dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-12 10:09:30: Last fall the FAA lifted restrictions on in-flight electronics use during take offs and landing, and last January the FCC began rulemaking to lift the restrictions on in-flight phone calls. ..


anonomeX

@comcast.net

Thanks, but...

I'd rather see some bills to ban sub-woofers in vehicles (and ban vehicles without mufflers [that actually work]).... you know--something truly useful for everyone who isn't on a plane.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Thanks, but...

Don't forget Harley type motorcycles or at require owners to fix their throttle issue....
shpatb

join:2013-07-16
These are both already illegal, whether or not it is enforced is another issue.
theboz1419

join:2003-02-12
Elgin, IL
Nothing wrong with subs in the car. It's the ones that are not soundproof that are the problem. I used to have 2 12s in my older car but I had it dynamate and sound barrier installed every where. The people that don't I can't stand either. They are laws too. Also, I guess we would need to ban motorcycles too then

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

Re: Thanks, but...

said by theboz1419:

Nothing wrong with subs in the car. It's the ones that are not soundproof that are the problem. I used to have 2 12s in my older car but I had it dynamate and sound barrier installed every where. The people that don't I can't stand either. They are laws too. Also, I guess we would need to ban motorcycles too then

Agreed. I have a single JL 10"W3 and that generates more than enough bass for pretty much any type of music. But I listen to it with the windows rolled up, it's for my enjoyment, not as an attempt to get attention from other people. When used this way, it really doesn't carry all that far outside despite being very loud inside. The bigger problem is when people use an excessive amount of power with the windows down, for the explicit purpose of getting attention.

Even people who use subwoofers in an annoying way, in my area, they are far outnumbered by people with modified exhausts, and Harley type motorcycles. At some point you have to accept that you will never have control over others' actions, and you either need to get used to the noise pollution, or move to a more remote location to get it.

anonomeX

@comcast.net
said by theboz1419:

Also, I guess we would need to ban motorcycles too then

Not all of them, maybe not even most of them. A guy I worked with for a long time had a BMW--big thing, but whisper-quiet. This butt-hole kid a few blocks away from me, however, has this tiny "scooter" that he likes to let out full-throttle (to go all of, maybe, 30mph); I think he's actually pulled the muffler off. Never see him (or her), but you can hear him from a mile away. So, it ain't the bike; it's the person--no consideration for anyone else... they annoy thousands of people wherever they go. Any motor vehicle can be quiet (as the law in some localities says it must be)--till some butt modifies it to get himself noticed ('cause that's the only way it'll ever happen--completely worthless human beings).
theboz1419

join:2003-02-12
Elgin, IL

Re: Thanks, but...

I guess you don't have any Harleys around.
masterbinky

join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

1 recommendation

If you can't suggest a good law..

I guess copying from common sense (ie: Social Norms) is a safe thing to do. Besides it being stupid that you would make a law for something that social norms takes care of, and making the future more difficult for society.

I guess next we need to make it illegal to talk on speakerphone with your phone in front of you while you walk around in public. It's common sense no-one wants to listen to either person in the conversation.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

Re: If you can't suggest a good law..

Laws like this are created because you have the few that thing laws and regulation are the answer to everything.

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

1 edit

4 recommendations

Re: If you can't suggest a good law..

said by TBBroadband:

Laws like this are created because you have the few that thing laws and regulation are the answer to everything.

No. You have laws and regulations because there are few who believe they have the right to do anything they want without regards to being responsible for using those rights properly. When the nation was founded, it was generally assumed that with rights came responsibilities. The responsibilities aspect went out the window long ago and the attitude became I have rights so screw you. Thus we get ever more "Nanny State" type regulation because people have proven they cannot be responsible with the exercise of their rights.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

Re: If you can't suggest a good law..

Well said. Some people think laws and rules don't apply to them.
waycoolphil

join:2000-09-22
Cathedral City, CA
This. What would Dana Carvey's Church Lady say about these putzes? "Well, isn't that SPE-CIAL?!"

anonomeX

@comcast.net
said by masterbinky:

no-one wants to listen to either person in the conversation.

