FCC chairman urges Apple to activate FM radios in iPhones in light of recent disasters [u]...

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 153
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,343administrator
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
  • Reply 62 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,563member
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    I work with RF engineers. I'm almost certain that iPhones lacking the 3.5 inch analog headphone connector have no capability of adding an external antenna, and even an older iPhone would still have to be configured for an external antenna capability and/or an internal antenna in order to have capability to activate the FM output in the modem.
  • Reply 63 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,563member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    mike1 said:
    Overly simplistic request to just activate it. Like Apple could push a software update to people with no wifi or cell coverage. Even if he means in the long term, there are several reasons apple may not want to...

    1. They would have to create an entire interface for the FM tuner that doesn't currently exist. In addition, they would need to optimize the performance of the stock FM tuner. Resources would need to be dedicated to this instead of something else.

    2. However, the most important reason would be because the user experience would absolutely suck. There is no FM antenna and therefore would be no reception. People would blame Apple when in reality they can have very little impact on the tuner performance. Just because the chip in the phone has an FM tuner, doesn't mean it's any good to begin with. The hardware would have to be designed to use a headphone (3.5mm or Lightning) as the antenna as it was in the old iPod.Just plugging in a wire does not make an antenna. Don't know how FM signals in particular hinder cell performance, but there is a lot of concern to minimize all Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) in the devices to maximize performance. So, again, hardware would likely need to be designed to implement an FM tuner.

    Not so simple. As others have noted, you can buy a transistor radio for $10 or less and for a few $$$ more, a radio with a hand-crank where batteries would not even be a concern.
    Speaking from recent experience I can say with certainty that having FM enabled on your smartphone is absolutely worthwhile in the event of a public emergency.

    With Hurricane Irma approaching early the next morning we lost power at around 11pm the prior evening. By midnight our internet service was also out. Within another hour or two cell service began failing, lost completely before daybreak. We were lucky having a whole house generator, but our neighbors, some of them quite elderly, not so much. There was no going outside to crank up even a standalone generator with debris flying through the air, blindingly heavy rain, wind gusts already exceeding 60mph. No power and no cell service in the dead of night is a bad thing...

    But those with emergency radios or smartphones with FM enabled, and a lot of folks have them, could still stay abreast of emergency alerts, tornado warnings, and the latest status on the hurricane itself. Almost every smartphone already has an FM radio built-in, tho Apple has chosen to disable theirs. Yes your iPhone already has FM capabilities. AFAICT it would not cost Apple anything more to leave it as a working chip rather than disabling it. This isn't a new issue but something that's been a problem for awhile.
    https://www.wired.com/2016/07/phones-fm-chips-radio-smartphone/

    ...and no you don't need an external antenna or even a pair of wired headphones to act as one. Nokia figured out how to do it 8 years ago.
    For any kind of range, an FM antenna needs to have about two and a half feet of uncharged coil. More is better. With the Nano, it was the headphones in a direct electrical connection through the headphone jack, and the reception wasn't great. The Nokia phones of which you speak had either a 26-inch or 30-inch coil specifically for the radio behind the battery bay.

    That, and they were about 3/4 of an inch thick.

    This isn't a switch to throw, like the FCC chairman said -- and given his job description he should be fully aware. If he's not, then he shouldn't have the job. To get this going, should Apple choose to do so, will need a massive re-engineering effort to accommodate an internal antenna -- and won't be backwards compatible.

    Spend the $10 on a hand-crank radio. Alternatively, buy a $5 one, and $5 of batteries. If you can buy an iPhone, you can probably afford $50 for an emergency kit.
    Why would Apple have to include a built-in antenna. Don't even newer iPhones without a headphone jack include an adapter for wired headphones? It should work just as well as other smartphones with wired headphones and an FM chip that ISN'T disabled.
    Lightning is a serial bus, not an analog connection.
  • Reply 64 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,563member
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 65 of 153
    appexappex Posts: 687member
    Greed?
  • Reply 66 of 153
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 67 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,563member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    I'm guessing that Apple does enough volume to have it designed out of the chip, if it wasn't already available as a specific part, likely saving a little bit of money, but also knowing that they weren't going to be using FM, and saving space and cost on the internal antenna that wouldn't then be required  
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 68 of 153
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    tmay said:
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    I'm guessing that Apple does enough volume to have it designed out of the chip, if it wasn't already available as a specific part, likely saving a little bit of money, but also knowing that they weren't going to be using FM, and saving space and cost on the internal antenna that wouldn't then be required  
    To Apple's credit they aren't saying they CAN'T include FM, just that the latest two generations of iPhone can't as designed. That could change. 
  • Reply 69 of 153
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.

