Beta
×

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!

Cellphone Use On Planes Coming Soon?

CowboyNeal posted about 7 years ago | from the cleared-of-bee-murder-charges dept.

Communications 249

s31523 writes "A while back it was reported that cell phone use was given the OK on Emirate airlines. The BBC is now reporting European agencies back the use of cell phones in air. Plans have been developed to introduce technology that allow cell phone use on planes without any risk of interference. A spokesman for the UK regulator Ofcom said there were still many stages to pass through before final approval was given to the roll out of the plans, but the regulator said that the technology could be implemented next year."

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

finally (1, Interesting)

andreyvul (1176115) | about 7 years ago | (#21036835)

I can use my camera phone to take a picture of the city skyline during the night from 30000 ft

Uh...you can do that now (2, Insightful)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | about 7 years ago | (#21036907)

My phone has "airplane" mode where it doesn't transmit/receive, so I can still use it for its camera/music abilities.
 
On to the more important aspect: I hope this never gets implemented and for the most part I don't think it will. Lots of people like to sleep on planes and won't be able to with others yammering on their phones. Plus there is the extra time and cost for airlines to install the equipment to relay the signals. God only knows what "roaming" means at 38000 ft.

Re:Uh...you can do that now (5, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 7 years ago | (#21037177)

I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.

They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.

Re:Uh...you can do that now (-1, Offtopic)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21037685)

I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.

They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.


Victims of group think. They're upset since they know they're supposed to be upset.

Not much different than groupthink rules in IRC, for example, where the op suddenly gets super upset at you if you mention a channel, even if it's legitimate: you just did a "channel invite"!

Compromise with text (5, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | about 7 years ago | (#21037455)

Allow SMS/text messaging only. No voice. Then we can have peace and quiet, and bozo business types who're afraid to be out of touch for an hour or so can still communicate with their underlings.

Re:Compromise with text (3, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | about 7 years ago | (#21037571)

My cellphone can be set to emit horribly shrill bleeps at every single keypress. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Compromise with text (1)

Romancer (19668) | about 7 years ago | (#21037589)

Absolute Best Solution I've Heard!

Seriously, it addresses the two problems and allows both sides their arguements.

Contact and consideration.
Why do these solutions escape the multimillion dollar investigation teams assigned to solving these issues?

Re:Compromise with text (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 7 years ago | (#21037807)

"Why do these solutions escape the multimillion dollar investigation teams assigned to solving these issues?"

What makes you think I'm NOT on an investigation team assigned to solving these issues? (grin)

Re:Compromise with text (1)

arivanov (12034) | about 7 years ago | (#21037917)

That is likely to be the case anyway.

1. The current end-to-end RTT over SAT broadband which these will use is 900ms+. Voice will be horrible. To add insult to injury this is comparable to some of the call setup timers in GSM so there will be excessive paging and a large percentage of call setup failures.

2. The bandwidth is just about enough to let SMS and GPRS.

3. The real revenue spinner the airlines have got in their sites is the roaming data for the crackberry addicts. They can charge for it 10 times more than they will get off voice calls which can be handled by the in-plane system more efficiently anyway.

Re:Uh...you can do that now (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 7 years ago | (#21037913)

On to the more important aspect: I hope this never gets implemented and for the most part I don't think it will...

_________

It will last until the first bomb on a plane is detonated with a cellphone.

Boxed SOAP response. (4, Funny)

Argon Sloth (655369) | about 7 years ago | (#21036845)

Eagerly awaiting the Motorola Snake and all the jokes that come with it.

Re:Boxed SOAP response. (1)

darkhitman (939662) | about 7 years ago | (#21037399)

Let's not kid ourselves -there's only one joke possible from the combination of that phone, planes, and Samuel Jackson impersonations.

Re:Boxed SOAP response. (1)

Korin43 (881732) | about 7 years ago | (#21037793)

Snake on a Phone [johnjohn.co.uk] ?

FIRST! GNNA RULES (0, Troll)

pyster (670298) | about 7 years ago | (#21036847)

FIRST! GNNA RULES

Re:FIRST! GNNA RULES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037687)

Learn to spell GNAA and then please stop failing it in our name. You might also want to consider press releases.

