NAB, RIAA May Seek Mandate For FM Radios In Mobile Devices

Trintech writes with this quote from an article at Ars Technica: "Music labels and radio broadcasters can't agree on much, including whether radio should be forced to turn over hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for the music it plays. But the two sides can agree on this: Congress should mandate that FM radio receivers be built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronics. The Consumer Electronics Association, whose members build the devices that would be affected by such a directive, is incandescent with rage. 'The backroom scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity,' thundered CEA president Gary Shapiro. Such a move is 'not in our national interest.' 'Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.' But the music and radio industries say it's a consumer-focused proposition, one that would provide 'more music choices.'"

Comments

Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[eldavojohn]

If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones. Turns out it's not for several reasons. One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks. I rarely listen to the radio and when I do it's some form of public radio. There's probably a number of size and power constraints as well that result in every single leading cell phone lacking this 'feature.'

The two sides hope to strike a grand bargain: radio would agree to pay around $100 million a year (less than it feared), but in return it would get access to a larger market through the mandated FM radio chips in portable devices.

Wait, wait, wait. What part of that deal was consumer focused?

I think instead of 'consumer focused' you mean 'consumer manipulation' but to be fair they didn't define whether the focus was positive or negative.

Take your market mandated regulations, take your backroom deals, take your advertisement laden radio, take your same damn song repetition and firmly shove them up your ass. Most importantly: leave me and device companies alone. You've already done far too much damage.

And yes, I put my money where my mouth is and only buy music from labels unaffiliated with the RIAA and bands with no labels at all. I love sites that promote this like bandcamp and even Amazon MP3 occasionally. If you agree with me, do the same. Powerful lobbying has proven that it's the only way to stop this from our end.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[LingNoi]

You raise an interesting point. How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position. If the government went through with this how could they possibly fine any monopoly in the future for abuse when they've done it themselves.

Surely this is illegal to begin with.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[realityimpaired]

Perhaps I'm a dissenting voice here, but I actually do listen to broadcast radio, and I would love it if my android-based smart phone had an FM tuner in it. There are times when I don't have the music I want to listen to on the device, and I would tune in to either CBC 2 (classical music channel) or the local indy/alternative station.

I don't think mandating it is a good idea. But I do think that if more manufacturers put them in smart phones the devices would find a market.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

My android-based smart phone has an FM tuner (HTC Incredible) but why on earth would I use it when I can use pandora?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[TheRaven64]

My last two (Nokia) phones both had FM receivers built in. It's a pretty standard feature, although not one that I've ever used. I'm not sure if manufacturers even bother advertising it anymore - a stand-alone portable FM receiver costs so little that it's not really a selling point.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[lazybeam]

One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks.

That's why I only listen to a non-commercial radio station :) however its signal is not very strong on my mobile phone FM radio: entering a train kills it - though it does work on my car radio when I drive to work. I do like the idea of FM radio - it uses less battery power then playing an MP3 - but it doesn't tend to work very well in practice.

If FM is going to be required, maybe all phones should also be able to send/receive faxes? It is an equivalently-obsoleted technology. My phone plan in 2001 actually had a separate "fax number" but when someone called it all I could do was "reject" since my phone couldn't handle it. It didn't take me long to get it permanently blocked.

Wouldn't something like DAB+ reception be better than FM anyway? I've had FM reception in several of my phones, including my current one: they have all been (2G GSM) Nokias.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bill_mcgonigle]

If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones

Well, some people think it's a good idea, but notice that unless they wanted to mandate radio quality, it's not likely to have even a minor benefit. I just send the kids off on a road trip with a couple new video players. These are great little no-name devices - they play most formats, come with enough storage for a long car trip (900Kb mpeg4 via ffmpeg), do audio, video, ebooks - and FM radio.

Now, that last one seems odd, doesn't it? I thought so and decided to check it out, just for grins. Now, I don't live in an area with much on the dial, and I have good radios at the house for picking up more distant stations, but there are 3-4 strong local stations that can be heard anywhere. Except on these little things. The FM radio is effectively useless, the strongest stations cut in and out.

My suspicion is some marketdroid insisted on that extra feature, but whoever designed the unit for sale (or at the Chinese reference design) knew that almost nobody would use it and keeping the price low was the biggest goal. So they put in a very very cheap, worthless radio. All that really results in is a slightly higher price, more UI clutter, and probably slightly reduced battery life.

Any mandate like this would likely result in the same course of action, mostly causing harm. Of course, mandating radios in telephones isn't one of the enumerated Powers of Congress last I looked, so I can't blame the *AA or corrupt politicians quite so much as the People who let them get away with this nonsense. And, perhaps ultimately, they'll be the ones who wind up shouldering the outcome with crappier phones.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Abstrackt]

My android-based smart phone has an FM tuner (HTC Incredible) but why on earth would I use it when I can use pandora?

From the US-based perspective I can see your point, but in Realityimpaired's case, being Canadian means he doesn't have the option to listen to Pandora without a VPN.

Being Canadian myself, I worry our government will decide to play along if yours passes this. I agree that it would be nice to have the option but I'm of the mind that my phone should just be a phone.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[floatednerd]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that you had to pay a monthly fee to listen to Pandora on a mobile device.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[s122604]

You are mostly right.
Although "size and power constraints" issues with FM is kinda overblown.
Size, maybe (although FM recievers on a chip are tiny). Power, just isn't the case, not for any device capable of transmitting.
The power drain from receiving is an order of magnitude (or more) less than transmitting,

I think it's a really cool feature, as there are times when the localized one-to-many format provided by a radio is extremely useful (for news and information mainly).
Still, I'm not sure it's something manufacturers should be MADE to provide. As has been pointed out, there are phones that already offer this feature.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[flajann]

Perhaps I'm a dissenting voice here, but I actually do listen to broadcast radio, and I would love it if my android-based smart phone had an FM tuner in it. There are times when I don't have the music I want to listen to on the device, and I would tune in to either CBC 2 (classical music channel) or the local indy/alternative station.

I don't think mandating it is a good idea. But I do think that if more manufacturers put them in smart phones the devices would find a market.

I'm sure you can find a classical streaming source to get the classical music that you love. Or just buy a separate FM receiver. They don't cost much these days.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[krem81]

You can buy the RadioTime app for something like $4 that will give you most of your local radio stations and almost any streaming station from around the world.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[NotBornYesterday]

Sir, I am outraged, OUTRAGED, that you oppose consumer choice like FM radio in cell phones, mandatory 78 rpm record players in CD players, and of course the ever-popular integrated 35mm film projector and DVD player.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DriedClexler]

Duhhh I'm a consumer! I like all those funny thingz those personalities say on FM radio! Their just so clever with everything they think of! Where do they get that insightful information? And how do they know the same ten songs, all new, that I want to hear? Oh oh oh! Gotta be cultured, I think I'll listen to this classical station!

Durrrr Buy buy buy! Consume consume consume! What they've provided for me is good enough! I've gotta keep spending!

How the fuck can you enjoy broadcast radio and have an IQ above 80?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Pojut]

The RIAA is just pissed of because it's finally realizing how useless they are at this point.

You no longer need a multi-million dollar studio to produce professional-sounding audio, nor do you need widespread advertising in "traditional" ways to get popular. $10,000 will buy you all the instruments, equipment, and distribution you need. Depending on your music, it likely will require even less than that.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[paiute]

Of course, mandating radios in telephones isn't one of the enumerated Powers of Congress last I looked....

There are enough legitimate arguments against this abomination without dragging out the oft-cited and just-as-oft-refuted argument that if something is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution then Congress has to be blind to it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[jridley]

I wouldn't buy an MP3 player without an FM radio. It's how I listen to NPR. The MP3 part is how I listen to audiobooks and podcasts of NPR shows that aren't carried on my local station or are on when I'm at work.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[realityimpaired]

It wouldn't matter if our government decided to play along... if the US markets mandated it, then we wouldn't have a choice up here, since all of our cellular hardware is stuff that also gets sold in the states.

Or do you honestly think that a hardware company like HTC is going to have two production lines: one with an FM tuner, one without, for a 3.5G HSDPA+ GSM phone running at 850/1700 for data? (that would be AT&T in the US, and Bell/Telus and Rogers in Canada)

And she. There are some women who read slashdot....

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You raise an interesting point. How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position.

When a large company with a monopoly makes a decision, do you get to vote for a representative that is making that decision? Does everyone? The difference here is that the government is elected by the people, for the people and is thus theoretically acting for the common good. Companies are acting to maximize profit with no regard for the common good.

Please to not infer from my previous comments that I'm in favor of the proposed mandate. But at least I can vote and try to get others to vote the corrupt scumbags out of office. There are a lot of problems with or government, but people can put in the effort and we could fix things. I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests). I'd vote for an independent candidate whose platform was to make lobbying by corporations and foreign governments completely illegal, and I think a lot of other people would too. I'd vote for a candidate who promised to vote for electoral reform and destroy the two party lock-in. Put up a few posters and ads that read "The Republicans and Democratic parties are both full of corrupt dirtbags in the pockets of Wall Street fat cats. Lets clean house!" I bet there are a lot of people like me who are angry at and sick of the status quo and would go for a reform party who actually tried to make a real change and expelled members who were demonstrably corrupt or dishonest.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, open source and 3rd party music is where it's at, where the music is innovative and interesting, not just more of the exact same over and over and over..

Anyway sounds like a good poll question: do you listen to FM radio?

Myself.. I think I turned the radio on sometime 20 years ago.. maybe..

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Gr8Apes]

I personally would rather have the extra battery life instead of an FM receiver. I barely use the radio in my car as it is, and never the one in my house. If they want people to listen to radio again, as probably the underlying purpose of this misguided effort is, I would propose an immediate ban on ownership of more than 8 radio stations by any single entity and no more than 2 stations in any market. (ie, no more clear channel or infinity) Let's go back to individuals deciding what gets played on the radio and perhaps we'll get some truly interesting music back on the airwaves instead of the same "top 40" as decided by some tone deaf marketeer across the entire country.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 1000% (no, not a typo). Anything that comes out of the RIAA's mouth ( or from any industry spokesperson ) I automatically assume it's a lie designed to F*$% us, the consumers, over. Especially since the whole sue 'em all campaign the RIAA has run.

Show me the figures to back up your statements you slimy greaseballs and I'll think about it, but please, Please, PLEASE do not assume that you are MY best friend only looking out for MY best interests. Why can't you just come out and admit it that we, the consumers, are seen by your type as nothing more than a revenue stream???

Fucktard liars, each and every one of them.

(ok, ok, i'll get off my soapbox . . .)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[surgen]

No, it is free. You may be thinking of groveshark which only had a few day trial on my phone (I don't know what their web based pricing is like). Pandora on mobile actually has fewer audio ads than on the web (and the google on screen ones are as unobtrusive as ads get). The 40 hour/month limit might still apply.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Shadis]

You are indeed incorrect actually. I listen to Pandora pretty much every day on my Iphone and other than the occasional audio ad injected into the streaming music there is nothing that I pay for.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Andy Dodd]

It's kind of funny - a number of phones have the hardware for this, but US-based carriers remove the software for it. (for example, my AT&T Tilt 2 has FM receiver hardware but stock AT&T ROMs don't have the software or drivers.)

The feature is pretty much useless anyway since it only works when the user has wired headphones connected (uses the headphones as an antenna), and even then the reception performance is poor.

The RIAA MIGHT have a valid complaint if they specifically focused this software removal issue, HOWEVER, forcing everyone to add extra hardware is just fucking nuts.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Abstrackt]

It wouldn't matter if our government decided to play along... if the US markets mandated it, then we wouldn't have a choice up here, since all of our cellular hardware is stuff that also gets sold in the states.

Or do you honestly think that a hardware company like HTC is going to have two production lines: one with an FM tuner, one without, for a 3.5G HSDPA+ GSM phone running at 850/1700 for data? (that would be AT&T in the US, and Bell/Telus and Rogers in Canada)

Good point, I hadn't considered the source of the hardware. Though I swear I found a GPS receiver whose power output was limited in the Canadian version despite using exactly the same hardware as the US version once. I think the possibility exists that the radio feature gets disabled in firmware by the vendor for whatever reason.

And she. There are some women who read slashdot....

Sorry about that, no offense intended. I had no doubt there were women on Slashdot, it just appears that the population is largely male so I use male pronouns when I'm not certain (i.e. gender-neutral names). When I reply to or quote one of your comments in the future I'll address you correctly.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Tim C]

There's probably a number of size and power constraints as well that result in every single leading cell phone lacking this 'feature.'

I can't remember the last mobile phone I had that didn't have an FM radio built-in; certainly my last one (LG Viewty) and my current (HTC Desire) both do; perhaps the situation is different in the States.

Of course whether or not you consider either of these phones to be "leading cell phones" is another matter; the Desire is pretty popular over here at least though.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Trails]

Good point, I hadn't considered the source of the hardware. Though I swear I found a GPS receiver whose power output was limited in the Canadian version despite using exactly the same hardware as the US version once. I think the possibility exists that the radio feature gets disabled in firmware by the vendor for whatever reason.

Sure. But you're still paying for it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[electrosoccertux]

as long as they let us record whatever song we want, I'm down with this legislation.

Also, why does Preview always take about 20 seconds to load? What a waste of time, I almost just closed the tab. I have yet to find a single computer that doesn't do this. It's like once I preview once, I'm good for that browsing session, but not until then. Does it on all browsers.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones. Turns out it's not for several reasons. One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks. I rarely listen to the radio and when I do it's some form of public radio. There's probably a number of size and power constraints as well that result in every single leading cell phone lacking this 'feature.'

My HTC Legend has an FM radio, i launced the Radio app exactly once since i've bought it....

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Lumpy]

Not really. many MANY Nokia phones have FM radios in them, even with RDS. It's simply the engineers of the other phones being too lazy to add it, or in the case of the iphone fitting 12 pounds of stuff in a 4 pound bag.

The other problem is that the reception performance of these FM recievers in phones utterly sucks. they are in a nasty RF environment and have the sensitivity of a block of concrete. Only local strong stations come in.

In the case of smartphones.... why. I get pandora and last.fm as well as sirius streaming app on my iphone.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And then, all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings. Creating music is and always was easy. Distributing music used to be difficult, but now it's easy. Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Rob the Bold]

Perhaps I'm a dissenting voice here, but I actually do listen to broadcast radio, and I would love it if my android-based smart phone had an FM tuner in it.

I have an older Sony-Ericsson phone with a built-in FM receiver. And it replaced another phone that also had an FM receiver. I have never listened to the FM receiver. Not once.

There are times when I don't have the music I want to listen to on the device, and I would tune in to either CBC 2 (classical music channel) or the local indy/alternative station.

And that's probably why I've never used mine. I don't have those choices here. Wanna trade phones? Or homes?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Lumpy]

you haven't needed this for well over a decade.

DAT recording has given the garage band studio quality for a long time. Even the higher end sony MiniDisc units from the 90's recorded great and had manual level settings. a cheap mixer and a PC with a soundcard and you are set to go for CD quality and editing the audio.

I helped a band record a AAD Album that sounded better than a pro RIAA recording in 1995 with a DAT recorder recording from 4 microphones into 4 audio tracks. it sounded amazing. and we recorded it in a basement with blankets on the walls and ceiling at 2am to get rid of the traffic low frequency component.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Lumpy]

if it was consumer focused then it would invalidate the patents on HDFM.

HDFM is a mess.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sir, your deeply intellectual, logically unassailable argument has a majestic beauty and subtlety, but I can come up with a more compact version:

"I don't like it, so therefore it's completely useless."

I know, it lacks the grace of your argument, but I feel that the brevity really illuminates the logic of behind your reasoning.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[cgenman]

There are streaming radio versions of most of the local radio stations here in Boston.

Most of the radio stations here in Boston start cutting out by the time you get to the 495 ring.

If you're doing any traveling, it's easier to put on a streaming radio station on your phone than an actual radio station on your car. The coverage is better, and it doesn't start fuzzing out every five minutes.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Ephemeriis]

I don't think mandating it is a good idea. But I do think that if more manufacturers put them in smart phones the devices would find a market.

When I was shopping around for an MP3 player, I picked one specifically because it had an FM tuner built-in. It's a music playback device, and I wanted to have the ability to play broadcast radio.

Having the choice of an FM tuner is certainly handy.

I don't really want one in my phone... Hell, my phone can play MP3s and I never use that feature. But I wouldn't really be against some manufacturer offering a phone with an FM tuner.

And I suspect that if a manufacturer really thought there was a market for phones with FM tuners, they'd be making/selling one.

But to cram one of these into every single phone? It's just another feature I'm going to pay for, but never use.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Pojut]

That all depends on what you want to do with your music. The guy that lives on the first floor of our apartment complex is fairly popular locally, but at the moment he is just using the money he earns to save up for retirement. As for myself, I release all my music for free because it caters to a very small niche where there isn't too much available. I got started because I wanted to hear specific types of music, and was having a hard time actually finding it. Of course, now that I do it, I've come in contact with all kinds of people who make the same stuff...but I digress.

If you're good enough, your music alone will make you more popular. The Very Small, a band made up of people I went to middle and high school with, played at the 9:30 Club a couple of months ago (a place where people as big as Marylin Manson, John Mayer, Thievery Corporation, and Black Eyed Peas have played) They have also done a multi-coast tour, and are planning another one. Their advertising is done almost entirely through word-of-mouth and social networking sites.

It's hard, but if your music is actually good, it will eventually happen on its own.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Pojut]

Note that the "$10,000" figure included all equipment...this includes instruments and microphones. I realize you can do it for much cheaper (and, depending on your genre of music, much cheaper), but factoring in high-quality mics, a solid-quality drum set, and good quality guitars/amps, $10,000 isn't all that unreasonable.

Again, that includes everything...instruments, cables, computer, software, hardware...everything. You can, of course, just spend $200 on a decent USB MIDI controller, $300 on a decent DAW, and do everything in software...but that's why I said it all depends :-)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[tibman]

At first i was agreeing with you.. but then i started thinking about groups who make money by promoting good bands. There are magazines dedicated to just this thing. People pay money to read a magazine about what bands rock, what bands suck, and where to get their music. There are probably blogs who make advert money doing the same thing. Why would a band pay a magazine for their content? The band isn't putting an ad in the magazine, they are the content itself. The magazine should be paying the bands for their time, right?

If a band could pay money and get front page whether they are good or not.. nobody would read that piece of shit magazine. People want to find good music, not bands with deep pockets.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[idontgno]

I think you stopped too soon. You had the opportunity to distill GP's argument to its crystalline essence, its fundamental core beauty. And you didn't take the final step.

GP's argument, with all its rhetorical flourishes and baroque refinement stripped away, is:

"You're different from me so you suck. Derp."

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[GooberToo]

My android-based smart phone has an FM tuner (HTC Incredible) but why on earth would I use it when I can use pandora?

Simple. Very simple. Power. Coverage. Period.

I would personally love to see both AM and FM included in more smart phones. I do not want to see it mandated. That's dumb. This is clearly one of those places where the market is very capable of regulating itself.

AM/FM radio reception has clear advantages of services like Pandora in that AM/FM radio is everywhere. On the other hand, data services are not yet everywhere. And ignoring issues of data coverage, the power required to process an audio stream versus simple AM/FM can be huge. To process an audio stream you need a data network, a radio receiver, a CPU (its data at this point), decompression (CPU and/or dedicated hardware), and a speaker. To process simple AM/FM, you can use a very small, low power, dedicated circuit. And technically, an AM/FM radio could still be used when in airplane mode, which can provided yet additional power savings while still providing for an audio solution.

And even when on the nation's largest carrier, I still regularly find pockets having no data services.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[queazocotal]

Modern receivers are small, cheap and low power to integrate.

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=TEA5767HN/V3,118-ND - for example is a FM radio chip.

It comes in a 6*6mm package, with under 5 tiny cheap external components required, simply adds onto the I2C bus present in most all phones, and the total price at 100K is around $1.2.
The operating current is at 10mA typically a small fraction of the power needed to decode mp3, and when unused it draws essentially no power.

In newer chipsets, it tends to come along for free, as it's integrated into many bluetooth chipsets these days.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DarthVain]

I know WAY back in the day I think I had a new 286 that had a "radio" PCI card in it. At that time I thought the radio card was a bit archaic...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[LucidBeast]

My daughters Nokia has FM transmitter, which of course means that we listen to her mp3 collection on road trips. Do not recommend!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why get into a utilitarian argument when a principled one will do?

From Federalist Paper Number 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Did James Madison not know what the Constitution meant? Certainly it's flawed document - often vague - and other people would like it to mean different things, but the original intent is not hard to discern.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[hedwards]

Being in the hospital the last few days it was kind of nice to have my Sandisk Sansa with FM tuner, but that being said, the modern digital tuners don't seem to do anywhere near as good a job as the older ones did. Back when you had several feet of dial and could precisely tune in the signal. As OK as I am at times with the government mandating things, I can't imagine any reason why this one should be required. Digital tuners just aren't anywhere near as useful as people think.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[knight24k]

Perhaps I'm a dissenting voice here, but I actually do listen to broadcast radio, and I would love it if my android-based smart phone had an FM tuner in it. There are times when I don't have the music I want to listen to on the device, and I would tune in to either CBC 2 (classical music channel) or the local indy/alternative station.

My android has FM radio and I have used it exactly once. It was mostly out of curiosity and to check out how it worked. It is ok if I actually cared about anything broadcast radio played, but I don't. My android also is capable of playing MP3s which allows me to play whatever I want. So why would I want to listen to FM Radio? Except when I am driving to and from work, I don't listen to radio at all and even then I sometimes listen to my own CDs or pop in my Rosetta CD to practice my Russian.

Frankly, I think this is just another power and money grab by NAB and RIAA. They have to know that the audience for FM radio on mobile devices, at least in the US, is practically nil, but they still can charge the mobile device manufacturers and/or the radio stations and collect yet more money. They have to know that users getting music over the air is declining rapidly, yet they will attempt to jam this down the consumer's throat and milk it for all the revenue they can.

I am sure there is a small fraction of mobile device users that would use this feature. If the demand was there the device manufacturers would have already included it or would be actively working to include it in the near future. I have no problem with it being included in devices if it is due to consumer demand. Government mandates, on the other hand, are just a bad idea no matter what side of this fence you are sitting on.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[drinkypoo]

I think instead of 'consumer focused' you mean 'consumer manipulation' but to be fair they didn't define whether the focus was positive or negative.

think "variable power scope"

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[M8e]

Some one is still paying for it, but it does not have to be you. They can raise the price in the US with X$ and lower it in Canada and other places.

Simiraly the same way Intel and AMD have sold processors with disabled cores. Are you still paying for the disabled core or is it the people buying the top of the line processor with 4-8 cores that pay for them?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[NotBornYesterday]

Not doubting you completely, but maybe it was ISA? IIRC, PCI didn't come out until the days of 486/Pentium.

