27 Jan, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Personally, I like the way some movie theatres in Europe have handled the problem. They set up local cell repeaters in-house, and have those repeaters make every cell phone in the audience ring several times before the show. Once the show starts, any calls you get (or make) cost you 50 pounds. If it really IS an emergency, most people won't mind… but if Bob from Marketing calls you because he forgot his password again, you'll wish you had turned your phone off for the 2 hours you said you'd be unavailable. :)
27 Jan, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
How exactly do they charge you the money legally (there would have to be at least a very obvious message displayed), and what exactly do you mean by "Europe"? :wink: (EU != pound…) Are there any articles about this? I've never heard of it, and I tend to be at least somewhat informed of what happens on that side of the puddle… I had heard about attempts to jam cell phones, but that got nixed when people who had to be on call for emergencies (e.g. doctors) complained.
27 Jan, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
The repeaters belong to the theatre, and it's a private place of business. Cell phone service is granted through contract, it's not a legal "right" of any kind. If I choose to set up a repeater in my house and charge people money for the "service" of forwarding signals, that's entirely legal. You're free to turn your phone off, or to not be inside my walls (and thus out of my repeater's range). :)

Also, a message telling you to turn your cell phone off on a giant projection screen covering the entire wall of a theatre is probably obvious enough for most lawyers.

It was some time ago, but odds are it was a BBC article (hence the cost being given in pounds, rather then euros). I have google news set to UK, because I like to hear about events in the rest of the world as opposed to three pages of what celebrity was half-naked at some dinner party that I wasn't invited to anyways.
27 Jan, 2009, Guest wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Heh. Sounds like a genius method to sidestep the whole flap over not being allowed to jam the signals. I wonder how long it'll be before someone in the US realizes you can setup private cell repeaters? Not that I've had much of an issue with people using their cells while I'm watching movies anyway. Thankfully the level of rudeness that drove the British to such a solution hasn't made it this far.

Seriously, if you're on call for emergencies, does your job really allow for you to go on blackout for 2 hours anyway? I would hardly think so. I'd also think if it was truly that important that you'd have some other means for folks to get ahold of you that the jammers wouldn't be able to block.
27 Jan, 2009, The_Fury wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Seriously, if you're on call for emergencies, does your job really allow for you to go on blackout for 2 hours anyway? I would hardly think so. I'd also think if it was truly that important that you'd have some other means for folks to get ahold of you that the jammers wouldn't be able to block.


If your a doctor, emergency services, law enforcement and the like, or if your job demanded to be on call like a refrigeration mechanic, it is understandable not to turn off your phone, however people who have a genuine need and are on call, know where the SILENT and VIBRATE setting is on there phone and show some respect by walking outside before answering, or they just call back once outside.

Its the morons who have the latest single by Pink blearing out of their phones at 110Db in all its distorted tinniness who make me want to take said phone and ram it where the sun don't shine, or the ones on the train who think that everyone in the carriage want to listen to the latest hip hop downloaded from bit torrent. As you can tell during semester i spend a lot of time commuting on the train and hate having some moron invade my personal aural space with unwarranted noise.
27 Jan, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
The irony is, it only takes a tiny (!) amount of considerate behavior to avoid the whole situation. Just set your phone on vibrate and, if it goes off, get up and walk to the lobby and call them back! I mean, come on… how hard is that? Too hard for most people I guess.

It got bad enough I remember seeing news footage of a rather famous stage actor stopping the entire show and waiting for someone (whom he singled out and had a spotlight on) to hang up and put away their phone before continuing.
27 Jan, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
The repeaters belong to the theatre, and it's a private place of business. Cell phone service is granted through contract, it's not a legal "right" of any kind. If I choose to set up a repeater in my house and charge people money for the "service" of forwarding signals, that's entirely legal. You're free to turn your phone off, or to not be inside my walls (and thus out of my repeater's range). :)

Your argument suggests that people can set up random repeaters and start charging whoever happens to connect exorbitant fees. Good luck with that in court… :wink:

quixadhal said:
Also, a message telling you to turn your cell phone off on a giant projection screen covering the entire wall of a theatre is probably obvious enough for most lawyers.

