This is topic Possible Cell-Phone Ettiquete Law in New York in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001457

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 11-16-2002, 02:47 AM:
 
From the Libertarian Party Home Page here

Libertarians ridicule New York City's "phone etiquette" proposal

WASHINGTON, DC -- New York City politicians are considering the nation's first proposal to outlaw cell phone calls during movies, concerts and Broadway plays – but Libertarians say social pressure would be a better way to deter such rude behavior.

"Picture Miss Manners with a gun, and you have some idea why this proposal is an overreaction," said George Getz, Libertarian Party communications director. "Civilized people can deal with minor annoyances without further empowering the Nanny State."

This month the New York City Council is expected to consider a bill that would impose a $50 fine on anyone who makes or receives a call, or fails to turn off the phone's ringer, during an indoor
performance at a theater, art gallery, concert hall or library.

If passed in New York, the "cell phone etiquette" law could spread rapidly to other states, industry observers predict. Last year, after New York became the first state to ban using a cell phone while driving, 31 other state legislatures considered similar regulations.

But the real question raised by the New York proposal, Libertarians say, is: "Should bad manners be illegal?"

"There are plenty of other ways to deter someone who's gabbing on a cell phone during a movie, starting with giving them a dirty look, tapping them on the shoulder and asking them to stop, or even asking the manager to do so," Getz said. "When it comes to making people behave, social disapproval works much more efficiently than writing another law."

Besides, enforcing such a measure could pose more problems than the "crime" itself, Libertarians say.

"Imagine every movie theater equipped with cell phone cops who bolt down the aisle every time a ringer goes off, demand a drivers license from the offender, and issue a ticket," Getz said.

"With an army of phone fighters disturbing the peace, patrons will soon long for the days when an occasional cell phone ring was their greatest annoyance.

“Besides, if politicians are going to target people who talk on a cell phone during a movie or play, what about obnoxious people who talk aloud and aren't using a cell phone? Or people who butt in line to buy tickets; take too long to decide what kind of popcorn to buy; or teen-agers who smooch in the back row of the theater?

"Once you put politicians in charge of defining rude behavior, expect the list of annoying behaviors to grow.”

That's why the best way to ensure cell-phone etiquette is to put private individuals and businesses in charge, Libertarians say.

"Many private businesses already prohibit customers from eating, drinking, using foul language and other rude behaviors, so they can simply add using a cell phone to the list if they desire," he said.

"In fact, simply encouraging every business to implement its own policy might solve the problem instantly. People who find cell phones annoying could patronize cell-phone free theaters, stores,
and restaurants. Meanwhile, people who insist on yakking loudly on their phones would get exactly what they deserve: the company of other people just as obnoxious as they are.

"There's no reason to hire more cops to impose cell phone etiquette. Let's urge New Yorkers to disconnect this ridiculous proposal before it spreads to other states."

---------------------

Personally, as with most issues, I'm with the Libertatians on this one.
 


Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-16-2002, 04:02 AM:
 
Isn't there a technology allowing to scramble cell phone communications within a specific range, therefore making them unusable in an auditorium? It prevents them from ringing, and you can't call either or even send SMS.

 
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 11-16-2002, 04:40 AM:
 
Yes there is, however, it would be illegal. The FCC would have a field day if such devices were used.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-16-2002, 06:28 AM:
 
It's called concrete. Lots and lots of concrete.

Apparently Bombardier is/has developed a method of applying thin coatings of some type of metal to train windows to prevent the use of cellular phones on them.


As for scambling signals in your auditoriums... the Fire Department might be a little upset when it can't page its volunteer fire fighters while they're at the show.


 


Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-16-2002, 01:01 PM:
 
How hard would it be to develop some sort of device that would detect a cell phone ring, or a cell phone signal when one is being used in an auditorium? When a cell phone goes off, it can trigger the automation to stop the show, bring up the house lights, and make an announcement:
"Ladies and Gentlemen: Due to a cell phone transmission in progress in this auditorium, we are unable to continue the show. Once all cell phone transmissions cease, the show will resume. Thank you for your cooperation."
And then have it repeat in Spanish.
It would happen frequently at first, but soon you would have people leaving their phones in their cars out of fear.

=TMP=
 


Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-16-2002, 01:09 PM:
 
*sigh*

Remember the days when they were called car phones?