Actually, studies have shown that the "real" complaint that most people have about others talking on cellphones is them being unable to hear both sides of the conversation (and therefore not being able to properly eavesdrop on the conversation). (Of course, too many people talk louder on a cellphone, mistakenly thinking that it helps the other person hear them better or--worse--allowing them to hear the other person better [weird, huh].)
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
You know what is fun to do.....

When you have someone doing this, like a person sitting next to me on mass transit, jump into the conversation as though you are part of that "conference" call. Clearly they are inviting you.

I have done this 3 times. Twice it ended with the person taking it off speaker and once the person got up and moved to another part of the train.
Expand your moderator at work
masterbinky

join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

Re: If you can't suggest a good law..

That's how I expect it to get curbed, people simply have to respond in kind to rude behavior. Similar things can be done to the people having the phone conversations on airplanes that people are dreading.

What I don't get is why they haven't outlawed snoring on a plane, various abuse my olfactory nerves, and overflowing past the arm rest into another seat. Those all seem worse than someone talking on the cell phone while stuck in a seat on a flight.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

3 recommendations

Let the airlines decide.

Let the airlines decide. Government has more important things to do.
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

Re: Let the airlines decide.

They should.... but that would require some real work. It's much easier to have someone write a bill to ban talking on a cell phone then it is to solve _REAL WORLD PROBLEMS_.
fredthomsen
Premium
join:2011-03-01
Agreed. This is a case of government wasting time on something that the airlines will decide anyway, and since there is such public opposition to talking on cell phones on planes, the airlines that don't will suffer.
fcb

join:2000-11-20
Orange, CA
Leave out, "Government has more important things to do." and I completely agree.

odreian615

join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL
I agree this is a airline problem. Would be nice if all of them had childless sections also.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Airlines will just find a way to monetize it.

And since when does the Government get anything else done?
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party
Big Dawg 23

join:2002-03-27
Northfield, MN

Re: Let the airlines decide.

Delta CEO has already said if approved they will still band calls.
smcallah

join:2004-08-05
Home

1st amendment?

So this bill isn't the same as banning cell phone use by a car driver, as that person is operating a vehicle.

Couldn't Congress be setting themselves up for a 1st amendment challenge to this by making such a nanny law if it were to pass and be signed? Since there is no safety reason to stop it, as the FAA cleared it, and no technical reason to stop it, since the FCC cleared it.

Let the airlines decide on their own. If you want to talk on a phone, fly on airline X, if you don't, fly on another airline.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR

Re: 1st amendment?

That's the first thing I thought of. If the airlines do it, there is no First Amendment argument. But if the gov't does it, maybe there is. Better to let the airlines ban such use, just as movie theaters do.
megarock

join:2001-06-28
Catawissa, MO
Reviews:
·Charter
Sure seems there is way more of a safety hazard with someone operating a moving two ton vehicle down the road than sitting in a seat on an airplane while someone else controls it. And since data is allowed and most airlines allow that...you can just put a VoIP app on your phone and make the call anyway. It's not cellular so it pretty much nullifies the law unless they just want to stop the actual conversation from taking place which very much sets it up for 1st Amendment since the government cannot stop free speech.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: 1st amendment?

Well hopefully they will word the bill appropriately so that any voice application is banned as well.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
Regardless of who bans it, I think it's going to be sticky because they will have to differentiate why discriminating against a phone conversation is different than a two-passenger conversation.

Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Voice distinction

I hope legislators are smart enough to make a distinction between voice calls and all other forms of text and photo based communications. While I don't want people in a confined space to loudly drone on their voice calls (I hate it on the LIRR) I would like to be able to text/email/selfie someone mid flight as the need arises.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

Re: Voice distinction

They aren't.
underthehood
Premium
join:2006-01-04

Sure hope it gets banned

As a former flight attendant and having to deal with a-holes who think rules like turning off electronics, stowing bags safely, not reclining seats during takeoff/landing, not putting lap tops in the seat pocket (I could write a book), and then have these same a-holes ask you questions about announcements you have CLEARLY made but they didn't because they refused to comply or pay attention I can tell you allowing phone use in flight will simply make things even worse and less safe. And BTW once over 10k feet they won't work anyway. Used to love to get the question about how did the captain make their cell phone battery go dead. Simple, once over 10k that phone is searching and using up gobs of battery power. I just used to laugh.
Yep keep cell phones off planes...................PERIOD

