Insight Community

Here in Japan, talking on the phone on trains is frowned upon to the extent that people shut off their phones when entering. All phones have "manner mode", which at the press of a button turns off the ring signal. And yet, despite the ingrained politeness of the Japanese, people will talk on trains. There are even those who talk loudly. No amount of frowning from the people around them will help, nor posters and signs from the train companies. So, even in the most polite and phone-educated country in the world, this is a problem.  But of course, the education has helped steering people away from the unpolite behavior.

However, there are no technical means that will help. There are devices which will interfere with the phone signal, in essence pretending to be a base station while not being one. The problem with that is that it disables emergency calls. In theory, you could implement something which switched phones to "manner mode" when they were in a location where calling was not allowed (since the operator always knows where the phones are). But nobody has suggested this either as a product or a standard, evne though it would not be particularly difficult. Perhaps beacuse the ones who would have to pay for it would be the cinema owners, restaurateurs, and so on - and if they tried to pass the cost to customers, they would go elsewhere.

The etiquette rules already exist, and you already see "no phone" signs here and there (well, maybe you do not have them in the US, but they are very common both in Japan and Europe). The rule, however, is not very difficult for a well-mannered person to understand: Do not disturb your neighbours. The issue may be that people do not have manners any more, but there is no easy solution for that.

The cost for the service is higher than users want to pay. So people like to complain, but they do not want to pay (and they are not sufficiently irritated to knock the offender on the shoulder and ask them to shut up either, as a rule). Anywhere in the world.

Hope this helps

//Johan

Although it's tempting to go all hi-tech and think of screening systems, for example, that would block cell phone signals, or subvocal mikes, neither are ideal. Screening systems would also prevent texts and data coming in - without at least these methods of keeping in touch I, for one, would resist eating in a particular restaurant or visiting that theatre.

Special mikes on hands-free kits are better but aren't really mass market and don't solve the problem, which is that the reception of a call interrupts the social life of you and those around you - your eating partners or viewing partners, as the case may be. Basically, a call is still interrupting something in which you'd rather not get interrupted.

Think of a library. From childhood, every single human being is rightly told that libraries are silent places and you're not supposed to do anything loud, let alone the heinous crime of letting a cell phone ring. We don't have a problem remembering this, since it's so ingrained.

What's needed is simply education, by way of signs at entrances and reminders as appropriate, that cell phone calls are frowned upon in the establishment: "Please turn your phone off in this theatre" or "Please set your phone to silent in this restaurant".

Eventually it will stick.

It would be ideal if everyone lived by the Golden Rule and considered the effects of their behavior on those around them. Unfortunately, this is not reality and it never will be. So if we can't expect everyone around us to comply, restrictive measures are necessary to maintain appropriate behavior with regards to the use of mobile technology in public settings.

Any establishment -- whether it is a restaurant, a bookstore, a theater, etc. -- should have the choice of whether or not to allow mobile phone usage by creating 'dead zones' in which wireless reception is unavailable. Short of building a lead box around the building, there should be a way to electronically prevent wireless communication in designated zones. One method might be to electronically scramble the appropriate airwave spectrum. The ability to specify the range of dead zones would allow a theater, for example, to prevent wireless communication in screening rooms while allowing it in the theater lobby. This would effectively force movie-goers to do the right thing by leaving the screening room to use mobile devices for calls, email, SMS, or any other activity that requires wireless communication.

Subvocal microphone technology is still in its infancy and not nearly ready for practical application. Software that sends calls to voicemail when the party trying to be reached is in transit has very little value since there is no regard for whether the person in transit is a driver or a passenger. For those who don't want to take calls while driving: don't.

There are many opportunities for people to be rude and obnoxious.  Cell phones may be the most obvious one now, and some say it's dangerous to even use one while walking or driving.  I feel the same way about preventing loud talkers as I do about car talkers.  You should not make a law or create a technology to curb one type of offense.  People will either find a way around it or just do something else that is just as dangerous or obnoxious.  We need to explore the reasons cell phones would be banned.

