DeFazio Bill to Ban Cell Phones on Planes

US Representative Peter DeFazio has proposed a bill that will ban the use of cell phones on commercial flights.

From the Oregonian:

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., announced plans Tuesday to clarify federal law regarding the use of cell phones on commercial aircraft.

If anyone was confused about DeFazio's posture on the matter, the title of his bill left no doubt -- the Hang Up Act of 2008.

"I think many Americans understand the potential for problems on aircraft if 100 or more people start talking on cell phones," DeFazio said at a news conference to announce the bill. "People are in very, very close quarters, and this is a circumstance where you would have a cacophony of people on cell phones that would amount to a great potential for trouble."

DeFazio is a senior member of the House Transportation Committee. The bill he introduced Tuesday would prohibit the use of voice communication cell phones during flight, even if the airlines develop systems that meet safety and other regulatory standards. It would allow people to send text messages and e-mail on systems that many airlines are developing for use while airborne. The bill also would allow fliers to continue using the unpopular in-flight phones that are built into the back of seats.

The bill contrasts with new rules for airlines in the European Union:

The effort by DeFazio and nine co-sponsors came as a response to a push by the European Union last week to allow cell phone use on aircraft.

The EU said it would allow mobile phones to be used after the plane reaches 10,000 feet when other electronic devices such as portable music players and laptops are permitted.

The policy would be in effect, however, only in the 27 nations that make up the European Union. Airline analysts in Europe said some airlines could have the system active in about a month.

But DeFazio and co-sponsors Jerry Costello, D-Ill., and John Duncan, R-Tenn., are worried that the EU would set a precedent and open a very noisy door that would be difficult to close.

Costello, who chairs the subcommittee that will handle the bill, said he would put it on the "fast track" so it could move as quickly as possible. Supporters hope to bring it to the floor before Memorial Day.

Despite polls suggesting cell phone use on planes is not popular, airlines desperate for new streams of revenue would likely offer it to offset rising fuel prices and intense competition. Once offered, DeFazio said airlines would actively promote the service.

Read the rest. Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    there has got to be something more to this, otherwise pete's going presenile. Noise? On a plane? Go figure. Does he really think 100 of 300 people are going to be talking simultaneously?

    This is a really dumb bill. How about you work on protecting the constitution instead?

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This only shows how we have to legislate common sense in order to have any common sense at all. Common sense has becaome an oxy-moron and this is the only way to get people to actually think about someone else's rights, comfort, and common sense besides their own.

  • (Show?)

    I have to disasgree with my friend torridjoe. I don't want to sit next to someone on a plane who is talking on a cellphone. I don't care if that is the ONLY person on the plane using a cellphone. No, no, no.

    In the past 12 months I have flown over 100,000 miles total, on a number of different carriers. In other words, I fly A LOT. I wouldn't mind data services (email and www on smartphones) but people yakking on cellphones would be incredibly annoying.

    The commercial aviation experience is already pretty debased from what it used to be. I think that if the airlines are too undisciplined to protect passengers from this additional debasement, it is perfectly OK for lawmakers to step in.

  • yuju (unverified)
    (Show?)

    good news

    thank you for informations.

  • (Show?)

    I have to disagree with Stephanie on this one. The last time I checked, talking is not unconstitutional. Indeed, the ability to simply open your mouth is a fundamental right. Not being "annoyed" is, on the other hand, NOT a right. In fact, I've noticed that most people who are publicly annoyed make a habit of it.

    What next? Governmentally mandated gags for babies?

  • (Show?)

    Great news from deFazio. When I read about the EU making plans to allow cell phones on airplanes, I gave up on the notion of ever flying in Europe again. It's bad enough I have to listen to someone's personal life being bellowed into a cell phone while riding the bus - or the man who ruined an Amtrak trip from Seattle loudly belittling his employees - but I have zero tolerance for putting up with that on an airplane, where I don't even have the option of getting off and catching the next bus.

