terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Theater owners want cell phones blocked

Theater owners want cell phones blocked

Discussed somewhat in this article: A King Kong bomb, or just a very sluggish movie market?, but under serious discussion as noted in the news article below, Theatre owners are apparently getting serious about trying to find ways to end rude behavior by movie patrons who just don't get the message that upon entering a movie theatre their cell phones should be off or at least set in silent ring mode.

I've blogged on the topic before, and Little Whip brought up the problem in comments to the article referenced in the paragraph above, but it is a serious problem, as many cell phone users just never seem to get the message that the world does not revolve around them and the use of their damned phone.

I have to think really hard on whether or not my last trip to a theatre included a ringing cell phone, but I'd swear it did. It's a regular occurence, despite many signs as you enter the multiplex, again as you enter the individual theatre, and even more reminders as the movie started. And yet again, some numbnuts is sitting in the crowd with some stinkin' annoying ring tone that plays some polyphonic symphony as loudly and annonyingly as possible when some friend they forget to fax or e-mail their schedule to doesn't get the agenda for the day and doesn't realize they shouldn't be calling in the middle of the movie.

It wouldn't be a problem at all if some people had better manners, but alas many don't.

When driving on the highway a cell phone should be for emergencies or quick conversations to provide status and note that you'll contact someone later when you aren't driving and shouldn't be concentrating on the roadway around you.

When sitting in a theatre, even if you are expecting a death, birth, or other serious family event, your cell phone should be set to vibrate mode only, or should be turned off.

In either case, if the news is that friggin' important that you couldn't wait just a little longer to receive it, then perhaps you shouldn't be where you are (on the road or in the theatre) and instead should be sitting chained to the damned phone so you can get all your important business completed without interrupting others around you.

Oh, lest I forget, there's a special hell reserved for the idiots that have to sit around you in a restaurant and carry on a cell phone conversation. Most of them are rude on so many levels it's pathetic. First, many of them are sitting at a table with someone else that they are totally ignoring in favor of whomever they are speaking on the phone with, and secondly, many of them are carrying on their phone conversation in such a way as to make the entire surrounding audience a part of their conversation. Either way, it spells "clod" in my book.

And finally, for the people that are so mentally challenged that they can't shop for groceries without walking down the aisles asking someone on the other end of the phone what items to get or not get, shame on them. Learn your significant others eating/drinking habits and shop by knowing what they want, rather than having to ask them all the time. And if the conversation isn't about what you are shopping for, then go back to the aforementioned "use the cell phone just to tell someone you'll talk with them more later" rule and stop trying to drag the rest of the world into your conversation. Never mind the idiots that are standing in the line in front of you at Starbucks ordering a host of drinks with all sorts of special instructions as they try to carry on a conversation via some "hands free" cord. Those folks should already be suffering (hopefully) as they screw their orders up and wind up getting something other than what they asked for. (Though I do feel sorry for the poor baristas who are left waiting for complete instructions or who have to re-make drinks just to get them right when it's the phone user's fault).


In anycase, original news article follows. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm gonna call up some random cell phone user as they try to watch King Kong. I'm sure it won't take but a few tries to get one to answer while they sit in the movie. :p





Theater owners want cell phones blocked


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.
"We're opposed to the use of any blocking technology, because it interferes with people's ability to use a wireless device in an emergency situation," CTIA spokesman Joseph Farren told the Times.

4,913 views 55 replies
Reply #26 Top
"Private property is still private property, and if a theatre owner wants to shutdown the signal inside their own space, they are entitled to do so."


No, you guys don't understand the difference between YOUR private building and private airwaves you have nothing to do with.

You DO have the right to ask someone who is using their phone to leave your place of business, but you DON'T have the right to jam a signal that you are neither sending or entitled to receive, that's why these owners are having to ask permission. Jamming telecommunications is a very, very sticky business that can lead to big fines and even jail time.

