The pros and cons of an FM chip in mobile devices

We all know by now that NAB and the RIAA may ask Congress to require that new mobile phones include an FM receiver chip. The idea emerged in a proposed compromise for a dispute over whether musicians and record companies should receive royalty payments from radio stations that air their tunes. As we have stated time and time again, if there is an emergency, the mobile and cellular networks will be overloaded—just like 9/11. Since people don’t carry transistor radios around much anymore, the cellphone or smartphone is the place they can get important information, and that will be through an FM radio chip built inside. Google’s Android already has an FM tuner built in. Yes, there have been rumors of Apple enabling a dormant FM Tuner on the iPhone and iPod Touch, but it still hasn't been turned on.

The MusicFirst Coalition — an organization backed by music unions and trade groups that's leading the fight for royalty payments — says FM in phones is fine as "another way for people to enjoy music." But it really isn’t about the music in this case – it’s about an emergency, and the cost is not that prohibitive.

Let’s take a look at the engineering: All it would need is the chip integrated into a unit’s processor – the FM antenna would simply be the wired earbuds, or there could be a small contact point where the human hand could act as the antenna (more complicated). We agree that building an internal FM antenna may be asking a bit too much for some devices -- these receivers generate a lot of DSP (digital signal processing) interference and there would have to also be proper shielding. However already several manufacturers — including Sony Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, LG and HTC — already sell phones that can receive FM signals via the earbuds. Certainly, the Bluetooth stereophonic headsets have not caught on as the industry may have wished -- the vast majority of consumers still use earbuds to listen.

That shows that FM technology doesn't harm cell phones or add a big expense, NAB’s Dennis Wharton says. He says that in another year or so, it might become economical to also include chips that can handle digital signals from the growing number of stations offering HD Radio. We reported that the current chip cost for FM alone is twenty cents; an HD Radio chip would add five dollars if implemented today. We think to get a decent FM chip in there, however, the chip will be a bit more than twenty cents for dependable reception. Saga CEO Ed Christian told RBR-TVBR that because of this, minimum engineering and manufacturing standards need to be written into any applicable legislation and regulation.

An AM chip is almost impossible. There is way too much DSP interference and the unit would require an internal – and fairly large antenna. An AM radio in a cellphone or mobile device is next to impossible.

But will Steve Jobs be happy about being forced to do anything with his iPhone line? Likely not, and the wireless industry says that FM radio chips would drain batteries, add to costs and take up space that could be used for new technologies.

In fact, a coalition of six technology industry associations (CTIA-The Wireless Association, CEA, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Rural Cellular Association, TechAmerica and the Telecommunications Industry Association) sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees urging them to resist NAB-RIAA efforts to include an FM chip mandate for mobile devices in any legislation addressing an unrelated conflict between the broadcast and recording industries over royalties: “Calls for an FM chip mandate are not about public safety but are instead about propping up a business which consumers are abandoning as they avail themselves of new, more consumer-friendly options,” the associations wrote. “It is simply wrong for two entrenched industries to resolve their differences by agreeing to burden a third industry - which has no relationship to or other interest in the performance royalty dispute - with a costly, ill-considered and unnecessary new mandate.”
 
If adopted, they say it would be bad policy for several reasons:
* Mandating that every wireless device include an FM chip would require consumers to pay more for a function that they may not desire or ever use.
* The groups that are parties to the discussions over the performance rights royalty issue lack any expertise in the development of wireless devices and are in no position to dictate what type of functionality is included in a wireless device.
* Development by the technology industry and government of a mobile broadcast emergency alerting system makes the requirement unnecessary.”

They claim that text-based EAS system would be compatible with present and future wireless systems and will soon be a reality, and that adding FM chip would just slow the implementation of that system down. Well, guess what—that mobile broadcast alerting system uses FM and other broadcast signals—which would need a chip! (i.e. www.gssnet.us). Government EAS alerts are fine, but would they have the ability to alert the public as to traffic issues, local school sheltering, etc. like the local broadcasters? We think time after time broadcasters have proven that issue moot. While the text capability is present to provide notification that an emergency has been declared, radio is uniquely set in this EAS environment to provide an ongoing stream of geographically-specific information. It contains intelligent, real-time information that can detail what the north side of a city should do, vs. the south side. It contains the ability to instantaneously provide status and info. The vast majority where EAS is activated and has immediate need is with weather emergencies, but again, that is (and has been) done over the radio and that is where consumers often expect to find that info. But if they are out and about with no radio nearby and the cell systems are jammed, then what? An emergency text message that states, "EMERGENCY DECLARED. FIND FM RADIO FOR INSTRUCTIONS." The whole Achilles heel of texting in an emergency is you can't give very detailed information.

CEA is definitely fighting the whole idea, issuing the following statement: “…The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)…want our lawmakers to become product designers and engineers by deciding which features portable devices should have.

Specifically at issue is the NAB and RIAA want Congress to mandate that FM radio receivers be built into cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other portable electronics.  Why?  The groups claim that it would give consumers “more music choices”.

The NAB and RIAA are once again mistaking government mandates for innovation and market choice.”

"Broadcasters should man up, stop whining to Congress and start competing," says Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) CEO Gary Shapiro. “Forced inclusion of an additional antenna [again, we note it can just be the earbuds], processor and radio receiver will compromise features that consumers truly desire, such as long battery life and light weight [a chip’s weight is negligible]. In the fast-paced digital world, we will oppose mandates that force backward-looking features and functions into cutting-edge hand-held devices.  Hampering innovative companies with government design mandates hurts our competitiveness.”

He also told USA Today if the mandate catches on in Congress then he'd ask to double radio stations' royalty payments and make sure that "the wireless industry will be compensated."

RBR-TVBR observation: We’re not sure what the CEA and wireless manufacturers are so worried about. Is it simply a money issue, as so eloquently stated above? If FM radio is so outdated and consumers are not interested in having it, then it won’t take away from their broadband plan usage, nor drain battery power because they won’t be listening to FM much, right? So what are they afraid of? Having a mobile device without an FM chip in a time of local or national emergency will be about as useful as a paperweight. Folks will recall that was the case in DC and NYC on 9/11/01. The FCC and Congress should realize as part of their mandates to look out for the public interest that this is a no-brainer – at least until someone can prove cell networks won’t overload or lose power when the people really need them.

Remember also, the Communications Act of 1934 enables the FCC without Congressional intervention to set all of the technical standards for radio receivers, let alone two-way radio receivers -- a.k.a. cell phones. The Consumer Electronics industry in this country has a long history of the FCC basically mandating for the greater good various types of technical specifications. Most notably, the forced inclusion of UHF television tuners by 1964 (via a 1962 law passed by the Kennedy Administration). That 1962 legislation granted the FCC these additional powers not only to impact television tuners, but it also gave them the power to mandate the inclusion of FM in radio receivers back in the early 1970s. So the inclusion of an EAS capability is certainly something in accordance with their long-term regulatory approach.

We wonder who at NAB may have reached out to FCC Commissioner Copps' staff.  This idea of Broadcast Localism is right up his alley.  His staff might also know the identities of sympathetic Congressional staffers as well.

RBR-TVBR note: See RBR-TVBR Exclusive: Cell phones might sell Radio on PRA this report explains the value to all parties involved.

Tweet