  • tl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with Stephanie V.

    Allowing the uncomfortably close person next to me, in front of me and/or behind me to talk on the cell phone (and likely at an even louder volume than normal due to the already high level of ambient noise) would achieve what I thought was getting nearly impossible: to make the flying experience even more uncomfortable and annoying that is already is.

    Allowing people to send text messages to supplement the in-seat phones should more than accommodate any communications needs travelers have without substantially increasing the annoyance factor.

    Erik, I was in Japan a decade ago riding the bullet train. Anyone who needed to use a cell phone went to the narrow space in between cars (separated by a door from the passenger compartment) to make their calls. I don't know if they still do that, but I wouldn't be surprised. What would surprise me is if Americans voluntarily exercised comparable consideration and excused themselves from the car, restaurant, theater, etc. to take/make a call.

    -tl

  • (Show?)

    "I have to disasgree with my friend torridjoe. I don't want to sit next to someone on a plane who is talking on a cellphone."

    I don't want to sit next to someone doing so on the bus, or the airport shuttle, or the MAX car either--we going to ban those, too?

    It's a free country, right? If there are no interference issues (and there aren't; that was a ploy to get people to use the in-seat phones), what could possibly be the state interest in banning a legal activity? It being annoying is not a compelling interest, in my view.

    I recommend the Larry David approach: if you find yourself next to a Celly Sally, just start talking to an imaginary companion of your own. Or you can use the torridjoe method: begin participating in their discussion, and when they suggest they are on a private phone call, remind them, "not here on this public goddam airplane, you're not!"

    But legislation is simply NOT the way to go about it, IMO.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with TJ. As annoying as it is to sit next to someone in a conversation, it's not the state's function to get into stuff like this. Here's a perfect example of where the creativity possible in a market-based solution is the best tool to address the issue.

    Most strikingly, I don't know why our most senior and respected delegate to Congress would be wasting his time on stuff like this when there are vastly more important things to focus his attention on: getting out of Iraq, interrupting the criminal culture normalized by the Bush administration, preventing a reckless war with Iran, educating our leaders who don't know the difference between Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish Moslems, etc.

  • screwtape (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great.

    We're crammed into POW cell-sized space on airlines and now DeFazio wants to control what we do while enduring the torture.

    Thanks, Peter. Don't you have LNG terminal oversight within your district to worry about or something else more fitting for your position?

  • tl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    tj writes: I don't want to sit next to someone doing so on the bus, or the airport shuttle, or the MAX car either--we going to ban those, too?

    Although true, the bus, shuttle, and MAX do not force you to sit within 3" of your neighbor, do allow you to switch seats, don't force you to sit down for long stretches (sometimes hours), etc. I appreciate view that "legislation is simply NOT the way to go about it" and simply ask, what is? Is there a reasonable, practical, workable solution? Or is this an inevitable trend we must all just accept?

    Steve M. writes: Indeed, the ability to simply open your mouth is a fundamental right.

    That is true. However, it is not a fundamental right to open your mouth and speak into a cell phone. Otherwise, cell phone usage would never have been banned on the planes in the first place. As with tj, I understand your aversion to legislation. I just ask if there is a workable alternative solution? -tl

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    People can be annoying in most places at most times. Why single out mobile phone use? If you want quiet on an airliner, wear earplugs. If Pete wants to ban speakerphones, I'm with him on that.

    It all matters little. Air travel will be so expensive soon, few of us will fly.

  • (Show?)

    "I was in Japan a decade ago riding the bullet train. Anyone who needed to use a cell phone went to the narrow space in between cars (separated by a door from the passenger compartment) to make their calls."

    Thus suggesting that the real pressure point for this issue is not legislation, but seeking to modify selfish American behavior patterns.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Peter DiFazio for taking the time to write this piece of legislation. I'm glad he's really taking the forefront of this debate instead of taking on those pesky debates about endless war, health care, veteran's benefits. I guess I should expect stuff like this coming out of DiFazio's office since he was too big of a wuss to take on Gordon Smith.