 


Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2002, 01:11 PM:
 
I'm not sure if there should really be any laws on the books banning the use of cellphones in particular places. But I do agree 100% with laws that ban the use of regular handheld cellphones while driving. Cellphone use is now as serious a problem as drunk driving when it comes to serious car accidents.

Management should be free to take action in restaurants, movie theaters and other places where cellphone use is a very rude disruption. For movie theaters, if someone's cellphone rings in the auditorium they should be removed from the theater. The only way phones should be tolerated at all is if they are in silent "vibrate" mode.

Some of the heat has to be applied to the cellphone companies themselves, those cheap-ass bastards. Yeah, that's right. They are cheap-ass.

Most cellphones do not come equipped with a silent vibrate mode. You have to spend more money for that add-on --and that's only if the cellphone model you have even supports it. Hell, most any pager has vibrate alert as a standard feature. It is totally backwards for cellphone companies not to put it in ALL cellphones.

All cellphones should come with handsfree talking sets. And something has to be done about making dialing numbers easy. One problem is the penchant for cellphone companies to make newer phones smaller and smaller. You have to have the fingers of a squirrel to hit the numbers on some of those keypads. And trying to dial numbers while driving is a very risky thing.

At any rate, if someone is on the road and needs to make a call he should probably pull over. If someone is going to take a phone call in the movie theater, he had better do it in the lobby or else he should be escorted out to the parking lot.
 


Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-16-2002, 01:14 PM:
 
The libertarians are correct. There should be no such law. What there should be is a concerted effort to instill good manners in our society.

Personally I haven't been too bothered by cell phone interruptions. I find that most people do take care and go outside when talking on their cell phone. Every now and then there is someone in the bookshop yakking on his or her cell phone in a loud voice. I just glare and they move away from me.

1. If you must have your cell phone on in a restaurant, when it rings, leave the table and take the call in the lobby.

2. If you much have your cell phone on while riding on a train; take you call at the end of the carriage. (This is suggested on all of the English trains.)

3. If you must have your cell phone on in a book shop; ask the caller to wait a moment while you step outside.

4. If you must have your cell phone on in a movie theatre, put it on silent. When you receive a call, step outside and call them back.

5. Cell phones should be off in movie theatres, Film Festivals, plays, operas and ballets.

6. If you must be in touch, buy a phone that vibrates. Take your calls outside.

7. Feel free to ridicule those who violate these basic tenets.

 


Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 11-16-2002, 01:45 PM:
 
Actually Bobby, only one cell phone manufaturer makes you pay for "vibra-call" nowadays, and that is Nokia. And that is only in the now discontinued 51** series and the Nokia 3285. Since going only part time in the Theater Business I have landed smack dab into the middle of the cell phone business. And in my personal opinion, cell phones should not even have ringers. They are rude, crude, things cell phone ringers, and imho they should be outlawed
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 11-16-2002, 02:55 PM:
 
While I certainly agree social pressure is better than making rude behavior illegal and imposing penalties for violations, I do think
sometimes the law can lead and influence public pressure.
For example, the sidewalks of NYC used to be covered with dog feces
until the "pooper-scooper" law was passed and citations and fines were administered to dog walkers who failed to police their pets' potty procedures. Before, people were too hesitant and embarrassed to admonish thoughtless walkers, but knowing everyone knows about the law, bystanders--and property owners--are now quite willing to cite it in calling attention to the lapse of compliance. Now the sidewalks
are cleaner, and social pressure rules.

Similarly, the law prohibits blasting radios in public, and drivers turn down the volume when a police car passes, though unfortunately
they don't fear social ostracism from within their cocoon/vehicles when the officer is out of sight.

Knowing of a cell-phone law may cause offenders to recognize the need for courtesy. But if there are other more effective ways of mustering social compliance, I'd like to know what they might be.


 


Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-16-2002, 07:01 PM:
 
An obvious choice (to my mind) is for cinema management to get together and forcibly eject patrons who allow telephones to ring.

I'm sure some do this, but it's also probably not realistic to try to do it in any consistent fashion; it's not as if there's someone in every house watching for such violators (capital-V Violators?), and it's like finding a needle in a haystack. So perhaps giving the rest of the audience some incentive to turn in those people is a good idea?


