Posted on 12/18/2005 7:27:25 AM PST by Kjobs
The article describes efforts by theater owners to legalize the use of cell phone jammers. It's already acknowledged that that's illegal today, and it should further be taken as a given that business practices that get you arrested are a bad idea. The only meaningful question is: should the theater owners' request be granted?
For most of us, the answer is yes, on the basis of private property rights. That passive shielding is legal is pointed out to illustrate the stupidity of outlawing active methods that produce the same results at lower cost.
For the rest of us, the answer is no, on the grounds that we want our cellphones/pagers/blueberries, and we'll stamp our little feet if we can't have them. This group generally refuses to acknowledge that they must do business elsewhere when they find the terms disagreeable in one establishment.
Meanwhile as a side-show, RFEngineer offers asinine assertions such as the claim that jamming is impossible without also jamming cellphones on others' private property--or, when he realizes he can't prove that, he offers the stunningly obvious observation that it's illegal today. Naturally, since if it were legal, theater owners wouldn't be trying to get it legalized.
Are you fully up to speed now?
" you will have little trouble realizing that inside an RF quiet room I am also free to generate as much RF as I please on any frequency I like"
True, but you wouldn't need a jammer in an RF quiet room, would you? If this is the end goal, build one, and put a theater in it. no one will care.
"should you be entitled to protection from RFI on my private property"
You are unschooled in the art of RF design - interference is EVERYTHING in todays communications systems. You are not able to stop RF from coming into your premises - and you are unable to stop it from exiting your premises.
If you keep it confined to an anechoic chamber, have at it......generate all the RF you want - no one will know/care.
Interfere with a lawful licensee of spectrum, and you are likely to hear about it. This is the situation that you are faced with in a theater. If you want to make it a big anechoic chamber, go ahead. It'll cost you a ton of money and you'll get no paypack.
You are wrapped around technical details, of which you have only a rudimentary understanding. But you don't need to be an RF Engineer to figure this one out: It's about behavior modification......policies in a place of business, consistent enforcement of the same, and you'll eliminate the problem over time, and probably gain loyal customers.
If you have 1000 acres in the middle of nowhere with a theater in the middle of it all, you can jam all you want - nobody will care, least of all your non-existent customers.
Jamming is a bad idea. It's a ham-handed solution that often kills "good" services along with "bad" ....and yes, it's illegal. You cannot ignore the regulatory side of things when you talk about spectrum. You don't like that, so you complain. That's fine. press the issue and you will lose though.
Merry Christmas, and may Santa leave a surplus EF-111 in your stocking to play with in the new year.
"You keep saying that, but you haven't yet pointed out exactly where I'm wrong. Doesn't that embarrass you? It should."
You are wrong on physics, theory, application, and regulatory aspects. Other than that, you are spot-on.
Keep up the good work.
And don't forget real estate law.
"RFEngineer offers asinine assertions such as the claim that jamming is impossible without also jamming cellphones on others' private property"
I can't help it if you don't get it, I tried to explain. Why, exactly, do you think it is illegal? Just to piss people like you off?
It's illegal to jam things like cell phones for a reason. That you don't understand the reason does not mean that you are right.
"And don't forget real estate law."
I was making allowances for his PhD in math.......
Let's ban all cell phones in public. I just got back from Walmarts. Now instead of looking for me, my husband just calls me "are you ready yet?"
Gotcha. You've contradicted yourself: what you said earlier was that emission is what the government regulates, and that this makes sense. You now concede that there are conditions under which I can emit anything I want. Ponder that carefully.
If you have 1000 acres in the middle of nowhere with a theater in the middle of it all, you can jam all you want - nobody will care, least of all your non-existent customers.
Excellent. You are making my argument for me. Now carefully consider the implications. Under perfectly natural conditions, I can emit anything I want. When you fully digest what you yourself have said, you'll realize that the key is that I'm acting on my own property, and infringing on nobody else's property. If you think on it long enough, you'll realize that the theater owner's request should be granted.
It's incredibly easy to prevent cellphones from working inside the theater, without affecting them outside the theater owner's property (for example, outside the building). It's slightly less easy to do it for lowest cost. Assuming you really are an engineer, one must conclude that you're being knowingly dishonest. That being the case, discussion with you hardly seems pointful.
State the actual law of physics I've contradicted. I implore you. You keep giving generalities such as "you're wrong on reality, fact and life" because you can't give specifics. This is truly pathetic.
Wow, do you realize how lucky these idiots are that we have no laws against stupidity?
Yes, Colonel_Flagg, it sure is hard to beat with anything short of a great orchestra. As I am sure you know, attendance is way down and very little effort is made to keep it going. I have a 2/10 1928 Wurlitzer TO in my house. It came from the Jamestown, NY Shea's theater.
"Very clever, John. You are the man!:
Very clever, Sam. We are the men!
You are assuming pretentiousness -- wrongly. (To be expected from a guy who looks for the least, I suppose.) I can't bring myself to waste time giving remedial instruction on way the world really works outside your conception of it.
Can you construct in that mighty mind of yours any circumstance which would allow for people to act responsibly on their own? One where there isn't "black and white" only? Where there are people who want their plumber before the water reaches the main floor?
You are so busy being pissed about your ill-conception of me, you've stopped thinking. I know your type. You are legion. But if it makes you feel special, run with it.
I agree. We go the movies fairly often. At least twice a month, and I have seldom (maybe twice in the last four years) heard a cell phone ring. It was quickly turned off by the person receiving the call.
However, with that being said, I have two teenagers who I need to be available to. They are both great at keeping in touch, plus I want to know if they have any problems, accidents, etc. I keep my phone on vibrate, plus I can receive text messages. In the last four years I have been "messaged" that my elder son was in the emergency room and also received a call that my younger son was stranded on the highway with a broken down car.
Theater owners are sadly mistaken that "banning" cell phones or blocking signals will increase their business. I would bet that most parents who are actively involved in their cildren's lives would simply stop going to the movies.
I draw a comparison to anti-gun groups who want more g8un control laws. Just enforce the ones we have and be done with it. If someone is being rude in the theater with a cell phone, the theater should ask them to leave. Case closed. They don't need a special exemption to be able to block the airwaves. I would say this. If someone using a cell phone blocker caused me to miss an important phone call from one of my kids that put them in harms way, there would be a h*ll to pay.
You might be right. The market should decide.
"You are assuming pretentiousness -- wrongly. (To be expected from a guy who looks for the least, I suppose.) I can't bring myself to waste time giving remedial instruction on way the world really works outside your conception of it.
Can you construct in that mighty mind of yours any circumstance which would allow for people to act responsibly on their own? One where there isn't "black and white" only? Where there are people who want their plumber before the water reaches the main floor?
You are so busy being pissed about your ill-conception of me, you've stopped thinking. I know your type. You are legion. But if it makes you feel special, run with it."
Glenn, I would have expected something far better reasoned and written from someone who had a full day to shoot back. But I guess I should have factored in that you must have been called away on some emergency that ONLY GLENN CAN SOLVE! Do you wear a cape?
And I would have expected that you would at least try to accept the challenge to construct an argument that goes beyond your snipings.
You cannot, of course. You're too busy having fun believing that I actually give a damn what you think. That your words have some meaning or import to anyone beyond the mutual admiration society.
It's the best place for you. You are too deficient to really think beyond your "feelings" about things.
That you think a man needs a cape to solve simple problems says a lot about you.
Happened several years ago to my husband. Al Pacino was the star and when the cell phone went off, he insisted on answering it. "This is Al Pacino and I'm in the middle of a play. Call back later." It's one of my husband's favorite theatre memories!
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.