-JB

Let me be the first to say (0, Troll)

Lordrashmi (167121) | about 7 years ago | (#21036851)

DEAR GOD NO!!!!

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

Skreems (598317) | about 7 years ago | (#21036877)

Here's hoping they'll charge ridiculously inflated rates that will keep the majority of people from using this.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0, Troll)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21036899)

DEAR GOD NO!!!!

Right, so predictable. I see it now, 80% of the comments talking about how annoying some teen will be talking for hours to his friends on the plane.

Don't forget the crying babies rant, and the fat guys who don't buy two seats rant.

Here's the thing: those rants are quickly becoming more annoying than the actual problems.

It's about time some common sense is applied to the problem and cell phones are allowed as they should be. If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Interesting)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | about 7 years ago | (#21036959)

If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.
So what do you think is the best way to handle some irrational jackass on that horribly enclosed space that is a commercial passenger airliner? I agree with you in general that politely asking someone not to do something that is annoying usually works. After all, some people do things that are annoying that they don't realize are annoying at the time, and if you politely tell them, they will politely cease since they will then realize that they are doing something annoying. *BUT*, there are some people who are complete shits and totally irrational to boot. How does one handle people like that on an airplane? I'm not really sure myself.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0, Troll)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21037045)

I agree with you in general that politely asking someone not to do something that is annoying usually works.

What does being "irrational jackass" have to do with cellphones. I don't want it to be encouraged to be "irrational jackass", since you can be such without a cellphone as well.

And neither is allowing cellphones in any way allowing people to be irrational jackasses. If stewardess can halt the flight because of a kid that says "Buy buy plane", I'm sure there will be enough arsenal left to deal with extreme cases.

Re:Let me be the first to say (4, Insightful)

QuickFox (311231) | about 7 years ago | (#21037611)

So what do you think is the best way to handle some irrational jackass on that horribly enclosed space that is a commercial passenger airliner?
The best solution is to allow cellphone usage in the seats at the back of the plane and forbid it in the seats at the front. You choose where to sit depending on your needs and preferences.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about 7 years ago | (#21037679)

Who gets to choose where they sit on a plane?

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

QuickFox (311231) | about 7 years ago | (#21037795)

When you book your ticket they'd ask you which kind of seating you want, with or without cellphone conversations allowed.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

loganrapp (975327) | about 7 years ago | (#21038107)

Uh... violence, dude.

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | about 7 years ago | (#21037021)

"If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be."

If we lived in a society where people tried to be nice to one another then you'd be right, the rants would be dumb.

We don't live in such a society.

It's pretty clear from the way people act with cell phones on the ground that this is going to be an annoying change on airplanes. Who here hasn't seen/interacted with someone who talked excessively loud over their cell? I see (more hear) those people every day, are they magically going to vanish on airplanes? Same goes for people who talk forever.

We already have passenger's irritating other passengers without care on airplanes. My last flight we had someone who couldn't get a particular movie to play on the (obviously cheap) entertainment system. It was an old movie and (in my opinion) not very good but they kept complaining until the pilot decided to reset the system just to shut the guy up. After the reset he was fine, his movie played. Everyone else started getting random movies and the sound system didn't work but he was quite happy with himself. Add that to the multiple people swinging their luggage about without care while we were on the ground, the guy who went and got something out of his luggage when we were on the final runway, and the person who complained about the food and the trip was a quite unpleasant 9+ hours. Now add on someone talking on a cell phone for the entire trip, they don't even have to be that loud but they, or someone else, is always talking. Tell me, do you want to fly on that airplane?

Re:Let me be the first to say (0, Troll)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21037147)

My last flight we had someone who couldn't get a particular movie to play on the (obviously cheap) entertainment system. It was an old movie and (in my opinion) not very good but they kept complaining until the pilot decided to reset the system just to shut the guy up. After the reset he was fine, his movie played. Everyone else started getting random movies and the sound system didn't work but he was quite happy with himself. Add that to the multiple people swinging their luggage about without care while we were on the ground, the guy who went and got something out of his luggage when we were on the final runway, and the person who complained about the food and the trip was a quite unpleasant 9+ hours. Now add on someone talking on a cell phone for the entire trip, they don't even have to be that loud but they, or someone else, is always talking. Tell me, do you want to fly on that airplane?

