If you can't see the difference between a crying baby and your example, well, I really don't know what to say.
I can say with certainty that you don't have kids though.
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 Takes Steps to Approve Cell Phones in Flight as Transportation Department Considers Banning Calls on Planes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you can't see the difference between a crying baby and your example, well, I really don't know what to say.
I can say with certainty that you don't have kids though.
Babies cry. They grow up to be adults. Then they buy the **** your company sells. So no babies, no crying, no buyers of your ****, no job for you, no reason for you to do business travel.
So why don't you just cut to the chase and stop business travel? Problem solved.
Good point. However, then you'd probably be paying cruise ship level rates on your calls which would make them prohibitively expensive for most. That's what I'm counting on keeping most people off the phone. If you've got a true emergency, fine--then spend $10 on a two minute call.
Think of it another way, extra seats would become available if those skeptics about RF radiation...
If this rule does come in, then an airplane would be the worse position to be in..
On the plus side, you can now for for that holiday, you were otherwise sold "No more room".
In actual fact, i reckon half of the aircraft would become empty. so its not all bad,
Just a note: where would the picocell connect to ? It would have to link to your home base at some point otherwise the charges couldn't be done... That's how international roaming works.
It would have to be a airplane cell.... otherwise just think of the drama mobile carriers would have with connection.
If this rule does come in, then an airplane would be the worse position to be in..
On the plus side, you can now for for that holiday, you were otherwise sold "No more room".
In actual fact, i reckon half of the aircraft would become empty. so its not all bad,
Just a note: where would the picocell connect to ? It would have to link to your home base at some point otherwise the charges couldn't be done... That's how international roaming works.
It would have to be a airplane cell.... otherwise just think of the drama mobile carriers would have with connection.
Last edited:
My holiday travels are unfortunately the minority of my flying experiences, but thankfully most people i come across are accepting and understanding about parenting and flying, I too whilst on my business flights find it easy to just put on my headphones.... most parents with babies in distress are having a hard enough time as it is and don't need judgmental passengers with funny attitudes.
To all the other passengers who have had to hear my and others children in distress, i appreciate your patience, and to all the other parents I totally understand.... and to the few people who are bothered by my choice to travel with kids..... If you have a problem with it... its your problem not mine, we do all we can to make our kids comfortable on flights and if people still have a problem with that then.... oh well!!
Ant
Yeah, it's not like I've ever heard some obnoxious loudmouthed type-A salesman in the row behind me, going on and on about his big business deal.
I used to take a redeye back from the west coast all the time, arriving in Dallas at about 7 in the morning to take a final flight to my hometown. All the business types would get on the plane, loaded to their eyeballs in coffee, and start gabbing all the way to Nashville.
I don't want to listen to your cell phone conversations, but then again:
a) I don't want to hear your business conversations all the way to the next airport;
b) I don't want to hear your crying baby;
c) I don't want a sweaty obese person's fat spilling into my seat, crowding me so much that I can't sit without your arms touching me and your fat thighs squeezing against mine;
d) I don't want to smell your Axe Body Spray or your reeking perfume;
Four things:
Buy noise-cancelling headphones; they won't block it ALL out but they really help.
If you don't want to smell cheesy cologne and cloying perfume, don't travel in public convenances.
If you don't like children, snoring people, being crowded into a seat, rent a car and drive; children fuss sometimes and it's part of life. Planes are public vehicles and not everybody is like you, Mr. Bigshot Businessjerk.
I want to make a cell call if I so choose; do they block cell calls on trains, buses and subways? No.
Nor should they.
Last edited:
It is unreal that the FCC would not allow devices to be used during takeoff and landing in airport mode until recently and now they would approve calls??????
I have not talked to one person on a plane when I travel that thinks this is a good idea. Business travelers as well as vacationers. I travel a lot and this is a disturbing development.
This is one BAN I would fully support. It is just a stupid idea and totally inconsiderate.
I have not talked to one person on a plane when I travel that thinks this is a good idea. Business travelers as well as vacationers. I travel a lot and this is a disturbing development.
This is one BAN I would fully support. It is just a stupid idea and totally inconsiderate.
A lot of people are confused about what the FCC is saying.
- They still will NOT allow calls below 10,000 feet.