Like the other poster said. Doctors have phones now instead of beepers. People need to recieve emergency calls. If someone is disruptive they can be asked to leave. Jamming everyone's phone for the sake of a few people who abuse them is asinine.

"I dislike the idea of losing what could be an important tool during an emergency, and the idea that an emergency worker might not be able to get out to a movie because of the loss of the use of a phone or pager, but if people mis-use the technology and abuse the priviledge, then this is what things will come to."


Do realize how shallow that sounds? "I realize you might need to get an emergency call, but if people are going to disturb me while I'm watching a movie, tough sh*t..."

Damn, priorities, folks. If people are disruptive, have them escorted out. Don't rob the rest of us the signal we pay for.
Reply #27 Top
Damn, priorities, folks. If people are disruptive, have them escorted out. Don't rob the rest of us the signal we pay for.


You are continuing to push the point that you are entitled to recieve that signal everywhere, and I'd continue to say that no you are not.

If you come into my home and I choose to have the home built with lead lined walls or some other blocking/dampening materials, or if I choose to run some mega generator that prevented you from getting a signal, that's my right as it's my property.

Just because you pay to receive a signal doesn't guarantee you 24 x 7 x 365 access to it.

You're entitled to use it when you receive it, but you know damned well that if you are sitting in the middle of a meeting with your boss that's not the time to use it, right? If you are in the middle of a conversation with your spouse, same thing, right?

There are times when it's not appropriate to use the phone. The theatre is one of those times.

And again, yes, I sound just as shallow as you do. Touche!
Reply #28 Top
There are times when it's not appropriate to use the phone. The theatre is one of those times.

And again, yes, I sound just as shallow as you do. Touche!


The question, then, is do we resort to mash punishment (cutting everyone off their electronic leashes) or do we deal with the problem causers?
Reply #29 Top
There used to be a quick and easy way for people to deal with rude behavior in public. A quick slap in the face by the nearest lady reminded the oaf of his or her place.

Of course, in today's society we are much to advanced for that... we frown on the age old method of correction and demand laws to be passed.

Personally, I think we have lost far more freedoms to that concept than any governmental incursions.
Reply #30 Top
The question, then, is do we resort to mash punishment (cutting everyone off their electronic leashes) or do we deal with the problem causers?


Very true.

I would have hoped long ago that the problem hadn't risen to this level, but the fact that the theatre owners association is pursuing the issue with the FCC leads me to believe that they really think this is a problem that needs to be solved.

Again, realistically, when you walk into most theatre megaplexes there are signs posted to remind you to be kind, turn off cell or silence cell phones or pagers. When you sit down in the actual auditorium, again there are typically pre-movie slide shows or "The 30" or similar entertainment programs to keep you entertained until the movie starts (or at least before the preview starts), and during those shows there are typically reminders to SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONE OR PAGER. And most definitely during the previews and coming attractions time just before the movie starts there are typically reminders to SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONE OR PAGER. No less than 3 and probably as many as a half dozen reminders to silence the phone, and yet there are ignorant clods that don't do so, and worse yet who carry on conversations in the theatre.

It does annoy many other movie-goers, myself included (and apparently including Tova7, Little Whip and others as a representative sampling), and theatre owners have apparently gotten enough feedback to believe that they need to do something about the problem before even more of their customers become "former" customers.

Is the good of the many possibly being outweighed because of the rudeness of the few, you betcha. But that is what happens when some people can't consider others and instead are -- to borrow BakerStreet's words -- too shallow and self-centered to remember to take the conversations out the theatre and to keep their electronic leashes quiet.
Reply #31 Top

You DO have the right to ask someone who is using their phone to leave your place of business, but you DON'T have the right to jam a signal that you are neither sending or entitled to receive, that's why these owners are having to ask permission. Jamming telecommunications is a very, very sticky business that can lead to big fines and even jail time

No, I have to disagree.  Otherwise, how are the Churches getting away with it?  It is not degrading the signal outside of the enclosure.  Does every tunnel builder have to get a waiver from the FCC?  I think not.  But my signal is lost in them!  But the loss does not extend outside the tunnel.  Only inside.

