NYT: "No Phones on Planes, Please" and the tyranny of the majority

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: March 24, 2007 3:34:32 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: NYT: "No Phones on Planes, Please" and the tyranny of the  
majority

{Once again ctrl-Enter sent the message a tad too soon – the ability  
to turn that off may be the most important feature of the new version  
of Outlook.}



Today’s NY Times reported on the overwhelming call (pun?) for banning  
cell phones on airplanes. I felt obliged to submit a comment. Of  
course this is akin to “Internet voting” and is easily skewed. But  
then that skewing also applies to the FCC where those vote with their  
emotions and revel in their intolerance have the loudest voices.  
Perhaps they are projecting their loud opposition on those who want  
to communicate softly and even silently. Once more we have a reminder  
of the need for tolerance.



This week’s “The Daily Show” had John Bolton on. As John Stewart  
observed the next day – since when did the President only service  
those who voted for him? Politicians and those who “serve us” will  
listen to the most vocal – that’s why protection from their din is so  
important.



* * * The note I posted at NYT * * *



We seem to be living in a time of continuing intolerance and a lack  
of empathy for others. Why must I spend 6 hours worrying when a  
single phone call can provide me with the information I need? With  
the demise of AirFone I can’t call ahead to make arrangements if my  
flight is delayed. I can’t call home to find out if my children  
arrived safely home from their own trip.



The call to ban cell phones on airplanes is further evidence that the  
FCC is really the Federal Speech Commission whose mission is to  
control social behavior. I can understand the attitude that ones own  
comfort is paramount and that cell phones users can be annoying. But  
a cell phone is not just a device for talking – that’s simply one use  
for the basic technology of radios.



This is elitist pandering at its worst. Only a few years ago I was  
accused of showing off simply for using a cell phone to coordinate  
with my wife who was stuck in traffic. Today it’s hard to imagine  
being out of touch yet now we are told that we have to fly in  
isolation just because some people project their social agenda on a  
particular technology.



Why stop with banning cell phones, why not ban newspapers. After all,  
folding them and changing pages can be very annoying.



Saying I can’t talk on a cell phone means I can’t communicate in  
other ways – I can’t silently read the NY Times online just because  
some people can’t see beyond their simplistic view of the technology.  
We also have the example of Flight 93 on 9/11.



We mustn’t let these naïve social agendas continue to keep us  
isolated and locked into the past. We seem intent on turning the land  
of opportunity into the land of “may I?” where the ability to create  
our own solutions is limited by the requirement that we don’t disturb  
those who like things just the way they imagined they once were.



Does this mean that Internet connectivity will also be banned in  
airplanes just because we can figure out how to use it to talk to  
others?



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com