You conveniently mention that cell phone service is granted through contract. Where is the contract here that stipulates that you'll be charged a fee if you get a call? (And what about the case of Joe's Random Repeater?) There's a big difference between asking somebody to turn their phone off and charging them huge sums of money if they don't…

Keep in mind that only your carrier can charge you anything for service. Joe's Random Repeater doesn't know anything about my billing information, or even who I am, so they certainly can't. It is the agreement between carriers that sets rates. So, for this thing to work, it'd have to be agreed to by the carriers. (I think this is another argument against the feasibility of Joe's Random Repeater…)

If you happen to run across the article I'd be interested in reading more about it; I couldn't find it in an admittedly rather brief search. Maybe you know about more keywords than I do…
28 Jan, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Your argument suggests that people can set up random repeaters and start charging whoever happens to connect exorbitant fees. Good luck with that in court… :wink:


I'll easily win, provided my repeater doesn't carry beyond the borders of the private property on which it is installed. Again, private property. If you don't like it, leave. If I charge you $20 to stand in my kitchen, there's not a court in the world that won't uphold my right to do so, as long as I told you before you came in the door. Like it or not, theatres, supermarkets, shopping malls…. all private property.

DavidHaley said:
You conveniently mention that cell phone service is granted through contract. Where is the contract here that stipulates that you'll be charged a fee if you get a call? (And what about the case of Joe's Random Repeater?) There's a big difference between asking somebody to turn their phone off and charging them huge sums of money if they don't…


That would be the part about "roaming" charges. If you have, say, AT&T cell phone service, you get to use AT&T towers as part of your contract. Their claim of "no roaming charges in the continental US" really means they've made deals with all the other major cell providers so when you switch to a Sprint tower, the roaming charges don't get sent directly to you – they get sent to AT&T which absorbs them by raising everyone's bill a fraction of a cent. Since AT&T doesn't have an agreement with Bob's repeater, that charge isn't covered.

DavidHaley said:
Keep in mind that only your carrier can charge you anything for service. Joe's Random Repeater doesn't know anything about my billing information, or even who I am, so they certainly can't. It is the agreement between carriers that sets rates. So, for this thing to work, it'd have to be agreed to by the carriers. (I think this is another argument against the feasibility of Joe's Random Repeater…)


A cell repeater can know the service number that's connecting to it (it has to). How do you think roaming works? If you're a Verizon customer and an AT&T tower is closer, that AT&T tower doesn't have your billing information either. It does, however, have your cell phone number (and chip ID number), and it authorizes billing via your provider when the connection is established (before any call is set up). If that wasn't the case, EVERY cell provider out there would need a database of EVERY active chip, even those not activated through their own network.

I don't know the details of exactly how they work (not my field), but it doens't seem outlandish to me. I also couldn't find the article, and wish I could remember exactly when I saw it, as that would narrow the search down. More than a year ago, but probably not more than three years ago. *sigh*
28 Jan, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
If I charge you $20 to stand in my kitchen, there's not a court in the world that won't uphold my right to do so, as long as I told you before you came in the door. Like it or not, theatres, supermarkets, shopping malls…. all private property.

Relevant part emphasized… The theaters would have to make it excruciatingly clear that they were doing this. I'm quite confident that if you shoved it away into fine print, it wouldn't fly in court due to the ubiquity of cell phone towers, and the obvious and reasonable assumption that when walking around your normal connection network, your normal rates apply.

quixadhal said:
A cell repeater can know the service number that's connecting to it (it has to). How do you think roaming works? If you're a Verizon customer and an AT&T tower is closer, that AT&T tower doesn't have your billing information either. It does, however, have your cell phone number (and chip ID number), and it authorizes billing via your provider when the connection is established (before any call is set up). If that wasn't the case, EVERY cell provider out there would need a database of EVERY active chip, even those not activated through their own network.

I didn't say that they don't have my number: I said that they know nothing about my billing address, and therefore cannot charge me. In order for them to charge me, they would have to get AT&T to charge me. In order for AT&T to have this deal with the repeater, AT&T would have to have it set up ahead of time. Note that a repeater can't just magically send signals around without being somehow connected to the rest of the network, meaning that the rest of the network is aware of and approves of the repeater. In order for that to fly as part of my "roaming" contract, I would have to be aware that as I wander around the US, on pseudo-private property (as a movie theater is certainly a very different kind of private than your house!!) random repeaters could start charging me tens or hundreds of dollars, effectively on a whim.
28 Jan, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
The theaters would have to make it excruciatingly clear that they were doing this.

Right, and printing in giant 4-foot tall letters on the screen "Turn off your cell phone or you will be charged" is a perfectly adequate announcement. I really can't imagine how it could be made any MORE clear.

