Quote :

"DeFazio Downloads a New Tone On Cell Phone Usage in Airplanes By Colby Itkowitz, CQ Staff It was almost a decade ago — when cell phones were less ubiquitous — that Peter A. DeFazio called for legislation to allow them to be used on airplanes. But now the Oregon Democrat has changed his mind. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will mark up a DeFazio bill (HR 5788) Thursday that would prohibit commercial airline passengers from chatting on a mobile device. Dubbed the “Hang Up Act,” the bill would ensure that U.S. airlines don’t follow the lead of their European competition and start allowing cell phones to be used in flight. DeFazio dropped his quest to allow cell phones to be used on planes years ago over concerns that they can interfere with airplanes’ controls. And as cell phones became more commonplace — in restaurants, on crowded trains — DeFazio began to see them as a nuisance. “It’s irritating enough sitting next to the guy making the next big deal — big enough that he wants everyone to hear about it,” he said. Jerry F. Costello , D-Ill., chairman of the panel’s Aviation Subcommittee, offered his own anecdote at a recent press conference. As Costello was settling in on a flight, a man sitting behind him received a phone call. It became clear to the lawmaker that the man was in the middle of a dramatic breakup as he pleaded and cried for a second chance. DeFazio said cell phone companies are not pleased with the bill because any expanded usage can mean a revenue boost. He said the companies have been calling his staff with complaints. But DeFazio seemed willing to make a very 21st century compromise. “Just allow texting,” he said."

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002841773

5/15/2008 11:36:17 AM

Isn't this thread perfect for me to read news on TWW?

5/15/2008 11:40:31 AM

democrats. lol

5/15/2008 11:44:17 AM

Why does this need to be made illegal? Unless it presents a real issue to the safety of the aircraft or the other passengers you should be allowed to do it. Simply being annoyed by another's speech is not nearly enough to warrant the speaking into a phone on a plane.

5/15/2008 11:46:16 AM

Quote :

"“It’s irritating enough sitting next to the guy making the next big deal — big enough that he wants everyone to hear about it,” he said."

It's irritating. What a fucking great reason to introduce a law

5/15/2008 12:18:06 PM

Yes, I love it when my freedoms, especially constitutionally protected ones like speech, are curtailed because they're irritating. I'm glad that our government continues to do as it pleases with no regard to things like logic, common sense, or the principles on which it was founded. Perhaps they'll do away with those pesky warrants or irritating due process I've hear about. Oh, wait...

5/15/2008 12:36:38 PM

^

5/15/2008 12:39:21 PM

As annoying as I can imagine phones on a plane would be, it would be completely idiotic to have a law against it.

5/15/2008 12:44:13 PM

Someone remind me why it's not allowed to begin with. I'm too lazy to look it up right now and I'm sure one of you knows. I'm assuming that the not allowing electrical devices on planes has some kind of rationale like interfering with plane to tower communication during takeoff and landing, but what's the reason behind not allowing it in flight? Is it currently FAA policy or federal law?

Quote :

"Dubbed the “Hang Up Act,” the bill would ensure that U.S. airlines don’t follow the lead of their European competition and start allowing cell phones to be used in flight."

Yes, because we've always prided ourselves on being less free than our European friends. I think that's why we broke off initially wasn't it? All that oppressive, tyrannical freedom.

5/15/2008 12:48:21 PM

they aren't allowed because it would be ridiculously expensive to test and approve all the different phones for flight

5/15/2008 1:40:56 PM

Seriously? I have a hard time believing that there is a substantial difference between our phones and planes and the ones in Europe. I suppose that could be the case, but I find it odd. I'll have to ask my friends who work for Sony-Erickson about this some time.

5/15/2008 1:43:23 PM

its not that they are different, it is just that those are the regulations

couple that with the amount that come out every year and its just easier to ban all of them

5/15/2008 1:44:58 PM

so what does this mean then

that all this crap about how cell phones interfere with the aircraft's communications are bullshit?

i kinda always thought that...

