In December 2004, the FCC authorized a review of the current ban on cell phone use on airplanes. As I wrote here a few years ago, past objections were not entirely safety-based; cellular companies objected to phones grabbing signal from several towers simultaneously, thereby hording capacity, and the airlines objected because they wanted you to use the severely overpriced inflight phones.
Technology, politics, and corporate muscle aside, the question everyone is asking is this; do travelers actually want this to happen? The time is coming to decide; the review is due to be complete late next year. The FCC is expected to rule that no threat to navigational systems persists; such a ruling will set off a scramble to allow, and make money from, cell phones in flight.
Cell Phones in the Air, Yea or Nay?
Among lay people, there seem to be two sides to the argument:
In Favor: Why sacrifice several potentially productive hours on a plane when you could be taking calls, working, closing deals, talking to friends, staying in touch.
Opposed: Airplane cabins are too close and stressful already; adding people talking continuously and loudly on cell phones to the mix would make it unbearable.
Cell Phones in the Air, Yea or Nay? - this is the question I put to a a semi-formal straw poll of the following semi-random folks, by profession: software sales exec, collegiate coach, hedge fund manager, stay-at-home Mom, IT chief, non-profit executive director, corporate lawyer, editor, national sales manager for a water treatment company, scientist.
I dunno, it may be the circles I travel in, but the verdict was, to put it gently, unanimous.
Some sample comments:
"I stand firmly on a large and unequivocal, NO! on that poll. I can't rely on the normal nimrod to figure out how to get through security, you think I trust Joe Public to learn to modulate his voice to his environment. If the airlines allow that, they won't need to worry about terrorism, the passenger fighting will bring the planes down...
"The whole thing is a nightmare... I can't imagine listening to one sided cell banter
all the way to San Diego."
"Not when you are trapped in your seat like you are on a plane. In public, you can walk away; on a plane, there is almost no escape."
"It's bad enough to listen to some guy closing a deal for everyone to hear in the terminal; if you have to endure that from someone sitting right next to you, it should be legal if you were to strangle him with the earpiece cord."
"If people could talk at low volume, it might not be that bad, but everyone seems to yell into their phones. It will never work."
"Nay...folks have a hard enough time with cell phone etiquette on terra firma, never mind in an airborne closet. Last thing I need is some dude yapping at full voice when I'm trying to read, or nap."
"It's not like folks are making mission-critical calls before take-off or upon landing, anyway. Everyone conversation I hear as I get off a plane is about the weather, the in-flight movie, if the kids were behaving."
"Have you ever ridden Amtrak during rush hour? It is incredible; people are roaring into their phones. To have that go on in a tin can on a long flight would be unbearable."
"If they allow cell phone use on planes I'm going to start driving to all my destinations. My flights, especially the long ones, are now the only oasis of quiet that I have left! I hope that they start to have internet access soon on flights, that would really be a godsend, and it may soften the perceived need to talk on the cell phone while up in the air."
"Sure, but they should be shot as they are deplaning, along with the seat recliners, excessive drinkers and armrest hoggers."
I kept calling around, but could not find a single vote In Favor. Tellingly, those from the group who traveled most frequently on business were the most outspoken Opposed. They're happy to give up some of their contact with the office so long as they don't have to be subject to everyone else contacting the office.
More Votes Opposed: Government, Airline Workers, Wireless Providers
The arguments Opposed multiply in government and among travel professionals, as well as among some strange flightfellows. Among the nay-sayers:
The Department of Homeland Security
The Department. of Justice
The Association of Flight Attendants
Cingular Wireless
The first three make sense, but Cingular Wireless? Indeed; read on.
First up, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are concerned that cell phones could be used by hijackers or terrorists to coordinate schemes with accomplices on the plane, on the ground, or on other planes. If cell phone use is permitted, the DOJ wants to be able to track every call down to the actual seat location, to listen in on all calls, and to interrupt and redirect any communication, and more.
Second, the Association of Flight Attendants recently commissioned a study that found that " 63 percent opposed the lifting of cell phone restrictions on commercial aircraft and 70 percent wanted separate 'non-phone' seating sections if the aircraft cell phone ban is lifted. Most of those who wanted the ban to remain in place were frequent business travelers. According to the poll, the principal objection to the use of phones in aircraft is annoyance. As a result, some airlines and cellular providers support a "tap not talk" policy that would allow air passengers to use discreet forms of communication, like text messaging, e-mails and Internet access, but not voice communication."
(My take: I agree completely, but it is interesting that the airlines installed high-priced telephones in the back of most seats, but now don't want you to use your own cell phone.)
Thirdly, even the wireless telecommunications industry has gotten into the chorus of voices Against. Paul Roth, executive VP for Cingular, recently wrote the FAA to say that "We believe there is a time and a place for wireless phone conversations, and seldom does that include the confines of an airplane flight."
(Of course, it is impossible to know if Cingular's empathy with trapped and besieged air travelers is motivated by genuine concern, or the fact that Verizon's national network is superior at the moment, and Cingular would lose a marketing battle over airborne coverage.)
