Radio, RIAA: mandatory FM radio in cell phones is the future

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muted (0)
Radio stations are willing to fork over $100 million a year to music labels, but in return they want Congress to make FM receivers mandatory in portable devices. The labels think having an FM radio in every Droid and iPhone is a great idea, and both sides hope to go to Congress soon.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/radio-riaa-mandatory-fm-radio-in-cell-phones-is-the-future.ars'>Read the whole story</a>
 
Click to expand...
Sort by date Sort by votes
J

JPan

Well-known member
8,335
  • #42
    Why is it idiotic? Not counting the tired canard of "no one listens to FM
    Click to expand...

    Why should I be forced to buy and pay for the technology involved in an FM receiver if I do not want it? Esp. since something like internet streaming will become dominant anyway. It may be no huge cost but a couple of cents multiplied by a couple hundred million phones per year is quite a bit of wasted money and energy.

    And by the way I do not listen to FM on my phone/ipod as well. In the car its different.

    But in the end I have no problems with FM in mobiles but why on earth should you mandate it? And on what legal grounds? What's the reasoning? I always thought we in Europe are communists and Americans were for free markets. I will readily acknowledge that there are cases to be made for some regulation esp. for infrastructure but mandating FM is just bizzare.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    C

    craigdolphin

    Ars Centurion
    395
    Subscriptor
  • #45
    Gotta say, I'd personally love it if my ipod touch had an fm receiver. But... this is over-reaching (yet again) by the RIAA et al.

    Apple and HTC etc should not be required to put any technology into their products that they choose not to. If it's a feature that consumers want, and they decide against adding to their devices, then that's fine. A competitor should take advantage of that and offer a better-featured alternative.

    Of course, Apple refusing to license fairplay to prevent consumers switching to a different branded handset makes the concept of meaningful competition somewhat redundant I guess. As a consumer, if I pay for content, it should not be held to ransom if I decide to change to a different handset. Personally, I think that the DRM schemes should be regulated to ensure interoperability (if they must exist at all) and then just let manufacturers compete on design/features/price alone, but hardware manufacturers should be free to choose what hardware they wish to use in their own products.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    P

    piquadrat

    Seniorius Lurkius
    5
  • #49
    Hoos":19kavs4k said:
    Cramming another antenna into portable devices could be problematic, I suppose.
    Click to expand...

    The antenna is not the issue. Virtually every phone with an FM receiver uses the headphones cable as the antenna and hence requires a headphone to work. Of course, it's not outside of RIAA's realm of stupidity to add a requirement that said FM receiver has to work without headphones attached.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    P

    pete_3

    Ars Praetorian
    509
    Subscriptor
  • #50
    Hoos":364tho5p said:
    Why is it idiotic? Not counting the tired canard of "no one listens to FM".

    Cramming another antenna into portable devices could be problematic, I suppose. Seem to recall it being an issue in early devices (like Treos) due to limitations in isolating the antennae or something.
    Click to expand...

    Why would requiring manufacturers to pass out opera tickets with every mobile device purchased be idiotic? Not counting the tired canard of "no one goes to the opera".

    Mobile device manufacturers should lobby Congress to pass a law to disband NAB and RIAA.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    D

    DougHW

    Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
    126
  • #51
    I have a sneaking suspicion both of these entities know this proposal is absurd and doomed. You know how when you want a raise, you ask for 10% more than you realistically expect? Perhaps they're just softening the public and Congress up for their real request. This way, it sounds like they're compromising.

    Compared to this, asking for a "public good" radio subsidy tax maybe wouldn't sound quite so absurd?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    emag

    emag

    Ars Praefectus
    3,635
    Subscriptor
  • #52
    Honestly, I think it's pretty awesome that the Zune HD comes with an HD radio receiver (in addition to FM/AM tuners). I'd love to have that functionality in my iPhone, so I could listen to WAMU (NPR) live, in high quality (as opposed to after-the-fact podcasts or low-quality streaming over AT&T's network).

    That said, I can't get behind mandated FM radio. What about devices like Jitterbug's? What about the move to HD radio? What if there's a terrible engineering trade-off?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    M

    MJ the Prophet

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,333
  • #54
    My Incredible has an FM tuner, but only if I have a headset attached, I assume because the wire of the headset acts as the antenna. Its an extra feature of the phone, one which I don't use often but which does indeed give me more choices, if I don't want to listen to Last.fm or Pandora. So I see their point there.