Health and Safety Reasons
If the place banning cell phones is concerned about interference with electronic devices that would risk the health or safety of others, it seems reasonable to ban them.  If the theater, restaurant, or classroom has people with pacemakers for example, I find it reasonable to ban them.

Cheating in school
I also feel it could be reasonable for teachers to ban cell phones if they find it facilitates cheating in some fashion, either by using web browsers to look up answers, or by using built-in chat functions to share answers.  However, the act of cheating by any means should be what is banned, not necessarily every possible device used to perform it.

The cameras invade privacy
Banning cell phones because they have built-in cameras on them that people are using for the wrong reasons is not a good reason to ban them.  There are spy cameras that are so small and built into pens that they could go undetected.  Instead the act of taking photos in banned areas, filming theaters, or taking nasty photos should be illegal or banned.

Cell phones are a noisy disruption
A person can be a disruption without electronic devices just as easy.  Cell phones should not be banend due to them being a disruption.  Instead some common-sense rules should be applied to limit any disruption.  Again, the act of a disruption should be banned, not the means used to perform it.  If yelling in a theater, you should be ejected just the same as if you are yelling on a cell phone or if it rings audibly more than once or after you are asked to put it in silent mode.

In summary, cell phones should not be banned in restaurants, theaters, or classrooms for the reason of being a disruption or invasion of privacy.  The act should be illegal or banned, not the means used.

As noted, many people don't like cell phone talkers. For several reasons, people tend to talk louder when using cell phones than when using regular phones. Banning cell phones is the most extreme way of solving the problem. As I see it, there are a couple of ways to remedy the situation.

One way is with technology. The microphones in mobile phones are sometimes not the best quality, leading people to talk louder (conciously or unconciously) in order to make themselves heard. However, one of the features that landline phones have and few, if any, cell phones have is the user can hear himself in the receiver. This helps control his volume because he can be sure his voice is being received.

Another way is with regulations. The most drastic measure is banning phones from certain areas. The problem with that is that people will always smuggle phones in, especially as they get smaller and smaller. To counteract this, I suspect many places will start searching people as they enter, which will just upset a lot of people. Some movie theaters do this already to stop camcorders from filming the movie.

However, regulations can simply add heavy fines to mobile phone violators, such as people who drive while using them. Again, this won't discourage many people, who will simply put up a fight when confronted; speeding is illegal yet people do it all the time.

An alternative to adding regulations is to simply ease regulations, i.e. have the FCC relax the ban on radio jammers. Originally created to ensure vital services (police, fire, medical, etc.) are able to send and receive radio transmissions, these regulations make it illegal for most people to own and use cell phone jammers, including businesses. If people could carry around personal jammers, they could create "quiet zones" around them. Businesses could install jammers inside their buildings to simply prevent people from using cell phones inside.

The problem with that is controlling the range of the jamming signal; there would likely be some bleeding into the exterior area. However, businesses could simply post a notice that jamming is being used and have a designated cell phone area, much like designated smoking areas. Personal jammers are more problematic, but personally I think if more people had them, people would simply learn to use their cell phones in a "nicer" manner.

An alternative to active jammers is to create a Faraday cage-effect within buildings. This would block radio signals without violating current regulations, because the signals are simply being blocked, not jammed. Buildings may or may not be required to post notices that they have Faraday cages; most people would simply assume that they can't get a signal inside, much as they do now. Refitting current structures to have this effect can be relatively cheap; paint and paneling is available with embedded metal that reduces/eliminates radio signals.

Finally, and probably the least effective method, is to simply rely on people to "do the right thing". Education and conditioning are usually considered the best way to stop bad behaviour but not everyone responds the same way. Some people rebel against such actions, simply on principle. Some people are set in their ways and refuse to change. Some people are simply untrainable.

