Theaters Struggle With Patrons' Phone Use During Shows

Recorded announcements and personal pleas have only a limited effect, as recent incidents on Broadway and elsewhere demonstrate.

formatting link

Reply to
Monty Solomon
Loading thread data ...

On a somewhat related note...

I've often wondered why such venues don't "shield" the rooms with aluminized paint, etc. Granted, it won't stop folks from playing games on their phones -- but the inbound/outbound traffic would be stopped.

[I suspect an active *jammer* is illegal]

I've thought of painting the rooms, here, similarly in an attempt to curb RF leakage (and infiltration) -- WiFi services that I'm not keen on others being able to snoop, interact or distrupt.

However, I am reluctant to do so as paint is damn near "forever"! And, no idea how that would increase liability (e.g., someone has a heart attack in the living room and calls to 911 are effectively blocked).

Of course, IANAL but I don't think a big sign on the front door that states "DANGER: Wireless devices inoperative inside" would suffice...

Back on topic: is there any means of "fixing" this problem -- short of reeducating folks on "manners" and "social responsibility"?

Reply to
Don Y

Per Monty Solomon:

"'High-tech solutions remain off the table. Except for authorized federal law enforcement, cellphone jamming is illegal in the United States. And for good reason, according to Brian Josef, assistant vice president for regulatory affairs for the Washington-based trade group CTIA: The Wireless Association.

"We can all think about emergencies in theaters or schools where being able to reach 911 is critical," he said. "The worry is that jammers are a very blunt instrument."

Worse yet, they cut into minutes used and, therefore, revenue..... -)

- - Pete Cresswell

***** Moderator's Note *****

The CTIA seems to feel that anything which annoys the members of the trade group is a "blunt instrument", which will have to be refined so as not to endanger hoi polloi. How, I ask, did a question about disabling cellphones so as to enjoy a quiet theater turn into an implied warning about dead children in schools?

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Pete Cresswell

Yes, inform patrons that any cellphone use (voice or text) during the performance will result in their ejection without refund. All it will take is one person being asked to leave for everyone else to get the message.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Danniken

Let's see -- in the olden days, if an emergency arose in a theater, someone would run out to the lobby, and have a phone call (real phone -- twisted pair type) made.

911 call centers these days can pinpoint exactly where a call from a wired phone is located. On cell phones, maybe -- or maybe not. Depends a lot on how GPS signals are being received for one thing. Inside a theater, they may not be too strong.

If a theater owner wants to paint the walls with tinfoil-bearing paint, why not have them also install one or two payphones in convenient locations. You know, the ones you put a dime in to get a dial tone?

...Bob K

***** Moderator's Note *****

It's not a dime anymore, Bob. These days, it's more like "put in your life's savings ..."

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Bob K

I don't think that will work.

First, it means each venue (restaurant, theater, etc. -- anyplace that wants to curtail phone usage) must "police" the issue. I.e., bring back *ushers* in theaters to walk the aisles with flashlights looking for "offenders"?

Second, there are cases where cell phone use may be warranted: e.g., blind users getting descriptive text that would accompany a movie (but that most sighted patrons wouldn't want to hear as it interferes with *their* enjoyment of the movie); ditto, deaf patrons viewing subtitles that other patrons wouldn't want to see superimposed on the screen.

Third, people are amazingly arrogant in thinking that some magical

*exception* applies to them which entitles them to do what they are doing (Dr: "Oh, I just forgot to tell the on-call desk at the hospital where I would be, tonight"; Mom: "Oh, I just need to tell the babysitter that we'll be home late and to remember to give Junior his meds"; Teenager: "I'm just *texting*! It's not like I'm *talking*!!!")

Fourth, businesses seem to be reluctant to "discipline" their customers. I suspect the rationale is something along the line of not wanting to alienate a customer (source of income) and imagining that other customers will "put up with" the inconvenience. (i.e., they never see other customers taking their business elsewhere hence no cost of "failed enforcement").

Consider how often someone goes through a checkout with clearly more than "10 items". What would it take for the cashier to simply state: "I'm sorry, ma'am/sir; but this lane is for customers with 10 items or less".

Or, parks in a handicap space -- despite the fact that there are hefty fines for such infractions! ("What are the chances that I'll get *caught* in the 3 minutes I'll be in the store??")

If you try to rely on "fines" as a deterrent for what would otherwise have been "enforced" by social norms, many treat the fine as an acceptable tradeoff. E.g., instead of feeling *responsible* to return a book to a library, "movie" to a rental outlet, etc. (so other patrons/customers could avail themselves of it in a timely fashion), many folks will reason that they can "just pay the fine" in exchange for being late.

"A daycare in Israel had a similar problem: parents were arriving late to collect their children. In response, the daycare fined those who didn't pick their tots up on time. Except this did not result in increased punctuality; quite the opposite. Parents were more likely to be late after the fines were introduced. They simply paid the fee and thought no more about it. The intrinsic motivation - to conform to the social norm of being on time - was crowded out by the extrinsic motivation of cash fines."

Hence my comment that the only effective solution is "reeducating folks on 'manners' and 'social responsibility'"

I think any other approach has to be effectively fool-proof. I.e., your phone WILL NOT operate in these confines -- you don't have a choice in the matter (and our staff needn't be inconvenienced to feel like policemen in enforcing it).

E.g., imagine if the cash register in the 10-items-or-less lane at the checkout actually refused to process more than 10 items! And, the charge/debit-card reader refused to process another transaction on the same "card/account" for 5 minutes. I.e., only your first 10 items will be allowed to be purchased -- no need for the employee to play policeman, etc.