    However, do we really need a law mandating that we have that choice no matter what phone we have? Doesn't that unfairly burden electronics makers, both by adding a piece of hardware that they may not want to add and by stopping them from using the inclusion of an FM tuner as a way of differentiating their product?

    The proposal seems to say "We'd like to make even more money than we're currently making, but businesses only peripherally related to ours aren't making that ridiculously easy. We feel that manufacturers of portable electronics should be required by law to support our business model. Oh, and it would kinda help consumers, too! Assuming that it doesn't raise the price of the electronics, but we have no control over the obvious downstream effects of our proposal."

    Also, is there a source for this? All the links in the article just go to other, related Ars articles.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    S

    Snowman0

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,567
  • #55
    So, they're making phones/PDAs more expensive by adding hardware that will allow users to receive low-quality, local-only, ad-ridden, radio stations ? My phone already has the ability to stream high-quality music from anywhere in the world, and I don't have to deal with the excessive ads, annoying DJs, or lack of variety/originality. Why would I want more outdated options when I can use the newer, better option for less cost ?


    Also, I object to anything with the RIAA's sticker of approval on it, but that's an issue for another day/article.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    A

    Ars of Ares

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    20,290
  • #56
    goForth":2ciaax1z said:
    "At the very least, they could include AM."

    Have you seen the size of a decent portable AM antenna? There's a reason it's excluded from many portable devices.
    Click to expand...

    I’m sorry that I didn’t include some sort of goofy emoticon to indicate that that was a joke.

    Oh, wait…

    :D
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    Nate Anderson

    Nate Anderson

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,256
    Ars Staff
  • #57
    MJ the Prophet":2zjs32tb said:
    My Incredible has an FM tuner, but only if I have a headset attached, I assume because the wire of the headset acts as the antenna. Its an extra feature of the phone, one which I don't use often but which does indeed give me more choices, if I don't want to listen to Last.fm or Pandora. So I see their point there.

    However, do we really need a law mandating that we have that choice no matter what phone we have? Doesn't that unfairly burden electronics makers, both by adding a piece of hardware that they may not want to add and by stopping them from using the inclusion of an FM tuner as a way of differentiating their product?

    The proposal seems to say "We'd like to make even more money than we're currently making, but businesses only peripherally related to ours aren't making that ridiculously easy. We feel that manufacturers of portable electronics should be required by law to support our business model. Oh, and it would kinda help consumers, too! Assuming that it doesn't raise the price of the electronics, but we have no control over the obvious downstream effects of our proposal."

    Also, is there a source for this? All the links in the article just go to other, related Ars articles.
    Click to expand...

    I talked to both musicFIRST and NAB about the issue.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    A

    Alan H.

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,815
  • #58
    Hoos":ig3h923u said:
    Why is it idiotic? Not counting the tired canard of "no one listens to FM".

    Cramming another antenna into portable devices could be problematic, I suppose. Seem to recall it being an issue in early devices (like Treos) due to limitations in isolating the antennae or something.
    Click to expand...

    It's idiotic because you are a troll. Please don't feed the trolls.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    N

    NaraVara

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,603
    Subscriptor++
  • #59
    LoneBagel":51fdsnp1 said:
    But the music and radio industries say it's a consumer-focused proposition, one that would provide "more music choices."
    Click to expand...

    lolwut?
    Click to expand...
    Yes. It's a consumer focused decision to force me to pay for a feature I have no intention of using that will also negatively affect my battery-life all for the sake of keeping a dying and obsolete technology on life-support for no discernible reason.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    N

    NaraVara

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,603
    Subscriptor++
  • #61
    MJ the Prophet":3qt005o8 said:
    My Incredible has an FM tuner, but only if I have a headset attached, I assume because the wire of the headset acts as the antenna. Its an extra feature of the phone, one which I don't use often but which does indeed give me more choices, if I don't want to listen to Last.fm or Pandora. So I see their point there.

    However, do we really need a law mandating that we have that choice no matter what phone we have? Doesn't that unfairly burden electronics makers, both by adding a piece of hardware that they may not want to add and by stopping them from using the inclusion of an FM tuner as a way of differentiating their product?

