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.

good news

thank you for informations.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.