Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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...

img0428.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
This also ties into the recent ban on devices originating from certain countries. DHS is worried about terrorists triggering bombs in the belly of the plane using cell phones from the cabin.
"We can't trigger the bomb by cellular, that would be against FCC regulations!"
 
What a gas bag. This guy has a singular agenda, and that is to enrich infrastructure businesses by reducing choice and privacy for customers. The actual reason why he want to ditch this move is to continue to allow airlines to make ridiculous fees off of WiFi.

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.

This has no basis as a regulatory issue from what I can tell- certainly the previous FCC administration did not think so. It's not a safety issue.

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 :eek::mad:

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:
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5105973
Ummmmm... Ya, this has nothing to do with people talking, I remember several years ago airplanes having the phone headsets built into the back of the seats.....

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.
 
Again - Thonk about it - what is the difference between this and Wi-Fi Skype? NOTHING. So why is the government interfering here?

What about whatsapp, viber and facetime can we shut those off too?

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.
 
Will this affect the T-Mobile use of texting while flying? I agree with ban on people talking on the phone while flying. At least Texting should be allowed.
Use the wifi
Gogo has real competition withViaSat/Exede free inflight wifi now
 
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?
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).
Or people just talking to each other normally on a plane?
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.
Or watching a video with no headphones?
Nobody does that.
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.
As has been mentioned several times already, it wouldn't be any different with cellular service.
 
Will this affect the T-Mobile use of texting while flying? I agree with ban on people talking on the phone while flying. At least Texting should be allowed.
Doesn't affect it as those services use the built in in flight wifi.
[doublepost=1491878980][/doublepost]
This, I believe, is how this technology works. Btw, this has existed on international airlines for years now. Flying transcontinental, they always disable the cellular service once they are over US waters. The airline makes money charging you for the service (it's not free). Some examples are available in the article below:

https://thepointsguy.com/2013/12/in...lines-allow-talking-and-texting-on-the-phone/

The flights have not devolved into noisy painful experiences. Honestly you find very few people using the service (similar to airline phones that used to be on the back of seats back in the day). End of the day, a non-news worthy point - expensive service that few people use and has very little impact except marking the U.S. as one of the few places that do not allow the technology.
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:
I can understand not allowing talking on a cell phone but why dis-allow web surfing?
 
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 ?

I can understand not allowing talking on a cell phone but why dis-allow web surfing?

Not all planes use WI-Fi as yet.?
 
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. :)
Assuming no mountains/buildings are in the way, cell connections operate perfectly at ranges well over 200,000 feet.

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.
 
How can anyone come in here and support this? This isn't a ban on talking. It's not even a ban on phone calls. It's only a ban on using the cellular signal so that you'll buy wifi/phone service. If you're so concerned about obnoxious talkers, chime in when that's actually on the table.
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.
 
This has everything to do with money, it's the same with hotels with the cell jammer, they want you to use their services.

It's amazing how easily people can be convinced to side with big business over your right to use services you already paid for.

You nailed it! So true...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea. If I had to sit on a 2-3 hour flight with some ghetto ass running their mouth on the phone the entire time I would jump off the plane.

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.
 
According to the FAA, massive cell signals can interfere with communications equipment and for all I gather GPS as well. The reason we turn off cellular phones is to limit cell interference during take off and landings as the com needs to be clear for the tower to communicate.
If that were an actual problem the thousands of active cell phones in the terminals wouldn't be allowed either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexgowers
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.
 
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.
 
Good. Can you imagine sitting next to someone talking loudly on their phone the entire flight? Now multiply that across an entire plane.

Yes, but what does this have to do with web browsing on a plane?
[doublepost=1491902794][/doublepost]
Yea. If I had to sit on a 2-3 hour flight with some ghetto ass running their mouth on the phone the entire time I would jump off the plane.

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]
" Taking it off the table permanently will be a victory for Americans across the country who, like me, value a moment of quiet at 30,000 feet"

That's great, when you spend $3500 extra for a business class seat and can't even continue your business on a 7 hour flight.

But let me guess, we can continue to use our credit card to make on flight calls using their system, how do we stay quiet, we mime?

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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.