    The proposal seems to say "We'd like to make even more money than we're currently making, but businesses only peripherally related to ours aren't making that ridiculously easy. We feel that manufacturers of portable electronics should be required by law to support our business model. Oh, and it would kinda help consumers, too! Assuming that it doesn't raise the price of the electronics, but we have no control over the obvious downstream effects of our proposal."

    Also, is there a source for this? All the links in the article just go to other, related Ars articles.
    Click to expand...
    I remember way back when the iPod first came out everyone was like “ZOMG No FM Tuner? FAIL! Kids needs their FM!” And then it turned out that hey, kids don’t need their FM because aside from FM hungrily sucking down extra battery power from my phone, the content on FM fucking sucks unless you like NPR and that’s available on a podcast now. We already tried FM tuners. The market decided it was a stupid idea. Generally when the market decides something is a stupid idea, it’s best not to force people to do it anyway unless there is an unpriced externality involved. What’s the externality here? ClearChannel isn’t making enough money? Sorry, can’t bring myself to care.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    M

    MJ the Prophet

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,333
  • #62
    Nate Anderson":1uge1pen said:
    MJ the Prophet":1uge1pen said:
    Also, is there a source for this? All the links in the article just go to other, related Ars articles.
    Click to expand...

    I talked to both musicFIRST and NAB about the issue.
    Click to expand...
    Cool, firsthand sources that you spoke with are both a very good thing and hard to link to. I believe that's called "breaking news," so nice job Ars!
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    H

    Hinton

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    16,983
    Subscriptor
  • #63
    Hoos":2ifpxna3 said:
    Why is it idiotic? Not counting the tired canard of "no one listens to FM".

    Cramming another antenna into portable devices could be problematic, I suppose. Seem to recall it being an issue in early devices (like Treos) due to limitations in isolating the antennae or something.
    Click to expand...

    You don't need an antenna, you use the earphones as the antenna.

    My Sony/Ericsson phone has a build in loudspeaker, but you still need the earphones plugged in for the FM radio to work, even when using the loudspeaker.

    ---

    Mandatory sounds stupid, people that want FM in their phones will purchase one that has it, forcing people that don't listen to FM to purchase an FM capable phone anyway won't make them suddenly start listening.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    D

    Dawn Falcon

    Well-known member
    2,342
  • #64
    simplyphil":2h58jhjw said:
    I agree with this from a safety standpoint only. Radio is a great way to send out emergency communication during a disaster event. There is no real cell phone solution for this type of situation in place
    Click to expand...

    There are (indeed, several) push protocols for text messages for emergency situations for cell phones. They could easily be implemented if lawmakers got off their backsides and mandated them.

    And most cell phones require, as has been mentioned, an antenna (in the headset wire) to be attached to function as a radio, so only a tiny minority would actually broadcast an emergency message...and then only over said headphones.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    N

    NaraVara

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,603
    Subscriptor++
  • #66
    I don’t really understand this idea that FM is the most effective way to communicate info. in a disaster either. Sure it’s the currently accepted way, but I feel like the most effective way to get my attention would be for my cell-phone carrier to send me a text message or PUSH notification.: “ICBM en route to your location. GTFO.”
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    F

    fletc3her

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,863
  • #67
    What possible compelling public interest could there be in having an FM radio in these devices? Aren't most emergency radio transmissions, traffic and pass updates, and long range weather/news channels on AM?

    I supported the idea that an HDTV should have an ATSC tuner if it was going to be marketed as a "television". Otherwise it is just a monitor. Similarly, it would seem a bit deceptive to sell a radio tuner in America that didn't pick up FM. But mandating an FM tuner in a cell phone seems as non-sensical as mandating that every television or alarm clock have one.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    J

    jeamland

    Ars Praetorian
    531
  • #70
    you know, i could go with this as a concept, but only if it was pushing new technology and not outdated FM technology.

    How about DAB or HD radio instead?

    Actually, I've just changed my mind:
    Screw the stations: they provide crappy service for too high a price (the price being the time spent on commercials and music you DON'T want to hear just to get that one or two songs an hour that doesn't suck.) Also, they play those idiotic messages about how "foreign" companies are trying to screw over American stations by instituting a performance fee for all music (rather than just a payment to the songwriter.) I hope they suffer the same fate as hard copy newspapers.

