Home  ›  News  ›

NAB Says FM Radios No 'Burden' to Cell Makers

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 7 replies

It's true


Aug 27, 2010, 8:58 AM
Since I purchased my car back in 2002 I have listened to the radio maybe once or twice total.

Most of the time I'd rather listen to CDs I bought or use my phone to stream Slacker or as an MP3 player.

And, if I ever did listen to radio again it would be satellite radio.

Aug 27, 2010, 11:53 AM
I never listen to CD's or radio streams... I only listen to the radio.

So you are wrong.

I'd also never listen to Satellite radio. It doesn't have the same ambiance.

Since I don't listen to CD's, no one does... so the FCC should base their decision on my opinion.

Cool just an FYI: There are plenty of people who listen to FM. FM doesn't "cost" data (As mentioned in article).

If you can't get unlimited data (cough AT&T), or don't want to pay for data, this would be a good option.

Hell... you could listen to the radio without a cell phone being active. 911 available for free. Or out of cell-tower range. or in range of 1x/edge.

Bottom line: I don't like the "forced" part of it... but I can see where this is better of two evil...

Aug 27, 2010, 12:11 PM
But the real question is... what do mobile phones have to do with FM Radio? They are entirely separate industries, and should not have to be forced to marry.

Aug 27, 2010, 1:35 PM
What do the cell phone manufacturers have to do with either of these "evils"? The radio operators don't want to pay the record companies, so the cell phone manufacturers have to foot the bill (somehow)?

Exactly how does this address the royalty situation, anyway? Do the radio operators think it will increase their ratings and revenues which they can pass on the the record labels?

Aug 27, 2010, 9:18 PM
...then get a $5 FM player @ RadioShack and ton't make phones more expensive and more unnecessary-apps-saturated. Period. Twisted Evil

Aug 27, 2010, 9:19 PM
Typo: DON'T isnstead of TON'T... It's Friday, I have an after-job party and still working, so my brain's not working AT ALL!!!

Aug 28, 2010, 1:09 PM
Forcing it to be a requirement is WRONG.
Radios can be bought cheaply if people want them.
Wireless (Nokia) can add them in, if people want them. This is supply/demand. There's no demand for FM on a cell phone.

Eg. I can listen to radio on my iPhone through CBS radio which is 'software' only, and optional. All manufacturers would have to install FM receivers in ALL devices which may not cost a lot, but enough. If you add a '$5' NAB/radio fee to all devices purchased - do you think that you would enjoy it ?

Also, not to be a killjoy - most radio here is moving to digital.

Sep 14, 2010, 4:33 PM
KriisCDW said:
Hell... you could listen to the radio without a cell phone being active. 911 available for free. Or out of cell-tower range. or in range of 1x/edge.

I loathe the NAB and RIAA, and I'm not fond of this bill. I agree, I have no use for a radio on my cell phone, and would prefer it if terrestrial radio and the traditional models of entertainment extinct and evaporate.

However, the fact that as long as I have a battery with a charge, if the cell networks go down, wifi isn't available, etc. the FM radio can be used as an emergency alert.

What the manufacturers should do (if technologically possible) is put in a radio chip with minimal frequencies that can be used for emergency broadcasts...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.

all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram


All content Copyright 2001-2018 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.