Imagine a war. The field is full of mines, airplanes throwing bombs on your head, the enemy shooting you with automatic guns, tanks approaching. And now add to this severe itch in your behind. Would you want to be in this war?

But despite your straw man argument: the discussion here isn't "allow annoying people" or "disallow annoying people". It's about cellphones. Cellphones ban won't solve the issue with the annoying guy who caused reset of the entertainment system, or people swinging baggage, or complaining about the food.

Don't extrapolate the issue to fantastical dimensions. It could be as easy as the captain saying to the passengers to avoid unnecessary conversations, and keep the necessary short. If someone is loud and annoying the stewardess could still make notice of this to him/her.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21038051)

Making funny comments on the audible part of an annoying conversation by someone obviously suffering from logorrhoea [wikipedia.org] will most likely make them feel uneasy and eventually end their fu*king conversation. No mercy with such pond scum.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037277)

There won't be any issue with people talking on the phone during flights. Being a frequent flier, I sometimes forget to turn my phone off or switch it to airplane mode. Though my misdeeds led me to the following discovery: you don't get a signal above roughly 10000 feet. Odds are, even if someone wanted to, nobody would even have the ability to carry on annoying conversations for an entire flight.

Honestly, it's a non-issue.

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Interesting)

vtcodger (957785) | about 7 years ago | (#21037575)

Yes, that's correct. Tests in Canada have shown that as altitude increases, the likelyhood of getting a cellular connection drops to about zero. And at jet aircraft speeds, you'd have to switch from cell tower to cell tower much faster than is thought to be possible, so even if you got a connection, you probably couldn't keep it for more than 40 seconds or so.

I assume that they plan to put a cellular transceiver on the aircraft and use some specialized technology to get the signals from the airplane to the ground -- satellite or some special mode of dealing with ground stations or something.

Anyway, just when I thought that they couldn't find any more ways on top of miniscule seats with no leg room, long unexplained takeoff delays, intrusive security, losing baggage, scheduling impossible connections, overbooking, and chronically late flights to make airline travel more distasteful, they've come up with this. I rarely do airplanes any more, and the last time I did, it took me something like 36 hours to get from Burlington, VT to Seattle.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0, Flamebait)

eclectro (227083) | about 7 years ago | (#21037447)

Let me guess, you think cell phones inside movie theatres is a neat idea too?

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21037627)

Let me guess, you think cell phones inside movie theatres is a neat idea too?

You're a very poor guesser. You just compared watching a movie for couple of hours in your nearby theater, to a Transatlantic travel taking potentially a day or more.

In which case the ability to keep in contact with someone is more needed? Let me guess...

Re:Let me be the first to say (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 7 years ago | (#21037705)

I don't see why this was modded informative. Cell phones have been a problem for quite a while. I have one myself, and I rarely use it when there are other people present.

I take it from your post that you don't actually fly ever, because nobody that has been on a plane in the last few years would take those positions.

I am personally a large man, while I don't have a whole lot of extra flab, I do take up my entire seat, and more if we're talking about a 737. When somebody is taking up more space than is in a seat due to being obese they should be charge for the extra space. I barely fit in a seat as it is, and that's with the shoulders I was born with. I shouldn't have to forfeit any of my space because the person next to me chose to put on a lot of weight.

You do have a bit of a point with babies, but it is still a miserable way to fly.

As for the phones, they are basically a menace to any sort of restful flight. The vast majority of cell phone users don't realize that you don't have to yell into them to be heard. I have one myself, and most of the time I can't hear myself and the microphone still picks it up sufficiently for the other party to hear my clearly.

Limiting the cell phone use on plans to a specific walled off area would be fine by me, but expecting me or the flight attendants to moderate how loud is too loud because people invariably don't care is fundamentally unreasonable.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | about 7 years ago | (#21036917)

DEAR GOD NO!!!!
That was my first reaction. Now, we get to hear three dozen ringtones and three dozens idiots yammering at the top of their voices about three dozen different idiotic things. Although, given how absurd and unreasonable stewardesses tend to be in US airline companies, there will probably be more cancelled flights and tasering incidents aboard commercial aircraft now with so many people talking loudly or telling other people to shut the fuck up. (I know stewardesses can't go around tasering people, but they can get the cops involved).

