Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Chairman to End Plans to Allow In-Flight Cellphone Calls
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That button exists for a very serious reason, but consider the other reason - there's more to life than fannying around tapping a screen or gasbagging to someone. Take time out, life ain't all tap tap, swipe swipe...
Totally incorrect, since the airlines would control cellular comms just as they do now with WiFi, and charge fees for the onboard cell you'd have to use.
Can be. Air rage incidents would certainly increase. Guaranteed there would be at least one idiot talking at the top of his/her voice about something incredibly stupid or uncomfortably personal... and half the plane would be dying to rip out the talker's throat
However you're right... he did not cite security, only the public's (and Congress's) overwhelming response in favor of no talking. Proves the FCC does listen when it asks for public input on a proposal.
Last edited:
Ok, I have some thoughts on this....
I'm happy personally about the ruling because I would hate someone talking next to me on the phone, BUT....
What's the difference between this and talking to someone on Skype using in-plane Wi-Fi? Or people just talking to each other normally on a plane? Or watching a video with no headphones? Or any other annoying thing? Why is the government arbitrarily limiting this one thing?
I thought this FCC guy was a conservative. Why not let the airlines compete on this... some could allow flights with cell use, other could not. Price range and competition could take place.
Now all the airlines can freely gouge us all for Wi-Fi plans and we have nowhere else to go but directly through the airline's service.
I know on that surface it feels like a "win" for most of you, but it's actually more of a win for the giant airline corporations and a loss for your personal freedoms to do what you want.
Again - Thonk about it - what is the difference between this and Wi-Fi Skype? NOTHING. So why is the government interfering here?
I'm happy personally about the ruling because I would hate someone talking next to me on the phone, BUT....
What's the difference between this and talking to someone on Skype using in-plane Wi-Fi? Or people just talking to each other normally on a plane? Or watching a video with no headphones? Or any other annoying thing? Why is the government arbitrarily limiting this one thing?
I thought this FCC guy was a conservative. Why not let the airlines compete on this... some could allow flights with cell use, other could not. Price range and competition could take place.
Now all the airlines can freely gouge us all for Wi-Fi plans and we have nowhere else to go but directly through the airline's service.
I know on that surface it feels like a "win" for most of you, but it's actually more of a win for the giant airline corporations and a loss for your personal freedoms to do what you want.
Again - Thonk about it - what is the difference between this and Wi-Fi Skype? NOTHING. So why is the government interfering here?
True, but those were ridiculously expensive. Somewhere to the tune of $6 just to connect, and then $6 per MINUTE to talk. No one is going to gabbing away for long on those. With personal phones and unlimited minutes? Blah blah blah blah blah...
I think they should install whatever signal amplifiers are needed so that people can make all the calls they want on planes.
I recently suggested that they make the restrooms a little smaller, made the cabin temperature either 20 degrees hotter or colder, and continually played Weekend At Bernie's 2 as the on-flight video. If they invented a device that made babies cry even more, or added a 'take-a-selfie-with-the-pilot-while-they're-flying-the-plane' session, this would be exceptional.
On an unrelated note, I've been thinking about investing in a bar at my local airport that serves alcohol.
I recently suggested that they make the restrooms a little smaller, made the cabin temperature either 20 degrees hotter or colder, and continually played Weekend At Bernie's 2 as the on-flight video. If they invented a device that made babies cry even more, or added a 'take-a-selfie-with-the-pilot-while-they're-flying-the-plane' session, this would be exceptional.
On an unrelated note, I've been thinking about investing in a bar at my local airport that serves alcohol.
Please tell me what airline you've flown on that allows you to make calls using apps like Skype and FaceTime while in flight and connected to the WiFi? Because I've personally yet to see an airline allow this.
Use the wifi
Gogo has real competition withViaSat/Exede free inflight wifi now
Last edited:
That's currently also forbidden (and in-flight Wifi usually blocks VoIP services like Skype anyway since the satellite uplink doesn't have a lot of bandwidth).
People speak differently (often louder) on the phone than in person. But yes, people talking for along time right next to you can also be very annoying. Fortunately it doesn't happen very often.
Nobody does that.
As has been mentioned several times already, it wouldn't be any different with cellular service.
Doesn't affect it as those services use the built in in flight wifi.
[doublepost=1491878980][/doublepost]
I thought republicans were supposed to oppose regulations and stupid rules. Yet here we have another one. Telling a private airline what services they're allowed to offer on airplanes that they pay for.
Last edited:
It's tough to say how many people were really against this before this came out since no one spoke about it, s the assumption would be their happier. But when it all comes to public, ok, time to raise concerns, not never like it, but because the media tells me to.