  • (Show?)

    A market-based solution to rudeness might be a cell phone jammer I could use in restaurants, on the bus and on airplanes. Problem is, they're illegal.

    Or perhaps a market-based solution would be an airline like Lufthansa refusing to allow the cell phones, legal or not. I'd certainly give them my business, but in the meantime, a few hours spent putting together legislation like this doesn't seem to be destroying our government or our freedom.

  • (Show?)

    "Is there a reasonable, practical, workable solution? "

    Education and informal societal pressure. And there's always the market incentive for a carrier to advertise as a "Cell Free Flight."

  • Randy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd be happier if DeFazio passed a bill prohibiting fat people from flying on airplanes. Ever get stuck in the middle seat between a couple of really fat ones? Big folds of fat sweaty skin laying on you during the 5 hours to DC, now that is no fun at all.

  • (Show?)

    Feel better there Randy?

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I do wear earplugs, Tom, but it is in my own apartment. My rude neighbour likes to listen to offensive rap music 24/7 at levels that are considered unreasonable - but I can't do a thing to quiet it down because this gal said it was her 'right' to be unreasonably loud (even at 3 AM in the morning) and that even asking her to turn the offensive music down was a racist act on my part (since she is african-american). I guess culture overrides common sense. Maybe we can extend a ban like Peter's to include unreasonable noise and aprtment dwellings.

    The point: No one should be required to wear earplugs just because someone else is selfish, inconsiderate and stupid.

  • (Show?)

    Does he really think 100 of 300 people are going to be talking simultaneously?

    Um... YES? I think absolutely think large numbers of people will yap away on their cell phones.

    Maybe there's a divide here between people who fly a lot for their jobs (like me and Stephanie) and people who fly once in a while for pleasure.

    Folks are bringing up other cases - like the bus, etc. But in almost all of those cases, you can get up and move. On an airplane, you can't.

    It's bad enough when the jerk sitting next to you tries to talk to you. At least then, you can politely demur. But if he's going to spend five hours yapping away, then you're just stuck listening to it.

    I'd be fine with saying that people can talk back by the toilets, but not in the seats.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Folks are bringing up other cases - like the bus, etc. But in almost all of those cases, you can get up and move. On an airplane, you can't.

    Apparently you've never rode the Hawthorne bus into downtown during rush hour. There are no options on the bus. They cram you in like sardines...no literally they squeeze you in so tight people have to step off the bus so there will be enough room for people to make their way out at their stops and they pack you in in the morning the same way until you hit the first stop downtown. I've had the pleasure of hearing conversations about picking up dinner to people's wart removal sessions. It's annoying and I really wish people would realize how stupid they look with a bluetooth headset but really not the place of the government needing to step in to regulate it.

  • (Show?)

    thanks for the elitism ("maybe you just don't fly enough to understand,"), but on what public conveyance have you been on, or indoor public facility, where more than a few people were talking at any one time?

    When I'm on the bus, it's an hour trip (for some longer), and hell no is there anywhere to move to. So I don't buy that excuse.

    I'll ask again--what is the compelling state interest that justifies the attempt to legislate rudeness? And as others have pointed out, are market solutions available?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Eric Parker,

    The situations are quite different. You should have more recourse against noise pollution, especially amplified noise pollution, in your home, especially at late hours than you can expect when you go out in public where other people may want to exercise their right to speak.

    I wear earplugs at rock concerts to protect my ears. It's not a major inconvenience. Mobile phones do not amplify voices, they just allow long distance communication. Banning such straight forward exercise of free speech seems very heavy-handed to me. We do not have a right to freedom from annoyance. White racists are annoyed by the presence of Black people in stores, schools, and public restrooms. Homophobes are annoyed by any suggestion of gayness. Some radical feminists are annoyed by pretty women in ads. Too bad for them all.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with torridjoe (it had to happen eventually). Unless there is a genuine safety issue I'm not aware of, this seems like a silly thing to legislate -- especially when there are other more pressing issues to hammer out.

