See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Free Hotel Wi-Fi is increasingly on Travelers' Must-Have Lists
Message-ID: <76320e92-5beb-4b35-a0a4-516cc6f17b79@googlegroups.com>
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:41:54 AM UTC-5, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <80cc6300-a294-47fc-a4ef-806c8b2074ce@googlegroups.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Probably most people who stay at discount motels don't have fancy
> valuables that need to be locked up, so this is more of an "extra".
> Since it's not an expected feature, it doesn't figure into the price
> comparison equation.
It's definitely not an "expected feature" but it does indeed "figure
into the price comparison equation." Just because they don't disclose
it up front doesn't remove it from the price comparison equation.
Neal McLain
|
| Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 23:31:23 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <invalid@see.sig.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Free Hotel Wi-Fi is increasingly on Travelers' Must-Have Lists
Message-ID: <55A5D40B.4020809@ionary.com>
On 7/13/2015 9:35 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 06:49:49PM +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <20150712163021.GA26196@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
>> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
>>> So, you're in Manhattan at a hotel, on the first day of your
>>> vacation, with nothing to do. Your spouse suggests that you both
>>> make a night of it, and have a great dinner and see a Broadway
>>> play.
>
>>> [snip]
>
>>> 3. You could visit the hotel Concierge and let him handle it for
>>> you.
>
Who may be taking a cut and is selling top dollar tickets for high rollers.
>> 4. You go to the TKTS booth in Times Square like everyone else. It's
>> New York, and this is a long-solved problem.
>
> I tried that, once. I wound up in a "Broadway" theater, with an
> entrance next to a bodega and up a flight of stairs, which was being
> repaired and had carpenters' tools atop ladders that spanned some of
> the seats. I don't remember the performance, which is a good thing.
>
> No self-respecting Concierge would have ever let me within a mile of
> that place. A computer would have had no problem, though.
There is a group of theaters that are formally "Broadway", by union
contract and membership, and regular theater fans know which they are
and aren't. Seats are tight but they're well-maintained. Listings also
distinguish between Broadway and Off-Broadway, some of which are
physically near Broadway the street. The union contract caps Off
Broadway at 499 seats. Some are nice, some are a bit funky. And "Off Off
Broadway" can be anything.
A computer would have no problem, as you say, which is why computers in
guest rooms are even useful for vacationers.
> My point stands: the TKTS booth could easily be replaced by a web
> site, with equally poor results. Being "Always On" does not mean
> I'm "connected".
While I've used TKTS, I usually prefer NYTIX.com, where they list what
discounts are available for advance purchase. It indicates which are
Broadway and which are Off Broadway. And the web sites that sell tickets
(their fees being annoyingly high, to be sure) have seat maps, so you
can pick your seat. Well worth the $3 for a month's membership, which I
pay when I am going to go to NYC. Or from my hotel room, via the in-room
computer access. Having my trusty laptop with me takes off some of the
pressure.
|
| Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 04:06:37 -0400
From: Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Theaters Struggle With Patrons' Phone Use During Shows
Message-ID: <55A6148D.40506@Rochester.RR.com>
On 7/12/2015 5:03 PM, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> Per Monty Solomon:
>> Recorded announcements and personal pleas have only a limited effect,
>> as recent incidents on Broadway and elsewhere demonstrate.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/theater/theaters-struggle-with-patrons-phone-use-during-shows.html
>>
>
> "'High-tech solutions remain off the table. Except for authorized
> federal law enforcement, cellphone jamming is illegal in the United
> States. And for good reason, according to Brian Josef, assistant vice
> president for regulatory affairs for the Washington-based trade group
> CTIA: The Wireless Association.
>
> "We can all think about emergencies in theaters or schools where being
> able to reach 911 is critical," he said. "The worry is that jammers are
> a very blunt instrument."
Let's see -- in the olden days, if an emergency arose in a theater,
someone would run out to the lobby, and have a phone call (real phone --
twisted pair type) made.
911 call centers these days can pinpoint exactly where a call from a
wired phone is located. On cell phones, maybe -- or maybe not. Depends
a lot on how GPS signals are being received for one thing. Inside a
theater, they may not be too strong.
If a theater owner wants to paint the walls with tinfoil-bearing paint,
why not have them also install one or two payphones in convenient
locations. You know, the ones you put a dime in to get a dial tone?
