Dave Chappelle Thinks A Sock And A Dream Will Keep People From Using Phones At Shows

from the mandatory-civility dept

During a recent 13-night run at Thalia Hall in Chicago Dave Chappelle tried something different. He partnered with a company by the name of Yondr in an attempt to keep attendees from not only taking photos or videos, but from so much as sending an emoji during the program. Yondr’s solution to public performance cell phone etiquette is basically a smart cell phone sock. Or perhaps a cell phone cozy if you’re a grandma (hi grandma). Effectively it’s a pouch that attendees of an event are forced to put their devices in if they want to enter the performance:

over Yondr
Fig. 1 a decidedly sexy phone cozy

The technology claims to be relatively effortless, with a performance venue surrounded by a perimeter. Inside of said perimeter, the phone in the sexy sock is locked and won’t work. To use your phone (or, say, call 911), users need to exit through a set of technically-unspecified sensor gates, and head out the lobby:

“Attendees at any of Chappelle’s 13 sold-out Thalia Hall performances will be greeted by staffers handing out gray smartphone sleeves, available in three sizes. They are then instructed to place their phones inside the sleeves and fasten them, at which point they are welcome to carry them inside the venue.

As soon as they enter the “no-phone zone,” however, the pouches will have locked shut, preventing anyone from firing off so much as a winking emoji. Need to make a call or send an email? No problem. Simply leave the designated zone (and head, say, to the lobby bar), and, as you move past several strategically placed stations, the pouches can now magically be unlocked.”

It’s obvious to see the appeal for some folks given the recent hysterics surrounding bizarre behavior during Broadway performances. And while admittedly most of us remain nitwits when it comes to cell phone etiquette, it’s hard to not see the peaceful cozy cell phone sock as a bit of a pipe dream.

As it stands, there’s nothing stopping an individual from hiding a phone, with the act of removing that person probably causing more disruption to the audience and artist than just letting them take a photo would have. It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, which is why the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking (Yondr claims that venue staff’s phones will still work, but it still seems dangerous).

I think it probably feels good to believe you’re force feeding civility and decorum upon the brutish and inconsiderate masses, but at the end of day, those thinking that hope and a phone cozy are a replacement for etiquette (or will stop people from recording their experiences) will probably be disappointed, especially as we stumble toward our inevitable, transhumanist future, and our implants, phones, cameras, and other devices become increasingly difficult to detect.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: yondr

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dave Chappelle Thinks A Sock And A Dream Will Keep People From Using Phones At Shows”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
97 Comments
Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Remember when they complained about how disruptive the horseless carriage was to ordinary, decent horse-drawn traffic?

Yeah, me neither. Everyone who said that is long dead now, and so is the concept of horse-drawn traffic in modern cities. This simple point is worth keeping in mind for people who complain about cell phones being disruptive.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

…says the guy who apparently doesn’t know what a void area is, or how many children small enough that they literally cannot be seen in a rearview mirror get hurt every year because of them. Backup cameras aren’t about convenience or laziness or “not having to learn to use mirrors”; they’re a basic safety feature for a very specific and very real use case. Mirrors are great for driving forward, but horrible for driving in reverse.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Sensors and cameras are the best invention ever to help keep the paint and body business busy!
Spent 25 years in it. Sensors first came out and I started repairing many a deck lid and back hatch the got crunched by an object above the height of the sensor. So they came out with the camera…no more dents at the back…started repairing the fenders. Watching the backup up camera and forgot to watch the front end swinging into something.

Technology only works when it’s used properly. I have that stuff in the Edge. I still check all mirrors first, then look out all windows then and only then do I look at the dash rear view camera…and I still look up and sweep the others as I back up.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Sensors and cameras are the best invention ever to help keep the paint and body business busy!

That’s an incredibly cynical viewpoint.

So they came out with the camera…no more dents at the back…started repairing the fenders. Watching the backup up camera and forgot to watch the front end swinging into something.

