One of the rationales put out by the NAB for putting FM chips in cell phones would be the ability to send out weather and other alerts and warnings. This is laughable...at least in Houston, other than PBS in drivetimes, we have no radio news. I am often out at night and see smoke plumes or hear sirens all over town or am in the middle of inclement weather and not a single station is there to cover the matter...including KTRH which at one time was the News Station! And you want me to believe you will beef up your news staff so you'll be able to notify all the cellphone users for no additional revenue! Somebody, please help me off the floor!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
FM Radio in Cellphones for Alerts & Warnings...REDICULOUS!
- Thread starter radiobop
- Start date
radiobop said:
Every station is equipped with EAS devices which allow the relaying of information from the Weather Bureau, civil and local government authorities and federal authorities. A station does not have to have a news staff to relay this valuable information.
TheBigA said:
Most of the extra functions on your phone are implemented in software. Adding FM radio will require adding hardware.
For me personally (and I don't think I'm alone on this), a radio in my phone would go completely unused -- and would likely do absolutely nothing to deliver emergency information. I've played with some of these cheap tiny portable radios, that use the headphone cords as an antenna? At this location reception of *any* station is spotty, yes, even the 100kw blasters. I'm 20 miles from the nearest station, and generally cannot receive it indoors on this kind of radio if there are any computers around. The FM antenna inside a cellphone is going to be significantly worse!
Listeners outside a 20-mile radius of your station will be unable to hear it on their phone. Less, if you're a Class A. Less, if they're listening indoors in a typical computer-filled building.
I'm afraid using FM broadcasts to pass emergency information to cell phones makes about as much sense as requiring TV stations to interrupt their weather coverage to broadcast EAS databursts saying the same thing. There are FAR, FAR better ways to do it. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest you could simply transmit the EAS databursts over the cellular data network. The amount of data is negligible, no additional hardware would be required in the phone. The additional hardware at the cell sites would be minimal. (quite possibly none if the alerts could be received from the EMAs over the Internet)
This is really a silly idea, for the several reasons already stated.
If you want to be informed about weather, nothing beats live bodies, radio, and listeners when combined.
Next step would be auto-vibrate and ring on weather alerts.
I don't want my phone to alert me that a tornado is aimed at point 20 miles south of me.
We have enough data now to make such a feature useful, we could actually feed GPS data from a twister's position
to cell providers and then CALL people within a "cone" of possible danger.
Like the NOAA radio's alert feature, which drove my dad nuts, this feature needs to be something that can be acknowledged
and voluntarily silenced if desired for a user determined time.
Otherwise, you might just as well broadcast such warnings in spark gap damped oscillations on 500 khz, too.
I certainly won't be listening to FM on phone, I have real radios everywhere I go, except when I'm working
out in the pressroom, where it's too loud to not wear earplugs, then earbuds won't work, and unsafe to not hear
everything going on, and the RF noise in a pressroom is about the worst that can be imagined.
There are at least two radios on at all times, one in QC, another on a press. Fixed position radios can usually get enough
signal 25 miles out from the city but with all the noise, antenna placement is critical.
Walking around, you can't really listen to a radio signal in this place.
I would always want to plug the phone into some kind of amplifier, but then why not a real radio anyway?
If you want to be informed about weather, nothing beats live bodies, radio, and listeners when combined.
Next step would be auto-vibrate and ring on weather alerts.
I don't want my phone to alert me that a tornado is aimed at point 20 miles south of me.
We have enough data now to make such a feature useful, we could actually feed GPS data from a twister's position
to cell providers and then CALL people within a "cone" of possible danger.
Like the NOAA radio's alert feature, which drove my dad nuts, this feature needs to be something that can be acknowledged
and voluntarily silenced if desired for a user determined time.
Otherwise, you might just as well broadcast such warnings in spark gap damped oscillations on 500 khz, too.
I certainly won't be listening to FM on phone, I have real radios everywhere I go, except when I'm working
out in the pressroom, where it's too loud to not wear earplugs, then earbuds won't work, and unsafe to not hear
everything going on, and the RF noise in a pressroom is about the worst that can be imagined.
There are at least two radios on at all times, one in QC, another on a press. Fixed position radios can usually get enough
signal 25 miles out from the city but with all the noise, antenna placement is critical.
Walking around, you can't really listen to a radio signal in this place.
I would always want to plug the phone into some kind of amplifier, but then why not a real radio anyway?
My opinion is people getting all bothered that their phone also has an FM radio in it is the silly part.
Look, don't want to use the radio? Fine, don't. Don't want the option of being able to receive local EAS or weather information that could affect life and safety? Great, good luck to you if something does happen. I for one at least prefer having the option.
Look, don't want to use the radio? Fine, don't. Don't want the option of being able to receive local EAS or weather information that could affect life and safety? Great, good luck to you if something does happen. I for one at least prefer having the option.
It is a waste.
WGIR Manchester NH sent out a NOAA/NWS EAS alert for weather today, while WFNQ Nashua was not alerted. I was smack in the middle if the warning area, flipping between the 2, and that was only because the song on 106.3 sucked, and that vehicle is not XM equipped.
