Does Lack of FM Support On Phones Increase Your Chances of Dying In a Disaster? 350
theodp writes "You may not know it," reports NPR's Emma Bowman, "but most of today's smartphones have FM radios inside of them. But the FM chip is not activated on two-thirds of devices. That's because mobile makers have the FM capability switched off. The National Association of Broadcasters has been asking mobile makers to change this. But the mobile industry, which profits from selling data to smartphone users, says that with the consumer's move toward mobile streaming apps, the demand for radio simply isn't there." But FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate says radio-enabled smartphones could sure come in handy during times of emergency. So, is it irresponsible not to activate the FM chips? And should it's-the-app-way-or-the-highway Apple follow Microsoft's lead and make no-static-at-all FM available on iPhones?
and yet Norway (Score:2)
In a post about half a page down from this article, Norway is going to kill off FM in favor of digital (DAB) as the only broadcast method.
So there you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and yet Norway (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Most FM listeners are in cars
2) hardly cars have DAB radios
3) DAB radios hardly ever work in cars
4) If they switched off FM, the car drivers would NOT by DAB replacements.
The current plan is to leave FM radio switch of "till after the next election".
I have listened to FM on my phone twice in two years. I listen in the car all the time. If FM is turned off, I would probably listen to the pirate stations on FM. I surely won't by a DAB radio. My mum has three DAB radios. It is mostly a matter of life style.
As other posters have said "Follow the money".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geoblocked except in the US (Score:2)
Makers or Service providers? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the article is either miswritten or FEMA/NAB misdirecting their blame. I highly doubt the manufacturers of the phones (LG, Samsung, etc) are the ones pushing for the disabling of the FM chip but requirements from the mobile service providers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc) who as the article noted are far more inclined to rake in profits if customers use data services instead of over the air reception and have a long history of locking down phone features for their own enrichment. FYI I tried to load the app National Association of Broadcasters is noting in this article (NextRadio) and I couldn't, apparently even though FM is enabled on my phone their app is only supported on a a select set of phones.
Re:Makers or Service providers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, keep in mind Apple recently bought "Beats by Dre" which is a music streaming service (in addition to the headphones by the same name). Apple Radio (Apple's music streaming service) has been in the iPhone for a while. There's a very good reason Apple doesn't want their users to be able to listen to free radio on their iPhone.
Re:Makers or Service providers? (Score:4, Informative)
This discussion happened around a month ago on reddit -- the FM chips are for the most part vestigal in phones -- that is, some of the chips used in phones ALSO have FM capability. However, the phones usually have no appropriate hardware interface, antenna (yes, they COULD be hooked up to the headphones), or software interface, rendering the FM processor-on-chip pretty much useless, kind of like the extra chip on Apple devices that's only used as a secure data store.
So it's more than the service providers at work here -- the manufacturers avoided the headache of integrating yet another RF spec into their hardware (which would complicate FCC testing even further, increasing the potential for crosstalk and attenuation issues on all wired and wireless systems in the device), avoided yet more hardware to add bulk/weight/cost and constrain the design, and avoided more software and associated testing. The actual changes might be small, but the cost of the QA and design changes for those actual changes could actually be quite large.
Re:Makers or Service providers? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you explain phones that have identical international and US versions, and only the US version has the FM disabled?
The (international) HTC Desire Z had an FM radio, and came with an FM tuner app to access it. (using the headphones as the antenna)
The identical US version, the T-Mobile G2, also had an FM radio but it was disabled in software. (to fix it, you just had to install the stock FM tuner app)
I can only assume that T-mobile demanded that the FM radio be disabled, in order to get people to use up all their data listening to streaming music.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you explain phones that have identical international and US versions, and only the US version has the FM disabled?
That only in the US, the legal landscape is such that having the FM radio in there is a potential complication.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what They want you to think!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at previous desasters and see who was saved by having a cellphone with FM and who dies because they did not have FM on their cellphones.
And subtract those that had access to other working FM radios in their cars or homes.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on where you live.