Either way, kind of an odd thing to see, especially since audio cards of any type weren't in general use until later.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

Impossible! People have no power over their own lives. They need organizations and government protections to thrive. Only through rules, regulations, laws, taxes, unions, corporations and big government can people be expected to be well.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Technician]

I wouldn't mind if they did not exclude the AM band. Finance, Politics, and other info is sadly missing from the FM band except for NPR, and that only provides bias on one side.

I find it funny how devices with radio only include FM. I have a scanner, a MP3 player, and an FRS radio with radio, but missing the AM band entirely. We don't need a mandate for more devices to carry the same redundant service. I have plenty of devices already. If you want FM, a cheap one can be picked up for under $20. I have some of them lying around somewhere, unused.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[IndustrialComplex]

And then, all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings.
Why would you need to do that?

Creating music is and always was easy.
Good.
Distributing music used to be difficult, but now it's easy.
Good, if it were otherwise we would have somehow slipped in technological advancement.

Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.

But presumably, it isn't difficult making a name for yourself enough to create a small, but sustainable presence if what you seek to do is make a living through live performance? Certainly it wouldn't be a rock-star lifestyle, but why exactly, do I care if that lifestyle is supported?

Tell me, if it weren't for that $500,000 advance, would rock-stars cease to exist? Of course not. Some local bands would somehow figure out a way to expand their appeal to a more general audience, and eventually build up world wide support. In the absense of any 'angel benefactor' tossing a pile of money in your lap, it might take a bit longer, but it wouldn't be impossible.

And isn't that similar to the situation today? Not everyone gets to be a rock star now, and not everyone would get to be a rockstar if every major label dried up overnight. Some, however, would find it possible to reach that level on their own, especially if a void existed in the market.

But it really comes down to this:

Why is it so important that someone have the ability to reach rock-star level status? Especially when the emerging system seems to support a lot more local/small (and innovative) musicians rather than the old system in which these small-scale bands actually DID have a hard time even getting to the point where they could make ends meet.

That pop-stars are rare isn't really a problem. It wasn't a problem from 1300AD - 19th century. And I doubt it was anything essential from the 19th century until now.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

Or do you honestly think that a hardware company like HTC is going to have two production lines: one with an FM tuner, one without

No. Never. They would not ever make something like a palm pixie with wifi for Verizon and one without for Sprint. Ohh. Wait. Nevermind. You are so wrong I will not even point out everyother fucking product in every other market that dose this.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[LWATCDR]

I would love for this to mandate HD radio. One of the new cell phones I am looking at has an FM radio in it. but not HD radio.
Our local NPR station has more than one channel of HD radio and I like the extra options that HD radio offers.

The other thing I would value is a notification system.If they are going to put on an FM radio how about a NOAA weather radio?

The down side to all of this is that they only work when you plug in your head phones.
Every cell I have seen with an FM radio use the headphones as the antenna.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

Because remember children. Success is evil and must not be tolerated in a free market.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[ari_j]

The vast majority of people do want to pay $5/month to be told what music they should claim to like. They're not looking for good music, they're looking for what opinions they should have in order to fit in with their peers.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Schadrach]

If RIAA and the like were interested in the least with keeping up with reality rather than trying to force the "old ways", the labels would reinvent themselves as primarily a specialized advertising and promotional organization. The problem of course being that that has a lower margin than the current model...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

I have one that has an FM tuner and the ability to record that source. It is great for news that is happening right now. Radio is good at that.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Kentari]

I guess forcing radios on people and hoping some will use it (and get a tax on it passed) is easier than making quality radio and making people WANT a radio in their cell phone... I seem to have an FM tuner in my phone (low end Nokia), but discovered it because of this story. I had no idea and never wished to use it before. I have a tuner in my mp3 player as well and never used it either. If your music taste goes a bit of the beaten path, radio is pretty poor....

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Abcd1234]

Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.

So do it for fun and keep your day job, just like most other artists...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[camperdave]

Hate to break it to you, my friend, but the article *IS* the ad. It's the same with David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, and the others. The bulk of their guests are selling something: their latest movie, the book they wrote, the CD they just released. Sure, you will get the occasional guest that's there purely for popular interest. That's just for camouflage. They are there to make you believe that the show is not an infomercial.

It's the same way with promotional magazines. Sure, you may get an article or two covering some interesting trend, but the articles that focus on the band are advertising the band.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

So then, the 10th Amendment means nothing?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Runaway1956]

I gots no mod points - someone mod this guy to the moon, please.

We don't NEED no steenking rock stars. A couple dozen stars making gazillions of dollars, while the rest eat leftover beans just sucks. People who love making music should be able to make a living. The ones who are really good at it should make a great living. But, freaks running around buying up multi-million dollar condos, million dollar cars, and multi-million dollar jets and yachts is just ridiculous. None of them are WORTH IT!!

And, if any of them really were worth it, he/she/they would have made it without a major label backing them anyway.

Just do away with the labels, FFS

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it would be nice to have the option but I'm of the mind that my phone should just be a phone.

Then don't get a smartphone, and you should probably look into a phone-only stockpile while you can get one.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[tepples]

maybe all phones should also be able to send/receive faxes?

That would actually make sense. It wouldn't take any extra hardware in the phone, just a fax-to-email gateway on the carrier's side. But in the case of FM radio, it could be cheaper to put the receiver in the phone than to stream it over the end users' data plan.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[trickyD1ck]

But I do think that if more manufacturers put them in smart phones the devices would find a market.

Isn't this an oxymoron? If something were to find a market, it would already be here. This certainly works for a century-old technology like radio.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[realityimpaired]

So... Because I like listening to shows like Quirks and Quarks, The Vinyl Cafe, Definitely Not The Opera, and The Ongoing History of New Music, I'm obviously an evolutionary reject with an IQ less than 80? Sure. That's sound logic.

Perhaps the idiot here is the one who doesn't realize that broadcast radio includes channels that aren't owned by Clearchannel, and apparently doesn't realize that outside of the intellectual wasteland that is the USA, it's actually really easy to find educational and interesting shows on the radio?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Mister Whirly]

And a distribution deal. And a radio promotion deal. And the money to send your album to hundreds of radio stations with your one sheet. Making good sounding music is easy these days, however getting it out for people to actually hear it and buy it is almost just as difficult as it ever was. The internet has changed this a little, but not as much as the recording of music has changed.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DriedClexler]

Hold on -- I didn't say it was useless. If you're easily amused, then broadcast radio is definitely the thing for you. Heck, I even listen to it, not because it's good (I have to keep changing stations because of how often they get to something unbearable) but because I haven't bothered to configure my car to take input from my smartphone or put my CDs in.

I'm simply questioning why someone would actually want to stand up and be counted as someone who actually likes broadcast radio, as if it's a fucking badge of honor.

If you like broadcast radio, great. It's just, you know, shouldn't you be wearing a trenchcoat and sunglasses or something?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Stewie241]

We don't NEED no steenking rock stars.

But then who would do benefit concerts for the environment, G8, aids, etc etc?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[skozsert]

Its not a free market. Both the spectrum and the actual content are heavily regulated.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Pentium100]

How the fuck can you enjoy broadcast radio and have an IQ above 80?

Simple -
1.My favorite radio station at night broadcasts music non stop. I like a lot of songs they broadcast, but do not know the artists and song titles (since the radio station never says them).

2.Radio requires least involvement to listen (turn the tuner on, tune to a station, that's it), compared to records, tapes, CDs or files. Useful when I want to do something that requires a lot of concentration, but still want the music to play in the background.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[godefroi]

That's why I only ever watch the first 1/3 of any late-night "talk" show. I watch the funny stuff, the monologue, and then I shut it off when the "guests" start arriving.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[HideyoshiJP]

Someone modded troll, eh? Should have used a tag.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[russotto]

If the government went through with this how could they possibly fine any monopoly in the future for abuse when they've done it themselves.

If hypocrisy wasn't an option, the government couldn't do much at all. I leave it to you to decide whether this would be a good or a bad thing.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[locallyunscene]

Why get into a utilitarian argument when a principled one will do?

Because a principled argument is great in theory for someone who shares your principles. A utilitarian argument can be appeal to any ideology provided they're not too closed minded.

FWIW I wish there was less cherry picking of the constitution by Democrats and Republicans(if you're going to harp on 2nd amendment rights don't denigrate the 4th out of the other side of your mouth and vice-versa), but I do also agree it is a living document that must be a foundation of freedom(which may require things like civil rights legislation) while reflecting the will of the people.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[commodore64_love]

Wow. I agree with every post in this thread. A few random thoughts:

(1) If I was a singer or author I'd try the usual routes of going to the Megacorps and trying to get published to magazines (like Asimov's Science Fiction) or radio/CD/itunes. But I'd also distribute my music via youtube. If it's good people will grab it and make it popular, and I will have "made a name for myself".

(2) I have an FM Radio in my portable player, and I think it's great. When I get bored with my current playlist I can switch to the radio to hear something new. Or hear the news. Or the weather if the sky looks dangerous. I'll never buy a portable that doesn't have a radio built in.

(3) Obviously the RIAA has no chance of reaching their goal. The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution. (Such a power, if it exists, is reserved to the Member States or the People.)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

Fuck it. I like being modded troll by those who can not argue on the facts.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[panikfan]

It's only a 'living document' in the sense that it can be ammended. FWIW I wish there was more reading of the constitution by our citizenry, and teaching of the document by (unconstitutionally) government-run 'educational' facilities. The federal government has no standing to even try and make this happen, although that doesn't mean that it won't.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[fractoid]

If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones. Turns out it's not for several reasons. One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks. I rarely listen to the radio and when I do it's some form of public radio. There's probably a number of size and power constraints as well that result in every single leading cell phone lacking this 'feature.'

Wait, what? Maybe I'm behind the times but my current phone and the two before it had FM radio tuners, not as some massively advertised selling point, just as one more thing the phone could do. Do "leading cell phones" aka iPhones and late model Android phones no longer have this feature?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[dbIII]

I personally would rather have the extra battery life instead of an FM receiver.

Why do you think you'll get extra battery life without it? The actual hardware is very small and removing it does not give you any more battery space.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[oreaq]

If they want people to listen to radio again, as probably the underlying purpose of this misguided effort is,

No. The underlying purpose is stated in TFA: "radio would agree to pay around $100 million a year" (to RIAA members). Nothing else matters.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Gr8Apes]

Who is successful here?

- ClearChannel and Infinity, who definitely stand to reap some benefits from this gov interference they're proposing?

- The RIAA, who stands to get a kickback for supporting this and adding the cost of the devices which will harm consumers?

- The couple of marketeers posing as independent middle men that, as essentially paid representatives of the 5 major distributors, promote whatever those 5 wish to push blocking out everyone else?

Anything about any of those 3 sound like legitimate success to you? Or does it sound more like Mafia business practices?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, she has an FM transmitter and we will be forced to have FM receivers - so people in an near by car or another room could listen to her music? i guess the performers will want their cut and what will the RIAA do? they'll want money for that as well

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[xenapan]

The worst part isn't the fact they have multi million ____'s. The worst part is most of the mainstream music SUCKS. I can't believe people would pay to listen to that stuff and thats whats on the radio... and they want to put radio into my phone again?

The RIAA knows it's dying but its attempts to stay alive are just hilarious now.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[digit1001]

Read "Get in the Van". Black Flag criss crossed the country, eating when they could. Playing as much as possible, in many ways becoming the "Johnny Appleseeds" of punk rock. The problem is Avril Laveign (I don't care enough to look up the spelling) and like want to wear the punk uniform, but if she had to stay in a Marriott she'd flip out b/c of the thread count on the sheets. That's why "artists" often need these large start up funds. I've played on and off with bands since college... never enough for any real touring, and it's been fun. I'm happy to get free drinks and go home with gas money. People I know that are able to do it full time aren't looking for much more. The RIAA an their ilk in the music industry are going to go the way of travel agents (do we still have those) as more and more people build practice studios in their basement and release their music online. Until someone has a basement that can compete with Tickmaster though, I'm afraid that's one channel that can't be avoided...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The free market's a bitch isn't it?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, CBC radio 2 is awesome. I also listen during the day when they play classical music. There is a couple of catches about putting that in this discussion:
      1. CBC = Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I don't think they are lobbying the US government for FM tuners in US sold devices. If they are, they are wasting Canadian tax payer money.
      2. As broadcast methods change AM -> FM -> Satellite, internet, .... they get money from the Canadian government to change and keep broadcasting

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Schadrach]

While audio cards weren't common, you could get near audio-card quality from the internal speaker, so long as your CPU had nothing better to do. There were a couple of old PC games that did voice on the internal speaker, though they paused all game action to do it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Artifakt]

I'm glad you wrote 'a monopoly abusing its position' and not 'having a monopoly'. The argument is:

1. Having a monopoly isn't illegal in itself, just abusing one. Under antitrust law, it's necessary to prove a monopoly exists, but that's just the first step to proving something illegal happened.
2. If the government awards some privilege that creates a monopoly (or in this case, extends one), then exercising that privilege isn't an abuse, it's just what the law intended.
3. Other actions, such as colluding to fix prices in an industry, are outside of the government's granting of privilege and so could still be illegal.

I'm not just debating the semantics of "If the government does it, that means it's legal." here. The breakup of 'Ma Bell' is a great example. Nobody reasonable denied that Bell was a monopoly. Allegations of its being abusive hinged on whether it made its money using the advantages that the government granted (i.e. right of way), or by other methods not connected to the law. The phone company tried for years to claim all their profit margin came either from being a physical or natural monopoly, or from law. High barriers to entry, for example would be a natural monopoly - it's expensive for anyone else to run a second set of wires to all subscribers. Privilege would be the government granted easements that had a condition of providing access to scattered farmhouses and other low profit clientele. If Bell had been able to prove that those factors were the full extent of the matter, the breakup would never have happened.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Local ownership of radio stations is a must. Clear Channel needs to be busted up like AT&T. In fact, busting up the cellphone cartel would also be a good idea. RIAA is clearly a dinosaur looking for a tar pit to fall into, as is the whole recorded music industry; MPAA as well. If they don't fix themselves, someone will come along with a new business model that will take them totally by surprise & leave them going the way of the crank telephone. I mean, that's the era they're in! :-)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Dishevel]

My reply is to your post stating that we ban ownership of too many stations by one company. If one company owns a crapload of stations then they are successful. You want that banned. Banning successful businesses is not good for the people.

BTW. I never said that I wanted government to stick it nose in and start mandating shit for the benefit of certain entities.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[LiENUS]

Or do you honestly think that a hardware company like HTC is going to have two production lines: one with an FM tuner, one without, for a 3.5G HSDPA+ GSM phone running at 850/1700 for data? (that would be AT&T in the US, and Bell/Telus and Rogers in Canada)

They already do, look at the nexus one and the htc desire.. funny thing is technically the nexus one includes a fm tuner... they just didn't buy he license from qualcomm so it's not active.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Jafafa Hots]

All phones should have a telegraphy key! Western union demands it!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bill_mcgonigle]

but I do also agree it is a living document

Do you agree that it's a contract between the People and the Government?

If so, do you mean then that it's a contract that the People can't ever really know what they've agreed to?

Would you ever sign a contract that could be changed unilaterally?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Jafafa Hots]

It's possible that radio where you live hasn't devolved into the entirely useless crap that it has here in the US.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[langelgjm]

Yeah, my last and current Sony Ericssons have both had FM receivers. It seems like the kind of thing you tend to see on non-smartphones more than smartphones.

I've used it a couple times, and there have been plenty of other times when I might have but couldn't, since I wasn't carrying around the wired headset you need to plug into it to act as an antenna.

Now I hardly use it at all, since someone gave me an iPod shuffle which is better for jogging and commuting (I probably wouldn't even get radio reception during the commute).

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[hairyfeet]

But how much of that "difficulty" is because the cartels are allowed to engage in monopolistic behavior by the government? I was playing in a college band in the late 90s that was quite popular across a couple of states. Because I was the phone number listed on the contact sheet I got no less than a half a dozen calls from DJs with variations on this theme "Hey, could you tell your fans not to call us? It doesn't matter that we like the band, or even the fact we have showed up and broadcast you guys live before, we are not allowed to play a SINGLE song not on the corporate approved list. So could you please tell them to stop calling?".

And if anything the record companies, thanks to them owning the gateways to avenues like radio, have become more evil than ever. We were offered contracts twice and told them where they could put them, because the contracts you will be offered nowadays gives you NOTHING for your digital rights, gives them the rights to ALL songs recorded, basically it is the most blatant one sided contract you've ever seen and you'd have to be an idiot to sign it. One of the bands we toured with thought we were nuts and signed, they ended up breaking up and being unable to work with each other simply so they could get out of their contract. The record company didn't even pay for a decent studio or new instruments but by the time they got done with their "Hollywood Accounting" the band owed something like 400k, when they didn't even get 10k upfront.

So yeah, it means longer hours and a little more hard work to stay indie, but it is a hell of a lot better than the alternative. for every band you see on MTV the record companies have stolen the work of and ripped off another 100 bands and left them broke without even the rights to play the songs they wrote. No thanks.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bennomatic]

I'll tell you why the cell phone manufacturers don't offer it: their customers don't want it. No, I don't mean consumers like me and you; the wireless service providers don't want it because a cell phone with a radio means that consumers could conceivably be using their phones for hours and hours of music and news consumption, and they would get nothing for it.

As much as I agree with the 'horse-buggy' description of the music/radio industry, there's no lack of cynicism in the comment. What the cell phone guy was saying, in effect, was, you radio broadcasters should put everything on a an Internet stream so that I can bill my customers for every minute they listen.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Mister Whirly]

All of it of course. The music industry read (some of) the writing on the wall and realized that eventually artists would not need to use hundred thousand dollar studios anymore. Once artists were able to record their own music inexpensively, what did they have left? Controlling promotion and distribution. If you want to be a commercial artist and sell music for a living, you will need to play the game to some extent.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the FM receiver DOES have a purpose on the cellphone. Namely, when you're at a public gym that has various TVs in front of the treadmill or stationary bicycle area. Around here, the sound for those stations are sent to the 88.7, 88.5, etc type stations, at a range just enough for the gym.

So for that reason ALONE do I find that it has a purpose on my cellphone.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DavidTC]

Indeed, I get baffled by the complaint that without the RIAA, no artist would be massively popular.

That would be a good thing. (Have you tried buying damn tickets to a concert lately?)

We'd be much better off for all sorts of reasons if there were hundred times as many 'popular' groups, each with a hundredth the fanbase, and no one using the RIAA at all to promote their stuff. The only people worse off would be the RIAA and (possibly) the tiny percentage of bands that the RIAA chooses to make popular.

People forget we used to have much the same thing for Hollywood stars. Studios would lock them into multi-picture contracts and promote the hell out of them, they'd make no money, and they'd get discarded at the end or when popularity dipped. But it was the only game in town...it's not like there was anyone else making movies, just like there's no one else getting songs on the radio.

So actors unionized.

We still have super stars who can't act worth a damn, we still have crap being shoved down our throat, but there's actually room for independent stuff. (And independent films are a hell of a lot more work than independent music.)

We don't have studios signing up every new actor that walks into Hollywood, and then ignoring 95% of them, like the music industry does. Or, hell, a better analogy with the music industry would be to charge them to be in movies, and they only get the money back if the movie makes a profit, which would suck, as studios do the same crazy record-keeping that the music industry does, where nothing makes a profit.

It's hardly perfect, but the movie industry seems to operate a lot better than the music industry. Yeah, yeah, there's plenty of complaints about how that industry decides to make movies entirely by computer based on what it thinks people like, like the music industry, and comes out solely with sucky pre-digested crap, but you're going to get that behavior out or any large business.

But now it has to behave somewhat reasonably towards actors and writers and stuff. And people aren't stuck in contracts with companies that don't care about them, so they can go do independent films and, now, web films, and do okay.

And like I said, a lot of the stuff stopping independent films was the expense, and the fact they didn't have a good distribution model unless a major studio stepped in. (Note, the studios step in after...they don't go around signing the filmmakers up, charging them for the privilege of making a movie, and then letting it die, so whatever you think of them, they're better than music studios.) Those facts have just changed for film, and the movie industry is dealing...unlike the music industry, which had those fact change a decade ago, and still hasn't dealt with it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[cdpage]

I couldn't've said it better my self! I don't remember the last CD i bought from a Major Label. I too go to sites like bandcamp, find new music that is NOT on the radio, and contact the artists directly when ever possible. I ask the artist how they would like me to buy the music.

The RIAA have done more damage to the 'label' industry then any of the free download sites could have ever done.

I guess on a positive note, the RIAA have inadvertently caused the popularity in the grass roots and underground music scene... which is great for true music artist, and music loving fans... not so good for media giants who thrive on the label industry.

huh, i guess the RIAA screwed over two industries.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[guruevi]

I don't know if you ever were involved in organizing such concerts but those very famous rock stars get paid very well for doing a 'benefit' concert. They also have their 'demands' regardless of cost - why does a rock band need a bottle of blue label for each member before AND after the show and even worse, why is that stuff in their contract in the first place?

As with most humanitarian organizations, 90% of the benefits go to the organizers, 10% or less actually reaches the beneficiaries.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[couchslug]

"Impossible! People have no power over their own lives. They need organizations and government protections to thrive. Only through rules, regulations, laws, taxes, unions, corporations and big government can people be expected to be well."

Nancy Pelosi, is that you?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[kheldan]

Hear, hear! I'm over 40, was "raised on radio", and I still remember radio being pretty awesome. These days, when I'm driving (ride a motorcycle most of the time) there aren't enough presets on it to properly accomodate the "dance of the stations" I do constantly between about 10 different stations in my market, trying to find something to listen to that doesn't suck. Oddly enough one of those 10 stations is a low-power student-operated station run out of a local high school that plays a surprisingly fresh and eclectic mix of genres; this is what radio should be!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[vertinox]

Perhaps I'm a dissenting voice here, but I actually do listen to broadcast radio, and I would love it if my android-based smart phone had an FM tuner in it. There are times when I don't have the music I want to listen to on the device, and I would tune in to either CBC 2 (classical music channel) or the local indy/alternative station.

Doesn't android have internet radio? I know I have CastCatcher for iPhone if I wanted to listen to a local radio station who broadcasts over the net.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[socz]

I have the same philosophy! So recently i've been redoing my site... I think I shall add some of the music I've made.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Artifakt]

Why is it so important that someone have the ability to reach rock-star level status?,

People need to really read that question literally - you're not claiming that rock-star status is bad, or that nobody should be 'allowed' to become that popular, but asking why that matters so much it swamps other issues. Maybe it is more important that any people who can create or perform decently and become moderately popular have a fair chance to get to 'I can do this full time and quit my day job' status. That's as much a 'fairness' issue as 'people who are really excellent should be able to rise to the top', to say 'people who are pretty good should get rewarded better than people who are lousy'.
          There are industries such as pro sports and acting, where the top few have 'rock-star' status, but the base starts at or below minimum wage. There are industries where all members make a pretty good income but nobody goes three orders of magnitude higher. Nobody thinks it's really the most/sole/only important thing if somehow the best professional astronomers get paid millions a year and have first choice of all the telescope time in the world. We (as a culture) surely don't want brain surgeons to mostly put in long hours in very poor working conditions for less than break even pay so that a few of the best can command 50 million+ a year. The film industry may be fine with a few Tom Cruises at the top and a lot of actor's equity members waiting on tables hoping for a big break, but they don't want the same huge spread for directors or soundtrack composers, or even gaffers and best boys. You can do accomplished work and still starve to death as a painter, but not as an architect.

