Nov 10, 2016, 3:30 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
Can I use my cell phone or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service for voice communications or videoconferencing while inflight?
Although you are allowed to use your cell phone in airplane mode for activities such as surfing the Internet and sending email, we do not allow the use of our onboard Internet service for voice communication or videoconferencing through a cell phone, VoIP or any similar service. Voice and video calls are not permitted. By purchasing an Internet plan and accessing our service on board, you agree not to make voice or video calls, including but not limited to VoIP, in flight.
Although you are allowed to use your cell phone in airplane mode for activities such as surfing the Internet and sending email, we do not allow the use of our onboard Internet service for voice communication or videoconferencing through a cell phone, VoIP or any similar service. Voice and video calls are not permitted. By purchasing an Internet plan and accessing our service on board, you agree not to make voice or video calls, including but not limited to VoIP, in flight.
[CONSOLIDATED] United WiFi and phone calls: WiFi Calling, VOIP apps, & etc discussion
May 1, 2015, 5:02 pm
#91
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: iad/dca
Programs: UA Million Mile Gold, Club, AA, Delta, Marriott, Hertz G, A/Club
Posts: 1,106
Instead of the cabin police hassling people
COUAL should be working overtime on monetizing this voice traffic. Ironic that Jeff's unfair competitor, Emirates, allows such calls.
May 1, 2015, 5:13 pm
#92
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: AA EXP, UA Prem Exec, HH Diamond, SPG Gold
Posts: 93
HAHA this thread is awesome.
Doc Savage your comment is the greatest by far, "remove all violators immediately..."
Surprised how many people are ok with the concept, perhaps more time on a train will change peoples' opinions. I've never felt more likely to enter a homicidal rage (figuratively, of course) than on a nearly full train in Italy. EVERYONE was talking and no one at a reasonable volume.
That said, I've had seatmates on business calls who I barely noticed and may be guilty of doing the same once or twice when it absolutely couldn't be avoided.
Doc Savage your comment is the greatest by far, "remove all violators immediately..."
Surprised how many people are ok with the concept, perhaps more time on a train will change peoples' opinions. I've never felt more likely to enter a homicidal rage (figuratively, of course) than on a nearly full train in Italy. EVERYONE was talking and no one at a reasonable volume.
That said, I've had seatmates on business calls who I barely noticed and may be guilty of doing the same once or twice when it absolutely couldn't be avoided.
May 1, 2015, 9:50 pm
#93
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I saw people yapping on them for 45 minutes or longer; once or twice even saw it for hours, with repeated back to back calls. Didn't some even set things up for incoming calls in-flight?
I didn't mind it, but I don't see what the point is of in-flight calls. Text message/email is better for communication than an audio call, except that the audio call may in some limited ways be better for privacy purposes -- a purpose that goes out the window when speaking publicly in a place where there is little to no expectation of privacy.
My position on the matter is much the same as bocastephens: if it doesn't disturb any neighboring passengers, then I don't care.
I didn't mind it, but I don't see what the point is of in-flight calls. Text message/email is better for communication than an audio call, except that the audio call may in some limited ways be better for privacy purposes -- a purpose that goes out the window when speaking publicly in a place where there is little to no expectation of privacy.
My position on the matter is much the same as bocastephens: if it doesn't disturb any neighboring passengers, then I don't care.
May 1, 2015, 10:01 pm
#94
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
..
May 1, 2015, 11:35 pm
#95
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BOS/LON/SEA
Programs: AA Reg
Posts: 161
Actually, your interpretation is WRONG as far as FAA policy. It was in airplane mode using WIFI, it was not using the cellular network. Today's cellular telephone is actually a tracking device and portable computer with the ability to make telephone calls. This is no different from me using Wifi on my laptop to connect into my office VPN and make a VOIP call using my office phone system.
This isn't an interpretation; it's spelled out clearly regarding cell phones, which is what the OP is talking about.
May 2, 2015, 3:20 am
#96
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LHR (sometimes CLE, SFO, BOS, LAX, SEA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,895
1st off -- question? Is it inconsiderate to talk to your girlfriend if she's sitting next to you on a flight JFK-LAX - assuming your keeping your tone normal, or lower?
I don't understand why you think a cell phone should be so different, as well this was a day flight and Since when were flights "no talk zones".
I don't understand why you think a cell phone should be so different, as well this was a day flight and Since when were flights "no talk zones".
See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2375 or http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/000095.html.
The idea, roughly, is that hearing half of a conversation makes your brain have to do a bunch of extra work. The 2003 Language Log description of the theory is like
Theory of mind is a term introduced by Premack and Woodruff (1978) to refer to a set of abilities that may be uniquely human: to attribute mental states such as beliefs, knowledge and emotions to self and others; to recognize that the mental states of others many differ from one's own; to use these attributed states to explain and predict behavior; and to predict how such mental states would be affected by hypothetical actions.