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21036929)

"You'll never guess where I'm calling from!"

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

threaded (89367) | about 7 years ago | (#21037417)

Your dorm room sat in front of your computer?

The newest accessary (3, Funny)

dreadlord76 (562584) | about 7 years ago | (#21036875)

In related news, Boeing and Airbus both announced the immediate availability of "Cone Of Silence" option on all airplanes.

Re:The newest accessary (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 7 years ago | (#21037141)

Strange, I thought that was a Cingular/AT&T feature.

Re:The newest accessory (1)

Joaz Banbeck (1105839) | about 7 years ago | (#21037539)

Your personal cone of silence: http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm [globalgadgetuk.com]
And yes, they do ship to the US. It is mailed as a 'research device'.

You can get them here... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 7 years ago | (#21037597)

You can get them at Uline [uline.com] and come in quantities of 200 for $24.

And you thought you loved half hour train rides (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 7 years ago | (#21036905)

Now we get loud mouthed cellphone jabbers AND 13 yr old SMS kiddies beeping away during the entire duration of Sydney and LA... I can forsee 15 hrs of absolute murderous psychopatic bliss.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides (1)

the_masked_mallard (792207) | about 7 years ago | (#21037557)

Sydney to LA ? Are we going to have cell phone towers in the middle of the ocean ?!!

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides (1)

theNetImp (190602) | about 7 years ago | (#21037743)

Read the article. Look at the diagram... It's all done with satellites not cell towers.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 7 years ago | (#21037659)

Now we get loud mouthed cellphone jabbers AND 13 yr old SMS kiddies beeping away during the entire duration of Sydney and LA... I can forsee 15 hrs of absolute murderous psychopatic bliss.
Sydney to LA leaves you fit for a padded cell without regard for the yakking.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides (1)

ConradBurner (1110961) | about 7 years ago | (#21037773)

hear here! Will drive me nuts! I'd rather not have it.

Re:And you thought you loved half hour train rides (1)

PayPaI (733999) | about 7 years ago | (#21037943)

Choose [shure.com] your [etymotic.com] cure [etymotic.com]

Interference? (3, Funny)

Ydna (32354) | about 7 years ago | (#21036939)

Without interference, eh? Yet another annoyance to deal with while flying: listening to some yammerhead yacking into their phone for the whole flight. I'll show you interference. I'm gonna yank that phone out of your hand and flush it down the toilet. Or tell the crew that the passenger next to me is holding some electrical device next to their head and it has wires sticking out of it and strange lights flashing. And it might be ticking!

Re:Interference? (1)

theNetImp (190602) | about 7 years ago | (#21037745)

I wish I had mod points, that made me laugh...

Re:Interference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037941)

Then reality called, and you'll sit there, and seethe, and do nothing. Pussy.

Cell phone free flights please (3, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 7 years ago | (#21036957)

I refuse to fly until an airline offers a cell phone free flight. I don't want to sit in a tiny tin can for 4+ hours listening to some dork yapping about god knows what, when there is no possibility of getting away from him.

If I can't "just walk away" then the only alternative is an ass kicking, and I assume if I punched someone out on a plane they would arrest me on the ground as a terrorists or something.

Re:Cell phone free flights please (2, Insightful)

l2718 (514756) | about 7 years ago | (#21037017)

Second that!

It's bad enough on trains and busses. Also, I don't think airline staff (that is the flight attentands) will want to mediate the disputes between people loudly yapping on the phone and people who want to sleep quietly. I suspect that till now the airlines were rather thappy to say "the government says you can't use your phone" and not have to worry about this. In the future they'll have to come down on one side or the other.

Re:Cell phone free flights please (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about 7 years ago | (#21037225)

How about they designate an area where you are allowed to talk on your phone. I suggest on the wing, or on the ground.

