FM Tuner: Broadcasters defend push for making them mandatory on all phones

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Carlanga, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. Carlanga macrumors 604

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #1
  2. iphone1105 macrumors 68020

    iphone1105

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    #2
    Desperate attempt to keep FM radio alive, and it's already been dead for years....
     
  3. shandyman Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #3
    thanks to ootunes, i don't need the FM transmitter :) its great!
     
  4. ToroidalZeus macrumors 68020

    ToroidalZeus

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    #4
    It would be pretty nice now that most carriers are getting rid of unlimited data options. People can listen to local radio stations without using any data.

    I'm sure all high-end cell phones would end up getting FM chips eventually anyways. They need to add as much hardware as they can in, just so they have a new model to sell.
     
  5. draz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #5
    Doesn't the iPhone have some sort of FM receiver chip already which is used to communicate with the Nike+ transmitter?
     
  6. ctt1wbw macrumors 68000

    ctt1wbw

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Seaford VA
    #6
    I'd rather see commercials go away than to have that very same commercial laden fm radio station on the iPhone.
     
  7. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #7
    The broadcasters and RIAA will be up in a battle with the equipment mfgrs for this. The winner will be whichever side gives enough "gifts" to Congress. And even if they do put FM tuners in, it will still be loaded with commercials and still old non-HD radio. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to add a monthly fee to your cell phone bill too.
     
  8. PurrBall macrumors 6502a

    PurrBall

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #8
    I can get all of the FM stations I listen to via streams, so it doesn't really matter :|
     
  9. Spudracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    #9
    Hmm...I can have all of the music I like whenever I want without any annoying "personalities" wasting my time or advertisements for vagisil and honest Abe's rent to own furniture store.

    And you'd rather have an FM tuner? Why?
     
  10. allaboutmusic macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    #10
    Imagine the fun you could have plugging your iPhone into an FM transmitter.

    They are planning to move radio in the UK to predominantly digital only... perhaps they will introduce a digital tuner in iPhone - even with ooTunes and similar it could be a good bandwidth-saving alternative.
     
  11. Carlanga thread starter macrumors 604

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #11
    yeah I stream my local radio with the 'tunein radio' app and some internationals from back home too with ease.. I think an actual FM transmitter fully working would be beneficial for various things: one it would not consume data (I have unlimited but who knows when AT&T might decide to cut it off in the future), when using the app, you are actually running the app + connection to the internet to get the stream + the stream itself consuming data + battery, so I would think a native regular radio transmitter would consume very little battery. Also if they enabled a full transmitter we could stream our iphone's audio to any music component that has a radio function (no more add-ons or cables for older music components) and probably I would think the range would be better than bluetooth... Also, sometimes I enjoy comedy shows in the morning when going to the hospital, it makes my morning a little bit more relax...
     
  12. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #12
    The problem with Digital Radio is that several competing systems (and different versions of those systems) are used in different places.

    FM is pretty universal (different areas have slightly different ranges of frequency, but that can be handled in Software).
     
  13. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #13
    There have been a couple instances in my life where having a radio on me to get news and/or instructions would have helpful. Almost everyone has a cellphone. If a radio was included that would also mean almost everyone would also have a radio--which would be an extremely useful tool in public emergencies.

    Besides that, call me crazy but I like the radio and the personalities on it. Now that Apple has it on the nano it makes no sense at all not to include it on the iPhone and iPod touch--especially now that data caps hobble the use of streaming services.

    That being said, Im not sure about companies being forced to include it.
     
  14. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #14
    And in other news, manufacturers of automobile front engine cranks petition congress for mandatory inclusion of hand cranks in all autos manufactured after 2010. "It's in the interest of safety of the driving public" industry spokesman Fred "the dead" Tech was quoted as saying.
     
  15. The Phazer macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Location:
    London, UK
    #15
    An FM tuner would use about a tenth of the battery of listening over 3G, is considerably more reliable, and doesn't clog up he 3G data networks which are fundamentally just not designed to deliver this sort of traffic.

    That last one alone is a good reason to enforce regulatory inclusion of an FM tuner.

    Phazer
     
  16. Fuzzy.Dunlop macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Location:
    London
    #16
    Fully agree, data networks are already struggling - Why should we have to pay for something (app + data) which is essentially free
     
  17. shandyman Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #17
    actually where i live, 3G signal is more steady and reliable than FM signal for the station i like to listen to, so listening to it over 3G is more suitable for me.
     
  18. ski2moro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    #18
    I can't remember the last time I listened to FM radio. I have had Sirius satellite radio in my car for years. If I need local news or traffic info when I am in my car, the AM 'talk radio' station has better "traffic and weather on the 10s" than anyone.