What would really be optimal would be a technological solution. Not jamming, but if a signal could be sent to cell phones to indicate "don't ring audibly if you can receive this signal." But it's probably not practical with today's technology. 4 different cell phone modulation/frequency pairs in common use in the US, and even if one of them had a way to indicate this (do any?), you'd need to support them all. Or I suppose you could add another frequency that all phones should listen to, regardless of whether they are GSM, CDMA1900, etc., but I doubt the manufacturers would go for that, since it means adding more hardware. On the gripping hand, perhaps you could do something with "high" power (1W?) output in the 2.4 GHz bluetooth band, since most new phones now support bluetooth (right?). Presumably such a thing would be a perversion of bluetooth and would effectively be a bluetooth jamming device in a theatre (too bad for the people who have bluetooth microphone/headsets for their phones...), due to the power, but at least it would be a common way to signal all the phones "don't ring here!".

Without such an additional receiver, you'd probably be stuck deploying n cells within the theatre (one for each technology...), and trying to set things up such that all phones within the theatre fall in one of the special cells that transmits the "don't ring" signal.

Maybe it's not so grim as that, though. I suppose you could envision a receiver that sits in the theatre and keeps track of all cell phones that it can hear (presumably carefully deployed such that it only has good coverage within the theatre), and then has a communications channel (landline, IP, etc.) to the cell phone providers and tells them "don't let this phone ring as long as I tell you it's still in this area," and then that information gets uploaded to the cell site the phone is associated with and it either sets a "don't ring audibly" bit, or simply doesn't accept incoming calls destined to the phone.

Oomph. pipe dream.

As somewhat of an aside, I don't believe that the FCC bans cell phone jamming as long as they are sufficiently narrow in scope (e.g. a private property owner can ensure that emissions from his jammer are -60dBm beyond the borders of his property, etc.).

--jhawk
 


Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 11-16-2002, 07:10 PM:
 
On those slides that say, " Please turn off all cell phones and pagers".

They should also put," If your cell phone goes off or pager, you will be fined and asked to leave."


 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2002, 07:21 PM:
 
It would never work because of the bean counters, but stationing an usher in each auditorium on each show (probably just weekends) would be one hell of a great incentive to visit a particular theater. When a cell phone rings, the usher gives that person 5 to maybe 10 seconds to say "hang on" and walk outside the auditorium. If more than 2 sentences are spoken, the usher evicts the patron from the theater without a refund of any kind. If the patron starts in on the usher, get the manager or security guard. Really, this would only happen for a few weeks. People WOULD get the point.

Of course this should be implemented into the policy trailer: "if your cellular phone rings during the movie, you must immediately take the call outside of the auditorium or you will be evicted without a refund from the theater complex."

The funniest part would be all the staff complaining. Know how *most* theaters the staff complains "no I want to work box" or "I don't want to work the stand tonight" and such? At first everyone would be hollering to "watch the movie", but soon...very, very soon they would be complaining "no, please no, not that stupid movie again!"


 


Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-16-2002, 07:26 PM:
 
I can't tell, Brad, if you're suggesting that people should be allowed to have their phones ring audibly if they take the call outside. I think that's far too lenient.

But with that proviso, sure, what you say would be reasonable.

Another way to make this work would be to get a device that passively monitors what cell phones are nearby (should be easy enough), and then actually calls them (during the trailers) with a message of "This is testing to see if your cell phone is actually on during the movie. If your phone rings audibly, you will be ejected." It could call just a small sample of the total set of phones to get the point across.

Then, an usher can activate the device and go into the room and eject all the patron whose phones answer. It would also serve to gently remind patrons that their phones are on if they forgot to turn them off, and to show that the theatre is actually cracking down.

--jhawk


 


Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-16-2002, 09:11 PM:
 
I've been wanting an ejection-seat trailer for years. Loews now actually has a wimped-down version of this, where the phone-user gets ejected into the screen, rather than through the roof of the building.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-16-2002, 09:21 PM:
 
quote:
and then actually calls them

That would be hilarious. Ten seconds into the first trailer, every single cell phone in the room starts ringing!

 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2002, 10:03 PM:
 
While I'm against cell phones ringing during the movie, I can see a legitimate reason to permit it. No one is immune from an emergency and I think it is taking away from someone's right to prevent contact. However that is a 1 in 100,000,000 shot, so at that point what is the right thing to do since cell phones have become such a problem?

Back in the days before theaters turned into mega-ludicrous-plexes, when someone would come to the theater and ask me if there was a way for their babysitter to get ahold of them, I would give out the box office line and find out where they were seated. I probably did that at least once a week for about 5 years (until cell phones became so commonplace) and I can only recall having to go find the parents twice. That could never work in today's complexes though.

