Posted on 12/18/2005 7:27:25 AM PST by Kjobs
SANTA MONICA, Calif., Dec. 17 (UPI) -- The National Association of Theater Owners wants the Federal Communications Commission to allow the blocking of cell phone signals in theaters.
John Fithian, the president of the trade organization, told the Los Angeles Times theater owners "have to block rude behavior" as the industry tries to come up with ways to bring people back to the cinemas.
Fithian said his group would petition the FCC for permission to block cell phone signals within movie theaters.
Some theaters already have no cell phone policies and ask moviegoers to check their phones at the door, Fithian said.
The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association -- a Washington-based cell phone lobby that is also known as CTIA-the Wireless Association -- said it would fight any move to block cell phone signals.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
"The broadcaster who gets there first rightfully owns his segment of the spectrum, by virtue of having homesteaded it. Other broadcasters are free to homestead other segments of the spectrum, or the same frequencies in a different coverage area. Disputes are solved in court in the same manner that two homesteaders resolve a dispute over pastureland."
No. there is no "homesteading" broadcast spectrum. It's licensed by the FCC. Disputes are rarely settled in court, the FCC settles them - by telling one or both parties to cooperate or go off the air. They have the authority to force broadcasts off the air if they deem it necessary.
Learn to read: I said that such laws are not vaid; I never said they don't exist or aren't enforced. There are many immoral laws. Among them are laws stating that energy beamed into my home without my permission is nevertheless protected from my interception.
You are wrong - technically, legally, and morally on most everything you've commented on in this thread.
I defy you to produce an example of a technical or moral error. As for legality, I'm not really discussing that aspect of the issue. Current US laws are not moral, and I'm not too interested in them as they are today. I'm discussing them as they should be. I'd have thought that was clear, since the foundation of the entire thread is the reality that the FCC regulates something that should be privatized.
My son is working at a local theatre while he goes to school. He has lots of stories where they have asked people to turn off their phones and even have asked them to leave. He said they have finally been told to approach the situation very cautiously as people will get very hostile and belligerent to the point of physically assaulting the theatre attendants. He said this is a fairly common occurence. I think theatres are at a point where they have tried everything they can and are not successful. Therefore it is time for someone with some authority to help the situation.
"And I'm waiting for the RFEngineer to explain why a Faraday cage movie theater is perfectly legal.....without a single sign saying...."Hey Dufuss, your cell phone won't work in here"
Because a Faraday cage is passive and doesn't affect things significantly outside the specific premises of the theater. The FCC doesn't object as long as you don't broadcast anything on spectrum that you don't have a license for, or interfere (actively) with someone who does.
If you read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I stated that. I'm discussing morality, not US law. I also pointed out that prior to government regulation of RF spectra, there were indeed court cases between broadcasters, and they were settled quite nicely using the principles of homesteading. The point of the historical anecdote was to illustrate that the US actually handled the radio waves in a moral fashion at first, before the government decided to take over.
My mother in-law has a greyhound,Marvin, that she obtained from greyhound rescue. He is a retired racer. I was surprised at how large he was. He was a really sweet dog. He just wanted to romp or have his head rubbed softly or eat. Boy could he cover ground when he let himself out to a full run!
Merry Christmas!
Back to the ham radio stuff and my sauce simmering on the stove. Lasagne tonight!
What really needs to happen, and all the crazy, laughable self-serving, predictable hostile and anti-social (Emergency paramedics, World War IV, test results - c'mon. let's think of something new and original) logic expressed here by the cellphone junkies would support it, is to legalize personal cellphone jammers, so that we each could control the private space around ourselves.
And if the same patrons tried that in a topless bar they would be wearing their ass for a hat.....that's why they call them bouncers. Perhaps theaters should try a new tact..
The only reason I see so many movies still is that I can drive to Wichita and go to the $2 movie theater.
They show movies that came out 2 months ago or so. It is a bargain.
"Learn to read: I said that such laws are not vaid; I never said they don't exist or aren't enforced"
I tend to be somewhat libertarian myself, but in your case, you are certainly pissing against a strong headwind.
A law is valid as long as it is enforced and allowed to be enforced - what other useful measure can you use?
"I defy you to produce an example of a technical or moral error"
Friend, it's not me you defy, it's The Laws of Physics. Maybe you think they are immoral, too, but they are no less real than the other laws you feel are not valid.
But some people are more libertarian than others......
You think that it is up to you to determine if someone in your proximity can use a cell phone?
You know, you already have that power. You can walk up to that person and tell them to get off the phone.
A kindred spirit! Incredible! There is no better sound.
Again, I'm discussing morality, not law. US law is contradictory on this point: it gives a homeowner property rights extending downward to the core of the earth, but does not give property rights extending upward into the heavens.
That is correct. What movie theater owners are asking the FCC for is to do this electronically without tearing down existing structures....and I already pointed out, way up the thread, that exclusion zones are possible, so the "I can't live without my cell phone people" or life and death professionals can still have access to their mobiles. Stick them and all the screeching kids on the balcony, then they can just annoy each other instead of me.
Yes it does. The owner of a property also has subsurface (mineral) rights and air rights unless they have been sold off or "severed".
An exception on air rights has been made for high flying aircraft.
Stating what's moral has nothing to do with blowing against the wind; it's a given that immoral law will continue forever. If one could throw a switch and grant absolute freedom to every human on earth tomorrow, they would instantly begin a frantic search to find themselves new masters. Humans don't even want to be free. Or put differently, I guess I agree with you, but you've understated it: the quest for genuine human freedom is on par with jumping over the moon.
A law is valid as long as it is enforced and allowed to be enforced - what other useful measure can you use?
All comes clear; you're a moral relativist. I'm not; I insist instead that there is an absolute morality, with respect to which a law may be moral or immoral. I submit, even to immoral laws, because I don't want to be the wife of a cellmate named "Bubba"--but that doesn't make them moral.
Friend, it's not me you defy, it's The Laws of Physics. Maybe you think they are immoral, too, but they are no less real than the other laws you feel are not valid.
Give an example of a single law of physics I've gotten wrong. Thanks.
One answer......Netflix!
"If you read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I stated that. I'm discussing morality, not US law"
You seem to misundertand both US law and morality. It is not immoral to regulate radio spectrum so that it can be used to the greatest benefit of society.
Please learn to read. I said "upward into the heavens". The heavens, while not precisely defined as to altitude, are higher than the altitude of high-flying aircraft. I have no property rights governing air traffic lanes over my home.
What you call "air rights" are what I already described as the right not to have my house buzzed by commercial planes. That is, your only rights above the earth's surface are those necessary to the enjoyment of your possession on the earth's surface. That's been the US law since U.S. v. Causby in 1946. Your rights prevent airplanes from scaring your chickens, making excessive noise, dropping bolts on your head, etc., and that's it.
Hopefully it's clear, though, that this is in fact the correct moral interpretation of property rights. What's incongruous is that you still own the rights to the land under your house, down to the core--except that your grandaddy probably sold those rights to an oil company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.