Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, in the end none of this discussion will probably matter, because I'm quite certain the airlines WILL block AT&T Wifi Calling when they get around to it. Sounds like T-Mobile is already blocked, and the rules must be applied universally or else there will be a sh*tstorm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iphonedude2008
I would guess the blocking of wifi calling is mainly the airlines wanting to keep wifi data usage down - their bandwidth is probably limited and the occasional email or slow web page loading can easily be tolerated. I doubt they care if you're actually talking, as airplanes are noisy environments anyway and people are often talking to each other.
 
I would guess the blocking of wifi calling is mainly the airlines wanting to keep wifi data usage down - their bandwidth is probably limited and the occasional email or slow web page loading can easily be tolerated. I doubt they care if you're actually talking, as airplanes are noisy environments anyway and people are often talking to each other.

This is the first logical reason I have read on this thread as to why WiFi calling SHOULD be blocked. Otherwise I will have to agree that I see nothing wrong with allowing this on planes.

Blocking it because you want it to be blocked is as ridiculous as those who would claim its their right to make calls on a plane. Controlling technology shouldn't be out of convenience, it should be out of practicality IMO.
 
This is the first logical reason I have read on this thread as to why WiFi calling SHOULD be blocked. Otherwise I will have to agree that I see nothing wrong with allowing this on planes.

Blocking it because you want it to be blocked is as ridiculous as those who would claim its their right to make calls on a plane. Controlling technology shouldn't be out of convenience, it should be out of practicality IMO.

WiFi calling takes less than 1MB per minute.

Streaming videos on youtube is far worse.
 
WiFi calling takes less than 1MB per minute.

Streaming videos on youtube is far worse.

I think you missed the point of my post (unless I just worded it poorly), just because I think a reason might be logical doesn't necessarily mean its correct or I agree with it. I do admit I know nothing about airline bandwidth or how much stress WiFi calling places on servers, so I can't speak for or against.

I was just trying to state that limiting technology should be done for practicality. I would agree in that WiFi calling being banned for this reason is more sound than saying WiFi calling being banned because some people might get annoyed.
 
Last edited:
I think you missed the point of my post (unless I just worded it poorly), just because I think a reason might be logical doesn't necessarily mean its correct or I agree with it. I do admit I know nothing about airline bandwidth or how much stress WiFi calling places on servers, so I can't speak for or against.

I was just trying to state that regulating technology should be done for practicality. I would agree in that WiFi calling being banned for this reason is more sound than saying WiFi calling being banned because some people might get annoyed.
You worded it fine. And I agree. For that matter if you are looking for peace and quiet an airliner is not the place to be. There are no "quiet sections."

As for the comment about phone call bandwidth compared to streaming video? It is irrelevant: you can't stream Youtube or any other video on most all airplane wifi services (or anything that would consume a lot of bandwidth). There just isn't much bandwidth coming in. Ergo, it is very likely that phone calls, including Skype, are prohibited due to bandwidth. Soon that will include AT&T wifi calling, I would think.



Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsynthMinded
I would guess the blocking of wifi calling is mainly the airlines wanting to keep wifi data usage down - their bandwidth is probably limited and the occasional email or slow web page loading can easily be tolerated. I doubt they care if you're actually talking, as airplanes are noisy environments anyway and people are often talking to each other.

I'm not sure about that. When the FAA relaxed device usage restrictions, there was a pretty vocal outcry from passengers fearing that phone calls would be allowed, and how obnoxious that would be. Much like the discussion happening in this thread now. Most people bristle at the idea (I don't, but I'm the minority). So I think the airlines set policy based on both bandwidth and customer satisfaction. There might even be a safety justification (people on the phone may miss safety instructions).

Given that we can communicate with our smartphones using many silent alternatives to voice calls, I suspect this will remain the policy for a long time.
 
I'm praying to the Spirit of St. Louis that phone use, in any way, shape, or form, is never allowed on airplanes.

It's bad enough sitting next to two people who can't S.T.F.U. for 10 minutes of a 5 hour flight.

I can't begin to imagine the rage I'd feel, listening to someone sitting alone, who would otherwise be silent, yammering for hours on end, just because he/she can.

I recently took a 3 hour Amtrak train, and some dude was on his phone the ENTIRE time.

If this happens on an airplane I'm on, mark my words, you are going to read about me in the newspapers.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty funny people think that a phone conversation in a loud environment isn't annoying. Just today I was at the gym and this jackass was on his phone on a machine for a half hour. Yes, you can hear them just fine because people just talk louder when the environment is louder. Unfortunately it's not background noise like the environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob
It's pretty funny people think that a phone conversation in a loud environment isn't annoying. Just today I was at the gym and this jackass was on his phone on a machine for a half hour. Yes, you can hear them just fine because people just talk louder when the environment is louder. Unfortunately it's not background noise like the environment.