In terms of coming down on one side or the other, if the airline gets a share of the phone revenue, I'll give you one guess as to which side they'll come down on...

What's really unfair though, is that if you bring a cell phone jammer onto an airoplane, _you_ would be the one to go to jail!

Re:Cell phone free flights please (1)

bentcd (690786) | about 7 years ago | (#21037919)

(...) Also, I don't think airline staff (that is the flight attentands) will want to mediate the disputes between people loudly yapping on the phone and people who want to sleep quietly. I suspect that till now the airlines were rather thappy to say "the government says you can't use your phone" and not have to worry about this. In the future they'll have to come down on one side or the other.
Surely, the airlines have been here before - this is hardly going to be a problem for them.

"Will that be cellphone or non-cellphone, sir?"

Re:Cell phone free flights please (1)

aichpvee (631243) | about 7 years ago | (#21037331)

It seemed to work fine on 9/11, amirite?

Re:Cell phone free flights please (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 7 years ago | (#21037603)

When terrorists take over the plane, please make all the cellphone calls you want. Or beat the terrorists with your cellphone, I'd be fine with that.

more airplane homicides (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 7 years ago | (#21037015)

If the person next to me talked on their phone the entire flight, I'd kill them lol. That would drive me completely insane. Also I'd say "You know they can easily make a cell phone sized bomb" but you can also already make a laptop sized bomb. And since I've heard X-ray machines wipe hard drives, they don't scan them. I say get rid of the laptops AND phones and people can just watch the damn movie and leave me alone!

Re:more airplane homicides (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 7 years ago | (#21037845)

They scan laptops. Or at least they scan mine. And I don't think I lose any data

Re:more airplane homicides (2, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | about 7 years ago | (#21037897)

Instead of killing them be a bit more creative. Get your phone out and go 'Michael? Hi! Mike! How's Mrs Hayden?, Do me a favour? Pull up the passenger manifest for AA96 and make the guy in 5E disappear will you? Great! Golf tomorrow? Sure! Bye!"

It'll be one of those low-numbered rows since only people in First and Business class will be able to afford to yak away for a whole long flight. Since you'll be in that class too, don't kill them yourself, get one of your staff to do it.

If you really are in Sardine class and have someone talk all the time he's either very rich, in which case make him change his will and then kill him, or he's not really talking to anyone and just wants you to think he's rich and popular. I don't have a cellphone, I think they don't really work, people just clamp them to their heads and pretend they have friends.

mithra save us (4, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | about 7 years ago | (#21037059)

I'd rather someone be allowed to surf the web next to me, goatse and all, than be allowed to gab on their cell. I even hate it that they can use their cells in the terminals. Why does anyone need to call to say "I'm on the ground now"? Obviously we can't rely on people to be considerate of others, but up till now we could rely on airline restrictions for a little peace. I vote we allow text messages, but no voice messages. Everyone gets to play the quiet game. Shut the hell up.

Re:mithra save us (1)

thebear05 (916315) | about 7 years ago | (#21037203)

because some of us have friends/girlfriends/family that pick us up at the airport. BUT that is on the ground i will play the part of the other end of the conversation to anyone within earshot until they give up if this ever becomes a reality, i however doubt that the airlines will ever allow it for free.

Re:mithra save us (2, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | about 7 years ago | (#21037239)

Can't they seen on the monitor that the plane has landed? I've picked up many people from the airport, and never needed a phone call to find out that their plane was on the ground. If I'm not in the airport to look at the monitor, a phone call isn't going to get me there any faster.

Re:mithra save us (1)

thebear05 (916315) | about 7 years ago | (#21037421)

if i were picking up a very elderly person or a small child that makes sense,however many adults pick people up in the car yes you can check online but if the plane sits a half an hour on the tarmac to get a gate that is not helpful.

Re:mithra save us (1)

mybadluck22 (750599) | about 7 years ago | (#21037229)

"I'm on the ground now, please head to the airport to pick me up." I don't think it's that complicated.

Re:mithra save us (1)

theNetImp (190602) | about 7 years ago | (#21037779)

Well that depends on if you get out of the car and park it or not. Airport parking is expensive, even for 15 minutes. If I can get a call saying "I'm hear" and then circle the arrival area a couple times it's a lot cheaper...

