I like the concept but what I heard around 4PM Sunday was the height of irony. A spot played that promoted the concept of radios in cell phones asking where you'd get information when you needed it. If you had a radio in your cell phone, you'd be covered so said the spot. This was during an actual WIBC newscast that featured 2 minutes of ABC network news and 4 minutes of PSA's and Spots. No local news, not even a weather forecast. Why bother having radios in cell phones if that's all the local heritage news station airing the suggestion of radios in cell phones can offer?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Radios In Cell Phones
- Thread starter BobOnTheJob
- Start date
BobOnTheJob said:Why bother having radios in cell phones if that's all the local heritage news station airing the suggestion of radios in cell phones can offer?
First of all, what was the source of the spot you heard? Was it one of the ABC net positions? Or was it local? Probably the former, because it's an NAB core agenda position.
The point is that if FM in cell phones is to be mandated, there most likely will be some sort of equal mandate made on radio, that stations will be required to provide some form of local information. There are a lot of people advocating such a a local service mandate without the FM chip. But local service costs money, and it's possible to fund it with additional platforms like cell phone. It's a bigger issue than simply broadcasting status quo programming on cell phones, which is what you suggest.
This past week, there were some radio stations in parts of the country that went out of their way to provide emergency information. There were probably a lot more that did nothing, even though tornadoes were sweeping through. It would be nice to allow advantages like radio in cell phones to only receive stations that provide emergency information. But typically, regulations can't be that selective. But it's a good discussion to have, and I think that's what the spot you heard was advocating.
TheBigA said:BobOnTheJob said:Why bother having radios in cell phones if that's all the local heritage news station airing the suggestion of radios in cell phones can offer?
First of all, what was the source of the spot you heard? Was it one of the ABC net positions? Or was it local? Probably the former, because it's an NAB core agenda position.
The point is that if FM in cell phones is to be mandated, there most likely will be some sort of equal mandate made on radio, that stations will be required to provide some form of local information. There are a lot of people advocating such a a local service mandate without the FM chip. But local service costs money, and it's possible to fund it with additional platforms like cell phone. It's a bigger issue than simply broadcasting status quo programming on cell phones, which is what you suggest.
This past week, there were some radio stations in parts of the country that went out of their way to provide emergency information. There were probably a lot more that did nothing, even though tornadoes were sweeping through. It would be nice to allow advantages like radio in cell phones to only receive stations that provide emergency information. But typically, regulations can't be that selective. But it's a good discussion to have, and I think that's what the spot you heard was advocating.
Does the proposal include HD or just analog? I am ambivalent. A cell phone is not a radio and companies shouldnt be forced to merge these capabilities. However, this is a capability that I desire as long as it has HD capability and a decent antenna.
dfwrunner said:Does the proposal include HD or just analog? I am ambivalent. A cell phone is not a radio and companies shouldnt be forced to merge these capabilities. However, this is a capability that I desire as long as it has HD capability and a decent antenna.
As far as I know, HD isn't included because of size, power requirements, and antenna requirements.
By the way, technically speaking, a cell phone IS a radio, because it uses the radio spectrum for transmission.
I just find it interesting how this industry for years has demanded freedom through deregulation but now demand government mandated receiver distribution through mobile devices. If the marketplace demands receivers in these devices then it will happen.
radiorob2.0 said:I just find it interesting how this industry for years has demanded freedom through deregulation but now demand government mandated receiver distribution through mobile devices. If the marketplace demands receivers in these devices then it will happen.
That's a very laizzez faire approach to the world. There was no marketplace demand for an iPod or iPad. Apple created them, and people recognized their value. Radio is a business where you do audition tapes to get hired. People don't just recognize your talent and hire you. Auditions and demo tapes are the way in which we do business. The marketplace needs the opportunity to at least TRY radio in cell phones, and the cell industry is opposed to it. That opposition prevents market forces from having an effect. Unfortunately, the only way to get an audition is through a mandate, because these companies won't do it otherwise.
Broadcast radio on cell phones does provide a service. Some people actually have no radios at this point, and in a power failure they likely have no tv. A cell phone radio can provide emergency information to them, assuming they are near a station like WIBC which provides outstanding information in most emergency situations.
Speaking of WIBC news, have Amber Stearns, Joe Wambaugh (sp?), and Don Rose all left the building? Former WISH-tv reporter Mike Corbin has been heard lately on the station. He has a very unusual accent.
Speaking of WIBC news, have Amber Stearns, Joe Wambaugh (sp?), and Don Rose all left the building? Former WISH-tv reporter Mike Corbin has been heard lately on the station. He has a very unusual accent.
