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 ...
No wonder you're so crabby....you're not getting enough sleep!
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I notice you haven't proven your assertion, but I'm happy to take your word for it. But I think even more is true. It's moral for the government to regulate all land in the US, and all labor as well, to the greatest benefit to society. In fact, all factors of production should be regulated to the greatest benefit of society. I certainly hope you agree, comrade.
"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"
The only way you can ensure that jammers don't leak signal outside the premises of a theater is to enclose them in a faraday cage - thereby making them unneeded.
It IS possible, but it is technically difficult to limit where RF goes. However, I'd be more than happy to sell theaters consulting hours on this subject!!!! (You've given me a great idea should this get approved by the FCC....which it won't)
The only air right that you do not have as a property owner is to prevent high flying aircraft from flying over head. This is just a technicality though as the government could just as easily obtain an easement for air traffic.
What you do have to the right to do is to sell the air rights to a neighboring property at a huge profit.
From your posts, you imply that your lack of power to prohibit high flying aircraft from flying overhead has robbed the nation of its morality in regard to property rights.
Not correct FRiend, see post #103
You are 100% mistaken. The "navigable air space" over your house is considered the same as a public highway. The "navigable air space" is determined by federal regulators, and generally starts at 500-1000 feet above your house. You have no rights whatsoever over navigable air space, except as upheld in U.S. versus Causby--namely, the right not to have your use and enjoyment of your property hampered by aerial activity such as scaring your chickens.
Your constant statement about "high-flying aircraft" is nonsense. Private aircraft can also fly over your house, at a typical altitude of 600 feet, and there's nothing you can do about it. Unless the pilot throws a coke bottle out his window and hits you on the head, that is.
From your posts, you imply that your lack of power to prohibit high flying aircraft from flying overhead has robbed the nation of its morality in regard to property rights.
I've asked you to learn to read, and I ask you again. The law is perfectly moral. You have no rights beyond your piece of ground, except those necessary to secure your enjoyment of that piece of ground. And that's exactly as it should be. That's moral. And legal. It's one of those amazing cases where law and morality agree. Do you get it now?
Bingo. It is highly doubtful that a ciniplex could implement a scheme that would be able to precisely exclude certain rows of a movie theater.
Theaters could exclude certain rooms, but that would defeat the purpose. Exclusionary zones are only useful if the showing rooms are partitioned.
Even this doesn't make much sense as most showing rooms do not have separate balconies.
While I sympathize with the theater owners and have no use for rude people in general, it could be a real problem for people who have to be on call, but still try to have a life. It could also be a problem in other emergency situations. I spend a lot of time in court and I simply turn my phone off and check messages when I have a break, or if I need to make a call, I step outside of the courtroom. Same should apply for theaters, restaurants, etc. It is bad enough having to see and hear people on the phone all around you every where else you go (I am guilty as well), but there are some places where people just shouldn't have to put up with someone else's ringing phone and the intrusive noise of their "private" conversations. The theater qualifies.
"In fact, all factors of production should be regulated to the greatest benefit of society. I certainly hope you agree, comrade."
LOL!!! Radio Spectrum is a "common resource" pretending that it isn't is nonsensical. It IS regulated solely by the FCC - you don't have to like it - but it's the way it is. Moral or not, that's the way it is.
And until the great libertarian revolution that overthrows all government/laws deemed immoral by the amorphous libertarian blob, that's the way it's going to be.
If you use a cellphone jammer, get caught, you'll be punished for it. That's the law, whether you think it immoral or not.
Are you really that important?
Get over yourself.
Not to mention #296. You can use very low-power jammers around the edges of the building to keep the bubble small enough. Symbol's so-called "wireless switch" uses the same principle to provide a wireless LAN that doesn't leak outside the office building.
As an RF engineer you are quite aware that low power rf transmitters, working on the cell phone base tower frequencies can easily be directed and detected....they would call someone like you to "tune" the system. I think you're being disingenuous.
Make irrelevant comments much to try to score debate points?