Wait, what? (5, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 7 years ago | (#21037077)

Let me get this straight:

You can bring on a cell phone, but not an iPod...

You can bring on a lighter, but not a water bottle...

You can wear a belt, but you have to remove your shoes...

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

mosch (204) | about 7 years ago | (#21037219)

since when are iPods banned?

Also, many security stations make you remove your belt. (I've taken to preemptively putting mine in my laptop bag)

Re:Wait, what? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | about 7 years ago | (#21037291)

You can bring on a lighter, but not a water bottle...
You shouldn't be able to bring a lighter on an aircraft. Safety concerns... however it is rather funny. In America I had to ditch my lighters but made sure to put them in my luggage. This was no problem. For the return flight I had to take these lighters out of my luggage and carry them on.

And all the while, my carry on had a box cutter.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

mybadluck22 (750599) | about 7 years ago | (#21037301)

You can bring an ipod, and you can't bring a lighter, and you put your shoes back on.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 7 years ago | (#21037333)

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?

Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something. What that something is is less important, they might as well require passengers to do a tap dance or whatever amuses them the most

Re: Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 7 years ago | (#21037669)

Are they just making the rules up randomly or something?
Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something.
Or less safe, if some important unconstitutional legislation is up for a vote.

I can guarantee this for the USA (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 7 years ago | (#21037117)

The USA will come last on this issue [among the industrialized world], and will demand that all airlines that allow cellphone use on their aircraft while in flight disable their use before entering US space.

This will be to "protect" and "ensure the highest possible safety regime", reign on US territory at all times; never mind that the southern border is wide open and so is the northern one to some extent.

Sadly nothing or very little is being done about it.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037193)

Right, because people from Mexico and Canada are just dying to come kill US citizens...

But, back on topic, I will be rather irritated with this, but I guess the paperback and mp3 player will have to save the day like they useually do.

Re:I can guarantee this for the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21038061)

Of course not. It will be allowed because the money is in it.


But they might want to record all your conversations.


Bring on the whiners (0, Flamebait)

flerchin (179012) | about 7 years ago | (#21037119)

I suspect the majority of comments will be whiners about how annoying it is to sit next to a person talking on a cellphone. This is because the majority of people, already sitting in front of their computers talking to other people on an online forum on the internet, find sitting next to another person, whether they are talking on a cellphone or not, annoying. Get over your irrational fear of people talking on cellphones. You are advocating government restrictions on your activities, for no other reason than that you feel it might be uncomfortable. Government restrictions are definitely not a Good Thing (tm). If it turns out to be such a big problem, the airline itself will ban it. I suspect that any airline to do so would realize that it would be shooting itself in the foot, because the customers that drive their business are also those that would prefer to be in constant contact with the ground. Finally, I suspect that the brazilian complaints we will get about the annoying guy with the cellphone in the seat next to them are from people who do not fly more than once a year.

Just my suspicions....

Re:Bring on the whiners (1)

Thomasje (709120) | about 7 years ago | (#21037375)

"Fear of people on cellphones?"

Fear has nothing to do with it. It is a completely normal and sane hatred of people on cellphones, you insensitive clod!

Re:Bring on the whiners (1)

j_sp_r (656354) | about 7 years ago | (#21038087)

People have the idea that you need to shout in a phone. Most also listen to music so load I can hear it on the other side of the train carriage. So deaf and shouting in the phone(also has something to do with not hearing your own voice back in the phone).

Also, I found it easier to shut myself out of a normal conversation. People also don't get hints like "Mobile phones, without the dodgy ringtones" and telling someone that I really hate loud music and telephone conversations. I don't mind a 2 minute call, but a girl telling how the sex was with her boyfriend IS IRRITATING, really if they are talking to the person that is waiting for them on the next station (I'm here now, see you in a few seconds).

We already have cellphone use on aeroplanes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037161)

Remember all those calls people were making from the hijacked planes on 911?