5/15/2008 1:50:18 PM

^^^ the only difference is that they use a slightly different frequency for their carriers. All of which are a dedicated "band" different from those used by airlines and traffic controllers. Modern cellphones are even heavily regulated to ensure they transmit minimal power in the sideband and harmonics.

All the "interference" crap may have been true in the day of analog; hell your phone probably would not even work.

Quote :

"“It’s irritating enough sitting next to the guy making the next big deal — big enough that he wants everyone to hear about it,” he said."

its called asking the person next to you to please quiet down, and people executing common courtesy. Thank you dems who much like the R's continue everyday to turn the gov't into my nanny.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 1:51 PM. Reason : s]

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 1:52 PM. Reason : a]

5/15/2008 1:51:31 PM

they were banned very early on by the FAA, i think, when cell phones starting getting popular, under the premise that it was unknown if they would or could interfere with navigation electronics or other systems. There have been multitudes of studies since then that have shown that cell phones do not interfere at all with anything going on up in the cockpit, but they haven't changed the regulations probably just because of inertia - it's easier just to leave it the way it is.

Think about it - the ban is weakly enforced, in that you are allowed to carry on cell phones, you can use them at the gate, and the flight attendant simply asks you to turn them off before taxiing. If there was any chance that they would actually cause any harm, then you wouldn't be allowed to take them on the plane to begin with, or the flight attendants would collect them or they would check that they were turned off or something. As it is now, there is nothing stopping you from leaving them on, or even from making discrete phone calls while in flight, and of course there have been no negative safety repercussions because of it.

"Ask the Pilot" on salon.com has address this a couple times
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/01/04/askthepilot259/index.html

5/15/2008 1:57:03 PM

Quote :

"Yes, I love it when my freedoms, especially constitutionally protected ones like speech, are curtailed because they're irritating. I'm glad that our government continues to do as it pleases with no regard to things like logic, common sense, or the principles on which it was founded. Perhaps they'll do away with those pesky warrants or irritating due process I've hear about."

STFU. Are you really comparing yapping on a cell phone for several hours within three feet of about eight people who have no choice but to listen to it to your constitutional rights? Then we should also reverse the Do Not Call Registry because the salesman's free speech is being violated. Or get rid of all the Noise Laws because I have a right to speak as loud as I want to at 1am!

Bottom line is that people pay a lot of money for plane tickets, and shouldn't have to be subjected to that on a flight. It's not like they can just walk away. But you're right...no logic, or common sense, or any principles

5/15/2008 11:54:27 PM

Quote :

"STFU. Are you really comparing yapping on a cell phone for several hours within three feet of about eight people who have no choice but to listen to it to your constitutional rights?"

You're god damned right I am. There are limits to your freedom of speech, but in order for that right to be overridden you have to show that allowing the speech would have significant damaging effects.

I barely use my cell phone at all, and never at restaurants, on the plane, at a movie, basketball game, etc. Most of the time that's a matter of common courtesy. As much as I think it's a bit rude to yap away on your phone it hardly needs to be made illegal. You know, illegal as in punishable by a fine or prison sentence.

5/16/2008 12:14:29 AM

Quote :

"Bottom line is that people pay a lot of money for plane tickets, and shouldn't have to be subjected to that on a flight. It's not like they can just walk away. But you're right...no logic, or common sense, or any principles"

Then let the airline ban cell phones.

Whaddya know, the free market strikes again!

5/16/2008 12:56:39 AM

I think the airlines are completely capable of setting rules for the convenience and comfort of the passengers. The government's role should be to ensure safety.

Personally I do not like having to leave my phone turned off for the duration of the flight if there is no reason for it. Pretty much everyone that flies regularly now has a PDA phone that they could be getting work done with, or entertaining themselves on in flight.

Flying already sucks bad enough without having to be bored to tears the entire time you are in the air. As far as talking on the phone, the airlines could ban that and the laws already on the books require passengers to follow airline policies.

