Comments on: Scammer Yammer-Jammers to Slammer?

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:16:01 +0000

I agree with bill – but of course all kinds of governments are populated with people who know how to run busineses better than the business owners. we call it a public sevice.

By: bill

bill — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:48:16 +0000

The FCC’s heavy regulatory hand is preventing Coaseian bargaining and market sorting here. If it’s economically worthwhile to eat in a restaurant where customers and servers are not using their cell phones, such a restaurant should be able to implement the policy.

My understanding is that there were no-smoking eating and drinking establishments before the smoking bans (think Starbucks), along with ones that allowed smoking (almost every bar).

By creating the entitlement on behalf of the Yellulars /and/ preventing private property owners from disabling cell phones on their premises, the FCC is by definition creating an inefficient result.

By: dave hoffman

dave hoffman — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:27:30 +0000

Did you catch Verizon’s economic argument?

““It’s counterintuitive that when the demand is clear and strong from wireless consumers for improved cell coverage, that these kinds of devices are finding a market,” said Jeffrey Nelson, a Verizon spokesman.”

By: Kevin Guidry

Kevin Guidry — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:58:10 +0000

Make your entire business into a Faraday cage? Good question. Courtesy (and perhaps law) would dictate that you should prominently warn your customers as some *have* to be in touch with the outside world. I'm sure there have been many people that have elevated the tin foil hat to a tin foil room or building.

By: Lead Underwear

Lead Underwear — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:24:55 +0000

I suppose it is illegal to transmit an interfering signal without an FCC license … but there’s nothing to prevent the owner of a restaurant from shielding the interior from cell signals, is there?

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:52:31 +0000

I don’t question the FCC’s jurisdiction here. I just question whether they *should* be exercising that power in the way they are here. Perhaps they need to be balanced by a Federal Silence Commission.

By: Kevin Guidry

Kevin Guidry — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:28:57 +0000

I don’t see how this is at all a complicated (legal) issue as the FCC has sole jurisdiction over the airwaves. If a restaurant owner wanted to simply kick out customers who were talking on their phones that would be one thing. But to jam the airwaves is completely different and I don’t see much (legal) similarity between the two situations.