    Mandatory PANDORA support on ALL devices.

    Now THAT makes more sense.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    M

    MJ the Prophet

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,333
  • #72
    PavJ":2de1y295 said:
    I remember way back when the iPod first came out everyone was like “ZOMG No FM Tuner? FAIL! Kids needs their FM!” And then it turned out that hey, kids don’t need their FM because aside from FM hungrily sucking down extra battery power from my phone, the content on FM fucking sucks unless you like NPR and that’s available on a podcast now. We already tried FM tuners. The market decided it was a stupid idea. Generally when the market decides something is a stupid idea, it’s best not to force people to do it anyway unless there is an unpriced externality involved. What’s the externality here? ClearChannel isn’t making enough money? Sorry, can’t bring myself to care.
    Click to expand...
    Well, after seeing the update with information from NAB, the rationale is (as we probably should have expected) "lifeline information" getting to as many people as possible. However, I don't see this making much sense. We don't require all people to carry an emergency radio with them at all times, because that would be ludicrous.

    And clearly, the devices they're talking about are the Internet-connected devices that are streaming from the web rather than using radio. Unless I'm very mistaken, if the FM tuner will work (i.e. your device has power and an antenna), the Internet connectivity will also probably work. I'll grant that you have to deal with network coverage, which isn't as extensive as radio coverage, but then people living outside that coverage wouldn't have purchased the device anyway. So a preferable solution to my mind, and one that I hope someone proposes, would be a lifeline information service that streams over the Internet. Heck, make creating that federally mandated; I'd support that! I'd even be able to get behind a tiny app that can receive push notifications from this hypothetical service and warn me of danger being required by law on mobile devices. That would be less expensive, smaller, and wouldn't generate profits for the music and radio industries, while at the same time saving lives.

    Someone should write that up. IANAL; anyone game?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    E

    eXceLon

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    48,671
    Subscriptor++
  • #73
    Hoos":izb9g46a said:
    Why is it idiotic?
    Click to expand...

    While I certainly wouldn't mind getting more capability out of my devices, I don't see there being any compelling public interest in a government mandate.

    When I (briefly) had a Zune, I couldn't get any radio reception on the thing. Yet I do use applications to stream local radio stations to my phone, using the data connection instead.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    B

    bjartur

    Ars Centurion
    376
  • #74
    peragrin":3adloequ said:
    While I would love the option of AM/FM/ and weatherbands on my phone phone companies like verizon and ATT will resist because they can't charge a monthly fee for it.
    Click to expand...
    If your cell phone company refuses to service your phone because it has a radio receiver something has gone wrong, badly. Still paying them for service is anticompetitive.

    If electronics stores refuse to sell phones that have radio receivers, find one that does.

    If phone companies do anything like this they should be antitrusted.
    It would be useful in emergencies when cell phone coverage is spotty at least your carting something that can hear the news. Small portable fm receivers are all but impossible to easily find.
    Click to expand...
    Don't you in the US have AM?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    N

    NaraVara

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,603
    Subscriptor++
  • #75
    MJ the Prophet":bmri23r7 said:
    Well, after seeing the update with information from NAB, the rationale is (as we probably should have expected) "lifeline information" getting to as many people as possible. However, I don't see this making much sense. We don't require all people to carry an emergency radio with them at all times, because that would be ludicrous.

    And clearly, the devices they're talking about are the Internet-connected devices that are streaming from the web rather than using radio. Unless I'm very mistaken, if the FM tuner will work (i.e. your device has power and an antenna), the Internet connectivity will also probably work. I'll grant that you have to deal with network coverage, which isn't as extensive as radio coverage, but then people living outside that coverage wouldn't have purchased the device anyway. So a preferable solution to my mind, and one that I hope someone proposes, would be a lifeline information service that streams over the Internet. Heck, make creating that federally mandated; I'd support that! I'd even be able to get behind a tiny app that can receive push notifications from this hypothetical service and warn me of danger being required by law on mobile devices. That would be less expensive, smaller, and wouldn't generate profits for the music and radio industries, while at the same time saving lives.