No one is saying it isn't annoying, but certain people have thresholds that are higher than others. I like peace and quiet as much as the next person but I don't just sit there quietly seething. If a phone conversation is annoying me I will either ignore it, pop my headphones in, or actually say something to the person if it gets that bad. Limiting tech for that reason is primitive and pointless, we should be limiting "jackasses" specifically.
 
Last edited:
No one is saying it isn't annoying, but certain people have thresholds that are higher than others. I like peace and quiet as much as the next person but I don't just sit there quietly seething. If a phone conversation is annoying me I will either ignore it, pop my headphones in, or actually say something to the person if it gets that bad. Limiting tech for that reason is primitive and pointless, we should be limiting "jackasses" specifically.
Primitive and pointless. Hardly. With technology comes unintended effects which sometimes are regulated due to their undesirable nature. I could list any number of examples but I'm sure you can come up with plenty all on your own.
 
Primitive and pointless. Hardly. With technology comes unintended effects which sometimes are regulated due to their undesirable nature. I could list any number of examples but I'm sure you can come up with plenty all on your own.

No sarcasm, but could you list a few examples?

I really can't think of any instances off the top of my head where technology is physically disabled purely because it was considered annoying. I can think of plenty of examples where people are requested not to use certain technology because of social etiquette or that its unlawful, but it is still available for use.
 
No sarcasm, but could you list a few examples?

I really can't think of any instances off the top of my head where technology is physically disabled purely because it was considered annoying. I can think of plenty of examples where people are requested not to use certain technology because of social etiquette or that its unlawful, but it is still available for use.
To be clear, I said regulated not physically disabled. I also didn't limit it to something for simply being annoying.

Examples of disabling technology are much harder to come by since you're usually not reliant on a business for the service. But there are a number of businesses I've been in that ban their use for calls. The ubiquitous example being libraries.

There's other types of regulations like on vehicles. Semis can't use engine brakes in populated areas simply because they're annoying. Airplanes have to follow elevation, ground speed and flight path rules not just for safety but also for sound disturbance. There are noise code restrictions in almost every municipality day and night with night being more restrictive (knew quite a few people popped for that my teenage years).

If cell phone jammers were legal I think you'd find a lot of businesses employing them. As it is, there's no service on airlines but for the airlines providing it. In effect, they can jam communications by simply limiting service. They're in a completely different set of circumstances than, say, a movie theatre, hospital, or library.

I think what needs to be understood is that airlines are a special circumstance in which people are confined in a small space with no ability to get away. Most people are sleeping, reading, or watching a movie. The vast majority of people find phone calls to be aggravating in those circumstances so the airlines will do what they can to keep the majority of their customers happy.


Enough typing on my phone...
 
To be clear, I said regulated not physically disabled. I also didn't limit it to something for simply being annoying.

Examples of disabling technology are much harder to come by since you're usually not reliant on a business for the service. But there are a number of businesses I've been in that ban their use for calls. The ubiquitous example being libraries.

There's other types of regulations like on vehicles. Semis can't use engine brakes in populated areas simply because they're annoying. Airplanes have to follow elevation, ground speed and flight path rules not just for safety but also for sound disturbance. There are noise code restrictions in almost every municipality day and night with night being more restrictive (knew quite a few people popped for that my teenage years).

If cell phone jammers were legal I think you'd find a lot of businesses employing them. As it is, there's no service on airlines but for the airlines providing it. In effect, they can jam communications by simply limiting service. They're in a completely different set of circumstances than, say, a movie theatre, hospital, or library.

I think what needs to be understood is that airlines are a special circumstance in which people are confined in a small space with no ability to get away. Most people are sleeping, reading, or watching a movie. The vast majority of people find phone calls to be aggravating in those circumstances so the airlines will do what they can to keep the majority of their customers happy.


Enough typing on my phone...

You are right, then I guess your post actually had nothing to do with mine. You may have not been specific, but if you look at the original post you quoted I was trying to be pretty specific to the context what I was reading in this thread: In a completely public place technology being disabled purely because how people used it was annoying. Also my use of regulation/limitations on technology was referring to the technology itself (a phone jammer in the movie theatre vs. a rule/law stating no cellphone use in theatres).

Outside of that context, I don't disagree with your examples and now can think of plenty on my own. I also agree that if illegal practices became legal, plenty of people would employ them for convenience. However, convenience aside what are practical reasons for a commercial business to jam phone signals (or ban VoIP, if WiFi is available)?

I am actually curious about this because I already think WiFi calling/texting on cell phones is a big step forward, even on airlines that are providing WiFi service.
 
