Politicos: Let's ban in-flight cell phone chatter for good
The thought of cell phone chatter on cramped commercial airplanes is so unappetizing to some politicians that they're pushing for a more lasting ban.
At the moment, of course, federal rules prohibit in-flight use of cell phones for safety reasons, and federal regulators have appeared loathe to reconsider that stance, at least in recent months.
The chief sponsors of the new Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace--or Hang Up--Act, say their measure is necessary to keep things that way, particularly with the European Union's recent move to allow cell phone use on planes and more U.S. airlines experimenting with on-board Internet access.
"The public doesn't want to be subjected to people talking on their cell phones on an already overpacked airplane," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), one of the bill's chief sponsors. "However, with Internet access just around the corner on U.S. flights, it won't be long before the ban on voice communications on in-flight planes is lifted."
The bill, which is also backed by Reps. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), and Thomas Petri (R-Wisc.), would limit its ban to "voice communications using a mobile-communications device," according to a copy seen by CNET News.com.
News.com Poll
That means that as surfing the Internet, e-mailing, and text-messaging capabilities become available on planes, they'll be permitted. (JetBlue, for one, has been testing in-flight e-mail and IM, while American Airlines and Virgin America are among the companies planning on-board broadband for a fee.) Talking on a "phone installed on an aircraft" would also be allowed.
Costello, who serves as chairman of a House aviation subcommittee, plans to hold hearings on the bill as soon as possible, according to a Contra Costa Times report.
To back up their position, the bill's sponsors cited a recent survey by the Association of Flight Attendants and the National Consumers League that found 63 percent of respondents opposed in-flight cell phone use.
The airline industry, for its part, would prefer not to keep its options open. The Air Transport Association, which represents all the major airlines, said in a statement quoted by the Contra Costa Times that decisions about in-flight communications "should be made by the individual airlines, based on passenger needs and preferences."
do with this. So all should be punished for the acts of others?
Common sense should be the only law.
Cell phones are great but they only encourage peoples alread horrible manners.
until someone enables it?
anyway, freedom of speech applies to freedom of political
speech and expression.
why can't you shout fire in a crowded theater? because it's a
nuisance. why can't you run around spewing profanities in
people's face? because it's assault. so why is shouting: "hey,
can you hear me? guess what? I'm on a plane! yeah, a plane!
can you hear me? can you hear me?! yeah, a plane!" any less
intrusive on others?
if you want to stay in touch, email or text. pretend the
technology doesn't exist to talk on a cell phone on a plane (it
isn't installed yet, so it technically doesn't).
manners, from putting swingsets in your front yard, to relieving
yourself in public, to vandalism etc.
I support banning non-emergency cellphone use on airplanes. I
would hate to be trapped in a seat next to some idiot yelling his
life story over the engines into a cell phone. Could you imagine
if it was a red-eye and 90% of the people in the cabin were
trying to sleep through that? I shudder to think.
The cell-phone industry schills will be out in force on this one,
-just like the H1B and Comcast schills - but I'm pretty sure that
the majority of people would back me on this one.
The next person that cuts me off on their cellphone is going to get it stuffed up their tailpipe.
for those who allow it, then they will consider banning usage.
You could even do this on a flight/class basis, if we're talking
about the crowding issue. They can easily do polls of passengers
since many by their tickets online now, if they want direct
feedback.
Trusting legislators to make a law that works for everyone would
be a sign of chronic naievete. We can trust that carriers can get
a better read on public sentiment on such and issue react much
more quickly to feedback, since it's in their best interest to
please and keep their customers.
Seriously though, the carriers may not want to decide. If the government forbids it, it leaves the carriers off the hook of having to create their own policies and enforce them.
congress to regulate airline and cells. I'm looking... I'm looking...
and by God I can't find it. Would someone please point out which
of the enumerated powers of congress applies?