•••

RWSI

join:2012-11-27
Albuquerque, NM

Ban it all

Ban crying babies, loud talkers, the phones that are on the headrest in front of you, control information coming from the staff of the airplane.
What else can I think of?
Leave it up to the Airplane executives to decide not politics.
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

Dumb

Yet another thing that companies and people could simply take care of. If someone next to me needs to make a call, then that is fine. But if they just want to chat loudly for hours on end... I might just ask them if it can wait. It's _that_ easy. It's would also be the reason why I simply take good headphones with me now when I fly. Makes my own personal space regardless of what is going on.
megarock

join:2001-06-28
Catawissa, MO
Reviews:
·Charter

How DUMB

How clueless are these Congressmen? Ok, you can ban the cell call but not data. No biggie, just put the Google Voice app on your phone and make the call anyway.

These idiots have no idea at all about how technology works. And while Congress works on IMPORTANT matters like this they still refuse to do anything to create jobs.

This one received a FAIL.

•••••••••
psiu

join:2004-01-20
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse

glad to see Congress is tackling the tough issues...

Or, in this case, let the free market handle it. Oh, Airline A allows in flight calls and Airline B doesn't? Guess where I'm booking my flight...

And/or societal norms, common sense, and drinks getting spilled "accidentally" on offending parties.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

1 recommendation

Re: glad to see Congress is tackling the tough issues...

said by psiu:

Or, in this case, let the free market handle it. Oh, Airline A allows in flight calls and Airline B doesn't? Guess where I'm booking my flight...

That only works if both Airline A and Airline B fly from your Departure Airport to your Destination Airport. There are a number of cases on flights I make where "You Can't There From Here" unless I fly on a specific Airline.

jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3

What about airphone?

Any law would have to ban airphone calls.
bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY

Re: What about airphone?

the airlines make money off that so that's acceptable - obviously
ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

Re: What about airphone?

said by bn1221:

the airlines make money off that so that's acceptable - obviously

Airfones were removed from most US airlines long ago. It was still used on private and government aircraft, but was permanently decommissioned last year. GogoInflight is using the frequency allocation for additional bandwidth.

But, you can expect that the airlines would insist on a revenue sharing agreement if they put a micro-cell in their plane with a dedicated downlink (terrestrial or satellite).

I think it would be helpful to consider the European, Asian, and Middle Eastern airlines that already offer the ability to use your cell phone to make phone calls and send/receive text messages. They appear on phone bills as international roaming, and are priced accordingly.

One of the companies that has been providing this service to airlines for 4 years reports that they have yet to hear a report of a problem precipitated by use of cell phones on planes.

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

Nothing Better To Do

Apparently, Congress has solved all of the real problems they should be tackling if they have time left over to make laws regulating minor annoyances (with no safety or technological components) when airline policy could take care of the issue just as well (if not better).

What's next? I get arrested under the Don't Let Your Kids Annoy Other People In Stores For Any Reason Act?
--
-Jason Levine

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

.

I am glad I don't fly. With today's vehicles I would rather drive than fly.
vpsj

join:2012-09-10
Plainville, CT

Human Nature

It should be no talking…right? No one has a problem with a conversation between two people around them. But one person on a phone… aghhh.
Why you might ask? Well you know what both people in a conversation are saying and you can ignore it if there is no interest to you. But with the phone call you only hear one side of the conversation causing you to try to figure out what the other end of the conversation is. Now you spend so much brain power, you can’t work or read or even sleep. Plus you can’t join in.
My solution? Instead of banning calls, just limit the call time. It forces the caller to plan an efficient call and limits the nosy neighbor’s brain overload. Sorry but that’s human nature.
Springbok

join:2002-09-13
Colleyville, TX

I want this law to prohibit cell-phone conversations

Congress has not been working for the past few years, this will give them something to do that will actually be beneficial to Americans.