Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Committee Approves Bill Banning In-Flight Phone Calls

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the get-to-work-bill dept.

Cellphones 366

An anonymous reader tips news that the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill that would ban voice calls from mobile devices on airplanes. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote. Similar efforts are underway in the Senate. There was no opposition to Shuster's bill in the House committee, and the FCC received a flood of support for such a measure when they asked for public comment. In an op-ed published Monday, Shuster wrote, "In today’s world, enriched as it is by technology, we are bombarded by data, opinions, and potential distractions. Few limits to this flow of information are necessary, partly because people can typically turn it off, disconnect from it, or go elsewhere if they choose. But in the close confines of an airplane cabin – where passengers will still be able to use their mobile devices for texting, emailing, working, and more – there is no chance to opt out. So for those few hours of flight spent with 150 strangers, we can all wait to make that phone call. It’s just common sense and common courtesy."

cancel ×

366 comments

Hooray for common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221675)

If you're too important for this, fuck you.

Read what de Gaulle said about "irreplaceable" men...

Whose phone is banned? (4, Insightful)

duckintheface (710137) | about 5 months ago | (#46222123)

If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.

And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)

nobodies phone is banned (0)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 months ago | (#46222205)

This has to be approved and/or actually pass to even get towards attempting to ban someone's phone from being used. Whether it is even legal or not at that point is going to likely fall on "not a legal bill", as the first amendment doesn't stop just because someone else doesn't like it - which is what sums up this bill.

Re:Whose phone is banned? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222215)

You know what is a real problem on planes? SCREAMING BABIES. Solution: ban babies from all public transportation. 'nuff said.

Re:Whose phone is banned? (4, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 5 months ago | (#46222397)

You know what is a real problem on planes? SCREAMING BABIES. Solution: ban babies from all public transportation. 'nuff said.

Hear Hear!!

I once had to ring the flight attendant button on an EARLY flight out, and when she came I asked if we could please put the screaming child just behind me in the overhead compartment.

Thankfully this worked, the flight attendant smiled at me and said it looked like I needed a Bloody Mary, and got me one...and the lady behind me finally started to quieten her offspring.

Re:Whose phone is banned? (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 5 months ago | (#46222225)

I hope they ban them too, one shouldn't really need to make a call like they used to. E-mail and texting should handle the duties those phones were required for.

Re:Whose phone is banned? (2)

danlor (309557) | about 5 months ago | (#46222301)

It's very likely the airlines or the companies that provide the current phone technology heavily lobbied for this. It would be interesting to track the money pushing this.

Re:Hooray for common sense (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 5 months ago | (#46222135)

except it won't apply to politicians... of course :-p

mobile phones may have been a problem for aircraft in the past, but the regulations for certifying avionics since 2007 are much stricter. older aircraft designs of course aren't subject to current rules which is a pity (since the rules are designed to increase safety) but majority of airline aircraft would be fitted with upgraded avionics anyway, and any upgrades would be subject to current rules (including their integration into existing aircraft electrical and flight control systems).

refer FAR25.1317 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te... [ecfr.gov]

even if you fly in smaller aircraft, if it has avionics installed post-2007 you're likely covered by a similar rule;
FAR23.1308 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te... [ecfr.gov]

Re:Hooray for common sense (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 5 months ago | (#46222283)

Except de Gualle never said that. It is often attributed to him but no verifiable source. Also, the word you wanted was "indispensable men" which does mean something much different from irreplaceable.

Nice try at looking smart, Mr. Anonymous Coward.

House Committee Approves Banning Beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221679)

Thank you House! Beta had to go.

In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221689)

Travelling as US Representative, planes are one of the few places where you may even have to sit next to a pleb. Suddenly you realise how much you hate them. Worse, they may make noise. This bill will keep the plebs from annoying you.

Re:In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46221779)

Next step; pass law forcing airlines to duct tape the mouths of anyone not in first class, you know, for "safety" reasons.

Re:In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46221957)

No shit. Why can't the airlines just develop no phone talking policies. Do we really need to make this a law?

Re:In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46222101)

Well, I hate to say it, but there should be a Constitutional challenge to this.

Previously, it was technological and safety issues that put a hold on this. Now neither any longer applies.

"Congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Note it does not allow exceptions like "but lots of peeeeeeepul really waaaaaaaaant it". That's why there is a deliberately difficult amendment process. And no, Congress doesn't get to carve out subsets of life and strip your rights. Safety is one thing, I waaaaaaant it is something else.

