Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications

FCC Maintains Ban on Mobile Phone Voice Calls During Flights (bloomberg.com) 126

Posted by msmash from the end-of-matter dept.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission killed a proposal to allow in-flight voice calls via mobile phones, ending its examination of an idea that evoked fears of air rage from passengers trapped beside jabbering seat mates. From a report: The idea drew "strong opposition" from pilots and flight attendants, the agency said Friday in a four-paragraph order. The FCC in 2013 proposed allowing mobile telephone conversations above 10,000 feet, adopting practices followed in Europe and elsewhere, where in-flight voice calling is more common. But the proposal led to strong and immediate pushback, with travelers, flight attendants, members of Congress and others saying they were troubled by the idea of passengers talking on phones in flight. One group raised "the potential for air rage if passengers are using their cell phone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Maintains Ban on Mobile Phone Voice Calls During Flights More

FCC Maintains Ban on Mobile Phone Voice Calls During Flights

Comments Filter:

  • irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday November 27, 2020 @10:50PM (#60771918)

    the proposal led to strong and immediate pushback, with travelers, flight attendants, members of Congress and others saying they were troubled by the idea of passengers talking on phones in flight.

    Yet none of their pushback had anything to do with radio related safety which is what the FCC oversees. If they want it banned they should have it explicitly banned instead of using the FCC safety regulations as a shield.

    • It's been known for years that the ban on calls was more about making sure pax hear the safety briefing or emergency instructions than any RF interference issues.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        making sure pax hear the safety briefing

        So I have my noise cancelling headphones plugged into the seat audio. Which will be playing the safety briefing.

        "Sir. You must remove your headphones during the presentation."

        Fine. Now all I can hear is that screeching rug-rat in the row behind me.

        • Re: irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MrNaz ( 730548 ) on Saturday November 28, 2020 @12:14AM (#60772044) Homepage

          Parents have a hard time flying. Children are necessary if humanity is to continue. Sorry if that makes your life hard. Your entitled attitude reflects just how spoiled and shitty we as a civilization have become.

          • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

            by Cylix ( 55374 )

            You are the type to defend putting an infant into a cinema.

            Babies and planes are basically everyone has to listen to a child screaming for hours on end. That isn't humanities burden to bear. Flying is a luxury.

            Try hard to social justice.

            • Re: irrelevant. (Score:1, Flamebait)

              by MrNaz ( 730548 )

              Flying is not a luxury you self-entitled twat.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by lsllll ( 830002 )
              You do realize this is just a fact of life, don't you? Those people have to fly, just the same as you do. You may get unlucky (again, facts of life) and get seated within a few seats of a child screaming because of an ear ache he can't do anything about, or a stomach ache, or whatever reason an adult may be able to handle without screaming. I don't under how you can say flying is a luxury when the parent carrying that child on the plane paid a fair price to get on that plane. Are you so much of a baby y

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              The GP is right, should not have been modded troll. You may disagree with their opinion but that doesn't make them a troll.

              As a society we need children. If we make being a parent too difficult the population will start to decline and that causes problems. Just ask Japan.

              Most young children will sleep through most of the flight anyway. Like a car the motion of the aircraft and the noise puts them to sleep. Modern aircraft are better pressurised so their ears don't pop as badly, or at all.

              In my experience th

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sfcat ( 872532 )

                As a society we need children. If we make being a parent too difficult the population will start to decline and that causes problems.

                But do they really need to fly? Its optional for you. We all know it is. What job would require you flying your kids around the country? Perhaps a few cases but that's 0.01% of the time. No, they are flying because the grandparents don't want to but still want to see the kids. The rest of us are flying usually because we have to for a job. That's the difference. Now tell your boss you are taking the afternoon off for a PTA meeting (for the second time this month) and someone without kids will just h

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by MrNaz ( 730548 )

                  "I can't think of any reason to take kids more than a car ride distance from the place they were born, therefore nobody needs to do it."

                  You know the "it works for me" attitude is annoying from BOFH wannabes, but this just takes that and turns the dial to 11.

            • Re: irrelevant. (Score:5, Funny)

              by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday November 28, 2020 @06:19AM (#60772416)

              Flying is a luxury.

              Yes that's why I throw my baby into the water and go collect them when I get across the Atlantic. Unfortunately I'm on baby 5 now. I keep getting the currents confused.

              You are an incredibly closed minded person to think that flying is a luxury. Take a look at a world map and realise there's more to it bouncing around the USA from gas station to gas station.

              Equating the cinema with flying is utterly absurd. An infant gets nothing from going to the cinema, an infant gets to a new destination with a plane. I mean you may consider your kids disposable enough to just make another at the destination but that's you being a bad person, not a reflection on the rest of humanity.

            • Kid's either got a paid ticket or express permission to be on the plane (lap rider). If you don't like it, then drive home for the holidays.

              And the movies... suck it there too, same deal. Maybe you can find an airline willing to turn down whole families for your enjoyment, theater chains exist that do that. Next, come and complain about what they charge.

              In both cases, an adult or teen is more often causing the disruptions anyway. If all else goes perfectly well, a tall person sits in front or a large pe

            • Flying USED TO BE A LUXURY but now it's no different than taking an inter-city bus through any failing major American city.

          • You mean that humanity that literally extincts ALL the species and ruins the entire planet and is so primitive it cannot even avoid suffering for its own damn offspring?

            Yeah, sorry, stop acting like humanity continuing to exist is a good thing.

          • Having crotch gobblins is completely a choice. We have more than enough of them for humanity to survive. We could probably do with fewer children for awhile, there's already more than enough of us on this planet. I really wish airlines would create a flying with child class, so they can all suffer together in their own sound isolated section. I once had do do an international flight from Europe to the US with a screaming brat 2 rows away, that did nothing but cry and scream for probably 80% of the 8hr fligh

      • Pretty sure its just money in the end. (Score:5, Informative)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Friday November 27, 2020 @11:12PM (#60771968) Homepage Journal

        The same flights have calls available from the seat by just paying with card. You can induce flight rage all you want but you gotta pay.

        Also same flights still have booze.

      • Why would the FCC be concerned about this rather than the FAA?

        • Who cares? The outcome is correct.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

            There are concepts such as limited government. Just because it's a good thing (in your opinion) does not mean it should be done by the government.

            Airlines are individually free to continue banning in-flight cell phone calls. Passengers who want to make calls in flight can choose airlines that allow them, and passengers who hate hearing other people talk can fly with airlines that do ban them.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday November 28, 2020 @12:07AM (#60772040)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Doppler frequency shift is nowhere near an issue. You're like 3 or 4 orders of magnitude short.

          • It actually does have an effect, even while moving in a car. There are even different transmission modes that are more optimized for moving or stationary traffic (transmission mode 3 vs 4). Your phone will have more trouble attaching to LTE while moving, but usually once attached it won't have a problem (data speed can be affected a bit by movement though). There's many cases I've seen where I'll drop to 3G, and it will not switch back to LTE until I stop (even passing multiple towers with LTE). It will hol

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

              I'll bet those modes are related to how likely it is to switch towers rather than Doppler shift. An aircraft travels at about 290 m/s. The speed of radio waves in air is about 299,702,547 m/s. Doppler shift would change the frequency by 0.000096%. If the phone was using the 1900 MHz band, this could shift it up to 1900.0018 MHz, which is easily within acceptable ranges.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cylix ( 55374 )

          I have a feeling tmobile already does this.

          If you travel far enough there is a period where the service is unavailable. At least in my experience, even with an international plan, it takes several hours before my phone seems to register correctly with the local network.

          I can still do outcalls, but incalls take quite a bit of time.

        • Re:irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative)

          by CaptQuark ( 2706165 ) on Saturday November 28, 2020 @03:31AM (#60772264)
          Using cell phones in the air would NOT connect directly to the hundreds of cell towers on the ground, six miles below the plane. If you read the linked article, the last sentence says "The FCC in 2013 anticipated using technology that funneled calls through an onboard system."

          The system would set up a local cell inside the plane for the cell phones to connect to. The audio from those calls would then be rebroadcast on a different radio signal to either an airline-controlled ground station or more likely a satellite.

          Also, as a mental exercise, the Doppler shift on a cellphone signal traveling just under the speed of sound (~700mph) is negligible. The average cellphone frequency of 1GHz would only shift 2kHz (1 billion Hertz signal shifting 2000 Hertz). This is well within the frequency window that the cellphone towers will receive. A car traveling at 100mph would see a shift of 300Hz and the cell towers don't have a problem with that.

          ---

        • Nope. It's that using mobile phones in the air causes huge amounts of interference to the cellular networks themselves.

          If the antenna signals are the problem, would calls using Wifi calling be allowed? If general Wifi traffic is allowed, it shouldn't matter if they happen to carry voice calls, right? Thinking along the same lines, would calls using WhatsApp, etc. be allowed?

      • It's been known for years that the ban on calls was more about making sure pax hear the safety briefing or emergency instructions than any RF interference issues.

        A phone at high altitude is visible to hundreds of cell towers. It's also traveling very fast and crosses cells in a matter of seconds, not minutes.

        Both of those things mess up the cellular system, and that's where the FCC comes in.

        • It's been known for years that the ban on calls was more about making sure pax hear the safety briefing or emergency instructions than any RF interference issues.

          A phone at high altitude is visible to hundreds of cell towers. It's also traveling very fast and crosses cells in a matter of seconds, not minutes.

          Both of those things mess up the cellular system, and that's where the FCC comes in.

          Just to add this...

          When I last worked in the cellular industry the switching centers had "call dead" timers of no less than 5 seconds. That way the switching center could handoff the call to another switching center as the caller(s) moved through switching center boundaries. That handover is why you can start a call in 1 city and finish in after driving to another city.

          That "call dead" timer worked to our benefit when we moved the majority of our network's call transport to IP and routing protocols could be

    • the proposal led to strong and immediate pushback, with travelers, flight attendants, members of Congress and others saying they were troubled by the idea of passengers talking on phones in flight.

      Yet none of their pushback had anything to do with radio related safety which is what the FCC oversees. If they want it banned they should have it explicitly banned instead of using the FCC safety regulations as a shield.

      True, but not everything the FSS deals with is specifically radio related. In this casae, it is the widespread disruption that would occur while using an RF device.

      • FCC (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        In what other areas does the FCC regulate what devices can be used where for "public order" reasons?

        • In what other areas does the FCC regulate what devices can be used where for "public order" reasons?

          The most efficient response is https://www.fcc.gov/ [fcc.gov]

          But other examples come to mind. The relationship between licensed and unlicensed services.

          Avoidance of being a PITA is quite within their purview. And not all rules are based solely on safety, ie someone with a smartphone brings the plane down.

          The jerk sitting next to me having an argument with his wife that he feels necessary to yell at her is using a RF emitting device to interfere with everyone else nearby. It's like Janet Jackson's nipple slip

          • All valid points. However the question still stands. Where does it say the FCC has the authority to regulate devices based on public order? They can only regulate what congress has allowed them to regulate. Do they have that power?

            • All valid points. However the question still stands. Where does it say the FCC has the authority to regulate devices based on public order? They can only regulate what congress has allowed them to regulate. Do they have that power?

              To refresh my knowledge, I did some searching, and the Wikipedia page has a good bit of info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

              A whole lot more than I expected. The telecommunication act of 1934 set them up with jurisdiction over wired services, and the 1927 Radio Act directed them to have public hearings to gain understanding of issues. I know that at present, they take feedback via the internet to determine policy. Amateur Radio operators often engage with the FCC when dealing with rules proposals - and

    • Yep all lies, the cellphone signals are everywhere anyway so if the even with cellphones in the plane off there is still a substantial radiation background from cellphone towers in the ground and the thousands of cellphones in an airport (with the plane is departing or arriving).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Wakeboarder, meet the inverse square law. Inverse square law, wakeboarder.

        • Did you just call me a square? I'll fuck you up, man!
          - Wakeboarder

        • Yep, I deal with the inverse square law in my profession on a regular basis. Cell towers put out thousand times more power than a cell phone, so that gives you a more d in the 1/d^2 than you'd think. The electronics in a plane are pretty well shielded from any kind of interference anyway, so all lies

          • Yes, donâ(TM)t stand too far away when greeting at Walmart

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Funny, a cell tower has never made my speakers buzz, but my cell phone definitely has.

            The important wiring in planes is either shielded or fibre optic these days, but it wasn't always. The idea that someone with a few watt transmitter a foot away from a critical wire might cause some unwanted interference wasn't so crazy.

          • Cell towers do not put out thousands of times more power than cell phones. to have a two way RF conversation the power doesn't need to be significantly higher on one end. If the tower can hear a cell phone thats pumping out a quarter of a watt or so, That would also mean the cell phone could very likely hear the cell tower pumping out the same amount of power. Likely the tower puts out less power than a cell phone, since a vast majority of cell towers use sectorized antennas. It only has to cover a pie slic

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      The FCC regulates communications, specifically in this case, radio *use*.

      My broadcasting 90s metal on an unused FM frequency in Cincinnati doesn't hurt anybody, but the FCC says I'm not allowed and would hunt me down if I did it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jhobbs ( 659809 )
      I wonder if they are avoiding banning it for reasons other than radio interference due to how common seatback phones were only 20 years ago. It would be hard to ban using phones, for the sheer annoyance of talking and a crowded environment, when planes used to have a phone for every seat.

    • Yet none of their pushback had anything to do with radio related safety which is what the FCC oversees. If they want it banned they should have it explicitly banned instead of using the FCC safety regulations as a shield.

      Sometimes you use the laws you've got.

      eg. Al Capone was locked up for tax evasion, not for murder or robbery.

      I think we can all agree that the outcome was correct in both cases.

    • >Yet none of their pushback had anything to do with radio related safety which is what the FCC oversees.

      Agreed - the ban was long in place because of fears that phone radios might possibly interfere with avionics systems. If they've lifted the bans for data usage then that obviously isn't a concern.

      If there's concern about air rage or annoyance, then the airlines are free to ban phone calls just like theaters are. It's no longer any concern of the FCC.

  • It's bad enough... (Score:3)

    by ikhider ( 2837593 ) on Friday November 27, 2020 @10:51PM (#60771922)
    On public transit to listen to someone's mobile phone calls, but to be subjected to the same on a plane, and there is no where else to go...

    • Re:It's bad enough... (Score:5, Funny)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Friday November 27, 2020 @11:09PM (#60771962) Homepage Journal

      I usually offer the loud talkers my two cents in the conversation. They clearly want my input or they wouldn't be making sure I heard every word.

    • The solution is really quite simple.

      Anyone using a phone on a plane, whether cellular or setback, must simultaneously wear a shock collar that activates every time they make a sound rather than a low conversational voice.

      Hmm, the same should apply to parents letting children use electronic devices, with the device volume triggering the parent's collar . . .

      hawk

  • I'm old enough to remember smoking and non-smoking section at restaurants. Why not have phone calls allowed section on the plane. Let the degenerates be among their own kind.

    • Re: Devote a section (Score:4, Funny)

      by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Friday November 27, 2020 @11:01PM (#60771946)
      Why would I go into the cell phone section to talk? It's way too loud in there to have a conversation.

    • Why not have phone calls allowed section on the plane.

      I don't want to have to spend $50 to choose a section to avoid being seated among the cell-phone users.

    • I'm old enough to remember smoking and non-smoking section at restaurants.

      And, fortunately for the world, they figured out that doesn't work and smoking was banned.

      No need to repeat that experiment on 'planes. Does it really kill you to keep quiet for a few hours?

      • It worked fine if you actually had doors and walls. So did having smoking and nonsmoking bars and casinos, but that wasn't good enough. The anti smoking Crusaders hated the fact that the nonsmoking bars were mostly empty and boring and the people in the smoking bars were having fun without them.
        • You didn't even need doors or walls. If you have a non-recirculating AC system. Have the AC system input the fresh chilled air brought in from outside on the non-smoking side and the smoking side have the exhausts to go outside. This for the most part the air draft would keep the smoke from lingering significantly into the non-smoking section.

  • Does anyone under 40 actually speak on their cell phone anymore as a first option?

  • Just stick the air marshalls on those angry people, oh wait, I guess they have other duties. We really should allow phone calls on planes.

    • Re:Isn't this what they have air marshalls for? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Saturday November 28, 2020 @07:15AM (#60772536) Homepage

      We really should allow phone calls on planes.

      Maybe we should let people smoke, too.

      And do whatever the hell else they want to.

      Or maybe they can just show some respect towards others. AFAIK nobody ever died of not being able to speak for a couple of hours.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        AFAIK nobody ever died of not being able to speak for a couple of hours.

        Not being able to speak, JFC. We are just talking about cell phones here. You can still talk to others in the cabin I hope. Perhaps your psychology tends toward the authoritarian and that was a Freudian slip? If so get help...

  • What are passengers on buses and trains? Chopped liver?

    • Yeah, those "normies" can't afford their own car for crying out loud. They deserve it.

      • Re: Buses and trains (Score:2, Informative)

        by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 )

        *Europe points at you and laughs*

        "Cars are for primitive rural people that don't have public transport worth a damn. And for delivery serfs."

        *proceeds to eat brioche ("cake")*

        • Cars are for those who want to travel on their own schedule, travel outside of the coverage of the public transit system, not be jammed into public transit during a global pandemic. Enjoy your disease spreading public transit, i'll take my car, thank you very much.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      no, although many smell like it . . .

      [duck]

  • without your phone, you may need some addiction therapy.
  • Now do movie theaters.

    • Ridiculois that you'd even need this.

      What's going on with American culture? Do you not have the concept of shame? Of empathy?

      Nobody would ever call somebody in a movie theater in Europe, and Asia's even more of a shame culture so I'm sure it's even more taboo there!
      The closest thing I ever saw, was somebody walking outside to take a call after his fully muted phone lit up. I'm assuming it must be something extremely important like his wife's water breaking or the like.

      You don't need to ban cell phones. You

      • What's going on with American culture? Do you not have the concept of shame? Of empathy?

        Have you watched the Kardashians?

        All the answers are in there.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by hawk ( 1151 )

        > I'm assuming it must be something extremely important like his wife's water breaking or the like.

        In the introductory lecture to my college classes, I noted that about the only reason that it was appropriate to have a cellphone on in class was for male students expecting a call about childbirth starting (and that females were expected to be able to figure it out without the phone). :)

        hawk

  • Considering loud conversations don't see to be a problem either in public transport or planes maybe the problem is Americans.

    If you ever come to Europe to visit expect someone to ask you "Why are you shouting". :-)

  • I would like to say that your inability to control yourself doesn't allow you to control me.

  • Note the jurisdiction of the law does not come from the FAA, but rather the FCC (Part 47: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t... [ecfr.gov]) . There was a brief time early in cell phone days when an errant intermodulation could fall on GPS L1, but since the bands were structured shortly after, this is no longer the case. Many studies have concluded the interference risk of a 100 mW transmitter in the cell phone bands are well isolated from aircraft systems, and the most flight critical systems are hardened up to and incl

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close