I am with Technocracy who would like jamming of these phones signals in theaters.
This is not permitted where I live (Australia).
My opinion is that the owner of the locale should be able to jam to protect the audience from unwanted interference, or for any reason, on that property. The emanator of the signal also has rights but such would not extend to forcing a signal where it is not wanted.
However, Smart City Holdings is not the property owner. They are destroying the competitors' product. Is this act with the permission of the property owner?

The OP asks a good question here so I have given an up-vote despite not agreeing with the inference that the FCC ruling is correct.

That has been the root issue on many things. Government grabbing rights not extended to them under the Constitution.

Airwaves as public, meaning government, property is the precendent they try to use to snag control of the internet. It is also something they could try and use to nationalize mass transit. Or the power grid, or water supplies. Oh wait, that has already begun, just going slow to keep it out of the public eye.

The FCC is wrong.

Ayn Rand already address this issue in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

I tell you if I take away a point. There are other Objectivists on the site who prize ALL property rights not just the ones you'd like to see destroyed

Interestingly, I too have spent hours discussing with you only to hear your same argument the next day. I too, think that property rights should be enforced, a position you willfully ignore. I'm not sure that objectivism has a clear opinion on patents vs copyrights. You and I do, however.

Nevertheless the point was about down voting. Something I have done three or four times on this site and NEVER to one your posts. But, interestingly if I disagree with you I find my count at 0 even on other discussion lines. Curious coincidence.

let's see if I get banned for calling out an anarcho libertarian. If I am wrong-show me on this site where you openly support IP rights. The property of the mind.

an ad hom? Do you deny you are a libertarian? Are you a student of Objectivism? I have argued with you on this site many times. You are against IP. You'd like to get your foot in the door on net nuetrality with this argument. do you deny you are a supporter of net neutrality?

I voted this down because you know. we have spent hours discussing with you only to hear your same argument the next day. and what a surprise! look what post you show up on. Objectivism rejects anarchy. Objectivism holds that property rights should be enforced. I have others on the site I can follow around and see there is no interest in having the fundamental conversation. You have an agenda in here that dissociates with Objectivism.

Another person here to disrupt and ignore reason -1

yes, david

Why, by golly, someone admits to voting something down because they don't like the person.

Inherent in this particular ad hom is the notion that I'm "against property rights", a convenient but highly cliched exaggeration resulting from a refusal to accept that people can have differing perspectives regarding the boundaries and definitions of such rights.

Ayn Rand and her close circle referred to themselves ironically as The Collective

This whole confusion has occurred, because instead of property rights for airwaves we went with Hoover's idea that the airwaves were public. Ayn Rand has a great discussion of this issue in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

I voted this down because the poster is not serious about property rights and is in here to disrupt and denigrate Rand. His subsequent comments proved me right..

Another case of government picking the winners. The FCC chose the big carriers over the smaller company that attempted to operate their own business.

"old collective" hmmm

I don't know who downvoted the post, but Mr. Mcnab is well known on this site for anti-property rights stances. Typical anarcho.

Well darn, there goes my hope for cell phone jammers in movie theaters like you find in Japan. :(

The whole question may have had AR's old Collective debating and discussing for a few hours, to sort out the apparent contradictions.

Concur. Regardless of how one feels about the article the contributor/gulcher has not even expressed an opinion... Just asking for input.

I understand that someone might downvote this because they disagree with government control of the airwaves, but why did someone downvote the Gulcher who posted it?

If the down voter voted it down because of a perception that it is "irrelevant to Objectivism", then I ask that down voter to reconsider. What you just down voted was John Galt's right to put a radio frequency shield over the Gulch!