Bear in mind, if theaters block cell phones for some reason, many people will NOT go to the theater and use Blockbuster instead. I would expect parents of young children to be at the top of that list.


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-17-2002, 01:43 AM:
 
My Kyocera 2135 (supplied by Verizon) has the vibrating mode. Feels strange when I have the phone stuck in my back pocket when it goes off. Feels like I was getting stung in the butt by a bee.
 
Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-17-2002, 04:44 AM:
 
In Belgium, it is common for all theatres to show 35mm commercials prior to the feature film (we don't use slides). Mixed to those, there is a trailer (so projected in all theatres, regardless of circuit) showing a crowded auditorium. Two persons are disguised as mobile phones, seated at opposite corners of the theatre. They're shouting at each other then finally say "OK, the film starts, let's switch off now". They press a button on their chest and fall asleep. Then the trailer displays a message "Don't forget to switch your mobile phone back on when leaving the theatre".

There was also a commercial from Nokia to promote their latest model, specifically made for cinemas, that said "Make yourself heard, but NOT at the theatre...".

The Kinepolis Theatres circuit also has a trailer for uneducated people who abandon their empty pop-corn bucket or drink cans on the seats or aisles after the show. It is an animated cartoon showing spectators eating and drinking during a projection, then throwing their empty stuff on the floor. The camera then shows the theatre screen where you can see a dragon in the film. The dragon suddenly peers at the audience and belches flames at the dirty spectators. Then you see the spectators completely black with burnt ruffled hair bashfully picking their trash and putting it in a garbage can near the theatre exit door.


 


Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-17-2002, 12:05 PM:
 
There's a fine line between taking away someone's right to contact, and taking away someone's right to gab to their stupid friends as if they are in their own home.

There was this lady with a talk radio program in South Florida who was bitching to all hell about New York's phone law. (This was last year, btw) She was saying how her "business" relies on people to call in, and if a law like that passed in Florida where people aren't allowed to drive with cell phones, then her business is ruined! Well, she's been on the air since well before cell phones became mainstream, and seemed to be doing fine then. I don't understand why some people think that their cell phone is this lifeline that has to stay attatched. By the way, in the three hour program about the cell phone law, she got a total of only 4 calls from idiots on cell phones on the highway.

My old high school in Royal Palm Beach had banned students from bringing cell phones to school. Sound reasonable? One would think. SO MANY parents complained that they were not able to "Contact their child" because they weren't carrying their cell phone, that the school was forced to retract the rule. HELLO!!! Call the office and have them get your kid to the office phone. Not that important? Then you shouldn't be calling your kid in school.

Speaking of school, it seems college students lack the same manners. At least once a day, a professor for a class that I paid $350+ for is interrupted as some moron's phone plays some moronic tune over and over. The person who it belongs to is too embarrased to reach into their bag or purse to turn it off, so they leave it ring.... and ring... and ring.... Some even answer it to explain to the caller that they are in class. Perhaps it makes them feel important, like saying "I'm in a meeting right now".

=TMP=
Never owned a cell phone. Never will. Refuse to get a job that makes me carry one.


 


Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-17-2002, 12:29 PM:
 
Do they even make cell phones that ring anymore? All of the ones I've heard lately only play a retarded jingle. That is waaaaaay more annoying than a simple ring.

To anyone who needs to play a jingle on their cell phone instead of a ring: I hate you for that reason alone!
 


Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-17-2002, 01:05 PM:
 
Whatever happened to saying, "Hey, buddy! Would you take that phone outside, please?"

No! We have to pass laws, put up signs, make everything illegal and, if that doesn't work, we have to have some $1,000,000 technological solution to a problem that COULD have been solved by the utterance of seven simple words!

The same goes for talking on the phone while driving. If just ONE insurance company denied a claim for damage because the driver was talking on the phone I GUARANTEE people would stop doing it in a heartbeat!
 


Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-17-2002, 03:18 PM:
 
It occurs to me that the prime benefit of the "box to make everyone's phone ring" is that of being a deterrant -- it encourages those people whose phones did _not_ ring to to turn theirs off, anyway.

So, perhaps an approach would be to simulate this situation, by playing some EX-encoded sound that makes it appear that a number of phones are ringing all throughout that theatre, ideally without stopping the non-sync music. If it doesn't appear too contrived, then perhaps it would convince the audience to really turn off their phones, too.