This is "mind reading", and it's hard to do, because there are no psionic wave transmissions involved -- it's all inference from what people say and do, how they say and do it, and prior information about them and others. It's also pretty much automatic -- if you're not autistic, you can't stop yourself from reading your companions' minds any more than you can stop yourself from noticing the color of their clothes.
But when you're only getting half the cues -- from one side of a cell phone conversation between two strangers -- you have to work a lot harder.
This is "mind reading", and it's hard to do, because there are no psionic wave transmissions involved -- it's all inference from what people say and do, how they say and do it, and prior information about them and others. It's also pretty much automatic -- if you're not autistic, you can't stop yourself from reading your companions' minds any more than you can stop yourself from noticing the color of their clothes.
But when you're only getting half the cues -- from one side of a cell phone conversation between two strangers -- you have to work a lot harder.
Inasmuch as "distraction" (lowered attention) may also be annoying, it would be more annoying to air or rail passengers for the carrier to allow any half-dialogue scenarios (e.g. cell phone use).
Now, this doesn't explain why the EK A380 expressly permits cell phones and EK still manages to get positive customer satisfaction scores (and operate flights safely).
And I still don't understand what specific federal law makes it a crime to disregard an airline's operating rules and what the penalty is for breaking that law (we have not gotten a citation in this thread).
May 2, 2015, 4:43 am
#97
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: United Plat 2MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,727
Or the guy who took his into the Quiet Room, shouting at his phone "I just found a good room to talk - outside everyone is yakking on their phones!"
May 2, 2015, 8:07 am
#98
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
.
May 2, 2015, 10:49 am
#99
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
1st off -- question? Is it inconsiderate to talk to your girlfriend if she's sitting next to you on a flight JFK-LAX - assuming your keeping your tone normal, or lower?
I don't understand why you think a cell phone should be so different, as well this was a day flight and Since when were flights "no talk zones".
Regarding people who shout at their cell phones - the same people would shout at the person next to them and laugh loud enough at their AVOD's to interfere with the planes signals.
Others bring their noise spreading headphones on board and put it really loud too - acknowledged there are public peace abusers.
Planes are not libraries. i would have no problem if someone spoke - quietly on the phone. it's not inconsiderate. especially on international flights, plug in your headphones and enjoy your AVOD.
Re: FCC law. since this was Voip - it may not fit in the category of the ban, as it seems the intention of the law, was to forbid cellular usage - not data. Cellular connections were presumed to possibly effect the planes signals. voip is data - hence it may not fit into the ban.
Re: United rules - this is not the law. The FA i doubt was dumb enough to think the cellular network was working at 30,000 feet or what not. But ok - united's policy clearly forbids this anyway.
So here's the next question. Because there will be people who abuse it, should all passengers NOT be able to be as productive during flights?
I see a time when flights have not just a seat and wifi for social network browsing, but 1gbs wifi, the tray table has a touch sensitive keyboard, and from takeoff to landing your able to plow away at work on a 17 inch IPS screen on the back of the chair in front of you, to which you connect your "rasberry pi" or your new microsoft or apple equivalent and run your regular desktop from the cattle cabin - and attend web conferences from the inbuilt webcam in front of you.
One of the benefits of flying verses for example driving - is that while flying you should be able to and can already be much more productive, anyone who takes the subway will tell you how much they read or get done on the way to and from work - vs sitting in traffic thats a great utilization. This will be a great benefit of automatic cars, and should in the 21st - be a benefit of flying.
For a NYC-LAX Flight - I want to see an office, not a bed on the next new cabin rollout...
That upgrade would easily go as a business expense - imagine not paying to upgrade from coach to premium economy for more legroom but rather to "economy work" where you can actually be super productive for your 6hrs in the air. If you run your own business this is a very valuable offer.
I don't understand why you think a cell phone should be so different, as well this was a day flight and Since when were flights "no talk zones".
Regarding people who shout at their cell phones - the same people would shout at the person next to them and laugh loud enough at their AVOD's to interfere with the planes signals.
Others bring their noise spreading headphones on board and put it really loud too - acknowledged there are public peace abusers.
Planes are not libraries. i would have no problem if someone spoke - quietly on the phone. it's not inconsiderate. especially on international flights, plug in your headphones and enjoy your AVOD.
Re: FCC law. since this was Voip - it may not fit in the category of the ban, as it seems the intention of the law, was to forbid cellular usage - not data. Cellular connections were presumed to possibly effect the planes signals. voip is data - hence it may not fit into the ban.