If people had a problem with this even before the announcements, why was it not spreading then ?
Not all planes use WI-Fi as yet.?
If people had a problem with this even before the announcements, why was it not spreading then ?
Not all planes use WI-Fi as yet.?
Assuming no mountains/buildings are in the way, cell connections operate perfectly at ranges well over 200,000 feet.Exactly. And what some are forgetting - or never knew in the first place - is that cell tower antennas are configured with directional antennas and a down tilt (usually 3 degrees) to cover a very specific area or "cell" (imagine that). They do not face upward.
The proposal would have required all the carriers to build out independent systems, or lease satellite time to beam to a link in the plane. Either of those options would certainly have been costly plan adders. Can you imagine sitting next to someone with an ego as big as their checkbook who feels entitled to talk long and loud? Yeah, no fun.
But hey... those of you that wanted this, go ahead and try to use a cell phone above 1000 - 1500 feet, inside an aluminum tube. Let us all know how that works.
Cell towers don't point at the sky because why would they, and metropolitan towers measure latency and only accept connections from nearby devices as a network management/load balancing technique.
If you're somewhere like regional Australia, all of the towers sit on high mountains/hills and will accept connections from any distance. I've made calls and browsed the internet while more than 200,000 feet from the nearest cell tower.
But all of this could easily be changed and very cheaply if the FAA didn't make it illegal to use your cell modem in a flight.
We all could be using our "cheap" cellular data instead of the plane wifi if this law was replaced with a simple ban against using a device to make calls. All our phones are equipped with an GPS that can measure altitude within a dozen feet or so, which means the FCC could even make automatic airplane mode a mandatory software feature for future phone models, and only allow those phones to be used during a flight.
I've gotta agree with you on this.
Assuming here that there is no actual safety concern with the signal itself, I can somewhat understand wanting to ban talking on the phone on a flight (though it seems like this could also simply be a choice left up to individual carriers), but continuing to ban the use of any cellular signal, period, on a flight is just a means of making sure that they can't use their own data plan instead of the airlines'.
Whether you can actually get a signal at 35,000 feet, I have no idea--probably not. But technically, if it's safe to use cellular data on a plane, there is no logical reason to prohibit people trying, since you can already use a data connection that the airline sells you.
And what does that "ghetto" comment mean?
It could mean something very offensive.
I don't want to hear anyone on the phone next to me.
If that were an actual problem the thousands of active cell phones in the terminals wouldn't be allowed either.
It's such a weird situation, the airline has control over any mobile data and could shut calls off anytime they wanted, for example during take off and landing and during turbulence or in an emergency. They could divide passengers by quite zone etc. I don't think many of you travel on planes very often but it's loud engine noise all the way, you rarely hear hardly anyone talking even when they are. I don't think allowing calls would mean everyone was yaking away, in fact I think the opposite would be true as many use their phones for internet only these days and could be occupied with other things. People get stressed without phone access and would actually calm people down IMO.
I really believe mobile use on planes is a great thing that shouldn't be shot down because one or two people talk loud on phone calls! I mean that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I really believe mobile use on planes is a great thing that shouldn't be shot down because one or two people talk loud on phone calls! I mean that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
They could divide passengers by quite zone etc.
We have "quiet zones" on UK Trains. They are most amusingly named. And whilst you sit there, listening to one half of several conversations and the sound of somebody else's children making too much noise, safe in the knowledge that should you transgress any of the Train Company's income streams they'll stop just short of calling Armed Police on you, but if you complain about another passenger you'll get no help at all, that you can spend your journey looking at the "Quiet Zone" labels and pondering on the death of Corporate liability, the lost meaning of words and lack of manners in general.
We have "quiet zones" on UK Trains. They are most amusingly named. And whilst you sit there, listening to one half of several conversations and the sound of somebody else's children making too much noise, safe in the knowledge that should you transgress any of the Train Company's income streams they'll stop just short of calling Armed Police on you, but if you complain about another passenger you'll get no help at all, that you can spend your journey looking at the "Quiet Zone" labels and pondering on the death of Corporate liability, the lost meaning of words and lack of manners in general.
Yes, but what does this have to do with web browsing on a plane?
[doublepost=1491902794][/doublepost]
How is this different from two people sitting next to each other and talking, besides the fact you will now only hear one of the two? Btw, most usually there will be no cell connection anyways.
[doublepost=1491903168][/doublepost]
This is quite stupid. They cannot call it business class anymore... I don't see any harm in people making phone calls as long they mind the people around them a bit; it is actually no different from people talking to each other on a flight.