A few highly paid examples at the top and lots of proles at the bottom seems to happen where publicity and image play a huge role in selection. There are lots of jobs where the last thing we want is people getting paid based on image regardless of objective ability. I, at least, don't want an oncologist being told by a manager he can make 3% more if he gets this additional board certification, but 300% more if he gets his teeth capped.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[couchslug]

"But presumably, it isn't difficult making a name for yourself enough to create a small, but sustainable presence if what you seek to do is make a living through live performance?"

One can do much, much more than that through live performance.

The Grateful Dead certainly did.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Stewie241]

Heh... Sorry about that. I forgot to add the [/sarcasm] tag.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Belial6]

Bingo!

Becoming a rock star is a little like winning a fixed boxing match. If the big pile of money that was used to fix the fight were to stop being used, someone is still going to win. It might not be the guy that would win with the fix. Instead it would be the better boxer.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[CrashNBrn]

Well except for Craig Ferguson -- while some of them are definitely there because of an agreement with the production company of "whatever they've done recently" -- Craig focuses far more on an interesting conversation than spending the whole interview talking about their latest gig.

I don't disagree with you per se, but I've rarely felt like I was watching an Advertisement when viewing the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DavidTC]

The important thing is that you've demonstrated the superiority of your likes and dislikes over someone else's likes and dislikes. Your likes and dislikes are clearly better.

Way to show all those lemmings what's what! Those dumb 'consumers', listening to radio and always doing what everyone tells them.

Well, the stuff they like is dumb. Only losers listen to the radio!

There's an xkcd comic that I should link to here, about people who don't watch TV, but teh google has failed me.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[corbettw]

You just hit the nail on the head: the RIAA (and other old-school distribution methods) is caput. The head is dead, the body just doesn't know it yet.

Justin Bieber had a YouTube channel that he set up himself, and is now a huge pop phenom. I can't stand his music, but obviously I'm not his market; but I do respect the hell out of his initiative and the big "fuck you" it represents to established interests.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Civil_Disobedient]

all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings

And all you will have proven is that you can spend a lot of money. Notice there's still no correlation with actual quality.

Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.

"Making a name for yourself," basically all boils down to write good music. If you write good music, advertising is free. If you write good music, people will pay you to play it for them! If you write good music, people will even pay you to write more!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[sconeu]

And what if I just want a FUCKING PHONE... no radio, no internet... just a FUCKING PHONE???

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[skywire]

It doesn't seem fair that leftists not allowed to make serious comments without being modded Funny.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Gr8Apes]

Success were those radio stations that were the most popular in their markets and could charge higher fees for commercials, thus also being more successful financially.

These current radio stations weren't successful. They were bought by investment groups in order to monopolize a limited resource from a previously tightly controlled market. This does not qualify as "success" to me but seems more like Mafia tactics.

Think of this situation: we have a big barrel of water with 6 faucets. Before, separate entities each controlled 1 faucet and while faucet rights could be sold, no one could control more than 1 faucet. If you didn't like the price at 1 faucet, you could always go to the next. Now the regulation of only being able to control 1 faucet is lifted, and the local group of thugs, err, enterprising underhanded shifty businessmen, get together and buy the right to 4 faucets, then start charging a lower rate than the other 2 can afford to stay in business, then buy them out too. Now they control all 6 faucets, and start mixing in squash flavor into all water dispensed as well as raising prices, because the squash flavor guy gets proceeds from the increase in squash candy that the populace is now more attuned to thanks to the flavor "enhancement". This kills off the various independent fruit candy makers, because the squash flavoring causes the fruit flavors to take on an unpleasant taste. There is no other source of water in this case.

If you truly wanted a free market, then the current monopoly on bandwidths used by these stations would need to be allowed to be used by all (not practically feasible I know)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DarthVain]

Might have been my 486 then. I am pretty sure it was PCI not ISA. In any case, it was old technology then. I know at the time I "doubted" the validity of the idea of putting a radio in a PC even then. And that was before the times of internet radio and such that REALLY makes it even more IRRELEVANT.

Anyway it reminds me of the radio/frying pan on Simpsons.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it (likely someone has at this point), but it really shows how out dated/modeled the RIAA really is if this is the kind of business model they are trying to foist on people. I mean really its like something out of a parody!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Pojut]

You should! I find it to be very rewarding. Lord knows I've downloaded my share of music, and the kind of music that I truly love (spacey ambient) can be difficult to find. I like giving back to the community that has provided me with countless hours of listening (mainly through http://www.bluemars.org/ the world's greatest spacey ambient radio station).

In my spare time, I write for my website (and slowly peck away at a novel), I read a whole ton of books, I play a ton of video games...but none of these hobbies are as rewarding and give me as much joy as creating music that people enjoy.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DarthVain]

Which btw, I still have (as I don't throw anything away), and likely still works. I likely have a PCI slot free in my current Core 2 Duo system that I could throw it in... through I would still rather not.. :)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[cacba]

Normally talk show hosts are the whores of TV, but for there guests all services are free of charge.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Kymermosst]

Umm, probably he thinks that the FM receiver circuitry will use power (including leakage when it is "off"), and therefore diminish the battery life.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Cimexus]

Ditto here in Australia ... the many ABC (Australian BBC/CBC/etc equivalent, not a commercial network) radio stations are absolutely invaluable. There's a local station for local news, and several excellent nationwide stations (NewsRadio for news, Classic FM for classical music, JJJ for new music, but not the typical Top40 stuff, more indie etc). Admittedly these stations all also stream online and have podcasts etc. But still, there's plenty of good stuff on the radio. From my travels in the US though it does seem as if US radio sucks for the most part (although NPR and some of the local stations in college towns etc. have some good stuff).

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Just Some Guy]

People who love making music should be able to make a living.

I agree with the rest of your post, but wholly disagree with this part. It's nice people can make a living doing what they love, but a very small percentage of the world actually gets that luxury. I'm incredibly lucky that I love my work, but there's no right for me to make a living doing it; it's only a coincidence of the market that makes my occupation supportable.

There are probably people who deeply love to pluck their eyebrows. Good for them, but I'm not saying they should be able to make a living at it.

But, freaks running around buying up multi-million dollar condos, million dollar cars, and multi-million dollar jets and yachts is just ridiculous. None of them are WORTH IT!!

If the market says they are, then they are, even if you and I think the market is stupid for it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DriedClexler]

Okay, I don't advocate being different just for the sake of being different from the masses. I consider that to be just as much of an error. I was, however, criticizing the opposite mistake, of liking something without independently judging whether it's good or not, simply from social pressures. If you want to tolerate it out of apathy, fine, I can't argue, as I do the same.

But to stand up and protest about how much you "really" *love* this stuff, like it's some kind of respectable position? That's what I don't get.

Think of it this way: what if someone said, "Hey, there need to be more one-handed interface options so I can stroke my dick with the other hand, which I spend half my free waking time on"? Would I feel superior to them? No. But I'd certainly question why they're flaunting that aspect of them, like they should feel proud of that preference somehow.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[BoberFett]

If radio was successful, they wouldn't be lobbying to attempt to MANDATE putting FM receivers on all phones, now would they?

Clearly radio is dying because it's unsuccessful and people don't listen to it anymore.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Cimexus]

No you aren't going crazy. Most phones have FM radio already, so I don't really 'get' this thread and why everyone is saying they don't.

This includes many late model Android smartphones (HTC Desire definitely has radio, and I'm pretty sure the Legend does too).

Apple is the odd one out (as usual) - the iPhone doesn't have radio. But this is not really surprising since Apple have traditionally eschewed putting radio into their devices - even those designed to play music as their primary function. They didn't add radio to the iPod until the 4th or 5th generation, for instance.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[jo_ham]

Bob Geldof.

It's been scientifically proven that he ages at 1/16 the speed of a normal person. We have at least a couple of centuries left with him.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[powerlord]

If you truly wanted a free market, then the current monopoly on bandwidths used by these stations would need to be allowed to be used by all (not practically feasible I know)

I don't know.

Maybe some sort of Mandated "Public Access" AirTime/Channel might help.

(Just a wild thought off the top of my head, so feel free to rip it apart :) )

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[h4rr4r]

I think you will find that was not a leftist comment but an authoritarian one. There are rightist authoritarians as well, we call them republicans normally.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[uglyduckling]

Really... no. You won't get a 'studio' sound without at least some outboard, even if you're a purist. Some decent reverb, proper EQ, and a bit of compression are mandatory for almost all styles of music. What's changed in the past 5 years is that all of that is available at a reasonable price point, and desktop computers are powerful enough to run dozens of tracks with outboard on each and mix in the box. Without the outboard, the 'cd quality' recording would have sounded like a demo, even if the actual recording quality was good.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[uglyduckling]

Removing something, even something very small, will give more battery space (or space for some other function) if the case stays the same size.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[locallyunscene]

Pretty every contract I explicitly and implicitly enter into with any company includes the terms "We reserve the right to changes the terms of this agreement". I get notices from the bank, websites I have an account with, all sorts of places about how such and such has changed all of the time. That is how the world works.

In the case of the gov't, if I don't like "the terms of the contract" then I need to use the ballot box to change that.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[pugugly]

I wouldn't mind *having* it (mostly because of NPR) but mandating it seems silly.

Pug

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[stewbacca]

If it was consumer focused, this feature would be advertised as a selling point on cell phones. Turns out it's not for several reasons. One is that, in my opinion, commercial radio sucks.

But this is slashdot. Queue up the "my iRiver is better than an iPod because it has an FM tuner" in 3...2...1...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that appeared to be neither leftist nor rightest but sardonicist.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bill_kress]

Get Slacker & Pandora... Between those and podcasts the only thing you can't get is APHC, and I'll easily live without that rather than trying to remember when it comes on and finding it.

It'd be better if we don't support artists, shows and other media content that doesn't support our new timeshifting/locationshifting lifestyles anyway.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[OglinTatas]

The vast majority of people do want to pay $5/month to be told what music they should claim to like. They're not looking for good music, they're looking for what opinions they should have in order to fit in with their peers.

Heh. I don't even need to pay $5 to read pitchfork.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I'd pay $5 a month just to find out where my peers are.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[socz]

On one of my earlier web site versions, I had the songs up. I never checked to see how many people actually DL'd them. It'll be interesting to see how many people make their way that far to find them now though haha.

congrats btw (07/17/2010)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

...why on earth would I use it when I can use pandora?

All I can think of basically boils down to this: OTA baseball broadcasts are free and MLB's internet audio is something like $19.95/year. Probably similar for the other sports too. Oh, and OTA radio doesn't count against your mobile bandwidth quota.

Beyond that, I'll take the plethora of online options.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Pojut]

On one of my earlier web site versions, I had the songs up. I never checked to see how many people actually DL'd them. It'll be interesting to see how many people make their way that far to find them now though haha.

I started counting the number of downloads from my site, but only after some of the tracks had been up for a while. All my stuff is on last.fm now, so it's pointless to waste bandwidth through my host.

congrats btw (07/17/2010)

Thanks... she's one of my harshest critics as well as biggest fans :-)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Haeleth]

And where's the problem with that? Music wasn't created by advertisers in 1950; it developed just fine for thousands, probably tens of thousands of years with people being perfectly happy to make music on a local basis for fun, and with tunes and songs spreading virally based on their actual appeal instead of being picked by a handful of suits based on their profit potential.

The idea that musicians should expect to become global superstars, and that any musician who doesn't is somehow a failure, has done more damage to music than any number of pirates. The sooner it dies, and popular culture is reclaimed by the people themselves, the better.

(Indeed, we can thank pirates for many of the viral hits of the past, such as the classic "Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Rum". Would the RIAA have promoted that? Methinks not.)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally... I listen to broadcast radio in the car but at no other time. I'd rather have the option of saving a few $ and not have the FM receiver. And if it impacted the amount of power that my phone used, I most certainly would opt not to have one.

There are already phones available with FM tuners... I guess people just don't want it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Phoobarnvaz]

I have to agree commercial radio sucks. Was in the business for about 20 years...so I do know what I talk about. On the other side...I do listen to commercial radio outside the US on the Net. This doesn't suck...because they don't play 20 minutes worth of commercials every hour and most of the commercials are professionally produced...rather than Jim Joe Bob who owns the business cutting his own.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Haeleth]

I don't think mandating it is a good idea. But I do think that if more manufacturers put them in smart phones the devices would find a market.

In that case, the capitalist, pro-free-market solution would be for the radio industry to partner with cell phone manufacturers: they could offer reduced advertising rates for manufacturers who include and promote FM tuners as a phone feature.

Or they could even consider entering the 21st century and striking a deal with the cell phone networks to promote digital streaming of their radio stations.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was correct up until the US Civil War where the Federal Government exerted it's dominance over the States.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Plekto]

(2) ... Or hear the news. Or the weather if the sky looks dangerous...

I think this is actually a good feature, since hardly anyone listens to TV or radio and there's a real potential concern about half of the population not being able to hear any civil defense system broadcast or the like.

Plus, about 15-20% of new phones have it already. It's a nice feature to have even if you only rarely use it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DriedClexler]

Okay, point taken. Per the sibling comment, it may just be that US radio stations suck a lot more others in the anglosphere. Thus my reaction to someone broadly proclaiming her love of broadcast radio...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Mix Master Nixon]

"the ever-popular integrated 35mm film projector and DVD player."

WANT BAD:LY.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

yea plus add an AM radio too while you're at it. I wanna be able to listen to the baseball game and its only on AM radio.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Alioth]

Just a nitpick - AM and FM would have to be turned off in airplane mode, radio receivers are prohibited in aircraft at the moment (due to radiated energy from the local oscillator which is at similar frequencies to radio navigation aids, indeed the ancient NDB is in the same band as AM radio).

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Locke2005]

Most good radio stations also do internet streaming. The 2 stations I listen to do: kink and . So why does my cell phone need an FM receiver, when I can get better quality audio from the built in browser? The only difference is FM radio doesn't use up internet and wireless bandwidth, but that wouldn't be as much of a problem if the idiots would just use the IP multicast protocol that's been around for over 20 years!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[s.o.terica]

You do realize that iOS and Android devices all have NPR tuner apps that let you listen to essentially any NPR station in the country, right?

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[treeves]

Most music after about 1957 sucks if you ask me. Everyone has an opinion. Yours and mine are in the minority. Popular music is popular because more people like it than other music. We just have to live with that.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[leathered]

I'd love to see AM in a smartphone but it's not going to happen, decent MW/LW reception needs a large ferrite rod which would take up a large amount of real estate inside an already cramped case. FM is easy to implement as it uses the headphone lead as the antenna.

What I'm really hoping for is that DRM takes off (no not that DRM). DRM uses the SW bands and in a phone could potentially use the headphone cable as an antenna in the same way as they do for FM.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Sprouticus]

BINGO!

I have a friend who is in a moderately popular band signed with a small euro-label. They are about as far from Rock stars as you can get. They are great people, down to earth, live a normal life in a normal house. They make amazing Industial/Electronic music. They get by on concerts, t-Shirts and selling albums and MP3's. Yes their label helps them some, but my understanding is that the labels role (especially in the US) is very small and they survive on word of mouth, t-shirts, club exposure, and online sales (their web site, Amazon, etc)

Hell they are doing Dragon-Con this year. You cant get more un-rockstar than that.

More bands, more local, more specialized, that is the direction music is going in today. There is no need for mass marketed crap when you can get music that YOU love cheaply with little effort.

[insert shameless plug for my friends band]
http://www.iscintilla.com/

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[NotBornYesterday]

Get it running, man. I get a kick from new tech, but I love the nostalgia from old tech. I still have my old XT system from college. The crazy thing still works, although it is a complete waste of electricity to do so at this point.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

It was leftist and authoritarian. These days, leftists are usually of the authoritarian persuasion: Chavez, Castro, Pelosi, etc. They've descended from authoritarian leftists like Stalin. Generally, when leftists get into power, they want to push their beliefs on everyone with authoritarian means, because otherwise no one would accept their changes. Sure, there's non-authoritarian leftists, like hippies, but they don't get involved in politics, and they're dying out.

As for rightists, yep, they're usually authoritarian too. Instead of trying to push bad social policies on everyone, they want to push bad religious policies on everyone, and are generally members of the Republican party.

So, if you're an American, you have a choice between authoritarian leftists (the Democrats), or authoritarian rightists (the Republicans). If you're smart, you won't vote for either of them, because you're guaranteed to get authoritarianism (and especially, corporate control over government). However, most Americans aren't very smart.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

(1) If I was a singer or author I'd try the usual routes of going to the Megacorps and trying to get published to magazines (like Asimov's Science Fiction) or radio/CD/itunes. But I'd also distribute my music via youtube. If it's good people will grab it and make it popular, and I will have "made a name for myself".

You can't do that. If you're a singer or musician, you have to sign with a record label if you want to go the megacorps route. When you do, you have to sign over ALL your rights; the company gets to own everything you produce, not you. In return, they give you a big cash advance, with a very high interest rate. You now get to spend all your effort trying to repay this loan. If you only produce one hit album, you will not succeed, and will wind up broke. Basically, the only way this system will work for you is if you're as popular as the Rolling Stones, and produce tons of popular albums, so that you can eventually pay off the RIAA loansharks, and then create your own record label, renegotiate terms to your own advantage with the main label (EMI, etc.) you're under, and continue touring and releasing albums profitably. It takes a decade or more of consistent popularity to reach that point, which almost no bands achieve.

Unless you think you're going to be the next Rolling Stones (good luck), you're better off avoiding the megacorps altogether and starting local, owning your own songs, making your own albums, and selling them locally and on the internet, and doing your own promotion.

(2) I have an FM Radio in my portable player, and I think it's great. When I get bored with my current playlist I can switch to the radio to hear something new.

No, you can't. Radio stations don't play anything new, they play the same handful of songs over and over and over. Occasionally they'll play some new "hit" song by some "artist" like Justin Bieber. If you're a 12-year-old girl, that might work for you. For us adults, FM radio is mostly useless, though it can be fun sometimes for listening to the same limited selection of classic rock songs on those stations.

(3) Obviously the RIAA has no chance of reaching their goal. The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution.

Wrong. The US government has the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, and that certainly isn't addressed in the Constitution. The US government has authority to do whatever the hell they want; Congress just has to pass a law, and the Supreme Court just has to endorse it (or refuse to hear the case). Even if the Supreme Court strikes down a law, it can take many years, so you're still subject to the law in the meantime. So if Congress decides to require FM radios in all portable devices, it'll be law, and you'll be required to buy such a device (if you buy a portable device), until (and if) the Supreme Court strikes it down 5-10 years from now. 5-10 years is an eternity in the technology world.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[purpledinoz]

It's funny how the radio industry shot itself in the foot. They lobbied to get rid of ownership limits on radio stations. Now Clear Channel becomes a near monopoly, which then unsurprisingly results in homogeneous radio, and as a result, boring. If they were prevented from being a near monopoly, the radio industry would have remained healthy. Satellite Radio would have never taken off if FM radio was good.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DarthVain]

Yeah I have an old Dell P3 800, as well a my first 'custom' system a dual BP6 running 433's or 533's (I had several sets of processors), and I the old P120 or 486DX can't remember now... Most of them still work, but a bit of a waste of time. I remember digging through only hard drives and finding a 6GB one that still worked (Fujitsu I think)... I mean I have thumb drives bigger than that now! Which reminds me of opening my dad's old computer years ago, finding a 5.25in Hard Drive in it, and telling my dad it was really time to buy a new computer already! He also had me go through "junk" to throw away. Serial Keyboards man...

Anyway they only thing about popping in the radio to a modern system is that who knows what drivers the thing would use in Vista. I mean I am pretty certain whatever company made the thing is long gone by now! Vista might have a legacy driver somewhere in its archives someplace... I know I hooked up a old PCI 4 port internal 4 port HUB once (took off the BP6), and it found drivers for it (the only documentation I had for it was the lettering on the chips). I ended up ditching it anyway but only because it only supported the 10mb/s standard not 100, or 1GB, not because it didn't work. It just worked very slowly... :) and I didn't really need it with a wireless router with 4 physical ports as well anyway...

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[TheABomb]

I'm just curious, what portion of the market does FM radio not have "access to"?

"Boy, I'd love to hear me up some Clear Channel, but I just can't until those fancy Walkmans come down in price to match my iPhone!"

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[lowrydr310]

I have a FM tuner in my android-based smartphone. I don't use it because I rarely listen to FM radio anymore. I can't find enough stations with programming that I enjoy, and there are too many annoying commercials. Why bother with that when I can use Pandora, or buy the songs that I like in MP3 format?

Another big problem, for me at least, is that the NYC radio market is absolute garbage if you don't listen to mainstream top-40 crap, hip-hop, or Spanish (Latin American) music. Fortunately there are two awesome alternatives that I do listen to regularly when I'm in my car. The best station (and only station that plays modern rock/metal) is a college station that's commercial free, and the next best thing also happens to be a college radio station (I didn't know this; just found out now when searching the link!).

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[purpledinoz]

FM operates at around 100MHz, which has a wavelength of 3m. That means you need a fairly large antenna to capture FM signals, ie - an antenna much larger than your phone. This usually means that you have to attach an external antenna. Since you need an external antenna anyway, I think it would be a better idea to just have an optional external FM unit that plugs into the phone's USB port. So no extra cost of adding an FM chip, and the people who want FM can get it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

I'm incredibly lucky that I love my work, but there's no right for me to make a living doing it; it's only a coincidence of the market that makes my occupation supportable.

I disagree. If there's a market for your work, I think you have a natural right to attempt to make a living doing it, without being unfairly prevented from it by an organized cartel that controls the industry.

That's the problem right now; the music industry is controlled by a cartel that works to keep other players out. We're supposed to have fair-competition laws that prevent this kind of collusion so that we can have a free market. However, those laws have never been enforced, and as a result, it's difficult for musicians to make a living with their music without resorting to signing away all their rights to some big record company for a usurious loan. However, things are changing because of technology, so the record companies are slowly becoming obsolete as it becomes possible to produce your own album on a PC and sell it on the internet.

If the market says they are, then they are, even if you and I think the market is stupid for it.

The market isn't free; it's controlled by a cartel that distorts the market and prevents consumers from freely selecting between competing producers.