Those in Favor
Clearly, there are many arguments Opposed, and pretty much one In Favor: somehow to recover the time and productivity lost to air travel.
I do have some sympathy with the complaint. A long flight does seem like a great time to get a lot done, whether making business contacts or checking in with the grandparents. The notion that you can do other types of work is mostly rubbish. There is barely enough room to cut your rubber chicken entrée, let alone get any work done on a laptop.
But that doesn't mean I have any interest in subjecting fellow passengers to conversations about the weather with grandpa, or listening to someone blather about ROI, RFP's, and ETA's. I'd rather all of us shut up.
There are other places that cell phones are banned or discouraged: movie theaters, concert halls, classrooms, and many more. There are definitely times when the cell phones are unwelcome and even asocial. A couple years ago I attended the US Open, a place where gnashing your teeth too loudly would be frowned upon. I admit that the insistence on utter silence at a tennis match is a bit much - it is a GAME, after all - but when a friend of a friend insisted on arguing with a refrigerator installation person during the match, I almost seized and spiked his phone myself.
And there is enough white noise on most planes that a quick, quiet conversation would distract and offend almost no one. It is the folks who insist on yelling into their phones at full voice and full length who make it difficult to imagine allowing 200 trapped people bellow in close quarters for six hours. It sounds like something the Geneva Convention would not even allow.
"Tap Not Talk" - Permit Non-Voice Communications
As the FAA comes ever closer to sanctioning wireless technology for use over 10,000 feet, even anti-phone are looking forward to other forms of connectivity, as one of our straw poll respondents commented. With PDA's, Web and email-enabled cell phones, sophisticated text messaging capabilities, and every other manner of non-verbal communication now available or on the way, to deny cell phone use seems much less draconian.
To my ears, the AFA's "tap not talk" buzzphrase sure sounds hokey, but makes a lot of sense to me, and seems like the best approach. Frankly, it's not like it's not happening already. Folks may not be on their cell phones, but they are squishing their thumbs into Crackberries and other PDA's. I saw two people surreptitiously mashing notes into a PDA mid-flight just last week.
Other Solutions
"Cell phone use permitted" seating areas
These would work much like smoking and non-smoking areas; some number of rows of the flight would be designated "Cell phone use permitted" areas. Airlines considering this option have been discussing a surcharge for seats in this area, which just goes to prove, talk isn't always cheap.
But like smoking and non-smoking areas, if you are seated one row from the Phone area, your exposure to second-hand cellular jabber would be considerable. The right person with the right voice and the right attitude (say, someone on a long business call with an exaggerated master-of-the-universe presentation voice) can be heard from several aisles away; I don't see it working.
Time Limits
Some have suggested limits on the number and duration of calls per passenger. This sounds great in theory, but good luck enforcing it; the guy who thinks going 15 seconds over the limit is no big deal will want to go 45 seconds over the limit, then "just a couple minutes" over the limit, and soon there is no limit.
New Inventions
Inventive entrepreneurs are already advertising cell-phone noise canceling technologies; the one I saw looked a lot like the cone-like recovery collars vets put on pets after an operation so they won't lick their wounds. (Somehow this seems very appropriate.)
Personally, I don't see myself traveling with a personal dog cone anytime soon just so I can call my voicemail inflight. So when the FCC decides that wireless signals pose no threat to navigation, I'm going to encourage correspondents to hit my email or cell phone with as continuous a torrent of ASCII as care to thumb into their phone. Or, as a good friend likes to say:
Text me, baby.
To discuss this and other Traveler's Ed articles, visit the Traveler's Ed Message Board.
Go Anyway,
Ed Hewitt
TravelersEd@aol.com
Features Editor
The Independent Traveler
Technology, politics, and corporate muscle aside, the question everyone is asking is this; do travelers actually want this to happen? The time is coming to decide; the review is due to be complete late next year. The FCC is expected to rule that no threat to navigational systems persists; such a ruling will set off a scramble to allow, and make money from, cell phones in flight.
Cell Phones in the Air, Yea or Nay?
Among lay people, there seem to be two sides to the argument:
In Favor: Why sacrifice several potentially productive hours on a plane when you could be taking calls, working, closing deals, talking to friends, staying in touch.
Opposed: Airplane cabins are too close and stressful already; adding people talking continuously and loudly on cell phones to the mix would make it unbearable.
Cell Phones in the Air, Yea or Nay? - this is the question I put to a a semi-formal straw poll of the following semi-random folks, by profession: software sales exec, collegiate coach, hedge fund manager, stay-at-home Mom, IT chief, non-profit executive director, corporate lawyer, editor, national sales manager for a water treatment company, scientist.
I dunno, it may be the circles I travel in, but the verdict was, to put it gently, unanimous.
Some sample comments:
all the way to San Diego."
I kept calling around, but could not find a single vote In Favor. Tellingly, those from the group who traveled most frequently on business were the most outspoken Opposed. They're happy to give up some of their contact with the office so long as they don't have to be subject to everyone else contacting the office.
More Votes Opposed: Government, Airline Workers, Wireless Providers
The arguments Opposed multiply in government and among travel professionals, as well as among some strange flightfellows. Among the nay-sayers:
The first three make sense, but Cingular Wireless? Indeed; read on.
