Fight the mobile phone invasion at 30,000ft

Financial Times ^ | 3/28/2006 | Jagdish Bhagwati

[tellw]

Our right to peace and quiet is guaranteed by fining taxi drivers from India who honk as they drive: a habit acquired through years of dodging cycles, cows, cars and the carefree in the crowded streets of Calcutta and Karachi. Flights are not allowed to land in Washington DC beyond late evening so that those living around the airport enjoy what is now widely regarded as the human right to undisturbed sleep. Yet, noise pollution, practised with abandon in your face and in your ears, is tolerated in enclosed spaces in buses, trains, restaurants and cinemas and is spreading like bird flu, only more surely and more harmfully to our peace of mind and mental health.

The final straw in the US (followed, presumably, by everywhere else in rapid sequence) is the impending decision to allow the use of mobile phones on flights. In this way, loud passengers will be free to jabber away in a closed cabin, saying “hi” to Joey, Joel and Josie at home just for the heck of it, or conducting their business, which is no concern of yours, by public declamation. What can be done if the US Federal Aviation Administration allows this madness to happen, as it will? I say: we are not out of remedies.

Consider what you can do in the aircraft cabin itself. Before the Good Samaritans came down on smoking, I had a friend who was so annoyed by the smoke getting into his eyes in restaurants – as the smokers at the next table held their cigarette in a Marlene Dietrich gesture, almost under his nose – that he carried a little Sanyo fan that would blow the smoke back into their startled faces. While the stewardesses would not let you turn on a CD player at loud volume to drown out the mobile phone users, how about screaming into your own phone (without, of course, actually dialling and paying) sweet nothings to an imaginary girlfriend or boyfriend? This is worth a try. But frankly, how long and how often can such ridicule and retaliatory noise-making be sustained, without unleashing a competition in steadily higher octaves, one which the vulgar freaks you are trying to drown out are likely to win?

A more effective remedy has to be a collective, legal response. How about encouraging environmental and human rights groups to file lawsuits against the agencies that grant the permission for the use of mobile phones in flight, and against the airlines when they act on such permission? The American Association of Retired Persons might be convinced to join such a class action, in defence of the peaceful journeys sought by the increasing numbers of senior citizens taking discounted vacations from the rich countries.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms, under Article 8, guarantees that “everyone has the right to respect for his private . . . life” and “there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and necessary . . . in the interests of . . . the economic well-being of the country”. Surely, the “private life” includes a life of peace in which one can snooze without the gaggle of gratuitous talk that certainly does not advance any country’s economic well-being.

But what of the rights of the mobile phone users? These are more frivolous than those of the fellow passengers on whom they impose. Besides, the airlines can readily accommodate their desire to talk without imposing on those who seek a quiet flight. Mobile phone users should be provided, at an extra cost charged to their tickets, with a phone booth at which they can queue for their turn. That would protect their rights without invading ours.

The smoking ban on all flights came along when the science behind the problem of secondary harm from smoking became well-established. But this harm does not have to be physical; it can also be mental. The stress of having to be in an enclosed space with continuous noise is sufficient to produce high blood pressure, fatigue and other ailments, as the plaintiffs complained in their testimony regarding airport noise in Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2001. It is still not completely clear whether continual emission of radiation from the use of mobile phones on flights could cause secondary brain damage to fellow passengers. If providence were just, it would surely affect the brains of the users. But who believed at first that cigarettes could hurt the smoker’s own family?

So, perhaps the compelling answer may be to threaten the mobile phone companies themselves with ultimate liability, reminding them of the cigarette manufacturers who eventually faced huge financial damages. Eventual retribution could be the most powerful deterrent to the rising spectre of cellular noise.

The writer, university professor, economics and law, at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of In Defense of Globalization

Do you agree with the author? Share your views online at www.ft.com/bhagwati

[safisoft]

How did all those calls come from FLT 93?

They were low and slow when the calls were made. It is not just a matter of altitude, but of speed. At cruise speeds, the transition to new cells is more than the system can handle.

[Blueflag]

Yes - mechanically steered/aligned phased array antennae for in-flight reception. Obviously not an all-aspect receiver ;-)

[safisoft]

I've always been told that cellphones and wireless devices mess up the airplanes electronics. How come, all of a sudden, it's going to be OK?

Most airliners are shielded.

I am an airline pilot for a major airline.

[Spiff]

See my previous post where I said people need to be re-educated on public manners.

Whatever. Just leave my right to use my cell phone alone.