I’ve never had that problem; my car has sensors on the front as well as the back. 🙂

Bottom line: when moving around in close quarters, void areas are your worst enemy, and any technology that can help reduce or eliminate them helps improve your safety.

Dingledore the Flabberghaster says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Strictly, you shouldn’t ever parallel park or reverse using a rearview mirror because they don’t give a true image. You should, technically, look over your shoulder.

That being said, in many cars and vans, you can’t see anything either way, and reversing sensors and cameras are a massive help.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Strictly, you shouldn’t ever parallel park or reverse using a rearview mirror because they don’t give a true image. You should, technically, look over your shoulder.

This is the esoteric skill we’re talking about here. Seeing an image in a rear-view mirror and having your mind still able to manage things, even if it’s mirror imaged. I would of course include shoulder checking in the mix of this (thanks for mentioning it).

One of my eyes is growing a cataract. I (mostly; yes it’s annoying) don’t care, because the other eye works fine and the brain adapts and makes up for the loss of the other eye. Consequently, despite the loss of most of the use of my left eye, I can still see a computer screen and read books.

Similarly, you can teach yourself to look in a mirror and understand left == right, and vice versa. It takes some time and effort to really wrap your mind around it so it’s second nature, but it’s not that hard to do. It used to be SOP for everyone so how difficult can it be (even if some did it badly)? Many nowadays think it’s not worth the effort when tech is being sold which purports to replace it.

Which is great, if you can afford the expense of the system, and what happens when the system fails/breaks? It’s complex, after all, with wires, sensors, a controller, and software/drivers in between. Mine will continue working. Will theirs?

That being said, in many cars and vans, you can’t see anything either way, and reversing sensors and cameras are a massive help.

You need to concede that automobiles are sold oft-times on “sexiness” and size of windows enters into that design. Thank gawd they came up with this reversing camera system !@#$ or they wouldn’t have been able to come up with that unusable tiny rear window (etc., etc.). I will concede they allow you to avoid the time and tedium of learning to use mirrors effectively, but that’s all.

That, and you’re suckers for falling for it if you did. Sorry, but often the truth hurts. You could have avoided all of this complexity and expense by learning an easy to acquire skill, but instead you chose to throw money at the problem to get a sexy car with an unusable rear window. Your choice, and good luck with that.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Remember, this is the same guy who wants a CCTV he can watch on his dashboard instead of learning how to use a rearview mirror.”

Ironically, you sound a bit like the horseless carriage critics Mason was talking about… Reversing cameras are far superior to mirrors for reversing. This is not up for debate.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

This is not up for debate.

Well, I beg your pardon! I’d no idea god in all its glory was listening in. What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say. If you were my boss or a client, you wouldn’t be seeing me tomorrow. You’ve already decided it’s your way or the highway. Okay, g’bye!

I suspect it is highly debatable whether reversing cameras are demonstrably superior to mirrors. Perhaps, they may be better or easier for Joe Sixpack in too much of a hurry to master the esoteric skill of using mirrors, or who’s foolish enough to buy a vehicle with lousy window visibility. I would not own such a vehicle. Nor do I think the cost of such a system is anywhere near justifiable. YMMV. I can understand that. It’s sad that you can’t. End of debate.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’ll note that down as “tqk’s button to push”.

There’s nothing arrogant about what I said, it’s just a statement of the obvious. Note that I said for reversing. Your mirror’s only job is to show you what’s behind you, and when reversing a camera shows you more of the area where things you could hit will be. It sees things the mirror simply cannot. It’s hard to think of any way you could claim that’s not better, but have at it.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

As I pointed out earlier, he apparently does not know what a void area is.