Re:In other words; don't let the plebs annoy us (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#46222373)

Nonsense. There is no First Amendment issue here. You can talk all you want OFF the plane. There are dozens of limitations on talking / speech now that are perfectly valid - the idea behind the first amendment is to prevent the government from muzzling dissent. You can dissent all you want. Just not in the middle of the road. Not in the middle of a theatre. Not on an airplane.

What are they going to ban next? (4, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 5 months ago | (#46221699)

Screaming kids? Body odor? Flying with garlic breath?

Don't you love it when they're legislating "common courtesy"?

Re:What are they going to ban next? (3, Insightful)

gordo3000 (785698) | about 5 months ago | (#46221787)

this has little to do with courtesy. You can talk on a phone and not be an ass (use noise canceling headphones, noise canceling microphones, keep your voice down, and talk.

Much more annoying are the kids on a college or high school trip who feel the need to shout at their friends 5 rows away. When you make it illegal for people to hold conversations at all, I'll get behind this.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (2)

Soulskill (1459) | about 5 months ago | (#46221983)

You can talk on a phone and not be an ass (use noise canceling headphones, noise canceling microphones, keep your voice down, and talk.

This is basically how I feel about it. When I fly, I can occasionally hear conversations within a few rows, but the noise of the plane drowns out anything further away. The conversations I do hear don't really bother me, so I'm not sure why hearing half a conversation would be significant enough to warrant legislation. Granted, if somebody's loud and obnoxious about it, that'd be annoying. But chances are, that person would be loud and obnoxious without the phone anyway (or, if they don't realize it, a polite request would probably make them stop).

The skeptical part of me figures it's just grandstanding on the part of the politicians pushing it through.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222105)

Yeah, this is definitely something the federal government really needs to get involved in. Too bad a freedom loving, small government party is in control of the House.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221791)

It's insane - if people don't want to be on planes without other people talking on phones, they can just fly an airline (or a particular flight) that bans it. Banning it generically is actually insane. How the fuck did this get through?

Re:What are they going to ban next? (1, Funny)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#46221855)

Again the party that claims to be against over bearing regulation shows its hypocrisy.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (4, Funny)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46221971)

I take it by your tagline, that you can't win this argument.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221801)

And who knew they were familiar with common sense?

Re:What are they going to ban next? (3, Interesting)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 5 months ago | (#46221885)

It doest seem stupid, but what other recorse is there when we're surrounded by the discourteous ? I fly all the time and I'm tired of getting into confrontatins with people who I'd like to turn their smart phone/laptop movie down or use earphones. I've had ass holes look me in the eye and just say, " It's not mine ".

Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication, and I have a hard time tuning things out pretty much all the time. In 99% of my life I can avoid it by personal choice, my own earphones, etc. But when I'm stuck on public transportation, I don't have that luxary.

Part of the problem is that this technology didn't exist when their parents were teaching them how to behave. So, we have problem where technology has outpaced common coutesy and politeness, and it is going to be a while before society catches up.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221995)

Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication ...

Maybe we need a law to tell people who don't take their medication not to fly.

If you want Uncle sugar to solve your problems, you better be ready to have your problems solved. Good. And. Hard.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (2, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46222003)

I think your cologne is discourteous. We need to make cologne on airplanes illegal. So is your flatulence, let's make that illegal too. Also, your political views, let's make those illegal and not just on airplanes, but you are still free to practice them in your home. For now.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 months ago | (#46222011)

It doest seem stupid, but what other recorse is there when we're surrounded by the discourteous ? I fly all the time and I'm tired of getting into confrontatins with people who I'd like to turn their smart phone/laptop movie down or use earphones.

Next time you fly, take along a roll of aluminum foil. When a problem arises, use the foil to tightly and completely wrap the annoying person along with his/her phone.

Re:What are they going to ban next? (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46222329)

Part of the problem is me, I have some ADD, and I choose not to take medication, and I have a hard time tuning things out pretty much all the time. In 99% of my life I can avoid it by personal choice, my own earphones, etc. But when I'm stuck on public transportation, I don't have that luxary.

If you can identify the problem, you can solve it.

As often as I fly, I *rarely* have someone who blares noise out of a device loud enough to overpower the all-encompassing engine noise, and of those few, they were always kids. Those rare times were solved with a simple "...dude, turn that down." Most times, I'm the one with earphones in, or if sleeping, earplugs (which has the bonus of blocking out all noise.) I also make my life easier by taking flights that only business travelers would be on. That almost always gives me more room to stretch and sleep (as a bonus, there's rarely any screaming kids/babies on the red-eye flights.)