Who said the world couldn't get by without them? Please point out any post in this thread by anyone that made that assertion.
What people have said is that their families and their careers require that they be reachable 24/7. I can go weeks without receiving an off hours call, but when an emergency does arise, my career would be over if I were unreachable for 3 hours. When I am going to be unreachable due to being on a plane or going to the dentist, I let someone know. This is true of a lot of people.
Many families also have young children. If a husband and wife leave their child with its grandparents so they can go to dinner and a movie, do you think it is wise to prevent them from receiving emergency calls concerning the children? An emergency call that is on vibrate doesn't disturb anyone else in a theater - the person just walks out of the room and returns it.
My grandfather died unexpectedly of a heart attack and my mother was unable to get to hospital in time to say goodbye because she wasn't home when he had the heart attack and cell phones were around then.
Some of you don't care about what goes on in the world around you but many of us do. One of the unfortunate things about emergencies is that they are hard to predict. We don't want to place calls in the theater, but we do want to be able to receive important ones on vibrate mode while enjoying a movie. Is that too much to ask?
The surest sign that you can't make a good argument, is that you pre-emptively call anyone who disagrees "nonsensical". In fact a cogent disagreement can be made, and I've already given the highlights. Here's an explanation for you, however.
When you say that RF spectrum is a "common resource", I assume that you mean it's a public good. That's the only meaningful interpretation I can put on your words, since otherwise you are merely stating the tautology that RF spectrum is government controlled, which has nothing to do with the question whether it should be government controlled.
In case you don't know what a public good is, it's defined as a good which is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The first term means that there's no way to prevent "free loaders" from making use of the good. The second term means that these "free loaders" impose no extra costs. Economists generally agree that RF spectrum is a public good in this sense. First, the energy goes everywhere, so I can't stop anyone from sticking up an antenna and capturing it. Second, since the energy goes everywhere, sticking up another antenna costs the broadcaster nothing.
If we agree with economists generally, then RF spectrum is a public good. Does it therefore follow that it must be government-controlled? Samuelson thought so; that's why he called them public goods. However, that needs to be proven. Why must such goods by government-controlled?
However, the fact is that RF communication doesn't fit the definition in the first place. Specifically, it fails the test of non-excludability. Encrypted satellite signals prove this: it's perfectly straightforward to exclude freeloaders from using our RF. QED.
While the previous argument is conclusive, it's worth pointing out that there are still further objections. The assumption underlying non-rivalrousness is that, since it costs nothing extra to let the freeloaders in, therefore it is morally incumbent on us to go ahead and let them in. It's elementary to observe that this is a deeply flawed assumption. Consider the movie theater we've been talking about. Once the movie starts, if there are empty seats, it costs the theater owner nothing to let people sit in those seats for free. The movie is being shown, and it costs the same whether those seats are empty or full. By the public-goods argument, the theater owner is morally obligated to let people in free after the movie starts.
you don't have to like it - but it's the way it is. Moral or not, that's the way it is.
I do find it interesting that all moral relativists sooner or later fall back on the argument that might makes right.
Yes. Those harping about their "cell phone" rights are putting up quite the smoke screen, electronic warfare is an art and, trust me, if we can walk a top of the line RADAR tracking system off an aircraft, keeping joe-blow off the cell phone while allowing a physician to use his is a piece of cake....
You need one of these!
http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm
A Cell phone blocker!
"Symbol's so-called "wireless switch" uses the same principle to provide a wireless LAN that doesn't leak outside the office building."
Yes, and vendors would never make unsubstantiated claims.
The principle is so trivial, that you must know it works. Either you're lying on purpose, or you're not really an RF engineer. Which is it?
Or perhaps, a more robust model that will work worldwide!
http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/yk300.htm
The Tim Allen Model
Those are both fruits.
The point is, time marches on. Technology marches on. Some of us adapt responsibly. Some never do. But, by all means, shoot everyone to be sure you get the right one. It's the American way.
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.