MAYBE THEY WERE 6 YEARS IN THE FUTURE

Re:We already have cellphone use on aeroplanes (1)

BkBen7 (926853) | about 7 years ago | (#21037191)

Or maybe the government was lying to you when they told you about those calls?...........nah!!!

Great news!!! (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 7 years ago | (#21037167)

Think about it. People on long haul flights in tiny uncomfortable seats are usually tense, tired and easily pissed off. Having some jerk talking on the phone in the next seat for hours might well be the final straw! That means someone will FINALLY get killed for talking loudly on the cellphone.

Fox News will have a around the clock news coverage of the incident, and therefore all the idiots out there that don't realize it yet will finally hear the news that it is actually rude to make unwilling bystanders a part of their shitty little lives by shouting their boring ass conversations in their ear. Maybe then five or six percent of them will become more considerate, therefore making the world a slightly better place for all of us.

Way to go Emirates Airlines, I've never heard of you before, but if I ever need to fly to Emirates you will be my number one choice!

Airlines: Increase in passenger violence (1)

damista (1020989) | about 7 years ago | (#21037311)

So far, planes are the only safe heaven one can get, when it comes to mobile phone terror. Now they want to take that away from us? I have horrible visions of me sitting in a plane, with 400 different ringtones, 400 people trying to shout over eachother. Just immagine you are on a 20 hour flight and your neighbour is telling his entire family, one by one, every detail of his holiday. That's enough to bludgeon somebody to death with their phone. I expect the number of violent attacks against fellow passengers to dramatically increase.

I hope at least they make the calls so bloody expensive that only those people, who currently use the onboard phones, will actually use their mobile. I'm thinking somewhere in the line of $5+/minute. That'll deter most people. They'd also try to limit the available "lines" to something like 10 or 20 to keep things down.

Sorry but people who can't be without a phone for 20 hours, should either use the onboard phones and pay the price or consult a psychologist.

I love my mobile and make good use of it but planes, restaurants and cinemas should be phone free zones.

Reasons (1)

Merovign (557032) | about 7 years ago | (#21037321)


My understanding (of old) is that the primary reason for the ban was not that interference was inevitable, but that not all the myriad makes and models of phones could be adequately tested.

Maybe they've been doing tests and not finding anything.

The "pico cell" concept in the FA is interesting - do 2G cellphones normally adjust power output to cell distance / signal strength? Otherwise, the signals from the cells are just as much an issue as before.

Re:Reasons (1)

tao (10867) | about 7 years ago | (#21037527)

Yes, they do. As a simple test, make a normal phone call in an area with full coverage. Then make another phone call with really bad coverage (try an elevator, a parking garage or similar). You'll notice that the phone gets hotter when the coverage is bad.

New Market (1)

KG6 (1007815) | about 7 years ago | (#21037323)

This could form a new niche market for in-ear monitors.

Earplugs (3, Insightful)

feepness (543479) | about 7 years ago | (#21037345)

Pssst... you can wear them the entire time you're in the airport: http://www.earplugsonline.com/ [earplugsonline.com]

Those earplugs + noise canceling headphones + a sleeping pill if you want = Transoceanic bliss.

Throw in a PSP or DS and a movie or two and you are good to go. Just don't forget to bring some spare batteries.

gn4a (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037573)

it a b8eak, if lead to 'cleaner

real reason they ban 'em (2, Interesting)

Pvt. Cthulhu (990218) | about 7 years ago | (#21037579)

likely mobile devices will never be allowed on commercial flights on american airlines, as the government, and therefore the people's will, here has little sway over business practices. airlines dont want you to have portable electronic devices, so you aren't gonna get them. at least not overtly.

the question then is why, which people seem to think they know. it is most definitely not because they interfere with the flight systems. think about how many hundreds of people are on their cellphone or laptop inside the airport, why is there no record of that causing a problem with planes taking off/landing, or even messing with ATC? even if your device matched a signal a plane used, it stands to reason that the multi-million dollar commercial plane would overpower your cute little phone, and you would lose the connection, not them.

so then the most likely reason is that the airlines want to control communication. if something goes wrong, and it is apparent that the plane will go down, then passengers will of course call family and such. the stewardesses will make sure they do no such thing, believing that even the lowly gameboy might interfere with the pilots' rectifying of the situation.

once the plane crashed and everyone is either dead or in too much a state of shock, the airline can retrieve the blackbox, debrief the pilots if they survived, and now the only story on what exactly happened to the plane is one written by corporation not interested in being sued by the families of all the passengers.