The vast majority of humanity is smart enough to realize that being jammed into tight quarters means that you have to pretty much be courteous. Anything else quickly escalates into something that gets you arrested and/or banned from flying.

Some things you simply cannot avoid: screaming babies who aren't old enough to have figured out that whole ear-popping thing, rambunctious toddlers/kids, the morbidly obese dude who smells like a garlic factory and drapes over both armrests, the occasional half-drunken dumbass(es) on the way to some booze-cruise, and suchlike. You simply make do stand your ground etiquette-wise, and most importantly know when to ignore it and when to get involved. Anything else can be solved with a quick ring-up of the steward/ess (because anything above that involves an air marshal, and again, most folks are smart enough to realize that it only gets ugly beyond that point.) If all else fails and there's an empty seat somewhere else, you can move to that seat.

IMHO though, the absolute best way I've found to ensure courtesy in a flight is to chat up everyone around me as they sit down. They either join in and courtesy kicks in (since you're no longer some nameless stranger), or they do their level best to tune you out (which means they don't want to get your attention, so they'll be very quiet, etc.)

Re:What are they going to ban next? (1)

Major Blud (789630) | about 5 months ago | (#46222233)

So should this extend to private flights?

I'm confused (1, Flamebait)

0123456 (636235) | about 5 months ago | (#46221701)

I've looked through the Constitution, but I don't see where Congress gets the power to ban telephone calls on planes.

Re:I'm confused (2)

the_skywise (189793) | about 5 months ago | (#46221759)

Congress has the authority to regulate the airspace and, as such, regulates the rules of commercial air travel.

PRIVATE planes can make all the calls they want. (And, of course, texting while piloting a plane is the cause of many air accidents and therefore should be banned...)

Re:I'm confused (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46221807)

"Congress has the authority to regulate the airspace and, as such, regulates the rules of commercial air travel."

NO, it doesn't. Congress has the authority to regulate certain aspects of interstate travel that relate to commerce. THAT IS ALL.

Granted, they have assumed the authority to regulate airspace. But that doesn't mean that the authority really, lawfully exists.

Re:I'm confused (1)

the_skywise (189793) | about 5 months ago | (#46221949)

Ahh... so I can smoke in airplanes then as it's my constitutional right?

Re:I'm confused (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46222155)

If the airline is willing to take the risk of losing repeat customers by allowing you to do so; yes.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 5 months ago | (#46222307)

Congress has the authority to regulate certain aspects of interstate travel that relate to commerce.

Airlines by nature engage in interstate commerce. (Perhaps there are a handful of strictly intra-state carriers, but let's leave aside edge cases for now.) Congress can, under its deliberately broad Constitutional power to regulate commerce [unreasonable.org] , regulate the fsck out of airlines.

Re:I'm confused (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46222387)

Dude - "Interstate Commerce" is the backdoor password to all kinds of unconstitutional crap (e.g. drinking age laws, etc).... pity the US Supreme Court has yet to put at least some sort of definitive stop to that shit.

Re:I'm confused (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 5 months ago | (#46221927)

Up until about 5 years ago, it was common to see phones on certain long haul planes in the backs of seats. Hell, a subplot of Die Hard 2 revolves around the fact that this existed. Why is this a problem now and not then?

Cost/availibility = difference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222007)

Because those calls were so expensive no one ever used the phones. With everyone single person owning a cell phone, this would not be the case anymore. In short, it was never a problem with the old phones because they were unused.

Re:I'm confused (0)

almitydave (2452422) | about 5 months ago | (#46221773)

It's right there, in that article that governs federal power to regulate nuisances. I welcome this new legislation, as well as the presumably forthcoming raft of regulations barring babies, laptops, alcohol, magazines, newspapers, smelly people, ugly people, noisy eaters, overly friendly talkers, people who snore, teenagers, overbearing flight attendants, people who don't share the armrest, late departures, and the TSA.

As a matter of fact, I think Congress can save everyone a whole lot of misery if they just ban air travel entirely. Problem solved!

Re:I'm confused (0)

portwojc (201398) | about 5 months ago | (#46221775)

It's right above the line that says the President is allowed to change laws that have been passed.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221799)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, wait. You're serious?

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221863)

From the same place that allows them to regulate air traffic: interstate commerce. Stop being a dipshit, liberturd.

Yet they've had airline phones for years (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 5 months ago | (#46221711)

They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.

