If the rule against using cell phones on air planes has ever struck you as a bit fishy, well, you're right to be suspicious. Safety has nothing to do with it.
« The Limits of Operational Counterterrorism | Main | The Way of the Vaselines »
The Truth About Cell Phones
09 Apr 2007 08:30 am
Comments (43)
Does it makes sense to allow babies on planes and not cell phones? I think a crying baby is far more disruptive and annoying than someone yakking on a cell phone. I'd even allow terrorists on a plane if they'd limit their carnage to crying babies.
Steve, yes, one baby is more disruptive than one cell phone user (usually). If there were a limit of three cell phone users allowed per plane ride, which tends to be about the de facto upper limit on babies per plane ride, I don't think I'd object too strongly. But something tells me most of the other would-be callers would not accept such a rule peacefully. One baby is far less disruptive than, say, thirty cell phone users.
steve -
There are very, very few folks who would punch a crying baby. There are many, many folks who might punch an annoying cell phone babbler who talks incessantly on their phone for the entire trip - especially once those folks have a few drinks in them. And unfortunately, it would be the person doing the punching who would be accused of being out of line.
I question Matt's assertion that this isn't a safety issue. If human beings were considerate creatures who thought about those around them before doing stupid things in cramped metal tubes flying through the air for 6-12 hours at a time, we might be able to allow cell phones to be used. But they aren't.
Multiple ways they can go about it. How about phone/no phone secions on the plane? People who really hate their yapping neighbors could sit in the no phone section just like they sit in a no smoking section in a restaurant. Or they could just have a closet sized phone room that people making a call have to use.
Let me join others who would hate the cell phone ban to be lifted because it would be unberable to have to put up w/ people yammering away at an even louder level for so long. Babies are pretty bad, too, but as someone said, there are usually fewer babies than cell phone users. (People that don't take care of their kids on the plane probably do deserve a smack in the mouth, though.) It's really not the case that you must talk with people _all the time_, and when you're packed in with a crowded captive audience that would be a good time to not use the phone. If it's an emergency then shell out the $10 or so to use the skyphone.
Wrong...
Sorry but you are dead wrong on this. First there are legitimate safety concerns. Cell phones have been known to cause interference with GPS receivers. Read this IEEE Spectrum article for actual data on this issue.
The second issue is that the cell phone system was not designed to be used from airplanes. Typically your cell phone can only 'see' three or four cell towers but if you are at 30000 feet your cell phone can now see a whole lot more towers. This introduces a lot technical issues. Read this Wikipedia article for information.
Good post and good issue. But I'm skeptical of the assertion in the underlying article that the airlines favor the cell phone ban while they figure out some way to profit from inflight calls. Airlines have had the "Airfone" system for nearly 20 years to my personal knowledge. Fewer and fewer planes have the Airfone receivers on the seat backs any more - I was in a plane the other day where the receivers had been glued into the seat backs so nobody could use them. True, the Airfone service is (was) very expensive which may have kept people from using it. But if but the airlines and the Airfone carriers (the main one was GTE, later Verizon) wanted to encourage inflight call use to make money, why aren't they improving their existing technology base for inflight calls rather than abandoning it?
anent crying babies on planes:
Yes. People with crying babies really want their kids to cry all the time. Just like people whose cars burn oil want their cars to smoke obnoxiously.
The baby comparison is silly. Even if babies are more annoying, the alternative to traveling with a baby is generally not taking the trip at all. Doing without a cell phone for a few hours, on the other hand, is a minor intrusion.
The babies are cute, but can we force the obnoxious and drunk business jerks and sports fans out onto the wing?
Yuppies too. And definitely no fucking vlogging on the damn flight.
So all you people that just cream yourself over the free market -- what do you think the airlines would do if there was no FAA/FCC cell phone regulation?
People with crying babies can most certainly get where they need to go without imposing their squalling spawn on the rest of us. They can drive. And wait a dozen years for that airplane trip to Europe or the Orient. Just as they can rent movies instead of dragging their brats into an "R" rated picture instead of getting a sitter. Just as they can eat at home instead of ruining dinner for the rest of the restaurant diners. Babies are cute in YOUR living room. I personally think babies are wonderful once they reach the age of 27 or so. Up to that point they're insufferable.
You sound like a wonderful human being, duncan.