TheBigA said:dfwrunner said:Does the proposal include HD or just analog? I am ambivalent. A cell phone is not a radio and companies shouldnt be forced to merge these capabilities. However, this is a capability that I desire as long as it has HD capability and a decent antenna.
As far as I know, HD isn't included because of size, power requirements, and antenna requirements.
By the way, technically speaking, a cell phone IS a radio, because it uses the radio spectrum for transmission.
Duh, i r a degred inginer, i no a cel fone is a radio, silly.
TheBigA said:radiorob2.0 said:I just find it interesting how this industry for years has demanded freedom through deregulation but now demand government mandated receiver distribution through mobile devices. If the marketplace demands receivers in these devices then it will happen.
That's a very laizzez faire approach to the world. There was no marketplace demand for an iPod or iPad. Apple created them, and people recognized their value. Radio is a business where you do audition tapes to get hired. People don't just recognize your talent and hire you. Auditions and demo tapes are the way in which we do business. The marketplace needs the opportunity to at least TRY radio in cell phones, and the cell industry is opposed to it. That opposition prevents market forces from having an effect. Unfortunately, the only way to get an audition is through a mandate, because these companies won't do it otherwise.
There was no mandate, despite popular belief, for FM to be included in radio receivers. The marketplace demanded FM radio.
My beef with this issue comes from past experiences working for my share of sleazy owners. These were the ones that stand in front of civic organizations and in some cases legislative bodies singing happy songs on how they serve the community unlike that evil satellite radio that won't tell you a tornado is coming. It's all a song and dance as the reality is many of these questionable owners are more concerned with cleaning out the cash drawer than actually serving the community. Ironically, they are the same folks who demand this mandated receiver distribution. It's the whole having their cake and eating it too argument of not wanting the government to tell them what to do but want the government to ensure a distribution channel.
This reminds me of how we couldn't have commercial LPFM because it wasn't needed since full power radio "served the community" and the issue of "spectrum integrity" which only mattered for LPFM. Let's not forget the hissy fit the NAB threw when satellite radio wanted to provide local weather and traffic information, "They can't do that we already serve the community". Again, the cake and eat it too issue demanding the government protect their place in the market.
The best way for radio to make an appearance on these devices are through apps since that seems to be the future. Plus, if an owner does provide a needed service (on-air or on-line) then the marketplace will gravitate their way.
radiorob2.0 said:There was no mandate, despite popular belief, for FM to be included in radio receivers. The marketplace demanded FM radio.
If so, why didn't the marketplace demand FM when it was first invented in the 1930s?
As I said, there is no chance for marketplace demand in the cell phone discussion because the cell industry is against it.
Consider the marriage of tape players and radios. Marketplace demand didn't create it. The auto electronics industry offered 8-track players in car dashboards. This pre-dated the Walkman. It was a logical connection of radio and tape. Back in the 1940s, the electronics companies combined radio and record players. Of course radio companies like RCA and CBS also owned record companies. Not any more. Now thanks to companies like XM, electronics companies want to get paid for it.
radiorob2.0 said:The best way for radio to make an appearance on these devices are through apps since that seems to be the future. Plus, if an owner does provide a needed service (on-air or on-line) then the marketplace will gravitate their way.
The marketplace argument assumes the public is aware of it. Today, with the large number of media choices, it's possible for a station to provide a service or a format, and no one would know. The big radio companies are already providing apps for their stations. It's the smaller ones who would mainly benefit from a mandate.
radiorob2.0 said:This reminds me of how we couldn't have commercial LPFM because it wasn't needed since full power radio "served the community" and the issue of "spectrum integrity" which only mattered for LPFM. Let's not forget the hissy fit the NAB threw when satellite radio wanted to provide local weather and traffic information, "They can't do that we already serve the community". Again, the cake and eat it too issue demanding the government protect their place in the market.
Keep in mind there's a big group in Congress now that wants to sock it to radio companies, force new regulations, and impose a new royalty for playing music. So if a mandate for radios in cell phones comes up for discussion, you can expect a lot of people to use the opportunity to pour on new regulations and requirements for broadcasters. Personally I think it's not a discussion radio wants to open, because the upside isn't as great as the potential cost. But you can rest assured that a lot of people in Congress and the FCC don't like radio owners or the NAB. That's why they're looking to use federal funds to mandate 24/7 wifi
TheBigA said:That's why they're looking to use federal funds to mandate 24/7 wifi
One Congressman has even suggested that free broadband could be funded by a spectrum fee placed on AM & FM broadcasters. So there are many in government who don't trust broadcasters or the NAB. This is not a slam dunk, and there will likely be a cost to broadcasters to get this done. Legislation and mandates don't come easy.