5/16/2008 12:58:43 AM

Quote :

"STFU. Are you really comparing yapping on a cell phone for several hours within three feet of about eight people who have no choice but to listen to it to your constitutional rights? Then we should also reverse the Do Not Call Registry because the salesman's free speech is being violated. Or get rid of all the Noise Laws because I have a right to speak as loud as I want to at 1am! Bottom line is that people pay a lot of money for plane tickets, and shouldn't have to be subjected to that on a flight. It's not like they can just walk away. But you're right...no logic, or common sense, or any principles "

1) grow some balls, tell the person next to you to STFU
2) let the airlines take care of it
3) This is COMPLETELY different than the Do Not Call registry or noise ordinances
4) It's very clearly NOT the gov's job to tell people where they can't use their phone somewhere because they MIGHT be a bit inconsiderate, and someone MIGHT be annoyed

5/16/2008 1:03:51 AM

Haven't read every word of the thread, but as I understand it, most of the reason they ban cell phones isn't that it interferes so much with the aircraft, but rather that a bunch of cell phones traveling that high that fast would fuck with cell tower systems.

In other words, you'd be changing towers too fast for the network to keep up. Your plane won't crash, but it could fuck up service in the air and on the ground.

It may all be bullshit, but that's what I recall reading a couple years back.

5/16/2008 1:15:09 AM

Quote :

"Bottom line is that people pay a lot of money for plane tickets, and shouldn't have to be subjected to that on a flight. "

WELL ON THAT NOTE U FUCKING DOUCHEBAG; I HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SIT NEXT TO YOUR OBESE 300 LB MOTHER, YOUR CUNT OF A SISTERS 3 ILLEGITMATES CRYING KIDS, SOME DOUCHE KICKING THE BACK OF MY SEAT, YOUR RETARTED ASS THAT SMELLS LIKE SHIT B.C THEY HAVEN'T SHOWERED IN 5 MONTHS, MISS POPULAR TALKING TO MR. GQ IN THE SEAT IN FRONT ON THE ENTIER TRIP

5/16/2008 2:06:55 AM

Don't care about the reason, just LOVE the fact that assholes can't yap on these things for a whole fucking flight.

5/16/2008 2:07:51 AM

so b.c a few bad eggs yap on the cell the entire trip; the majority of the populace can not utilize their cells from reasons ranging from business, arrangements for pickup from destination, saying hello, emergencies, or whatever.

5/16/2008 2:11:31 AM

Quote :

"business, arrangements for pickup from destination, saying hello"

you got it, sport.

[Edited on May 16, 2008 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/16/2008 8:25:07 AM

There was also an issue of cell phones used on planes causing havoc for ground based cell towers because of the speed and altitude at which the passengers are traveling. If I remember correctly, it was a combination of how the cell phone would be switching towers too quickly and how at a high altitude, the cell phone would potentially be connected to large numbers of towers at once, particularly over urban areas.

Most of these issues have been resolved in the last year or so with the development of picocells that could be installed aboard the aircraft as well as evolving tower technology. However, most nations and their carriers however have been hesitant to allow cell phone use because of the strong objection by both passengers and airline staff over their usage. In Europe, a few airlines are starting to experiment with it on a limited basis, but so far, I don't think anyone has actually deployed it on all their aircraft; even if an airline had agreed, it takes time to install the equipment.

Personally, I like the current situation where you're allowed to use the cell phone while the aircraft is on the ground. It allows me to coordinate rides and such from the airport. However, I would rather not have to deal with them while in flight.

5/16/2008 8:57:54 AM

I knew the whole interference thing was a bunch of bull when I flew Quantas and they had "sky phones" that you could swipe with a credit card and use, and this was about a decade ago. No cell phones though!

5/16/2008 9:19:30 AM

Ahaha, saw this in seapunky's gallery. Pretty much sums it all up.

5/16/2008 9:23:37 AM

Quote :

"I knew the whole interference thing was a bunch of bull when I flew Quantas and they had "sky phones" that you could swipe with a credit card and use, and this was about a decade ago. No cell phones though!"

i'm not sure how these phones worked, but I strongly doubt they were cell-phone based. Probably satellite based, or some other communication protocol already in use in the plane

5/16/2008 9:42:16 AM

Because planes don't use radio frequencies.

