Airlines should ban adding more seats in coach so there can be more leg room tired of feeling like a suitcase, lets get back at what flying is all about.
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.
U.S. Department of Transportation to Pursue Ban on In-Flight Cell Phone Calls
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would airline policies be better somehow?
----------
That can do it quite well too.
I really, really hope they don't allow cell phone calls on flights. It would be soooo annoying to be on a plane for hours next to someone who's talking non-stop on the phone. It's one of the last places where you have a hall pass not to be available and I'd like to see it stay that way.
With devices allowing SMS over wifi then their is no need to talk on a cell phone on a plane. You can text someone to pick you up.
I agree with this decision and I don't even fly. But even the slightest chance of a phone bringing a plane down in my mind is enough to say no, and then it would be very annoying being in a metal tube for several hours with all sorts of languages chatting on phones, phones ringing all the time etc.
I agree with this decision and I don't even fly. But even the slightest chance of a phone bringing a plane down in my mind is enough to say no, and then it would be very annoying being in a metal tube for several hours with all sorts of languages chatting on phones, phones ringing all the time etc.
If the price for using the cellular voice picocell is high enough that only the passengers in first class can afford it, then at least the passengers in business and cattle class can get some peace and quiet.
Trust me when I say load cell phone calling is only a problem on Trains! On over the 100's of flights the worst is screaming kids and nonexistent parenting on the plane. They should more worried by that! 
I'm still trying to figure out why my GPS doesn't work with my offline maps app (Navigon) when Airplane mode is off and location services is on.
This story should be tagged as political...
People should recognize the implications of this proposed rule: it's called growing government control. When the FCC was attempting to minimize RF emissions from personal electronic devices, that was a very real and technically sound decision to prevent EMI (electronic magnetic interference) with avionics that could have disastrous consequences. As electronic devices mature and this risk dwindles to insignificance, the FCC is removing these restrictions as they should. The DOT stepping in now to establish voice call restrictions is beyond the purview of the federal government and unjustifiable. We don't need or want the government telling us what we can and cannot do in a misbegotten effort to enhance passenger comfort.
People should recognize the implications of this proposed rule: it's called growing government control. When the FCC was attempting to minimize RF emissions from personal electronic devices, that was a very real and technically sound decision to prevent EMI (electronic magnetic interference) with avionics that could have disastrous consequences. As electronic devices mature and this risk dwindles to insignificance, the FCC is removing these restrictions as they should. The DOT stepping in now to establish voice call restrictions is beyond the purview of the federal government and unjustifiable. We don't need or want the government telling us what we can and cannot do in a misbegotten effort to enhance passenger comfort.
You are forgetting, VOIP, Skype, Facetime and other means of communication. It's not that a conversation uses a cellular network that makes cell phone use annoying, its the conversation when the other party is not present and is carried in a loud voice with no regard for all others within earshot that makes it a problem.
Agreed! It's up to the Airline to manage passenger behavior in their planes, not the Government.
----------
Absolutely! Everything Government touches turns to costly $#!T.
Do you really think there isn't going to be some AH (there will be ONE on EVERY flight) who thinks it's perfectly ok to yak away on the phone to someone for basically the duration of the flight? I know you aren't originally from the US, but you're naive if you haven't noticed how rude and ignorant so many Americans tend to be with their self-centered attitude and outlook.
jav6454 said:
And your argument is basically that even though we have perfectly acceptable and currently useful ways of sending a basic notification, that we should cater to those who can't figure out how to type a simple text message so that we can open up a can of worms to let some soccer mom yap at her kids from the plane the whole time?
No thanks.
I mean really, why do we need to allow calls in flight? Between properly informing a loved one of your flight number so they can track it online and the ability to send a text message, any "emergency" is already handled. Allowing calls on airplanes then only serves for people to use as entertainment purposes for themselves and themselves only, to the great annoyance of everyone around them. No thanks. If grandpa can't figure out how to send a text message, that's not my problem - grandpa's just pathetic and outdated and there's no excuse for not learning how to be able to send a text message.
Meanwhile, right this second in England. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live--fighter-jet-escorts-7566010
The bold part is, quite explicitly, false.
In point of fact, the Constitution *does* list everything the (federal) government can do. In fact, the Constitution explicitly *says* the federal government can only do what it says it can do. (And, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, it lists a number of things that the (federal) government *can't* do.
----------
I can't imagine sitting next to someone talking into a phone for a protracted period of time 12 - 16 inches from my head. There is enough stress in-flight now that by adding phone calls would most likely result in serious altercations 30,000 feet in the air.
This is a passenger safety issue, pure and simple.
