Slashdot Mirror
FCC Kills Plan To Allow Mobile Phone Conversations On Flights (pcworld.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PCWorld: On Monday, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission killed a plan to allow mobile phone calls during commercial airline flights. Since 2013, the FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration have considered allowing airline passengers to talk on the phones during flights, although the FAA also proposed rules requiring airlines to give passengers notice if they planned to allow phone calls. The plan to allow mobile phone calls on flights drew sharp objections from some passengers and flight attendants who had visions of dozens of passengers trying to talk over each other for entire flights. But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on Monday killed his agency's 2013 proceeding that sought to relax rules governing the use of mobile phones on airplanes. Under the FCC proposal, airlines would have decided if they allowed mobile phone conversations during flights.
Suggesting that Facetime or Skype are not a "voice call" is like saying:
But your honor! I was NOT texting and driving when I had that collision! I was using Twitter!
(Frnds dont let frnds txt n drv. A true friend will hold the wheel for the driver so he can concentrate on what is important.)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Ban all calls on buses and trains.
People don't tend to yell at each other when they're sitting side-by-side, but a lot of people feel the need to speak at max-volume when they're on a phone.
When two people talk on a plane, they are mutually consenting. (Of course, other people may be annoyed. But at least you hear two sides of a conversation.)
With someone talking on the phone, every person nearby gets to be annoyed.
Imagine the annoyance of a one sided conversation. You can't even understand what the other person might be saying.
Ring ring
Hello?
No! I'm not driving.
Well, yes I am in the car. But I'm stuck in traffic. Thus not driving. The car is in park right now.
No, I left the car seats at home.
Calm down, I don't need them. I don't have the kids with me.
No! No. Of course, I did not leave the kids alone. I left them safely with the dog.
Yes, I know it's my weekend.
They'll be alright. They're very mature for their age. The oldest is almost 7.
I just needed a break. That's all.
No. Don't worry. I am not going to the strip club. Not while this traffic is stuck.
You don't seem to understand. How can I be drinking and driving when I'm stuck in traffic, car in park, not driving? I know better than to drink and drive at the same time.
No, I'm not with my drinking buddies.
What do you mean "then where are they"? I swear, they are not in the car!
Look, they jumped out of the car because there is a liquor store on this block. And traffic isn't moving. I'm not with them because they haven't returned yet with more drinks for us. And we're taking turns driving, so it's okay.
Chill out. Nobody is drinking when it is their turn to drive.
What are you so upset about? I can't understand what you are saying.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Because my wish for peace and quiet does not annoy anyone. Your insecure need to be in constant communication on the other hand, does.
why is your wish for "peace and quiet" more valuable than my wish to communicate?
Because you're an anonymous asshole.
Thank. F*cking. God.
If people were polite and considerate of each other, this would easily be something that should be allowed.
Unfortunately, we live in reality where people tend not to be overly considerate of others around them while on their phones. Add in the cramped quarters of an aircraft on top of the stressors various folks have related to travel and I think you'll see more aircraft incidents that we would like. Wifi with email should be sufficient for most communication needs.
As far as I knew nobody was going to force airlines to allow people to talk on their phones. So this would be allowing the airlines to make the decision, which puts it where it should be - the business side of the equation.
If some airlines, say more business oriented or in first class only, etc.. want to allow it then they should be able to.
The FCC and FAA should be deciding on the safety of using phones, not how annoying they are to some people.
Nope. Separating Voice input from Texting or downloading Pictures is not the purview of the FCC
who regulates Solely the radio spectrum used by cell phones, Not the end user's actions.
The same rule that stops you from talking to someone also stops you from texting.
And the rulemaking change got thrown out because of the complaints, like they said.
If only Chinese airlines would allow smartphones to be used in airplane mode. But no... you can have a laptop, tablet, all manner of electronic widgets but not a phone. I discovered this the hard way showing up to a 12 hour Hainan Airlines flight to Beijing with nothing but a Note 4 and a few spare batteries.
5MB are a *LOT* of text messages in Signal, WhatsApp, Viber, whatever.
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but on this one there is WiFi and Internet access. My last coast-to-coast flights on JetBlue had it. Delta and American have it on a lot of their flights. JetBlue's price was very reasonable. I'm trying to remember if BA had it on my last flight, but I was more interested in sleeping. My colleagues who fly Emirates say their flights to Dubai and onward have it. Pretty sure I could have done FaceTime when I was using the WiFi on my last JetBlue flights.