  • Chuck Paugh (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The use of cell phones on airplines (and in hospitals) is an interesting topic because the scientists and engineers have told us for years that cell phone use is safe in both environments; however, politicians have said that the experts don't know what they are talking about and claim that cell phones are dangerous in these environments. This entire topic is yet again another example of politicians believing that they know what's good for you better than you do, and they believe that they know more than the experts. What we need to do is follow the money trail on this topic and find out which special interest group is funding DeFazio's bill and who will benefit financially from it, then we will learn the truth behind DeFazio's motivation.

  • (Show?)

    What we need to do is follow the money trail on this topic and find out which special interest group is funding DeFazio's bill and who will benefit financially from it, then we will learn the truth behind DeFazio's motivation.

    Or simply ask DeFazio how many times a year he flies back and forth across the country as part of his job.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm all for the argument about free speech, I'm also all in favor of the freedom to not have to listen to it. I suppose I do have the option of telling the offensive prick next to me, "If you don't shut your yap I'm going to stuff something in it," and considering my physical appearance it probably would work. That probably isn't the best solution.

    When people are forced to endure something they tend to get testy and a half hour bus ride is a bit different from hours in an airplane. I don't think it is guess work to say the testiness factor increases over time. Most modes of transportation allow me to get the hell off if it is making me crazy, airplanes make that difficult. Fortunately for me, flying through the air is a sometimes consideration.

    My guess, TJ's argument wins - then it will be interesting to see what mayhem ensues.

  • Steve Packer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Have you noticed that people talking on a cell phone seem to speak louder than normal? This is culturally learned response that dates to the earliest telephones. The original analog phones unintentionally echoed one’s voice in the earpiece. When we build the first truly echo-cancelled digital phones, people could not use them. Failing to hear your own voice, the untrained will instantly suspect the line is dead and say “hello”. On a cell phone the feedback is added back digitally and often at an insufficient volume causing the user to speak louder to ensure the other person can hear. What I really want is a universal clicker to boost the feedback volume so that the loudmouthed cell phone user gets an earful of their voice and would be forced to whisper. What we really need is a law to mandate whisper phones.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The last time I checked, talking is not unconstitutional. Indeed, the ability to simply open your mouth is a fundamental right.

    People also have a fundamental right to relieve themselves of urine and excrement during a flight but basic intelligence demands they not do so in their seats in the public area so lavatories have been provided for that function. By the same token there is a good argument for setting a small area aside as a cellphone-use area. Since this would cost the airlines revenue, a nominal charge for use of this service seems appropriate. Therefore people needing to make a phone call could do so while others who just want to yack away would have to ponder whether what they want to say is worth the cost.

  • steve packer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I take the train to Seattle now and then. It’s a wonderfully peaceful way to travel that gives one time to read and engage in conversation. The people speaking are very respectful of the volume of their voice and the murmuring is perfectly compatible with reading documents like the Democratic Delegate Selection Plan. However, a cell phone conversation inevitably shuts down the whole carriage with the speaker unnecessarily shouting to rise above the murmuring and rail noise. These are times that try the soul and threaten one’s belief in individual rights. I can hardly image what it will be like on an airplane where everyone is unable to move. We need a reasonable way to indicate to a cell-phone user that they are speaking too loud.

  • (Show?)

    We need a reasonable way to indicate to a cell-phone user that they are speaking too loud.

    As far as I can tell, people who holler into their cellphones are completely unresponsive to polite suggestions that they're actually being rude. The response is either "What are you talking about?" or "Mind your own business!" I'm also leaning toward the belief that they do this on purpose, because the yellers are invariably the people sharing the most personal information on the phone: "I've been with him for five years! I thought he loved me!" -- shared with an entire busload on the Line 19, with many more details of infidelity etc to come.