As this concept is explained in driver’s ed, it’s at least somewhat reasonable to conclude that tqk does not, in fact, know how to drive, and therefore his opinions on the subject are not backed by any actual experience and can be safely discounted.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I will readily admit that you’re not stupid and do have qualities which I admire, but often you sound like a seventeen year old kid who thinks he’s immortal and omniscient. Here, you sound like that kid poo-pooing the old fogie with a Winchester because you’ve got an M-16, which is clearly superior. Except, that’s stupid.

If you’d learned to use mirrors, you’d know that you’re always checking mirrors, cycling through them one after another, and even when you’re not looking at them, you’re still using your peripheral vision to note movement or changes happening in them. Doing that, there are no void areas. No children are going to be able to sneak up on you so you smush them when you back up. I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it’s easy to keep it updated. I don’t need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that.

FWIW, I’ve never bent a fender or bumper hitting anyone, and the only scratches on my vehicles have come from assholes keying the paint (I don’t worry about it).

I’ll just put you down as the average java programmer who thinks the jvm is everything you need to care about, and deal with your broken hardware when you call me to tell me it’s “acting up” and you’ve not a clue what could possibly be wrong.

“Here’s a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a better computer.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Oh boy do I get to hear a lot from people like you.

The ‘Its easy/routine for me’ crowd. You are perfect, so how dare everyone else not be on your level.

You talk arrogantly about your own skill, knowledge, ability and more, then chastise others for not having the same.

Nevermind that the world is made up of more people than you. Nevermind that different people face difficulty in different areas than you. Nevermind that some people may need some help determining whether or not their bumper is against the curb several feet behind them.

The solution to the world is to get on your level, not offer assistance to those who may have difficulties you do not.

The solution to the world is to simply trudge on with what we already have, not try to offer advancements or improvements. It works perfectly well for you right?

Thats all that matters. Anyone who can’t just isn’t enough of a person/adult/competent individual. Better just give up and live with the fact that you don’t diserve assistance because ‘other people manage just fine’.

People like you who give other people an inferiority complex to match your own bloated ego.

Does it feel good? Grandstanding above people?

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“If you’d learned to use mirrors, you’d know that you’re always checking mirrors, cycling through them one after another, and even when you’re not looking at them, you’re still using your peripheral vision to note movement or changes happening in them. Doing that, there are no void areas.”

This is a patently false statement. There are areas behind you car that are not in the mirrors’ field of view. This is a simple fact, not a judgement or opinion. Every car has them, some worse than others.

“I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it’s easy to keep it updated.”

What’s that got to do with reversing cameras. Nobody is talking about the use of mirrors in traffic.

“I don’t need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that.”

First, nobody does because they don’t cost anywhere near that. Second, nobody said anything about replacing mirrors. Cameras augment mirrors by showing more than mirrors can see. Your argument is obviously weak if you need to exaggerate costs and misstate the opposing argument.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Try spotting the toddler, or family pet close behind any vehicle using mirrors only …

You guys are completely missing the point. My argument in two words is “situation awareness.” I’m not Batman leaping into my car, slamming it into gear, and burning rubber with a “Hi-yo Silver, away!”

I walk around my car with my eyes open checking out the scenery and everything that’s happening in the vicinity. Once in the car, I can update that by checking the mirrors.

No toddler is going to have a chance to sneak up on me where he’ll get smushed because I didn’t know he was there.

“Void areas” are irrelevant if you already know what’s in them, or possibly can get in them. If I see any potential victims in the area via this procedure, I make sure I know where they are and stay where I am until I do.

This is not rocket science. You people are insisting that your expensive high-tech solution is necessary to solve the problem when it isn’t. Technology can solve many problems. There are many problems that shouldn’t be solved with technology for various reasons.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

In areas like shopping centre car parks, and trying to reverse into, or out of a parking place, you have to worry about you void areas, and any void areas created by the vehicles close to you. Look one side, and someone can get behind you from the other side in the short time you are not looking at their approach. A wide angle camera on the bumper allows you to watch both sides in situations where you cannot always see people approaching.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“There are no void areas if you do special trick XYZ” is simply not true. Try placing a traffic cone (which is approximately the size of a toddler) directly behind the center of your rear bumper, then get in the car and see how far forward you have to drive before you can see it in any way. You might be surprised. I know I was when we did that in driver’s ed.

