In-flight calling ban passes hurdle in House
By Donald Melanson 
posted August 1st 2008 11:24AM
posted August 1st 2008 11:24AM
It looks like that proposed ban on in-flight calling has now passed its first major hurdle in Congress, with it snagging some much needed approval from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in a voice vote on Thursday. While the so-called "Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace" (or HANG UP, really) would make permanent the current ban on in-flight cellphone use, it'd also go one step further and put a stop to all in-flight voice communications, which its co-sponsors hope will prevent airlines from charging some passengers to use their phones while also charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane. Of course, the bill still has a long ways to go before it becomes law, but giving the recent polling on the matter, it would seem to have a better than decent chance of going all the way.[Via Slashdot]
It's impressive that the acronym accurately reflects what the actual bill is trying to do.
No it's not, there is a whole group of people that do that for congressnmen all the time....
There are tons of bills that have acronyms like this.
Right....like how the Patriot act made us all into patriots.
D irty
O ppressive
U s
C ongress
H abitually
E ngaging
(in)
B astardizing
(the)
A merican
G overnment
S ystem
"Right....like how the Patriot act made us all into patriots."
It did, but probably not as the military industrial complex had in mind. =)
Congress should have more important things to do than to pass laws about things that annoy them. We need to protect the fact that this is a free country and send these guys letters that say that we won't vote for them if they're going to waste our taxpayer money on these kinds of laws. We don't need laws or acronyms about cell phone use on a plane. Each airline has the right to have policies about cell phone usage. If the airline company wants to have a policy against it than fine. Then usage will work itself out. People will pick airlines that do or don't have the policy if it annoys them enough, and the market will gravitate towards one or the other. But it should not be on the lawbooks.
Also how is cell phone usage any different than using one of those expensive phones on the back of the seat? Or than a fat smelly guy who farts and talks to you while you're trying to sleep? If you want quiet on a plane take along earplugs! Problem solved.
@badweasel
The reason Congress is trying to pass something like this is because they can't compromise on anything that is actually important and has to worry about their constituents.
Just about everyone (99%) of people on commercial flights hate people talking on their cell phones, so it's an easy bill to accomplish, aside from people who feel they have an undeniable right to use their cell phone wherever and whenever they want, and to these people I say piss off!
Sounds like another waste of the taxpayer's money.
I HAVE A COMPROMISE
How about cellular calls are only allowed with a SOUND PROOF HELMET.
You put it on and plug it (with bluetooth or 2.5mm jack) to your cellphone and have your conversation however long you want !
You can yell, shout, scream - whatever and no body is bothered.
...except by the fact there is a jackass with a sound proof helmet sitting near them.
those helmets would be too big to work in coach, lol
Are you proposing that airlines carry the "Cone of Silence?"
yeah stewardess, can I get the cone of silence please?, k thx.
So...i can still use the satellite phone to call my girl friend and go bankrupt...right???
I believe they are refering to those phones too. No more werid phones in front of us (or to the side if its a new plane). To me, the less noise and the more entertainment, the better.
"it'd also go one step further and put a stop to all in-flight voice communications"
i'm guessing no...
...the age of inflight morse code has arrived!
As you can read in this article http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=617&doc_id=160637&f_src=flffour the HANG UP act of 2008 doesn't prohibit the use of "phones installed on an aircraft."
So do they want people to be quiet or a couple of extra bucks?
This is going to come crashing to a halt as Internet-enabled phones become more and more the standard.
I'm sure this would relate to any phone, not just of the cell variety.
This bill is total BS. Could you imagine them trying to pull this stunt with buses or trains? No phones on the bus! Ridiculous!
In China and Japan, cell phone use on the bus is prohibited.
See "Bus Uncle."
Why would they even bother doing it on a bus? Buses and street traffic are louder than people talking on their cell phones.
While allowing cell phones on airplanes would make sense for anyone on the ground trying to coordinate with a person on a plane - to pick them up from the airport, like I usually end up doing for members of my family...
ask yourself... would you really want to be on a plane surrounded by people, on an international flight, who can use their free nights & weekends to chat mindlessly to their boyfriends and girlfriends?
People can't even handle that on the bus.
This is Pandora's box...once you open it, closing it is gonna take another 5 years of congress dicking around. (just like oil drilling in Alaska and ending the Iraq War).
The way I see it, the airphones on airplanes already are a perfect phone solution. They are convieniently at all seats of modern aircraft and you pay for them using credit/debit. High fees ensures you treat your phone time with respect and don't become a nuisance to others around you.
Sure cellular providers want in flight cell phones but this is a quality of life/in flight issue that should be taken seriously.