--jhawk
 


Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-17-2002, 03:48 PM:
 
I gues the libertarians forgot my right after purchasing a ticket to a uninterupted presentation
And if some one is on call or standbye and says they need there cell on stay at home then
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-18-2002, 02:21 AM:
 
The problem here is a cultural one, IMHO. As Ian mentioned, British trains have notices suggesting that you 'use your mobile 'phone with respect for others'. They also have one 'no mobiles' carriage in which you're not supposed to use them at all. However, this is universally ignored. Compare that to smoking. All but one of the carriages are no smoking (and Virgin trains are entirely no smoking). However this rule is almost always respected. You see people using mobiles in the no mobiles carriage, but no-one attempts to smoke in the no smoking carriage. Neither are laws, but are simply rules imposed by the train companies.

Personally I hate mobile 'phones and if weren't that I needed to be contactable by work, I'd cheerfully throw mine off a very tall bridge. I'm obviously in a minority though, because people continue to use them in ways I find antisocial. But (with the exception of using them whilst driving), passing an actual law against them would be going too far. What I would like to see is the use of signal blocking devices being legalised so that the things just won't work in areas that are designated as mobile-free zones
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-18-2002, 04:37 PM:
 
If I am in a theatre, or a public spot I place my phone on vibrate I hit the button to bring on voice mail, I will not answer it in a theatre, museum, church, on a bus or train. I am annoyed by people sitting next to me yelling into their phones. You know, people that care do the right thing.


People who don't care should be exterminated. [Wink]
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-18-2002, 07:35 PM:
 
quote:
There was this lady with a talk radio program in South Florida who was bitching to all hell about New York's phone law. (This was last year, btw) She was saying how her "business" relies on people to call in, and if a law like that passed in Florida where people aren't allowed to drive with cell phones, then her business is ruined!
That is a totall bogus argument! The current law in New York does not prevent the use of cell phones while driving. It simply requires the use of a hands-free device, like a headset. This is also kind of bogus because it doesn't stop anyone from dialing their phone, only from holding it up to their ear.

As far as cell phones in the theatre is concerned, I'm with those who feel that if anyone's phone rings, they should be ejected from the theatre and there should be signage as such. People who must be contacted in an emergency can get a phone with a vibrator, which most phones have today anyway. It amazes me that not only do idiots let their phone ring in the theatre, but then they actually sit there and carry on a loud conversation. It's only a matter of time before frequent fist fights (or worse) break out over this kind of extremely rude behavior.

For this reason alone, I no longer mind going to cinemas that are constructed in basements (like the Angelica or the Crown (formerly Loews) New York. Cell phones don't work down there.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-19-2002, 03:11 AM:
 
The problem is that ejecting someone from a theatre cannot be done without disturbing other customers (unless the offender is sitting next to an aisle). Furthermore, identifying the offender might not be easy in a dark room which is densely packed with people.

I can't see any reason why signal blockers can't be legalised just as long as their range is effectively limited to the premises using them.
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-19-2002, 03:53 AM:
 
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.

--jhawk
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-19-2002, 04:23 AM:
 
I used to have a sign at the end of our runway that read, "Property protected by shotgun 2 days a week. You guess which ones."

I wonder if the same theory could be applied. [evil]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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. [evil]
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 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. [Smile]

Mind you a paintball gun would be even more fun. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.
 
Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 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.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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. [thumbsdown] 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.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 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.
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 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
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 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
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 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. [Smile]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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. [Smile]

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?
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 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, [Wink] ) 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=
 
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 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.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-20-2002, 11:52 AM:
 
This is one we agree on. [Wink] Attempting to legislate cell phone etiquette is ludicrous and a waste of everyone's time and money. This is the kind of law we definitely don't need.
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-20-2002, 02:23 PM:
 
It does frost me when I see a bus driver yaking on a cell phone while they are driving, and what is even worse is seeing an 18-wheeler driving his rig around a corner of an intersection with one hand jamming the cell phone in his ear, and the other hand using "palm steering" of the steering wheel. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2002, 05:24 PM:
 
Here's an idea. Why not make cellphones vibrate by default? Make it so someone has to do something to the phone, such as enable some special mode for it to ring out loud. Also, after a certain amount of time, make the cellphone revert back into default vibrate mode.

I see only two possible problems with this approach.

One, a growing number of people have their cellphone as their only phone since the combination of local phone service and long distance can often be more expensive than a basic cellphone plan. You might be asleep when a call comes in. Perhaps the phone can automatically go into "ring" mode when plugged into the charger and wall socket, or just have "ring" persist when plugged in.