No children are going to be able to sneak up on you so you smush them when you back up.

I’m sure that’s a huge relief to the hundreds of small children every year who are hit by cars backing up, not to mention the drivers who never saw them. They don’t have to worry about it anymore, because it simply can’t happen.

I don’t need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that.

Neither did I. My entire car cost significantly less than $40K, brand new. So now you’re just being silly.

FWIW, I’ve never bent a fender or bumper hitting anyone,

…and neither has anyone else, right up until they do. And then they have hit someone.

I’ll just put you down as the average java programmer who thinks the jvm is everything you need to care about, and deal with your broken hardware when you call me to tell me it’s “acting up” and you’ve not a clue what could possibly be wrong.

Based on what?

I have just barely enough experience with the JVM to know I don’t want any more experience with it; it’s too broken in too many ways, particularly generics. As a matter of fact, I’m working with a few engineers on porting Microsoft’s open-sourced CLR implementation to Android so people won’t have to use Java or C++ or pay through the nose for Xamarin there, all of which are bad options to one degree or another. I work on native code for a living, I hack around in compilers for fun, and when hardware breaks that I can’t fix, I replace it.

But what does any of that have to do with driver safety in any way?

Do you even movie? says:

Re: Re: Re:

Less so than the couple chatting away beside me, the screaming kid kicking my seat behind me, the couple loudly making out two rows forward, that asshole not paying attention to the movie and demanding his friends re-explain every second scene, the people getting up and down every 20 minutes for concessions and of course the 1 year old a pair of irresponsible parents decided to take into the theater who won’t stop screaming because the loud noises are probably causing early deafness.

I rarely see people actually ‘talk’ on the phone during the movie, and the few that do leave the theater because they can’t hear the person over the movie. Most of the time it’s people texting, checking things on facebook, and you know what? I’ll take them over the rest of the disruptive crowd.

The people on cell phones are probably the LEAST distracting people in the gorram theater!

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Precisely. Unlike some people in here who make a big deal of proclaiming their undying hatred for the film industry and swearing up and down that they’ll never watch another mainstream movie again whenever any article about the MPAA’s misdeeds gets posted, I actually enjoy going to the movies. I have for years, for longer than smartphones have been a thing, and I’ve never once actually seen the mythical “disruptive cellphone yakker” that everyone loves to wring their hands about. That sort of thing could almost lead one to believe that he doesn’t exist. A very few times, I’ve noticed someone texting during a movie, but… so what? How does that interfere with my viewing experience? The screen is up and he’s holding his phone down, so it’s I’m not even looking at it. Why should I even care?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

To be honest, I’m not terribly fond of going to the theater. in addition to having to contest with all of the above, I have to deal with being crammed between people I don’t know in relatively uncomfortable seats, bullied with overpriced concessions should I heaven forbid feel thirsty or hungry during the experience, standing in long lines to pay for the right to sit with a bunch of people who are probably going to be obnoxious during the movie, having to work my schedule around major showings that will probably be more crowded than most because those are the times ‘EVERYONE’ has off to do exactly what I’m doing, and as we see here… heaven forbid the movie winds up boring me, it isn’t even socially acceptable to hazard a glance at my phone while I wait for the action to pick up.

Honestly, I see theaters as a trade off. They offer a pricey, crowded, loud, obnoxious experience. In exchange, I get to see something sooner rather than later, without having to put up with crap quality screencams.

Theaters have long stopped being the ‘premium experience’ they think they are, at least for me. They are simply a way to deal with my own impatience. OCCASIONALLY… there is a movie I so badly want to support that I will go out of my way to go to a theater, but these are few and far between.

