New Cell Phone Restrictions in NYC
Overriding Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto, the [New York] City Council voted 38-5 on Wednesday to ban the use of cell phones at public performances. Talking on a cell phone, dialing, listening or even having one ring during a performance will constitute a violation punishable by a $50 fine.
The law covers concerts, movies, plays, lectures, dance performances, museums, libraries and galleries. Cell phone use would still be permitted at sporting events and in emergencies, and people would still be allowed to speak on phones in lobbies and during intermissions.
Wired News, 12 Feb 2003
This is bad law for two reasons. The primary reason is that it infringes on the rights of private property owners. Want to ban cell phones in city-owned performance halls? Fine, but applying the law to privately owned facilities is inappropriate, particularly considering the types of facilities included.
I am well aware of the problems caused by inconsiderate cell phone users. Here in Hong Kong, people regularly take and place calls while in the movie theatre, despite clear notification (signage and otherwise) that cell phone use in the theatre is not permitted, plus glares and comments from annoyed patrons such as myself. I have even witnessed someone answering a call here during a symphony performance! Personally, I would prefer if the ushers aggresively prohibited patrons from using cell phones during performances - after the first time someone was ejected from the theatre, I bet they would change their behavior. However, ultimately this is a matter for market forces. Should enough customers get annoyed by the inconsiderate use of cell phones, an enterprising theatre owner will gain an advantage by marketing stricter enforcement. On the other hand, if many customers see value in taking and receiving calls while watching the movie, then enforcement will remain limited. After all, I can always watch a DVD at home, or pay a bit more to watch a movie at the quiet 30-seat 'luxury' theatre.
As the Wired article notes, art galleries are among the facilities where cell phone use has been outlawed. An art gallery is a commercial establishment with a goal of selling paintings. The gallery owner may feel that allowing potential customers to place and receive calls will increase sales, and in fact there are obvious reasons why someone considering the purchase of an expensive piece of art might need to place a call or two before making a final decision.
The second reason why this is bad law is its specificity in an age of rapid technological change. The law prohibits not just speaking and ringing, but also listening and dialing - activities that are unlikely to disturb anyone else. Dialing, in particular, would appear at first glance to include sending an SMS or email. It's hard to see how using a cell phone to send a text message would disturb other patrons, particuarly in environments such as museums and libraries.
As technology continues to move forward, users will have more options that enable them to communicate when necessary in a more convenient and less obtrusive manner. The phone will become an intelligent wireless network device used for both voice and data, and will automatically present new communications as appropriate for the user's environment. At the same time, technology will allow venue owners and managers to have greater (and also less obstrusive) control over the use of cell phones and other devices on their premises. The technology exists today to block cell phone signals in a concert hall or theatre, and tomorrow's technology will enable the venue to automatically communicate with each device to specify permitted use - for example, vibrate ring only, no placing or answering of voice calls in the actual theatre, etc.
Bloomberg built his fortune by capitalizating on the advance of technology, and rightfully vetoed this law as unnecessary and unenforceable. A better law would at least refer more generally to 'disruptive behavior' and leave the specifics to enforcement - but then you've also outlawed the crinkley bag of candy. Rude, yes. But illegal?
Posted by Stephen Bronstein at February 16, 2003 08:19 PM