[Yizzerin]

(duplicate post)
Message was edited by: Yizzerin

[Yizzerin]

(duplicate post)
Message was edited by: Yizzerin

[Yizzerin]

(duplicate post)

[Yizzerin]

(duplicate post)

[Yizzerin]

great...now I've posted this seven times :(

The main PCWorld page gives absolutely no feedback in my browser (FF 3.0-with NoScript allowing all on the page), including no feedback that I'd even posted a comment. As a result, ended up clicking submit over and over. Sorry guys! Mods (if you watch this...), can you delete my other posts? I don't see a way to do that...

[JcHc3in1]

"And if people need cell phone access at all times in case of emergency, shouldn't airlines be "required" to enable cell phone access during flights? Why is cell phone access required during a two-hour movie, but not required during a five-hour flight?"
Your reasoning is more than a little flawed here. Say I am a parent and my wife and I go see a movie. Yes, we should have our phone on "vibrate" so as to not disturb others in the audience. But what if my kid suddenly becomes ill and the babysitter calls? Damn right I should be able to leave the room and take that call and drive home (or to the hospital) if necessary. On an airplane just what am I supposed to do? I can't turn the plane around, land in my driveway and pick up my child. Contingencies should already be in place for this sort of thing. If not, then I am a bad parent.
You are right when you say this isn't a black and white issue. It's too bad you tried to make it one with this poor example.

[WinTard]

JcHc3in1 said:

>"And if people need cell phone access at all times in case of emergency, shouldn't airlines be "required" to enable cell phone access during flights? Why is cell phone access required during a two-hour movie, but not required during a five-hour flight?"

Quote

Your reasoning is more than a little flawed here. Say I am a parent and my wife and I go see a movie. Yes, we should have our phone on "vibrate" so as to not disturb others in the audience. But what if my kid suddenly becomes ill and the babysitter calls? Damn right I should be able to leave the room and take that call and drive home (or to the hospital) if necessary. On an airplane just what am I supposed to do? I can't turn the plane around, land in my driveway and pick up my child. Contingencies should already be in place for this sort of thing. If not, then I am a bad parent.

You are right when you say this isn't a black and white issue. It's too bad you tried to make it one with this poor example.

I actually made the same argument in Post #6 of this very thread.

Quote

WinTard wrote:
Post #6. Mar 1, 2009 1:47 PM in response to: PCWorld
Re: Should Cell Phone Jamming be Legal?
Even phones without SIM cards can make 911 calls for emergency purposes.

Whoever thinks jamming/blocking should be legal is immoral at best. Assume your jammer inadvertently prevents a life-critical emergency call from going through to the authorities, because 'oops' you forgot your jammer was on or whatever lame excuse the selfish sociopathic self-appointed vigilante uses to decide there will be no cellular service around his/her sphere of influence -- will be the first hypocritical person to deny such responsibility when catastrophe occurs.

Those who can't live in a civilized world should simply go live as hermits away from civilization.

As for airplanes, you can make cell phone calls, just have to pay them for it... The airlines want you to swipe your credit-card to their health... Opportunists!

[gordon142]

The people here in favour of hand-held jammers actually make a very good argument why they should be illegal with their attitudes toward others. What gets to me is that certain people seem to think that no one was annoying in public before cell phones. Frankly, on my list of annoying things people do on public, inappropriate phone usage is pretty low. Even in places where phones are traditionally vilified like theatres. I've been pretty annoyed when people use phones in theatres, but I've been far more annoyed by people who laugh and talk constantly, crying children, the guy beside me with horrible BO, the list goes on. It doesn't seem fair to single out phones. In fact, I'll wager that many of the people who feel the need to carry jammers wherever they go are quite the public nuisance themselves. That sort of attitude towards other people always manifests itself in other ways.

[WinTard]

Well put gordon142. I couldn't have said it better, and wholeheartedly concur with your ideas.

I might even go a step further;

Bottom line: I think it is those who want to jam legitimate and lawful cell phone usage, that are the bullies here. They are obnoxious and uncivilized to start with.

And they are cowards too. Instead of confronting whatever or whoever bugs them, with an open, public, rational and civil arguments, requesting 'decency', they have to hide-and-cloak, and disrupt underhandedly, but hypocritically smirk they've caused harm, and feel good about it? Is that how they get their kicks?