So if I were out walking around listening to Frank FM on my cell phone/ FM radio/ Web enabled/PDA/everything but the kitchen sink device, I still would have been in the dark about the potential danger around me.
I am in Southern NH, and listen to stations from 50 miles away regularly. If I am listening to a station in Gloucester MA (WBOQ 104.9) and I am in Windham NH, they are not going to have WEEI FM Boston activate , triggering everyone in Eastern MA light up, so I can hear it on a fringe signal 40 miles away from their primary service area.
When they get the activations right so every station that covers the area gets activated, then I'll buy into it.
Give me a NOAA radio receiver instead!
And the kicker to all this BS is, WGIR must have been VT'd when the alert went off, because the song picked right back up where it left off, and at the break the announcer made no mention of it.
If the stations are going to be run on auto pilot, then where is this information supposed to come from?
My station is empty from 1 PM Saturday until 9 AM monday morning, and the only reason anyone is there is because the FCC says we have to be there for the sacred public inspection file to be viewed.
The NAB has not a clue
WGIR Manchester NH sent out a NOAA/NWS EAS alert for weather today, while WFNQ Nashua was not alerted. I was smack in the middle if the warning area, flipping between the 2, and that was only because the song on 106.3 sucked, and that vehicle is not XM equipped.
So if I were out walking around listening to Frank FM on my cell phone/ FM radio/ Web enabled/PDA/everything but the kitchen sink device, I still would have been in the dark about the potential danger around me.
I am in Southern NH, and listen to stations from 50 miles away regularly. If I am listening to a station in Gloucester MA (WBOQ 104.9) and I am in Windham NH, they are not going to have WEEI FM Boston activate , triggering everyone in Eastern MA light up, so I can hear it on a fringe signal 40 miles away from their primary service area.
When they get the activations right so every station that covers the area gets activated, then I'll buy into it.
Give me a NOAA radio receiver instead!
And the kicker to all this BS is, WGIR must have been VT'd when the alert went off, because the song picked right back up where it left off, and at the break the announcer made no mention of it.
If the stations are going to be run on auto pilot, then where is this information supposed to come from?
My station is empty from 1 PM Saturday until 9 AM monday morning, and the only reason anyone is there is because the FCC says we have to be there for the sacred public inspection file to be viewed.
The NAB has not a clue
MRBIboredop said:
You think there are live bodies running NOAA radio 24/7? And do you think there are local NOAA offices in every town in the country? Do you really?
This whole thread is so ridiculous (that's the correct spelling). You guys are over-thinking this. It's just a radio in a phone. We're not talking about a cure for cancer or guaranteeing a spot in heaven. It's just a radio in a phone. Some people will use it, some won't. As I said, the chip is already in a lot of these phones.
Look...if you're pissed off because there aren't people in stations 24/7, then this legislation might be the way to fix that. Have Congress tell the NAB, "Sure, we'll mandate FM chips in phones, but you have to agree to have live bodies in your buildings 24/7."
Ever thought about that? It could happen, you know. No law preventing it.
DavidEduardo said:
I agree there isn't much reason to have a news staff these days, unless that happens to be your format, but EAS isn't really very effective. It could be fixed, but that isn't likely.
One of the many problems (there are a lot) with EAS is if you don't happen to be listening the moment the warning is broadcast, then you will probably never be aware of it, unless the authorities are smart enough to send the alert multiple times. So far, I have seen little evidence of them doing that, even though we've had two direct hits by hurricanes. Usually, it's one alert, and that's it.
It looks like we will all be upgrading to CAP very shortly. Despite the millions of dollars that will be spent, I doubt that the situation will be any better.
I'd love to have FM radio available on my phone. It already has an MP3 player. If you don't want to spend the money on a data package, FM would be a nice addition for up-to-date content. In the event of a real emergency, I'd definitely tune to a station that fed me timely information.
More importantly, FM would provide that information without boosting the demand on the cellular network, which has been known to collapse under the stress of people attempting to contact loved ones during an emergency situation. Add data limits on top of that, and FM could become very attractive to people who want to use their data plan megabytes for content that's not available on FM.
More importantly, FM would provide that information without boosting the demand on the cellular network, which has been known to collapse under the stress of people attempting to contact loved ones during an emergency situation. Add data limits on top of that, and FM could become very attractive to people who want to use their data plan megabytes for content that's not available on FM.
The purpose of EAS is to send the original alert. After that, it's up to whatever arrangements Emergency Management has made with participating electronic media.
At any moment, no more than 20% of the population is listening to the radio.
It would seem reasonable that there could be an alerting system which relied on the cell phone network, since the alerting could be zoned based on cell tower locations, and that the message could be to tune to certain participating radio stations. Most people would then go to their home or car and listen for coverage updates.
Unfortunately, we're in a box that Emergency Management are not yet thinking out of.
In our area, the big fear is a tsunami. I recently pointed out that in the event of a tsunami, the AM stations would likely be under water, and we need to develop a different plan, involving the FM stations and alternate programming origination sites. We're working on it. Assuming it's in place and we get the big one, staffs of competing broadcast stations will provide pooled wall-to-wall simulcast coverage from sites we can originate from, to transmitter sites that remain on the air.