...Bob K
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's not a dime anymore, Bob. These days, it's more like "put in your
life's savings ..."
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:40:17 -0700
From: Jon Danniken <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Theaters Struggle With Patrons' Phone Use during Shows
Message-ID: <mo3vjv$e1q$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 07/12/2015 12:26 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
> Back on topic: is there any means of "fixing" this problem -- short
> of reeducating folks on "manners" and "social responsibility"?
Yes, inform patrons that any cellphone use (voice or text) during the
performance will result in their ejection without refund. All it will
take is one person being asked to leave for everyone else to get the
message.
Jon
|
| Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:11:19 -0700
From: Don Y <anonymous@invalid.telecomdigest.us>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Theaters Struggle With Patrons' Phone Use during shows
Message-ID: <mo6b7t$fhm$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 7/14/2015 2:40 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 12:26 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>
>> Back on topic: is there any means of "fixing" this problem -- short
>> of reeducating folks on "manners" and "social responsibility"?
>
> Yes, inform patrons that any cellphone use (voice or text) during the
> performance will result in their ejection without refund. All it will
> take is one person being asked to leave for everyone else to get the
> message.
I don't think that will work.
First, it means each venue (restaurant, theater, etc. -- anyplace that
wants to curtail phone usage) must "police" the issue. I.e., bring
back ushers in theaters to walk the aisles with flashlights looking for
"offenders"?
Second, there are cases where cell phone use may be warranted: e.g.,
blind users getting descriptive text that would accompany a movie
(but that most sighted patrons wouldn't want to hear as it interferes
with their enjoyment of the movie); ditto, deaf patrons viewing
subtitles that other patrons wouldn't want to see superimposed
on the screen.
Third, people are amazingly arrogant in thinking that some magical
exception applies to them which entitles them to do what they
are doing (Dr: "Oh, I just forgot to tell the on-call desk at
the hospital where I would be, tonight"; Mom: "Oh, I just need to
tell the babysitter that we'll be home late and to remember to
give Junior his meds"; Teenager: "I'm just *texting*! It's not
like I'm *talking*!!!")
Fourth, businesses seem to be reluctant to "discipline" their
customers. I suspect the rationale is something along the line
of not wanting to alienate a customer (source of income) and
imagining that other customers will "put up with" the inconvenience.
(i.e., they never see other customers taking their business elsewhere
hence no cost of "failed enforcement").
Consider how often someone goes through a checkout with clearly
more than "10 items". What would it take for the cashier to
simply state: "I'm sorry, ma'am/sir; but this lane is for
customers with 10 items or less".
Or, parks in a handicap space -- despite the fact that there are
hefty fines for such infractions! ("What are the chances that I'll
get caught in the 3 minutes I'll be in the store??")
If you try to rely on "fines" as a deterrent for what would otherwise
have been "enforced" by social norms, many treat the fine as an
acceptable tradeoff. E.g., instead of feeling responsible to
return a book to a library, "movie" to a rental outlet, etc.
(so other patrons/customers could avail themselves of it in a
timely fashion), many folks will reason that they can "just pay the
fine" in exchange for being late.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/23/fining-parents-unpunctual-school-pupils
"A daycare in Israel had a similar problem: parents were arriving
late to collect their children. In response, the daycare fined those
who didn't pick their tots up on time. Except this did not result in
increased punctuality; quite the opposite. Parents were more likely
to be late after the fines were introduced. They simply paid the fee
and thought no more about it. The intrinsic motivation - to conform
to the social norm of being on time - was crowded out by the extrinsic
motivation of cash fines."
Hence my comment that the only effective solution is "reeducating folks
on 'manners' and 'social responsibility'"
I think any other approach has to be effectively fool-proof. I.e.,
your phone WILL NOT operate in these confines -- you don't have a
choice in the matter (and our staff needn't be inconvenienced to
feel like policemen in enforcing it).
E.g., imagine if the cash register in the 10-items-or-less lane at the
checkout actually refused to process more than 10 items! And, the
charge/debit-card reader refused to process another transaction on
the same "card/account" for 5 minutes. I.e., only your first 10 items
will be allowed to be purchased -- no need for the employee to play
policeman, etc.
Imagine if the handicap space took a photo of your license plate
when you parked there. If not registered as having a handicap
permit, a "ticket" is mailed to your home with photographic
proof of the infringement (like "red light cameras", etc.)
|
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to
the Internet by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