For a city person, the chances of a Gozilla attack or zombie apocalypse are, admittedly fairly remote.
In remote areas prone to natural disasters, radio can be used effectively by emergency services to inform local residents. e.g. bushfires. though my state plans to use SMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And how often do emergencies happen? In all my life I have NEVER been in a situation where my life depended om having an FM radio.
In all your life you've never encountered anything that's killed you, either, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
U.S. carriers don't want FM enabled because it would deny them revenue from streaming services during normal circumstances and would also be an admission that their infrastructure could be vulnerable. Your mobile service is just as reliable as FM until the infrastructure takes a hit. Getting a single broadcast station capable of covering an entire metropolitan area back on the air after a di
Re: (Score:2)
People with amateur licenses are helpful for some things, but they're absolutely useless for disseminating information over a wide area that's otherwise disconnected
Useless is a strong word, and "absolutely" is a strong modifier. Neither is warranted here. People with amateur licenses can put the word out manually to other people who can do the same. Meanwhile, those people are likely to have disconnected power sources, while many radio stations are in urban areas and are legally prohibited from having inexpensive, functional backup power.
Lets say yes so they put an FM radio on my phone (Score:2)
At least I'm honest about it. :P
Seriously though, lack of FM is not a safety risk. That's absurd. if they're really concerned, then have them blast out a text message if there is an issue. I'm sure the telecos would be happy to do that because txtmsgs take up just about zero bandwidth.
Re:Lets say yes so they put an FM radio on my phon (Score:5, Interesting)
While I don't think the lack is a safety risk - and I do think the headline is just the usual sort of attention-whoring we expect from the media these days - having an FM radio is very useful if there is a regional emergency. And since most people are usually carrying a phone anyway, locking out that ability does them a disservice.
Personal anecdote time: back in the big blackout of 2003 that shutdown the Northeastern US, nobody's phones were working because the networks were jammed by millions of people suddenly calling each other, everyone trying to figure out what was going on. Nobody knew anything except that the lights were off and there was an increasingly nervous tension; as this was only a couple years after 9/11, the word "terrorists" was on everybody's lips. I happened to have an MP3 player with FM functionality on me, and that made me very popular, because I could relay news to everyone around me. The temper changed from twitchy nervousness to reassured cooperation, from a fearful me-first attitude to one where informed people worked together to get through the disaster.
I don't think having that radio made me any safer, but it made me - and those around me - happier because we were not cut off from the rest of the world. I still carry that little MP3 player with me, solely for its radio functions even though my phone is one of the rare devices that does have FM functionality (the phone needs a charge every day, but the mp3 player, which is only the size of a thumb-drive, runs seemingly forever on an easily-replaced AA battery).
Re: (Score:3)
The summary reads like an NAB astroturf campaign. Their "free radio on my phone" ad campaign is a beautiful example of fear mongering. One of their radio spots even invokes 9/11 a
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. I'm not saying FM radios are stupid and anyone that uses them is an asshole... am I?
No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't require cell phone makers or carriers to have FM radios built into the phones.
Now that said, one thing that does annoy me is when the FM radio feature is disabled by the carrier for no fucking reason. Often to make people want to buy their streaming music service more or something equally pathetic. THAT is fucked up. And I'd pass a law against that any day.
But don't f
Re: (Score:2)
I think the psychological reassurance of just knowing what's going on during a disaster is probably the most helpful part.
Even if you can't DO anything about it, it's still better than cowering in fear because you are in the dark both literally and figuratively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quote the bit where I said they shouldn't make emergency broadcasts over FM radio. Do so now please or admit that you just tried to straw man me.
What I am saying is that if you have a cell phone... it doesn't have to have an FM radio built into it by law just for your fucking emergency broadcasts.
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight... text messages aren't reliable, but someone with their cellphone tuned to the emergency broadcast channel on their cell phone is something you'd rather rely upon?
Allow me to roll my eyes at you dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about ANNOUNCING the disaster, that's what sirens are for.
AFTER the sirens have gone off, and AFTER everyone is hiding in fear, wouldn't it be nice if they knew WHY they were hiding?