My hope would be that the public will have working car radios, home radios, portable radios with cranks, and extra batteries for their cell phones. But given the relative lack of sensitivity of FMs in cell phones, I suspect that feature will be less than useful.
At any moment, no more than 20% of the population is listening to the radio.
It would seem reasonable that there could be an alerting system which relied on the cell phone network, since the alerting could be zoned based on cell tower locations, and that the message could be to tune to certain participating radio stations. Most people would then go to their home or car and listen for coverage updates.
Unfortunately, we're in a box that Emergency Management are not yet thinking out of.
In our area, the big fear is a tsunami. I recently pointed out that in the event of a tsunami, the AM stations would likely be under water, and we need to develop a different plan, involving the FM stations and alternate programming origination sites. We're working on it. Assuming it's in place and we get the big one, staffs of competing broadcast stations will provide pooled wall-to-wall simulcast coverage from sites we can originate from, to transmitter sites that remain on the air.
My hope would be that the public will have working car radios, home radios, portable radios with cranks, and extra batteries for their cell phones. But given the relative lack of sensitivity of FMs in cell phones, I suspect that feature will be less than useful.
SirRoxalot said:
You make an excellent point. When disaster strikes, the first thing that becomes unavailable is the cell phone network. At least with an option to listen to good ol' over the air radio, listeners can be more informed if they choose to use it.
Unintentionally having an FM radio in cell phones could also re-introduce the concept of the original wireless entertainment medium to thousands of young people who never paid much attention to it.
I can't help but feel that anyone who would complain about an FM tuner in a cell phone is the same sort who would call 911 to report that Burger King made their hamburger wrong. A severely screwed-up sense of priorities to be sure.
How about an HD tuner in cell phones? That would add to iBiquity's HD sales figures and might actually introduce people to HD radio. The Insignia HD radio has the sensitivity of a car radio when outside with just the headphone cord as an antenna. My phone has an FM radio built in, but its sensitivity sucks and it easily overloads.
An AM radio would be more useful if a major disaster takes out all the local stations. At least distant stations could reach the affected area at night.
An AM radio would be more useful if a major disaster takes out all the local stations. At least distant stations could reach the affected area at night.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
How about no mandates. No mandate to put anything into a phone, no mandate to staff something on the off chance somehting might happen and ten people might think, "Hey, I know, my local classic rock station will tell me all about this." This is how government gets completely out of hand--one group gets one thing legislated in, then another...and where does it stop?
If the market exists for radio in phones, great. Let the market decide. If people value it that much, they can buy it.
Wait....they already can in many cases. My phone on an essentially national carrier has an FM radio built in.
If the market exists for radio in phones, great. Let the market decide. If people value it that much, they can buy it.
Wait....they already can in many cases. My phone on an essentially national carrier has an FM radio built in.
So is your beef really about an FM receiver in your cell phone, or is it about a government mandate to put a FM receiver in your cell phone? If the former, are you one of those 'Tea Party' members?
Again, I'm trying to understand your motivation for being upset or objecting to such an inane matter.
Again, I'm trying to understand your motivation for being upset or objecting to such an inane matter.
I still don't get what the big deal is here? So what if FM gets on a cellphone, either by government mandate or free enterprise. It's there if you want it and if you don't, don't use it.
My cellphone records video but I have no desire to use that feature. Still, I'm not busting a blood vessel over the fact that the manufacturers built it into my phone. To me, it's a non-issue.
Europeans apparently do enjoy FM on their cellphones. And I think that as wireless providers end the all-you-can-eat services plans and start charging for every megabit you use, more consumers here will switch to FM radio on their phones and listen less to internet radio.
What I do find puzzling is the animosity between the CEA and radio industry over this issue. Their was a time when the CEA was very pro-radio. The only conclusion I can come to is that the CEA is cahoots with the wireless providers and phone manufacturers and however they want to spin this, it has nothing to do with consumer needs or interests.
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/dispute-over-fm-chip-mandate-i.php
BTW, it's spelled "ridiculous".
My cellphone records video but I have no desire to use that feature. Still, I'm not busting a blood vessel over the fact that the manufacturers built it into my phone. To me, it's a non-issue.
Europeans apparently do enjoy FM on their cellphones. And I think that as wireless providers end the all-you-can-eat services plans and start charging for every megabit you use, more consumers here will switch to FM radio on their phones and listen less to internet radio.
What I do find puzzling is the animosity between the CEA and radio industry over this issue. Their was a time when the CEA was very pro-radio. The only conclusion I can come to is that the CEA is cahoots with the wireless providers and phone manufacturers and however they want to spin this, it has nothing to do with consumer needs or interests.
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/dispute-over-fm-chip-mandate-i.php
BTW, it's spelled "ridiculous".
D
Darth_vader
Guest
You all do realise that cell phones have always had radios in them? That's what makes cell phones work in the first place.
Besides, the old AMPS phones were nothing *but* narrowband FM radios!
Besides, the old AMPS phones were nothing *but* narrowband FM radios!
- Status