    If Apple didn't put in an FM antenna in the iPhone, then their is no possibility of adding one externally, and no turning on the capability in the modem. No story here, other than the FCC getting legislation requiring Apple to install an FM antenna and activate any FM capability in the modem
    Correct, but that was not the point why I said it.
  • Reply 70 of 153
    maestro64 said:

    That is why they still make battery operated radios and it is called the Emergency Broadcast Network.

    Even if the chip was activated, it assumes someone had an app loaded on the phone which could access radio stations. Why not just use the amber alert system. Oh is that because the cell tower were not working, if they were not working how does someone down load the app then.

    This is typical government solutions to a problems which is you can not fix stupid. Not to say everyone is stupid in this case, even my kids have no idea what the Emergency Broadcast Network is and know to tune into the radio.  The one and only time we heard the test on the radio my kids had no idea what it was about and why it was even needed. I hardly hear radio stations even testing it anymore.

    If people have no ideal they are suppose to listen to the radio during an emergency, what make the FCC think people would listen on their cell phones.

    I read somewhere, there was an app that people were talking about which turns your phone into a walkie talkie, and there were people tying to use these apps during the power outage trying to get hold of people to help them, they have no clue the wakie talkie feature worked over wifi. They though it was like a real two way radio so they expect it to work that way.

    Pai need to understand why the Emergency Boadcast Network was develop and why it still a much better solution with a battery operated radio than using your cellphone. The problem is most people in the county today have no clue this system exist. Who's fault is that, Pai, his organization is not forcing the system to be tested like thaey use too and not educating people about it. Not once during any of the storms did any of the major network or weather channel once say for people to stay tune to their radios for emergency information.

    During an emergence you want to keep it simple, a radio will work in most all weather conditions and a battery operated radio will work for days non-stop.

    Good post.  Way to many think government regulators have the solutions needed to solve every problem. The reality is that you can't legislate common sense.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 71 of 153

    stuke said:
    maestro64 said:

    That is why they still make battery operated radios and it is called the Emergency Broadcast Network.

    Even if the chip was activated, it assumes someone had an app loaded on the phone which could access radio stations. Why not just use the amber alert system. Oh is that because the cell tower were not working, if they were not working how does someone down load the app then.

    This is typical government solutions to a problems which is you can not fix stupid. Not to say everyone is stupid in this case, even my kids have no idea what the Emergency Broadcast Network is and know to tune into the radio.  The one and only time we heard the test on the radio my kids had no idea what it was about and why it was even needed. I hardly hear radio stations even testing it anymore.

    If people have no ideal they are suppose to listen to the radio during an emergency, what make the FCC think people would listen on their cell phones.

    As an Apple heavy family with multiple i-devices in each family members reach, i still have an ETON Dynamo hand crank radio (with added battery backup) in my basement. Just smart planning, that’s all. 
    Common sense at work, and it didn't require government intervention. 
  • Reply 72 of 153
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,343administrator
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    I'm guessing that Apple does enough volume to have it designed out of the chip, if it wasn't already available as a specific part, likely saving a little bit of money, but also knowing that they weren't going to be using FM, and saving space and cost on the internal antenna that wouldn't then be required  
    To Apple's credit they aren't saying they CAN'T include FM, just that the latest two generations of iPhone can't as designed. That could change. 
    I dunno. Specifically saying that the modems aren't FM compatible is pretty clear.
    dysamoriapscooter63jSnively
  • Reply 73 of 153
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    I'm guessing that Apple does enough volume to have it designed out of the chip, if it wasn't already available as a specific part, likely saving a little bit of money, but also knowing that they weren't going to be using FM, and saving space and cost on the internal antenna that wouldn't then be required  
    To Apple's credit they aren't saying they CAN'T include FM, just that the latest two generations of iPhone can't as designed. That could change. 
    I dunno. Specifically saying that the modems aren't FM compatible is pretty clear.
    Except until 2016 they were. For whatever reason Apple changed it, and for other reasons they could go back to including it if need be. 
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 74 of 153
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,343administrator
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    "requires power" is the issue with that. And, new hardware and not backwards-compatible, nor a switch to throw.
  • Reply 75 of 153
    Finally, something I can agree with Pai about, but come on, Pai, there are likely thousands of apps for that, not that I’d expect a lawyer to know.
  • Reply 76 of 153
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.
    I'm buzzword compliant on RF matters -- and can confirm your suspicion that there is a giant difference.
    removed post, thanks for Apple statement update.
    Yes I appreciate it too. That's new information. I would be curious tho why the Qualcomm chips Apple receives don't include FM capabilities as they typically do. Note too that unlike the common belief held by some commenters a space consuming two foot built-in antenna is not necessary either. I remembered reading this some time back while researching a GPS antenna issue on another site. 
    http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon+-+Article+-+BGB719+Miniature+LNA+for+embedded+FM+radio+antenna.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a047ba0013a4aa7a03b64c2
    "requires power" is the issue with that. And, new hardware and not backwards-compatible, nor a switch to throw.
    It could be. Apple has done other things that we thought they couldn't. Tech certainly doesn't stand still and the Infineon solution I linked was from years ago. If it were mandated (which I don't see happening but possible) do you think Apple incapable of finding an amazing and innovative way of doing so? TBH I would fully expect that somewhere within the bowels of Apple some engineer has/had been tasked with just that. The FCC has been pushing this for several years now. 
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 77 of 153
    zoetmb said:
    maestro64 said:

    That is why they still make battery operated radios and it is called the Emergency Broadcast Network.

    Even if the chip was activated, it assumes someone had an app loaded on the phone which could access radio stations. Why not just use the amber alert system. Oh is that because the cell tower were not working, if they were not working how does someone down load the app then.

    This is typical government solutions to a problems which is you can not fix stupid. Not to say everyone is stupid in this case, even my kids have no idea what the Emergency Broadcast Network is and know to tune into the radio.  The one and only time we heard the test on the radio my kids had no idea what it was about and why it was even needed. I hardly hear radio stations even testing it anymore.

    If people have no ideal they are suppose to listen to the radio during an emergency, what make the FCC think people would listen on their cell phones.

    During an emergence you want to keep it simple, a radio will work in most all weather conditions and a battery operated radio will work for days non-stop.

    Your logic is completely flawed.   People would download the app BEFORE an emergency or the app would be built into the phone, so the cell tower being down would be a moot point. 

    You don't have to learn how to "tune in" the EBS as it is broadcast on all radio stations automatically.   

    It's not about "listening", it's about the cell phone automatically being able to broadcast an emergency.   If there's a technical solution to this that will work even when a cell tower is down that doesn't involve FM radio, then fine - Apple doesn't need to turn on FM.   It's the objective that counts.  

    And the problem with battery operated radios is that people don't generally have them with them and these days, many don't have them at all.   Certainly, people should have a battery-operated radio and if the NAB had its act together, they would do a national campaign to encourage people to buy such radios, which would help both the radio manufacturers and radio stations, since if more people had radios, more people would probably listen even when there weren't emergencies.  

    But unless it's legally mandated, Apple will not do this - they won't want to do what it would take to modify the antenna.  

    But there is also a flaw in the mandate:  in such severe storms, chances are either that the radio station towers are down, the facilities are flooded or there's no one at the station to report and/or collect information.    And if the phone lines and cell towers are down, they won't be able to report what's going on anyway.


    Excuse me, your logic is flawed, Do understand that FM and AM radio signal need an antenna, which a cell phone does not have. Take class on Radio Frequency broadcast and receiving and calculate the length of the required antenna to receive those signals across the frequency spectrum. Cell phone work since the transmission frequency are high enough the case of the phone act as the antenna. Do you remember Antenna gate.

    FM and AM especially can be travel hundreds of miles from its transition points the radio station and tower does not even need to be in the area of the emergency, and the government can quickly set up AM/FM transition stations which they do have, and get information out to people, you can not do this with cell towers they have limited range.

    Long and short of it, people have to be responsible for their own safety, Since the 90's after the cold war ended the government has felt no need to maintain the system which they could use to help people when they need the help at no fault of their own. Todays we get weeks warns of hurricanes 50 years ago you my have gotten a few days. I want in New Orleans right before Irma hit, and our hotel filled up with people from FL, we talk to many of them and they got out long before it hit and decided to go west verse north like many people did who still got hit. They were there a day before it hit. 

    The Fact the guy who heads up the FCC thinks that just turning on the FM chip in the phone would solve the problem is an issue in itself. It just a way of the FCC and the government to diver attention to their failures.

    tmay
  • Reply 78 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,563member
    tmay said:
    Apple would never do what the FCC Chairman Pai urge Apple to do!  It would take away some of Apple music streaming business revenue and cellular companies data usage revenue!  Apple is all about maximizing profit!  
    Which is why they included a mini-jack to lightning connector adapter for free. Sigh...

    I'm not an RF guy, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between a Lightning connection and a 3.5 mm headphone jack; I'm thinking that Lightning, a digital connection, won't pass an analog signal from an antenna.