First up, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are concerned that cell phones could be used by hijackers or terrorists to coordinate schemes with accomplices on the plane, on the ground, or on other planes. If cell phone use is permitted, the DOJ wants to be able to track every call down to the actual seat location, to listen in on all calls, and to interrupt and redirect any communication, and more.
Second, the Association of Flight Attendants recently commissioned a study that found that " 63 percent opposed the lifting of cell phone restrictions on commercial aircraft and 70 percent wanted separate 'non-phone' seating sections if the aircraft cell phone ban is lifted. Most of those who wanted the ban to remain in place were frequent business travelers. According to the poll, the principal objection to the use of phones in aircraft is annoyance. As a result, some airlines and cellular providers support a "tap not talk" policy that would allow air passengers to use discreet forms of communication, like text messaging, e-mails and Internet access, but not voice communication."
(My take: I agree completely, but it is interesting that the airlines installed high-priced telephones in the back of most seats, but now don't want you to use your own cell phone.)
Thirdly, even the wireless telecommunications industry has gotten into the chorus of voices Against. Paul Roth, executive VP for Cingular, recently wrote the FAA to say that "We believe there is a time and a place for wireless phone conversations, and seldom does that include the confines of an airplane flight."
(Of course, it is impossible to know if Cingular's empathy with trapped and besieged air travelers is motivated by genuine concern, or the fact that Verizon's national network is superior at the moment, and Cingular would lose a marketing battle over airborne coverage.)
Those in Favor
Clearly, there are many arguments Opposed, and pretty much one In Favor: somehow to recover the time and productivity lost to air travel.
I do have some sympathy with the complaint. A long flight does seem like a great time to get a lot done, whether making business contacts or checking in with the grandparents. The notion that you can do other types of work is mostly rubbish. There is barely enough room to cut your rubber chicken entrée, let alone get any work done on a laptop.
But that doesn't mean I have any interest in subjecting fellow passengers to conversations about the weather with grandpa, or listening to someone blather about ROI, RFP's, and ETA's. I'd rather all of us shut up.
There are other places that cell phones are banned or discouraged: movie theaters, concert halls, classrooms, and many more. There are definitely times when the cell phones are unwelcome and even asocial. A couple years ago I attended the US Open, a place where gnashing your teeth too loudly would be frowned upon. I admit that the insistence on utter silence at a tennis match is a bit much - it is a GAME, after all - but when a friend of a friend insisted on arguing with a refrigerator installation person during the match, I almost seized and spiked his phone myself.
And there is enough white noise on most planes that a quick, quiet conversation would distract and offend almost no one. It is the folks who insist on yelling into their phones at full voice and full length who make it difficult to imagine allowing 200 trapped people bellow in close quarters for six hours. It sounds like something the Geneva Convention would not even allow.
"Tap Not Talk" - Permit Non-Voice Communications
As the FAA comes ever closer to sanctioning wireless technology for use over 10,000 feet, even anti-phone are looking forward to other forms of connectivity, as one of our straw poll respondents commented. With PDA's, Web and email-enabled cell phones, sophisticated text messaging capabilities, and every other manner of non-verbal communication now available or on the way, to deny cell phone use seems much less draconian.
To my ears, the AFA's "tap not talk" buzzphrase sure sounds hokey, but makes a lot of sense to me, and seems like the best approach. Frankly, it's not like it's not happening already. Folks may not be on their cell phones, but they are squishing their thumbs into Crackberries and other PDA's. I saw two people surreptitiously mashing notes into a PDA mid-flight just last week.
Other Solutions
These would work much like smoking and non-smoking areas; some number of rows of the flight would be designated "Cell phone use permitted" areas. Airlines considering this option have been discussing a surcharge for seats in this area, which just goes to prove, talk isn't always cheap.
But like smoking and non-smoking areas, if you are seated one row from the Phone area, your exposure to second-hand cellular jabber would be considerable. The right person with the right voice and the right attitude (say, someone on a long business call with an exaggerated master-of-the-universe presentation voice) can be heard from several aisles away; I don't see it working.
Some have suggested limits on the number and duration of calls per passenger. This sounds great in theory, but good luck enforcing it; the guy who thinks going 15 seconds over the limit is no big deal will want to go 45 seconds over the limit, then "just a couple minutes" over the limit, and soon there is no limit.
Inventive entrepreneurs are already advertising cell-phone noise canceling technologies; the one I saw looked a lot like the cone-like recovery collars vets put on pets after an operation so they won't lick their wounds. (Somehow this seems very appropriate.)
Personally, I don't see myself traveling with a personal dog cone anytime soon just so I can call my voicemail inflight. So when the FCC decides that wireless signals pose no threat to navigation, I'm going to encourage correspondents to hit my email or cell phone with as continuous a torrent of ASCII as care to thumb into their phone. Or, as a good friend likes to say:
Text me, baby.
To discuss this and other Traveler's Ed articles, visit the Traveler's Ed Message Board.
Go Anyway,
Ed Hewitt
TravelersEd@aol.com
Features Editor
The Independent Traveler