And how is it any worse to be trapped on a plane with such idiots than on a bus? At least on a plane you're only stuck with them for a couple hours, not all day on an overland trip.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

tiberus (258517) | about 5 months ago | (#46221805)

  1. I can't say "I've had all I can stand, I can't stand no more.." pull the cord and get off the plane
  2. Assaulting someone (verbally or otherwise) carries much higher penalties on a plane
  3. Last time I was on a bus, or train I was much more comfortable than I am on the plane

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

neminem (561346) | about 5 months ago | (#46221939)

Last I checked you can't get from LA to Europe on a bus or train. (Technically you could get there on a boat, but it takes *forever*.)

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | about 5 months ago | (#46222255)

I'm not sure that a US domestic law would apply to the overseas portion of the flight. The airline may still have a policy prohibiting in-flight voice calls, but I don't think the law would apply.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

kylemonger (686302) | about 5 months ago | (#46221845)

Yes, but the rabble couldn't afford the airphones. Now that steerage class people might be able to make calls, enough is enough, lest there be terrorist fistfights which might divert Rich Guy's flight to Bangor, Maine.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

dcsmith (137996) | about 5 months ago | (#46221879)

They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.

And how is it any worse to be trapped on a plane with such idiots than on a bus? At least on a plane you're only stuck with them for a couple hours, not all day on an overland trip.

Airline phones = Way Expensive = Nobody used them = No Problem
Idiots on a bus = People who don't have enough money to fly = Fewer people used them = Not as big a problem.
See also; As a rule of thumb if you can afford to fly you're not taking the bus.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221883)

With airline phones, the airline is making money to offset the loss of a few disrupted travelers to competitors. Not so with mobile phones.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 5 months ago | (#46221889)

They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.

Right, but the airlines get to charge for those. They can't risk having their monopoly evaporate.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221945)

If someone is really annoying you on a phone, all you have to do is start saying the same words they are, back at them. This will highly distract them to the point they can't keep up a conversation.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 5 months ago | (#46221993)

They're so concerned about people making calls, yet they've had airline phones for years.

When's the last time you've flown? Because while at one time they did have such phones, I haven't seen one in years and I do fly at least once a year, sometimes internationally. Surely you do know that when you have pay airline prices to use their phones, when they were available, no person in coach was going to talk more than a few minutes due to the cost.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | about 5 months ago | (#46222183)

They are still present on Emirates at least.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222083)

Oh please, how often did those old airline phones in the back of seats get used? I don't think I've ever seen anyone use them, and if they did it was for just a few minutes because the charge was something outrageous like $4/min.
How is it worse than a bus? Well for starters you're not stuck on a bus for three, five, eight or more hours straight. You can change seats. You can get off at any stop if something is annoying you. There are enough distractions on a bus to keep your mind off the ongoing conversations.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (3, Informative)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | about 5 months ago | (#46222149)

> yet they've had airline phones for years.

You can still use those phones:

"`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill Text [loc.gov]

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

kylemonger (686302) | about 5 months ago | (#46222159)

If they don't like what Obama is doing they could always impeach him for it, instead of endlessly whining about it. It's not like the House is doing much of anything anyway. It would be a much more worthy use of their time than the impeachment of Clinton over a reflexive lie about sex.

Re:Yet they've had airline phones for years (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46222415)

If they don't like what Obama is doing they could always impeach him for it,

Are you seriously suggesting that the criterion for impeaching a President be lowered from treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors all the way down to "don't like what he's doing"? Just askin'. Be careful what you ask for.

than the impeachment of Clinton over a reflexive lie about sex.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. As a lawyer, he knew he should not make "reflexive lies", whatever the subject was. If it was something he felt he needed to be lying about, why was he doing it?

If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" .. (5, Insightful)

cowtamer (311087) | about 5 months ago | (#46221735)

Why must it be a law? Shouldn't airlines be free to implement their "please don't talk other passengers' heads off" policy ?

Re:If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221865)

Agreed. This is a perfect example of where market forces should be allowed to let the consumer decide. Why is the government deciding to step in?

Re:If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221895)

Why must it be a law? Shouldn't airlines be free to implement their "please don't talk other passengers' heads off" policy ?

1) Because a HUGE number of people contacted their reps and said this is NOT something they want to be subjected to -- air travel sucks enough as it is.

2) Because I can guarantee you there would be an in-air homicide within the first few weeks as some asshole talks on his phone incessantly. And when the plane lands, the rest of the passengers will mysteriously not recall how he ended up strangled with his own tongue.

3) Because people seem incapable of arriving at common sense and common courtesy on their own.

