Time to ban cell phones at the airport?

Mike Marker can’t seem to get away from cell phones when he’s traveling. “Whether it’s in the public area of an airport, a frequent flier club or on a plane,” complains the Salt Lake City consultant, “I can’t escape the constant barrage of conversations and business deals being made.”

He thinks wireless phone chatter is becoming like second-hand smoke, and he wants something done about it. His suggestion: create a “cell-phone free” area in airports and lounges.

Not gonna happen, says Alex Zaslov of the Airports Council International in Washington. His organization, which represents 95 percent of the airports in the United States, can make operational recommendations to its 180 member airports. But so far there’s been no push to create cell-phone free zones. “If there were some kind of ban – and I doubt there ever would be – then it would have to come from the state or federal level or whoever has the controlling authority,” he adds. “Not from us.”

Fair enough. But with more than 110 million wireless subscribers in the country, according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, you can understand where Marker’s coming from. It’s inevitable that the un-wired and the wireless will clash with greater frequency.

I, for one, don’t think that clearing cell phones out of the terminal, or at least some sections of the airport, would be a bad idea. Here’s why:

It would cut down on frivolous wireless calls made from the airport. As it stands, cellular phones work intermittently at many major hubs because there are too few antennas and too many subscribers. The Federal Communications Commission does not forbid the placement of cellular towers near an airport, but it may prohibit the installation of a tower in a particular location without adequate lighting and marking. It’s a problem the wireless industry has been wrestling with for years. But wouldn’t fewer users relieve the congestion and ensure that your important phone call, placed from a proper cell-phone zone, would not only go through but also stay on the air?

It would make planes safer. A clear understanding of where cell phones are – and aren’t – allowed means there would be no doubt as to the legality of someone’s cell phone use on an aircraft. In fact, they’d be strictly off-limits. A year and a half ago, we learned that some airlines were preventing passengers from using wireless phones in order to boost profits on the overpriced in-flight phones. To which I responded: so what? The carriers should still prevent the use of portables on board, not just because there are lingering doubts about the effect of wireless devices on an aircraft’s navigational equipment, but because the conversations are an annoyance. Today some airlines have eased up on their policies, allowing passengers to keep talking while the plane is on the ground. That just adds to the confusion, because travelers are somehow expected to know the cellular phone policies of the carrier they’re on.

It would make travel more civil. There are already more disagreements over cell phone use in public places than there ought to be. Only a few months ago, an exasperated reader asked me how to build a portable device that would jam other cellular phone calls. He was tired of listening to other people’s conversations on the train. (I told him how to but I warned that it was illegal.) His point’s well taken: when it comes to using wireless devices, we’re often short on manners. But one of the most irritating aspects of listening to other people’s conversations isn’t the content, but the volume. For some reasons, cell phone chatters think they have to speak LOUDLY and a-r-t-i-c-u-l-a-t-e every word. Maybe they do belong with the smokers.

It would encourage the use of alternative wireless technologies. Verizon Wireless is promoting its Mobile Messenger service, which lets you send and receive text messages from your cellular phone. The two primary hurdles to a wide implementation of this kind of messaging are the difficulty of typing text on a cell phone and the price. For a monthly fee of $7.99 on Verizon, you can send up to 600 text messages, with additional messages costing 2 cents for messages received and 10 cents for messages sent. That kind of pricing reminds me of CompuServe’s glory days, when it charged subscribers for sending and receiving e-mail from the Internet. Hopefully, the big wireless companies will take a cue from CompuServe and phase their fees out.

But other than that, text messaging is a terrific idea. In the Philippines, it was a key technology in coordinating antigovernment protests earlier this year. And you may also recall the recent report of a British traveler adrift in heavy seas off Indonesia who was rescued after sending an SOS text message to her boyfriend. He was drinking in a pub – in England.

Yet even with the arguments for separating the cell phone chatters from the rest of us, I have to agree with Zaslov: it’s not gonna happen. You can’t legislate manners, and that’s really what we’re talking about, here. Creating a “non-chatting” section at an airport means that you’re trying to impose your idea of civility on a class of travelers that proudly refer to themselves as “road warriors.”

It’s a noble – but ultimately a futile – idea.

Christopher Elliott is the author of Scammed: How to Save Your Money and Find Better Service in a World of Schemes, Swindles, and Shady Deals. Critics have called it “eye-opening” and “inspiring” — it’ll “grab your attention and won’t let go.” Order your copy now on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or iTunes.

Be the first to comment