5/16/2008 10:46:08 AM

You know all the name-calling and personal attacks in the Soap-Box are very "irritating".

I wonder if I could get David Price to introduce a law that would make everyone here more civil.

5/16/2008 11:05:53 AM

Every European I've talked to since they've started allowing cell phone use on planes has said it's annoying as hell. I really hope they don't start allowing it in the States.

5/16/2008 11:34:13 AM

^ Right now, the polls definitely show the public is against it, all the airline unions are against it, and airlines are in such bad shape, they're probably too cheap to install them. I'd say you're safe for now.

5/16/2008 11:48:48 AM

Oh, I hope that airlines make it a policy not to allow cell phone usage on planes. There's no question that it's irritating as hell! I just don't think it needs to be legislated.

5/16/2008 12:29:12 PM

I just don't think it needs to be legislated.

5/16/2008 12:44:42 PM

Quote :

"Then let the airline ban cell phones."

Quote :

"I think the airlines are completely capable of setting rules for the convenience and comfort of the passengers."

Quote :

"2) let the airlines take care of it"

this is a joke right. the airlines are hemorraging billions of dollars a year and continuing to alienate their entire customer base in the process, and yet they are going to show initiative to regulate this? i think it's pretty clear the airlines don't give a shit about the average passenger's comfort. anyone remember the planes sitting on the tarmac at JFK for like 12 hours full of passengers? the airlines were under "self-regulation" looking out for passenger's comfort when that happened too. i don't trust the airlines to get my bag from one place to another let alone legislate anything.

this is exactly the kind of shit why there is a Passenger's Bill of Rights that will get passed...and if talking on cell phones during flight is allowed, I guarantee that would be one of the first things to get axed.

Quote :

" 1) grow some balls, tell the person next to you to STFU"

if they are yapping on their phone in the middle of a flight I think they've already established they don't give a shit about what you think

Quote :

"3) This is COMPLETELY different than the Do Not Call registry or noise ordinances"

HOW?? I don't have an option to go anywhere else, I just have to sit there and listen to your inconsiderate ass on the phone? I think as a paying passenger you should HAVE follow certain guidelines that take all the other paying passengers into account.

Quote :

"I barely use my cell phone at all, and never at restaurants, on the plane, at a movie,"

and you would eventually be asked to leave all of these places if you were yapping away on your phone

Quote :

"so b.c a few bad eggs yap on the cell the entire trip; the majority of the populace can not utilize their cells from reasons ranging from business, arrangements for pickup from destination, saying hello, emergencies, or whatever."

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. your ass can take care of shit on the ground, not one person NEEDS to be on their phone in flight. the only exception could be an emergency but what the hell are you gonna do from the air anyway? MY GOD HOW DID WE EVER LIVE WITHOUT CELL PHONES!

5/16/2008 7:54:44 PM

Quote :

"this is exactly the kind of shit why there is a Passenger's Bill of Rights that will get passed...and if talking on cell phones during flight is allowed, I guarantee that would be one of the first things to get axed."

Then if it offends you so goddamned much to pay $200+ for an annoying flight in steerage, you have 2 choices - pick another airline or take the goddamned Greyhound.

The sooner you learn that the world does not revolve around you, a special, unique little snowflake, the happier you will be.

5/17/2008 1:02:03 AM

so who in here is a loser and has only flown once and it was in 1994

5/17/2008 1:16:59 AM

Two people in this thread have already explained the actual reason cell phone use is banned, which has nothing to do with it being "obnoxious." And yet everyone is still hung up on that.

5/17/2008 1:34:54 PM

Quote :

"Two people in this thread have already explained the actual reason cell phone use is banned, which has nothing to do with it being "obnoxious." And yet everyone is still hung up on that."

Because it's a technical problem, which as other posters have pointed out, can be now overcome. That being said, other posters, as well as the legislator in question, have flanked the issue now by insisting it's about personal comfort.

Therefore, the technical issue being moot, it doesn't really warrant much discussion.

5/17/2008 2:53:34 PM

I love how democrats are always protecting our freedoms.

5/17/2008 8:40:42 PM