The honorable way would be wear a sign stating they do not approve of cell phones, and please stay away 10' from me, or you will lose signal coverage...

But coming from broken individuals like that? Yeah right.

~~~~~~~~~~
Bullying is simply someone taking out their feeling of inferiority on another they feel is weaker. Real strength is measured in the amount of tolerance you show to those weaker than you.
~ MaskedAvenger

(Or in this case, the weaker is by hit-and-run, hiding you did it like a mere vulgar vandal or criminal, because you couldn't face the music otherwise)...

[WinTard]

Oops, duplicate, I'm not sure how that happened, but am sure it's me at the root cause.
Message was edited by: WinTard

My apologies for duplicate post.

[number6]

WinTard said:

Constitutional or not, as interpreted by you or another, the bottom line is they have full jurisdiction (non-military) over the public airwaves and telecommunication across the USA, TODAY. You can bank on it, and perhaps can even try in a court of law, all the way to the Supreme Court of the USA if you have the time, and associated deep pockets. But they ARE the Federal government. Try to tell them they don't have jurisdiction, since their inception back in 1934. I suppose if they were on shaky grounds constitutionally, someone would have challenged something over the past 75 years? And successfully dissolved the FCC?

Whether or not they get away with breaking the supreme law of this land, to break it is illegal. The Federal Government is usurping it's authority and is, therefore, tyrannical.

As I stated before, most of this discussion is irrelevant because it's a State issue. Instead of focusing on the the minor details of each device, we need to look at the bigger picture. If the FCC is unconstitutional, we need to focus on abolishing it and get back on track with what's right.

[WinTard]

Another duplicate post! Hmmm, something is going on here... Lol!

Message was edited by: WinTard

More profuse apologies for yet-another duplicate post! Today's a weird day... Or am I weird today? Or am I weird all the time??? ;) OK I'm exiting all my FireFox windows... And restarting FF!

[WinTard]

Federal, State, Municipal, I find all of them tyrannical...

But understand why we must have a coherent governing body for standards such as public airways. So in that particular case, I say, this is precisely the reason why we need a Federal Government. To implement such kinds of policy. Too bad for each State's Sovereignty. And fundamentally, this applies all the way down to you and I as individuals. Our rights are being dictated by "the greater good", and we're not really free at all.

But that is democracy, and is the best we can do for now. Sure beats the alternatives...

~~~~~~~~~~
To think is easy. To act is hard. But the hardest thing in the world is to act in accordance with your thinking.
~ Johann von Goethe, 1749-1832, German Poet, Dramatist, Novelist

[number6]

Apparently you haven't looked at Republicanism. America started out with a very small Federal Government and there was freedom for all. When we allow the government to ignore the rules set in place, we are destined for slavery.

[gordon142]

WinTard said:

Federal, State, Municipal, I find all of them tyrannical...

But understand why we must have a coherent governing body for standards such as public airways. So in that particular case, I say, this is precisely the reason why we need a Federal Government. To implement such kinds of policy. Too bad for each State's Sovereignty. And fundamentally, this applies all the way down to you and I as individuals. Our rights are being dictated by "the greater good", and we're not really free at all.

