
The Federal government only has authority over "Aircraft safety" on the basis already given above. They actually (legally, Constitutionally) have authority only over interstate commerce. Theoretically, they should have no authority over in-state flights AT ALL.
They have used the commerce clause as an excuse to regulate just about everything imaginable under the sun, but I will repeat: that doesn't mean they really have genuine, lawful authority over it. Constitutional scholars are generally in agreement that the commerce clause was never intended to give the Feds the kind of authority SCOTUS claimed in Wickard v. Filburn.
I don't like cell phone use on an airplane any more than the next guy, I also don't feel like it is congresses job nor right to pass such a law. Airplanes are private property, owned by a private company. It should be left to the company to decide whether to allow cell phone usage on the plane or not. I don't understand how this isn't common sense.
"Congress can, under its deliberately broad Constitutional power to regulate commerce, regulate the fsck out of airlines."
The power to regulate commerce was not "deliberately broad" at all. On the contrary, it was deliberately narrow. Your source doesn't know his history worth a damn.
Framers didn't intend their intent to be a guide, huh? (Your source's argument.) Not only is that a blatant logical contradiction all by itself, it is contrary to actual historical fact. Let me give you a quote from one of those very framers:
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson"
Further, the 1798 Act your "unreasonable man" mentions did in fact happen. But among other errors, he says it was government-funded, but it was NOT. It was an insurance policy paid for by those sailors' own wages. You can find this out in 30 seconds by reading about it in Wikipedia. So much for his scholarship.
To put it bluntly, the "unreasonable man" doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight? Yes, I imagine people squawking on their mobile phones the whole flight would be annoying... and not a desirable thing. But I don't see a "Congress shall have the authority to regulate transportation of persons and their in-transit communication methods" clause in the constitution. Is the concept of enumerated powers finally so utterly and completely lost?
The human brain, when hearing one-sided conversation, considers itself to be the missing party. A 2-person conversation can be slept through much more easily than a one-party conversation. The brain will keep trying to process the comments as if aimed at the listener.
Learn to love Alaska