Free markets are great, but they only work when the market is forced to remain free by the government (as much as free-market fans refuse to admit this) when threatened by big corporations that wield the power to distort or control the market.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[iamnobody2]

I'll just leave this here for you: http://www.jitterbug.com/Phones/

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Teun]

An FM receiver is not the same as an FM transmitter but in the maemo repositories (Nokia n900) there's an application to enable the FM transmitter on phones sold in markets where it's disabled.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Man On Pink Corner]

The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution. (Such a power, if it exists, is reserved to the Member States or the People.)

Pull the other one. It has bells on it!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal
water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated
channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was
going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be
sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public
school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to
the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the
Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals
which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back
home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence
because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks
to the local police department. And then I log on to the internet --
which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Administration and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how
SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything
right.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[sznupi]

That could matter if batteries weren't somewhat standardized (not custom made for specific phone, at least). And if the limiting thing for cellphone miniaturization nowaydays wasn't how big of a screen people want.

Really, it's fairly...nothing. Especially with SoC integrating it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

> And then, all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings

I'm not very convinced that that $500k is actually necessary for anyone. IMO, it's more of a mechanism for the RIAA to siphon off the first $500k you would have earned (they bill the promotions against your later earnings, you know). But what does it really go towards? Payola for the dying radio stations?

If you're going independent, all the stuff you already have to do (play gigs, give away some copies of your album (digitally, these days)), and so on... that already substitutes well for paid promotion. Get your foot in the door, so to speak, at all those music "your friends liked things like [x]" social networking sites, and if you're actually any good, word of mouth picks up from there. It won't instantaneously rocket you to superstardom and mega riches unless you're REALLY REALLY good, but if you're decent then it'll provide a means to escalate from "hobby" to "career".

Rather than having ten bands making $100mil per year for the RIAA, I'd rather than 2000 bands making half a mil per year. Quite nice for them, even divided six ways, and music listeners get a vast and more-varied supply of new music to choose from. It's not as far fetched as it sounds: after all, if the former example is viable, then the latter (which involves the public paying the exact same total amount of money) is also viable. At $10/album, that's 50k albums per year per band, which is not unreasonable for a good-but-fairly-niche group with multiple albums out.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Falconhell]

Wait what? A good guitar, and I mean really good, will usually cost around $3000
alone. A good drum kit the same, and a bass guitar-again the same. Not to emntion amps.

There are varying levels of good, but in my 30 years inm usic production, the quality of instruments at his price is much bettee than cheaper ones.

I would agree you can get OK instruments for 10,000, but not excellent instruments.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Omestes]

And then, all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings. Creating music is and always was easy. Distributing music used to be difficult, but now it's easy. Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.

Not necessarily true. Well, it might be true if you really want to be a massively famous, rich, pop star; but it is completely false if you just want a decent fan base and a bit of respect.

Of the last 10 albums I purchased, not a single one of them was discovered via the radio (I don't listen/own one), nor through TV, nor through banner ads, etc... They were all discovered on Last.fm and MySpace. My favorite band (Giant Squid) hasn't even ever played where I live, but I still bought all of their albums after finding them on Last.fm, and pirating an album to see if I liked it.

Actually there is only one album I have bought in the last 5 or so years that is from an RIAA label (and I'm not intentionally boycotting), or other major label.

I doubt any of the bands I listen to are going to ascend into the next New Kids On The Block, or U2, but I also doubt that this is their aspiration.

Of my serious musician friends, they've all managed to gather a decent following from using nothing more than a busy live schedule, some rubber on the pavement, and MySpace. granted none of them have quit their day jobs, but this has never been the primary goal of music.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Omestes]

The right is generally in favor of selling us all to corporations, more so than the left.

Actually, there isn't much of a difference anymore.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

The right is generally in favor of selling us all to corporations, more so than the left.
Actually, there isn't much of a difference anymore.

Exactly. Maybe years ago your first statement was true, but these days, what's known as "the left" in the USA is just as corporatist as what's called "the right". The only difference is which corporations they're best buddies with. The Right->Halliburton, The Left->MAFIAA. They seem to be both equally fond of the big Bank corporations.

And while they're busy passing laws and starting wars to help their corporate buddies accumulate more wealth, they distract the voters with hot-button issues like gay marriage and immigration, where they've taken opposing sides to keep the people divided behind these two "teams" that are really working for mostly the same interests.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Omestes]

can't stand his music, but obviously I'm not his market;

From what I understand, he shares a market with Twilight; 13 year old girls and really creepy older women, mostly the latter.

There is something really pathetic about a 45 year old woman swooning over a boy younger than their own children. Or my girlfriends co-worker, a 50 year old woman with a twilight calender filled with the greasy haired guy (who did refer to him as "dreamy" when asked about it). I think this is the same class of women who obsess over Disney still. Spooky, spooky, social phenomena that.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[DaleSwanson]

(3) Obviously the RIAA has no chance of reaching their goal. The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution. (Such a power, if it exists, is reserved to the Member States or the People.)

On your world what prevented the US government from growing in power and abusing the commerce clause to be able to do whatever it wanted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[RobertM1968]

(3) Obviously the RIAA has no chance of reaching their goal. The US government has zero authority to force MP3 players or phones to have radios. It simply does not exist in the constitution. (Such a power, if it exists, is reserved to the Member States or the People.)

Wow, as always, you are so good at being wrong. Even IF other parts of the Constitution do not cover it, the Interstate Commerce Clause most definitely covers such things - and it's a far less of a stretch than the one used by the government (and supported by the courts) in convicting people who make certain... illegal products... because it can affect interstate commerce of the same illegal products (pot comes to mind).

There are various reasons the Interstate Commerce Clause apply. Sadly, it can be applied to almost anything with the current interpretations - but even without them, a device such as the ones discussed, are definitely covered due to the nature of their sales, manufacturing, assembly and operation.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Omestes]

Spot on, but I generally try to be a bit less cynical. I think at least some of our politicos are genuinely convinced that they are doing the right thing. This doesn't make anything that they are doing right, obviously, but makes it a bit less depressing.

immigration

Oddly, I think this is one of the places where representing corporate interests above individual interests is strongest. The right (both politically, and individualistically) largely supports it keeps wages down and breaks unions. The left, politically, love it for the same reason, and for the ever-forthcoming, but never evident, wave of latino voters who will eventually lead them to comfortably safe power. Where the individuals on the left love it for naive ideological reasons ("woah man, imagine, like, a country without borders. Deep!").

The gay thing is just an ideological fog, like abortion, the 10 commandments, etc... though.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

immigration

Oddly, I think this is one of the places where representing corporate interests above individual interests is strongest. The right (both politically, and individualistically) largely supports it keeps wages down and breaks unions. The left, politically, love it for the same reason, and for the ever-forthcoming, but never evident, wave of latino voters who will eventually lead them to comfortably safe power. Where the individuals on the left love it for naive ideological reasons ("woah man, imagine, like, a country without borders. Deep!").

I don't agree. The politicians on the right used to support it, because as you said it was good for their business buddies for keeping wages down and breaking unions. However, in recent years, individuals on the right have grown to greatly oppose it, because they're seeing a lot of problems arising from it (seeing Latino protesters flying Mexican flags is one big factor), and politicians on the right are jumping on the bandwagon because they see the issue is popular. One great example of this is Arizona senator John McCain (I'm an Arizona resident BTW). Not long ago, he tried to push through an amnesty bill. Now that illegal immigration has become such a big issue, he's flip-flopped and now is trying to portray himself as tough on border issues, but it seems like Arizonans aren't buying it. However, he's being opposed by another guy named JD Hayworth who's trying to point out (rightly) that McCain is a hypocrite, but himself is famous for corruption and was actually voted OUT by the voters of his (any my) usually Republican-voting district, in favor of a Democrat named Harry Mitchell.

The left, politically, love it for the same reason, and for the ever-forthcoming, but never evident, wave of latino voters who will eventually lead them to comfortably safe power.

Yep. Last I heard, the Republicans tried to introduce a new immigration bill that would have allowed illegals to become guest workers, but Obama vetoed it because it didn't include a path to citizenship (many would call that "amnesty"), which of course he wants because he wants them to become Democrat voters in time for his re-election, which judging by the latest approval polls he's in serious danger of losing.

Personally, I'm hoping that Obama will lose the nomination from his party in 2012. 2008 really sucked because we started with a bunch of candidates in both parties, then in the Primaries those were pared down to the very worst candidates on both sides (Obama and McCain/Palin). With the way the Republicans are going these days, with talk about exterminating homosexuals, I'm not hopeful they'll have a decent candidate, but Obama has proven he's inept, so it'd be nice to have a decent Democrat candidate to replace him. My choice would be Kucinich.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[OrangeCatholic]

They used to have dueling live trance mixes at 5pm on the two competing dance stations here. "Used to" is like 8 years ago.

Actually I looked up one of those songs on YouTube and all the comments were like, "wow I listened to this when i was six, such great memories!" Fucking gen y/z epic ruin. If you listened to trance music when you were six, what do you listen to now that's better?

My Morning Jacket?!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Pretty every contract I explicitly and implicitly enter into with any company includes the terms "We reserve the right to changes the terms of this agreement". I get notices from the bank, websites I have an account with, all sorts of places about how such and such has changed all of the time. That is how the world works.

In the case of the gov't, if I don't like "the terms of the contract" then I need to use the ballot box to change that.

Those are complete opposites - in the case of the bank or the website, you have the option to simply discontinue use of their services if they change the contract. At that point, you have satisfaction, and likely go to the competition.

With a tyrannical government, you must continue to comply with any and all terms under penalty of theft, capture, rape, or death. You have no effective recourse for satisfaction, and no competition.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite radio station has an iPhone app that streams live radio. Problem solved.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[AK Marc]

I've owned a Sony phone that had and FM tuner in it, so they are out there, but it's evidently not a feature that sells phones, so no one really cares.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[LingNoi]

Problem with what you wrote is that in this case the government wouldn't be creating a monopoly or giving a company a monopoly.

In this case the government are the monopoly and they're mis-using and abusing the monopoly they've been granted by the American people.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[LBt1st]

I've got the SiriusXM app that makes FM radio obsolete. ...not that I've listened to FM for several years before Android even existed.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Jeprey]

I've already done most of this. I don't listen to any broadcast radio (AM or FM) at all - it's crap programming (the NAB's bailiwick, btw), it's all ads for crap I don't buy or would ever buy, it's obsolete, through and through. NAB is a walking zombie that doesn't yet realize it's already dead!!

What's interesting is that 99% of my music play list is all non-American bands and most who don't associate with the big name record agencies like RIAA. They simply are more creative and interesting individually than the entire RIAA catalog of artists combined!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Jeprey]

Would that be the benefit concerts that have demonstrably done nothing to actually help their claimed causes.

Sorry, you were being rhetorical. :-)

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, you electronics ignoramus, it will.

Adding extra circuitry causes added leakage. If you add another IC for the radio, and you want to electronically disabled it, there is still significant substrate leakage in circuits nominally turned off. Analog IC circuit is necessarily larger than digital thus the leakage is larger.

I'm an electrical engineer who designs analog ICs.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is something really pathetic about a 45 year old woman swooning over a boy younger than their own children

Strange, isnt it? If i was a 45 year old man swooning over a girl of that age, he would be branded a paedophile.

Double standards, FTW!

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[jseale]

My Android (a Motorola CliqXT) has an FM radio, but unfortunately no HD capability, so it's sorta' crippled. I use it mostly to listen to sports radio stations when I'm at a game. I only use it for music when I'm out of cell range and Pandora/LastFM wont work. Still comes in quite handy for stuff like that.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Gr8Apes]

I don't know.

Maybe some sort of Mandated "Public Access" AirTime/Channel might help.

(Just a wild thought off the top of my head, so feel free to rip it apart :) )

That actually could be an interesting solution. Perhaps schools/colleges being able to use the 7-9 am and 4-6pm time slots for "educational" broadcasting? The 1934 act had discussions of 25% of air time being used for public service including education after all. I'm sure such broadcasting on average would be better than the current bland gruel being served nationwide.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[corbettw]

Eh, it's no different from the 50-year-old men who drool over Miley Cyrus or Katy Perry. Just because you're older (or younger) than someone, doesn't mean your hormones won't respond to their physical appearance.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[sconeu]

And you miss my point. According to TFS, NAB and friends want a fucking FM radio in EVERY phone.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you're a singer or musician, you have to sign with a record label if you want to go the megacorps route.

I was talking about BEFORE I got discovered by the megacorps, I would use youtube and other net programs to distribute my music. Obviously after I signed the deal, the music would be theirs.
.

>>>Radio stations don't play anything new,

False. I just heard three new songs yesterday.

>>>they play the same handful of songs over and over and over

False. Most radio stations have no repeat workdays, so you'll get to hear about 13 times 10 hours == 130 different songs. Espeically if you listen to stations that span a wide range of time, like 1990 to the present.
.

>>>The US government has the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, and that certainly isn't addressed in the Constitution.

True. But I expect that law will be nullified, either by the Courts or by the States.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[commodore64_love]

TV stations (and their associated receivers) are regulated monopolies.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Ol Olsoc]

Yup, in my area, there are about 10 stations - all owned by the same company. Many of these stations are a few miles from each other, and playing the exact same feed. Huh? pretty amazing, cutting your audience by half. The religion stations are becoming weird. Since the last election they're having fantasies of th eworld ending (it's April 31st of 2011, guaranteed! I like to listen to the Jim Rome show, but the AM station it's on is so bad that sometimes it plays the feed for another show that's coming on later. Other times they play two feeds at once. All these are things that would get your license yanked in the "Bad old days" when there was a technical standard to uphold, and stations had to prove they were a valuable part of the community. Now it's just the pseudo-free market, where he who has the most bux gobbles everything up, then wrings the profit out of it until there isn't anything left, then moves on to the next scheme.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[mdarksbane]

Not saying I think it should be mandated, but for local talk radio I find quite a bit of benefit from the radio in my car. The local sports talk especially often has some interesting stories from well-known local players, or coverage of the current game. Indeed, I'd say that live sports coverage is probably the biggest reason I want any television or radio signal at all.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[GooberToo]

Keep in mind there are many reasons to enter airplane mode. Camping in areas without coverage one such reason. When in areas without coverage the phone typically cranks up to maximum TX power in hopes it can establish communication with a tower. This typically drains a battery extremely quickly.

On Android devices, the radios which are affected by airplane mode are programmatically configurable.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Omestes]

Fellow Arizonan here... No surprise, I suppose it is almost impossible to not have illegal immigration on the mind living in this state. It seems EVERYTHING is about it these days. I found myself arguing with a gas station cashier about it the other day.

I would say a large part of the Republican turn around (to be cynical) is based off of grabbing the tea party votes. That and actually signing SB1070 suddenly turned Brewer into the most popular person in Arizona, and perhaps the nation, she went from a "meh" candidate to a guaranteed win.

McCain is still pretty much against any real reform. He's on the "close the border first, then worry about anything of consequence later" side of the debate. He doesn't say amnesty, but he has no plans to do anything about the illegal immigrants who are already here, which in my opinion amounts to the same thing.

Kucinich winning the White House would be awesome, but that will never happen. Look at the "socialism" FUD being shoveled at Obama, imagine if we had an actual liberal/progressive with socialist tendencies in office? The Tea party crowd might actually try for their anti-democratic (as in democracy) revolution. I was personally hoping that something strange would happen and we could have Kucinich and Ron Paul win. So they get to alternate being president and vice every year.

   

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, I'd like to see a combined Ron Paul and Kucinich administration. The two are both Constitution supporters (for real, not like the other politicians who pay lip service to it), and they'd balance each other out. On top of that, neither of them seem to be in anyone's pocket, unlike the vast majority of other politicians. You may not agree with everything they both think, but they actually have principles, and aren't just in it for the money and power and won't just say anything to get re-elected. They also both believe in getting America out of the imperialism business, unlike any other politician (including Obama).

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Guspaz]

The iPhone and iPod have had physical FM functionality (receive/transmit) for some time. Apple just chooses not to expose it in software on most of their devices.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[locallyunscene]

As I alluded to earlier that's elegant theory based on Classic Liberal principles, but because I think those principles are flawed and don't reflect the real world very well I don't find that theory very compelling.

You can see plenty of instances where individual rights are external costs to the free market so the principle "The gov't should never regulate the free market" is not one I share.

With a tyrannical government, you must continue to comply with any and all terms under penalty of theft, capture, rape, or death. You have no effective recourse for satisfaction, and no competition.

I'm an American, so I don't live under a tyrannical gov't I live under a representative gov't.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Man On Pink Corner]

and their associated receivers

My point exactly.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[ninjaboyhya]

If you have a phone like the iphone you can use the NPR app to listen to all those shows. On demand.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Yvan256]

And she. There are some women who read slashdot....

NERD #1 - Hello? Are there any girls on this website at all?
NERD #2 - Yeah, bring on the hot chicks 'cause I'm a hot stud.
NERDS - Yeah!
NERD #3 - So are we!

[Realityimpaired posts her way to the centre of the discussion]

Realityimpaired - I'm a woman if that's what you mean. I don't like to play games so I'll just say I'm a Canadian, I own an android-based smart phone, I post on Slashdot and I'm interested in meeting a man.

NERD #4 - A woman. I'm scared.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[skozsert]

The phones obviously should be a free market. Radio should be too and it isn't.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[vuffi_raa]

How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position.

It is different because for some reason congress has decided that the RIAA (and MPAA) has access to our police force and unlimited access to our courts as well as broadcast copyright being strong-armed by the ascap/bmi groups (who feel the right to charge for indie artists like myself when broadcast though I am a member of neither and release everything indie or on non-affiliated labels) and it is all legal because there is a huge fear of letting the old business model and old conglomerates die.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[Grishnakh]

>>>The US government has the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, and that certainly isn't addressed in the Constitution.

True. But I expect that law will be nullified, either by the Courts or by the States.

What if it isn't?

Also, what about the 4th Amendment (search & seizure)? Currently, if you travel with a large amount of cash on you, and police find out, they'll confiscate it as "drug money" (since it has traces of cocaine on it, like all cash), and you'll never get it back. They won't bother filing any charges against you though. That's a blatant violation of the 4A, but it's been happening for a long time. No courts have stepped in to stop it.

Basically, the Constitution has no real legal weight any more.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[jridley]

Yes, I also realize that I don't want to pay for a cell phone contract in order to listen to stuff I can just download and throw on my player. I don't really care if I'm listening to Science Friday on Friday or Sunday.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[jridley]

That assumes I have a phone like an iPhone. Even if someone gave me one, I'm not willing to pay that much for a phone contract. When I can get a voice + data plan for 10 bucks a month or so, I'll think about it.

Re:Consumer Focus or Consumer Manipulation?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm an American, so I don't live under a tyrannical gov't I live under a representative gov't.

Consider the situation where you want to buy a piece of land. You hire an agent to represent you in this transaction. This is common, and accepted as a good practice.

Now, along comes another man who also wants to buy that same piece of land. He approaches the same agent.

In every rule of society, that agent needs to turn down the second man. There's a conflict of interest - he can't possibly represent the best interests of both men to the best of his abilities. If he took the second job, he would be working against the interest of one of the men while claiming to represent him. This is unfair, dishonest, unjust, or illegal, depending on the situation.

The same situation occurs in a representative Republic. The best one can hope for is for a representative to minimize broad-based damage, but at any given time, he will necessarily be representing some of his constituents with his votes, and betraying others. It's simply not possible for him to represent his constituents consistently. At worst, he completely ignores them altogether. Calling that man 'my representative' would be occasionally to constantly inaccurate for any given voter.

totally stupid

[LingNoi]

That's all I can really say.

Sure and maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Candles should be built into all light bulbs

Re:Sure and maybe

[Joce640k]

Buggy whips obligatory with all new cars?

Re:Sure and maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Candles should be built into all light bulbs

They already are. Haven't you heard of "candle power"?

Re:Sure and maybe

[Telecommando]

Don't forget the horseshoe lobby!

Re:Sure and maybe

[LifesABeach]

I guess everyone forgot the needs of the Horse. We will also need to have Feed Bags, Flat Edge Shovels, and Watering Troughs in new cars.

Re:Sure and maybe

[elrous0]

Of course, it would give us more choice. And, what's more, it's very "green" (since everyone seems to be using that buzzword these days).

Re:Sure and maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you have DTE for a supplier.

Re:Sure and maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

As a representative of the Consumer Household Lighting Association, I must point out that such a proposal makes me incandescent with rage.

Re:Sure and maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban the wheel and the lever!

Re:Sure and maybe

[SEE]

Buggy whips in all cars might spice up the sex lives of American teenagers.

Re:Sure and maybe

[Jeprey]

Actually there's a story about some municipalities requiring someone walk in front of automobiles with flags to avoid frightening the horses. This FM radio mandate is just as stupid.

Because I need that?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've survived this long with out it, why force it on us now? Its going to be something else to drain the battery of our cellphones even more. Also, I don't listen to the radio now, this won't change my listening habit. I use Pandora, thank you

okay then

[Anonymous Coward]

But the music and radio industries say it's a consumer-focused proposition, one that would provide 'more music choices.'

Alright. Then they should have NO problem with the mandate also including provisions for receiving Pandora, LastFM, Grooveshark, etc on all portable electronic devices. And they should be the one's footing the bill to do so. After all, that would be a "consumer-focused proposition" that "provides more music choices", right?

Re:okay then

[Anonymous Coward]

And, if the hardware for FM receiver is mandatory, how about a mandatory analog jack as well, so other generic devices can be plugged in, also?

Re:okay then

[91degrees]

Those would actually make some sort of sense. Not that I'd support that either in this case, but Government mandates to give new technology a push can actually give the technology the foothold it needs. No such need for FM radio. I think it's pretty well established.

Sounds like 1984 again

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is allowed to be out of hearing of the marketing.

Now, I'm all for the manufacturers deciding to add a FM radio (HD radio as well) to a mobile music player, but *mandating* one?

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[Telecommando]

Personally, I'd rather have a digital TV in my phone. Several of the local stations broadcast weather radar and alerts on one of their sub channels. It would be very useful when out and about.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[jrmcferren]

Actually I think it is a good idea, but NOT for what they want it for. A way for your cell phone to allow you to get Emergency Alert System notifications is a good idea. But for broadcast reception, they can't put what I want in a cell phone without making it large (ferrite bar antenna) and without a hell of a lot of RFI suppression. I would love to have AM, FM of course would be added on for those who don't have wonderful AM stations or who are a wuss.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[NJRoadfan]

Most cell phones with internet already have this capability via a built in widget or on its WAP homepage. If not, a quick visit to a weather website will get the info you need.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[Telecommando]

Most of the weather websites are delayed enough that they are worthless at times. When they're telling me a storm is approaching, it's already passed. Plus in many rural areas, getting a web connection is next to impossible.

The local TV stations broadcast a live feed of the weather radar and cover a wide area with their signal.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[Digicrat]

I'm pretty certain that in most areas, cell phones will already receive notifications from the Emergency Alert System in a crisis via SMS. Or at least, that's how it should be...