But that is democracy, and is the best we can do for now. Sure beats the alternatives...

~~~~~~~~~~
To think is easy. To act is hard. But the hardest thing in the world is to act in accordance with your thinking.
~ Johann von Goethe, 1749-1832, German Poet, Dramatist, Novelist

Exactly. It should be obvious that state-by-state regulation of public airwaves would be a disaster. Imagine needing a different cell phone for each state because there were no standard frequencies in use. This goes way beyond phones though. What if say, the 2.4ghz band was unregulated in some states and not in others? These could means things like wireless mice and wi-fi routers might be illegal to sell or bring into some states. Accessibility assistive devices like portable FM systems also operate on restricted frequencies. What if these frequencies were open in some states? You can apply this logic to anything. Basically, with state-by-state regulation of airwaves you would have either complete wireless chaos or states would have to agree on frequencies ? in which case you would basically just have a more haphazard and less efficient version of the FCC. This is a perfect example of appropriate federal jurisdiction.

[gordon142]

number6 said:

Apparently you haven't looked at Republicanism. America started out with a very small Federal Government and there was freedom for all. When we allow the government to ignore the rules set in place, we are destined for slavery.

Freedom for all? Only white, male landowners could vote, and even these could not directly elect a president. Slavery was an established and respected institution. What world are you living in? Furthermore, this doesn't really have much of anything to do with the topic at hand. The author of the article was never questioning the constitutionality of the FCC, but simply whether there was good reason for the 1934 airwave laws to still be in place and whether states should be granted some leeway with regards to jamming airwaves.

[number6]

gordon142 said:

Exactly. It should be obvious that state-by-state regulation of public airwaves would be a disaster. Imagine needing a different cell phone for each state because there were no standard frequencies in use. This goes way beyond phones though. What if say, the 2.4ghz band was unregulated in some states and not in others? These could means things like wireless mice and wi-fi routers might be illegal to sell or bring into some states. Accessibility assistive devices like portable FM systems also operate on restricted frequencies. What if these frequencies were open in some states? You can apply this logic to anything. Basically, with state-by-state regulation of airwaves you would have either complete wireless chaos or states would have to agree on frequencies ? in which case you would basically just have a more haphazard and less efficient version of the FCC. This is a perfect example of appropriate federal jurisdiction.

The Federal Government doesn't have appropriate jurisdiction anywhere the Constitution doesn't give it jurisdiction. If you don't like it, the proper remedy is to amend the Constitution, not ignore it.

[number6]

[quote name='gordon142']
>

number6 said:

> Apparently you haven't looked at Republicanism. America started out with a very small Federal Government and there was freedom for all. When we allow the government to ignore the rules set in place, we are destined for slavery.

Freedom for all? Only white, male landowners could vote, and even these could not directly elect a president. Slavery was an established and respected institution. What world are you living in? Furthermore, this doesn't really have much of anything to do with the topic at hand. The author of the article was never questioning the constitutionality of the FCC, but simply whether there was good reason for the 1934 airwave laws to still be in place and whether states should be granted some leeway with regards to jamming airwaves.

You've misconstrued history, but this is way off topic so I won't correct it. The reason I'm talking about the Constitutionality of the FCC is that I assume the FCC regulates cell phone jamming. If the FCC is unconstitutional then they shouldn't be regulating anything, and the issue of jamming would be back in the hands of the States where it belongs.

[WinTard]

I believe President Obama believes in the Constitution, believes in the Presidency and also believes in the FCC since he recently personally appointed commissioners into that institution.

Why not communicate your concerns to directly to him or his office? That is his job after all To listen to the concerns of his citizens as President of the USA?

Whereas, I think we should put a stop to these constitutional discussions, and simply accept the facts as they are today. And those unhappy should do something to make their vision, become law, but in the meantime, respect the law as it is, and work legally towards something better.

If nothing else, because they are off-topic. It's like putting the cart before the horses... Right now, until somebody decides it is legal to jam cell phones, it was, is and will be illegal. And there is NOTHING any particular State can legally do, to decide to go against that, short of a Constitutional Challenge. Period. And while the challenge proceeds and until it succeeds, it still will be illegal. How much simpler can it get?

Right or wrong, tyrannical or not isn't the issue here. The issue is the legality as it is today. The law isn't optional...

~~~~~~~~~~~
The words of truth are always paradoxical.
~ Lao Tzu

[gordon142]

number6 said:

You've misconstrued history, but this is way off topic so I won't correct it. The reason I'm talking about the Constitutionality of the FCC is that I assume the FCC regulates cell phone jamming. If the FCC is unconstitutional then they shouldn't be regulating anything, and the issue of jamming would be back in the hands of the States where it belongs.

Now I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I don't really want to spend the time to legally justify the existence of the FCC. If you staunchly believe what you're saying, by all means, make a case out of it. Get yourself arrested with a jammer and make the argument that the Federal government has no authority to regulate the airwaves. See how many courts you can get through. Obviously wireless communication is not discussed anywhere in the original documents of the constitution, nor is it something that the founding fathers would have given any thought to. Whether you can consider wireless jurisdiction an over-reach of federal power or not is not a simple issue, although I doubt you will find a lot of supporters for the idea that airwave use should be decided on a state level in general.
Failing that, maybe you could start arguing from a pragmatic viewpoint instead of treating this like a libertarian think tank. In other words, what is the logical argument for why it would be a good idea for all airwaves to be regulated on a state-by-state basis?