FCC Says No to Mobile Phones on Airplane 398
GayBliss writes "CNN is reporting that the FCC has decided to keep a rule in place that would ban mobile phone usage on airplanes. The FAA has a similar ban, but for different reasons. 'In an order released Tuesday, the agency noted that "insufficient technical information" was available on whether airborne cell phone calls would jam networks below. [...]Unlike the Federal Aviation Administration, which bans the use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices for fear they will interfere with navigational and communications systems, the FCC's concern is interference with other cell phone signals on the ground.'"
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Insufficient technical information (Score:5, Insightful)
So why the ban? Erring on the side of caution? Gimme a break. There's gotta be another reason that nobody's talking about.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Business travel is stressful enough the way it is and being "out of touch" from the office may be the best part of the trip. If they allow cell phones on airplanes that means I will be expected to work while I am on the plane as well. Get 20 people on a plane doing that and it is going to be really annoying to everyone else.
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you FCC.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:3, Insightful)
Cellphones are remarkably powerful devices. I can hear interference from mine on my landline when they're close. I wouldn't want to try it on unshielded (weight) avionics. Aircraft design is very tight (weight) without the robustness you might expect.
... passengers everywhere say: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's times like that I am most thankful for the invention of the iPod. Nothing like creating a personal space in a public space.
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that's *really* a non-issue here wrt this article, as controlling sociopathic travellers isn't part of the FCC's bailiwick. The real story here is the claim that there isn't enough proof that cell phones whizzing by five miles over our heads at five hundred miles an hour won't cause you to lose your call to Aunt Mabel, a call which is statistically likely to be just as inane as the ones causing mass murders overhead.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously?
Do you even read the slashdot comments? Or just try to drive to the store and have people cut you off, walk out in front of you, or park their cars on the painted lines at an angle?
There is a small percentage of people on Earth that can actually understand their effect on others AND have consideration enough to act appropriately.
I think that the majority of the people out there care just enough about others to not piss people off so much that they'll get beaten, but not by much. And these same people are so oblivious of their surroundings that they don't notice that the people that they honk at and yell at are doing the exact same things that they just did.
That's why we have to have laws that wouldn't be there if people would just take it upon themselves to act appropriately.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
this will be moot when in-air wifi rolls out (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded. I seem to recall a "Mythbusters" episode (yes.. the paragons of the scientific process) that also confirmed this. The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No. Airline communications? No -- totally different frequency band. Somebody give me a good example of where your cell phone was interfering in ground based systems while in your car (not your unshielded car stereo with a GSM phone). There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air. And no -- there is NO problem with communicating with a cell tower several miles DOWN -- with nothing in your way except the airplane fuselage. You'd actually get pretty good reception. Antenna sensitivity is also a function of height (and how much is in the way).
Ah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the main concern that a cellphone at high altitude will be able to "see" lots of towers that look almost equally good and be prone to jumping back and forth between them at a much much higher rate than the networks were designed for, interfering with peoples' ability to make calls on the ground.
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:3, Insightful)
Replace "altitude" with "confinement in a tube with a bunch of other primates", and it ends up a lot more plausible.
Right Decision, Wrong Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
On a cell phone you tend to talk louder to be sure that you're heard. You're dealing with a tiny microphone. You're also dealing with a tiny speaker; when you're having trouble hearing you tend to talk louder in the belief that they must also be having trouble hearing you.
So a perfect cell phone would indeed be no more of a nuisance than a conversation with a seat mate, but at least some people talk a lot louder than that. It may actually be no louder than ordinary conversation, but a cramped space (restaurant, airplane) requires hushed tones.
Re:Insufficient technical information (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unfortunately... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it really a "ban"? (Score:3, Insightful)
My sanity thanks you (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the way every baby I've ever noticed is screaming. There may be perfectly polite infants on airplanes, but I'd never notice them.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually as another commenter pointed out that 1 out of every 100 persons is a Sociopath, but in reality laws at this point in our history do not deter crime or affect behavior as much as attempt to mitigate the person's ability to do it again.
There is little effort in law enforcement for prevention and rehabilitation as much as there is detection and incarceration (at least in the US).
Although, the CCTV systems and automated methods of catching people who break the law actually do make us actually not try to break the law (I've slammed on my brakes a few times because I know there are cameras on a yellow light that is extremely short because I knew I would get fined), but the majority of the people in the states do not actually think about the law when they go about their daily lives and often only are not total jerks because they aren't all bad (99 out of 100 of them).
Even with the death penalty and efficient justice we still have people who murder each other on a daily basis.
I'm sure I go about my daily life most likely breaking a dozen laws and regulations which I don't even know about and I'm sure you do too, but you don't see me (and hopefully not you) punching old ladies in the face or talking on my cell phone during a movie.
Those who do won't be stopped by simply laws, but rather the enforcement of laws (or if we actually spent time with prevention and identified sociopaths in the first place and rehabilitated them).
I don't think anarchy is the solution either because there are plenty of sociopaths to go around... Unfortunately, some which I think actually make and enforce the laws these days.