I be able to talk to her when she's in the seat next to me? Aha,
that's rude too, so let's ban all conversation on flights. Sure,
that's the ticket. Can we also ban farting, not taking a shower,
snoring and other annoyances while we're at it? Next thing you
know people with babies will be banned from flying since they
may cry the entire flight. We can't have any of that!
This is no different than the idiotic "hands free" laws that are
sweeping the country which make it illegal to hold a phone while
driving a car, but don't make it illegal to DIAL a phone while
driving. I don't know about you, but last time I tried it, holding
a phone on an existing call was a hell of a lot less distracting to
me than pushing the buttons to start it.
OK, it may have been cute at first, but it's really old now. And dumb.
orders. It may be just one guy in fact -with lots of different user
names.
These forums are being ruined by paid industry lobbyists. Look
at the H1B stories. The shill over there barely makes any effort
to disguise himself. He uses "Joe" in all his user names. His job
is to reply negatively to anyone opposed to H1Bs, and to do so to
every single post, and to do so endlessly until people get tired of
reading about it and they go away.
These cellphone guys are hacks as well. 7 independent posts in
a row trashing the idea of regulating cellphone on commercial
flights. Come on. At least post a stupid argument for it, then
trash that. Show some originality you sellouts.
As for the cell switching, 4-6 per minute is not that difficult for modern electronics. Never mind that fact that cell switch would actually only occur every 4-8 minutes (500 mph is roughly 8 miles/minute...), not 4-6 times a minute....
And that's not even counting all the times that I have heard cell phones go off on commercial aircraft.
Google videos:
Loose Change 2nd Edition and Final Cut
9/11 Press for Truth
This is just an attempt to get people to use the extremely overpriced in-flight phones installed by the airlines.
the long 10+ minute conversations) on planes, trains, or for that
matter any crowded area without an easy exit is simply rude and
annoying. That being said, the government has NO legal
grounds to ban their use on the basis of it being impolite. I have
no issue with current FAA regulations banning their use during
takeoff and landing because at those times they constitute a risk
to the safety of the general public; when there is such a risk, the
government then does have legal grounds to legislate certain
behaviors. Same goes for the banning of smoking on airlines.
Since there is a documented risk to the public (more specifically
those on board) and they don't have an easy way out the
government has a right to ban that behavior as well. In this case
however, since there is no documented (and I hope to god I
don't hear the "cell phone radiation is harmful" excuse here
which has not been definitively proven either way) risk to the
public, the government has no place to legislate behavior.
Now, supposing individual airlines wish to regulate such
behavior, that is perfectly fine. Airline companies are private
businesses and as such have a right to limit certain activities
while you are on or in their property. Just in case my previous
analogy raised this question with anyone, this is also my stance
for the current trend in bans on smoking in bars and
restaurants. Since it's a private business that you don't have any
right to be in or not, and because you can easily choose to leave
if someone is smoking, the government shouldn't be allowed to
ban that behavior. Again, if the establishment owners decide to
institute a similar ban, they have every right in the world to, and
legally can.
People need to stop falling back on the government to fix
problems when they should simply be addressing the problem
themselves. If you don't like the person on the airplane talking
on their cell-phone, ask them to stop. Beyond that, write letters
and make calls to the airlines themselves. It wouldn't take much
pressure on an industry that's already hurting for business for
them to make a change that they perceive will result in more
business. I am constantly hearing people from all sides of the
political spectrum talking about how the government is getting
too big and is becoming too invasive. If people keep falling back
on the government as their parent though, how can this
increasing invasiveness of the government come as a surprise?
Start taking responsibility and make small changes yourselves.
The more we complain that "there ought to be a law for or
against that" the more of the government's (and as a result, our)
time and money is wasted and the more we must sacrifice our
own freedom and liberty.
- Question
- by alegr April 18, 2008 2:24 PM PDT
- What about pretending to talk on a cellphone on an airplace? Without actual connection? Will it be prosecuted? If it will be prosecuted, what's different then from simply talking in flight? Don't you think such ban will be promptly deemed unconstitutional and unenforceable?
- Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)