[Mamzelle]

I just don't get the anger over cell phones. As annoyances go, they're pretty small.

[stuartcr]

So what is annouced, isn't really true? It's just a way to get people to turn stuff off?

[safisoft]

The plan includes putting a small base station on board that communicates to the ground.

That is new to the debate - and a totally different issue. The crew will be able to enable or disable this.

Talking about a relay system is a marketplace issue. If the FAA allows cell phones in flight, and your aircraft does not have a relay, you won't be able to use your cell phone.

The airlines will discover quickly that the majority of their passengers do not want this kind of thing, and it won't end up being enabled for most of the flight anyway.

[Cecily]

Agreed. Worrying about cell phone noise while traveling in coach on the average flight is like worrying about a leaky faucet as the tsunami bears down on your beach house. A person is lucky ever to have any small bit of peace and quiet in coach. The seats are small, they are all occupied, the to-ing and fro-ing is constant, and so is the noise.

[safisoft]

You shouldn't call others "moron" while you are laboring under your own mistake of fact. The proposal is to put gear onboard planes that will permit cellphones to work normally at any altitude.

I am an airline pilot for a major airline. We know more about the subject that you can imagine.

[null and void]

Thanks.

[technochick99]

If two people, both of whom were present (as opposed to one present and one on the other end of the phone), were having the same loud conversation, would you be as annoyed?

YES.

[TankerKC]

We know more about the subject that you can imagine.

Still, it wouldn't hurt to read the article, skippy.

[safisoft]

So what is annouced, isn't really true? It's just a way to get people to turn stuff off?

Remember when you used to have to turn your computer on when going through security? What was that about? Proving that 1). You had a power source for detonation; and 2). You had a timing device (system clock) for detonation. Was that it? The computers that DID work were more likely to be bombs than the ones that didn't!

Sometimes things change because of greater understanding, and sometimes things change because someone actually "gets a clue."

So do you think it is possible for a government agency to fudge on the truth because they just don't know any better, or any other reason they think sufficient? 'Nuff said.

[al_c]

I hope it's never permitted except perhaps via some sound proof enclosure.

[safisoft]

Still, it wouldn't hurt to read the article, skippy.

Yup. And we still know more than the morons reporting on this.

[Mamzelle]

re: Don't get me started about noise. We live in an exceptionally noisy world. Many people don't even know what real silence or quiet is. Many don't want to know. )))

I hear you--but that's why I wonder why cell phones seem to annoy so much. They're just one more noise in a noisy place.

My own pet noise peeve was when I had the privilege of living for a short while in Hawaii, and spent every moment I could at the beach to listen to the ocean. Inevitably someone would show up with a boombox--

And I moved out to the country, and enjoy spending time in my garden next to a rocky stream. How I detest the stupid hobby pilots who buzz around pointlessly on every fine, bright day, right over my head--back and forth--

But a cellphone on a plane, on the street, even in a restaurant filled with talking people? No biggie.

[Petronski]

I am an airline pilot for a major airline. We know more about the subject that you can imagine.

Yet in this quote:

The simply truth is, they will only work for about 5 minutes before landing or about 3 minutes after takeoff.

you do not seem to know about the proposal to enable cell phones aboard planes for the entire flight.

[LIConFem]

Easy to say. And I don't doubt any of you. But I can't tell you how many times loud conversations on the train are tolerated while cell phone chatters are lambasted, sometimes by the very same loud "non-cell" talkers.

I loathe cell phones. The only reason I have one is so that my elderly mom can get in touch with me whenever I'm not at home. But much of this furor over public cell phone use is little more than the latest fashionable pet peeve.

[safisoft]

you do not seem to know about the proposal to enable cell phones aboard planes for the entire flight.

Actually, I do. It will be a supplimental device installed by, and controlled by the airline (and in the case of my airline, on my airplane, by ME). That is different from every individual pulling his cell phone out and able to use it at a whim.

The point is that individuals yanking out their cell phones under the sanction of the government is one thing that will not happen.

An airline, on the other hand that is subject to market forces to INSTALL and ENABLE such a relay device is entirely different - and will not happen. The fact is - if it gets out of hand and people start voting with their wallets - it will be disabled, or highly restricted.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

But much of this furor over public cell phone use is little more than the latest fashionable pet peeve.

Fashionable? A peeve is a peeve. On this thread you have also seen discussed many other peeves. Fashions must either stick around for a long time, or a peeve is a peeve.