Reply #32 Top

Personally, I think we have lost far more freedoms to that concept than any governmental incursions.

Personally, I totally agree with you!  Sadly as well.

Reply #33 Top
kind of an ignorant tunnel comparison, doc. There is no law that says you have to make sure people can get cell phone signal in a structure, but there are very strict laws about jamming telecommunications signals. You can see the difference, you just want to make a your point regardless.

I would suggest looking into the legalities. It's against the law to jam these signals, and they'll have to deal with cell phone companies, too, since they are the ones that have the legal right to the communication network. If they DO get permission, and their jamming technology inches a foot off their property, they'll have to deal with that too. They aren't asking permission just to be nice.

Anyway, it's asinine to take away the benefit of the many because you are too gutless to deal with the few losers. If people disturb others, the owners should ask them to leave.
Reply #34 Top
I am sure 99% of phone calls received in theaters are NOT emergencies. Is the world going to stop spinning on its axis if everyone can't recieve a cell phone call for 90 minutes of their lives. I find it just as annoying when people send and receive text messages in a theater. The light, small though it may be, is distracting. Just common sense and courtesy should take care of this problem but there are all these self centered people who thinks the world revolves around them.

As far as your rights to receive a phone signal, all they should have to do is post a sign stating that the signal is blocked to enhance the movie going experience. Then people can chose to see a movie at that theater or go to a different one. Then the power of the pursestrings kicks in. I think I would choose a theater that blocked the signal over one that didn't.

And I will agree with Tova, I sat next to an ice chewer at the movies and it drove me insane. Of course, she didn't just have a phone ring for a few seconds, she crunched away through the whole movie so I threw popcorn in her hair not really but I wanted to. ha ha. My inner child coming out.
Reply #35 Top
If you guys have precedent to prove that this is legal, feel free to post it. The fact is, it isn't, and you can't even buy jamming equipment legally in the US. If it were legal, they wouldn't be asking for FCC permission. That's why we have all those little stickers on devices that put out interference stating they "comply with FCC regulations". It is illegal to knowingly jam telecommunications signals, on your property or off.

For instance, there have been local law enforcement and mass transit folks who wanted to put jamming technology in subways, etc., since terrorists use cell phones to detonate bombs. They were denied it by federal law, and denied a special circumstance mainly because in the event of a bombing, people wouldn't be able to use their cell phones.

Here's a site that sells jammers:

"Cell phone jamming equipment is not available for sale with the exception of an authorized government customer. FCC regulations forbid sale of such products. Most customers are international. -Link"


The fine for jamming cell phone traffic is something like $11,000 per offense.

As I said, regardless, punishing everyone because of the misuse of a technology isn't logical. Punish those who abuse it.
Reply #36 Top
"Private property is still private property, and if a theatre owner wants to shutdown the signal inside their own space, they are entitled to do so."


FCC: Cellular Blocking and Jamming

"The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government."
Reply #37 Top
Punish those who abuse it.


How about I make you the one and only dispenser of punishment for all of the clods out there that are abusing their neighbors with these devices?


You want proof that using the jammers is legal when you can full well read the article above where theatre owners are asking for permission to use the technology. It will be decided, and very well could be decided in a opposing viewpoint to your own. If that happens, what do you do then? Cry because you've lost a few minutes use of your precious phone or do what should have been done to begin with - start reminding the clods that are out there that they should be more courteous to begin with?

Given a choice between supporting the use of the technology by the movie houses and having the situation continue to devolve as it has, I'll take termination of the phone signals any time.