That analogy misses a key distinction: these are technological restrictions placed on airlines, not behavioral restrictions placed on passengers. If you're able to make a call, you're generally already allowed to (takeoff, landing, and airline policies notwithstanding). The reason that isn't happening is because airlines are barred by the FCC from offering cellular service in flight, and cell phones tend to get rather poor (read: no) reception at cruising altitude. If you have WiFi on the flight, making Skype or FaceTime calls is already allowed (again, notwithstanding the earlier exceptions), though frowned upon by all of your fellow passengers. That won't change as a result of the FCC's decision.
None of this bothers me. The second I get on the jet and sit down, I push foam ear plugs in, and take a nap. The baby next to me does not bother me.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Why is the FCC, which is responsible for regulation of the use of the radio spectrum, considering social aspects when making decisions regarding the technical feasibility of using cell phones on planes? The only factor should be whether or not the use of these devices interferes with the avionics of the aircraft, which we know is not an issue (although the airlines always threw that nebulous excuse out there in the past). I once worked in a hospital that wouldn't let the doctors install a WiFi access point in their private lounge (back when WiFi first came on the scene) because "it would probably interfere with the telemetry of the medical equipment". Both are red herrings and using technical aspects as an excuse to cover for other reasons (unreasonable fear of culpability, protecting monopolistic practices, etc).
My point is that the FCC should not be in a *conversation* with the airlines regarding what they may or may not prefer when the FCC makes *technical* decisions regarding the use of radio devices.
Better known as 318230.
To hell with that. I fly first just so I don't have to deal with that crap. Same reason I spring for the lounge membership - it's well worth it not to have to hang out in the general terminal. I wish lounges still had phone booths so people could make calls without bothering anyone else, but the current system of retiring to an isolated corner to make your calls usually works.
So they're not enabling cellular service, but you can usually pay their extortion price for WiFi and then make all the VoIP calls you want. If you use Google Voice, it's just like any other call. You can also use Signal, Skype, or whatever.
But for the other 95% who aren't clueful with the technology, it keeps them quiet. In time that might change. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, most people only use data on their devices, regardless of whether they're making a call, sending a text, or browsing a web site.
Texts cost $.99 plus standard rate charge each message calls cost $1 + $1 a minute.
I wish, and talking too.
There's quiet carriages on country trains, but I never understood why there's only the one. Why not one "noisy idiot" carriage at the back? Teenagers and groups of old women could shout incomprehensibly at each other to their hearts content!
Yes thank you Mr Trump for implementing the small government plan of forcing airlines to do something that's completely unrelated to safety.
Nothing says small and limited government like government minders telling you that you can't use a private phone on a private aircraft and they will put you in jail for doing so.
Airlines should be able to make this call, the Obama FCC was right to give the airlines control over this rule once they showed modern cell phones no longer caused interference on planes. You may not remember this but every seat used to have a phone, the rates were just ridiculous enough to keep people from calling in everything but an emergency but it was still perfectly acceptable to make a call. It was only with the rise of personal phones that this ability was taken away out of safety fears which are no longer applicable.
But thanks to Mr "small government" Trump we've ensured that no naughty person will make a phone call from a private airplane.
True, but there's also the fact that it's far more distracting listening to half a conversation; your brain tries to fill in the blanks, and it's very hard to tune out like you can a normal conversation.
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east. Delivering cell calls handsets on a flight allows a remotely triggered device to be improvised, planted and triggered from thousands of miles away. It would also allow the tracking of a specific flight/person for similar targeting from the ground. All this is possible with obscurity built in.
If you have to register your WiFi device to use it and receive data, that makes most of this kind of thing go away, or at least makes it necessary to have somebody on board to sacrifice themselves to the cause (not that this eliminates the threat, but it sure makes the commitment level higher to follow though).
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Here I thought they where just removing the most obvious way of remote triggering IED's on aircraft from a thousand miles away on a payphone.... Silly me, somebody wants to make this into an inconvenience of having to wait to make a call or (horrors of horrors) listen to somebody make a call in the seat next to you.
Has nobody been thinking of the security implications of allowing the delivery of cell calls on an aircraft? Has nobody thought about how IEDs have been triggered in the past? Ah, but the TSA keeps that stuff from happening right?