Re:If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222337)

If the policy were per-airline or per-flight, then this huge number of people could simply click on the "exclude mobile-friendly flights" checkbox before searching for a flight to book and never be subjected to it.

Re:If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221899)

Because the Republicans want Small Government and don't want government to intrude on our lives. Except when they do.

Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? (2)

King_TJ (85913) | about 5 months ago | (#46222073)

Because I hate it when people start talking on their cellphone in a theater during a feature presentation!

There oughta be a LAW .....

Yep, it's about that stupid. Theaters have done just fine throwing people out of movies without the help of legislation for many decades.

Re:Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222187)

Theaters have done just fine throwing people out
If that doesnt work the audience has a built in supply of projectiles to throw :)

The only thing I remember out of the movie star trek nemesis was the dork who decided to answer his phone in the middle of it. "I AT A MOVIE... YEP WATCHING IT RIGHT NOW"

The rain of m&m's and popcorn was most amusing.

"uhhhh I will call you back"

Re: Yep... movie theaters next, perhaps? (3, Funny)

C10H14N2 (640033) | about 5 months ago | (#46222315)

Sadly, most planes are not equipped with rear exit stairs or I would support this common-sense solution.

Re:If it's just "common sense and common courtesy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222171)

Have you actually flown in the past twenty years? Has any policy that the airlines have implemented in that time due to 'common-sense' or 'common-courtesy'? Charging $100 for a second suitcase, is that common-sense? Paying for meals now-is that common courtesy? The ever shrinking size of seats so the airlines can fit in one more row-is that common-courtesy? Allowing pets in the cabin-is that common sense?

No one asked you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221737)

so just BUTT OUT.

Leave social norms to society (2)

Neruocomp (513658) | about 5 months ago | (#46221757)

I think things like common sense and courtesy are cultural ideas that are created and modified in the marketplace of ideas. I'd rather let the airlines, and thus the consumers, decide. The FCC showed via Science that its ok to use a cell phone, that it doesn't affect the safety of the flight. They should just leave it there and not legislate social norms.

Re:Leave social norms to society (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221935)

If the airlines want to allow it, I can't imagine why we'd need to contradict their decision with a law.

If they don't....well, they might get a few more customers.

I can get behind that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221761)

Unless I can throw out of the plane the loud mouths who are basically shouting on their phones, I don't want to have to listen to them.

In Flight Calls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221767)

Interesting that this was not an issue with the (expensive) wired satphone handsets that are already in many airplane cabins.Passengers were somehow able to avoid making a nuisance of themselves with wired handsets... what makes mobile phones so different?

Re:In Flight Calls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222017)

(By the way, those were cordless, with just one or a few on a plane, before they were tethered.)

Talking (1)

braden87 (3027453) | about 5 months ago | (#46221771)

How is someone talking endlessly on their cell any different from the two people directly behind me chatting for hours? Let's just pass a law that everyone must not generate more than 20db for the entire flight (sarcasm).

Re:Talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221959)

I can't believe you are even asking that?If you are annoyed just by one couple's conversation behind you, imagine how annoyed you will be when the plane is filled with hours of endless mundane irrelevant one-sided conversations behind, in-front, and on both sides of you.

Re:Talking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222181)

You too seem to assume that a one-sided conversation is more annoying than if you hear both sides. I just don't get it. Is it the missing information that bothers you so much?

Re:Talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222357)

Because people are incapable of talking into a cellphone at a reasonable volume.

We need more legislation (3, Insightful)

Stonefish (210962) | about 5 months ago | (#46221825)

Ban voice calls on planes, in airport lounges, subways, resturants and cinema. We need legislation so that the state and lawyer can become involved in the enforcement of manners. Also we need laws on the correct position of toilets seats, cutlery positions after meals and the poking and prodding of bodily orrifices in publice places. Conversations on planes should be banned as well as they annoy surrounding passengers as well as children, infants and movies..........Or we could just ensure that airlines provide earplugs on request.

Re:We need more legislation (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 5 months ago | (#46221917)

Look, if Congress didn't spend time writing laws about courtesy, they might have to acknowledge things like warrantless mass surveillance and be forced to pass meaningful legislation!

So people upset about loud phone calls on planes.. (1)

ggraham412 (1492023) | about 5 months ago | (#46221859)

... and yet they're OK with the TSA sticking fingers up your bucket?

Re:So people upset about loud phone calls on plane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222287)

If you don't like it, don't fly with a bucket.

'common courtesy' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221871)

Only in this one special case, it's enforced by law.