They can't call or text anyone to find out, since the towers will be overloaded.
Now, they could use the FM radio that is ALREADY BUILT INTO their phone, unfortunately the US carrier they bought it from specifically demanded that the FM radio be disabled.
A specific example of where this would save lives: A tornado pops u
Re: (Score:2)
so you want to mandate that all cellphones have a built in FM radio?
There has to be a way to accomplish the same thing with the existing antenna that handles phone calls and text messages. You want a different protocol on the same frequency just for emergency broadcasts? Fine. Sounds stupid but its less obnoxious then requiring every phone have an antiquated communications protocol imposed on it simply because no has bothered to think of a robust communications protocol that could go over the existing anten
Re: (Score:2)
As to 2G, it isn't for phone calls and text messages.
And even if it were, that would again mean that you should run your signal over whatever the prevailing protocol is at the time.
one fellow was saying "but what if everyone tries to make calls at the same time and it overwhelms the system"... a text message won't overwhelming anything. In fact, during emergencies if they restricted communication to text messages the system would never get congested. Ten million people could all send texts at the same time
FM Radio in disaster (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know how much good it will do to listen to a 'local' radio station since most of the time its just a recording anyway.
What you need to listen to is the NOAA weather radio - around here its 162.500 megahertz, and the voice was recorded by Stephen Hawking
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah very pointless. More and more stations are going to cyber jocks who wouldn't have the slightest clue about a tornado warning or flooded roads. The FCC should be more concerned about that. Local TV is much more effective at reporting local emergencies.
My post does have FM (Score:2)
That's one of my purchase criteria. Samsung used to have it, now Huawei does. I use it several times a week, and a lot when on trips w/spotty data.
Re: (Score:2)
and by "post", I meant "phone".
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, is it just me? What kind of information are you going to put out over FM to cell-phones, in an emergency, that will be life-saving? How many cell-phones are still going to be running on day two of whatever disaster either because people have turned them off because they "don't work" because the local cell is down or because the batteries are flat? How many of those that aren't would be captured by an initial text message anyway? How many people are going to crowd around the only working phone in the area and turn on the radio to tune in and then hear something that might save their lives?
And what are you going to tell people that they don't know already (but should) and which will directly contribute to saving their lives better than, say, common sense?
Maybe it's just because I live in a country where emergencies don't really happen on this scale (no seismic activity, little flooding, no drought, no tornados or extremes of weather, no civil unrest, etc.) , but I'm one of those people who reads up on anything risky before I do it, and I'm still struggling to fathom what could be sent that would make that much difference?
Shelter locations, possibly? Surely the best is word-of-mouth and going and finding those people in need of shouting at with a big shouty-device? Like the first thing we do in any such disaster, send the police round and the helicopters over to give out such information? And anyone in a dangerous area, in need of shelter, will move away from the danger and can then be corralled and treated once they are in a safe area, any safe area? And, again, a simple text message serves the same purpose and probably uses the same power given the "always on" nature of cell connections on modern phones.
What's a real scenario where one-way FM radio on a cell-phone would be a real life-line for anyone but the completely ignorant and inexperienced?
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
*sssssgwbzgl Hartford cfggdssszzz*
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, is it just me? What kind of information are you going to put out over FM to cell-phones, in an emergency, that will be life-saving?
Stopping people all trying to flee down the same road can keep it open to emergency services, saving lives as a knock-on effect. Furthermore, jammed roads are usually the result of panic, and the first priority after a sudden disaster is to avoid panic. It doesn't matter that your phone may be flat in a few days -- the first few hours are the crucial point. Prevent panic by giving basic information and reassurance; telling people where to go and what to do.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, is it just me? What kind of information are you going to put out over FM to cell-phones, in an emergency, that will be life-saving?