And don't fool yourself.... The TSA isn't going to be able to keep such devices off your flight. All that airport screening stuff is mostly for show and to catch the stupid terrorists who don't know enough to understand the screening process, even though they've gone though it a few times, or the unimaginative ones who don't take time to think about their approach. Don't tell yourself they are all unimaginative or stupid either....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
100dB in flight
Bullshit. If that were true then there would be a lot of air staff with almost total hearing loss after a few weeks of long haul flights.
If you allowed idiots to talk on the phone, however...
Five minutes into the call he won't be anonymous anymore. We'll know all about his itch, his house and possibly his butter recipe.
I get the reasons why they would want to prohibit people from having loud, obnoxious conversations for everyone to hear... but that should be an airline policy issue. If it is technically safe, then it should be allowed by the FCC. I have no idea if you could get a data connection, but it would be nice to not be locked into the airline's offerings.
Evolution: love it or leave it
You're a moron, have never been on a plane, or are trolling.
Mark my words, in 50 years humans won't fly together anymore. Everyone will have their own Personal Drone Craft. Humans are such disgusting creatures that we can't even tolerate ourselves for a couple hours.
While I totally agree with your point about smaller government, if the FCC is going to regulate flight then they might as well mandate no calls...
Yes I remember the plane-panes that no=one ever used. But you and I both know how volume-unaware people are when they are talking on cellphones, which would be used in abundance on a plane. Talking on planes is one those things so vile to me personally that indeed I am willing to give up a little liberty for the sanity of millions.
I would personally rather airlines dictate this rule, sure... but we are where we are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
People don't tend to yell at each other when they're sitting side-by-side, but a lot of people feel the need to speak at max-volume when they're on a phone.
My guess is that if the typical side-by-side conversation happened next to a white noise generator with a monkey randomly clapping its hands over the listener's ears, those conversations would tend toward max volume as well.
I think this is for the best. I am old enough to remember a time before cellphones, so take this for my version of "get off my lawn". There is a certain species of person who has a need to carry out a phone conversation while on public transportation. I don't expect dead quiet on a train, but listening to someone shout random phrases into a their phone from the time they get on the train till the time they get off 40 minutes later pushes the boundaries of courtesy a little too far. I'm afraid that if someone sat down next to me and talked all the way from Seattle to Atlanta I might snap. I'm imaging something like Bill Duke in Predator - "bleed ya real quiet, leave ya there." I would like to get through my days without having to leave a seatmate behind with a little plastic knife in his spleen.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
I don't quite understand your argument. What precisely is preventing a criminal from planting a cell phone on a flight and doing what you claim now? It's not like flight crews are doing sophisticated "cell signal sweeps" to make sure there are no active phones on-board now.
So how precisely does outlawing legal cell phone use prohibit the scenario you're worried about? (Once again, we have someone who seems to be imagining a world full of terrorists at every corner. Hint -- if that were true, lots of crap would be blowing up, not just planes.)
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east.
So is pushing a button and taking yourself out along with the plane. Actually this is a far more common method in the middle east as well.
This is related to something I call Raging Arsehole Syndrome which is a very peculiar diagnosis.
Firstly raging arsehole syndrome is what seemingly prevents people in the USA from doing something that everyone else has no problem with.
- Talk about going to the cinema? Nah, the raging arseholes ruin it for me.
- Go out for dinner with the wife? Nah, the raging arseholes will bring their kids.
- Using a mobile phone on a plane? Nah, the raging arseholes will just shout into it.
There are two interesting parts here. Firstly this only seems to affect people from the USA, the rest of the world has no problem with public outings and other people at public outings (e.g. cinemas). The rest of the world also allows phone conversation on planes as well and it's not a problem. But the second part is the crux of it all: My experience with Americans is that in general you guys a nice, courteous and not at all raging arseholes, but for some reason you *think* everyone around you is.
Hence this syndrome. Catching public transport daily in European, American, Australian, and Chinese cities has taught me one thing: The odds of coming across a raging arsehole are far lower than the public actually think. Hell based on the posts here on Slashdot alone it makes me never want to visit the anti-social neanderthals over there, yet that's simply not the case.
