• RIAA/NAB: FM Receivers in all your mobile electronics, mandatory
    43 replies, posted
[quote=ARS Technica] Music labels and radio broadcasters can't agree on much, including whether radio should be forced to turn over hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for the music it plays. But the two sides can agree on this: Congress should mandate that FM radio receivers be built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronics. The Consumer Electronics Association, whose members build the devices that would be affected by such a directive, is incandescent with rage. "The backroom scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity," thundered CEA president Gary Shapiro. Such a move is "not in our national interest." "Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do." But the music and radio industries say it's a consumer-focused proposition, one that would provide "more music choices." A grand bargain Autumn, "that season of mists and mellow fruitfulness," approaches, and as Congress returns soon from recess, it will find its autumn agenda packed with supplicants who want the government to put its stamp on private negotiations. Google and Verizon famously released their own legislative framework on network neutrality earlier this month, and the broadcasters and music labels are nearing completion on a similar framework of their own. In this case, the framework concerns public performance rights. Radio broadcasters and music labels are at each other's throats over the question of whether radio ought to pay performance rights to labels or artists when it plays their music on the air (currently, only songwriters get paid, not artists or labels). A bill percolating in Congress, the Performance Rights Act, would rationalize performance rights in the US; satellite radio and webcasters currently pay full performance fees to labels or artists, but radio does not, thanks to a longstanding exemption in copyright law. The bill has already passed out of committee in both the House and Senate, but it is vigorously opposed by the broadcasters; they argue that radio provides valuable promotion to artists and shouldn't have to pay. Congress tried to force two of the main lobbying groups, the National Association of Broadcasters and musicFIRST (RIAA is a member), to hash out a solution last November. None was forthcoming, but talks have continued since then and are now close to completion. The two sides hope to strike a grand bargain: radio would agree to pay around $100 million a year (less than it feared), but in return it would get access to a larger market through the mandated FM radio chips in portable devices. "As regards the chip, this is a key issue for the radio industry," musicFIRST told Ars today. "musicFIRST, too, likes FM chips in cell phones, PDAs, etc. It gives consumers access to more music choices." As the contours of this deal came into sight last week, the consumer electronics companies saw the prospect of a new government mandate, and one that was transparently about propping up a particular (and aging) business model. "The performance royalty legislation voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee does not include this onerous and backward-looking radio requirement," said the CEA's Shapiro, and he wants to keep it that way. The deal has not been finalized, we're told. When it is, the two sides still need to convince Congress to go along, but they're hopeful something can be wrapped up late this year or early in 2011. Update: NAB stresses to us that no deal has been finalized. "However, if there is a decision made by the Board of Directors to go forward and seek legislation, including radio-enabled chips in mobile devices in possible legislation seems to us to be a reasonable idea," says NAB's Dennis Wharton. As for the CEA criticism, "It's no surprise that CEA opposes this, since trade associations generally always oppose new rules. CEA also opposed DTV tuners in digital television sets; the FCC decided that having DTV tuners in TV sets was a good thing, and passed a rule that gave consumers access to local TV stations on DTV sets. "We would argue that having radio capability on cell phones and other mobile devices would be a great thing, particularly from a public safety perspective. There are few if any technologies that match the reliability of broadcast radio in terms of getting lifeline information to the masses." [/quote] [url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/radio-riaa-mandatory-fm-radio-in-cell-phones-is-the-future.ars]src[/url] I got my own music, non-interrupted, when I need it, where I need it, on my own fucking phone. I don't want another fucking antenna in it either. The NAB and RIAA are failing to innovate their marketing schemes, and follow with technology as always. mp3 killed the radio star.
I don't want a goddamn radio in my phone or MP3 player.
What the fuck ?
And theres going to be countless numbers of people who dont use it. [editline]11:38AM[/editline] [QUOTE=lockdown6;24134857]I do.[/QUOTE] A shoutcast application if you have an android phone really helps a lot
I'll stick with my laptop....there is internet radio you idiots.(Not FP, RIAA and NAB)
My phone has an FM radio in it. I've never used it.
About 90 percent of the FM radio station near where I live broadcast shitty mainstream rap so this is of no use to me.
Sounds like a step back to me.
I am one for it being an OPTION. not MANDATED to be manufactured with it. I'm personally happy with my 32GB microSD card loaded with about 20GB of music, and my online radio.
Internet radio folks. I can get all my local stations through that anyway.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;24134902]not that good if you don't have internet[/QUOTE] We're talking about the states....
Not. going. to. happen.