BTW Baker, you are welcome to compensate me for the approximately $80 worth of tickets for ruined movies just for me in the past year. I'll gladly take that money and spend it on some DVDs so I can sit home and watch them in my own home rather than deal with idiot cell phone users, the lady with the bag of popcorn that had to shake, rattle and roll it to try to butter each and every kernel in the bag, and other similar idiots that continue to prove to me that Darwin's laws haven't exactly been proven yet (or at least prove to me that some people's manners were lost a long time ago).
Reply #38 Top
idiot cell phone users, the lady with the bag of popcorn that had to shake, rattle and roll it to try to butter each and every kernel in the bag, and other similar idiots that continue to prove to me that Darwin's laws haven't exactly been proven yet (or at least prove to me that some people's manners were lost a long time ago).


hey, we're all just hairless monkeys.
Reply #39 Top
terpfan: Do you really think they will allow theater owners to do this when they won't allow local law enforcement to? What next? By the time people are finished there'll be little point in carry a phone at all. It's been mentioned that if theater owners want to construct their theaters so that signals can't penetrate them they can. They just can't jam telecommunications signals. Perhaps they'll start building the sensitive folks special theaters...

Maybe I just have different priorities than you, but frankly your $80 worth of "ruined" movies doesn't add up to the millions of people who go to the movies with cell phones in their pockets who never bother you. It isn't my business to deal with the people who disturb others in theators. If I owned a theater, maybe then it would be.

If someone is talking too loud, they don't have to cast some "silence" spell on the whole theater to deal with it, they deal with those who are causing the trouble. They can do the same thing with cell phone users. They need to deal with people who abuse cell phones and leave the rest alone.
Reply #40 Top
There used to be a quick and easy way for people to deal with rude behavior in public. A quick slap in the face by the nearest lady reminded the oaf of his or her place.

Of course, in today's society we are much to advanced for that... we frown on the age old method of correction and demand laws to be passed.

Personally, I think we have lost far more freedoms to that concept than any governmental incursions.


The person who slapped another in the face would be arrested on assult charges and spend 364 days in their county jail, and you and I both know it! lol
Reply #41 Top
terpfan: Do you really think they will allow theater owners to do this when they won't allow local law enforcement to?


That remains to be seen. Almost anything is possible, though your hypothetical about law enforcement is much different than the possibilities of using jamming technology in small-confined spaces such as movie houses.

Law enforcement has problems with spectrum period. Not getting enough, and/or not getting relaible reception in all areas of cluttered and clogged cities like New York, D.C., and other similar places.

Having law enforcement using jamming technology isn't feasible because they are pretty much constantly on the go, and they can't just jam a small area to carve out clean signals for themselves.

You're mixing apples and oranges in the argument...


But again, I come back to the idea that the theatre owners are seeing a problem that they think can be fixed by going ahead with these plans. Whether or not they'll be allowed to isn't perhaps as important as some people learning to use their technology in proper manner.
Reply #42 Top
The person who slapped another in the face would be arrested on assult charges and spend 364 days in their county jail, and you and I both know it! lol


Yup, because we have empowered the oaf and silenced the rest. That's all.
Reply #43 Top
I work in IT and support pieces of my company's infrastructure around the globe. I am technically "on-call" 24/7 in the event of something major breaking. As a result I have to have my cell phone on me at all times and I have to be reachable at all times. To make life easier for all around me, I keep my phone on silent or vibrate all the time.

Installing jamming devices in theaters, restaurants or any other public place would prohibit me from ever going in due to my job requirements. The same goes for doctors, EMTs and anyone else who works in an "on-call" environment. Blocking the signals is NOT the solution here.

I hate cell phone use in public as much as the next guy... it drives me insane to hear someone prattle on in the checkout aisle about some latest piece of gossip, or deal with the moron in the theater that gives a play-by-play of the movie over their phone. But instead of locking me out of public places because I have to have my phone with me, I think we should instead start imposing certain punishments on those who choose to be arrogant assholes and talk on their phone everywhere.