Mobile phone technology has been around for more than 30 years. Other cultures have created social norms for good cell phone behaviour. For example, it's bad etiquette to use a cell phone in many places in Japan, such as on trains. In those situations, people either use SMS or simply cover their mouths to minimize the noise they create.

Americans still seem to think that cell phones are status symbols and many have the attitude that they must show their status by "flashing the phone". American society is based on individualism, which cell phones play into. Americans also tend to be very self-centered, comparatively, so they often don't care about people around them.

Trying to change the social norms regarding cell phones is the least likely to work. At a minimum, I think it would take a generation or two to have a significant effect.

Years ago when I got my first cellphone, I was one of the first to get one (I am an early adopter). I mainly used it to make money - I was a flexworker then (and still am today) and agencies would call me daily to see at what time I was available to do some work for them. Back then it was a head turner to receive a phonecall, but when cellphones started to become mainstream, that changed. But not for everyone, I think.

By now, we understand that in certain environments or circumstances, picking up your cellphone is simply not done. And, we have other options as to not disturb other people while still carrying a cellphone, such as vibrating and turning the sound of, or even the whole thing. 

A lot of people still use their cellphones where they shouldn't, but banning them won't work. We all carry one, and we should know when to switch it off, or at least to silent mode. If they don't, well, I guess either we tell them or they are asked to leave the event.

If cellphone etiquette rules can't be followed in situations where discretion in their use is clearly called for by society, then rather than ban cellphones, cellphone abusers should be banned.  There are two important situations that should be considered to determine how I arrived at this conclusion:

1.  The well-behaved theater

In a well-behaved movie theater, there are no problems from cellphones interrupting the movie, despite the fact that many people have cellphones and use them before or after the movie.  In these cases, it can seem to those moviegoers that a ban on cellphones is unnecessary.  This same principle applies to the restaurant or classroom where phone priveleges are not being abused.

2.  The ill-behaved theater

It only takes one visit to an ill-behaved movie screening, however, to change what I imagine is everyone else's mind along with my own about how cellphone usage should be restricted in such an environment.  Without an outright ban and the authority to remove abusing patrons, the moviegoing experience can be ruined for everyone in attendance.  Furthermore, what is supposed to be a nice dinner can be disrupted, and worst of all, the academic integrity of a classroom can be violated via copying answers texted from a cellphone.

"Letting people know when it's not appropriate to use phones" works just fine as it is for situation #1 above.  Those people already know not to interrupt a show, dinner, or classroom with their phone use.  However, that edict does not apply to people in situation #2.  Why not?  Because they don't care, that's why they're using their phone in a theater in the first place.  In fact, they may be deliberately trying to ruin the experience for others as a form of social schadenfreude.  

Because there are people who simply don't care about any sort of passive ban, there must be an active ban that allows businessowners to remove impolite parties (potentially permanently) at their discretion.  These rules would be endorsed by any sensible patron of the establishment, and will only be fought against by those who truly wish to abuse their priveleges and cause problems for everyone. 

There can be situations where using a cellphone is absolutely required, and so the phone itself should not be interrupted -- just make it so that the administration has the right (and uses it frequently) to make a judgement call and remove troublemakers. 

If you disagree with this position, ask yourself: have you simply never t been interrupted bad enough by a cellphone in such a situation, or perhaps are you the one doing the interrupting?

Since the widespread adoption of cell phones, there have been those who use them  appropriately and those who do not.

Most people would agree that it is rude to talk loudly on a cell phone in a public place, especially about personal issues such as vascetomy, bodily functions, relationships/ sex etc.  However, if people actually acted consistent with their answers we'd rarely have to deal with the details of strangers' lives while we're trying to get a cup of coffee.  Many of use would believe that our call is that exception and are likely unaware of how loud we're actually being. 

The semi-serious Society for Hand Held Hushing (aka SHHH) has created cards which you can give out to the worst offenders.  Some cards are more gentle than others:

"Dear cell phone user, We are aware that your ongoing conversation about ____ is very important to you, but we thought you’d like to know that it doesn’t interest us in the least. In fact, your babbling disregard for others is more than a little annoying."