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[Duradin]

Radio (even FM) has much better range than digital OTA and a much higher tolerance for poor signal quality. I couldn't expect a phone friendly antenna to pick up much of a signal when large structural antennas can barely pick up a usable signal from a local station.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[mea37]

Seriously, folks, mentioning 1984 in response to every bad idea is not mandatory.

Never out of hearing of marketing? So just because the FM chip is there, you're incapable of leaving the receiver turned off?

Also, if there's nowhere you ever go without your cell phone, you're probably already so buried in marketing that this would make no difference at all in that regard, even if you did always have the FM receiver turned on.

It's a bad idea because it reduces the range of possible products available, drives up costs throughout the chain from manufacturer to consumer, and reduces consumer choice in spite of industry rhetoric to the contrary. It ignores the fact that the market could already have this if it were wanted. In short, it's a bad deal commercially.

Why you feel the need to imagine grand social woes to go along with that is beyond me.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[An ominous Cow art]

Nobody is allowed to be out of hearing of the marketing.

I think that's what this is all about. Cell phones are ubiquitous, and if every one has the ability to blare not only RIAA music but the advertising that goes along with it, it will be even more difficult to find silence and freedom from this crap. It's already hard enough.

Re:Sounds like 1984 again

[jrmcferren]

Sorry for replying to an old post, in a crisis, I consider the cell network as good as dead, same as landlines. Broadcast, Amateur, and (UGH) Citizens Band Radio are the only three technologies I trust.

radio? really!?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh!

that reminds me, my phone actually already has a radio tuner... how'd i forget that?

oh right, 20 gigs of my personal music collection.

Re:radio? really!?

[NJRoadfan]

Mine has one too (with RDS, fancy that, too bad its useless in the US), but it goes unused because you need a headset connected (to use as an antenna). Who uses wired headsets with cellphones these days?

Re:radio? really!?

[Sunshinerat]

We should all read between the lines. It is not about mandating an FM receiver in each phone, it is about adding broadcasting fees to each phone bill.

Re:radio? really!?

[CravenWeasel]

Mine (an N900) has a built in receiver that I have never used - though the built in FM Transmitter is quite good for playing stuff in the car and not having to bother with CDs

Re:radio? really!?

[jdgeorge]

oh!

that reminds me, my phone actually already has a radio tuner... how'd i forget that?

oh right, 20 gigs of my personal music collection.

Quaint. No fear of devices being regulated to add this pointless feature; at worst, this will die at the hands of Steve Jobs. Remember the last time the music industry tried to push Steve around?

It is almost certain that most politicians have RIM devices, but I'd bet good money that 90% or more of their families have iPhones. If Steve thinks this is stupid, it simply won't happen. You can buy a politician a lot more easily than you can buy his family.

Re:radio? really!?

[Luckyo]

I do. If you want to listen to music at a decent quality, wired beats wireless easily - there are very few high quality wireless speakers that actually provide extra layer of comfort that is big enough for me to drop wired ones.

Not to even mention the price difference, or the incredible weakness to noise (I have about 4 points on my casual cycling route where wireless headphones become saturated with noise, probably some powerlines or powerful transmitter in the vicinity being the cause).

Wired is the way for long term music listener. Wireless is a bit more casual, and quite a bit more expensive, plus it's arguably less comfortable with extra weight cause by battery, especially with small headphones that are inserted into the ear like my KOSS Plugs. It's a matter of choice, not a matter of "you're an old fart if you use them" as parent seems to imply.

Re:radio? really!?

[Chowderbags]

But a radio receiver doesn't broadcast.

This one is going to pass

[Haedrian]

If you've got enough money, you can get any laws you want passed. Whenever some pro-consumer anti-large corporation law gets suggested, it gets shot down before you know it - anyone up for some Net Neutrality?

Re:This one is going to pass

[kidgenius]

Here's the thing though, you also have super mega corporations on the other side that are vehemently against this. The fact that CEA knows about this and is already speaking out should give you some hope. In this instance, you have mega corporations fighting on your side against mega corporations that aren't on your side. Both parties have plenty of cash to come to the table. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, Verizon, ATT, TMobile and Sprint could all potentially be against this. NAB and RIAA for. I'll take the technologists in this one. I do have an interesting question...let's say that this somehow passed, and they were mandated to put FM radio tuners into all phones. I could easily see that the manufacturers would have FM on their chips, but either A) Turn off the capability to use it (like the Nexus One) or B) Make teh FM reception so piss-poor as to be near useless. The manufacturers could point and say "Look, we put em in there, you never said anything about making them work, or even work well. Sorry"

Re:This one is going to pass

[cgenman]

Don't worry: Toshiba, Apple, Sony et al have enough money to squash this.

Re:This one is going to pass

[Demonantis]

No this will be more interesting because it is not the RIAA against the general public. This is the RIAA against a billion dollar portable device industry. I think the RIAA have been getting too comfortable with their position and are going to get a rude awakening when the people they are trying to abuse have the legal and political means to fight back. What the RIAA should do is what Google did and team up with a manufacturer to build a device to their specs.

Re:This one is going to pass

[vertinox]

If you've got enough money, you can get any laws you want passed. Whenever some pro-consumer anti-large corporation law gets suggested, it gets shot down before you know it - anyone up for some Net Neutrality?

Question.

Doesn't the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) have deeper pockets than the RIAA?

From my understanding Apple profits alone has made more money than the entire music industry did in CD sales last year.

Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[RobertLTux]

any FM radio has to have some sort of antenna to receive the signals

WHERE WILL YOU PUT THIS ON AN iPHONE??

maybe the broadcasters should begin providing a simple way for web devices to get the raw webstream instead??

right now most radiostations either don't provide a webstream or they wrap it into a 5 meg flash applet with a half dozen ads builtin taking up 80% of the bandwidth.

(oh and don't you dare try to go to another tab or otherwise not have THE HOLY PLAYER APPLET in front of you)

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Haedrian]

any FM radio has to have some sort of antenna to receive the signals

WHERE WILL YOU PUT THIS ON AN iPHONE??

My symbian has an FM radio built in, the antenna is the earphones which you attach to it. You need the earphones to listen to the radio, even if you put it on speaker.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

any FM radio has to have some sort of antenna to receive the signals WHERE WILL YOU PUT THIS ON AN iPHONE??
No need to shout, dude. The antenna will be the cord of the headphones like it is on just about all existing phones w/ FM receivers. Btw govt. mandating this is dumb, but if they can coerce you to buy health insurance why not make cellphones be FM players.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Virtually all FM-capable portable electronics(there are actually quite a few, the chip is tiny and cheap) just use the headphone cable as a makeshift FM aerial. Works well enough, and is something that everybody is using anyway.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[TheRaven64]

any FM radio has to have some sort of antenna to receive the signals

WHERE WILL YOU PUT THIS ON AN iPHONE??

I'm not sure about my current phone, but my last one only enabled the FM receiver when you had headphones plugged in. It used the headphone cord for the antenna, so there was no need for an internal one.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the wireless chipset used in the iPhone and the iPad already have a FM tuner? I remember reading somewhere that the wireless chipsets that Apple used has a FM tuner built-in but apple just didn't develop the software and drivers for it so they could encourage people to get their music from iTunes instead.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[RMH101]

Yes, god forbid they have to reengineer the antenna on the iPhone 4.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the mandate state that the FM radio must be working or just that it must be included in the device? A simple FM circuit could easily be placed on the edge of a chip, don't need to connect any discreet components... if they want to be stupid then hang them with their own stupidity... (nice mixed metaphor! Yay me!)

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[kidgenius]

More to your point, the Nexus One has FM on its chip, and Google just decided to turn off the software hooks for it. Some guys have got it working, but it could very easily still fit with a new law, depending on how it is written.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[gravis777]

I thought the iPhone's antenna was inside. If I grasp my iPhone the wrong way, i loose signal. are you telling me that an iPhone doesn't have an antenna? It magically gets its wifi and cell signal from something else?

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Silfax]

any FM radio has to have some sort of antenna to receive the signals WHERE WILL YOU PUT THIS ON AN iPHONE??

Same place it is on phones/mp3 players that already have a built in fm tuner. The headphone cord.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that Apple was planning on using a traditional telescoping chrome antenna just like on older radio devices. I know you think that's stupid right now, but when it comes out you'll be back here defending it for being cool, futuristic/retro and magical.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

your sybian comes with an fm tuner?!!!!

fuck.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[RivenAleem]

You think an antenna is going to be his biggest problem?

How is he going to be able to block radio porn?

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[rickb928]

I'm done with corded headphones. A2DP Bluetooth headsets are my only choice.

So that antenna problem is solved, right? No.

PS- My Motorola S705 is slammin, scary range. Average sound quality, which for A2DP means it sucks the bottom end. But it HAS an FM Radio, which is entirely cool, and uses corded earphones, which is my one very rare surrender to the wires. I don't use the S705 much. My regular set is a BackBeat 906, which despite its shortcomings has pretty good sound. when i can no longer cleanse and dry them, I'll be off to either Sony-Ericsson or some boutique maker. Sound quality is important. Range is important. FM Radio is not.

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[xenapan]

put it in the bottom left corner and tell people they are holding it wrong if they touch it?

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[jochem_m]

any earphones will do, usually, cause AM/FM is a rather forgiving in antenna requirements

Re:Okay so then Steve Jobs will have a problem

[hazydave]

Easy... make the radio FM-only. That'll keep away most of the "radio porn" out there.

Some phones already have FM receivers

[buchanmilne]

Surely the goal of customer-focused 'more music choices' is already achieved, due to the availability of some models of phones which have FM receivers? The biggest variety of music choice is already provided by phones which have FM receivers and FM transmitters (allowing users to also choose whether they want to listen to their digital music on their devices on car radio or similar), but I guess these groups wouldn't want to mandate FM transmitters ...

Mandating that all phones have FM receivers sounds to be less customer-focused, customers already have choices at present.

Whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

Music labels and radio broadcasters can't agree on much, including whether radio should be forced to turn over hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for the music it plays.

Where in the Berne convention is this explicit copyright exemption for US local radio broadcasters? Why have the RIAA not employed non-US based collections agencies to prosecute such widespread commercial scale piracy?

Implementing FM radio is so cheap that if there were market demand for endless Clear Channels (sic) and MOR RIAA payola, every cell phone would already have them.

Bollocks

[athe!st]

More choice? why not let people choose if they want to pay more for some extra for extra functionality

Re:Bollocks

[jex.pwn]

Exactly, that way, when you bug a smart phone you can pick: Wifi or Radio.

WTF???

[SpongeBob Hitler]

FM receivers on phones??? What's next? A mandate that portable electronic devices be able to play phonographs??? It's the 21st century, people! I'm old enough to be able to say "Get off my lawn, you damn kids!" but even I think this is stupid and backwards.

Special interests control our government

[hessian]

This bill is another bone thrown to special interests. Like the others, we're all expected to subsidize a dying industry.

Some libertarians may be extremists, but the free market is a better regulator.

Government of good intentions results in votes being covertly up for sale covertly, while the free market operates above ground.

Hmm...

[Pollux]

Well, that makes about as much sense as putting an FM radio into a cell phone.

Wait a sec...

But lots of phones already have FM radio

[Tryfen]

Nokia sell over 20 different models in the USA with built in FM - http://www.nokiausa.com/find-products/phones

Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[flajann]

If consumers WANTED FM Radios in their devices, they would be there already.

The real truth is that with the Internet, consumers have bazillions of choices already as far as what they wish to listen to or view, and adding FM radio would only add a tiny fraction to those choices.

Besides, many radio stations already stream their content over the Internet, anyway, making FM even less relevant.

Let's face the cold hard facts: Broadcast media is on its way out. Good bye and good riddens. Only a handful of choices, and 99% of them lousy or mediocre.

And the FM "feature" that nobody really wants (nor would listen to in all probability) would be at the expense of some other feature consumers may actually want.

Government needs to stay the hell out of regulating the "free" marketplace. Consumers can and will make the choices they want, and the manufacturers can and will respond to those choices to grab marketshare.

The Government and the RIAA can go please themselves elsewhere. Leave the rest of us ALONE!

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[mlts]

Don't forget the FM radio arena has been abandoned by virtually everyone. You might hear a radio blasting at a construction site because it is cheaper than someone attaching a MP3 player, but that essentially is it.

15 years ago, FM radio was different. New bands played all the time.

Now, FM radio is not worth the time of day. "Rock" stations are in a time warp and are still playing Blind Melon, Smashing Pumpkins, and Nirvana as the absolute latest music they bother to listen to. You might catch a 1 hour show at midnight on a Friday that has recent music, but that is essentially it. To boot, it is the same songs, about 100-400 that play over and over.

This is also an issue with other stations, be it hip-hop, country, Tejano, or one's genre of choice -- the vibrancy that radio used to have about 15-20 years ago is lost. People don't click on a FM radio station to hear new stuff, they go to last.fm or Pandora.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[kidgenius]

Tis a sad fact....I remember our local independent station here played all sorts of stuff. New, local, up and coming, along with a good mix of the old. Last few years it has turned to crap, playing nothing but Nirvana and Pearl Jam with a slight, slight smattering of anything new.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Captain Hook]

The real truth is that with the Internet, consumers have bazillions of choices already as far as what they wish to listen to or view, and adding FM radio would only add a tiny fraction to those choices.

This isn't about comsumer choice, this is about RIAA being able to deal with a small number of companies who they already have a relationship with and whose interests are aligned in the same direction with regard to who gets airtime instead of chasing bazillions of small internet resources who don't have any money to extort anyway and who pretty much hate RIAA already.

It's an attempt to prop up existing business's by ensuring easy access to a technology people are buying less and less of.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[mlts]

The reason stations do this is because it is cheaper to pay for a license once for a block of 400 songs, never having to pay for anything new. Then the only real costs are overhead of the transmitter and building, and the costs of DJs.

Yes, it may generate revenue, but it is long term moronic. Had stations kept playing new stuff while keeping older songs on the air occasionally, they would have not just kept profit as radio stations, but could have been communication hubs for people, especially if stations had decided to try social networking before even the Friendster days. Back when radio was relevant, the DJs talked and people listened, so I'm sure that stations could have had a following based on an interactive website that would have offered forums, event calenders, "free" E-mail accounts, etc. Revenue would have been tremendous -- ad revenue for starters because advertisers wouldn't just get the radio station van out to a site, they would get fans coming for freebies who have known about the event due to site banners for weeks ahead of time. Even without factoring in ads, I'm sure listeners would have paid money for E-mail addresses and such in return for being able to have a chance of winning items, or being the first to be able to go to a concert of an up and coming band.

But radio decided not to embrace the Internet. Instead, they ditched what gave them life and went to a profit model that all but ensures their demise. Radio is now reduced to just background noise, when in the past, they could have taken charge and been leaders of various music scenes. These days, the people who listen to the radio now are not the college students or the teenagers with rich parents. It is people looking for traffic reports, music to be played at a construction site as something to listen to, or background music in the doctor's waiting room.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the FM radio arena has been abandoned by virtually everyone.

What is your evidence? I bet it's anecdotal at best.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[tepples]

Besides, many radio stations already stream their content over the Internet, anyway, making FM even less relevant.

A typical smartphone plan comes with 2 GB/mo, which is worth about 4000 minutes of 64 kbps streaming. This data allowance is shared with video streaming, web surfing, and other applications that also use up bytes. FM doesn't use minutes; instead of customers paying for the towers and the license, the advertisers pay.

A typical smartphone plan costs 60 USD per month. FM works even if your phone is on a $7/mo Virgin Mobile plan.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask any of the following if they bother listening to the FM radio unless they want traffic reports, or if they are listing to someone's morning show:

High school students -- they are usually following whatever is on FB that is cool at the time. If not, last.fm, Pandora, or XM radio. FM stations are what their dads and moms listen to, and are just as cool to them as Barry Manilow or Air Supply.

College students -- Whatever their friends are going to. If not that, the music selection off of some dormie's shared iTunes library. Barring that, last.fm and Pandora.

College grads who found work -- iTunes and related songs, or XM Radio.

College grads who have not -- BitTorrent.

Hipster locking up his fixie at the coffee shop -- SoundClick because Pandora is too mainstream.

So, the people that actually listen to FM radio are:

The patients waiting in the dentist office for their root canal appointment.

People going on 40 who don't want to listen to anything new since they graduated high school driving their 5.0 Mustangs.

People older than that who consider anything after 1982 too new for their tastes and are content with the same 100 or so songs the "classic rock" station spins.

The people stuck in jail/prison who didn't get enough privileges to see the TV in the dayroom.

Even AM radio has kept up with the times, offering interesting talk shows.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[xenapan]

Do you listen to the radio? like... recently? Last time I tried it was the same "top 40s" over and over again. Id be surprised if their playlist had over 100 songs.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Until radio stations stop using their same pre-canned songs they have been playing for the past decade with no new stuff, they will still wonder why they are sinking into oblivion.

The only thing that keeps radio from dying out completely is the fact that people turn to it for traffic reports and that morning DJs are entertaining. Otherwise, it can be replaced by a 1GB iPod Shuffle with 40-50 songs on it connected up to a transmitter for all intents and purposes.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[SleazyRidr]

The trick is to find a station that plays 4 songs that you like, then you never have to listen to anything else!

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that the 4 songs have at least 8 30 second ads in between each of them.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a graduate student. I've listened to radio for my entire life. I still listen to it.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my plain Net10 phone with no features other than a color screen and texting capability (which I don't use 95% of the time). I don't want an FM radio in it. That's why I have my MP3 player, for it has an FM radio in it, and it can record directly to memory off the FM radio. Did you hear that? My MP3 player records FM radio and saves it on my player as an MP3 file. I can then upload it to my computer and listen to it anytime I want. OH RIAA, ARE YOU LISTENING? Are you trying to drum up business to sue every maker of every MP3 player out there? If a cell phone with an FM radio has a record feature, are you going to sue Verizon? Someone put them out of my misery, please.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[evilviper]

All your criticisms are valid for Clear Channel cookie-cutter genre radio stations. Minimal costs, lowest common denominator radio. And, indeed, clear channel has taken over a large number of stations.

However, if you have any non-ClearChannel stations in your area, they ARE worth listening to, and certainly don't all have the flaws you list, which are well known, undeniable ClearChannel traits.

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The real truth is that with the Internet, consumers have bazillions of choices already as far as what they wish to listen to or view, and adding FM radio would only add a tiny fraction to those choices.

This isn't about comsumer choice, this is about RIAA being able to deal with a small number of companies who they already have a relationship with and whose interests are aligned in the same direction with regard to who gets airtime instead of chasing bazillions of small internet resources who don't have any money to extort anyway and who pretty much hate RIAA already.

It's an attempt to prop up existing business's by ensuring easy access to a technology people are buying less and less of.

In other words, your typical death throes.

Let's all plan to throw a major PARTY when the RIAA finally closes its doors!!!

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[flajann]

Besides, many radio stations already stream their content over the Internet, anyway, making FM even less relevant.

A typical smartphone plan comes with 2 GB/mo, which is worth about 4000 minutes of 64 kbps streaming. This data allowance is shared with video streaming, web surfing, and other applications that also use up bytes. FM doesn't use minutes; instead of customers paying for the towers and the license, the advertisers pay.

A typical smartphone plan costs 60 USD per month. FM works even if your phone is on a $7/mo Virgin Mobile plan.

My Smartphone Data Plan costs me only $30 per month. What's really wild and unbelievable is that TEXT MESSAGING, which represents a much smaller bandwidth, costs also $30 a month, separate from the data plan. Totally insane, AT&T! (and the others do it as well).

Re:Beyond Stupid!!!!!

[tepples]

A typical smartphone plan costs 60 USD per month. [My voice plan is] a $7/mo Virgin Mobile plan.

My Smartphone Data Plan costs me only $30 per month.

I was assuming that in order to become eligible for $30/mo data, one first has to upgrade to $30/mo voice. Or am I missing something?

It must be my age..

[scsirob]

but I bought my phone to make phone calls?!?
- Not to listen to the radio
- Not to play MP3
- Not to watch movies
- Not to vacuum the room
- Not to bake breadrolls ..etc

And that is my choise and I am perfectly happy with it.
Thank you

Re:It must be my age..

[will_die]

A cell phone with a built in easy-bake oven!!!!!
Where do I get it?
Besides where is the love for AM radio.

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your phone will vacuum? My kids won't even do that!

Re:It must be my age..

[The MAZZTer]

I need more sleep, I read

- Not to do barrel rolls

Re:It must be my age..

[bsDaemon]

Same here. A few months ago I ditched my Crackberry and the data plan and picked up a Motorola Barrage. My friends keep going through new Androids and iPhones like no tomorrow. Some of them have a new phone every couple of weeks. At least mine is more-or-less shaped like a phone and not a chocolate bar, and thus I can hear and be heard when I *gasp* make a voice call. Plus its insanely hard to break. I already dropped it about 6 feet onto pavement and hardly a scratch, let alone functional damage. Lets see those fancy smartphones do that.

Re:It must be my age..

[dangitman]

but I bought my phone to make phone calls?!?

Well, I bought my phone so I could make a phone call to tell you to get off my lawn.

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

More power to you then. Personally I bought mine so I wouldn't have to carry around:

1 Compact camera,
1 Music playing device
1 Phone
1 Calendar
1 Clock

I don't know about you, but I only have so many pockets, and a mind not suited to constantly keep track of a large number of lose items.

Re:It must be my age..

[Fahrvergnuugen]

It is your age. The only reason I have a phone at all is to talk to old people like you :P

Re:It must be my age..

[jrmcferren]

AM radio, that's what I was thinking, but the engineering would be difficult and make the phone large (bar antenna anyone).

Re:It must be my age..

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Shouldn't you be chasing kids of your lawn old timer? ;)

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone has a built in lawn mower. If you don't get off my lawn it will rip you to pieces.

Re:It must be my age..

[MBGMorden]

It's you - time moved on and in the entire world of communications plain voice chat is only a minor fraction of the overall landscape. Your post would be akin to 20 years ago someone posting:

"Maybe it's just my age, but I bought my computer to manage my finances.

- Not play games.
- Not go on the "internets"
- Not send messages to other people
- Not create art or music
"

If you want to limit yourself then fine, but I find it . . . odd . . . to look down upon anyone who doesn't want a version of the device that's cripple down to only it's most core functionality (a functionality whose role has been greatly diminished).

Specifically I know plenty of people with smartphones who would much sooner give up the phone portion of their device than their mobile internet access.

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've dropped my iphone at least 10 times on all types of surfaces include concrete. Not a single mark on the glass and no functional damage. Don't assume that just because something is complex that it is fragile.

Re:It must be my age..

[RivenAleem]

If they can combine an easy-bake oven with a HAM radio, I'm sold.