If so, why didn't the marketplace demand FM when it was first invented in the 1930s?
There were circumstances with FM that slowed development from the Sarnoff/Armstrong war along with owners doing nothing more that running AM programming on FM. When the FCC finally said, "Use it or lose it" regarding FM it started to develop. A little over ten years later FM overtook AM in listening audience.
The marketplace argument assumes the public is aware of it. Today, with the large number of media choices, it's possible for a station to provide a service or a format, and no one would know. The big radio companies are already providing apps for their stations. It's the smaller ones who would mainly benefit from a mandate.
That is where marketing come into the picture. Besides, everyone and their uncle seems to have created an app from the silly to the "gosh, why didn't I think of that" so it can't be that hard.
Another reason I'm concerned about forcing this issue of making sure a radio is included with a wireless device revolves around quality. The FM receivers included in these devices without a mandate are more often than not garbage with horrible sensitivity mostly because they are fighting interference of the device that surrounds the receiver. What makes it worse is most of these receivers and are based on scanning for a signal instead of direct entry. If it can't find a signal it won't stop scanning. So what is the point of including a radio if it doesn't receive a signal? Plus, how is an AM radio going to operate inside that handheld Part 15 noise machine?
radiorob2.0 said:There were circumstances with FM that slowed development from the Sarnoff/Armstrong war along with owners doing nothing more that running AM programming on FM. When the FCC finally said, "Use it or lose it" regarding FM it started to develop.
Radio in cell phones needs that kind of push. Because as I said the cell industry is against it, and attempting to force it on them hasn't endeared radio owners to them. But the marketplace won't demand it because the marketplace is overwhelmed right now. That wasn't the case with FM.
radiorob2.0 said:That is where marketing come into the picture.
As I said, the big radio companies don't need a mandate. They're already in the digital age. Clear Channel's IHeartRadio app is one of the most popular of it's kind. But the smaller companies need help. They don't have marketing money or impact. And they're falling further behind every day.
Do we need radios in cell phones? Smart Phones use Tune in to stream any station to a cell phone.
I think there is a push somewhere that the PCS providers are going to have to include some kind of public warning for localized events (hint EAS...) Seems like I've heard something in the rumor mill about this a few years ago. In order for the PCS folks to provide such a service, would cost a fortune... So if they simply include broadcast receivers in the handy little devices, and able to decode CAP messages...implementation complete!
Yes we do...At least on my smart phone, typing in a web site on that tiny keyboard and waiting for it to come up, then searching for the listen now button on that tiny screen & hoping that the stream is compatible with my phone and then hoping that the number of listeners the stream can support (might be fine for 20 in a row music, but inadequate for the mother of all severe weather outbreaks) hasn't been exceeded seems like a lot to go through for a less than certain outcome. Whereas pushing an 'FM' icon, selecting 93.1 & OK seems so much simpler...and all but certainly more reliable. I trust WIBC to be up (although apparently not manned on Sunday afternoons any longer--so much for that '24 hour news center') far more than I trust anything that requires an Internet connection to feed the stream and a cell phone network to deliver it.ChiefEngineer said:Do we need radios in cell phones? Smart Phones use Tune in to stream any station to a cell phone.
A couple of things...First, FM radios are already included in many cell phones. User surveys say that people don't really care about the FM capability, when choosing a cell phone. Second, the FM radio only works when there is a headphone attached. The headphone cord is the antenna. There is no way any alert on an FM station can trigger the cell phone without that antenna, so, in normal use, one cannot expect the radio section to keep you informed in case of an emergency. As one person pointed out, in most of the major markets, the news station is on AM, although more are getting rim shot FM's to fill in nulls. I think that the cell radio has to be linked to the RDS to scan and stop on an EBS primary, so that a person isn't lulled into a false sense of security while listening to a station that is just running Prophet systems.
Technically, the system just won't work and we should all get back to cutting jobs and saving money.
Technically, the system just won't work and we should all get back to cutting jobs and saving money.
jterhar said:A couple of things...First, FM radios are already included in many cell phones. User surveys say that people don't really care about the FM capability, when choosing a cell phone.
That survey comes from the manufacturers who are against inclusion of FM in phones. And if I got a survey when I bought my car, I'd tell you that I didn't care much about the radio in my car. But I've owned three cell phones and none ever asked me about radio use. So I don't know how the cell industry came up with its data. They never asked me.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.