Whether it's signs at the movie theater or in a waiting room, people tuting, reminder cards, there are always going to be people who ignore this.  England just got its first truely "quiet" train carriage.  According to the Daily Mail,  train cars in which passengers voluntarily comply with a restriction on cell phones and MP3 players had been tried, but did not work.  It is a train car where a film on the car prevents cell phone reception, allowing riders to enjoy a ride free of cell phone abusers. That is, unless they're walking through saying "Hello?  Hello?  Can you hear me?  Where did you go?" 

For the majority of places which we go, voluntary compliance is the best we can hope for.  Cheer the musicians who strongly encourage it, give out cards if you're brave enough, and hang up and talk to the person you're with.  That way I won't have to worry about how your vascetctomy/ date/ job interview/ grandmother/ rodent.

Talking on a cell phone, certainly. It is very disruptive and rude. Text messaging, NO! It is disruptive, but there are many people who need to "stay in touch" (a doctor on call, an attorney who must be in constant touch with a client, etc.), and the disruptiveness is minimal.

I would also make an exception to people who set their phone on "vibrate only" and check for voicemail (not answer directly, or talk on the phone) so they can excuse themselves and go to a more private location to review the voicemail and answer it. This exception would cover cases such as, waiting for a critical phone call from a relative who does not text, checking for messages from people you don't want texting you (after all, text messages are an additional charge on most cell phones), etc.

Eventually cell phones will provide text messages for voicemail (such as computers provide with many IP phones), and the voicemails will be text, but for now, texting is not always feasible.

    Cell phone use in public places has become the norm. To the point where we have all seen someone talking on the phone in line to check out. I am not a big believer in putting bans in to law. There are just too many issues with using law to fix this.

    One of the best ways I think to get people to understand that they are talking too loud on the phone would be to have the same kind of vocal feedback in the ear piece as we have in the land line phone. Making it louder than the actual volume they are using and people will tend to talk softer.

    I also think that the owners and managers of different buisinesses should enforce a cell phone policy. Only allowing cell phone use at a low volume or not at all.

In today's world, Cellphones have become a necessity part of human life. Inspite of knowing the harmful effects caused by cellphones to the human,still people use it. We need not ban the usage of cellphones at colleges or any other public places. It is the minimum basic common sense for any human to not distrurb the surroundings. 

There is another method to stop the usage of mobiles at these public places. With the help of technology, the signals can be barred.There is a software " DriveAssistT" developed by a (Aegis Mobility) Canadian Software company, which avoids users to use mobiles during driving. So, similar type of software can be used in the mobiles to avoid usage of mobile phones in the public places. All these softwares and technology will not have a major impact, unless the user can realise the situation and behave accordingly.

Finally,I conclude that Cellphones should be banned at educational institutions. Similarly to avoid disturbances at public places, signals can be barred with the help of technology.

The non-Solutions

Despite the technological appeal of a sub-vocal microphone or bluetooth headsets that pick up on very low volume conversations, I don't think the problem of obnoxious talkers is best solved technologically.   It's a behavior challenge and needs behavior solutions.   We already have an excellent "zero volume" communication solution in the form of text messaging and email via mobile device, and this appears to be making progress as the mode of choice in public spaces, but we still face the challenges from annoying talkers who would likely not deploy better technologies even if they were available.   Expecting change from them, or simply expecting others to police the use with social pressure is not realistic.

The Solution:

To avoid the problems that come from obnoxious folks taking over a space simply because less obnoxious folks do not want to conftront the annoying behavior of others, I'd suggest that cell phone protocol should generally be defined by the owner of the space using signage or announcements.   These signage and announcements will combine with the normal social pressures to prevent problems in most cases.