Selfish 'dotters and "Air Rage" (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when does the Slashdot community suggest and support that behavior be regulated? What next: No homosexuality because it's icky for it to go "in there"? No driving at the speed limit because you're late and it's annoying when other people don't understand that YOU didn't get up on time in the morning? Shall we now force people to speak with a specific accent because you don't like a regional diction?
At no point should it EVER be the government's responsibility to enforce "polite behavior" because you
Grow a pair, complainers, and solve your own social problems.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's OK, but I think problems with rude people can be solved by being less rude than they are and explaining why you too are being rude. It may not happen on the first try, but if enough of us did that sort of thing we could train them. Part of the problem is all the people who will sit idly by, getting hotter under the collar, because they are too cowardly to stand up and say something.
The REAL problem is that people are impolite, but that problem has existed for a very long time now, and I don't have an overall solution except maybe requiring a license to be permitted to have children, and to have one of the criteria in the license exam be that you may not be trash.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to really train your kids how to act in public is to take them out in public frequently. This means they will occasionally throw fits. However, if they do this, the correct thing to do is to get them away from that public place as quickly as possible.
When my kids were very young, we took them shopping and to restaurants and that sort of thing. However, if one of them starting screaming or something, we immediately took them outside away from other people. On the very rare occasion that it was a full-blown tantrum, they were brought home and put into their bedrooms, and we did our shopping at some other time.
I don't understand the parents who will walk through the entire store and spend 20 minutes shopping while their children are screaming bloody murder the entire time. I've been in stores where the entire time I was shopping I would hear a blood-curdling scream from the same kid every 30 seconds the entire time I was there. I can only assume that kid's mother is stone deaf.
When I see a mother leaving a store carrying her screaming child, I feel pity for her. When I see a mother leisurely doing her shopping while her kid screams in the cart, it just angers me.
Re:unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as just putting your phone on vibrate... no, just turn it off. Those incredibly bright flashes of light as people check their phones is nearly as distracting as the ringing itself. My opinion, if you can't spend 2 hours without a phone, then just wait for the damned movie to come out on DVD.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Selfish 'dotters and "Air Rage" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's is how it should work. Airlines have the power to regulate "politeness" in their private aircraft by saying, "No cell phones, please. Too many of you loud mouths have proven yourselves inconsiderate and we risk losing the business of normal people because of you". Not the federal government. The government getting involved opens up too wide a precedence.
Re:What a bunch of whining babies (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the thing is that a one-sided cell phone conversation feels like an intrusion into an established social situation. One can always hear the conversations of the actual people around you, but most of the time if feels like it belongs: the people are right there with you, you can hear both sides of the conversation, you can even join in if you feel like it. You don't feel excluded, unless it's some passionate couple total oblivious to everybody else around them.
And that's the thing with cell phone conversations in a public space: it's an exclusive conversation, and the person blabbing into the phone is mostly oblivious to the people around him or her. It feels rude and exclusionary. Normally, people who need a private space for conversation will move themselves to a private space, but cell phone users will instead take that private space from the others around them, and that feels like a violation.
That's as it should be (Score:2, Insightful)
I think all cell phone calls should be taxed as much as possible, with balance being made in lower taxes on other more important goods and services. Cell phones are used by insufferable fuckwits all over the world. Thirty years ago we didn't have cell phones at all and nobody died because of that.
Cell phones should be in the same or higher tax brackets as booze and tobacco. Actually, they should have higher taxes, since we already have smoke-free areas everywhere. Sitting next to a cell talker has about the same irritation factor as sitting next to a smoker.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unfortunately... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They are a second set of eyes.
2) When something tricky is happening, like you having to slam on your breaks, they quickly shut up and let you concentrate on the immediate danger, where as the person on the phone keeps on talking, completely oblivious to anything that is happening.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ammo production:
1. Take an A4 or letter sized sheet of paper.
2. Fold over and tear off a 2-3 inch wide flap, making a strip from a short edge.
3. Roll the strip into a tight (but not too tight) small cigar shaped wad.
4. Lick the end flap of the roll to make it stick and not unravel.
5. Bend it in the middle, to make a V shaped projectile.
The slingshot is just a heavy duty elastic band looped between your thumb and index finger. Assuming you are right handed, the projectile is held by the right hand, and the sling is the thumb and index finger of the left hand.
Can be stowed immediately after a shot. If your poker face is good enough, you can shoot someone point blank and then stare innocently when he/she turns around angrily. Make *damn* sure your poker face is good, as even a tiny smirk is likely to result in you being chased around the terminal.
Pros:
1. Easily concealable, 100% undetectable by airport security.
2. Can inflict serious pain, especially to that exposed part of the back of the neck of a cell phone douche bag.
3. Rapid deployment and concealment.
Cons:
1. Unstable ammo makes accuracy at long range poor
2. Unskilled use can result in the projectile hitting the webbing between thumb and forefinger of your sling hand. Can draw blood!
3. Requires practice in covert deployment and concealment if it is to be used in combat against cell phone douche bags.