4 ms·
Even though i don't care for it in a movie theatre, the FCC has traditionally taken a pretty dim view of trying to block someone's authorized radio communicatio
by airza 9y ago
Even though i don't care for it in a movie theatre, the FCC has traditionally taken a pretty dim view of trying to block someone's authorized radio communications.
- sk5t 9y agoHarmful interference is one thing, but a radio-quiet room?
- bennettfeely 9y agoI think the idea is cool, but I have a feeling there would be quite a legal battle that ensues when someone is injured or dies in the hostel after they couldn't connect to 911.
- bduerst 9y agoJust put a pay phone in the back, and make people who stay initial that they acknowledge there is no cellular service.
- flukus 9y agoTrain tunnels, underground car parks and other reception black spots seem to have avoided litigation. Have we really reach the point where going outside to get reception is not something a reasonable person would think of?
- lawless123 9y agoNone of those are deliberate though.
- eksemplar 9y agoDon't place it in America, problem solved.
- warrenm 9y agoLoads of buildings don't allow (or practically don't allow) cell signals :: nothing stops them from being built. It's active interference the FCC takes a dim view to - passive interference (thick walls, loads of metal, etc) is fine. There's a theater near me that I can get 4-5 bars of LTE outside, 1-2 bars near the doors, 3G just 20 feet inside, and only 1x or a bar of 3G in each screen room. Don't see the FCC dropping the hammer on them because it's the way the building is constructed, not active interference
- grecy 9y agoHappily, I'm not in the US