The rest are usually tagging along with friends to get out of the house once in a while.

Still doesn’t beat watching movies on a digital projector in my garage with a cheap surround sound setup, but if I don’t want to be a thief, I apparently have to deal with a shitty experience.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, you go to some really shitty theaters.

The one I patronize doesn’t allow babies at all. For movies of any rating. If you’re too young to understand language, you’re too young to be in a movie theater.

They’re also very good about policing people who talk or otherwise disrupt the movie. They “profile” customers and if, for example, a huge gaggle of loud and chatty teen girls shows up for movie, they’ll pop in occasionally during the film to make sure they’re not f’ing it up for everyone else, either by talking amongst themselves, or using their phones.

That theater is all about maximizing the customer’s experience, and for that reason it gets all my business.

Aaron Wolf (profile) says:

Re: Learn some history rather than speculating

For example: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

Your post can literally be read as “Remember X from history? I don’t, because I wasn’t alive then. We can and should ignore all history and any lessons it offers and instead judge everything only by personal experience.”

The truth is that there were complaints about cars and they were correct and cars have had hugely negative impacts on society in all sorts of disruptive ways, mostly enabling the break-down of human-centered urban planning etc

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Take them out of the sock

Why be obedient to someone else telling you what to do.

Or, just don’t go if you’re not welcomed, which you aren’t with your cell phone.

“Problem” solved.

Problem created. You’re in the company of thousands of others who’ve paid their hard earned bucks for the best entertainment experience Chappelle can offer you, and you think it’s okay to interrupt everyone else’s enjoyment of it? Fuck you, asshole. Stay home, or find something else to do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Are they making sure that people turn their phones off first? Otherwise a great prank for a few friends to play would be to go to one of these performances with their cellphone ringers on maximum, and have an outside friend call them during the performance. Turning a phone’s ringer off will be impossible as it’ll be inside one of these sleeves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Another prank to play is: stick a conductive pressure film over the front of your phone. Stick it in the sock. Then swipe to unlock, use the phone, etc while still in its cozy.

Personally, I think he got it almost right: what he really needed to do was give out socks with a simple (but noisy) release switch. Label the outside of the sock with “This venue kindly requests that you keep your phone stowed while present” printed on it.

I think that this in itself should apply the social pressure needed in this situation, while flagging phone jerks as such. Maybe make it shout “I’m the center of the universe!” whenever it is opened — and make that part of a running gag in the performance so that everyone else gets a laugh at the expense of whoever decides they just must get their phone out.

And it would make for a nifty souvenir, too 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

I remember the fun we had when “A” list music performer management decide to 100% ban all cameras including phones with cameras form the arena, (Capacity apox: 15,000)with out tell the audience or the arena management till 2 hours before door opening, had to keep a reclaim desk open till about 01:00 am and open again at 07:00 the next day. lot of angry people directing the anger at the arena staff.

Anonymous Coward says:

I find it hard to be outraged about this. It’s completely voluntary and designed to deter, not completely prevent recording. The value of that is debatable, but what people do in a private venue is not really any of my business.

>It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue

Nope, only those who opted in.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Effectively it’s a pouch that attendees of an event are forced to put their devices in if they want to enter the performance”

Notice the word FORCED

The only way it is “voluntary” is if you can get a full refund of your ticket including any service charges if you decide not to hand over your phone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket to Dave’s show.

They are forcing you to submit to arbitrary and frankly obnoxious rules without warning after you’ve bought the ticket, which is likely to leave you painfully aware of just how many distractions are more obnoxious than someone trying to snap a pic or check twitter.

If the experience is really so important to them, why are they only bothering with one form of obnoxious distraction?

Obnoxious people are going to be obnoxious with or without their cell phones. Considerate people are going to be considerate with or without their cell phones. Removing a piece of technology does not suddenly, magically make people well behaved.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re:

Being the person who cut it open with a pocket knife after they enter the performance.