Last edited:
You are right, then I guess your post actually had nothing to do with mine. You may have not been specific, but if you look at the original post you quoted I was trying to be pretty specific to the context what I was reading in this thread: In a completely public place technology being disabled purely because how people used it was annoying. Also my use of regulation/limitations on technology was referring to the technology itself (a phone jammer in the movie theatre vs. a rule/law stating no cellphone use in theatres).

Outside of that context, I don't disagree with your examples and now can think of plenty on my own. I also agree that if illegal practices became legal, plenty of people would employ them for convenience. However, convenience aside what are practical reasons for a commercial business to jam phone signals (or ban VoIP, if WiFi is available)?

I am actually curious about this because I already think WiFi calling/texting on cell phones is a big step forward, even on airlines that are providing WiFi service.
I don't think there would be widespread use, just prevalent in certain business types. It would mostly be used in businesses susceptible to disruption (theaters, churches, certain upscale restaurants, etc.) unlike a place like a coffee shop.

I know you're a fan of social pressure dealing with rude people but it puts many in a no-win situation. Most people don't want to confront others and it always has the possibility to turn out poorly no matter how well intentioned. Do you put up with the rude person and have your time ruined or confront them and be in a bad disposition thereafter? If you're a business owner and can simply remove the issue from the outset wouldn't you do it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob
I don't think there would be widespread use, just prevalent in certain business types. It would mostly be used in businesses susceptible to disruption (theaters, churches, certain upscale restaurants, etc.) unlike a place like a coffee shop.

I know you're a fan of social pressure dealing with rude people but it puts many in a no-win situation. Most people don't want to confront others and it always has the possibility to turn out poorly no matter how well intentioned. Do you put up with the rude person and have your time ruined or confront them and be in a bad disposition thereafter? If you're a business owner and can simply remove the issue from the outset wouldn't you do it?

That is a good point and I guess a reason I can accept for it being disabled, hadn't thought of it with regards to avoiding conflict among passengers. I have lived a pretty sheltered life which involves me not being in a public situation that has gotten out of hand, but I can't deny they happen even over trivial matters.
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I said regulated not physically disabled. I also didn't limit it to something for simply being annoying.

Examples of disabling technology are much harder to come by since you're usually not reliant on a business for the service. But there are a number of businesses I've been in that ban their use for calls. The ubiquitous example being libraries.

There's other types of regulations like on vehicles. Semis can't use engine brakes in populated areas simply because they're annoying. Airplanes have to follow elevation, ground speed and flight path rules not just for safety but also for sound disturbance. There are noise code restrictions in almost every municipality day and night with night being more restrictive (knew quite a few people popped for that my teenage years).

If cell phone jammers were legal I think you'd find a lot of businesses employing them.
And you would find they wouldn't be in business very long.

All of your examples are irrelevant to the discussion. Semis CAN use engine brakes in populated areas. They might be prohibited but they can still be used. There isn't a wireless signal that disables them. Nor should there be. If a semi lost air brakes coming into a residential area would you really want them not to have the ability to use engine braking rather than careening into town out of control? Of course not.

In a theater you pay for the show. An ignorant and annoying cell phone user can make it impossible to hear or enjoy the show. Even then I think jammers should not be allowed--only reasonable enforcement (of which I see nearly none). Years ago ushers would eject people for talking in a theater, well before cell phones existed. I have no problem with that kind of enforcement returning (as long as it applies to the parents who decide to bring 3-year-olds to an adult movie and who should likewise be ejected if little Johnny can't shut up). On an airplane you pay to go from point A to point B. No "conversation" is going to interfere with what you paid for.



Mike
 
And you would find they wouldn't be in business very long.

All of your examples are irrelevant to the discussion. Semis CAN use engine brakes in populated areas. They might be prohibited but they can still be used. There isn't a wireless signal that disables them. Nor should there be. If a semi lost air brakes coming into a residential area would you really want them not to have the ability to use engine braking rather than careening into town out of control? Of course not.

In a theater you pay for the show. An ignorant and annoying cell phone user can make it impossible to hear or enjoy the show. Even then I think jammers should not be allowed--only reasonable enforcement (of which I see nearly none). Years ago ushers would eject people for talking in a theater, well before cell phones existed. I have no problem with that kind of enforcement returning (as long as it applies to the parents who decide to bring 3-year-olds to an adult movie and who should likewise be ejected if little Johnny can't shut up). On an airplane you pay to go from point A to point B. No "conversation" is going to interfere with what you paid for.



Mike
If there's a true emergency on a plane they have ways of making contact, including you using non-verbal communication methods with your personal device.

You simply think the examples aren't pertinent because you don't like the message. You're missing the point about regulation. Not everything can switched off so rules and regulations take the place. In cases where you can physically control it you use that action for its efficacy.