I have an FM transmitter in my N900 :buddy:
You know, if it were for something like an EAS (Emergency Alert System) then that might be understandable, so that even people who aren't near a radio or television still receive emergency warnings. But that could easily be incorporated in to standard cellular coverage without the need for an FM receiver and would give more detailed information. And they currently are working on that system. That's not even close to what this is for though, and its just stupid. There is no logical justification for it.
[QUOTE=deathmog;24135299]I have an FM transmitter in my N900 :buddy:[/QUOTE] I also have a FM reciever in my N900:buddy: That means I can play music over the transmitter AND listen to it at the same time. Isn't that just awesome. And entirely pointless.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;24135608]You know, if it were for something like an EAS (Emergency Alert System) then that might be understandable, so that even people who aren't near a radio or television still receive emergency warnings. But that could easily be incorporated in to standard cellular coverage without the need for an FM receiver and would give more detailed information. And they currently are working on that system. That's not even close to what this is for though, and its just stupid. There is no logical justification for it.[/QUOTE] The Emergency Alert System would only work if people were listening to their radio at that time.
a lot of phones have fm receivers anyway there is no down side to having it. they cost nothing to make. what they need to do is force apple to enable the fucking fm transceiver in the ipod touch. [editline]06:05PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;24134873]I'll stick with my laptop....there is internet radio you idiots.(Not FP, RIAA and NAB)[/QUOTE] yeah that's great when you have internet. do you know what fm radio is?
I only ever listen to the radio when I'm in the car and noone wants to listen to CDs/MP3s or we need to listen for traffic or weather
I can see the useful implications in this, integrate a PAS that gives you warnings for the area you are in. But however, this could be used a spying tool, also, monitoring what you are doing, and how much your are doing of it. And if I am correct, most MP3 players that I've seen have a FM radio reciever in them already.
I wouldn't mind having an FM receiver on my phone. I enjoy some radio, but I see no point in it being mandatory.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;24137328]I can see the useful implications in this, integrate a PAS that gives you warnings for the area you are in. But however, this could be used a spying tool, also, monitoring what you are doing, and how much your are doing of it. And if I am correct, most MP3 players that I've seen have a FM radio reciever in them already.[/QUOTE] How can an FM transceiver be used for spying on you more than a cellular network?
[QUOTE=Xera;24137461]How can an FM transceiver be used for spying on you more than a cellular network?[/QUOTE] He's a paranoid privacy freak
I don't mind having an fm radio, my DInc has one. I do have to say that it's shit, the reception is terrible considering you have to use headphones as the antenna.
Who the fuck cares? Why are you guys freaking out about it?
[QUOTE=Xera;24137461]How can an FM transceiver be used for spying on you more than a cellular network?[/QUOTE] Discreet usage data collection. Civilian cellular networks occupy a smaller frequency range than that of FM. FM transceivers can hide data because it is a widely used frequency range, and any errant information can be put off as interference from another radio. [QUOTE=johan_sm;24137596]He's a paranoid privacy freak[/QUOTE] :silent:
They aren't doing it for the reason of emergency broadcast, they are doing it to bypass the restrictions of FM radio royalties where only the artist gets paid. [QUOTE=ARS Technica]The two sides hope to strike a grand bargain: radio would agree to pay around $100 million a year (less than it feared), but in return it would get access to a larger market through the mandated FM radio chips in portable devices.[/QUOTE] RIAA and NAB would get access to the $100 million in this case. As well as the fact that they want to keep FM alive in the wave of internet and digital radio.
[QUOTE=Overworld;24138664] RIAA and NAB would get access to the $100 million in this case. As well as the fact that they want to keep FM alive in the wave of internet and digital radio.[/QUOTE] lets waste money on old hardware that lacks quality. Great ideas folks! And fuck the artists, not like they had to perform that shit music anywho.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;24140000]lets waste money on old hardware that lacks quality. Great ideas folks! And fuck the artists, not like they had to perform that shit music anywho.[/QUOTE] Yeah FM is so shit and you can't hear shit :downs:
Yeah lets make them mandatory on our phones, because the millions of fm radios people listen to in cars every single day isn't enough.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;24138335]Discreet usage data collection. Civilian cellular networks occupy a smaller frequency range than that of FM. FM transceivers can hide data because it is a widely used frequency range, and any errant information can be put off as interference from another radio. :silent:[/QUOTE] You need a bigger antennae for sending the FM bands efficiently. Also, no phone maker is going to lower their battery time just for usage statistics. And the article is about receivers, not transceivers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.