Imagine if the handicap space took a photo of your license plate when you parked there. If not registered as having a handicap permit, a "ticket" is mailed to your home with photographic proof of the infringement (like "red light cameras", etc.)

Reply to
Don Y

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:11:19 -0700, Don Y wrote: .......

And we all know that people with these permits are - supposedly - only allowed to use the designated parking spots when directly transporting the person the permit was issued to, don't we?

Maybe we need to "Chip" people assigned these permits to have some technology verify that the vehicle is in fact entitled to use the parking spot?

Reply to
David Clayton

Per Don Y:

  • 1 on both...
Reply to
Pete Cresswell

[snip]

A store manager would never countenance such a thought: it would cut into impulse sales, and the candy, batteries, and pulp magazines offered at checkout kiosks are the highest-profit items.

Here's the secret to success in retail: the guy who ticks off the least number of customers wins. That means that when a large number of people complain about cellphone use in theaters, the management will come to a decision that offending one or two customers is better business than making excuses to the those whom complain.

So, the next time you see it, tell the management that you're offended and angry.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Horne

Insert "permit" (which can now be a credit card sized item as it doesn't need to remain in the vehicle "on display" -- if something else is actively performing the validation) into parking meter style monitor. If you want to be pedantic, photo the cardholder at the same time. Treat them like parking meters -- collect the data weekly and issue citations (just like red-light cameras have their photographs reviewed by a police officer prior to sending out citations)

[There was a move, here, to put photo of cardholder on the "tag" but those folks objected -- claiming it could be used to exploit them. I guess on the assumption that folks could look inside the vehicle, see their photo dangling from the rearview mirror and chase them down in the store, etc. -- it never occurred to them that you could redesign the permit with a *crease* in it so the photo is only visible if someone unfolds it to examine the photo -- like a police officer!]

The problem isn't perceived (by society) to be big enough to warrant this sort of attention. Folks who need the spots can either find another -- or, grumble/wait. OTOH, at $500/infraction, one assumes lawmakers are claiming this to be a "privilege" worth protecting. Of course, a $1000 fine on IMPROPER USE of such credentials might help!!

[Knowing several people with severe physical disabilities makes me a bit touchy about abuses of this!]
Reply to
Don Y

It is, although it's not hard to find the hardware if you poke around on the 'net a bit.

Around here, many houses are stucco (concrete trowelled onto wire mesh backing). If they had a little attention to making sure all the wire mesh was grounded, and aluminum storms, they'd be a pretty fair Faraday cage. Add steel roofing, and you're all set. And in fact just as they are, many have poor to no cell reception (or access to municipal wifi, unless an exterior antenna is installed).

Reply to
Dave Garland

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:42:39 -0400, Bill Horne wrote: .......

....... I suppose the base issue it that technology now allows people to inappropriately use their toys in environments that obviously annoy and inconvenience others.

Trying to find a technological solution to a behavioural issue usually results in all sorts of other consequences and may not be that effective - but that is almost the story of modern human history and is an ongoing challenge.

Perhaps the best technical "solution" for this particular issue is a system that detects use of phones in the venue and then (using the Internet to ID them) displays the names and images of the phone owners on big screens in the foyer for all the other patrons to see who disturbed their experience? ;-)

- - Regards, David.

David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.

***** Moderator's Note *****

In the military, the first day of a film showing is reserved for officers. It's not just a privilege, it's a necessity: enlisted men are sometimes in the habit of trying to become part of the performance, by responding to events on screen and interjectiing their own commentary for all to hear.

That is, of course, irritating to those whom are accustomed to sitting quietly and allowing others to do the same. Of course, in the military, officers have the authority to order enlisted men to be quiet, but that might degrade morale, since wives and children are often present.

Unless theater owners are willing to have (and enforce) separate showings for cellphone users, the problem of cellphone use in theaters will elude solutions.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
David Clayton

Of course. Hence my comment that:

"they never see other customers taking their business elsewhere hence no cost of 'failed enforcement'"

How do you count the number of NONcustomers that you have??

I have a simpler solution (for me):

I state, in a loud voice, "Gee, it must be really *tough* to be YOUR age and still unable to count!" ...

***** Moderator's Note *****

That doesn't work. Those who break such rules crave attention and envy from others whom obey them, so your opprobrium reinforces the behavior, while making other customers uncomfortable.

That's why many markets don't have "10 or less" checkouts: in some locales, it repels more customers than it attracts.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Don Y

What a ridiculous idea. All the time I come up to the checkouts at the supermarket with 15 or so items, I walk past the empty 10 item lane and the clerk waves at me to come in, since he's not doing anything else. I would prefer he not be saddled with a register that imagines that it knows his business better than he does.

For the cell phone problem, I'd suggest a slide at the beginning of the movie telling patrons to feel free to shout STOP USING YOUR PHONE at nearby miscreants as loudly as possible. No high tech needed, and I expect it could be quite effective.

R's, John

Reply to
John Levine

Not if it takes a law to do it. That's why tech methods make more sense.

Reply to
John David Galt

It would be more annoying, though.

For movie theatres, at least, the most effective solution that I have seen is to have the manager go up to the front of the auditorium before the show, welcome the audience, introduce the film, and make a polite plea for patrons to turn off their cell phones. The personal touch is more effective than a sign, policy trailer, or slide. Unfortunately, this solution does not really scale to large multiplexes.

- Scott

Reply to
Scott Norwood

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.