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your age. I bought my phone to run networked applications over a practically ubiquitous WAN with connectivity to the Internet. The voice feature is simply the penalty I have to pay until the wireless telecom companies catch up to the modern, networked reality and start moving away from voice-centric services.

Re:It must be my age..

[Myopic]

Huh. Did you buy your phone to hold your contacts? That's a new feature. Did you buy your phone to tell you your recently missed calls? That's a new feature. Did you buy your cell phone to show you the number as you type it? That's a new feature. Did you buy your cell phone to send text messages? New. To tell you the time of day? New.

Don't act like you're all old school and minimalist. I bet you use and enjoy many of the innovative new features of cell phones. Some you like, some you don't, and that's fine, but it's not in any way superior to eschew a new feature.

As for FM radio -- fuck it. I only need FM radio to listen to FM radio stations, and who the hell would ever want to listen to any of the shit played on radio? Quite contrary to you, I desperately want my phone to play MP3s, but I'm stuck using a separate iPod.

Re:It must be my age..

[selven]

A cell phone with a built in easy-bake oven!!!!!
Where do I get it?

Not quite a phone, but here you go

Re:It must be my age..

[VShael]

And that is my choise and I am perfectly happy with it.

My phone comes with a spell checker.

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

I throw my old cell phone at those punks when they're on my lawn.

Re:It must be my age..

[Just Some Guy]

Specifically I know plenty of people with smartphones who would much sooner give up the phone portion of their device than their mobile internet access.

Those people, like me, can buy iPod Touches. It's my primary personal computer these days.

Re:It must be my age..

[penguinchris]

I used to think the same way (and I don't have a lawn to tell people to get off of - I'm 23), until I realized that while I had the smallest phone I could find and it was simple enough, I never actually make phone calls or send SMSs. Why am I carrying a device (small as it was) that I only use once or twice a week at most, and rarely for anything essential?

Around the same time I made that realization, I got a free iPod Touch when I bought a Macbook Pro. Now, you'll never see me with an iPhone, but I had to admit the iPod was pretty cool. So I looked into the state of non-iPhone smartphones and in January bought a Nexus One. I still rarely make phone calls, but I use the phone all the time for internet stuff and general PDA kind of stuff. The joke that always comes out in iPhone articles is that it can do everything well... except make phone calls, and it's a phone!

But now I realize that people who say that don't get it... it's a mobile computing device that also makes phone calls, not the other way around.

And by the way, also in January my phone habits changed and I now make daily calls to Thailand at 3 cents/minute through Google Voice from my Nexus One - AT&T charges $1.50 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't have to dial a long number and enter a pin code or anything... the phone knows to automatically route international calls through Google Voice. Something like 75% of my calls are to one number in Thailand and it would be a pain in the ass to make those calls cheaply with a "dumb" phone. So I can say that my smartphone is actually a very good phone device, in addition to being an awesome internet/computing device :)

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with AM reception in a mobile is that a small bar antenna would take up over half the device. There just isn't room.

Grundig makes a MP3/SW/FM/AM radio, but it's not exactly small compared to any other MP3 player.

Re:It must be my age..

[MBGMorden]

If the iPod Touch had 3g capability I'd agree, but not everyone feels like tracking down a hot spot every time we need access. In smaller towns and cities they're not crawling out of every street corner.

Re:It must be my age..

[Just Some Guy]

You'd be surprised. I live in a city with a population under 25,000, but my home, my office, most of my neighbor's homes, most restaurants, the mall, and most other offices have open wifi.

Re:It must be my age..

[MBGMorden]

I work in a town with a population under 6,000 (I live in an unincorporated area so there's not really a record of population). I know of maybe 4-5 spots in the whole town with open wifi.

I frequently travel to a neighboring city with a population just shy of 98,000 (which is part of a metro-area of population just under 635,000), and wifi is more common, but still rare enough that I have to search around for a hot spot to find one.

I actually used an iPod Touch up until very, very recently (still own it), and the simple truth was that if I had a situation where I thought "HEY, let me look something up . . .", 95% of the time there was no network access available. Sadly enough the vast majority of my network access on that device was at home on my own wifi (where it's convenient for quickly checking banking information or email and such while sitting on the couch).

A whole heap of people still need 3G to fill the gaps.

Re:It must be my age..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it totally backwards. I have a small Linux computer I carry in my pocket. It runs a long time on a charge, has GPS, WiFi, 3G, accelerometers, magnetometers, and a touch screen. It magically syncs with all my online communications. It can even tell me which bus to take (my car broke recently). It's a totally amazing device and everyone I know who gets one loves it. Oh, and it also works as a phone, so you don't need to carry a phone too. I didn't buy it to make phone calls. If you don't need a highly versatile portable computer, then don't get one, but it makes me wonder if you really belong here.

Screwing over a third party == win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so, the RIAA and radio broadcasters can't make a deal over long-standing royalty issues, so they get together with congress to screw over a third party (electronics manufacturers) to solve the problem?

What the hell? Yeah, I'd be "incandescent with rage" too.

What about my portable radio?

[SmallFurryCreature]

I for god sakes hope AM radio equipment is not portable, or the logical feedback loop could explode the universe!

Some USB sticks can do more. Do they count? Does every mobile phone, no matter how simple now have to have a FM radio inside? What about official equipment. Walkie Talkie? GPS device?

Insanity, thy name is the entertainment industry. Guess they did their job, I am quite entertained. If you can't laugh at the programs, then at least you can laugh at the people who make them.

FM? No digital radio? What about an AM tuner?

[thegarbz]

Seriously aside from taking one product and attempting to turn it into a completely different product, why target FM? Don't you have digital radios which could be the "awesome next best thing in mobile phones" to put in there? What about satellite radio, we don't even have that here, but that could also be an awesome product.

Why FM? People don't listen to the radio, people use the radio as a background piece of music. If I wanted to listen to the radio I wouldn't take an iPod to work, since there's already a radio playing faintly in the background. I mean it's not like this hasn't been put to a free market vote. I've seen cell phones advertised with FM radios. Half the people don't even know they have them.

This makes no sense what so ever. I would have expected the *IAA to try and cut backroom deals with carriers to offer some kind of digital download service that is pay for play, but seriously FM? I mean this shit is free and people still don't use it. Even if it is included in every phone, who would use it that hasn't already bought a phone with FM receiver built in?

Re:FM? No digital radio? What about an AM tuner?

[polle404]

because *IAA has bullied the s* out of the FM stations & regulators, their royalties from the FM transmissions are on par with the ludicrous %s they steal from their artists.

Their inability to embrace the digital age has left them with a pittance (compaired to FM) on the digital rights.
They're lobbying for the piece of equipment that'll make them the most money, not the most sense.

Re:FM? No digital radio? What about an AM tuner?

[gravis777]

Shoot, I already have an App on my iPhone that gives me access to most of the radio stations in my area, as well as around the world. However, an fm reciever will probably draw less power than having my wifi / cell running whenever I want to listen to the radio.

But I agree, why FM? I have an HD Radio at home. I turn the thing on maybe once a month. I have NEVER used the tuner in my reciever. I don' have the sound system in my car pimped out either - I listen to Kidd Kraddon my way to work and Ryan Seacreast on the way home, and that is only for background noise. I may ocassionally Shazam a song.

Why pay for something I am not going to use? Last time I used a radio in a phone was 9 years ago, and that was because I didn't own an iPod yet and was traveling throughout Europe. Hearing regional stations and different music was cool. I seriously doubt I would use that now.

Re:FM? No digital radio? What about an AM tuner?

[jimicus]

Why FM? People don't listen to the radio, people use the radio as a background piece of music.

The RIAA are well aware of that, they hope that you hear a piece in the background you like, seek it out and buy it.

Myself I can't remember the last time I had a phone which didn't have an FM radio buried somewhere in the functionality, so it's not like it's unusual. However, I also can't remember ever listening to the radio on my phone. The fact that they usually require crappy proprietary earphones that come with the phone and get lost 20 minutes later probably has something to do with that.

Re:FM? No digital radio? What about an AM tuner?

[russotto]

because *IAA has bullied the s* out of the FM stations & regulators, their royalties from the FM transmissions are on par with the ludicrous %s they steal from their artists.

Though they're trying to change this, the RIAA doesn't get royalties from FM stations. In fact, it's likely they're still paying them to play, though that's illegal.

customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[egburr]

While I would love to have an AM/FM radio built into my phone, I don't agree that the government should be mandating that. It does really bug me that my phone (an HTC Hero with Sprint) offers multiple "radio" channels through the phone, at least until the mobile network connection shuts down, while still indicating it is connected, after about 30 minutes, but I can't get any local stations.

While they're mandating FM radio, they might as well get AM in there, too. And while they're at it, how about forcing manufacturers to throw in a digital TV tuner as well, so I can watch broadcast digital TV? Of course, just because they force the manufacturers to add all this in, that doesn't mean the phone companies won't disable it. Every phone I have ever had has had manufacturer-advertised features disabled by Sprint while sometimes Sprint offers that feature for an extra price (mostly, a serial or USB connection to backup the data on my phone). Now that I have a "smart" phone, what I really need most is a longer-lasting battery.

Anyway, it should be competition and customer demand that drives them to add features like this, not government mandates driven by the music industry.

Re:customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[Andy Dodd]

Your phone probably has the required hardware - most HTC Windows Mobile-based phones do now, and my guess is the Android ones have almost identical hardware.

However, US-based carriers like to remove the software/drivers from their ROMs.

Also, the feature kind of sucks - it only works if you are using wired headphones (unit needs an antenna) and even then, reception is crap.

Re:customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[jandrese]

If you would love having a tuner in your phone, go and buy a phone with a tuner in it. They're not hard to find. Personally, I would never use the thing, and designing an FM antenna that works well in a cell phone form factor is an exercise in compromise.

Re:customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[KermodeBear]

If you would love having a tuner in your phone, go and buy a phone with a tuner in it. They're not hard to find.

I tried to find a few phones that support the AM/FM band. I could only find two: The Sony Erikson R300 and R306. There are a few more phones that support FM, but not many.

I also couldn't find any phones that will receive shortwave radio. I'm not sure if that is feasible at all, but I decided to give it a look anyway just for fun.

Re:customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[Luckyo]

As a very long term FM listener (I owned my first portable player in mid 1990s, mostly used it to listen to FM music with headphones antenna), I can vouch that reception on headphones wire antenna in fact does NOT suck. One of the advantages of FM is its resilience to various signal issues, which made FM music sound a LOT better then audio cassette music on the portables, and on par with a portable CD player.

Re:customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[jandrese]

A shortwave antenna would be a challenge to fit in a cell phone form factor, that's for sure. You are probably one of maybe a dozen people in the US that would buy such a device.

Re:customer desired, yes; mandated, no.

[KermodeBear]

Yeah, I don't know very much about short wave radio, but I was curious to see if it was available at all. I imagine the reception would be pretty awful. (o:

License issues abroad

[Fjodor42]

I do happen to know for a fact, that if you posses a device capable of receiving radio here in Denmark - you are required to pay a rather steep license fee to DR (Danmarks Radio - Danish Radio), the official public radio and TV of Denmark. It is increasingly difficult to avoid paying license, since now, even an internet connection faster than 384kB/s make you eligible (for internet radio and TV). However, I have dodged it so far, by uninstalling the relevant codecs as well as using an old mobile phone without net, and confirmed with the bureau that it voids my eligibility. Seems these kinds of shenanigans would just make my life a bit harder if applied to other devices, since I assume manufacturers would likely push these devices to the overseas markets as well...

Thank you ever so much :-(

Dude you missed the point

[Joce640k]

He said "antenna" and "iPhone" in the same sentence. That makes it an obFunny.

Pandora

[augi01]

If I want "more music choices" I will simply create a new Pandora station using the Pandora app for iPhone. Hell, I'll even pay the $36.00/yr to remove the adds, receive better audio quality, and support the Music Genome Project. What I will not do, however, is turn on FM radio.

No big deal

[scharkalvin]

The cost of adding an FM radio to any device is very small, the entire radio is available on a single chip. The headphone cord is used as the antenna. Given a choice I'd rather buy an MP3 player with a radio than one without (hey Apple do you hear me?). I'm not sure that a radio belongs in a phone, but then again I don't think a phone makes a good camera either. If they craft the regulation requiring any digital music player to come with a radio, that might make sense. So phones without mp3 players would not have to come with a radio. Actually, I'm waiting for Victorinox to make a cell phone. It would be interresting to see what they stuff into it.

Re:No big deal

[ciderbrew]

My car has a good radio, but I also think it wouldn't make a good camera. Technological convergence is hard!

Re:No big deal

[dangitman]

Given a choice I'd rather buy an MP3 player with a radio than one without (hey Apple do you hear me?)

Well, I doubt that Apple was listening to you, but were you even paying attention?

Re:No big deal

[scharkalvin]

Yes the nano is a token response to that, though on second thought the nano is probably their biggest selling ipod model. Be nice if the ipod touch or classic models had a radio in them. Would also be nice if itunes ran on Linux, but that's another story.

Re:No big deal

[medcalf]

Given the choice, I would buy a phone/mp3 player/whatever without an FM tuner. Why should your choice be mandated for me? I have no desire to mandate my choice for you. That's what the market is for: serving everyone's choices, except maybe those at the very far fringe.

Re:No big deal

[aardvarkjoe]

Maybe it's no big deal from an engineering standpoint. But I don't see why everyone is arguing about whether or not an FM radio is useful or difficult to add. The real "big deal" is that someone wants Congress to determine what features my phone or MP3 player has, and there seems to be a large number of people that don't realize how stupid of an idea that is.

Re:No big deal

[dangitman]

How hard is it to buy a pair of earbuds with a radio built into the cord if you want one?

Given the Choice

[oldmac31310]

Given the choice, who actually listens to the radio? I have avoided radio for many years. There is nothing at all on the radio for me. I want a phone that is a phone and do not want extra crap built in that I do not need. People who want radio on their phones can already get such devices. I hope that the powers that be will show rare common sense and throw this one out without a second thought. But somehow I can't help thinking that they will at least waste some time and and tax money debating the bill - it it ever gets that far. I certainly hope not!

This will not pass

[mbone]

This sort of thing would only pass if it could be done under the radar, so the fact that the CEA is fulminating against it means that its prospects are dim, and deservedly so.

Last Time I Checked...

[argStyopa]

A "...consumer-focused proposition..." is communicated by market preferences and purchasing choices, isn't it?

(I mean, instead of a backroom deal negotiated by self-selected 'representatives' and the 'industry'.)

Business Plan

[Frightened_Turtle]

Once again, RIAA (along with others) is seeking a way to force its business plan/model into law. I can only say, if your business plan isn't working, it's time to change the way you do business or close the doors. NOT change the law!

If people don't want your product or the way it is packaged, they won't buy it. If you want people to buy your product, then offer them something they actually want! Don't try to force consumers to buy something by forcing them to buy it because it is the law. Sink or Swim!

Re:Business Plan

[jimicus]

This is the entertainment industry we're talking about here. Their business model didn't become "try to legislate things to work the way you want" in the last few years - indeed, they've been objecting to recorded music since the dawn of recorded music.

Re:Business Plan

[TubeSteak]

Once again, RIAA (along with others) is seeking a way to force its business plan/model into law.

There's two things happening.
1. The RIAA essentially wants to overturn radio's copyright exemption on payment of performance rights to labels &/or artists

2. National Association of Broadcasters )NAB) is saying they will pay the RIAA $100M/year if the new law mandates FM tuners in all mobile devices.

By itself, the RIAA's move doesn't seem that unreasonable, since satellite and internet radio already pay that way.
(Alternatively, one could argue that satellite and web radio deserve the same exemption, but that'll never happen.)
But the NAB's demand is just bizarre, because they're impinging on a completely unrelated 3rd party.

Re:Business Plan

[russotto]

There's two things happening.
1. The RIAA essentially wants to overturn radio's copyright exemption on payment of performance rights to labels &/or artists

2. National Association of Broadcasters )NAB) is saying they will pay the RIAA $100M/year if the new law mandates FM tuners in all mobile devices.

So basically the NAB is offering to buy a law using the RIAA as broker? I have to admit, that's a new one on me.

Radio not needed - but emergency SMS is!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one reason why you need a radio - in case they broadcast an emergency event.
But as most people are listening to MP3's or reading emails- nobody will hear them.

Radio has been superseded by SMS alerts - Cyclone/Bush Fire. In Australia they just got it sorted out by mobile tower location.

Even better would be to have SMS alerts hooked up to GPS , or some kind of filter. It sure would be handy to set groupings (firemen, police, doctors, people with earthmoving equipment) before the next earthquake hits.

Re:I C U

[s122604]

Right, this is all just a ploy by the NSA, so that the can roll out billions of dollars in ELINT assets to track the average smartphone user..

Newsflash, its a cell phone, it probably is chatting away with the local tower, and it probably has a GPS chip...

This might not be the best idea, but I don't think this is a clever attempt by the man to find out where you are....

They took the wrong spin on this

[erroneus]

What they SHOULD have done is approach various safety and emergency interested groups and organizations. In much the same way that 9-1-1 service has been mandated for mobile phones, "The Emergency Broadcast System" should be available in places that have been found to replace the typical radio receiver device.

Such a spin could win favor from all sorts of groups out there. While the article does mention this, it's at the VERY last paragraph... you know... the one about three to four paragraphs below where most people stop reading?

Simply, they should not speak much about royalties and performance rights and the like while trying to get this through -- they should speak to the "more important need" while acknowledging that they also have a commercial interest honestly when asked.

I almost hope it does happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really shocking here is that the RIAA has so much clout in Congress that they can use it as a negotiating tool in lieu of offering anything themselves.

Just look at what happens to each party involved:

-NAB pays $100 million to RIAA, and doubtless foots part of the lobbying costs, in exchange for access to the miniscule number of people who have dumb phones but not radios.

-CEA spends millions in engineering costs to develop and implement FM into all handsets.

-Collectively, consumers spend millions to offset CEA's costs. In return, they get something that they could have gotten before, only now they have no choice.

-Legislators get some campaign checks, and maybe some free dinners.

-RIAA gets $100 million in exchange for part of the lobbying costs.

If this goes through, it will be bald-faced, definitive proof that legislators have absolutely no regard for anything except money. Ordinarily, this is no big deal, but if Joe Schmoe suddenly has to pay more for his cell phone on account of such blatant pandering, this could be just the sort of eye-opener that the public so desperately needs.

Re:I almost hope it does happen.

[Issarlk]

> if Joe Schmoe suddenly has to pay more for his cell phone on account of such blatant pandering, this could be just the sort of eye-opener that the public so desperately needs.

Yeah, right. Nothing can defeat Joe Schmoe's apathy and you know it.

They (NAB,RIAA) obviously overlooked one thing

[atchijov]

This will only work if they push other pice of legislation which will make listening to FM radio compulsory.

I'm all for it...

[Izhido]

... even if only to force Google to activate the d@#+ FM radio the Nexus One is supposed to have...

Re:I'm all for it...

[shutdown -p now]

If you want an FM radio in your cellphone, then why didn't you buy a cellphone in which it is advertised as a supported feature?

Personally, I didn't ever use FM radio in a few cellphones I had that had that feature. I do understand why some people might want to use it. But there is absolutely no argument here for mandating its presence.

As far as government market interventions go, this one is inexcusable. It does not serve any useful purpose to most consumers, it's not something they expect to be on the phone "by default", and it doesn't serve to correct any proven market abuses. So far as I can see, the sole purpose is to line RIAA's pockets up with more cash - and that's not a valid reason for government regulation.

Already have Sirius, kthxbye

[Enry]

My Droid has something far superior to FM radio, so I don't see the need to have yet another chip in my phone.

My guess (and I'll admit to not RTFA) is that they're talking about installing HD Radio equipment really, not just FM Radio.

Re:Already have Sirius, kthxbye

[AndrewNeo]

Well, that, and the Droid (as well as plenty of other smartphones) already have an FM receiver, it's just not supported in software. The Droid's is a TI WL1271 that supports both receive and transmit.

I have a proposition

[Mattskimo]

Congress should pass a mandate that all employees of the RIAA shal be fitted with FM receivers and cochlear implants. The receivers should automatically tune to the station in range that within the last 24 hours has played the highest number of tunes by RIAA affiliated artists. The noise will not be able to be turned off and tampering with the implants will carry the same penalty as sharing 10,000 songs.

Just what we need ... more laws

[whizbang77045]

Every time some special interest group manages to get a new law passed, we, the tax payers, get stuck with the cost of enforcing it. The more laws we have, the less enforceable they become. Passing another law just dilutes the laws we already have.

I want and use FM radios, but not at any expense.

[radio4fan]

I didn't buy an iPod until the first one with an FM radio came out about 18 months ago.

I also chose an HTC Desire partly for the FM radio.

There's some great FM programming in the UK and France from the BBC and Radio France.

So if all handheld devices had FM radios, that would be great for me personally, but bugger-all to do with government.

'The height of absurdity' makes it sound just silly, but it's actually quite frightening that industry lobby groups would even think they have a chance of pushing laws like this through.

No thank you.

[Drakkenmensch]

If I want some GOOD auto-tuned music, I'll listen to Auto-tune The News on youtube, thank you very much.

Only part that makes sense: Multicast

[DutchUncle]

The one conceptual advantage of radio is that it's inherently multicast. Building the bandwidth to handle everybody as an individual TCP/IP link is sometimes ridiculous. Of course, that has nothing to do with the intent of trying to require a device so you can then require a service charge. Oh, and my iRiver MP3 player has an FM radio . . . from ten years ago . . .

Backfire

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant! Then we can all use our mobile phones to digitally record radio programming!

Wait, what?

I hope it's not that fm antenna by head phones and

[Joe The Dragon]

I hope it's not that fm antenna by head phones and you should be able to power off the FM to save battery as well.

fm radio is cheap circuitry

[circletimessquare]

even if you never listened to fm radio, the extra amount spent to include the circuitry (pennies?) would enable you with a pretty large jump in functionality, even if just for emergencies, never mind listening to pop music stations or talk radio

legislating the inclusion of fm radio is, indeed, ridiculous

but simple common business sense dictates that the minimal cost involved, even if it sways only 5% of potential buyers to purchase your product, makes the investment worthwhile

simple common sense argues for the inclusion of fm radio: its so cheap, and it enables a lot of functionality

Re:fm radio is cheap circuitry

[countertrolling]

...its so cheap...

When you're counting tenths of a penny, it matters... Anyway, the machine should include some kind of closed captioning. braille, and wheelchair access, to comply with the ADA

Wait.. What? Broadcast radio isn't already gone?

[TrentTheThief]

I haven't listed to the the radio in twenty years. Once I began buying CDs, Broadcast was dead to me.

Obnoxious DJs; idiots bantering about bullshit; absurd, over-loud, and offensive commercials; shit music played over and over according to who is on tour.

I've listened to XM and enjoyed it for a spell. I dumped them when they got stupid.