As ever so frequently these days, US regulations seem not to be able to keep up with modern times, and when they try to, they don't seem to get it right. I fly quite frequently between Europe and the US on Lufthansa, and I have yet to see any problems arise because of them providing wifi and gsm (Well, once I saw an attendant tell a man not to skype from the restroom, but I don't think of that as a problem :) ). Your problem is not with airlines offering these services, but the people who are idiots - however, educating them by avoidance, i.e. by banning all of these services is just stupid.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
You mean the Hijack victims.
But to my main point.
In 2001 most cell phones were analog giving them a much greater range. Fewer cell towers covered a far greater range. In fact back then I had great signal at my favorite camping spot. And AT&T's analog signal covered a great deal of the west. Since cell signals went digital the range a cell can effectively reach has been chopped way down. It requires more tower for less coverage. Now when I go to my favorite camping site there is no signal there, we now have to drive to a point looking down into the valley to get signal enough to make a call.
So yes in fact 2001 cell phones could do what 2017 cell phones cannot do.
Think of the gems though!
i was on the shuttle to campus during undergrad and there were a few people on the phone. One girl in particular stood out because she was bickering with her (i assume) boyfriend. Of course, the whole shuttle gets quiet right when she blurts out "No! I do not have time for a quickie!". Then she realized everyone was looking at her and quickly ended her call.
On a more serious note, I can't even stand those people that get on their phone immediately when landing. That email or phone call can wait the three minutes it takes to get off the plane. Nobody is going to die because you didn't answer that text. Be a respectful member of society and keep the electronic tether in your pocket until you get off the giant metal echo chamber.
I'm afraid that if someone sat down next to me and talked all the way from Seattle to Atlanta I might snap.
That may say more about you, and your opinion of other people than this situation itself. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the fact that phone calls are allowed on planes. It hasn't resulted in people lynching each other, and in general, it's a frigging plane. Get yourself some noise cancelling headphones. It's worth far more than some "economy plus" upgrade.
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east.
So is pushing a button and taking yourself out along with the plane. Actually this is a far more common method in the middle east as well.
Yes, but.... Allowing the remote triggering sure lowers the cost of doing this, which makes the population of people who would be willing to try a whole lot larger.
Being willing to blow yourself up is typically rare and folks in this group tend to be involved in specific activates which make them easier to detect in most cases. However, the population of folks who would like to take an airliner full of passengers down is quite a bit larger, especially if it could be accomplished by pushing a button or two half a world away.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Cell phones don't work in flight unless you are VERY low going very slow and commercial airliners don't spend very long going low and slow. On board bombs don't work very well when you are not at altitude and speed. It would take a larger device to seriously damage an aircraft on the ground than say at altitude where the pressure and speed will help rip the aircraft apart using a very small device. Smaller is easier to get aboard...
Yes, I cell phones don't work well on airplanes first hand for two reasons.... #1,I've worked in the cellular industry.... #2 I'm a private pilot and I've used my cell phone from the plane. When I was flying, cell phone service is spotty above a few thousand feet, even going at 80 knots, and only worked, sort of, when you where out over the sticks. Near town, forget it. The old analog cell phones worked better than the ne digital ones....
As a cellular engineer, I understand why... A cell tower is designed to cover a defined geographic area and in order to not interfere with other cells, the antennas are usually pointed towards the ground (not much energy is radiated up). Also, the cell phone and the towers it can hear decide which tower has the best chance of handling the call, and are frequently re-evaluating this decision to make sure things wouldn't be better from a different cell. If they decide to change cells, the switch is coordinated between the phone and the two cell towers at the local MSC (Mobile Switch Center) or if you are on the fringes of an MSC's area, with another MSC. MSC to MSC hand offs are quite time consuming as it involves routing the voice part of the call down a trunk (which takes set up time) then switching the phone, the cells and the call all at the same time....
So, when flying, 1. you are not usually in a space that has a cell antenna pointed at you (you are in the air, they are pointed at the ground) and 2. You are usually moving rapidly between cells and often between MSC's. The cellular system simply cannot contact your phone or keep up with your location because it is designed to work on the ground at speeds under 100 MPH (best case). You are above 10,000 feet going 300+ knots...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
5MB are a *LOT* of text messages in Signal, WhatsApp, Viber, whatever.
Unless you keep sending pictures to each other (as many people usually do)...