- Above 10,000 feet, they will ONLY allow calls via a cell inside the airplane itself.
See my Post #176 above.
If airlines do allow it, I hope there are quiet areas available.
I think a good compromise at first would be to just enable texts.
The airlines will make money regardless of whether in air cell service is price competitive or not, because it's the service providers that will pay to have the equipment on the planes. Yes, there is a revenue sharing component to the call side of things, but I'll again say that the total usage of the system will be small, just like the aircell phones of yore. And any issue with loud talkers is ever present regardless of whether they are on a phone or talking to their neighbor.
I still say this conversation of worry about a cabin filled with people talking on their phones is a red herring. Buses and trains have had the issue far longer and there are rules for things like quiet cars, not to mention self limiting that many people exhibit.
Is it also "funny" when people speak in absolutes and make false analogies? People do complain about cellphone use on buses and trains. Here in Chicago, in fact, we have a "quiet car" on the commuter trains, in part, because of complaints about cellphones.
I highly suspect that this is about making the tech available - and then allowing the airlines to choose what to allow. Remember that most people don't use their phones primarily to talk on anymore - the airlines could allow only data and text messaging for example. Virgin has allowed data, text, and up to six simultaneous calls in Europe for years now and I don't think there has been any uproar.
I agree. I see no difference between a screaming baby (usually unavoidable), people talking, the announcements on the PA system, and someone talking on a phone.
I think the "I hate hearing someone on a cellphone" crowd are really just hating that they can't hear the other side of the conversation.
Why don't we ban the engines? They make a heckuva lot of noise. It bothers me. Government, please act!
Michael
The huge difference is that, to use the back-of-the-seat phones, you had to swipe a credit card.
That alone was a big clue that it was going to cost a lot of $$, and made the user hesitate to talk too long
I fear that most people won't have that kind of automatic restraint with their own phone.
A lot of ignorance of the issue I read.
- It is likely only allowed on aircraft with satellite-cell-relays installed (and as one pointed out could be out of range of ground based service towers).
- Use of service will be at a premium, a very steep premium (on top of service plan).
- Airlines can still ban use at their discretion, such as at night and just at takeoff and landing.
- There will be emergency reasons to have the ability, but even then it will be rare.
The cell service providers had the opportunity to provide in-flight phone services years ago. GTE and AT&T did.
It wasn't abused. The prices were so high, hardly anyone used it. And the prices didn't fall.
Ultimately, both companies abandoned it, and the equipment was removed from the airplanes.
Gogo Inflight has the ground-based infrastructure to provide talk and text services, alongside their Internet service. They already offer it to business aviation.
But, they aren't yet profitable, and have actually raised their prices for inflight WiFi. I don't think they will offer a great bargain on phone calls -- especially for people that are used to unlimited talk/text for no extra charge.
Without the ground based infrastructure, a provider will have to rely on satellite, such as Iridium or Inmarsat. If you think that might be a bargain, check out the per-minute cost for voice calls on those networks.
So how much suffering do you want to put the baby through for granny's benefit? Note I'm talking babies here, not older kids who can start to have a clue about what they're doing and why (and maybe understand when you tell them that their head isn't actually going to explode). I'd happily give a free pass in cases where granny isn't going to live to see baby's third birthday - I don't think that accounts for the majority of screaming sprogs.
As you say, people do tend to shout on phones.
But then there's no particular cause for debating how annoying people who talk are. Using phones is currently banned on planes so we're discussing it. Talking isn't banned on planes.
I'm sure everybody who flies regularly will have their "annoying *****s who talked loudly all the way through a 6 hour flight" stories.
My experience in small aircraft is quite different.
I am regularly able to get usable signal to almost 10,000ft (9500 +/- 100).
But as you probably know it is fleeting, a min or 2, and quite spotty.
Plus it is a SMALL aircraft (venerable Cessna 172), much less metal in way then the thick skin of say 737.
And recall the 9/11/2001 cell phone intercepts from high alt as well.
Still, the above is more of exception then rule, good post.
I think you got your exaggerated ideas about people talking on a phone from movies and TV.
Sure, certain people seemed to want to show off that they had a cellphone way back when (like the '90s). But now? Gimme a break. Everyone has a mobile phone--there is no elitism attached to it.