BY THE WAY... would it not be easier for a terrorist to coordinate an attack if they had cellular use? That's a national security issue in and of itself.
Yeah, those sneaky terrorists. They're EVERYWHERE!
Gimme a freakin' break.
Someone's Imagination is running wild with terrorist attacks.
International flights typically wouldn't be affected since there aren't cell towers in the Atlantic Ocean, but I get your point and agree (especially if the airlines start enabling "roaming" from the plane via satellite connection).
As much as it costs to fly now, even in coach, there should be a guarantee of a relative amount of silence (crying babies excluded).
I would hope that they would have a massive terrorist attack planned out much before they got on the plane. Duh.
How in the HELL would banning the phones on planes thwart a terrorist attack? Are you kidding me?! Lol. Please turn of the propaganda box and stop being an idiot.
By the way...I am not pro-cell phones on the plane...I just can't stand when people always bring up that terrorist B.S.
"BY THE WAY... would it not be easier for a terrorist to coordinate an attack if they had cellular use?" -- What, they can't use SMS, or email? This only bans voice communications.
All in-flight voice communications? So, no talking on the plane? And if so, can they add a provision to make it legal to jettison screaming toddlers and crying babies?
I was thinking the same thing, too good to be true I'm afraid.
No need for messy lawsuits, now. Just get out the duct tape.
Thats what the overhead compartments are for.
As you eluded, kids are generally worse than adults talking on the phone. But I don't mind people talking and whatnot, that's what headphones are for.
What I do mind is the 8 year old behind me who insists on constantly kicking the back of my seat, and the 80 year old in front of me who keeps the chair reclined through the whole 14-hour flight even when instructed to put it upright.
I'd much rather just see a law pass to make coach class on planes a more bearable, less sardine-like experience.
Have you heard how dumb and pointless one of those chatty 20+ minute conversations sound between people who see each other every day and actually have nothing whatsoever to say but chat on anyway. Listening to that from the person next to me for the duration of a flight would make heading for airlock seem like a good idea.
This is a great bill.
Yes, but how would it be any different if someone was sitting next to them and they were pointlessly chatting away for the entire duration of the flight?
Does somebody speaking to another person really annoy people that much? If so, maybe the one annoyed shouldn't be going out in public.
It's not speaking to one another.
But in my experience, people talk louder when they talk on a cellphone. I also don't want to listen to cotteneye joe fifteen times as somebody's phone rings.
Actually, my experience is that when you're on the phone with someone, you feel that you must fill any silence that occurs. There is no such thing as a 'comfortable silence' on the phone, so you fill it up with drivel. When you're next to the person, silence is allowed, and so you don't talk as much.
That's not to say there aren't some people who have never heard of silence...such people are usually a bit loony and should have their own seating area, preferably on the wing.
Wait a minute, the previous article you gripe about the government protecting us from terrorists. Now you cheer when the government protects us from annoying cell phone callers. Sdawkcab?
You can use your phone only after TSA downloads your contacts and reads your text messages.
If you really want to give us peace, ban babies and small children.
Don't forget fat people that take up two seats instead of one.
Or freeze-dry them and stick 'em in the cargo hold.
Right, because we can just FedEX our kids across the country/globe when we're going to see family, or taking vacation, or moving, right?
you win the internet with that comment.... no noise isolating headphones can stop the cry of a baby....or the douche behind me kicking my chair
but having 9 offspring running around doing whatever they want is what makes this country so great.
welcome to Idiocracy
@Dead_Rebel
"Right, because we can just FedEX our kids across the country/globe when we're going to see family, or taking vacation, or moving, right?"
Actually, the USPS has jumped on this untapped market for a while. It's cheaper than FedEx.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/24/shipping-children-by.html
Babies should be left home while traveling - I totally agree.
Lets get the house to vote on something important for a change... like maybe not adding too much ethonal in our fuel... lowering gas prices to make us think gas is getting cheap - pretty lame for a government to be doing such a thing...
I'm fine with banning the use of phones for conversation (for the quality-of-setting issues others have mentioned) as long as they don't try to ban the use of SMS or other non-voice functions or (worse) ban the carrying of phones on the plane. In an emergency a cell phone is a very important thing to have, and screw the laws.
In an emergency people use them (note 9/11 call recordings). However, the percentage of emergencies v. perceived emergencies would likely be a real problem. "Yeah, it's an emergency- I've totally got to get tickets to see the Miley Cyrus!"
And this is all because according to those in D.C. the rest of the country is well taken care of and there's nothing else with higher priority.
David/ Tam
You pick one little thing out of my comment and attack the whole thing?
You assholes must be in the Mccain election team.