Congress Moves to Ban In-Flight Cell Calls, Blowhards at 30,000 Feet
from the that-guy-in-seat-17C-simply-won't-shut-up dept
For many, many years electronics were banned during take off and landing and below 10,000 feet, purportedly to protect avionics from possible interference -- even if evidence of this interference threat was -- for the vast majority of devices -- non-existent. While it took years of tests followed by even more years of bumbling bureaucratic stumbling and repeated recommendations, back in October the FAA announced they were easing restrictions on in-flight electronics rules, allowing the use of things like e-readers during all phases of a flight. If you've flown since you've probably noticed the changes, even if flight attendants remain occasionally confused about the magical plane-crash protecting abilities of your iPad's airplane mode.Last month FCC boss Tom Wheeler then took things further by proposing to eliminate the FCC ban on in-flight cellular phone calls (see the FCC FAQ), and the FCC is still fielding comments on the rule changes (mostly negative). While Wheeler and the FCC took a lot of grief from consumers annoyed that they'll be inundated with chatty cathys at 30,000 feet, Wheeler rather correctly argued that with tests showing no interference, the FCC's role as a technical regulator was complete, and it would be up to the FAA, Congress or the airlines to institute new guidelines protecting you from that annoying chatterbox in 17C:
“I do not want the person in the seat next to me yapping at 35,000 feet any more than anyone else. But we are not the Federal Courtesy Commission… Technology has produced a new network reality recognized by governments and airlines around the world. Our responsibility is to recognize that new reality’s impact on our old rules."Since then, the Department of Transportation has hinted that they might create new rules, and the CEO of Delta has tried to win consumer brownie points by issuing a public letter stating they'll never allow in-flight phone conversations. Fast forward to this week, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill (HR3676, pdf) banning in-flight cellular (or VoIP) calls. House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) insists it's "common sense" to keep in-flight calls off limits:
"In our day-to-day lives, when we find someone’s cell phone call to be too loud, too close, or too personal, we can just walk away," he said. "But at 30,000 feet, there’s nowhere else for an airline passenger to go. Under this bill, passengers will be able to use their mobile devices to stay connected, through getting online, emailing, texting, and more. During flights, it is common sense and common courtesy to continue keeping cell phone calls on the ground."Even if by some strange chance Congress can't work together to pass a bill (there's a similar bill winding its way through the Senate), there's a good chance that in-flight calls could be so expensive as to be of limited appeal (remember $5 per minute calls via Airfone?). While some airlines could follow Delta's lead and step in to block phone calls, it seems like only a matter of time before an airline comes up with the "innovative" idea to charge a fee if users want to sit in the soundproofed section of the aircraft.
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: congress, department of transportation, fcc, tome wheeler
Companies: delta
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seat selection:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next logical step is to ban talking on phones anywhere where it might annoy someone -_-
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One thing I don't quite understand ... what's wrong with posting the same article on both Techdirt and DSLReports instead of having to write it twice?
Anyway, it's good to see someone I've enjoyed reading for many years joining the Techdirt staff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
If something is (essentially) free, people are more likely to do it than if they have to pay a considerable cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So.. where do they draw the line?
For planes with wifi, can I record my voice and email it to someone? Can I listen to an audio file emailed back to me?
Can I Skype? Can I have a video chat without audio?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So.. where do they draw the line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As soon as someone challenges this law
It's not going to get past the Supreme Court and probably most lower courts, period and done with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seat selection:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A person could, under this law, still legally talk while pretending to hold a phone to their ear. So you aren't really even legislating away the "problem" of people not wanting to hear other people talk.
And I love the cop-out of the law merely telling an agency that THEY have to make a rule prohibiting it. Is the bill's author conceding that he is incapable of writing the law himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As soon as someone challenges this law
1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message?
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?
Pretty sure the law would pass parts 2, 3, and 4. They aren't trying to suppress a particular message, it's narrowly tailored (only voice communications), and it allows alternative means for communication.
I'm not convinced it passes part 1. Where's the important governmental interest? "Preventing planes from crashing" clearly was one. "Preventing passengers from being mildly annoyed, even if the airline wants to allow calls" doesn't seem like it reaches that level. An airplane is a nonpublic forum, so that lowers the bar on what regulation is allowed, but even then I don't think this is justified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Am I not allowed to talk with someone that flies with me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So... (depending on airline policy) Kick people out of the plane for using their cell phone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As soon as someone challenges this law
I'm just not sure court would be willing to say, as a matter of constitutional principle, that you have a First Amendment right to use your cell phone. Even if it did decide that, the airline could still likely prohibit it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Since business travellers are likely looging onto company VPNs to get work done, blocking VPN is not practical. The only way it will work is to ban all laptop use in flight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What the hell difference is there between someone yakking on a phone built into the damn plane vs. a cell phone?
I've sat next to people who used those Airphones because it didn't look to me they minded the high rates because "They're on vacation and flying over [location]!"
Good grief. The stupidity of government knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
Which is why I think this is driven more by the airlines than by end-users. What I hate about this is that it can then be used to prohibit use of cell phones, regardless to whether it is a voice call or a text message with a really annoying ring tone. I've sat on planes where folks were using the in-flight phones and they were just as obnoxious (and from a security perspective, dumb, since they were communicating sensitive data like IP addresses and passwords to log in to the system they were trying to troubleshoot at 30k feet above the earth) as cell phone users.
