Congress Pushes Forward On Banning Already Banned In-Flight Calls
from the aren't-politicians-great? dept
The crusade against the almost non-existent in-flight phone call menace continues. First, we had the FCC insist that it would not lift the ban on in-flight use of mobile phones, in part because of worries from people about having to sit next to someone yapping away. Then, a few months later, the FAA also said that it would not allow mobile phones to be used on airplanes. As we noted at the time, this seemed rather superfluous, given the FCC ruling. But, of course, when there's an issue that's already been decided, who best to step in and decide it all over again but Congress?Yes, a Congressional representative, Peter DeFazio, has given us the (I kid you not on the name) Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (Hang Up) Act, which forbids "voice communications using communications devices on scheduled flights." We had mentioned this law when it was first proposed, but it's actually now been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
While I can understand the annoyance factor that people fear (and, yes, it's actually been shown that only hearing half of the conversation is more annoying, which is why it's different than just having people talking to each other on the plane), it's still not clear why such a law is needed. Beyond the FCC and FAA bans already in place, if such phone calls are really as annoying as most people predict, then why wouldn't airlines already ban them, rather than piss off customers? Or, more likely, you'd get some self-selection in a way that benefits everyone. Some airlines might allow phone calls, while others wouldn't -- and people can self-select. Or, some airlines may have "talking sections" and "non-talking sections," and, again, the issue is solved completely without needing a law at all. This is yet another example of Congress telling us what it thinks is good for everyone, when people are pretty well-equipped to figure that out on their own.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bans, congress, faa, fcc, inflight, phones, voice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, look at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, look at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you seen him? Have you seen anything he has done? He's not exactly short of that goal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now if only I remembered any examples...! (Read: Too lazy to look it up)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how special
This is why we need libertarians in charge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the places I work has recently gone to an open office environment, which is basically a cube-farm with only 3 ft. walls.....this means everyone in there is going to be hearing half of a phone conversation 8 hours a day. Where are the laws stopping that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things I don't get...
Second, why did Congress not petition Pelosi to block a vote on this redundantly enforced issue? Yup, she should keep her seat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fee'd to death
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Winner
"Sir. You're fat ass is chewing on those peanuts too loudly. Don't make me get the Marshall."
Screw the FAA, too. People are taking this homeland security crap way too far. Jackoffs. What a waste of my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might actually be beneficial
It is at this point that an over-arching congressional broad-ban (no pun intended) on "communicating verbally" will actually prove useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
He now has his instrument rating certification (he can fly through clouds and fly higher and stuff).
He was telling me how cell phones have never really caused interference with anything in the planes to begin with.
Just some food for thought. Of course I did not ask if this was simply for all of the smaller planes like the Cessnas or if he meant all planes. I assumed he meant all planes based on how I worded the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throat Mic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The current cell phone billing infrastructure cannot keep up with the volume of hand-offs between towers of dozens of people going 525mph.
So, rather than fix the problem - they have HEAVILY lobbied congress to take the initiative, so they wouldn't look like the bad guys - or disclose an architectural failing of their system.
Surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban babies too
This shouldn't even be an issue. It shouldn't be up to any part of our government to decide what we consumers find annoying. Let the airlines deal with it: if they want to charge extra for a 'phone free' section or flights, great, I'll take the cheaper seats and listen to my iPod. I can live without the 'luxury'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban babies too
Why should it be up to the airline to "decide what we consumers find annoying"? I think they can decide that on their own. And if you want to go down that road then why not let the passengers themselves deal with it? Maybe let them bring stun guns on board with them to help educate the "rude" passengers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward = Retarded
This Bill is just a pre-emptive law for when the infrastructure and technology is in place in which wireless data is possible on individual commercial aircraft--namely internet and the consequent VOiP.
You're absolutely full of crap.
Surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward = Retarded
Cell towers commonly have ranges of more than 32 Kft. That is even before you take optimization into account (there are no obstacles between a tower and a plane, you can use directional antennas, etc). Now, towers do have a problem with switching from tower to tower - especially if you happen to be going hundreds of miles per hour and you are in range of multiple towers).
This bill may or may not have the intended purpose that you have proposed, but your arguments are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't bring down the planes, it brings down the network!
On the ground when someone is using a particular frequency, that frequency becomes unusable in immediately adjacent cells, but due to 'ground effects' the signal drops off rapidly. A couple of cells away, someone else can be using the same frequency for their cellphone call and the two won't interfere it all.
A call from high-altitude doesn't have the same 'ground effect'; The signal will reach hundreds of cells over a wide area at full strength, blocking that channel for all of those cells. A few dozen people using cellphones in aircraft could easily tie up all available cellphone frequencies for a whole city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One sided conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One sided conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because They're above us on the social ladder, and they have power over what we can and cannot do. And if makes them feel good to take something and rub it in our faces.
Can we get some EDUCATED people with some common sense in our government please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No More Lies
However, I'm also glad that cell phone use is banned on scheduled flights in the US and hope that it stays that way. With this law hopefully the FAA will quit lying and just say that cell phones are banned because the law says so and leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about planes with built in phones?
I watched an episode of Top Gear recently that pointed out that it was tremendously rude, and not acceptable to talk on a cell phone on a bus or train. (Possibly in any public space?)
I think the real problem is that we are trying again to legislate morals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about planes with built in phones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Voice communication" is rather broad
All are forms of (one-way) communication that result in no sound pollution when earphones are used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdictional Reach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
Like the point poster #20 brought up, if this new law really tried to ban "voice communications" to stop one-sided communications, how will it affect in-flight phones provided by the airline? You know, the phones in the back of the seat that charge something like $5 a minute to use? Will those be banned to save people from the one-sided-talking annoyance?
On the other hand, maybe it's a slow law day for Congress and they needed to work on something with a catchy name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC and FAA are government agencies...
However, if an act is passed, then they cannot change their minds and make it legal in the future without having that act rescinded/modified by the legislature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]