    Free Speech does not equal "annoy everyone else within earshot."

  • (Show?)

    That's it, I'm running for President! I have been inspired to change your passenger flight experience.

    My Platform calls for the following:

    Cards for the Mile High Club. If it's a club, you ought to have a membership card. And the government ought to collect some sort of membership fee.

    Cell phone booths that double as bathrooms (can't waste space) If you've got to talk on your cell phone, might as well do it in an uncomfortable smelly place.

    Even smaller bottles of alcohol. We'll keep the price the same though.

    Crying babies will be given a series of color coded warning cards for disturbing the peace. Yellow, Orange, Red...if your baby reaches Red, it goes to the over head compartment.

    All in flight movies will be airplane related: Flight of the Phoenix (1968, with Jimmy, not the stupid remake), CON-AIR, Air America, Airplane I,II, Top Gun, and as many movies that include air plane explosions, and/or catastrophes.

    I'll see you on the hustings!

  • Howard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Um... YES? I think absolutely think large numbers of people will yap away on their cell phones."

    So you "think" that will happen.

    Then we should allow the cell phone use and see how it works out.

  • Time for the butterfly nets (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Seems like at least once a year DeFazio gives those of us who support him a reason that we should re-examine that support.

    If the post can be taken at face value (and it is dated April 15 not April 1, so one hast to give the benefit of the doubt) I'm mainly interested in whether he is being a nutjob here, or if he is paying back some corporate political supporter --- either trying to benefit the interests who make money off those in-flight phones or to retaliate against the wireless carriers. Unfortunately, Peter does his best to accumulate evidence that it is the former.

    If cell phones do not pose a hazard, such as by interfering with aircraft electronics, only a whackjob would think that prohibiting conversations with someone remotely over a cellphone while allowing in-person conversation is OK. Unfortunately, Oregon and Blue Oregon has more than their fair share of whackjobs.

    What has happened to the Democratic Party in Oregon that increasingly the only candidates we can put forward should be Republicans or are just this side of being nuts? This is starting to say something very disturbing about what it means to declare oneself as a "D".

  • (Show?)

    Maybe I'm a whackjob (there are those here who would certainly say so), but I consider the kind of confinement one suffers on an airplane to be substantively different from that one experiences on the bus or the MAX.

    I've never spent more than 45 or 50 minutes on the MAX at a time. During a trip of that duration, people get on and off and the overall crowding level goes up and down, creating opportunities to move if needed. I've been on single airline segments that were 14 -15 hours in duration, and planes are almost all completely packed these days. If I end up sitting next to a braying jackass with an extra cellphone battery on an airplane, I'm hosed. On the MAX, things are different. Also, there is less ambient noise on the MAX, and people don't feel they need to shout into their phones as much (although for sure some of them do it anyway).

    I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's fair to say that someone is crazy because that person perceives a difference between cellphones on the MAX and cellphones on airplanes in flight.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I find it silly (and a little disturbing) that people I respect seriously believe cell phone behavior should be controlled through legislation.

    We live in a (sometimes crowded) society. If you choose to go out in public -- including fly on airplanes -- you will likely be subject to some sounds, odors, or sights that irritate or annoy you. That's because other people can be annoying. It's not because the government isn't regulating our behavior enough.

    And here's the rub: the things that annoy me may not annoy you. People talking on cell phones on the bus, in cafes, etc. doesn't bother me. If I find their converstaion interesting, I listen. If I don't, I tune them out. People mispronouncing certain words grates on my nerves. I live with it. I don't require fines and imprisonment every time someone says "expresso."

    It's silly to legislate against annoyances, because there are so many and they are so varied. In the end, it makes us no better than conservatives, who seem to feel the only worthwhile role of government is regulating people's sexual/reproductive lives.