Do they take everyone’s name when they put the cell phone in the bag? Is each bag registered to a specific person?

If not, what’s to stop someone from just walking out and saying that they didn’t have a phone with them? Will people be searched as they leave?

tqk (profile) says:

Cell phone signal blocking.

It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, which is why the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking …

Speaking just for myself, that seems quite the heavy-handed response. How many mass shootings have you experienced in person lately? I’ve never been anywhere near one, nor do I know anyone who has. I’m suspicious that the cell phone industry “regulatory captured” the FCC into forcing that ban as it might otherwise interfere with their profits.

If I were an entertainer like Chappelle, I’d find a way to get my hands on a Stingray which overpowers other cellphone towers, then lock the Stingray down to not provide outside connectivity. I’d also upfront warn all invitees I’d be doing this. If you don’t like it, you’re not welcome. Many other fans very much do resent your cell phones interrupting performances. If you can’t be bothered to keep your dog on a leash, it’s not welcome and neither are you. Substitute “squalling babies”, “drunken boyfriends” or whatever you prefer for “dog.”

M. Alan Thomas II (profile) says:

Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

I agree; the use of mass shootings to push a point on cell phones at concerts seems contrary to the usual ethos around here. If the logic were more persuasive, that would be a different matter, but here it feels like an off-hand shout-out to tragedy to garner emotional support for a mostly-unrelated gripe.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

How many mass shootings have you experienced in person lately? I’ve never been anywhere near one, nor do I know anyone who has.

My family moved to Marysville, Washington after I graduated. My brother was a student at the high school there. Luckily, he wasn’t injured, but… yeah. Don’t think “this will never effect me.” I never thought it would effect me either, until I saw the name “Marysville Pilchuck High School” in the news one day while on lunch break.

Concerned Citizen says:

Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

While I wouldn’t visit your venues, I very much respect you taking care to make people aware of this up front.

As you hinted at though… what is it helping?

If the goal is to cut down on ‘distractions’ during the show… Cell phone use tends to be the LEAST distracting part of public shows in my experience. Squalling babies, drunken boyfriends, obnoxious fans squealing all around you, people shouting to their SO’s about how much they’re loving/hating the show, are cell phones REALLY worse than all of these? Should we start to look into solutions for these things to? Or should we accept it all as part of going to a PUBLIC venue for a PUBLIC show?

If the goal is to cut down on recordings of the show, maybe the entertainer should think about why people would take a shit quality video with scratchy audio surrounded by squealing fans causing neighborhood dogs to hide under the covers over going to the show live and.. I dunno… offer a good quality, professionally sound edited video of the own show to offset that?

Cause I know when I consider going to a live show, I’m not going in thinking ‘I’m going to surround myself with quiet, respectful, attentive individuals’. I go in thinking ‘Well, Better pack earplugs so I can actually pay attention to the performer over the constant murmur and obnoxious behavior of some of the other patrons.’

Anon says:

Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

The problem is it affects everything, not just mass shootings. What’s the limit? Some restaurants would like to use jammers. So would movie theatres. How many of those multiplex theatres have live attendants present all through the show? The whole point of those theatres is one projectionist – one ticket taker for 10 theatres. Someone’s choking in a restaurant or having a heart attack in a theatre and you have to abandon them and run 50 feet out in the street to escape the jammer or stingray?

the whole point and value of a cellphone is – they work everywhere, not in a few select locations excluding where someone wants to protect their jokes or simply is annoyed with loud one-sided conversations. A swiss-cheese cellphone coverage is annoying when the phone company does it. We don’t need every Tom, Harry, or some Dick deciding this is a dead zone too.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Cell phone signal blocking.

First. he’s not doing anything to your phone or altering your property in any way. He’s just constructing his building in such away that electromagnetic radiation doesn’t pass through the walls.

