Concerning the “regional jet was forced to make an emergency landing after a fire alarm was triggered by a ringing phone in the luggage compartment.”
I was unable to locate any information about this claim other that it is repeated quite often without mentioning the flight number, carrier, the conditions involved or anything that could be used to verify the story. I suspect FUD. Also, even if true, this is not related to avionics but rather a false alarm. The flight was not in any actual danger.
Before we go banning something, lets make sure we are doing so based on facts and evidence rather than hearsay.

Chances are, you were engrossed in your book while waiting forever to board the plane, and while you’re waiting forever for everyone else to find their seat you got engrossed in it again.

You didn’t bring a paper book or a magazine because you have an e-reader, and anyway you’re engrossed in your e-book and don’t want to read anything else.

And then, an e-reader is about the most benign electronic device possible. It doesn’t even draw any power except when the page turns (granted the Kindles and possibly others have 3G, but you can turn it off – and I’ll grant that the flight attendants shouldn’t have to know that my Sony e-reader doesn’t have any radios in it while the guy next to me’s Kindle does).

For anything else – including crosswords or sudoku or other electronics – I just sit patiently not doing anything until we’re in the air. But if I’m reading – which will always be on my e-reader these days – I lose patience and all I want to do is break the rules.

Being a douche on a plane is wanking.

http://www.salon.com/2008/01/04/askthepilot259/

I’m not against banning their use and forcing passengers to comply – it’s the right of any company to define their terms of service.

Just against making something with weak evidence regarded as fact. Religion has taken that crown, and we all know how well that’s worked out for air travel.

Hopefully some evidence will back this ban up soon – so we can all get back to the real issue at hand with airlines (according to every stand-up comic I’ve ever seen) – the food. What’s up with that?

The waitress who harassed Baldwin (while ignoring the non-celebrity passengers) was not playing by the society’s rules, she was playing by the rules which society knows to ignore.

I am just restating the point of the article because you are perpetuating a lie when you say “There is a reason”.

1.) The mentioned reason of interference with avionics.
2.) It pisses off the ground crew (who still internally debate whether it interferes with their communications gear).
3.) As a courtesy to the cabin crew who don’t like dealing with people distracted by phone calls (when giving out safety instructions or any other sort of directions).

It’s just easiest to say ‘because the plane will crash’ since the other two reasons don’t instill enough fear to stop people from doing it.

So which priority is higher for Reichland Security? Warrentless tracking, or minimizing electronic interference on airplanes?

To decide your momentary preference is more important than the judgement of the people you have contracted with to safely transport you is the height of self-centeredness…You agreed to the rules, you could have shopped around until you find an airline which allows you to use those things at that time.

How do you apply that principle to an airline that decides to keep you safe by harassing passengers who ‘appear Muslim’?

Why not make it easy for these people to do their jobs? Smart flyers pack for a friction-less flight experience. The same way you’d leave a big honkin’ metal belt at home to best your chances at flowing thru security, you pack a f’n magazine for take-offs. “But my rights as a citizen and paying customer are being violated!” Those people can shut their cake holes and dig just deep enough to wait the ten minutes it takes to get to altitude.

And one more perspective; a historical one. A decade or two ago mobile telephony on airplanes was not possible except through the airplane’s own communication system or satellite telephone systems. The airlines charged very good money for that.
Naturally, the airlines and communication suppliers at that time had no interest in welcoming personal telephony on board. The same thing goes for hospitals – I remember when mobile phones were completely banned and I was forced to use the expensive services at my local hospital. The rules now may be a spill-over from that practice…sometimes such established “truths” are stubborn beasts, especially if the official reason for their existence is safety – even internally.

While technology has moved on, there are still suppliers for this kind of service. Also, there are new suppliers of entertainment systems and services – now integrated in many seats and such. These modern suppliers offer a means of differentiation for an airline service…and often a smartphone without a connection is just not all that fun. I think there is also an underlying economic motive in “complicating” use of personal devices. You retain control of the media channel on board, retain unique airline offerings, retain a direct way of informing the passengers, and retain some level of ROI in a technological world moving faster than the aircraft itself.

Come on – EVERYTHING can be determined with enough effort and time.

Sure, given enough time you can even prove that P=NP, but that shouldn’t stop you from relying on approximations that are generally proven to work in the meantime.