As for movie theatres being "pseudo-private"… no, they are private property. Period. I can open my living room to the public and set up lemonade stands (or wifi access points) just like a theatre sells movie tickets, and I can (at my whim) kick them out just as easily. If you've managed to go through life without knowing anyone who's been asked the leave a theatre for rude behaviour, you've been luckier than I have in your acquaintances. :)

Not knowing more about how the cell network actually functions, I'm not willing to debate exactly how and why you can or can't be charged for things. If I send you a bill for using my wifi router, and have all the traffic records to prove the usage AND a way to show that you knew you would be charged for using it, I see no reason a court wouldn't order you to pay up.

I did find this article about fines, apparently at the municipality level, and this other articl... where the Theatre's guild is asking the FCC for an exemption from the anti-jamming laws.
28 Jan, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, at this point I simply have to say that I'd like to see it upheld in court before I believed it. It's not in the contract you have with your carrier, and therefore it is rather questionable to me that the carrier could make you pay for things you never got into a contract with the carrier for.

And no, movie theaters are not at all like somebody's house. A very obvious difference is that you can (and are to some extent encouraged to) freely wander onto the premises of a movie theater. Of course, if you made your home into some kind of store, your home is no longer a "normal home" by any means. (I was talking about "normal homes", not lemonade stands… :wink:) Anyhow, by wandering into a movie theater, to look at showtimes for example, you could get within range of the special repeater, and start paying through the nose without knowing the slightest thing about it. I highly doubt that this is remotely defensible.

Quote
I did find this article about fines, apparently at the municipality level,

Well, fines are a completely different issue, because then you start talking about the law etc. and how know it or not you have to follow it. :smile:
28 Jan, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I only got a myspace because at the time I had a bunch of friends who all decided to move out of town at the same time and myspace is the easiest way to contact them. I personally could do without it otherwise though.
28 Jan, 2009, Guest wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
And no, movie theaters are not at all like somebody's house. A very obvious difference is that you can (and are to some extent encouraged to) freely wander onto the premises of a movie theater.


The only way this logic works is if the theater is built on land leased to them by the city and the city imposes terms on them that remove some of their private property rights. Otherwise, yes, it is in fact just like my house in that I can freely kick you off the premises anytime I feel like it. Just because I freely encourage people to enter and leave as they see fit during certain times of the day doesn't mean I forfeit my right to control access.
28 Jan, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
As for movie theatres being "pseudo-private"… no, they are private property. Period. I can open my living room to the public and set up lemonade stands (or wifi access points) just like a theatre sells movie tickets, and I can (at my whim) kick them out just as easily. If you've managed to go through life without knowing anyone who's been asked the leave a theatre for rude behaviour, you've been luckier than I have in your acquaintances. :)


Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and succeeding court precedent has pretty much abolished private property in the USA.
28 Jan, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
in what way? I know that in Texas the laws state that you have the right to shoot any person who unlawfully trespasses on your private property. This has even been recently tested though I'm unsure as to exactly when or where.
28 Jan, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
The only way this logic works is if the theater is built on land leased to them by the city and the city imposes terms on them that remove some of their private property rights. Otherwise, yes, it is in fact just like my house in that I can freely kick you off the premises anytime I feel like it. Just because I freely encourage people to enter and leave as they see fit during certain times of the day doesn't mean I forfeit my right to control access.

Nobody said that anybody forfeited any right to control access. It is nonetheless undeniable that it is reasonable to wander onto a movie theater's premises during the day but it is unreasonable to do the same on a random person's home. This is a simple and obvious difference between the "privateness" of a movie theater and a personal home. Keep in mind the context in which "private property" was being used in this argument, several posts back.
28 Jan, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Igabod said:
in what way? I know that in Texas the laws state that you have the right to shoot any person who unlawfully trespasses on your private property. This has even been recently tested though I'm unsure as to exactly when or where.


Ain't "pretty much" obvious, when you have to search for a instance where that which remains was once nationally ubiquitous?
But specifically, the original and narrow intent of Titles 2 and 7 have been leveraged to open up a whole Pandora's box of regulation to businesses.
Fireams, smoking, aids, peanuts, etc
And speaking of peanuts, one wonders if the term "peanut gallery" will be a reminder of the days when one's civil rights were routinely violated at the movie theater. ;-)
28 Jan, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
deleted. double post?
28 Jan, 2009, Skol wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Can we split off the cell-phone tangent into it's own thread?
28 Jan, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
As long as you can say when exactly the tangent started… :wink: It looks like almost the whole thread is irrelevant to what the OP was about…
0.0/40