Show me one cellphone technology that can send and receive signals at a distance of 38,000 feet (the average cruise altitude)
All of them. 38000 feet is a smidge over 7 miles, or 11.5km. GSM has a range of 35km, but the typical cell range is 70+km.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I'm afraid that if someone sat down next to me and talked all the way from Seattle to Atlanta I might snap.
That may say more about you, and your opinion of other people than this situation itself. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the fact that phone calls are allowed on planes...
If "much of the rest of the world" didn't have a problem with phone calls on planes, then we wouldn't be sitting here having a discussion about the plan being shot down to allow phone calls on planes. There's a valid reason that we don't support phone calls on planes today; the reality is most people don't fucking want it.
There are enough issues going on with herding humans like cattle at 35,000 feet. To your obvious dismay, the opinion of the OP is a hell of a lot more common than you think.
If "much of the rest of the world" didn't have a problem with phone calls on planes, then we wouldn't be sitting here having a discussion
You seem to forget how very much Slashdot vocalists focus on local US based issues. Americans on this board in general seem to think that they are the greatest country on earth but somehow incapable of handling what the rest of the world already has.
There are enough issues going on with herding humans like cattle at 35,000 feet.
And there you have it. The subtle bias you have against flying likely attributed to the fact that when we hear customer disaster stories it's typically United or when we hear about security disaster stories it's typically about the TSA. Flying is not herding cattle. It's a rather normal and pain free experience outside of the USA.
Yes, but.... Allowing the remote triggering sure lowers the cost of doing this, which makes the population of people who would be willing to try a whole lot larger.
Nope. No certainty, no oversight, oh did you forget no virgins? Consider why so many suicide bombers are on the ground too. There are so many benefits to having someone do it in person especially when there's no psychological mess to deal with and when the promise of the afterlife is one of the key drivers for offing some infidels. There literally is a never ending supply of young people who can be radicalised.
Only the smallest and most targeted attacks are carried out remotely, not the ones designed to instil the kind of fear that only a person so devote to their religion and so full of hate that they'd kill themselves to kill people can deliver.
Public order is a legitimate concern of government. They're just trying to avoid a large number of blunt force trauma deaths featuring perimortem ingestion of a cell phone.
What the heck does any of this have to do with my point?
You proposed that cell phones on planes could be used to trigger bombs. I certainly realize the limitations on this, though I thought it was obvious you would too since you brought up the scenario in the first place.
My point is that YOU brought up the "security issue" of cell phone triggering bombs, and I pointed out that criminals can ALREADY do whatever they'd theoretically do, whether there's a "ban" on in-flight use or not.
I'm even more confused by what you're talking about now. Basically, my understanding of the conversation was --
YOU: "We have security implications with terrorists who could trigger bombs with cell phones."
ME: "Well, if they figured a way to do that, couldn't they do that anyway now? Terrorists don't exactly have to follow regulations."
YOU: "Cell phones don't work well on planes anyway."
HUH??
Then let me simplify... Cell phones don't work in flight (for technical reasons) so they cannot use them to trigger explosive devices in flight right now.... Allowing the airlines to put equipment on planes to deliver cell calls to their customers changes this.
Make sense yet?
Prove it to yourself.... Next time you fly, turn on your phone and see if you get service at 30,000 feet, you won't....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If they still have an old analog 2G phone they aren't making any phone calls because the entire system was turned off a year ago which is the event that triggered the FCC/FAA to have a deregulation hearing on whether to still ban phone calls, exactly as they should have.
But Thanks to Donald Trump we don't have to worry about sensible safety based restrictions, we get to go with jack booted government thugs dictating that you cannot use a harmless device because someone could get annoyed.
This should be up to the airlines to decide, not regulatory authority that's no longer needed.
When two people talk on a plane, they are mutually consenting. (Of course, other people may be annoyed. But at least you hear two sides of a conversation.)
So basically the complaint is that you don't get to eavesdrop on both sides of the convo? Seriously?
I discovered this the hard way showing up to a 12 hour Hainan Airlines flight to Beijing with nothing but a Note 4 and a few spare batteries.
At least, it wasn't a Note 7.
I'd rather not even hear one side of it. Really.
:-)
But if some inconsiderate jerk is going to force me to listen to one side, then I should get to hear both sides.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
DC9,B717,MD-8x in the 'engine shrapnel' section.