Cell Phone Jammers invade theaters.. (1 Viewer)

[John Garcia]

I think it's been covered already...the problem is common courtesy. Nobody should have to jam anything because those who need to stay in touch should have the courtesy to leave the theater. I have no problem with anyone having a phone on in the theater, as long as they put it on vibrate. If they feel they MUST answer it, they should leave the theater. How hard is that? Just because it doesn't bother YOU that you are missing the movie that you just paid for, doesn't mean everyone else should have to as well. The theater is not your living room... I put my cell on vibrate, and if it rings, I see who it is and 9 out of 10 times I let it go to voice mail. If I have to answer it, I do leave the theater.

I don't agree with jammers, though I would have a lot of fun with one while driving down the road with all those morons who are already terrible drivers that insist on being on the phone while driving.

In addition to the cell phone "trailers", I think theaters should simply post signs at the entrances to each theater regarding electronic devices, talking and courtesy.

My last bad experience at the theater, there were only about 20 people in the theater, but the one idiot sitting behind me had to comment every 10 minutes that he didn't like the movie; So F*ING LEAVE, don't ruin it for me. I was so pissed off at that, that I REALLY have to want to see something before I will actually plop money down for the theater again. I enjoy my HT much more than the theater, but I like to go to the theater too, it's a different experience. It's the PEOPLE I can't stand at the theater most often.

 

[dpippel]

Cell phones have no place in a movie theater, and the common courtesy level of the average person who uses one there isn't something that's likely to change. These are the same people who talk on their phones at the register while buying groceries, while picking up their prescriptions at the pharmacy, while ordering dinner at a restaurant, while pumping gas right next to the NO CELL PHONE USE ALLOWED sign, etc. You know the type. They're so wrapped up in their own self-importance and so out of touch with their surroundings and the people in it that YOUR concerns, rights, feelings, etc. aren't even on their radar. The problem isn't COURTEOUS people with cell phones, it's RUDE people with cell phones. No amount of usher screening or theater patroling is going stop them.

Personally I don't have a problem with theaters jamming phones and I don't have an issue with their use of jamming technology either, if it was legal. Whether the signal is blocked by construction or by electronic means makes no difference at all - the end result is the same. As long as customers are advised up front that their phones will not work in the building I'm all for taking the "privilege" away.

To those people who can't be out of touch for 2 hours, what the heck do you do when you're flying? On a domestic flight you're off the grid for 1-6 hours depending on your destination. Why not just treat your movie night out as an airplane ride, assume that the theater is off limits, make plans accordingly, and leave your phone in the car? It shouldn't be that hard.

And YOU GO Billy Crystal!

 

[Joe Szott]

I think it would be damn fun to have one of these jammers, where do you get them? Not to leave on during the movie, but it would be such sweet revenge to toggle it on/off when someone gets that useless call in the theater just so they lose the connection and call. A petty pleasure to know they are inconvienced too, but it would be a sweet one. Or that omni-dork in traffic that just can't talk and drive at the same time, help them make the smarter choice for once

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Considering that flying usually entails a vacation or a business trip (and in my case, I don't take vacations), I think arrangements would have been made for coverage. That's a bit different than a Saturday afternoon at the movies. Boy, you had me with you right up until this statement. Why is it so hard to believe that some people's job depends on the ability to be contacted in case something goes wrong? I would be the first one to tell what the details of my job are, but I can't. But believe me, if you knew what it was, no one would question the fact that I need to be contacted at all times (I thought maybe the fact that my systems are responsible for 4.5 Billion dollars a year would get the hint across, but I guess not).:rolleyes

Besides, I think it has been determined that the 24/7/365 people are the ones who put their's on vibrate. We are not the problem and our jobs are not the problem, so we should not have to defend ourselves or our jobs (sheesh).

 

[dpippel]

I'm not trying to belittle your responsibilities Jeff. I just threw the analogy out there because the average 2 hour movie just isn't a very big slice of time, and as you also point out, arrangements are possible. I realize it's not convenient, but it *is* possible.

And no offense to you personally, but let's put things in perspective. If your systems are so valuable and your work so important, then a 2 hour absence is the least of your agency's worries. Having the success or failure of their entire operation hinging on ONE individual is much more of a concern, don't you think?

But really, it's not people like you who are the problem. It's the rude, inconsiderate people who insist on talking to their broker or their Aunt Ethel or their boyfriend/girlfriend who are the issue.

 

[TedT]

Doesn't matter to me at all. I don't go to the movie theaters anymore because of all the cel phones going off and all the babies screaming.

I will see one more movie in the theater and that will be Episode III. That's it.

 

[Ben_@]

I've given up on theaters entirely. the whole experience has become so unappealing that I'd rather just wait 4-6 months to see it at home. At least then if a cell phone does go off, its for me, and I can pause the movie.