I have a slacker portable radio now. No DJ, no commercials, and I can pick the music.

Sure, I'm paying for a subscription, but I think that the cost is more than offset by my lowered blood pressure and no more radio rage when all five stations with halfway decent music are running the same bullshit set of commercials.

Broadcast began it's death march when the DJs became delusional enough to think that people listened the radio for their stellar personalities rather than for the music. Big broadcast conglomerates drove in the last nail when they bought up all the stations they could manage and turned them into cookie-cutter crap machines.

The RIAA is pissing into the wind. They can't re-bottle the genie. They couldn't stop people from recording FM to reel-to-reel back in the fifties and sixties, and they sure as hell won't be able to stop people from recording or copying music now. As long as recording devices exist, they may as well lobby against the sun and moon.

Wireless

[ozbird]

The new Apple iPlaid - FM wireless, with 8 tracks of storage!

The only mandate should be "NO DRM!"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's appropriate to make them (for once) respect the spirit of Constitutional copyright.

Other than that, what part of "the free market will decide whether to include FM radios or not" do these lobbyists fail to understand?

stop playing catchup, start leading

[uniquegeek]

Instead of waiting for the RIAA to take over every device that we come up with, why don't we come up with a new device or standard that specifically (legally) excludes/forbids their involvement? Beat them to the punch.

Make something awesome that everyone will want to get on board with.

FM? For what?

[rkhalloran]

At this point, my car radio is only there to push the Sirius signal out to the speakers, and VERY occasionally, a local station for traffic info during rush hour. I have a ton of music stashed on the flash card in my Droid, and I'll use Pandora if I want more, thanks.

The MAFIAA probably wants the FM chips in there because they already have the royalty deal worked out with the broadcasters and it saves them another legal fight to leech onto the wallets of someone new.

SCOX(Q) DELENDA EST!!

Bigger, Shorter Battery Life, More Expensive

[rally2xs]

Just what I need, an FM radio in everything. Make them bigger, possibly to accommodate an antenna, have some extra chips that need power so the battery has to be bigger and runs down more rapidly, etc, and of course it'll not be free, the item, whatever it is, will cost more. Do they want to put 'em in our GPSs too? How about book readers? Computers? What does "all" mean?

Lies go abound when there are no consequences

[unity100]

however, if lying had consequences, it would be a different matter. imagine, a few of these 'representatives' of private interests get beaten up by enraged consumers in a back alley.

Who modded that interesting?

[Andy Dodd]

Better modded as "-1 Clueless" except that such a moderation doesn't exist. (However, it should)

The parent is telling us to google technologies for identifying *FM transmitters*. Now, this is basically useless for the FM broadcast band, because:
1) The band is so heavily regulated/licensed/technical barriers to entry so high that every emitter in that band is VERY well known
2) FM fingerprinting techniques primarily depend on properties of how the transmitter turns on, or "keys up". FM broadcast transmitters only "key up" after major maintenance or repairs - they're typically on 24/7.

It is also irrelevant to this article because it applies to identifying transmitters. I saw this marketed ages ago in a ham magazine, and it was marketed as being a tool to help catching "kerchunkers" - People who would briefly key up on a repeater's input frequency just to cause a repeater to key up. Sometimes these people would actually legitimately use the repeater AND ID themselves (as a legitimate user), and transmitter fingerprinting enabled their "kerchunks" to be associated with them.

However, in the context of this article (mandated broadcast band receivers), such transmitter fingerprinting technology is 100% useless/irrelevant.

There are plenty of far easier ways to track/identify a mobile device:
1) GSM IMEI or CDMA2000 ESN
2) For GSM phones, the account info in the SIM
3) For Wi-Fi enabled devices, the MAC address
4) For Bluetooth enabled devices, the Bluetooth MAC address

Re:Who modded that interesting?

[s122604]

I thought he might be referring to eavesdropping on the internal "mixing" frequency emitted in the receiver circuitry (I'm probably referring to that wrong, but I bet you know what I mean)

I've heard there are services that will set up by highways with an ultra sensitive reciever and antenna and listen to the mixing freq of passing cars (to determine what channel they are tuned to, for ratings)

What I thought he was implying was that "they" would somehow fingerprint each mixer, and then somehow use this track you.. preposterous for a whole host of reasons...

Re:Who modded that interesting?

[Andy Dodd]

Yeah, looking for LO leakage. I believe this is how "radar detector detectors" work, along with the methods the British use to find unlicensed TV receivers. (IIRC, in the UK, you need to pay a license fee for each receiver to fund the BBC.) The stuff referred to by the AC poster is not this, however.

Also, it's going to overwhelm the system if you require all phones to have FM receivers - simply too much to track with very little identifying information. (It will be next to impossible to uniquely fingerprint a receiver based on LO behavior - at best you'll know what channels receivers nearby are tuned to based on LO frequencies present.) It's also far easier to track phones via existing methods (IMEI, SIM account info, Bluetooth/WiFi MACs)

Why is the government involved?

[Shisouka]

Wonderful. Yet another instance of forcing something on consumers and industries that the market hasn't decided it wants on its own.

One more thing I don't need in every electronic device.

And why isn't there a call for the AM band? :P

Re:Why is the government involved?

[ebinrock]

I know. I may be the only one here, but of the two bands, I often find more interesting things on AM like the talk radio shows where I really get to learn what's going on. Not to mention just regularly scheduled news and weather (every half hour on my local flagship AM station anyway). I still don't think it should be mandated, however. If anything, maybe mobile devices should have something vital for survival anywhere, like a built-in NOAA weather radio or some emergency notification system on the cellular networks. Something that can actually save people's lives, not force people to have a receiver to receive crappy music. I know, I know, you don't have to use that feature, blah, blah, blah, but still a waste of circuitry space that could be allocated to something better.

Re:Why is the government involved?

[Shisouka]

I know. I may be the only one here, but of the two bands, I often find more interesting things on AM like the talk radio shows...

You're not the only one.

You make another good point..."waste of circuitry." Just an added cost we'll have to pay on the device.

Unwise

[Improv]

I'm not bothered by the government considering a mandate that would advocate for some notion of the public interest. This is the government's job, and it often produces very good results. I don't think it's a good idea in this case though. Many people don't use their phone as a media/convergence device (meaning it's of no theoretical interest to them), and even for those who do, FM radio tends to be of little interest to many technology enthusiasts among them, being more of a legacy stack belonging to prior generations.

I have some sympathy to the idea that, this being an established public venue, it's a good idea to steer devices to supporting it for awhile. It's a bit late for that though, I think. The right time for this may have been when phones were just beginning to act as media devices, or perhaps before, or perhaps there never was a good time. Likewise, there's some value in mandating device access to media channels that are not not strongly controlled by the device manufacturer or the cell provider, but radio is too much on the trailing edge of technology to serve that role.

Think of the Telcos

[WCguru42]

Shouldn't the Telcos be up in arms about this. Every FM tuner that a consumer uses is one less person that isn't using that precious data, sprinting towards their monthly quota, on streaming music. It would be pretty difficult (though probably not impossible for them) for the telcos to make money on FM radio.

Sick of mandates

[ebinrock]

I'm so sick of government mandates just to protect certain companies or industries from competition. When will this end? All I can hope is that I get my next smartphone before the manufacturers are forced to do this. This forced inclusion of an FM radio receiver may just cause another antennagate situation.

Radio just works

[Comboman]

Yes, why listen to local radio stations for free when you spend $4 for an app AND eat up your bandwidth (if you're not on an unlimited plan). Also keep in mind that during an emergency (earthquake, hurricane, terror attack) when you really need up-to-date information, the radio will likely still work while the cell-phone system will be overloaded or reserved for emergency workers.

Re:Radio just works

[wagnerrp]

Also keep in mind that during an emergency (earthquake, hurricane, terror attack) when you really need up-to-date information, the radio will likely still work while the cell-phone system will be overloaded or reserved for emergency workers.

Be serious. If that's what they were going for, CB transceivers would be far more useful than FM radio.

Excellent!

[antonyb]

Hopefully this'll be completed just around the time the UK completes its digital switchover and FM becomes redundant.

ant.

The CORE of the issue

[ebinrock]

The REAL issue here is, where in the Constitution is there the enumerated power to mandate FM radios in mobile devices?? The govt. just does NOT care anymore about its proper role. It has become an UNLIMITED behemoth. Stay OUT of our lives, will you??

Buggy whips

[tcampb01]

In other news, buggy whip makers think congress should mandate that all cars have horse-shafts and harnesses attached to the front... you know... just in case you still want REAL horsepower.

Government Leave Me Alone!

[FireEMT949]

This just burns me! Why is the government getting involved!?! If it really a good feature, advertise to us and we'll buy it. If the government has to mandate it (or subsidize it, another separate issue) by definition it's not something we want. I am sick of the government getting involved in what they think I should or should not be buying. We are (or used to be) a free market society. If you have an awesome feature or product, make the case for its awesomeness, price it appropriately, and I'll buy it. I do happen to be in favor of an FM receiver in my phone; I think it would be a nice feature [although I would like an AM receiver to so I can listen to Rush :)] I just don't want the government telling me I have to buy this feature. If the arrogant pinheads on Capitol Hill actually knew what we, the consumer, wanted, they would be in the Cell Phone/PDA/portable music industry instead of where they are. /End Rant

BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

[tomhudson]

AM radio is also dying.

Mandatory AM Radio is next step.

Newspapers are dying, and so are faxes.

So the newspaper produces and fax manufactureres will mandate that your cell phone also receives FAXES - so you can receive a fax copy of your local NEWSPAPER without having to have an iPad and 500 megabytes to download one issue of Wired.

GM is (still) dying.

So GM will lobby that your cell phone also includes a CAR!

And throw in the PoS otherwise known as ObamaCare! (after all, it's really a gift to the insurance industry).

Real estate is (still) dying.

So every cell phone should have A NEW HOME!

LANDINES ARE DYING!

EVERY CELL PHONE MUST BE CONNECTED TO A LAND LINE!!!

And obviously run BSD, because "everyone knows" BSD is dying.

Re:BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

[vlad30]

AM radio is also dying.

Mandatory AM Radio is next step.

No AM radio usually has interesting talk shows picking up politician mistakes helping inform the voters AM will never be mandated for inclusion

Re:BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet if GM included a ox and cart with every SUV they could turn their business around.

Re:BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

[ksd1337]

And obviously run BSD, because "everyone knows" BSD is dying.

Netcraft confirms it!

Re:BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

[MrNiceguy_KS]

AM radio is also dying.

Actually, I'd like it if my MP3 player had an AM receiver in addition to the FM receiver it already has. 95% of the time I'm listening to OTA broadcast, I'm listening to Talk Radio, which is mostly on AM. I can't remember the last time I listened to music on FM.

Re:BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

[Anonymous Coward]

And obviously run BSD, because "everyone knows" BSD is dying.

Lol. You must be old here.

Import time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would see this as a great reason to just start buying phones from Europe or Canada...

Sending Lifeline information

[Anonymous Coward]

"We would argue that having radio capability on cell phones and other mobile devices would be a great thing, particularly from a public safety perspective. There are few if any technologies that match the reliability of broadcast radio in terms of getting lifeline information to the masses." Have they heard of text messaging? Amber Alerts go out over text messaging why not public safety information?

Same Here

[fuzznutz]

I bought a Samsung Rugby. It couldn't be more indestructible if it was made by Tonka. I have dropped it too many times to count. I took it swimming accidentally by forgetting that it was in my trunks pocket. It still lives. By this time in my contract, I had broken the hinge on my RAZR and before that my kids ruined my LG, when they dumped a glass of water on it while it was on the charger.

My Rugby's sound is clear. The microphone is sensitive. The reception is great. It could wake the dead when it rings. It's a great phone. I turned off the PTT and web access when I bought it, and it works perfectly as a PHONE!

In Other News...

[DarkKnightRadick]

In other news the RIAA and broadcast radio stations all become utterly irrelevant in less than 10 years time. In 15 years time it's "RIAA who?" and "What's FM/AM?"

Want to listen to streaming music on the go?

Pandora
Grooveshark
Last.fm

And I'm sure there are a host of others. Want to download that music? emusic and sites like it exist and have existed for decades (anyone remember mp3.com before they were sued?). The fact that the RIAA is still relevant today is a miracle of pure momentum and PR-blitz that has been going on since the original Napster hit the scene. The fact that broadcast radio is still around is pure momentum and the fact that putting in cd players that read MP3s is still an option in many cars (as is the CD-player itself). I'm not one to believe that the car manufacturers are in cahoots with broadcast radio (much like they are claimed to be in cahoots with the oil industry (a lot more believable considering the money involved in oil)), but it sure does smack of it considering the availability of CDs since at least as early as 1980 (with a prototype being shown in 1979). We are now 30 years on into not only the digital audio revolution, but 50 years or more into the computer revolution. No SSDs of substantial size in cars to store audio (or even movies and images for those long drives) in a vehicle yet? When SSD technology is arguably 70 years old?

I guess maybe the broadcast radio folks are in cahoots with car manufacturers because, aside from supposed cost to implement, I see no reason why your average, non-Green car shouldn't have some (if not all) of these as standard features.

Re:In Other News...

[danomac]

Want to listen to streaming music on the go?

Pandora
Grooveshark
Last.fm

Go an hour east from where I live and there's no data service for cellular phones.

Re:In Other News...

[DarkKnightRadick]

Come out to where I live, there is almost no service for cellular phones.

If cell phone companies want to offer am/fm receivers, so be it. The government has no business mandating it.

The RIAA isn't satisfied...

[rnturn]

... to have driven the broadcast radio market to having the least variety and choice available to listeners in my lifetime (and I was glued to and listening to radio since the early '60s). Now they want to force that lack of variety onto equipment that allows the consumer (lord how I hate that term but it seems appropriate here) to load and listen to the music they want to listen to and not what some record executive or station manager has decided people will listen to. (Yeah, I know it's always been true that the station managers have always had that sort of "here's what you DJs are going to be playing" control but the past few years, there's been a marked decrease in the variety of music played on the radio. "This song's used in a commercial; we're going to play that every couple of hours." And don't even get me started on the decrease in the music-to-commercial ratio. I can't listen to radio for more than an hour or so any more. Except for the local classical station that has announcer-read ads. And -- big plus -- far fewer ads.)

Then there's the uselessness of the whole idea. FM receivers need a fairly substantial antenna in order to pick up signals without a lot of dropouts and other forms of distortion. Just how does the RIAA expect manufacturers to get that into a tiny cellphone? Apple had a hard enough time getting a decent antenna into their latest phone. And, at least for me, a bit of distortion in a conversation is tolerable; having that same amount of distortion in music is incredibly annoying. I have a Cowon player that, where I live anyway, you pretty much have to hold it out at arm's length to get a consistently strong FM signal to listen without distortion. (Same thing with my daughter's Sansa.) Or is there some technical reason cellphone antennas would actually be able to pull in enough signal to keep the music quality high enough to listen to?

I see this as just one more data point on the graph showing just how out of touch the RIAA is with the people who actually enjoy and listen to music.

Telecom seeks mandate to for phones in radio's?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be innovative. No more cars without hands-fee kit, built in phones in every radio! No more freeloading on Skype while you are listening to the radio, use the radio controlled phone...
We'll make millions! The whole world will buy US radio's and call with US technology. We'll be rich forever...

Once good reason for Radio's in Mobile phones

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one good reason for having a radio in a mobile device. In the event of a major incident cell networks crash due to load and you will not be able to get online to get information. If you have an FM reciever in your phone then at least you can recieve emergency broadcast messages.

paid promotion?

[Anonymous Coward]

all you need is another $500,000 on promotion

If someone paid money to "promote" something to me, 99 times out of a 100, I don't want, like or care about your product. That is not cause and effect, just an observation.

If I get an unpaid recommendation, from someone I have personal contact with - 4 out of 5 times THAT thing is interesting or relevant to me.

I still listen to the radio...

[HockeyPuck]

I'd much rather listen to the radio while on the train to work in the morning to hear free music, than have to spend $200-300 to fill out a nice collection of music. Sure I can illegally download TB of music, but that is besides the point. There's a few radio stations in my area that I like, and that's just fine. I've never understood how someone could legally afford to fill a 16GB iPOD. What is that, maybe $10k worth of mp3s?

Force companies to include radios? I don't agree with that, but I voted with my wallet and didn't purchase an iPOD but a Sony player.

my phone is not for music

[kae_verens]

I didn't buy this phone to listen to music on it. I use it for email, web, talking to people, but not music.

It's a communications device - not a media player.

yes, it /can/ be a media player, but that's a choice, not a mandate.

It makes little sense to me that a music company is trying to force my communications device to do something that would be useless to me.

Vote Pirate

[tepples]

But at least I can vote and try to get others to vote the corrupt scumbags out of office

In the United States, neither the Republican platform nor the Democratic platform includes rolling back the entertainment industry land-grabs of the 105th Congress. All three bills I'm thinking of (NET Act, Bono Act, DMCA) passed both houses by a voice vote. I'll believe you once a Pirate gets elected to Congress.

I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests).

They tried that in 2008 with Ron Paul. But at the primary debates, Paul couldn't a word in edgewise because the MPAA controls the TV news media.

Re:Vote Pirate

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In the United States, neither the Republican platform nor the Democratic platform includes rolling back the entertainment industry land-grabs of the 105th Congress.

No, but individual members of both parties do. Additionally, you can actually get elected to congress on a third party ticket, in some states.

I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests).

They tried that in 2008 with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is an interesting case because he's in office as a Republican, but most everyone associates him with Libertarianism. He may not be able to get elected president, but he can sure get reelected to congress, and that's where we really need the reform more than anywhere. I suppose the main problem is that third party candidates that want to get rid of lobbying and work on electoral reform, don't stick to those issues, and generally want radical change in a lot other ways as well, whether is it Paul's uninformed economic policy and willingness to push specific parts of it he can (which by themselves only hurt the average american) or many Tea Party affiliates who wish to do away with separation of church and state. What we need is a moderate, centrist candidate, who also runs on the platform of reforming lobbying and elections to be more open, maybe with a healthy dose of repealing laws favoring corporations over individuals.

Re:Vote Pirate

[jackbird]

What we need is a moderate, centrist candidate, who also runs on the platform of reforming lobbying and elections to be more open, maybe with a healthy dose of repealing laws favoring corporations over individuals.

That's how Obama campaigned. The econopocalypse, Republican stonewalling, and an overall underestimation of how powerful the presidency actually is has derailed much of that during his term, though.

Re:Vote Pirate

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Admittedly, Obama has implemented some reforms on that front within the executive branch, but he also hired on former lobbyists and corporate lawyers to prominent positions and made a great many "exceptions". Still, while lobbying the executive branch is a real problem, lobbying the legislative branch is what brings about the stupid laws we have today, and reform in the latter could quickly fix the former, while the converse is not true. I give Obama credit for being better on this front than any president in decades, but that's still only a C+.

Re:Vote Pirate

[MrNiceguy_KS]

That's how Obama campaigned.

You're right about that much.

The econopocalypse, Republican stonewalling, and an overall underestimation of how powerful the presidency actually is has derailed much of that during his term, though.

Uh, what? Obama has how many former lobbyists in his administration? Open elections? From the administration that dropped a voter intimidation case it had already won? Obama campaigned as a moderate centrist, but anyone who took an objective look at his record and his history knew that he was one of the most liberal senators we've ever had. The mainstream media went along with the "moderate centrist" narrative, but there were plenty of people warning of how out-of-touch with mainstream America he was.

Re:Vote Pirate

[Grishnakh]

No kidding. Obama is a big friend of the media corporations. He's no centrist at all, he's just a typical DC politician.

What we need are politicians who are enemies of big corporations. We don't have any of those, except maybe Ron Paul. And a single Congressman doesn't have much power by himself when all his peers are bought off by lobbyists.

Re:Vote Pirate

[mjwx]

They tried that in 2008 with Ron Paul. But at the primary debates, Paul couldn't a word in edgewise because the MPAA controls the TV news media.

Ron Paul was a nutbar in disguise, he had backwards isolationist policies and have ended up crippling vital infrastructure in rampant penny pinching. If he had received media attention more people would have seen this.

People wanted to raise bile at Obama and laugh at Palin. Yes that's right, people, you and your ilk. Palin and Obama were so popular not because of some MPIAA conspiracy but because the people wanted more, both were pure lowest common denominator.

Re:Vote Pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality about Ron Paul and the debates is that every time he opened he mouth he came off nervous and crazy. I voted for him in the primaries, but I knew he couldn't win because of how he appeared on TV. It was entirely on him (unless the MPAA was slipping him acid before the debate or something, but that kind of thinking is the height of tinfoil-hattery).

I am still confused.

[twright0]

I have RTFA, and one major issue remains unclear to me. From where would Congress derive the authority to mandate putting radios in all cell phones?

Tune them to police radio frequencies

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine. Mandate that FM receivers be installed in everyone's mobile, and permanently tune them to the local law enforcement frequencies.

That is just wasteful

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be emitting rage with cool, long-lasting diodes..

This is an excellent opportunity!

[rickb928]

To convince our government to say NO!

"The Consumer Electronics Association, whose members build the devices that would be affected by such a directive, is incandescent with rage"

Me? I'm merely smoking a little. No one has noticed yet.

"The two sides hope to strike a grand bargain: radio would agree to pay around $100 million a year (less than it feared), but in return it would get access to a larger market through the mandated FM radio chips in portable devices."

Oh yeah, access is good. Now, who's going to convince the masses to turn ON those chips?

But wait, there's more...

It won't be long before the radio (and music) industry will want a tax on radios. They are already trying this by feeing the stations now on the air, and Internet stations. Next would be a tax on receivers. How convenient, millions of new receivers. The tax won't be much, a few bucks per unit. Of course, the new receivers in phones would pretty much quadruple the number of units, and presto, profit!

Outrageous. This is an excellent opportunity. Congress, just say no...

Consumer FM or Consumer AM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone in another forum properly pointed out that some of the Broadcom chips used to provide Bluetooth already have an FM receiver included. Also an MP3 playing cell-phone that has an FM transmitter can be coupled with a cheap FM receiver.

Fire the supporting representatives

[cybersquid]

We have a war on 2 fronts, a damaged economy and climate change. Still congress has the free cycles to sell out the public interest in return for some bribes (I mean lobbying fees).

Maybe we should fire them? Anybody have a list of which representatives supported this?

After all, they're supposed to be representing their constituents.

Re:Fire the supporting representatives

[cffrost]

We have a war on 2 fronts [...]

Don't forget; we also have a front with 2 wars.

Jupiter Jack

[tepples]

I guess these groups wouldn't want to mandate FM transmitters

A basic FM transmitter cost me $10 on the As Seen On TV rack. I think you may have seen Billy Mays advertising the Suicide Jack.

Devil's Advocate

[Stormy Dragon]

Isn't this just the RIAA advocating for Net Neutrality? If we accept the argument that the government should police service providers to make sure all content providers, doesn't that entail decisions like this? After all, FM radio stations are content providers that at present recieve a significantly lower level of service from wireless companies vs content providers who use things like WiFi or GSM.