I use my cell phone all the time on long transcontinental flights. Not to talk on, but as a bluetooth modem for my lapop. The phone stays in my bag under the seat and I can surf to my hearts content. I don' always get a signal but over populated areas its easy. No one is ever the wiser.
Personally I like the no TALKING on phones rule. But if you want to surf, I say have at it. Why planes don't provide WiFi I don't understand.
Uh, the CW article which prompted the post notes that it is possible that cell phones do interfere with avionics, and says this:
Also: If real testing were done, and the nature of the problem fully understood, it would become obvious that airplanes could be designed or retrofitted with shielding and communications systems that would enable safe calling through all phases of flight. But that would cost money. The ban is cheaper.
Why exactly should airlines be forced to shield the avionics on their planes so that passengers can use their cell phones? Did the Supreme Court decide at some point that companies are obligated to spend money to make it easier to use your cell phone, because the right to use one's cell phone everywhere always flows naturally from the freedom of association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?
I think a crying baby is far more disruptive and annoying than someone yakking on a cell phone.
Family values strikes again. No wonder the US is such a great place to raise children.
stein, tell me what exactly are children FOR? What do they DO? Honestly, would you suffer for not having them around? What are some of the things you want out of life, and more of them to boot? Time? Money? Sex? Sleep? Independence? Quiet? A clean car, home, garage and yard? Wouldn't anyone have more of all the above were it not for their children? Please people, quit having kids, at least for a couple generations. Planet Earth will thank you.
dude, hasn't this all been common knowledge for years?
What are people for? What are cars for? What are homes for? What are garages for? What is independence for? What is beauty for? What are cell phones for? Why do you want any of these things?
Humans are animals. Animals like their kids. This is the kind of axiomatic attraction which it's not really fruitful to describe in terms of some other "deeper" value, though that's pretty easy to do too. People who don't have kids may lack some understanding of this issue, in much the same way that people who have never had sex often find it hard to get what it's about.
"Does it makes sense to allow babies on planes and not cell phones?"
Well yeah.
Babies work at 30,000 feet.
Babies don't have the option to cry prior to or after a flight like cell phone users do.
"...because the right to use one's cell phone everywhere always flows naturally from the freedom of association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?"
Wouldn't it be a freedom of speech issue?
"Why exactly should airlines be forced to shield the avionics on their planes so that passengers can use their cell phones?"
Because if a cell phone can really cause aircraft avionics to malfunction, then aircraft avionics are dangerously prone to malfunction. It's really no different than if they were banning cigarette lighters on planes because "they could set the upolstry on fire".
I wonder if the cellphone issue is going to be a moot point anyhow. I'm assuming that satellite baed-internet access is going to become the norm at some point, at which time VOIP comes into play.
To steve duncan, if you don't like kids on planes, then maybe YOU should drive. People take their kids on long trips with them. Get used to it.
Why exactly should airlines be forced to shield the avionics on their planes...
Excuse me?
Presumably for the same reason that aircraft need two - four engines to travel long distances overseas. And the reason there is safety standards for aircraft software. And dual controls and two pilots. And certifications of aircraft quality materials.
Ah screw it, I say no regulations on anything and we just let the free market decide, that will certainly help out the airline industry and the economy.
Travelers will choose the safety of the trip they want through the miracle of pricing and competition.
I am hopeful that Steve Duncan can share with us some of his recipes for babies. Do you prefer stewed, roasted, baked or boiled?
msg, many animals eat their kids. Or drive them away from the nest or lair at the first opportunity. Lots of animals, especially males, want nothing at all to do with their offspring. And there are millions of people who have never had sex that are dying for a crack at it. Ask any 15 year old freshman in high school. I imagine a very, very small percentage of those same people are wanting laid in hopes of becoming a parent. So, exploring the excitement and mystery of sex is demonstrably preferable to the excitement and mystery of raising children.
re: babies in public transport--I have been the offender and the offendee (we really tried to put off flying with babies, but if you are trying to get from Philadelphia to Honolulu to be in one's best friend's wedding and show the grandchild to her grandfather for the first time, there aren't any better options). Interestingly, though, when I'm *not* with the crying child, other people's crying children still irritate me--not feeling particularly empathetic, I guess.
But the whole thing is not at all comparable because babies are not irritating on purpose (for the most part) and they are not at all easy to control. In fact, the whole flying process almost invites a full throated meltdown at some point, what with all the waiting and confinement. We put up with a lot of unpleasantness (crying babies included) in travel because we feel it's out of our control. Whether the jerk next to you needs to whip out a phone is something we feel is in that person's control, however, and if the person chooses not to exert that control, we fume, understandably.