I have over a million miles on just one airline and I don't hear what you hear. I certainly didn't when every seat, or group of seats, had a phone available for use. Or maybe I have a gift for tuning out and otherwise not letting myself get bothered by the little stuff.
Michael
The huge difference is that, to use the back-of-the-seat phones, you had to swipe a credit card.
That alone was a big clue that it was going to cost a lot of $$, and made the user hesitate to talk too long
I fear that most people won't have that kind of automatic restraint with their own phone.
It will only take one flight where someone uses their cell phone and gets an added $50 for roaming charges and taxes for their 5 minute call to eliminate their using it on future flights.
And again, the system can currently only manage less than 10 concurrent calls, so it's not going to be a plane filled with 100 phone conversations happening at once.
Even in air wifi has been worthless for anything other than simple email and web browsing. Thinking call service is going to be better is foolish at best.
For my business travels, I have issues even talking on the phone in public at the airport. I don't want people to hear what I'm talking about. I know not everyone is that way and there are circumstances where a call is required, but the idea that planes will be filled with 10's or hundreds of people talking on their phones is just not going to happen.
Bull ****. I HATE when I'm sitting on a bus and some jerk is screaming into his/her phone. No one wants to hear about your day or your plans for the night, it can wait 20 minutes till you get home.
Come on guys, this problem is only slightly complicated, and likely to not be the fantasy or nightmare you're imagining.
1. Obnoxious conversations: While I don't relish the thought of sitting next to someone yammering away on their phone, often they'll yammer away anyway. But the more relevant thing is, USDOT doesn't ban cellphone use on interstate bus or train transport, so arguing that it should be banned on planes is tough.
2. Safety: Passenger calls keep the caller from paying attention to flight crew, which can be a safety issue. Considering it's only above 10000 ft, safety briefs and such are already done. People drink, stretch their legs, etc. at this point, so that's also hard to argue. Furthermore, some flights have in flight calling via a built in phone anyway. It's hard to draw a distinction between the cellphone and built in one in terms of safety.
3. Economics: Airlines will be repeating the cell signal via their equipment, which gives them the right to terminate service, charge out the nose for service/roaming (which I imagine airlines would jump all over), etc. that means that 1 and 2 are mitigated: people won't want to pay exorbitant fees, and just as the build in phones can be shut off in case of safety issues (even without the 10000+ ft constraint), so can the cellular service.
To sum up, all of the extremists in the thread are forgetting that whatever dreams/nightmares they have in mind, the airlines will endeavor to ruin it. Status quo.
1. Obnoxious conversations: While I don't relish the thought of sitting next to someone yammering away on their phone, often they'll yammer away anyway. But the more relevant thing is, USDOT doesn't ban cellphone use on interstate bus or train transport, so arguing that it should be banned on planes is tough.
2. Safety: Passenger calls keep the caller from paying attention to flight crew, which can be a safety issue. Considering it's only above 10000 ft, safety briefs and such are already done. People drink, stretch their legs, etc. at this point, so that's also hard to argue. Furthermore, some flights have in flight calling via a built in phone anyway. It's hard to draw a distinction between the cellphone and built in one in terms of safety.
3. Economics: Airlines will be repeating the cell signal via their equipment, which gives them the right to terminate service, charge out the nose for service/roaming (which I imagine airlines would jump all over), etc. that means that 1 and 2 are mitigated: people won't want to pay exorbitant fees, and just as the build in phones can be shut off in case of safety issues (even without the 10000+ ft constraint), so can the cellular service.
To sum up, all of the extremists in the thread are forgetting that whatever dreams/nightmares they have in mind, the airlines will endeavor to ruin it. Status quo.
I think that racist and bigoted speech is bad, but far be it from me to believe that it is not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If you do not understand that difference between believing something is bad and the need for a law or regulation banning it, I invite you to relieve your intestinal blockage and promptly remove your head from your behind.
God forbid, if the FCC drops the ban on cellphone usage during flight, we wait and see what actually happens before passing regulation that may either be unnecessary or not well-tuned to the real problem. And if inflight noise becomes an actual problem, the party most interested in finding a solution will be the airlines. They could, for example, restrict cellphone usage in seats near the front of the plane so that those that want to enjoy a quieter ride have that option and those that need to use their phone will be able to as well.