If you are in a theater and you talk on your cell during the movie, I think you should be kicked out with no refund. Repeat offenders banned from the theater. This is a rule enforcable by management and requires no permission from legislators. There is simply no excuse for TALKING on the phone while still sitting in the theater. Even if it's an emergency you should be on your way out of the theater at the very least.
Reply #44 Top
To make life easier for all around me, I keep my phone on silent or vibrate all the time.


The sad thing is, if everyone would do this, there wouldn't be a problem.

To me vibrate should be the ONLY option on a phone.
Reply #45 Top
Let me smack you with the bat o' common sense.

If you have an emergency, you have no business being in the middle of a theatre.


So, doctors or emergency personnel have no business going to see a movie? Let me remind you, terp, many of these individuals are on call 24/7.

As Baker said, you need a new bat. Yours is defective.
Reply #46 Top
Well, let's say someone up high decides this is a good idea and pushes it even further forward. Let's look at the requirements and reality of such a system. Jamming is something the FCC does not take lightly. The allowances they grant are tightly controlled and very strict. In order for this to work, you would need to have a transmitter inside the theater that would be able to simultaniously transmit white noise over a broad range of frequencies. The FCC has allotted a fairly good sized piece of the electromagnetic spectrum to cell phone users and while I'm not 100%, it's likely that they span several freq ranges. It also has to be a transmitter that is more powerful than the nearest cell phone tower. Basically, you'd have to duplicate a cell phone tower tranmitter, but you'd have to get all the service providers ranges.

Now, the problem with this is that without shielding (more on that in a moment) your structure, you will also jam people standing outside the theater. Depending on how close that cell tower is, you might have to pump up your wattage in order to jam effectively inside the theater, which will in turn cause a bleed over effect outside the theater. Let's say Sprint and Cingular share a piece of the EM spectrum. Let's also say that Sprint has a tower on the corner but Cingular has one three blocks away. In order to jam the closer, stronger signal of Sprint, you would have to up your power output, which in turn, will jam your Cingular signal for a greater distance around the theater.

And, you can't just set it and walk away forever. Radio waves are tricky things. Atmospheric conditions, among other things, can affect them sometimes. So, you'd need a licensed tech with a hotline and fax to your local FCC office there every day. You can not change your jamming wattage without permission, usually in writing.

Now, to touch on shielding a bit. In order to keep from causing problems with signals on the outside of the theater, you would need to put shielding in place. Some kind of dense material would have to line the walls to keep your jamming signal in. Oddly enough, if the material keeps your jamming signal in, it will also keep outside signals out, thus making jamming a bit redundant. If this ever gets passed, movie theaters will probably have to shield their buildings so as to keep from jamming people on the outside.

I have to wonder if this is being pushed forward by theaters becuase they think if they can slicky it by, they can just install a cell phone tower that broadcasts static and get off cheap. I mean, that has to be cheaper than lining their walls with something like lead, right?

If they just shielded their walls and were quiet about it, most people wouldn't even notice they had lost their signal while inside. Instead, by asking to actively jam signals, they are bringing more attention to themselves.
Reply #47 Top
Gid said:
So, doctors or emergency personnel have no business going to see a movie? Let me remind you, terp, many of these individuals are on call 24/7.


Realistically Gid, how frequently do you think doctors, emergency personnel, or even Zoomba's hypothetical on-call 24x7 IT workers (something I too am familar with) are really getting out to movie houses to see the current crop of block buster films?

There are solutions to some of those problems (no one IT person should ever be made to feel that they are the one and only 24x7 support person, those responsibilities should be spread throughout a few people in an organization so as not to overly stress that one individual), and some are tougher challenges (such as doctors that might have to be on call for an emergency surgical consult or something similar). Perhaps some of the tougher challenges are resolved by having some theatres reserved completely for emergency personnel so that cell phone and pager usage won't be blocked during some showings. Who knows what really happens if this potentially drastic measure does go through.

