Slashdot Mirror
Does Lack of FM Support On Phones Increase Your Chances of Dying In a Disaster?
theodp writes "You may not know it," reports NPR's Emma Bowman, "but most of today's smartphones have FM radios inside of them. But the FM chip is not activated on two-thirds of devices. That's because mobile makers have the FM capability switched off. The National Association of Broadcasters has been asking mobile makers to change this. But the mobile industry, which profits from selling data to smartphone users, says that with the consumer's move toward mobile streaming apps, the demand for radio simply isn't there." But FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate says radio-enabled smartphones could sure come in handy during times of emergency. So, is it irresponsible not to activate the FM chips? And should it's-the-app-way-or-the-highway Apple follow Microsoft's lead and make no-static-at-all FM available on iPhones?
Just look at previous desasters and see who was saved by having a cellphone with FM and who dies because they did not have FM on their cellphones.
You should also take into account who dies becase of FM and who lived because they did NOT have when no disaster was going on.
And how often do emergencies happen? In all my life I have NEVER been in a situation where my life depended om having an FM radio.
And those people who are worried about some major collaps (people who burried themselves in 2000, you can come out now.) will have HAM radio licences and what not.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I suspect this is more a case of "follow the money" as well. Enabling the FM radio provides owners of the phone with a potential free source of music included in the price of admission. Disabling the FM radio provides the vendors of the phone with more potential customers for their music store offerings/partnerships and increases the overpriced use of data to get it. I really can't imagine why companies with a track record of doing everything they can to screw over their customers for a little more money *wouldn't* go with the latter option...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I'm sorry, is it just me? What kind of information are you going to put out over FM to cell-phones, in an emergency, that will be life-saving? How many cell-phones are still going to be running on day two of whatever disaster either because people have turned them off because they "don't work" because the local cell is down or because the batteries are flat? How many of those that aren't would be captured by an initial text message anyway? How many people are going to crowd around the only working phone in the area and turn on the radio to tune in and then hear something that might save their lives?
And what are you going to tell people that they don't know already (but should) and which will directly contribute to saving their lives better than, say, common sense?
Maybe it's just because I live in a country where emergencies don't really happen on this scale (no seismic activity, little flooding, no drought, no tornados or extremes of weather, no civil unrest, etc.) , but I'm one of those people who reads up on anything risky before I do it, and I'm still struggling to fathom what could be sent that would make that much difference?
Shelter locations, possibly? Surely the best is word-of-mouth and going and finding those people in need of shouting at with a big shouty-device? Like the first thing we do in any such disaster, send the police round and the helicopters over to give out such information? And anyone in a dangerous area, in need of shelter, will move away from the danger and can then be corralled and treated once they are in a safe area, any safe area? And, again, a simple text message serves the same purpose and probably uses the same power given the "always on" nature of cell connections on modern phones.
What's a real scenario where one-way FM radio on a cell-phone would be a real life-line for anyone but the completely ignorant and inexperienced?
Its coverage. One single FM transmitter can cover area within a hundred miles, while cell towers can handle only a few miles. To have the same coverage as an FM tower, you need a lot more cell towers. What is easier to keep running ? One FM tower or hundreds if not thousands of cell towers ? Furthermore, FM transmitters are a lot simpler than cell transmitters.
It's not just about phones not working, but about capacity. If there's a big enough emergency (eg the London tube/bus bombings) the number of people using their devices will max out the network, even if every single transceiver is still up and running. Many people's first reaction in such situations is to stand for half an hour on redial trying to get a phone call out. FM would mean being able to "broadcast" information to a lot of people at once, and discourage them from clogging up the network.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Because these FM transmitters:
1. Have a much greater range. In most cases you will be able to hear a station transmitting from tens of kilometers away, in some cases, hundreds. Cell tower range is limited to single digit kilometers in most cases due to optimization for speed over range. Towers over less populated areas will be optimized for range, but even those barely cover ten to twenty kilometers in best case scenarios. Also, see 4.
2. Are typically designed to have backup power in case of an emergency, and are generally often hardened against many disasters because they are supposed to be used to transmit emergency messages.
3. On a final note, most FM receivers also have AM receiver function. That has range of hundreds of kilometers, thousands during the night due to skywave effect. This is the best technology for emergency broadcasts, as one station can cover up to thousands of kilometers radius around itself.
4. Are one way transmitters. That means they don't rely on phone's weak transmitter's ability to reach the tower.