my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Possible Cell-Phone Ettiquete Law in New York (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Possible Cell-Phone Ettiquete Law in New York Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-19-2002 04:30 AM                     Hey Daryl, that sign just might work. I've always thought projectionists could make great snipers for the rude patrons anyway.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-19-2002 04:43 AM                        I always wanted a laser pointer that 'said' take your feet off the seat, so that I could point it at people's feet from the booth. I had to settle for popcorn seeds and a milkshake straw. Mind you a paintball gun would be even more fun.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-19-2002 06:54 AM                        quote: Fundamentally, signal blockers penalize polite cell phone users. Those of us who consider ourselves in that category are somewhat against the idea of penalizing polite users in order to penalize rude users. Which is why I'd only advocate having them in areas where no-one who is polite would use a mobile at all, e.g. in theatres.  |  IP: Logged Mike Williams Master Film Handler Posts: 255 From: Knoxville, TN Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-19-2002 07:27 AM                     Perhaps when cell phone technology evolves more, this problem will get better. I remember reading somewhere that some of the bluetooth enabled phones will be able to automatically switch to vibrate mode when issues a specific command from a nearby bluetooth device. Theaters or restraunts could then install these bluetooth devices somewhere on the premesis and then whenever a patron with a bluetooth cellphone walks in the door, their phone automatically switches to vibrate and goes back to ringing mode when they leave.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-19-2002 09:04 AM                        I always have my cell phone on "vibrate" mode. Hearing other cell phones ring ANYWHERE in public is annoying, and IMHO, just done to get attention and show off. If I get an important call during a meeting, I politely excuse myself to answer it out of the room, or later return the message or caller ID.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-19-2002 09:27 AM                        I couldn't agree more with John. If people must have the phone actually ring, why does it have to be at the loudest ring volume possible? Maybe if the ringer wasn't so deafening they wouldn't feel that they must proceed to yell into their phone.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-19-2002 10:35 AM                        quote: If people must have the phone actually ring, why does it have to be at the loudest ring volume possible? Maybe if the ringer wasn't so deafening they wouldn't feel that they must proceed to yell into their phone. I've never figured out why people talk so much more loudly when talking on a cell phone than when talking to people in the room. There is one person I frequently eat lunch with and when he answers his cell phone, he seems to use twice the volume as when he's talking to us at the table. The other two friends who join us have cell phones and they seem to talk at the same volume as a normal conversation or quieter when using their phones. I'm thinking of getting a cell phone, not because I really want a cell phone, but because I can get the service I need cheaper, since my parents live just outside my local calling zone. The only drawback to having a cell phone is I'd no longer be able to go anywhere without my mother being able to call. When I'm away from home or work, nobody can get in touch with me, and that's sort of nice, unless I'm trying to coordinate get-togethers with friends, and in that case, cell phones are very handy. If I had a cell phone, my mother would be calling all the time to see where I am and what I'm doing, and that's the main reason I haven't gotten one. I've always liked some degree of privacy and I feel I'd lose a good bit of it with a cell phone. If I ever entered into a dating type relationship with anyone (actually not likely to happen), it would be like a chain around my waist. One requirement for a cell phone for me is a mode where it makes absolutely no noise except for the vibrate feature. If I were eating with friends, I would not want to answer the phone and talk on it, because people have done that to me so many times. One time, I ate dinner with someone at a restaurant, and they talked nearly the entire time and I didn't get to say much to them. If I were going to a movie theatre, I doubt I'd even want to take the phone in the building. I don't want to be distracted from what I'm watching by even knowing that someone tried to call, even if the phone didn't make any noise. Evans  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-19-2002 02:01 PM                     Leo opined, "Which is why I'd only advocate having them in areas where no-one who is polite would use a mobile at all, e.g. in theatres." I still don't find that acceptable. There are plenty of scenarios where I might receive a phone call while in a theatre (phone is on vibrate), and I believe I can look at my phone and observe the number ringing, and then leave the room from my aisle seat before answering the phone. I think that's within the "reasonably polite" guideline, and that I should be permitted to do so. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-19-2002 02:38 PM                     The main reasons I don't have a cellphone are the reasons other peoples' annoy me. Cellphones are essentially a human lo-jack device. 99% of the time when someone gets a call, the next thing after "Hello" that the person on the other line says is "Where are you?" -- Like its their damn business where I'm at. Second, if you own a cell phone and turn it off frequently, people trying to call you get mad. Like you are some sort of service to them and are inconveniencing them by not answering, as if what they have to say is deathly important. (Probably "Where are you?") Third, those damn annoying stupid idiotic unnecessary irritating "ring tones." The cell phone companies say that this feature allows you to "personalize" your phone. Is it really necessary to personalize something only you yourself will carry? There is if you want to make everyone around you aware that you are carrying it, and your special phone has a special tone because you [think you] are a special person. Less than 40% of people who own cell phones actually need them. Most have a regular home phone already, and are simply taking up another telephone number. Thanks to this, I now have to dial ten digits just to reach my neighbor, simply because someone thinks that they are important and absolutely MUST answer their calls on the highway and endanger the lives of those around them because they can't wait to get home to tell their girlfriend/boyfriend/parent/friend something stupid that happened to them that day in their insignificant life. So yes, maybe because of some people there does need to be an ettiquete law. One so strict that it will actually be inconvenient to carry the phone itself, leaving the lines of communication open for legitimate reasons ("Oh my god like you'll never believe like who was at the like mall" is not a legitimate reason.) and keep everyone's sanity intact. WHEW! Rant over. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-20-2002 07:59 AM                        Actually, the type of mobile 'phone user that annoys me most of all are those that only have a mobile, and do not have a home 'phone. They do this because of the £10 a month line rental for a home 'phone, compared to zero line rental for a 'pay as you go' mobile. Needless to say students are very likely to fall into this category, but I find that increasingly, professionals in their 20s and 30s are doing this, too. We are now seeing more and more households that quite simply don't have a land line, which must be making British Telecom a bit scared, I would have thought. The problem is that this is very antisocial for anyone trying to contact you - it costs 4p per minute to ring a land line in peak time, compared to 35-50p to call a mobile. In effect, you're asking your friends and relatives to subsidise your decision not to pay for a proper 'phone.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-20-2002 08:41 AM                        Leo--interesting. Here in the US, there is no additional charge to call a cell phone. The callee (sp?), not the caller, pays, since he is the one with the wireless phone. There has been some talk of banning unsolicted telemarketing calls to cell phone numbers for this reason, since no one wants to subsidize someone else's advertising. Personally, I've never had a cell phone and haven't had any desire to get one, pretty much for the reasons Evans and Thomas have pointed out. I don't feel any particular need to be reachable at all times, and I value my personal time highly enough that I don't necessarily _want_ to be reached at times. Also, the sound quality of most cellular calls is abysmal. Having said that, it appears that my employer (at my day job) is now expecting me to get one. Maybe this is a topic for a new thread, but I need recommendations and might as well ask here, since Film-Tech people know everything. My needs are pretty basic. I need a phone to make and receive calls. I don't want hundreds of "free" minutes, WAP capability, paging capability, walkie-talkie capability, or any other such frills. I want good sound quality, reasonable service coverage in the Boston/New England area, a phone with "vibrate" mode, and a low price (this is an expense-account item, but I am still going to be cheap). Most importantly, I don't want a one-year minimum contract. I'd rather pay more up front and have a month-to-month deal than get suckered into a long-term contract. Any suggestions for me?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-20-2002 09:14 AM                        In the Boston area, both Verizon and Sprint offer good coverage and service. My daughter, who lives in Brighton MA, is pleased with her Sprint coverage throughout eastern New England (Portsmouth / Lowell / Cape Cod / Providence area). She has a plan with 300 daytime minutes per month, and unlimited weekends/nights, with no extra charge for long-distance. By using the weekend/night minutes, she pays much less than she used to for long distance on a wired phone, calling us in Rochester and friends throughout the country. At Kodak, my Verizon service uses a Motorola StarTAC phone. I've had it for almost two years with no problems, and lots of flexibility. With overnight recharging, battery life has not been an issue.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-20-2002 09:33 AM                        Scott - yes, that does seem a totally different system, and I wish we had it here. In the UK (and, I believe in most of Europe), you don't pay to receive calls. You can own a mobile in one of two ways. Either you have a contract under which you pay a fixed amount per month for line rental, plus the cost of calls. Sometimes the line rental includes a prepaid number of calling minutes, sometimes not. These contracts have little (e.g. £10-20) or no up-front charge and include the 'phone itself, but you're locked into them for a set period of time, typically a year. Then there are 'pay as you go' mobiles, which incur a significant up-front charge (typically £100-200, depending on the type of 'phone), but which do not have any contract. Under these schemes you simply purchase extra calling credit as and when you need it. The cost of calling is also usually a lot higher with a 'pay as you go' rather than a contract, and these deals are really designed for people who don't make very many outgoing calls but want to be contactable. But there is no charge at all for receiving calls (apart from receiving calls when abroad). However, the cost of ringing a mobile from a land line is typically 8-10 times more expensive than the national land line calling rate, which is why I think it's antisocial for people not to have a land line in their homes at all. The cost of calling mobile to mobile is even higher if the call is between two different companies. What this tends to mean is that people call mobiles from workplaces without really thinking about it (because it's their boss' bill, not theirs), but try to avoid calling them from home like the plague. If we did change the system so that there was an element of cost in receiving calls as well as initiating them, then I'm sure that unnecessary calling would become far less of a problem.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-20-2002 11:41 AM                     quote: Also, the sound quality of most cellular calls is abysmal. Scott, that's a very good point that I forgot to mention. Any time I have had to use someone's cell phone (because they don't have a land line, ) or have received a call from someone on a mobile, the sound quality has been downright frustrating. Not so much the actual quality of the sound itself, but the fact that there's little "blips" or breaks in the sound, and often a 2-3 second pause between when I say something and when the other person responds. It reminds me of when the news stations were broadcasting via satellite from Afghanistan: "What is the situation like there in Afghanistan?" . . . .(pause) . . . "Well, Tom, it app-ars that the sit-ation is under contr-l at this ti-me." It amazes me that they can get these things to play Beethoven's Ode to Joy and send full-color pictures to each other, but we still aren't able to carry on a normal conversation on most of them. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Charles Everett Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: New Jersey Registered: May 2001 posted 11-20-2002 11:41 AM                     A "cellphone etiquette" law is one of those quick-and-easy things politicians fall all over themselves to get passed into law. Several towns in New Jersey ban cellphones while you are driving. Politicians are trying to make that ban statewide. I hate to say it, but a "cellphone etiquette" law is unenforceable. We've got much bigger things to deal with in the Garden State -- taxes, car insurance, sprawl, etc.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.