    I don't want FM if it adds cost, weight, or size to my phone. I don't need it and won't use it.
     
  19. Carlanga thread starter macrumors 604

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #19
    that's a really bad analogy... cranks would AID the working function of the motor (both need the engine for the car to run) not ADD an extra function from an older car that the new one doesn't have for X reason... here radio is not aiding the 3G or wifi, it's adding a completely extra new function from previous electronics that :apple: decided not to implement on theirs...


    Well, the iPhones 3GS & 4 right now have the FM capability in their respective chips but the FM part is not wired to function so the cost I believe would be really minimal for the next iPhone (+ is a new extra thing for people to go UUHHH about in a newer revision).
    Also I don't like paying $13 for radio monthly like you, since I only listen to it in the car and I live close to everything that I spend less than an hour a day driving... If I don't like the radio I just play my music from my iPhone to the car... This new feature would cost so little extra to make that the price point of the phone would not be affected...
     
  20. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #20
    Wonder why the NAB doesn't also demand an AM radio and TV tuner since the cell phones do include a screen.
     
  21. CT1stMaxedOut09 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #21
    I was just about to post something about this but I was going to ask if anyone knew of an FM recieve that would work w/ the iPhone 4 cause at my gym in order to hear what they are saying on TV when on the treadmill or bike you need an FM reciever.

    For the amount that you pay for the iPhone & other phones they should already include one built in....
     
  22. PNutts macrumors 601

    PNutts

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, US
    #22
    Apple made the decision to not enable the existing FM chip. IMHO with FM there is less reason to purchase through iTunes. It's about $$$ which is why NAB is pushing for it. I'm OK with the status quo and resent an attempt to make congress legislate it.
     
  23. iceterminal macrumors 68000

    iceterminal

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas Tx.
    #23
    Its one thing to want FM, another thing to like FM. But to REQUIRE you to pay for FM is, well, fascist and a very corporate thing to do.
    The only reason why they want to require you to pay for FM is so they keep their income stream.
    Why should I be "forced" to pay for FM? Why? If I don't want it, why should I be required to have it?
     
  24. SkottDMD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #24
    Requiring is a bit much but I still don't see why it hasn't been implemented on iPod's (outside of the Nano) or iPhone. It's a nice feature, although I admit I've only used it once.
     
  25. scaredpoet macrumors 604

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #25
    I doubt you have the data to substantiate the first two points, and you're dead wrong on the third. 64kbps s enough to deliver decent audio equivalent to an FM radio stream, and it's doable over EDGE.

    On the other hand, adding an FM radio adds another antenna to the mix (or you could leave it out if you want the receiver to be unreliable except for the strongest of stations) would require yet another app on the home screen to control it whether you want it or not, and adds battery drain in addition to the 3G radio which will run concurrently with the FM and WiFi gear.

    It's also not a valid argument that FM radios are scarce. I have FM radios, in my house and in my car. I don't listen to them, and haven't deliberately done so in years.

    This isn't about public safety in the least. The NAB is trying to legislate the foisting of old technology on electronics vendors in the vain hope that it will compel people to listen to FM stations, without their constituency having to make an effort. Where should this type of nanny-state legislation stop? How about we pass laws that require every US resident to subscribe to a minimum level of cable TV service, since Over-the-air or satellite TV might be subject to weather conditions or transmitter failures due to terrorists attacks, and FiOS/UVerse are simply too new? How about we also mandate that every household subscribe to copper POTS wirelines phone service (again, Fiber is "too new" and untested) and connect rotary corded phones to that service?


    What the NAB don't understand is, people like me aren't listening to FM not because we don't have FM radios, but because the stations we can receive on those radios provide us with no reason to listen. Perhaps if they innovated, and provided compelling programming, and didn't play the same 6 songs over and over between 20+ minutes of a commercials per hour, their audience numbers would grow.

    What's worse, most of these FM radio stations no longer have news departments of their own, and are not equipped to provide news and information on their own in a serious crisis or emergency. In fact, during past crises, since September 11 on, many have tended to cut over to the audio of CNN or similar news feeds. So... what's the point? A potential listener like me could just go to CNN to get the video that goes with the audio.

    There are entities like satellite radio, online broadcasting stations and online music stores that don't mandate by law that everyone be forced to own equipment capable of receiving their content, and yet they do just fine. The NAB could learn from their example.


    There is never a good reason to force regulatory inclusion of obsolete technology that delivers irrelevant dreck. If you want lawmakers to make laws, then lobby them to focus on enforcing strengthening current and relevant technologies to have the reliability they should have.
     

Share This Page