Re: United rules - this is not the law. The FA i doubt was dumb enough to think the cellular network was working at 30,000 feet or what not. But ok - united's policy clearly forbids this anyway.
So here's the next question. Because there will be people who abuse it, should all passengers NOT be able to be as productive during flights?
I see a time when flights have not just a seat and wifi for social network browsing, but 1gbs wifi, the tray table has a touch sensitive keyboard, and from takeoff to landing your able to plow away at work on a 17 inch IPS screen on the back of the chair in front of you, to which you connect your "rasberry pi" or your new microsoft or apple equivalent and run your regular desktop from the cattle cabin - and attend web conferences from the inbuilt webcam in front of you.
One of the benefits of flying verses for example driving - is that while flying you should be able to and can already be much more productive, anyone who takes the subway will tell you how much they read or get done on the way to and from work - vs sitting in traffic thats a great utilization. This will be a great benefit of automatic cars, and should in the 21st - be a benefit of flying.
For a NYC-LAX Flight - I want to see an office, not a bed on the next new cabin rollout...
That upgrade would easily go as a business expense - imagine not paying to upgrade from coach to premium economy for more legroom but rather to "economy work" where you can actually be super productive for your 6hrs in the air. If you run your own business this is a very valuable offer.
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/200...ur-cell-phone/
May 2, 2015, 1:49 pm
#100
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,826
The issue is context (why voice calls are annoying to many)
The issue is our need for context. It's hard to deny. As others have pointed out, a half-heard phone conversation is begging for context, whether we're really interested in the conversation or not. Our brains are just plain hard-wired to want to analyze stimuli. To put things in their place.
We have a tough time dismissing things in the background that we haven't figured out. I really think it's that simple, especially when it seems inevitable that people talk more-loudly into a phone than they do to someone next to them. That particular phenomenon may, ironically, be due to a lack of context, since you can't see the reactions of those you're conversing with. If this were true, the implication would be that a facetime call might be at a more normal level & tone than voice-only. An interesting question.
One thing's for certain. If given a choice between flying a no-voice-call carrier vs one where that's allowed, I'd prefer the no-voice-call airline, especially on flights over an hour.
We have a tough time dismissing things in the background that we haven't figured out. I really think it's that simple, especially when it seems inevitable that people talk more-loudly into a phone than they do to someone next to them. That particular phenomenon may, ironically, be due to a lack of context, since you can't see the reactions of those you're conversing with. If this were true, the implication would be that a facetime call might be at a more normal level & tone than voice-only. An interesting question.
One thing's for certain. If given a choice between flying a no-voice-call carrier vs one where that's allowed, I'd prefer the no-voice-call airline, especially on flights over an hour.
May 2, 2015, 5:24 pm
#101
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hoboken, NJ; Pembroke Pines, FL
Programs: CO Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,939
Also, of course, all calls to landlines have to be routed through the public switched telephone network. I'm pretty sure this is mostly digital nowadays, but it's still circuit switched and not packet switched and is certainly not IP-based.
May 2, 2015, 6:14 pm
#102
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,826
It's a bit pedantic, but I think digital cellular voice service in the U.S. will remain circuit switched until Voice over LTE (VoLTE) is fully rolled out at T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T. (and who knows when Sprint will upgrade)
Also, of course, all calls to landlines have to be routed through the public switched telephone network. I'm pretty sure this is mostly digital nowadays, but it's still circuit switched and not packet switched and is certainly not IP-based.
Also, of course, all calls to landlines have to be routed through the public switched telephone network. I'm pretty sure this is mostly digital nowadays, but it's still circuit switched and not packet switched and is certainly not IP-based.
We should just get used to thinking of "voice" calls, without distinction between VOIP & otherwise.
May 2, 2015, 6:43 pm
#103
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
AT&T has announced their intention to be entirely out of the landline business by 2020. It's going away, whether people like it or not.
We should just get used to thinking of "voice" calls, without distinction between VOIP & otherwise.
We should just get used to thinking of "voice" calls, without distinction between VOIP & otherwise.
May 2, 2015, 8:42 pm
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
I'm not interpreting anything - I'm reading. It specifically says "4. Cell phones may not be used for voice communications." It doesn't say cellular voice communication, nor data voice communication. It says that cell phones may not be used for voice communication.
This isn't an interpretation; it's spelled out clearly regarding cell phones, which is what the OP is talking about.
This isn't an interpretation; it's spelled out clearly regarding cell phones, which is what the OP is talking about.
mputer for voice communications is 
kay, right?
May 2, 2015, 8:48 pm
#105
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA GS 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,319