Yack Yack Yack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037631)

As long as they make people use them outside, I don't see the problem

9/11 Anyone? (3, Insightful)

anarking (34854) | about 7 years ago | (#21037635)

Gee... I thought we could already make crystal clear calls from 25,000ft up on cell phones based on the calls from supposed passengers on 9/11!

Oh wait... someone actually tested that with cell phones and none worked at all...

Funny isn't it how they were all made through Verizon and how chummy Verizon has been with DHS and the other agencies. hmmmmmm...

Little old lady with a hammer (1)

threaded (89367) | about 7 years ago | (#21037663)

Well, thanks to the terrorists, these cell phone users will be safe from a little old lady with a hammer [slashdot.org] !

no risk, except (1)

m2943 (1140797) | about 7 years ago | (#21037713)

without any risk of interference.

That's "no risk of electromagnetic interference". There is a significant risk of pugilistic interference.

I sure hope so (1)

wardk (3037) | about 7 years ago | (#21037731)

cause listening to everyone chat aloud into their cell phones is one really hot feature that is missing from air travel

Why just on planes "coming soon"? (1)

mbstone (457308) | about 7 years ago | (#21037751)

I don't care if they allow cell phones on planes that won't be here for 12 hours.

Oblig PA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21037825)

Obligatory Penny Arcade comic:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30 [penny-arcade.com]

Not really a first (1)

mrFur (413277) | about 7 years ago | (#21037849)

Qantas is running a trial of 'pico-cells' in some Boeing 767's. I used my mobile between Brisbane & Perth a few weeks ago. It's only available from GSM phones though.

The Death-Knell for Peace and Quiet in the Skies? (1)

jg21 (677801) | about 7 years ago | (#21037911)

As Web 2.0 Journal this morning [web2journal.com] puts it, "One thing is an iPhone, but a skiPhone might just be the death-knell for (relative) silence on airplanes."

Why do people hate this? (0, Flamebait)

twoshoes (771374) | about 7 years ago | (#21038021)

oh noes! I'm going to be hearing people talk on their cell phones! boo hoo! I've don't own headphones and can't possibly block out somebody talking near me. boo hoo! Some kid is going to be text messaging next to me!! IT WILL MAKE ME KILL PEOPLE -- Good grief -- That is such a lame response to this. /2cents

Re:Why do people hate this? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 7 years ago | (#21038047)

Because if you're so SAD an individual you can't do without making a phone call for the duration of one flight, then there is definitely something wrong with you!

Sorry, your mobile may be of high importance to you, but to me its just a tool that lets me make or receive phone calls occasionally, invariably out of earshot of other people.

Deal with it.

Relax. Nobody's going to be annoying you. (1)

lewko (195646) | about 7 years ago | (#21038057)

Like most people here, I too dread the thought of some 15 year old or wannabe CEO type blabbing on the phone next to me for 15 hours.

However, I think it's unlikely to be a problem. Why? Because the airline will own the microcell to which you are connnecting and you will be 'roaming' when you use it. Translation: They get to charge whatever they want. How does five bucks a minute for calls sent or received sound?

Anyone who will be able to afford to use the service for anything more than SMS is probably flying first-class or their own jet anyway, so most of us won't be disturbed.

Sure we'll have to put up with a few minutes of "hey, guess where I'm calling from" like we did when airphones first came out, but beyond that, I don't really think we need to get too worried about this.

Of course the TSA will probably decide that terrorists could use mobile phones to detonate an explosive, so they'll get banned anyway.

We already have phones on planes (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | about 7 years ago | (#21038093)

....the super-expensive satellite one's, for long-haul at least. Why do we need cellphones too?

I mean, if you can get off the phone for 2 hours for short-haul trip then you have issues, and if you need to make an real urgent call on long-haul, it's possible while anything more than a minimum chat is prohibitively expensive for most. What's wrong with that I ask you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?