    Someone should write that up. IANAL; anyone game?
    Click to expand...
    Well during disasters the cell phone network tends to choke. In DC even during Obama’s inauguration there were so many people flooding the city that pretty much all cell coverage died. You couldn’t even send a text-message, so accessing anything on 3G is out of the question. Analog radio has the advantage of being passive so people can just pick it up and get vital information on demand.

    Of course, like I said before. If you want to utilize a cell-network for lifeline info, it would make a lot more sense to just have the cell carriers shut down the network for phone-calls in an emergency and just send everyone PUSH notifications or text messages with the relevant details. If all phones have a GPS locator you can even custom tailor the message to tell them only the nearest aid station or whatever so they don’t have to sit there listening for every single location within the AM/FM tuner’s coverage zone to figure out which one they need to get to. This could all be implemented without much difficulty on the programming end, although the hardware might cost a fair amount on the carrier’s side and on the phone's own software development side since they'd probably need some system by which the carrier can have the phone determine which info to display based on your location.

    But overall this would actually be a much more useful way to do disaster preparedness than the clumsy radio method.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    T

    The Pants

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    56
  • #76
    Apple already dictates that I have apps on my iPhone that I can't delete. This would just be one more. Big deal. Then again, being able to listen to a game every so often while I'm out and about (since my local station's internet simulcasts are frequently blacked out) might be something I would use every so often.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    A

    abrown78

    Seniorius Lurkius
    8
  • #78
    "Mandated FM radio chips in portable devices"? IT'S A PHONE (or a PDA, or an MP3 player, or whatever)! Just because the industry has voluntarily diversified the functionality of these devices doesn't mean that a 3rd party should be able to dictate *other* technology be included that further deviates from the core function of the device. If companies want to add it as another feature to the already 2-page bulleted list, great, but *requred*?!?

    I want to tell myself that there's no way that Congress would actually take the bait on this one, but these days, who knows? I suppose it's cheaper to bribe Congress to force the device MFGs to do this than to bribe the MFGs directly...
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    M

    MJ the Prophet

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,333
  • #80
    PavJ":1yyfypm6 said:
    MJ the Prophet":1yyfypm6 said:
    Well, after seeing the update with information from NAB, the rationale is (as we probably should have expected) "lifeline information" getting to as many people as possible. However, I don't see this making much sense. We don't require all people to carry an emergency radio with them at all times, because that would be ludicrous.

    And clearly, the devices they're talking about are the Internet-connected devices that are streaming from the web rather than using radio. Unless I'm very mistaken, if the FM tuner will work (i.e. your device has power and an antenna), the Internet connectivity will also probably work. I'll grant that you have to deal with network coverage, which isn't as extensive as radio coverage, but then people living outside that coverage wouldn't have purchased the device anyway. So a preferable solution to my mind, and one that I hope someone proposes, would be a lifeline information service that streams over the Internet. Heck, make creating that federally mandated; I'd support that! I'd even be able to get behind a tiny app that can receive push notifications from this hypothetical service and warn me of danger being required by law on mobile devices. That would be less expensive, smaller, and wouldn't generate profits for the music and radio industries, while at the same time saving lives.

    Someone should write that up. IANAL; anyone game?
    Click to expand...
    Well during disasters the cell phone network tends to choke. In DC even during Obama’s inauguration there were so many people flooding the city that pretty much all cell coverage died. You couldn’t even send a text-message, so accessing anything on 3G is out of the question. Analog radio has the advantage of being passive so people can just pick it up and get vital information on demand.

    Of course, like I said before. If you want to utilize a cell-network for lifeline info, it would make a lot more sense to just have the cell carriers shut down the network for phone-calls in an emergency and just send everyone PUSH notifications or text messages with the relevant details. If all phones have a GPS locator you can even custom tailor the message to tell them only the nearest aid station or whatever so they don’t have to sit there listening for every single location within the AM/FM tuner’s coverage zone to figure out which one they need to get to. This could all be implemented without much difficulty on the programming end, although the hardware might cost a fair amount on the carrier’s side and on the phone's own software development side since they'd probably need some system by which the carrier can have the phone determine which info to display based on your location.

    But overall this would actually be a much more useful way to do disaster preparedness than the clumsy radio method.
    Click to expand...
    Well heck, I already get ads based on my location. I have at least three location-based services on my phone that can serve up appropriate content in seconds. The R&D is effectively done!
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply