Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Urges Apple to Protect Safety of Americans by Activating FM Radio Chip in iPhones [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can't believe there are people here actually upset over the idea to provide people with additional communication during an emergency. The more ways you have, the better. But no, let's throw all our eggs into one cell tower basket. 
Seriously, what argument is there to giving people more options here? Geez. Maybe if you were stranded somewhere with no cell service you naysayers would understand. One way communication is better than nothing at all.
Except for when it isn't. Also, there is definitely the potential situation where those cell towers are running at first, but later stop working because their batteries have been depleted. There are way too many cell towers for crews to run around to addressing this issue, particularly if roads are impassable. And the distance covered by cell towers is quite small. Meanwhile, radio covers a wide wide area and you don't have to run all over town trying to power individual cells.
Spoken like a true (non) expert. You state things as a fact, when it's really just a guess.
Do you prefer one way communication, or literally nothing at all? Because that is what you could be faced with for the reasons I listed above.
Which is easier to get back up and running: A network of 100 cell towers, or one radio broadcast which can even be located on a boat off shore on coastal and island locations?
Seriously, what argument is there to giving people more options here? Geez. Maybe if you were stranded somewhere with no cell service you naysayers would understand. One way communication is better than nothing at all.
Except for when it isn't. Also, there is definitely the potential situation where those cell towers are running at first, but later stop working because their batteries have been depleted. There are way too many cell towers for crews to run around to addressing this issue, particularly if roads are impassable. And the distance covered by cell towers is quite small. Meanwhile, radio covers a wide wide area and you don't have to run all over town trying to power individual cells.
Spoken like a true (non) expert. You state things as a fact, when it's really just a guess.
Do you prefer one way communication, or literally nothing at all? Because that is what you could be faced with for the reasons I listed above.
great! radios work so they can broadcast HOPE to the country
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0928/In-Puerto-Rico-one-radio-station-is-broadcasting-hope
(in case you're missing the story-- all/most of the other radio stations are kaput)
-------
i can tell by your responses to me that you're completely missing my points.
oh well.
Which is easier to get back up and running: A network of 100 cell towers, or one radio broadcast which can even be located on a boat off shore on coastal and island locations?
I can't believe there are people here actually upset over the idea to provide people with additional communication during an emergency. The more ways you have, the better. But no, let's throw all our eggs into one cell tower basket.
here is a key point (bold) that i think you're not considering what's being said:
i'm not saying anything against that or nothing like "FM radio stations / capabilities need to go away.. they are worthless"..
ok? are we clear on that bit now?
i'm saying this ---
if i'm using an iPhone during an emergency then i want to use the freaking iPhone.
do you understand?
i don't want my smart phone to convert to an FM radio during event of emergency.. i want it to remain a smart phone..
if i want to use an FM radio during crisis then i'll do that too.. just like you can.. nobody is trying to take that ability away from you in this thread.. but some of your responses seem like that's what you're reading people as saying.
Perhaps that involves (quite a bit?) more than some software call to "activate" the FM receiver that is there?
[doublepost=1506641775][/doublepost]
The problem is that the preference doesn't have much to do with practicality. The reality is that more complex infrastructure will be that much harder to have full-proof (as if that even exists in reality). The other part of it is that if the infrastructure is still up in some capacity then it will more than likely get overloaded and thus will become pretty much useless from that point of view (as opposed to something like just plain radio, for example).
The answer you refuse to listen to is: both.
This is the flaw with your entire argument. These options are not mutually exclusive.
When we lose cell reception during an emergency, you can stand around cursing cell towers while the rest of use tune into FM for useful info.
After a Cat-5 hurricane, if the power grid is down, the local strong stations won't have power, if not having their broadcast antenna blown down as well. As for distant stations, my car radio gets no distant FM stations unless I extend the antenna to a height greater than an iPhone.
The internal wireless comm slot antennas are tuned to much higher frequencies than the FM broadcast band. Not only that, but the RF paths probably have AM/FM band-stop filters before the chip to keep the RF front-end from getting overloaded, so the chip will be getting zero signal on those bands. Thus rendering any software mods useless.
Better, the FCC should encourage more Americans to study up and get their amateur radio licenses. Ham radio is much more useful for emergency comms in this kind of disaster.
I don't think you understand the issue at all. Nobody forces your iPhone to be FM radio in emergency. It's an option that may come handy should the wireless infrastructure collapse (as it did during the hurricane). And when wireless infrastructure collapses, your iPhone stops being a phone it becomes a brick.
You are completely misunderstanding what everyone is talking about here. They aren't going to convert your phone into a radio, you would simply have the option of tuning in FM stations if and when you want to. This would not disrupt any other uses you might have for your phone.
This is not like the moronic amber alerts which force your phones to do something because of some event 1000 miles away.
Precisely how is it technically infeasible? You really want me to believe a large company like Apple with billions in the bank can't solve the issue?
As for reliability, it would be a hell of a lot more reliable than nothing at all in an emergency situation with dwindling choices. You might not have that option. Do you understand?
And really, do you carry a FM radio around with you all the time. In the car? On the subway? Literally everywhere you go? I sincerely doubt it. But I bet that phone is with you.
What is with this thread? Is it that people have been so spoiled by cell phones and electricity that they think they are going to be there all the time? They aren't. Mankind is always one hurricane/earthquake/war from being sent back to the stone ages. And I am still scratching my head why some here are so passionate about not giving people choices. Why?
what hurricane?
Maria?
if so, the entire place collapsed.. there are no radio stations. (except the god one that survived).
'the hurricane' is not an argument for FM radio because it failed too..
it's more of an example of why better contingency plans / infrastructure need to be in place for emergency than what they had going on in Puerto Rico..
some residents were getting cell service (along hi ways).. some were getting hope from the radio station.
the electrical infrastructure was bad.. that is the problem there.. radio and cell failed.
If they had FM radio it'll probably be easier to hack into listening to your calls of something shady. Gov ain't lookin out for the people.
of course i understand.
so if more efforts are put towards improving infrastructure then the 'might not' gets smaller and smaller and becomes -- "you'll most likely have service.."
that's my whole thing.. put effort in that direction.
don't put effort into trying to require phones to act as FM receivers.. we already have FM receivers.. they're widely available, nearly everybody has access to a battery powered one (cars for example).. many people still have them lying around the house.. etc.
if the goal is to improve communication during emergency then improve the networks.. FM radio can simply remain what it currently is.. there's not much that can be done to improve upon what it already is.
-----
LOL
What effort? We are talking about a firmware update that would activate hardware that already exists in most phones.
They do have FM radio module in iPhone 8. According to the iFixit teardown results, iPhone 8 has this chip:
* Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/FM radio module marked Apple/USI 170804 339S00397
This actually raises some questions about Apple response. It's quite possible that this module may not be activate by software. But Apple's statement that the phones do not have FM hardware in them appears to be false.
Apparently flat five wrote the official Apple response.
Okay, you're really confused. This is only about adding an extra reception capability, not automatically taking any away.
Perhaps you've never experienced a major natural or manmade disaster, but many of us have. It's not uncommon to lose cell service, if not right away, then after a few days when the tower generators run dry.
Believe us when we say that being able to get news becomes very important, and over the air radio/TV is about all you have.
You want to know what has happened, what is coming next. Where gas or food or water can be gotten. Where to go for help. What services are still available and when they might be coming back.
Yes, everyone should own an emergency radio. But today's youth seems to think that all they need is a smartphone. Which is another good reason to make sure they will still have the ability to get warnings and news in an cellularless emergency.
Precisely how is it technically infeasible? You really want me to believe a large company like Apple with billions in the bank can't solve the issue?
It's technically infeasible because there is no FM antenna without a headphone cord, which Apple has removed. Ajit Pai in his statement said "flip the switch" which reasonably translates to meaning current models. There is no antenna built into the current models and reliable FM antenna cannot be placed inside them. Billions of dollars doesn't change physics, unless you expect that people will want to buy (and carry) a walkman like looking device with a telescoping FM antenna.
A more reliable approach would be to educate people prone to disasters on how to be correctly prepared, e.g.; portable am/fm radio, batteries, flashlight(s), water, food, family emergency plan, clothes, baby food, diapers, and medications. An iPhone is not the answer for all of life's problems.
of course i understand.
so if more efforts are put towards improving infrastructure then the 'might not' gets smaller and smaller and becomes -- "you'll most likely have service.."
that's my whole thing.. put effort in that direction.
don't put effort into trying to require phones to act as FM receivers.. we already have FM receivers.. they're widely available, nearly everybody has access to a battery powered one (cars for example).. many people still have them lying around the house.. etc.
if the goal is to improve communication during emergency then improve the networks.. FM radio can simply remain what it currently is.. there's not much that can be done to improve upon what it already is.
-----
LOL
But again, FM radios aren't with you everywhere you go. Not everyone has a car. Not everyone with a car is near their car. Car might have been destroyed.
I don't think it's possible to make sure that every single cell tower survives an earthquake, flood, hurricane, alien invasion, zombie apocalypse, long term power loss, whatever. And yet again, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a single radio station back up then hundereds of cell towers. Also, it's not just the towers, but the entire backend that would have to be impervious to water, earthquakes, power disruptions. I just don't see that happening.
So wait...you're saying that there aren't any cell towers but in fact they do have one working radio station (not to mention what could be set up at sea)? My point exactly.
i thought it might be obvious what i meant but to spell it out more clearly---
i don't want my smart phone to EFFECTIVELY convert to an FM radio during event of emergency.. i want it to remain a smart phone..
you see what i meant?
Nobody wants that, nobody is asking for that. You keep arguing against something nobody has said.
You realize the FM receiver is already built in to the phone, right? It's a matter of writing software to use the hardware and whether or not it can use the antennas already built in to the phone or if you'd need an external antenna.
Some on here also seem to think that you're automatically going to be close to your house or car in the event of an emergency. Ask those in NYC during 9/11 or those that have gone through earthquakes and tornados if you always have an FM radio handy. Some disasters are not like hurricanes that you have a week to prepare.
"Oh looky here, I have a phone that also can get FM radio, how convenient. They're telling me several places I can go to get food and aid."
Why can't people see outside the box? I'll take whatever help I can get in an emergency.
It's not technically impossible. Apple just chooses to not make phones with headphone jacks anymore. It might be impossible on existing phones with no jack, but going forward? No. Again its a choice on Apple's part, not some insurmountable technical issue.
You've seen one too many Transformers movie. Your phone will still be a smart phone. One without a connection perhaps, but it won't be turning into Optimus Prime.
Why would that happen? Your phone would remain as it is, you'd just have an option to use it to listen to radio should you choose to use it (during an emergency or not). Kind of like there's the Podcast app on your phone which you can choose to use to listen to podcasts or never use at all--it doesn't change anything about what the phone can do or can't do or how you can use it.
Except it won't be magically converted over to an FM radio. My smart phone is still a smart phone even if I use a pair of wired headphones to get FM signal.
I don't think you know what you're talkng about.
That's assuming that the phones that do have that built in don't need anything else aside from a simple software update to enable it and actually make use of it.