Windows Mobile sucks

[tepples]

Your phone will vacuum?

It's probably a Windows Mobile phone. What product has Microsoft made that doesn't suck?

incandescent with rage, eh?

[countertrolling]

Then you are not welcome in California...

We environmentalists are CFL with rage... even hotter while saving energy

Now if they're going to demand the installation of FM radios, we shouldn't stop there... I want over the air TV also. And while we're at it, I want the damn thing to peel my grapes..

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

The CEA is way larger. The media industries like to pretend like they are the be-all, end-all of the economy but they really aren't. They are dwarfed by the electronics and technology companies. Intel reminded congress of this some years ago when the RIAA was last doing something stupid that would have affected their market. The media industry gets a lot of attention from congress since they heavily bribe them, but congress is forced to listen to the concerns of other, bigger, companies.

Re:Wait.. What? Broadcast radio isn't already gone

[Myopic]

Shit, that is all so true.

It would be SO EASY for FM radio to become relevant again: SUCK LESS. A lot less. A HELL of a lot less. Radio is cheap, available, and efficient. People would happily tune in if it didn't insult their intelligence and force crappy music on them.

I listen to the radio through an app on my iPhone

[TheWizardTim]

I don't listen to the radio that much, but when I do, I use an app on my iPhone. I have access to hundreds of radio stations, not just local ones. I live near Portland OR, but I listen to a station out of San Francisco. I hook my iPhone in to my car, and don't really notice a difference. Granted, I only do this when I have a good cell connection, but that is most of the time driving around the city.

I would rather money be spent on improving the wireless/cell connections around the US, so devices like iPhones, and Android phones work everywhere.

-The Wizard Tim

I've had FM radios in my last 5 phones...

[X86Daddy]

And for each phone, I used the FM receiver exactly once, when I was trying out all the features, and never again. Because I stopped listening to radio about 15 years ago. ClearChannel, the RIAA, etc... turned it into worse crap than it already was, and the MP3 revolution (which they so vigorously fought; remember them trying to stop the Diamond Rio from being released?) made life better for "consumers" all the way around. The only genres of music I listen to lately are ones that have no dedicated channels, and only have drive-time shows in 2 or 3 major US cities. And advertisements are infuriating to listen to.

Frankly the only FM feature I've used more than once on my phones has been the FM transmitter in my last couple of phones when I've had a rental car and wanted to pipe in acceptable music.

I love having the do-everything sorts of phones that have emerged. I'm now at the point that I require a decent camera, a voice recorder, a mini web browser, an email client, a GPS, an MP3 player, a timer, a flashlight, a calculator, an address book, a calendar, etc... all in one device, and my last few phones have met those needs. The FM receivers were not a requirement... just a "oh, that's nice too, I guess," feature.

Re:Wait.. What? Broadcast radio isn't already gone

[TrentTheThief]

It would be simple, too. I remember an old FM station, WYSL in Buffalo, NY. It was fantastic. It was rock and roll, but there wasn't a playlist, the DJ's made up their own lists and played what they liked and what the audience told them they liked.

A couple others that come to mind are KLOS in LA back in the 70's/80's and KDKB in Phoenix. Sadly, they're now cookie-cutters. WYSL went out of business as far as I know. There are not enough independent FM stations left now. You know, you need a breeding population for species survival.

All that's left now are great hulking growths of mould and fungii.

Proposal is technologically rediculous

[kheldan]

I used to own a portable music player that had an FM stereo receiver built into it. It had to use the headphone cable as it's antenna, and the reception quality was far less than stellar. We've already got problems with basic cellphone reception in high-end mobile platforms like the iPhone, and they want to stuff another receiver for a totally different band inside those as well? What about people using stereo bluetooth headphones instead of wired headphones? What are they going to use for an FM antenna then? I agree completely that the RIAA and NAB are stuck in the past and refuse to innovate and update. If they want to propose easing licensing fees to internet radio providers and make access to them cheaper and easier on mobile devices then I'm all for that, but as-is their demands here are pure lunacy.

Satan called... He said he was freezing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought I would see the day where I agreed with these people on *anything*. I would love to have a radio in all of my portable devices. That was one of the things that pissed me off about the Ipod.

I guess Hell has finally frozen over. ...and for goodness sake, can we PLEASE have AM too? Is there some technical reason most devices *with a radio* lack AM?

Re:Satan called... He said he was freezing!

[knorthern knight]

> Is there some technical reason most devices *with a radio* lack AM?

A couple, actually...

1) Due to the frequencies used (540 khz to 1600 khz), a minimal *HALF-DECENT* AM antenna is a 5-inch long by 1/2-inch wide cylinder containing a ferrite bar with *A LOT* of wire wound around it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Loopstick_antennas Not only is it large for a cellphone, it's heavy, relatively speaking.

2) AM is very susceptable to RF interference. Put your radio next to your desktop computer, and try listening to an AM station, other than a 50,000 watt flamethrower a few miles away. You'll get nothing but static. Now imagine the circuitry for the AM radio being a millimetre away from other active circuitry inside your cellphone. Other than strong local stations, fuggedaboutit.

In other news.....

[Anonymous Coward]

...butter manufacturers are lobbying that all new cars must be fitted with popcorn machines.

So this is how it might work out:

[ryzvonusef]

Is recording music from radios illegal in the US? What about if I record that song and then pass that digital file around, that is most probably not allowed, right?

If it is so, and keeping in mind there already exist cellphones (mostly Chinese KIRFs, but I think LG has this feature too) that allow you to record FM broadcasts, then I think this is what will happen:

1- Install mandatory FM radio chips in every phone, for "public safety" reasons, of course.
2- People are recording songs illegally! Think of the Artists!
3- Impose pre-emptive tax on every cellphone, like those imposed in some countries on blank CDs.
4- ???
5- RIAA profits.

Then again, maybe reading Slashdot has just made me paranoid :D

Don't tell Bill ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He'll want a copy of Vista 7 ( at retail ) included too !

Actually could come in real handy

[Anonymous Coward]

Emergency alert service don't reach cell phones. Another 9/11 and people could be getting an idea of what the heck is going on via FM.

I think it is coool, and here is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it will require the vendors to insert yet another software controlled radio.
1. Add another RF GPS capability - location without the cell phone network or WIFI!
2. Could be used to open up 'white space' Internet access (transmit and receive)
3. Emergency broadcast system without an additional radio
4. CB Radio (Low Power) without paying the cell phone company
5. Access to frequencies restricted by other technologies - Hmmm transmit and receive for HAM use?
6. New way of creating a bug, without involving the telephone company
7. Access to other public frequencies for controlling all kind of fun things!
8. Oh, and listen to commercial radio, if you can get over all of the advertising

Next- mandate teaching Morse code...

[Anonymous Coward]

No fair! They got the idea from me. I've been trying (on behalf of clients whom I cannot name) to get Morse code mandated as a foreign language in American schools.

Ironically, neither my $600 home theater receiver nor my HTC Incredible manage more than one or two FM stations and then only when set to mono. The only time I listen to FM is in my car.

Chuck Berry would disapprove

[Anonymous Coward]

Riding along in my automobile
My Iphone beside the steering wheel
I bought an app at the turn of a mile
My attentiveness running wild
Driving and messing with my Iphone
Charged up the ass when it roams

turnabout is fair play

[cellocgw]

I hearby attach a rider to this bill, requiring all commercially sold FM radio receivers to include a cellphone.

That'll fix 'em!

Clear Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be a grand idea...if FM radio was even still worth listening to.

Here in Philadelphia, there is only one FM station left worth listening to, and the rest are either CBS or Clear Channel, which play a playlist of the same 10 songs over and over again.

A quote from Robert Heinline that comes to mind.

[urulokion]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and the contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by the statue nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come to court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit." —Robert A. Heinlein, "Life-Line" 1939

So apropos for this so called proposal. And what's truly remarkable is that it is from seventy one years ago. 71 years!

Streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Have any of the broadcasters or the RIAA heard of streaming online? Last time I checked you could listen to just about anything with online stream on just about any smart phone. The FM radio part is irrelevant.

How about let the market decide

[gabrieltss]

Congress should stop mandating crap! Let the free market decide. If a smartphone maker puts and FM tuner in and peopel buy it - great for them. Maybe not everyone wants an FM Tuner in their phone. They should let the PEOPLE decide if they want one or not. Unfortunately our congress critters ONLY CARE ABOUT appeasing their masters - their CORPORATE MASTERS. Our congress critters are their "grooms of the stool". Their just bitches of their corpporate masters - they do what they are told. The ONLY thing that corporations understand is $$$$$$$$$$$! If people don't buy their crap - they lose money. Stop buying their damn music, their movies, their products. If you bitch and whine about all these things they are doing yet you still buy their CD's buy the songs they push on iTunes, buy their Blu Ray movie players and movies etc.. - YOUR ENCOURAGING and SUPPORTING their behavior! Give them the middle finger and tell them to F#$% OFF! I did that LOOOONG ago. Do I miss out on a good movie now and then - yes - but $h!t happens.

And this is why we don't like powerful federal gov

[OrangeTide]

These buffoons in DC are so easily manipulated by lobbyists that absurd ideas like mandating a legacy system into a product that is not even primarily used to listen to music. There are cellphones with FM tuners in them, but they don't sell well in the US because nobody actually cares about that feature.

What ever happened to HD Radio? I'm guessing it is dying because it is proprietary. (afaik the open standard DAB isn't allowed to operate in the US). I would accept a mandatory radio in a phone if it promoted a new technology, on the basis that sometimes new tech needs a little help to unseat old tech. But that isn't how it is in this case.

The less power we give the feds to regulate private industry and private citizens, the better. If a state wants to enact some rules about mandatory features required in products sold there, I am fine with that, and it seems to be perfectly legal, even though it can be politically very sticky and end up in tremendous court battles due to misunderstanding of the commerce clause.

Only FM?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when will they mandate Shortwave receivers on cell phones? After all, think of the servicemen who could benefit from this while serving overseas!

Feature list for smart phone with FM radio

[aegl]

1) Record anything broadcast for replay later
2) Easy edit to trim off commercials from recordings
3) TiVo style back-up & replay of last 30 minutes
4) One-touch sample for use as ring tone
5) One-touch e-mail of recorded samples to friends
6) One-touch sharing of recorded samples on social media

All of these look pretty easy to implement. I'm sure that NAB and RIAA will just *love* that all this flexibility will be available to every smart phone user.

Bingo

[ThatsNotPudding]

A month or so, (Arbitron?) paid me a couple of bucks to keep a diary of my radio listening for the week. At the end of said week it was honestly blank. Before sending it back, I wrote in the comments section: "Podcasts FTW!" along with the names of those I regularly listen. I wonder how much extra I'll have to pay for this privledge in the Brave New World of non-neutrality and ACTA.

Internal, holding right

[Beerdood]

WHERE WILL YOU PUT THIS ON AN iPHONE??

I'm sure they can make an internal antenna for the next iPhone. You'll just need to hold it right to get reception :D

Dear NAB, RIAA:

[naturaverl]

If I wanted a phone with a FM receiver in it, I'd pay a little extra to get a phone with a FM receiver in it. That is, unless YOU want to pick up the tab for a feature I'd never use. It would be unfair, at best, for you to mandate a feature designed for your gain and expect me to pay for it.

-Thank you,
-Your source of revenue

Providing more consumer phone choices

[xerx]

The phone company wants Congress to make RJ11 jacks mandatory on all cell phones too.

Broadcastors beat ETCA to the punch . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Music labels and the Eight Track and Cassette Association (“ETCA”) can't agree on much, including whether ETCA should be forced to turn over hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for the music that is copied by consumers to eight tracks and cassette. But the two sides can agree on this: Congress should mandate that eight tracks and cassette be built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronics. The Consumer Electronics Association, whose members build the devices that would be affected by such a directive, is incandescent with rage. 'The backroom scheme of the [ETCA] and RIAA to have Congress mandate eight tracks and cassette players be built into in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity,' thundered CEA president Gary Shapiro. Such a move is 'not in our national interest.' 'Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.'

But the music industry and ETCA say it's a consumer-focused proposition, one that would provide 'more music choices.'" Dick Dripple, 75 year old president of ETCA said, “. . . look I have hundreds of 8-tracks that I can’t play on my mobile phone and I think that is a crime, besides the number of people working to produce cassettes and 8-track tapes has fallen considerably in the last few years, dramatically impacting my income as president of ETCA. These people need jobs and I want to keep mine . . . this is a very import legislation that must be pushed through so that consumers will have a greater number of choices in the playback of their ,. . . uh . . . I mean the RIAA’s music.”

They're all greedy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mandate that FM radio receivers be built into cell phones"! Are they nuts!!!? We already have a problem with satellite radio charging; radio has always been paid by advertising. And music played on the radio is free advertising for the artists and their publishers. But forcing radio receivers into all sorts of other crap? The musing industry is just greedy.

My PDA has an FM receiver...

[GameboyRMH]

It has a short-range transmitter too.

The FM receiver is arguably the least useful feature on the device (either than or transmit-only IR). What the hell is it good for? Getting news in an emergency situation maybe? I don't want shitty pop music, and if I did, I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of the ad-laden radio stations that rotate through the same 2-4 CDs worth of music day after day.

Well amusing myself with the novelty of it was fun for about 5 minutes but now it's like the corkscrew on a Swiss Army knife - something that's nice to know you have on there, but you know you'll never really use it.

FM radio SHOULD be mandated...

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to agree that an analog FM receiver should be included with all new cellphones but for very different reasons than those of the RIAA. In any widespread emergency the phones are either going to be knocked out or completely swamped by people trying to get help or information. With an FM receiver (hardly something terribly difficult to add to... you know... a radio transceiver...) people can tune into any stations still broadcasting to find out what happened, what they can do about it and when they can expect help from the outside. I remember during that big power outage across Eastern North America a few years back the only useful source of information my room mates and I had was from the local radio stations that had generators.

What we need is a car analogy

[roc97007]

Ok, so if i'm reading this right, the buggy-whip manufacturers want the US Government to require that every automobile be sold with a buggy whip in the glove compartment, in case the owner ever wanted to hitch a horse to his car. This is done not to sell more buggy whips long after their general usefulness to society has passed, but to give consumers more choices. After all, buggies have wheels, automobiles have wheels, they're practically the same, really.

What is the power OUTPUT of a gps RECEIVER ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of power does a GPS RECEIVER emit ?

Requirements Engineering... and other things

[dasunst3r]

Just to tee off the NAB and RIAA, I would put this mandated FM receiver chip in... with all the leads going nowhere and no software provisions. They said they want to install a FM receiver chip into each device. They didn't say it has to be functional (which branches off into a boatload of sub-requirements).

If consumers want a FM receiver, they'll seek out devices that have a FM receiver.

Individuals do decide what's on the radio...

[sznupi]

...there's just a whole lot of them. Also how "bland" it is is the point, a benefit. Sometimes you just want to fill the background with good enough music / etc. while doing something else (I suspect also not wanting something great - not wanting to be hooked too much); with scheduled short news service every hour a nice bonus (also one you don't have to actively follow, but still be certain that important news will reach you)

This blog post covers it quite nicely:

the vast majority of the radio listeners don't listen to music. They hear music instead. There's a difference. They put the kids on the SUV, and drive them to school, and turn on the radio in the meantime. Or, they're stuck in traffic, pissed off, and need to listen to "easy" music to pass the time. Or, they're sitting on their sofa, reading a magazine, and have the radio ON as a background.

Very few people actually drive somewhere in order to turn on the radio and listen to music. Or sit on their sofa, closing their eyes, and listen to just music. Normal people instead, are so busy with their lives, their problems, the quick pace of this civilization, that simply don't have the time to discover new music. Listening to unknown kind of melodies, or new kinds of sub-genres altogether, takes them out of their comfort zone. Listening to something like Dan Deacon instead of Lady Gaga, for example, while the kids shout at each other at the back of the car, makes it difficult to level your head. Not only you have your problems, but you have this new 'annoying' music playing instead of the music (or kind of music) you already know so well.

Basically, commercial radio works as a kind of a depressant for the masses. At first, it feels like music is exactly the opposite: an excitement that is, but in reality, in the large scheme of things, as far as FM radio is concerned, it's nothing but one of the ways that helps you kept in check. No, this is not a conspiracy theory, it's just how things work. Listeners want it that way too.

You won't really notice an impact of FM part on battery life if you're not using it; and anyway, it's generally quite a bit more frugal with battery than, say, mp3 playback.
Also, "go back"? Stop looking at the past through rose colored glasses - there was always a lot of shit on the radio.

Re:Individuals do decide what's on the radio...

[Gr8Apes]

Also, "go back"? Stop looking at the past through rose colored glasses - there was always a lot of shit on the radio.

That is true, however, it was different material on different stations and in different cities. So occasionally you'd get a good station in there and at least were not assaulted by the same garbage as you drove across the country.

Now, no matter where you drive, you get one of the following as your choice: top 40, hip hop 40, country rock 40, light rock 40, and the ever so awesome dinosaur rock 80. Those particular choices are interchangeable no matter where in the country you are. There's something seriously wrong with that IMNSHO. It's gotten so that even classical is hard to come by.

OK, Just so long as ...

[Tjp($)pjT]

They mandate that CD and DVD cases have built-in radios. Or walking canes. Or that every automobile sized DIN device have one built-in as well as the original car.

And as a consumer I want to see the music labels that benefit from this have a mandated decrease in profit that covers the expense and that money should flow to every equipment manufacturer based on their own costs, so that is Apple or Microsoft decide to put in an FM receiver with all the bells and whistles possible and spend the money to engineer it for highest fidelity and minimal size, then the Music Labels better repay them not only the device cost increase but the R%amp;D cost as well. And it best not affect my device performance as I don't want the blasted thing. In fact the Music Labels better pay ME to have it in my device on an ongoing basis as it sucks resources, even if that is just a miniscule amount of weight and the power to know whether to apply power to that or not.

And just to get this straight, the NAB/RIAA are going to fund listening to music for FREE but prosecute people who privately share music for FREE. Do they also talk to themselves while looking in a mirror?

Just WOW

[sjames]

So Congress is willing to offer the NAB a special favor (off of the CEA and consumer's backs) if they will, in turn ALLOW Congress to grant their buddies the RIAA another special favor?

Firstly, why is Congress so anxious to offer the RIAA anything? (I can imagine a few reasons, but non that are ethical or even legal)

And the million dollar question: When is Congress going to offer the public a special favor? (or even just do their job and represent us properly)

This one is going to EPIC FAIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've got enough money, you can get any laws you want passed.

If that was remotely true then we'd have legalized sex like Holland because of the porn industry. Same with the "recreational" drug industry.

FM and AM are VERY Healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

AM radio is hardly dead, its thriving, on local issues and talk and sports. LA has great talk and sports radios, perfect for AM, including tons of Spanish stuff (naturally) and two news stations. Very handy to navigate traffic, real-time, and you get local ads. For stuff people actually use: Hollywood Suit Broker, Three Day Suit Broker, etc. You can listen to a ball game driving home, or whatever. Very nice.

FM has plenty of great stuff, a Classical station in LA, a Jazz station, a whole bunch of NPR and even harder left stuff, various classic 80's stations, KROQ of course, and so on.

Best of all, its FREE. You don't pay a subscription fee, and you get local news, traffic, and weather. I would not think of getting on the freeway for any distance without tuning to KFWB or KNX AM.

All that being said, I am not a big fan of multi-taskers. While smartphones have many nice features, a dedicated camera will always be better than one integrated into a phone. Or a radio better than one built into a phone. A sturdy watch is always better than glancing at your phone to see what time it is. Multi-tasking always has design compromises that make everything (including critical functions) less efficient than stand-alone devices.

Re:FM and AM are VERY Healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's LA though. Most of the US is completely different. In most areas, here is what you have:

A talk radio station with Rush, Alex Jones, or some gun nut talking about which food supply store has the better deal of canned goods for the bong shelter.

A "classic rock" FM station which used to be a cultural leader, but now croons the same 100 songs repeatedly, most of them were out since new Trans Ams rolled the streets and Quaaludes was the hip drug of choice.

A country station still playing Hank Williams Sr, and so conservative they feel Hank Williams Jr. is still a recent fad.

A Christian station playing Stryper.

Unless you are in a top metro area, radio is pointless, and has been rendered so. It would be nice to see stations start airing new stuff made in the past 20 years, but this is doubtful this will happen. Instead the stations complain to the FCC about how they are losing business and wanting to force FM tuners everywhere.

Not a meaningful expansion of choice

[Shirley Marquez]

Let's see... if I have an internet-connected phone I have a choice of at least 10,000 internet radio stations, plus other ways to get music. Adding an FM tuner gives me another 20 radio stations, some of which are probably also available on the internet. That's a statistically insignificant additional amount of choice. FM tuners are nice if device manufacturers want to include them. But I just can't see the case for a mandate.

Choice? What choice?

[RockDoctor]

Would they offer me the choice of not listening to music that I choose, and even more importantly, not listening to music that someone else chooses?
What on earth makes them think that people who listen to radio are exclusively interested in assailing their ears with music?

No Value, Only Wasted Costs

[Jeprey]

I stopped listening to all AM and FM radio more than a decade ago because it's pure crap in terms of programming and pure advertisements over programming. There is zero reason to waste time with mandating FM radio. This only adds costs that do not provide value.

They should be afraid....

[hazydave]

The major music labels (as represented by the RIAA) and the major radio stations have had a sweet deal for ages. They control the music that most of the public buys, by simply controlling the one major outlet for music.

They have pulled every trick in the book to ensure this continues. They've screwed with laws, to limit the power of college radio stations. They screwed with the proposed low power radio initiative some years back. It's a prime example of the Golden Rule (eg, he with the Gold makes the Rules), despite public demand for alternatives.

It was inevitable that this model fail, once the internet came along. Sure, they've been fighting in internet radio tooth and nail, trying to make it too expensive to launch internet "radio" channels.... largely driven by the fact that commercial broadcast radio in the USA is getting to live by a completely different set of rules. And yet, they've failed miserably at this.

Earlier this year, I drove to a friend's house... a six hour ride from South Jersey to Boston. Rather than use radio, I had my Droid smartphone playing off the net via the Pandora application. This went flawless, never a glitch the entire trip. Ok, this is on Verizon... iPhone users might get a dropout or two along the way. But still... that's pretty much the last place broadcast radio is at all useful. This pretty much confirms that the radio model as we know it is obsolete.

Sure, there's no reason to reject the option of radio. In fact, if broadcast radio actually has to compete with online and PMP options, it's at least possible it'll get better. But a mandate for this? That's just crazy... no one needs radio anymore. What's next -- a mandate to make all PMPs compatible with CDs and LPs? A mandate for at least one vacuum tube in every TV? Get off my lawn, RIAA!