And second, you’re on his property. He should get to set the rules for access to his property. If you want your phone to work, you’re free to go elsewhere. No one’s holding you captive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

As I said before, not a perfect solution. People will sneak phones in as Karl has mentioned. The people coming to record the show will still figure a way to record the show. Shielding the room would at least prevent people from texting, taking/making calls, and posting pictures/videos till after the concert. If you try implementing an active solution it will never be 100%, if you can come up with a passive solution, it will cheaper in the long run and a much higher success rate.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

So the performer should record the show themselves and market the experience at a low cost. The show itself is happening whether the performer, or anyone else for that matter, records it or not. Offering a low cost, high quality experience for those unwilling or unable to attend the live show makes people recording the show a non-issue, because you are now monetizing the market of internet audiences still willing to pay, but unwilling to pay that much/deal with an obnoxious public venue.

I really don’t get the draw of live events myself. The experience is measurably worse in every way (sound quality, nearby distractions, crowded venues, long times spent forced to sit and do nothing but watch, regardless of biological needs, more expensive, visibility)

I don’t get why people will spend over $100 to sit far far away from a performer and try to listen to ear grating acoustics bouncing off every murmuring fan in the place.

Anonymous Coward says:

This sucks!

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to turn their smartphone off. I work for a hospital, needless to say I’m on call 24/7. The absolute best I can do is set to vibrate and ultra dim. I’ve been forced to leave $100 shows ten minutes in.

Now if I want to see a show I’ll have to keister my smartphone. Do you think I want to hear how they get stuff into prison while being violated by Apple?

Concerned Citizen says:

I really like Dave Chappelle’s comedy. I was actually considering going to a show of his after the new year, once Christmas was out of the way.

Oh well.

You guys can call me an inconsiderate asshole, a distracting jerkwad or whatever else you like, but if I pay someone good money, and they turn around and treat me like a toddler who needs his toys taken away before class, then I’d demand my money back.

Yeah, I use my smartphone before the show starts. Yes, sometimes I check updates during the performance (Screen brightness set to min/sound off). Perhaps I want to forge fond memories of a live show I shelled out for. If you can’t handle being distracted in a public venue at a live event, go home and buy the DVD.

I hate to break it to you, but I’d rather every person there be distracted on their smart phones then have to listen to people talk, debate or argue during the show. I have to deal with distracting assholes EVERY time I go to a public event. I had to deal with this before cell phones were prominent, and I’m gonna have to keep dealing with it until venues start insisting on locking gag and straight jacket combos.

Dealing with other people is part of being in a PUBLIC venue. If other people are bugging you, guess what? Maybe you should just stick to watching stuff at home.

Anonymous Coward says:

"Blocking"

It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking

They haven’t. They ban jamming, but blocking (e.g. with attenuating paint) is fine.

And I agree with the other poster that we don’t need this fear-mongering. You say we’re in an “age of…mass shootings”, but statistics say this is one of the safest times in recorded history. Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there’s a real emergency. Once that’s done there’s little benefit for other people to use their phones.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: "Blocking"

Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there’s a real
> emergency.

No kidding. And honestly, if you’re in an active shooter situation and you’re actually in danger (as opposed to someone outside who is just hearing the gun fire), then the absolute last thing you should be fucking around with is your goddam cell phone. You either need to be evacuating most riki tik, or, if you’re trapped inside, deciding the optimal way to counter-attack the shooter.

tracyanne (profile) says:

From the ars article about the yondr sock

“Clearly the impetus was there, even 40 years ago, to smuggle a (bulky, non-disposable) camera in and get a picture of your favorite band. But maybe by making it a little harder to do, we’ll be forced to simply enjoy the music more than we have in the past half-century.”

No the yondr sock won’t make the experience better. I ‘smuggled’ cameras into live shows in the hopes that i could take away memories of an experience I was really enjoying. When I wasn’t enjoying it I didn’t bother recording the experience.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...