Yeah, I'm not sure what to say to someone who has an intense dislike for about 25% of society, but instead of merely trying to avoid them, complains loudly when they don't go out of their way to avoid him.
JMS, pigs, chickens and dogs aren't allowed on planes for many reasons. Certainly one of them is because they can't be dependably controlled. Sort of like babies in that regard. Likewise drunks. Drunks get arrested upon landing if their misbehavior is especially irksome. Why exactly do babies get a pass not extended to drunks or dogs?
1. Extra shielding adds weight, cuts down on efficiency.
2. We still don't know all the ways cellphone signals can potentially interfere with the electronic communications.
3. Nobody talks much in a plane, have you noticed? If I'm going to be stuck in a metal flying tube I'd at least like some quiet, thank you very much. Especially since due to the background noise people are going to talk LOUDER on cell phones than usual.
4. We don't care about the details about your a)vasectomy b) divorce c)tiff with your lawyer.
5. I've always felt that for flying, babies and small children should be doped, especially for long flights.
Yay grumpy!!! My man!! Thorazine for everyone below the age of ten!! Oh, as to that conversation you don't care for. I would like to listen in if it was your divorce lawyer that performed your vasectomy. Just out of morbid curiosity.
A number of years ago I read an email discussion of this issue on a technically savvy email list. One person said the issue was that the mechanisms that make cell phones work expect an individual phone to be able to "see" only a very few towers at a time. From the air many towers are visible. Each tower can only handle a certain number of calls at a time. The consequence of the cell phone flying over the many towers, negotiating with all of them, and quickly flying out of range is that many circuits get locked up on the many towers, temporarily limiting the number of calls these towers can handle. So the problem, according to this individual, was that using your phone from the plane places a burden on the cell phone companies and everyone trying to use their phone on the ground. This isn't very well sourced, but perhaps someone out there less lazy than myself can take this up.
babies tend to cry on airplanes because of the impact of lower air pressure on their eardrums, something they have not leaned to deal with by swallowing.
Their is not much that parents can do about it.
Matthew-- haven't you learned to double check on everything you read by a George Mason economist. Yes, they sometimes do get something right, but do not count on it.
KDrum reads the exact same blog post as Matthew, and comes to the opposite conclusion.
I think I'd side with KDrum.
I side with Petey!
steve duncan, babies are sort of, like, the purpose of human civilization.
Yes Kohra, of course you're correct. Just ask polar bears and children in Durfur what they think of the furtherance of human civilization.
Matt, to claim that safety has nothing to do with it is incorrect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/01/tech/main1359034.shtml
I'd be all forletting people talk annoyingly on their cell phone if in return they weren't allowed to lean their seat back into my lap, removing the 1" of leg space I actually have to begin with, plus another 2" for good measure.
Just ask polar bears and children in Durfur what they think of the furtherance of human civilization.
I always like to take note of posts which are so weird and incomprehensible that I can't even imagine the thought process that led to their inception. I think this one contains a possible concept treatment for a Monkees movie.
All they have to do is put the functional equivalent of a cell tower in the plane, and the cell phones will automatically adjust down their power output, sparing the avionics, and leaving the towers far below unmolested. It's a simple technical fix, if all they're worried about are their stated concerns.
I suspect that there may be some interest in keeping people on the planes out of contact with the ground, to prevent terrorists from coordinating their actions. But that's not the sort of thing they'd be open about.
Is there some way we can get the FCC/FAA to ban cell phones everywhere else?
Thats nice to share the views every one here. Get more info about what medical physicians around the world are saying about the effects of cell phones and electromagnetic frequencies.For more information http://www.harmonicplanet.com
Comments closed April 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's not just the airlines--the FAA received numerous comments on lifting cell phone bans from business travelers--who were firmly against. I fly 8-10+ times per year for work and personal life, and I have to say that allowing people to talk on their cell phones during flight would make flying an even less pleasant experience than it is now. The primary reason for flying being an unpleasant experience is the unbearable impoliteness of most passengers--ESPECIALLY the people who don't fly often (and you can tell who they are). Cell phones during flight would only make that problem worse.
Posted by Alex Knapp | April 9, 2007 8:41 AM