    Government is here to protect our rights and help us do things as a community that are difficult to do as individuals. It's not here to make sure you never have to deal with jerks. That's something you can handle alone.

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is there any aspect of life that democRats don't feel the need to regulate?

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What next? Governmentally mandated gags for babies?

    Oooh! Yes, please! That would be great! Can I put the one on Bill Sizemore personally? And Mannix? And Bruce Hanna and Linda Flores and Gary George and Kim thatcher and, and--

    Wait a minute? You were talking about actual infants?

    Oh.

  • tl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I understand the concern of many folks who are opposed to legislation to regulation. I understand folks who believe the freedom of speech is paramount and freedom from annoyance is not. From viewing their postings, I gather the solutions are either: a) tune it out (i.e. live with it) b) let the airlines choose whether to restrict (i.e. let the market decide)

    I understand answer (a). What annoys you may not annoy me. I believe, however, that the ability to tune out cell phone conversations or to find them interesting is probably extremely rare. I grant you that although probably 90-95% of people find other's cell phone conversations annoying, this may not warrant legislation. So we go to option (b).

    In an ideal world, there would be enough competition between airlines that a perk like No Cell Phones Allowed would be jumped upon by one or more carriers. Unfortunately, airlines are merging, many routes may be dominated by or served only by one carrier, and financial pressures push airlines to lower services and customer comfort. A few years back, American Airlines took out 2 rows of seats in their planes and made a big deal about how you would have a couple more inches leg room. I always flew AA when I had the choice just for that feature. Sadly, they have discontinued this perk, replaced the removed rows, and squished the passengers tighter again.

    I am not arguing that legislation is the only way to go. I do respectfully submit, however, that the freedom of speech does not equate to the right to use a cell phone anywhere anytime. Are the in-flight chair phones not sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of passengers?

    -tl

  • Val (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am glad DeFazio is on this. We can not expect the Airline Industry to figure this out, or for people to be responsible. We Need brave, bold Democrats - like DeFazio - to step up and help keep the peace on our planes.

    I would like to see this Law rolled out to all MASS TRANSIT.

    We could fine people for breaking this law and use it to help homeless people with airfare costs.

    Thanks, Val

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I find it silly (and a little disturbing) that people I respect seriously believe cell phone behavior should be controlled through legislation.

    Why not? Other forms of anti-social behavior are controlled by legislation. It used to be, and still is in some cases, that etiquette and respect for others were sufficient, but that doesn't always work in our present society.

    We have lots of rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is right to exercise them any time people feel like it.

  • Val (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I think many Americans understand the potential for problems on aircraft if 100 or more people start talking on cell phones," DeFazio said at a news conference to announce the bill. "People are in very, very close quarters, and this is a circumstance where you would have a cacophony of people on cell phones that would amount to a great potential for trouble."

    Imagine if all 100 people had Tourettes Syndrome instead of cell phones! I think Defazio should include this in the bill...

    Also breat feeding should probably be regulated at the Federal level as well.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    tl,

    If the technological objections no longer hold, what would be the legal grounds for banning mobile phone use on planes while the airline supplies phones for passengers to use? That few people use the airline[s phones because they are so expensive,perhaps? You would seem to be supporting freedom of speech for those with lots of money to spend, but not for the unwashed masses.

    I disagree that mobile phone use is not a free speech matter. it's one thing for the airline to control its facilities. It's another for the government to limit basic rights without compelling reason.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Does DeFazio's bill prohibit texting? I hope so. Imagine the carnage caused by 200 flailing elbows, some of them belonging to overweight people who cannot possibly keep their elbows out of their neighbors' seating space.

    Oh, the humanity!

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This must be an example of the important agenda that Democrats like DeFazio and Blumenauer say they need to work on in lieu of pursuing impeachment of the international terrorists who run our government.

    Is this part of the "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" strategy? It's working.

in the news

connect with blueoregon