Address something important, spending and debt (1)

marcgvky (949079) | about 5 months ago | (#46221925)

Politicians are idiots with a poor sense of priorities.

Nanny State (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 5 months ago | (#46221937)

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

So a republican is legislating good manners? I thought they were against the government telling us how to live our lives.

What's wrong with allowing the airlines set the policy on their own planes?

Re:Nanny State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222299)

So a republican is legislating good manners? I thought they were against the government telling us how to live our lives.

The Republicans are against government legislation on things they disagree with.

For things they want and approve of, the Republicans are about as big government as you can get.

The Republicans aren't above legislating what they consider morality (abortion, birth control, sex education) and generally interfering with the rights of others. It's only when someone tries to reign in business that the Republicans go back to the "government is evil" bullshit.

In other words, the Republicans say one thing, do another, and it depends entirely on which issue they're addressing.

Because they're lying assholes and hypocrites. In fact, all politicians are, but Republicans seem incapable of recognizing the areas in which they have a double standard, and then keep acting like they don't.

How is this different than a movie theater? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46221987)

Talking on the phone is even more incorrect in a movie theater than in a plane, yet I hope we can all agree it would be wrong for the government to pass a law outlawing phone usage in theaters. It's the job of the theater to determine what is acceptable behavior (within the bounds of law) to restrict. This is even more true of an airplane. The government should only be legislating if there is an actual public health/safety concern.

Ban people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222015)

I might actually consider flying a bit more often if it weren't for all the other passengers... I find them so annoying...

And to the commenter that mentioned Body Odor... I have a friend that had some BO trouble at one point in his life and he was actually threatened with being arrested if he didn't put on a 'clean shirt' before boarding (needless to say that the new shirt didn't help much).

Oh God, Why Am I Still Seeing The Beta? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222045)

Ugh. I thought they stopped A/B testing this awful, awful version of Slashdot.

Why Beta? Why do you haunt me so???

CURE-ALL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222075)

You know how I deal with flying? Vicodin & Xanax

why do neo-cons insist on destroying America (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46222125)

Seriously, these are the same group of ppl that are telling NASA that they MUST build the SLS.
Likewise, that the DOD MUST build another 1000 M1A2 tanks, even though the DOD has 3000 of them and desperately wants to bring the line down for several years to make changes to the tank so that it can handle IEDs and other items.
And the same group of ppl that refuse to deal with our illegal alien issues.
And The same ones that built the NSA to spy on Americans and foreign leaders.
And the same group that destroyed America's economy back in 2005-7, leading to the global recession.

These GD neo-cons are destroying America.b

In flight trash selling (1)

mtpaley (2652983) | about 5 months ago | (#46222129)

Personally I cant stand the long adverts at insane volumes pushed down the PA system of planes. Loads of 'buy our gifts' and 'this is our hire car partner' sometimes in several languages so this can go on for 10 minutes. Why is it always blasted out at ear bleeding volume? I would prefer phones, at least then you can complain to the noisy person and at least have a theoretical chance of peace.

You have gotten better at NannyState(100)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222153)

Why the bleeding shit does Congress *need* to do this? Why can't this be left up to the airlines as a business decision?

Such appropriate use of law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222157)

You can talk during a flight.

But if a microphone hears you, you're a criminal.

Genius.

I call BS. (1)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | about 5 months ago | (#46222185)

If you recall a while back the NSA was upset because calls made from planes were harder to listen in on. How is someone talking on the phone any worse than the two people next to you having a conversation or talking on the airline provided phone? Once again the media just plays along with a obvious lie.

Phone Booths (1)

slapout (93640) | about 5 months ago | (#46222193)

How about adding old fashioned phone booths to airplanes? I can already see the Dr. Who episode...

good job america (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222221)

FreedomCount--;

Legislating Courtesy (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46222391)

Will never work. No more than you can legislate away hatred and bias.

Where is the tea party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222405)

How can they allow government intervention? Freedom!!!

"It's just common sense" (1)

KingTank (631646) | about 5 months ago | (#46222407)

...so lets make a federal case out of it.

Common Sense, NOT JUST A GOOD IDEA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46222411)

It is the law

Constitution? What Constitution? (1)

billstclair (470179) | about 5 months ago | (#46222419)

For the life of me, I can't find anything about airplanes or phones in the Constitution. But then, I can't find Constitutional authority for 95% of the legislation that comes out of the swamp or for 99% of the federal bureaucracy. "Congress shall make no law...", "... shall not be infringed": ignored daily.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...