    If Apple didn't put in an FM antenna in the iPhone, then their is no possibility of adding one externally, and no turning on the capability in the modem. No story here, other than the FCC getting legislation requiring Apple to install an FM antenna and activate any FM capability in the modem
    Correct, but that was not the point why I said it.
    Got it now.
  • Reply 79 of 153
    dewmedewme Posts: 1,992member
    This is what happens when someone lacking technical understanding, much less technical expertise, is appointed to a technology related branch of government and speaks outside of the boundaries of their own knowledge. This guy is a lawyer and policy wonk, not an engineer, scientist, or technologist.  You'd think that a high ranking official in the FCC would either have some level of technical knowledge or have a back room filled with very smart technical people who can provide the needed insight and guidance into technical matters before making public statements in a time of crisis.

    If the FCC wants to make a real difference going forward then it should put some guidance/standards in place to compel manufacturers of telecommunication equipment to include features that are helpful in emergency situations. Implying that a specific manufacturer is intentionally omitting features that have not been mandated by the FCC or any other agency, and doing so for financial benefit, is just plain lazy and rude.

    Mr Pai should issue a public apology to Apple.
    dysamoriaroundaboutnowpscooter63
  • Reply 80 of 153
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,563member
    maestro64 said:
    zoetmb said:
    maestro64 said:

    That is why they still make battery operated radios and it is called the Emergency Broadcast Network.

    Even if the chip was activated, it assumes someone had an app loaded on the phone which could access radio stations. Why not just use the amber alert system. Oh is that because the cell tower were not working, if they were not working how does someone down load the app then.

    This is typical government solutions to a problems which is you can not fix stupid. Not to say everyone is stupid in this case, even my kids have no idea what the Emergency Broadcast Network is and know to tune into the radio.  The one and only time we heard the test on the radio my kids had no idea what it was about and why it was even needed. I hardly hear radio stations even testing it anymore.

    If people have no ideal they are suppose to listen to the radio during an emergency, what make the FCC think people would listen on their cell phones.

    During an emergence you want to keep it simple, a radio will work in most all weather conditions and a battery operated radio will work for days non-stop.

    Your logic is completely flawed.   People would download the app BEFORE an emergency or the app would be built into the phone, so the cell tower being down would be a moot point. 

    You don't have to learn how to "tune in" the EBS as it is broadcast on all radio stations automatically.   

    It's not about "listening", it's about the cell phone automatically being able to broadcast an emergency.   If there's a technical solution to this that will work even when a cell tower is down that doesn't involve FM radio, then fine - Apple doesn't need to turn on FM.   It's the objective that counts.  

    And the problem with battery operated radios is that people don't generally have them with them and these days, many don't have them at all.   Certainly, people should have a battery-operated radio and if the NAB had its act together, they would do a national campaign to encourage people to buy such radios, which would help both the radio manufacturers and radio stations, since if more people had radios, more people would probably listen even when there weren't emergencies.  

    But unless it's legally mandated, Apple will not do this - they won't want to do what it would take to modify the antenna.  

    But there is also a flaw in the mandate:  in such severe storms, chances are either that the radio station towers are down, the facilities are flooded or there's no one at the station to report and/or collect information.    And if the phone lines and cell towers are down, they won't be able to report what's going on anyway.


    Excuse me, your logic is flawed, Do understand that FM and AM radio signal need an antenna, which a cell phone does not have. Take class on Radio Frequency broadcast and receiving and calculate the length of the required antenna to receive those signals across the frequency spectrum. Cell phone work since the transmission frequency are high enough the case of the phone act as the antenna. Do you remember Antenna gate.

    FM and AM especially can be travel hundreds of miles from its transition points the radio station and tower does not even need to be in the area of the emergency, and the government can quickly set up AM/FM transition stations which they do have, and get information out to people, you can not do this with cell towers they have limited range.

    Long and short of it, people have to be responsible for their own safety, Since the 90's after the cold war ended the government has felt no need to maintain the system which they could use to help people when they need the help at no fault of their own. Todays we get weeks warns of hurricanes 50 years ago you my have gotten a few days. I want in New Orleans right before Irma hit, and our hotel filled up with people from FL, we talk to many of them and they got out long before it hit and decided to go west verse north like many people did who still got hit. They were there a day before it hit. 

    The Fact the guy who heads up the FCC thinks that just turning on the FM chip in the phone would solve the problem is an issue in itself. It just a way of the FCC and the government to diver attention to their failures.

    Well stated.
Sign In or Register to comment.