Post by: jcarter on March 10, 2012, 01:01:34 PM
He indicated that if the patrons dont like it, then they dont have to come to his restaurant, in other words, tough titty.
He also indicated that if a doctor or police officer wanted to come to the restaurant that he would make this known to them so they could use other methods to communicate in an emergency.
I just read that cell-phone users don't know they're being jammed. The phones just indicate that there's no service or no signal from your network. The jammer just interrupts the phone's ability to establish a link with the nearest cell-phone tower. So you dont know that you are actually being cut off with a device. I wonder if this is true. To test it, you would just have to walk outdoors.
I looked up some of the devices and yes, you can buy them. If I owned a theater I would invest in one too.
Funny that in a doctors office recently a whacky woman was really yelling into her phone, when I asked her to leave, and she did. Later my husband said, lets invent a jammer. Or a mute button that operates like a taser,,,,,,,,,Ha, thats funny.
Jane
I got this funny video from my brother, right on topic! And quite funny, no cell phones in this guys church!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/D2_c81Nnsc0
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 10, 2012, 04:55:40 PM
As far as I know, the airwaves belong to us. Preventing me from accessing them is not an individuals right or choice. We've delegated that authority to local, state and Federal governments. They have established licensing procedures to control their use.
Post by: jcarter on March 10, 2012, 06:38:34 PM
Or if you tell patrons to go outside to receive calls, or to smoke, which was quite an issue in our town. And now if you want to smoke, you have to go out and stand on the wing, oh, I mean just leave and go outside. (Thats the way its been in our house way before these rules ever happened anyway.)
And we all know that we have to be in contact with our families, police, fire and more, but about 15 years ago, we were, just not in an invasive mode.
This is such an interesting topic, there were some letters in our paper supporting both sides.
And there are enough restaurants in town that the people who are umbilically connected to their phones, can easily go elsewhere to dine.
Both sides, but if I owned the place, I would post a sign, to have the smokers and cellphone yakkers just to step outside, and if they didnt like it, then just leave.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 10, 2012, 09:00:34 PM
Now, is the business owner would like to build a Faraday shield completely around his building, that would probably be legal. But that would require pretty small entrance doors...
Post by: tacit on March 10, 2012, 09:31:49 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 10 2012, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I also question the legality of their use, even with well-placed and obvious warning signs.
In the United States and many other countries (including the UK) there is no question about their legality; they are against the law, full stop, and people who use them can face severe penalties. Here in the US, jamming cell phones violates the Communications Act of 1934, and each offense is punishable by an $11,000 fine, one year in prison, or both.
In France, businesses which act as venues for a public performance (concert halls, movie theaters, and so on) can apply for a license for cell phone jammers, though use by anyone else is still a crime.
However, passive blocking is not against the law, and it's quite popular in Japan and becoming popular with some businesses in the US. Passive blocking uses special wall paneling, window film, and so on, impregnated with a fine metal mesh. The walls and ceiling are covered with the paneling, and the mesh acts like a Faraday cage, blocking radio signals. In addition to blocking cell phone signals, the Faraday cage also blocks radio, TV, and WiFi signals.
A lot of businesses that are worried about corporate espionage use this kind of blocking to prevent employees or others from smuggling information out of the building via cell phone or WiFi.
Post by: jcarter on March 11, 2012, 08:09:17 AM
Maybe he will just walk out of the kitchen and tell the person yakking, to just shut it off or walk outside, like he does with somebody who lights up.
(Or do what that preacher does in that silly video my brother sent.)
Thanks for the explanations,
Jane
Post by: Bruce_F on March 11, 2012, 03:44:38 PM
Restaurants have had signs indicating "No Shirt - No Shoes - No Service" They could just post a sign telling people to not use cell phones while inside or they will be asked to leave. But then, I'm sure that would infuriate some people who would make an even bigger fuss if management tried to enforce it.
I have seen signs in restaurants saying: We reserve the to refuse service to anyone. That could cover cell phone usage, I suppose.
I personally would post something like:
As a courtesy to all our customers,
Please refrain from using cell phones
or gaming devices while dining.
Post by: jcarter on March 11, 2012, 04:22:40 PM
Post by: tacit on March 12, 2012, 12:19:26 AM
QUOTE(jcarter @ Mar 11 2012, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You will run into impolite people all the time nowadays, so I think that placing a sign similar to your suggestion would be the way to go.
Nowadays? It has always been that way. I was just reading a translation of the writings of a Japanese samurai from the 10th century a few days back, and he was complaining about how impolite people were becoming in his day.
Post by: jcarter on March 12, 2012, 07:10:11 AM
We are lucky to live in this little town where people are pretty nice most of the time.
Post by: chriskleeman on March 15, 2012, 10:15:41 AM
Where I used to work, Bistro Henry, in Manchester VT, we have a disclaimer on the menu asking our patrons for two things: No baseball caps, and no electronic devices in the dining room.
Do we get 100% compliance? Of course not. So, the staff is left to police the dining room, and we always get the "We have a babysitter and need to have our cell phone with us" or something similar. And then, of course, you have the parents who want to keep their children occupied during dinner with a game device, usually with headphones... So we ask that people put their phones on vibrate, etc., and if a guest takes a call we try to usher them out into the foyer, etc., but really, whatever happened to enjoying one's self without all these distractions? Bistro Henry is a Fine Dining establishment, and it is such a pain to have to police the customers like that.
