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."

20 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. What are they going to ban next? by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Screaming kids? Body odor? Flying with garlic breath?

    Don't you love it when they're legislating "common courtesy"?

    1. Re:What are they going to ban next? by gordo3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this has little to do with courtesy. You can talk on a phone and not be an ass (use noise canceling headphones, noise canceling microphones, keep your voice down, and talk.

      Much more annoying are the kids on a college or high school trip who feel the need to shout at their friends 5 rows away. When you make it illegal for people to hold conversations at all, I'll get behind this.

    2. Re:What are they going to ban next? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doest seem stupid, but what other recorse is there when we're surrounded by the discourteous ? I fly all the time and I'm tired of getting into confrontatins with people who I'd like to turn their smart phone/laptop movie down or use earphones. I've had ass holes look me in the eye and just say, " It's not mine ".

      Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication, and I have a hard time tuning things out pretty much all the time. In 99% of my life I can avoid it by personal choice, my own earphones, etc. But when I'm stuck on public transportation, I don't have that luxary.

      Part of the problem is that this technology didn't exist when their parents were teaching them how to behave. So, we have problem where technology has outpaced common coutesy and politeness, and it is going to be a while before society catches up.

    3. Re:What are they going to ban next? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Funny

      I take it by your tagline, that you can't win this argument.

    4. Re:What are they going to ban next? by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication, and I have a hard time tuning things out pretty much all the time. In 99% of my life I can avoid it by personal choice, my own earphones, etc. But when I'm stuck on public transportation, I don't have that luxary.

      If you can identify the problem, you can solve it.

      As often as I fly, I *rarely* have someone who blares noise out of a device loud enough to overpower the all-encompassing engine noise, and of those few, they were always kids. Those rare times were solved with a simple "...dude, turn that down." Most times, I'm the one with earphones in, or if sleeping, earplugs (which has the bonus of blocking out all noise.) I also make my life easier by taking flights that only business travelers would be on. That almost always gives me more room to stretch and sleep (as a bonus, there's rarely any screaming kids/babies on the red-eye flights.)

      The vast majority of humanity is smart enough to realize that being jammed into tight quarters means that you have to pretty much be courteous. Anything else quickly escalates into something that gets you arrested and/or banned from flying.

      Some things you simply cannot avoid: screaming babies who aren't old enough to have figured out that whole ear-popping thing, rambunctious toddlers/kids, the morbidly obese dude who smells like a garlic factory and drapes over both armrests, the occasional half-drunken dumbass(es) on the way to some booze-cruise, and suchlike. You simply make do stand your ground etiquette-wise, and most importantly know when to ignore it and when to get involved. Anything else can be solved with a quick ring-up of the steward/ess (because anything above that involves an air marshal, and again, most folks are smart enough to realize that it only gets ugly beyond that point.) If all else fails and there's an empty seat somewhere else, you can move to that seat.

      IMHO though, the absolute best way I've found to ensure courtesy in a flight is to chat up everyone around me as they sit down. They either join in and courtesy kicks in (since you're no longer some nameless stranger), or they do their level best to tune you out (which means they don't want to get your attention, so they'll be very quiet, etc.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Yet they've had airline phones for years by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Informative

      > yet they've had airline phones for years.

      You can still use those phones:

      "`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill Text

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  3. If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" .. by cowtamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why must it be a law? Shouldn't airlines be free to implement their "please don't talk other passengers' heads off" policy ?

  4. We need more legislation by Stonefish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Whose phone is banned? by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Whose phone is banned? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know what is a real problem on planes? SCREAMING BABIES. Solution: ban babies from all public transportation. 'nuff said.

      Hear Hear!!

      I once had to ring the flight attendant button on an EARLY flight out, and when she came I asked if we could please put the screaming child just behind me in the overhead compartment.

      Thankfully this worked, the flight attendant smiled at me and said it looked like I needed a Bloody Mary, and got me one...and the lady behind me finally started to quieten her offspring.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. Re: Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sadly, most planes are not equipped with rear exit stairs or I would support this common-sense solution.

  7. Re:In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  8. I hate the calls but... by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is as Un-american a bill as you can get.

    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
  9. Re:nobodies phone is banned by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:I'm confused by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Hooray for common sense by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:I'm confused by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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.

  13. Re:nobodies phone is banned by Sigmon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  14. Re:Talking by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.