For example theaters now often show one of several elaborate shorts featuring Francis Coppola and other stars making fun of  the idea that some obnoxious folks continue to use phones in the theater.  This type of 'official' announcement can combine with normal social pressures to keep obnoxious phone use to a minimum.    Obviously most places don't have this budget or a bevy of stars handy to make a trailer, but everybody can print up a simple sign or make an announcement instructing people about the cellular rules while in their territory.   

Our local community theater simply announces the rules up front both as a reminder and a "threat" to those who'd interfere with the performance.

Mobile phone use is inappropriate in the classroom, and middle and high schools should have a very clear policy forbidding their use except in cases of emergency. With texting, Web access, games and music on tap, mobile phones are a distraction to students and should be prohibited during class time.

I do think limited mobile phone use is acceptable in restaurants. In particular, there are potential safety issues involved, such as an emergency phone call from a baby sitter to parents who are dining out.

I believe etiquette rules already exist regarding mobile phone use in public. Long or or overly loud phone conversations are frowned on, and people know it's rude to spend more time on the phone than talking to the people you're having dinner with.

Of course, the world is full of rude people who ignore convention. I don't think we need to resort to technological solutions to deal with rudeness, because those solutions would also surpress reasonable use. Instead, we should be able to say to our companions "Get off the phone."

Restaurants and other public places could post notices reminding people to restrict their cell phone use, and that the management reserves the right to remove those people who are disturbing others, just as they would with someone who might be obnoxious without a phone.

You know who really hates annoying cell phone users? Roger Ebert. I interviewed him in 2001, and he shared an anecdote about a film festival which instituted a cutting-edge policy for cell phones. "The first time your cell phone goes off during a screening, you are evicted from the screening." But wait — there's more. "The second time, if you want to continue to use your pass, your cell phone is confiscated."

Unfortunately, the rest of the world can't rely on cell phone cops — which in some cases leaves offenders in the hands of vigilantes. I remember one woman talking on her cell phone in a theatre. She ended the call by saying "Call me later" and giving her cell phone number. Within seconds, her cell phone had rung again. This time, it was someone in the back row, telling her to shut up. And a few years ago, England experienced an even more extreme response. People yammering on their cell phone were suddenly confronted by two men dressed in giant cell phone costumes who would snatch their cell phone, smash it into the ground — then run.

I remember a company in 2000 that proposed an even more extreme response to loud phone conversations in public places. They sold a technology which jammed cell phone signals in the building. My question was whether hotels were going to buy it, so they could force customers to use the in-room telephones — and pay the hotel's exorbitant per-minute charges. But it also raised an ethical question. What if there were an emergency, and someone raced for their cell phone — only to discover that the hotel was jamming their signal.

Cell phone manufacturers attempted to ease the situation by replacing ring tones with vibrations, but everyone knows their dirty secret: the vibrations are just as loud. I once even heard a story about a special landline that triggered a fan so a cool breeze would signal an incoming call, rather than a ringtone. I say it's a story, because it was described as a way of letting deaf people know they have a phone call. It took me six months before I began to ask myself what a deaf person would do once they'd answered the phone. There were also reports of a ring tone that could only be heard by people under the age of 20.. The New Yorker cited reports calling it an "ingenious guerrilla tactic in youth’s eternal war against adult authority," since teachers couldn't tell when their students were getting calls. But if you have a cranky uncle who hates hearing your phone ring — this could be another solution.

There are lots of ingenious technologies that address the annoying features of cell phones, but I think the answer still lies in the humans that use them. But I recently enjoyed a peaceful evening at the theatre, uninterrupted by cell phone conversations, and the solution was surprisingly simple. Before the performance, the loudspeakers broadcast a reminder to please turn off your cell phones — and the lights remained on to give people a chance to do it. It provided the missing ingredient — an unmistakable social pressure — along with a chance to see everyone else diligently shutting off their cell phones. No one wants to be "the one jerk who didn't" — and if you have a cell phone, it'd be pretty hard not to turn it off.