Two, women like to carry their cellphone in their purse. Some students and others carry phones in their bookbag. I still think "vibrate" should be made the default alert instead of ring. Perhaps a "ring" override could be programmed to persist for a given amount of time. Still, if someone needs to be available for an important call, they need to wear the phone so they'll feel it vibrate or wear a hand's free earpiece/mic set that automatically answers.

Regardless of phone user convienience, all the cellphone ringing is extremely annoying and a total inconvenience for others around. I'm really getting to hate all the stupid cellphone tunes. I agree with Joe that a regular ring in not quite as annoying. Still, I don't want to hear any of that crap at all in a movie theater. In that setting, I want the sound the movie is making to be the only audio I hear. Nothing else.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-20-2002, 06:56 PM:
 
Since the annoying ring tunes aren't the default setting I don't think having the phones default setting as vibrate would help much.

As for having the phone 'time-out' and return to vibrate mode. It makes having a 'home cell phone' annoying. In addition lithium ion batteries have an ever increasing power capacity drop after about 250 charge cycles. At approximately 380 charge cycles power capacity is at about 80% of the original. It should be noted that a charge cycle is anytime the battery starts to charge, no matter it's charge before starting or how long it is charged for. (This based on my testing of 1000 Lithium Ion batteries (100 x 10 manufacturers/models) last year.)
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2002, 08:49 PM:
 
Here is the reason people yell into their cellphones.

When you talk on a regular land phone, your own voice "feeds back" to you via the earpiece. (You can hear this effect very well by blowing into the mouthpiece...you'll hear your breath in your ear.) Cellphones don't have this feature, or at least cheap ones don't. The talker doesn't hear himself as he would on a normal phone, therefore he thinks he is talking too softly, therefore he raises his voice.

The whole thing is made worse by the fact that often, the earpiece in cellphones is of crappy quality, so the person on the OTHER end sounds too soft as well, so the talker tends to think he needs to speak even louder to be heard.

In other words, it's all in their heads! (By the way, I don't own a cellphone either. I'll bet the percentage of "theatre people" who don't own cellphones is higher than the general population.)
 
Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 11-20-2002, 10:49 PM:
 
Just today whilst walking my movies I noticed a guy in the hallway yelling into his cellphone about who knows what. The guy actually had his phone about 8-12" away from his head and was yelling at it (no headset either). I don't know how he could have possibly heard the other person, but I guess that was the least of his worries.
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-22-2002, 04:11 PM:
 
Well, I joined the dark side yesterday and got a cell phone. The first thing I did was set all the alert notices to "vibrate" so the phone would not make any annoying sounds. I'll probably only use the ring feature when I'm not around people.
 
Posted by Craig Hanham (Member # 1010) on 11-22-2002, 10:19 PM:
 
Personally I reckon it should be legal to deliver a severe kicking to any ass who answers their cell phone in a cinema or theatre [Mad]
Any body can inadvertantly forget to switch off.
Having worked as casaual theatre crew shoephones are an important tool so I am in the habit of taking it everywhere. .However any member of the crew whose batphone rings during a gig has to put a slab of beer in the crew fridge. Perhaps all offenders in cinemas & theatres should do the same for the 10 seats nearest them [beer]
The best response was from a well known local actress in a play. A phone rang during a dramatic scene. The actress turned to her castmates, made an apology, stepped to the front of the stage , abused the [bs] and walked out on the evenings performance.

Basically there is no excuse for rude behaviour, and there are very few emergencies that cannot wait for an hour. All mobiles should be checked at the door with the knives, handguns,coats and hats.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-23-2002, 12:06 PM:
 
What's with people using the opposite hand for the opposite ear when driving with a cell phone? I noticed this three times in the past week and it's utterly moronic. Right hand on the wheel, left hand holding the phone wrapped around their head to the right ear.

I was a passenger in a car yesterday going to see my tax dollars hard at work sending an overpriced shuttle into space (which was postponed, again...) when the driver used his cellphone in the manner described above. Then, he asked his friend for his phone and began PROGRAMMING NUMBERS into his own phone!! [Eek!] Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we were going 70mph on the highway and this bozo had a phone in each hand, pushing buttons, steering with his knees, and not even looking at the road!!

I dunno. Maybe you could argue he had the "freedom" to do this since it was his own car, but me and the other people on the road want the freedom to be alive.

=TMP=
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2