I think that it would not be out of the realm of possibility to have an "emergency only" method of getting through a jammer. For at least major emergency situations (fire in the theater, other catastrophe, major event, etc). Something big happens and the jamming sphere instantly dissapears allowing anyone/everyone to contact emergency crews, work, loved ones, whatever. It is not impossible.

Besides, there was a time before cell phones when people seemed to deal with their lives pretty well then too.

Obviously, the whole thing would have to only interfere with cell phone conversations. That is one reason to worry about "lone wolf" cell phone jammers, they may cut out the spectrum used by other devices. If the FCC worked this out, they'd have a (generally) much happier theater going public.

I'd much rather have the talkers stay at home or in the mall and gab away than have them sitting in the theater disturbing people who actually like movies.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

As I've already explained above, if I'm unavailable, they have to resort to very expensive consultants, which is what they hired me to prevent in the first place.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Medicine IS a luxury item, people SURVIVED without it and millions of people survive without quality health care and medicine even today.

Their lives may be more miserable and unpleasant, even shorter. For example, people living in a world where cancer is cured will likely enjoy better health than we do now, but that doesn't mean that we have a right to the cure for cancer...we would just LIKE to have it.

Without food and shelter a healthy person will die (shelter depending on the environment). Lack of medicine doesn't kill a person, it just keeps them from preventing something else from killing them. ALL people need oxygen and food, not everyone needs a certain medicine.

And medicine is just another technology in many cases, created by man to solve a problem. In fact much of health care isn't medicine but machines and more traditional technologies, such as a resperator or a defibulator.

Plus, don't medical professionals utilize techs like cell phones, pagers and other remote communication devices? A cell phone suddenly becomes more important when someone uses it to call for medical help in a remote location or to have a doctor give them medical directions when a doctor can't reach them? It's still the same tech, only the application changes.


And that gets back to the issue. It's not the tech that's the problem its the RUDENESS of the individual who uses it in a way that most of us consider inappropriate. We are still in the process of establishing the boundries for acceptable use of cell phones.

Heck, I'll give you a great MEDICINE example - STEROIDS. Both important in real health care and abused by athletes for sporting/financial benefit. That doesn't mean that you ban the production of steroids, in turn hurting those people in serious need of them, just to solve a problem of people abusing them.

 

[Jim_C]

>>Besides, I think it has been determined that the 24/7/365 people are the ones who put their's on vibrate. We are not the problem and our jobs are not the problem, so we should not have to defend ourselves or our jobs (sheesh).

 

[Malcolm R]

No, you just ban professional sports. Simple.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Guys, you giving me great ideas here!
Now if only someone invents a device that cause temporary speech impariment,that would be even greater. Seriously though auditoriums should be built that no cell signal goes through,and the theater just put up a sign that "your cell phone won't work beyond this point" or something like that.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I'm irreplacable because I am able to respond to emergencies in time to save what amounts to half a million dollars per hour average income by fixing things quickly, often with no loss of revenue. If I am out of contact and my agency has to resort to expensive out of state consultants that do not have the response time or expertise of the person who is supposed to be on site (me), my value quickly diminishes. It is because of the technology that I'm irreplacable, not in spite of it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Jeff,
For somebody that posted the above comment in their initial post in this thread, you sure made a lot of posts in this thread. I guess this subject matter is not quite ad nauseum for you afterall.




Crawdaddy

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yeah, I guess so.:b It is a discussion that is close to my heart (and wallet), so I guess I feel the urge to respond. If you (the Admin), want me to cease, I will.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Jeff, if you wanted to see "White Chicks", you should be euthanized, not fired.

 

[Colton]

Boy, I'd hate to be a slave to my job. Having to carry a electronic "leash" all my life would make me miserable. I put in my 8 hours and go home to enjoy my life doing anything except work ... but that's just me.

As for jammers - I approve of them and I'm not fond of text messaging in theaters either. I pay my $8.00+ and expect an uninterrupted movie.

- Colton

 

[Robert Crawford]

Relax, I'm just joking with you.





Crawdaddy

 

[Shawn_McD]

I pay my $8 and I expect use of my cell phone. I'm all against a-holes who talk during the theater but I must be contactable. Just because alot of people here dont have the same job they are discriminating. If i found a guy on teh road or in the theater jamming I would beat him in the isle where he stood personally.

 

[Rick Guynn]

Pretty stupid statement coming from someone who lives in a concealed-carry state.

For all of you people who just can't be out of contact because the world would crumble, if it's such an emergency you should leave a contact number for the place where cell phones don't work. Or, if it's that big a deal - don't go. I don't recall the massive cataclysms that happened before pagers and cell phones were around.

And I have no problems with theaters wanting to use jammers. I would also applaud the vigilante jammers.

RG