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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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.