Having been on the trains in Japan, there are much better ways of dealing with chatty cathy's on their cell phones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
I believe it is known as courtesy, a concept that seems here to have fallen into disfavor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
Having been on trains and public transportation in the US, for the most part, the courtesy still exists. And usually it exists on planes too. However, when you start talking loudly to someone else on a Japanese train, you very quickly find the whole train car staring at you...that is often enough to get you to shut up. Having the flight attendant come over and ask you to keep it down might be enough, and making it a law is overkill.
There is already too much stuff in the law-books that is poorly enforced and I'd hope by now we'd recognize as a nation that you can't regulate good behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a surprise...
How is this any business of Congress? We don't need a stupid law for this and Congress shouldn't be wasting money on it trying to tell airlines how to run their business. Since they have finally realized that there are no real safety issues, who are they to tell airlines what they should and should not allow on their flights? The market will take care of that itself. It seems kind of stupid anyway unless they specifically include VOIP services in the law since regular cell phones have to connect to a tower on the ground which likely will have a lot of trouble maintaining a stable connection if at 30,000 feet anyway if it is able to make a connection to a tower at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: As soon as someone challenges this law
But the device is used for speech - and indeed, it's actually voice communications that are prohibited, not just the device itself (which can be still used for texting, for example.) And a tax on newspaper ink was once declared unconstitutional because of its effects on speech.
The loophole allowing the built-in plane phones may prove to be the law's undoing in the end, unless they can provide a reasonable basis as to why those are allowed. What's the difference between someone talking on their cell while standing next to the plane-phone and someone actually talking on the plane-phone? Why should one be legal and one be illegal?
They sure could, and that's the way this SHOULD be done instead of a federal law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As soon as someone challenges this law
However, its' crazy that this is even a topic for legislation at all. If people yapping on cell phones becomes a real problem, the airlines themselves can certainly prohibit that activity. I don't see why legislators have to get involved.
But I guess it lets them avoid doing work on things that are of actual importance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
By law, you must comply with flight attendant's instructions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So.. where do they draw the line?
Just don't do it out loud. Lots of people listen to audio and audio/video content on planes. They just use headphones to do this. (OMG! someone call the RIAA/MPAA to file a lawsuit about this crime! For the artists!)
Can you record your voice and email it to someone? [on a plane?] I would ask: is your recording device small and flushable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As soon as someone challenges this law
> These idiots need to realize that banning something just
> because of a personal dislike for it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Yep. We would never ban smoking on a plane.
It would also be unconstitutional to ban someone from taking your phone and flushing it just because of a personal dislike for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
> leave it up to the airlines to decide if phone calls are allowed or not and when.
The TSA will object to allowing passengers to carry firearms onto aircraft to deal with people using cellphones during flight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's similar to the what I have said about the municipal popular ordinances that have recently been passed banning smoking in restaurants and bars. The municipalities should not be in the business of telling local businesses what customers they should cater to or not. If a restaurant or bar owner wants to allow it. It should be the business owner's right to allow it or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree totally. I don't smoke, but these laws really piss me off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Seat selection:
I also have a Code Red emergency baby plan, and carry foam earplugs as well. If seated next to an unhappy baby, I go earplugs AND NC headphones, crank my tunes up, and don't hear a thing around me.
Please, don't bother commenting about "Social isolation". When I go Code Red, that is precisely the objective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Seat selection:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Seat selection:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get Real
The airlines should set policy to allow or disallow in-flight phone calls. Their bottom line will tell them whether they made the right choice.
If you ask the young folks of today about it, you'll probably get a lot of vacant stares. "You mean actually TALK on this thing? I only use it for the WEB and for texting. I NEVER talk on it!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just charge $5 a minute for wifi
Let's look at the facts:
1) "Airfones" and in-flight phones have been common on airplanes since at least the 1970's.
2) Airfones cost at least $5 a minute.
3) People will be chatty cathys because their own cell phone gives them cheap or free minutes.
The obvious answer: set up a $5 per minute wifi system within the airplane. People won't use it because it's expensive and other passengers won't be disturbed.
And wasn't there an issue with cell phones not being able to connect to towers in an airplane travelling at 35,000 feet and going 500 mph? The $5 per minute wifi also solves this issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just charge $5 a minute for wifi
"And wasn't there an issue with cell phones not being able to connect to towers in an airplane travelling at 35,000 feet and going 500 mph?"
Depends on the phone and where the airplane is. Cell phones work just fine more often than not, especially over populated areas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This should be up to the Airlines, PERIOD! Some will allow it and others won't. That's free market in action. If people don't like all the calling, they take the other airline that doesn't allow it. You get enough customers that want it or don't want it, you offer or ban it accordingly. Why the Government has to go BAN it. Because THEY don't like it, is a load of CRAP! They already have their nose is a million other things they have no business in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So phones built into the backs of passenger seats are OK, but phones carried on by passengers are not OK. I just don't get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So.. where do they draw the line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Somehow, I'm recalling that scene from StarTrek IV: The Voyage Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr82dZpCr48
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As soon as someone challenges this law
Not as far as can be ascertained.
2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message?
There is no government interest, period.
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
Doubtful. How often do members of the government fly in economy or even business class?
4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?
At five bucks a minute? Are you fuckin' kidding me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"No Ticket."
[ link to this | view in thread ]