And then there's the night that I had made a mistake on the wine list, and offered up the wrong bottle of a Rosenblum Zinfandel. The guy at the table got out his smart phone and looked it up, and then made a big fuss about it, even though he loved the wine. And after agreeing to discount the bottle, I went online and found out he had lied outright about the value of the wine apparently just to make us jump through a few hoops.
When I was young enough to have a babysitter, they were always provided with the phone number of the place or house that my parents were going to. Whatever happened to that simple concept? There is definitely a cultural shift at work here to say the least.
Cell phones are endemic to our culture at this point, but I do understand the why and wherefore of this particular restauranteur's desire to outright ban cell phones in his establishment. l certainly don't agree with outright blocking either, but it does get to a point...
Just one opinion.
Chris K
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 15, 2012, 11:43:30 AM
You're getting OLD!!!As proof, I offer your own words:
QUOTE
When I was young enough to have a babysitter
Well, there's your problem!
Post by: kimmer on March 15, 2012, 12:37:11 PM
QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Mar 15 2012, 07:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
When I was young enough to have a babysitter, they were always provided with the phone number of the place or house that my parents were going to. Whatever happened to that simple concept? There is definitely a cultural shift at work here to say the least.
At the risk of letting XABD know that I'm also old
... when I babysat, I always knew where folks would be and how to reach them -- and that was LONG before cell phones. Still, emergencies are one thing, but most of the folks that we listen to are just plain RUDE folks who can't seem to spend an hour eating a meal without talking to someone else. Often they talk louder on the phone than in a normal conversation, and so everyone else has to talk louder. We had some friends visit this past summer and she had 2 phones, he had 1, and they spent the entire visit bent over the darn things texting. They did talk to to us, but they missed all the sights and sounds of the coast. Really memorable vacation ... What did you see? Oh, our telephone screens and ... well, Sneakers did describe a few things as we went by. 
Post by: Paddy on March 15, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
Think about it. WHO polices the jammers? How do you ensure that the jammers are jamming signals for legitimate/benign purposes? You really can't - it opens a huge can of worms.
I cannot think of a single instance where not being allowed to smoke a cigarette could endanger anyone's health or safety (quite the opposite, in fact) whereas jamming cellphone signals could indeed cause an issue. We've all heard of those admittedly rare incidents where the use of a cellphone has gotten someone out of a life-threatening situation. Allowing unfettered use of cellphone jamming has way too much potential for abuse, by business owners, governments, etc.
Post by: Jack W on March 15, 2012, 02:22:01 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 15 2012, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
After careful study of your message and perusing many of your past posts while using my well know skill of keen observation and vast mental powers, I have found what is probably the cause of your frustrations. I will grace you with my diagnosis at absolutely no cost since you are such a valuable member of this group. No, no, I insist! It's my privilege and honor!
As proof, I offer your own words:
You're getting OLD!!!
As proof, I offer your own words:
QUOTE
When I was young enough to have a babysitter
Well, there's your problem!
I knew it! I knew it!!!!!
Post by: jcarter on March 15, 2012, 04:24:25 PM
Yeah, I guess they should be illegal, but law enforcement should have the option to use them.
Interesting point, new technology, new rules, new everything!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 15, 2012, 08:53:17 PM
Post by: chriskleeman on March 15, 2012, 09:50:43 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 15 2012, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
After careful study of your message and perusing many of your past posts while using my well know skill of keen observation and vast mental powers, I have found what is probably the cause of your frustrations. I will grace you with my diagnosis at absolutely no cost since you are such a valuable member of this group. No, no, I insist! It's my privilege and honor!
You're getting OLD!!!As proof, I offer your own words:
QUOTE
When I was young enough to have a babysitter
Well, there's your problem!
Jim, may I say you appear to have way too much time on your hands!!! I wanna be retired like you so I can just poke fun at everything!!!
but I'm apparently not quite old enough!!! 
CK
Post by: Bbob on March 16, 2012, 05:31:33 AM
Post by: tacit on March 16, 2012, 01:46:08 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 16 2012, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Law enforcement does use them. I think you've missed reading some posts in this thread. Why they are illegal is mentioned in at least two of them.
In the US, it's not even clear whether or not the networks themselves can voluntarily disconnect cell phone towers if law enforcement asks them to without a court order.
The cell phone service in the San Francisco subway was shut down for a while when BART was afraid that people might be planning to stage a protest when BART security shot and killed a man who had been arrested for disorderly conduct and was lying face down on the ground. (The security officer says that he shot the man by mistake; he says he was reaching for his taser, accidentally drew his gun instead, and then shot the man. Witnesses say the security officer was angry at the man and shot him deliberately but didn't intend to kill him.) The officer was later convicted of manslaughter in court.
Anyway, in order to fend off what they thought was a protest against BART, the BART police asked the cell phone networks to shut down cell phone service in and around the subway stations, which they did.
Since then, a large number of civil and legal groups have protested that shutting down cell phone service in order to disrupt a legal protest is against the law; it amounts to prior restraint of speech, and is the sort of tactic that might be appropriate in places like North Korea or China but not the United States. There are currently a number of Federal lawsuits and investigations pending, and the FCC has even become involved in the fray. The cases have not been decided yet, but it looks like there's a strong argument that disrupting cell phone service at the request of police is against the law if there is no due process or court order.