In the end though I think it comes down to stupid cell-phone users wising up quickly. If they don't, they very well may ruin it for all.

That's been the main point of the discussion from my side. Again, theatre owners are seeing this as a serious problem, if not, they wouldn't be bothering to petition the FCC for allowance to take such drastic measures. They've obviously gotten plenty of feedback from people like me, Tova7 and others that cell-phone users have ruined our movie going experiences. In getting that feedback, they may have tried solutions such as having pagers and cell phones checked at the door -- something that I would think would cause just as much grief for those people that are obligated or feel that they are obligated to be on call 24x7. Those solutions apparently haven't worked well enough to solve the problems, and because of it the theatre owners are escalating the potential solutions into somewhat drastic territory.


In somewhat of an answer to Chiprj:
Yes, there would be technological hurdles for something like this. But I would think it wouldn't be as tough as you portray. Given the layouts of many mega-plexes a centrally located jammer might block the signal from the central areas of the building, but not reach the fringes. It might not work to stop cell phones in all theatres but might work just to jam signals in the auditoriums with the more popular movies. Either way, knowing that going to that movie house would wind up killing a signal might cause a loss of business from some (the emergency workers that Gid mentions, the 24x7 on-call IT persons that Zoomba mentions, etc.), but it might also lead to some resurgence of movie going by some who have become turned-off by the clods with the phones.


Then again this whole discussion might be moot because even though some people have said this is a reason why they don't go out to movies any more, it might just be that many people don't go out to movies any more because buying or renting a DVD of a movie and watching it at home on your own home theatre equipment is much more cost effective and typically much more enjoyable than going through the hassles of going out to a movie anyway.
Reply #49 Top
Realistically Gid, how frequently do you think doctors, emergency personnel, or even Zoomba's hypothetical on-call 24x7 IT workers (something I too am familar with) are really getting out to movie houses to see the current crop of block buster films?


When I managed a group home (and yes, I was on call 24/7), it was about once a week or so...in other words, MUCH more than you think. We ARE human, you know...and there's a LOT of folks who are on call 24/7 in this day and age
Reply #50 Top
Realistically Gid, how frequently do you think doctors, emergency personnel, or even Zoomba's hypothetical on-call 24x7 IT workers (something I too am familar with) are really getting out to movie houses to see the current crop of block buster films?


There's nothing hypothetical about 24/7 on-call workers, especially in IT. There's nothing hypothetical about on-call workers or emergency personnel either. The key thing to remember is that just because you're on-call doesn't mean you're actively being called, you just have to be available. I knew guys in my college classes who were EMTs, they always had to have that pager on just in case they were needed.

How often do these people go out to movies or restaurants? As often as everyone else does. There's nothing saying these people are any less socially active given the opportunity. I personally love going out to movies and try and catch at least one a month.

And being 24/7 IT support doesn't necessarily mean you're the ONLY one. Where I work there are several of us on the team designated as such. We each cover certain systems if they break in the off-hours and the primary contact can't be reached. In the world of IT Operations (network, security, servers etc...) being on-call is becoming fairly standard without it meaning all the work is dumped on you.

This is why jamming is a dumb idea. It's looking for the government to remedy with laws and permissions what theater owners can do on their own. They kicked smoking out of the theaters without laws. They can do the same with cell phones by kicking offenders out. The problem is, in this lawsuit-happy society, they don't want to get slapped with a suit claiming discrimination or whatever because they denied someone their "right" to use their phone whereever they want. And you know what? Chances are there's a judge out there that's so hopped up on the fumes of "There's no such thing as wrong or bad behavior! It's all relative!" that they'd hand over some huge settlement to the jackass with the cell phone.

Theater owners need to grow a backbone and address the problem themselves. It's been argued that they should be able to block signal because it's private property... well, then by that same argument they can go kick people out for offending just as easily (and cheaper too than expensive jamming and shielding equipment).

Jamming simply is NOT the solution.