If *you* are so violent that you can't deal with the person in the seat next to you *talking* without "serious altercations", then you're right, it *is* a passenger safety issue. The solution, however, is to disallow you from flying, not to disallow other passengers *talking*.
In movies, yes; in real life, it's either a timer, a thumb or an RF trigger.
Bzzt. Most mobile phones reach multiple towers while cruising, some as far as 25 miles away, laterally. Pinging multiple towers and moving between the sites rapidly is what causes the connection issue, as the cellular network can't route/handoff the call between towers quickly enough.
Most mobile phones can reach towers up to 22 miles away (roughly line of sight over the horizon); some can reach 45 miles, depending on frequency. At altitude, without physical obstacles and in the thinner atmosphere above 10,000 feet, mobile phone signals can travel at least 25-30 miles.
Airliner fuselages are not shielded. Traditional metal construction does trap/degrade signals, somewhat, but there are holes in the structure (both figurative antenna windows and actual windows) and increasing use of composites.
Theaters are private property; the owners/management can decide the critera for which a 'patron' has become a 'tresspasser' and call the police if the tresspasser refuses to leave.
See above: it's not the lack of signal strength -- it's too much signal.
You might want to tell that to these non-discount carriers, who charge for WiFi:
- Air Canada
- Alaska Airlines
- American
- ANA
- Delta
- Emirates
- Lufthansa
- Singapore Airlines
- Southwest
- United
- US Airways
- Virgin America
(Yes, Southwest and Virgin America charge for WiFi.)
The FCC didn't ban in-flight use of "electronics;" the FAA issued a directive allowing airlines to establish policies banning devices suspected of interference. Most airlines decided that, if it had an 'Off' switch, it was banned on their planes.
The FCC did ban in-flight mobile phone use, largely because the cell phone network providers have issues when a single phone can connect to multiple cell sites at once (when at altitude), affecting service to terrestial phones.
You forgot the implicit right to 'freedom of movement/interstate travel' as defined by bench law in: Crandall v. Nevada and U.S. v. Wheeler. (Which is what gives the government more authority over behavior on an airline than movie theaters, which last I checked, tend not to travel between states.)
Yep, I spent 6 hours of flight from Charlotte to San Francisco next to a stinking half eaten McDonalds Happy Meal that both the owner and the crew did not intend to clean up.
Great idea of some of you to let phone calls also "self-regulate". We know that everyone will be in their best behaviour and be considerate.
Remember when planes used to have those phones in the seat backs that you could use? Those were weird.
I'm going to half-heartedly play devil's advocate here, and submit that it's a safety / security issue:
Because of the huge potential for air rage incidents.
Airplanes are not movie theaters where people can leave if they're annoyed (or stay inside and fight/shoot like happened in Florida).
They're non-exitable tubes going 500 mph with people who often feel a bit trapped inside already. (Not me, but I know plenty who do.)
Exactly, and likely the real reason the government wants to continue a ban on their use on planes. Dont blame them....just more life-changing fallout from the evil rise of terrorism in this century.
Lol, guess that proves what I said, that they would eventually begin to charge. I flew SW from Austin to Vegas last Feb and my flight had free wifi and Direct TV. The Virgin flight last Sept had free wifi too. I know because both my grandkids used it. Must have promo. I suppose it's just too enticing a money maker, rather like baggage fees.
I'm actually ok with it because I suspect the DOT will leave in-flight calls up to the airlines and as long as it's expensive that may keep the noise level down. Of course there will always be that 'one guy' who thinks rules don't apply to him/her (although it's usually a guy in my experience) and doesn't have a civil bone in his body. He doesn't care a whit about anyone else and whether he is being rude, after all 'the world revolves around him and if it doesn't it should'. He will incessantly talk, probably so loudly everyone within 10 rows will hear him.
I usually travel only with ear buds, mostly to wear whether I'm listening to music/audiobook or not. I don't travel for the titilatting conversation with seat mates. Guess I'll be looking at the Bose over-the-ear headphones. It's just not worth getting into a tizzy over.
Oh, we've noticed. Believe me, we've noticed.
We're just not sure what your behavior here has to do with in-flight calling.
Hasn't been true in years, and probably never was true for CDMA or WCDMA devices, which purposely use more than one cell at a time.
One problem is that cells not designed to broadcast upward. So above a couple thousand feet, there are lots of dead spots. In the example below, the red dot is an airliner at about 8,000 feet. It can travel in and out of coverage in seconds.
In order to survive lightning strikes, composite airliners have a fine metal mesh or film embedded all around. (Mostly copper, as aluminum would have a galvanic reaction with the carbon fiber.)
So airliners (aluminum or composite) are Faraday shields, with yes, windows as openings.