Your argument about paying for point A to point B misses the mark as well. You pay for much more than simple travel. Airlines, constrained by money, offer accommodations to make flights more enjoyable. Window shades, reading lights, blankets, reclining seats, lavatories, drink service, etc. are all expected amenities to make the trip more enjoyable. The same goes for keeping the cabin free of annoyances. It's cool though, bring back smoking on planes. It doesn't interfere with you getting from point A to B.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob
If there's a true emergency on a plane they have ways of making contact, including you using non-verbal communication methods with your personal device.

You simply think the examples aren't pertinent because you don't like the message. You're missing the point about regulation. Not everything can switched off so rules and regulations take the place. In cases where you can physically control it you use that action for its efficacy.

Your argument about paying for point A to point B misses the mark as well. You pay for much more than simple travel. Airlines, constrained by money, offer accommodations to make flights more enjoyable. Window shades, reading lights, blankets, reclining seats, lavatories, drink service, etc. are all expected amenities to make the trip more enjoyable. The same goes for keeping the cabin free of annoyances. It's cool though, bring back smoking on planes. It doesn't interfere with you getting from point A to B.
You are still oblivious to the fact that airliners are, in no way, "quiet." So if there is a screaming baby, screaming jet engine, loud conversation by people next to you, loud cabin announcements, or some dude on a phone you can sit there and fester--later complaining on the internet--or actually do something about it such as earplugs or headphones. Same goes for the gym or anywhere else there is no expectation of quiet. Strawman arguments duly ignored.



Mike
 
You are still oblivious to the fact that airliners are, in no way, "quiet." So if there is a screaming baby, screaming jet engine, loud conversation by people next to you, loud cabin announcements, or some dude on a phone you can sit there and fester--later complaining on the internet--or actually do something about it such as earplugs or headphones. Same goes for the gym or anywhere else there is no expectation of quiet. Strawman arguments duly ignored.



Mike
Oblivious? You honestly think I haven't traveled on a plane or are just trying to make a dig at my intelligence? There's a difference between background noise and person carrying on a conversation on a phone. Invariably the person on the phone unnecessarily elevates their voice above the surrounding noise, something people having face to face conversations are much more cognizant. It's not like attendants ever tell passengers to keep their voices down. Oh, wait...

I actually had that experience at the gym two days ago where a guy was talking on his phone so loud everyone in the area was giving him stares except the guy on a machine to his right. He eventually hangs up and starts talking to that guy in a completely normal voice that no one cared about.

Just because there's noise doesn't mean it's all the same. Go blast your car stereo outside someone's house next to train tracks and when they complain tell them "hey, you don't have an expectation of quiet."
 
  • Like
Reactions: nooaah
You are still oblivious to the fact that airliners are, in no way, "quiet." So if there is a screaming baby, screaming jet engine, loud conversation by people next to you, loud cabin announcements, or some dude on a phone you can sit there and fester--later complaining on the internet--or actually do something about it such as earplugs or headphones. Same goes for the gym or anywhere else there is no expectation of quiet. Strawman arguments duly ignored.



Mike
I assure you, as someone who flies over 100 times per year, I have personally seen people being shushed by passengers and flight attendants for having loud headphones or listening to audio through an iPad speaker. 100% of the time. It just doesn't go over.
 
I assure you, as someone who flies over 100 times per year, I have personally seen people being shushed by passengers and flight attendants for having loud headphones or listening to audio through an iPad speaker. 100% of the time. It just doesn't go over.
I have over 1 million miles on just one airline (AA) and I don't believe you about headphones. I have never seen anyone "shushed" for having loud headphones. Granted I usually get in first class but there it would be even less tolerated.

Now listening to audio on an iPad? Yes it is not acceptable. But what about talking to someone else on the plane itself? I have heard unbelievably loud conversations on planes. Some jerks even do it between rows.

As for phone calls, I recall one study that suggested it wasn't the person talking that bothered people, after all not many complain about people talking face to face. It was the fact that only one part of the conversation could be heard. Humans are a funny bunch.



Mike
 
"I don't hear too much from the riff raff because I fly first class." Yuck. Wouldn't be surprised if we've shared a row at some point. I'm sure you never see this on your private jet, but those regional flights late at night tend to be pretty quiet. So when a dude is listening to music at a level that we can hear lyrics several rows up, he will be asked to be quiet. I have one of the incidents on video on my iPhone, funnily enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob
Any type of voice calling in flight is prohibited per American Airlines. This means Skype, Facetime, Wifi calling, etc. Not sure if this rule extends to other airlines; it doesn't seem to come from the FAA.

I'm only bumping this because I accidentally received a call in-flight while I was in airplane mode, today. If Wifi calling works in airplane mode, then wouldn't it make sense to keep your phone in airplane mode while you're at home or elsewhere with a secure/dependable wifi signal to save on battery life?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.