It's not just you, but I'm guessing you've never been in a tornado/hurricane shelter without power huddled around a battery powered radio listening to storm updates. Sometimes the all-clear takes more than a couple hours than what the original predictions were. New funnel clouds crop up from nowhere, or reminders that a hurricane's eye can be very large and the storm isn't over. Flash floods, mud slides, forest fires, etc. If cell phones all has their FM chips enabled, you'd have almost one battery powered radio for every person in the shelter. Some could be turned off or their batteries could be swapped.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just you, but I'm guessing you've never been in a tornado/hurricane shelter without power huddled around a battery powered radio listening to storm updates.
I bet you're right. I haven't either, but I still own a wind-up radio [etsy.com] that's stored with all my disaster relief supplies. (That's not mine, mine is not for sale, just the first link I found with the same thing. I got mine at a yard sale.)
Re: (Score:2)
What's a real scenario where one-way FM radio on a cell-phone would be a real life-line for anyone but the completely ignorant and inexperienced?
A tornado pops up, everyone hears the siren and goes into the basement, then the tornado starts knocking down power lines and causing fires, which burn the town to the ground with all the people still inside.
It's the same (Score:2)
If I have a cell phone without an FM radio, it's exactly the same as having no cell phone at all, for the purposes of the question being asked. Not having a built-in taser increases my chances of being mugged, too.
No (Score:3)
However, not having FM support on my cell phone does significantly decrease my chances of hearing lite rock and smooth jazz.
I have no data plan, you ignorant clod. (Score:2)
Really, at the moment I have voice-only on a smartphone, through a third-party provider. I use wifi for data, but would welcome FM for such purposes.
One not-so-minor detail... (Score:2)
The on-chip FM radio requires a WIRED headset. Not bluetooth, not using the phone speaker or earpiece. The headset lead is used as an antenna. Without it, the radio doesn't work. Generally won't even turn on, just gives a warning.
So it won't work for most users. And was probably costing too much in support calls about why it wasn't working.
Me personally? no.. (Score:4, Informative)
I am a ham radio operator, I have a significantly higher chance of survival than the rest.
If people really cared about safety they would take the time to learn CPR, basic First Aid, and things like ham radio or gain knowlege in how to increase their odds.
Dancing with the stars and Americas got Talent are far more important to the general population.
the real question (Score:3)
is why it is turned off
if the question were "why should a phone add all this expensive hardware for negligible benefit" then the answer should obviously screw FM radio
but if the functionality is already there, why isn't anyone angry that you are being denied something for free simply so your phone carrier can squeeze more cash out of you?
i look at the other posts here and their priorities and their rationale, and i can't understand why this thought doesn't rank higher
and while we're at it, get us a tv tuner too, like in japan:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Androi... [reddit.com]
why aren't television and fm radio industries banding together to demand inclusion on smartphones? nevermind as a safety feature, you can make arguments for that, but even if you think that's a contrived concern, do it simply because it's a fucking industry of content, that you can get FOR FREE
No. but ... (Score:3)
Would not hearing the news cost my life after a disaster? Probably not, but allowing people to hear the news does make life easier for your local emergency management officials.
ponderous (Score:2)
I have a phone with an FM receiver active (it uses the headphone cord as an antenna) and this thread got me wondering about things like emergency radio, "scanners", etc. I ended up finding some old threads in other forums with people who found that this phone model's FM rx is in a chip that also has tx capability. But Broadcom doesn't want to share the pin outs and it looks like the threads all died. HTC EVO 4G if anybody's interested. This is along the lines of transmitting for a number of meters, of cours
Power (Score:3)
The average smartphone will die in a day if you run FM radio, a real battery powered FM radio is the thing to have when things go to Sh!t
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG!
1. Global Warming has increased the amount of hazardous weather. Such weather can affect infrastructure such as Power, telephone, and cell service.
2. Data plans are expensive. So they are used sparingly. You are not going to waste it streaming audio, digital data also takes more power off your phone.
3. Your local radio stations (notice that we have that in plural, even in remote areas they are multiple stations available) being that they are local they have information about your local community. Goo
Re: (Score:2)
During an emergency. These stations are also running on bare bone staff. Many of them may not have a web developer on hand to update the site every 5 minutes... While there is an announcer and reporters are there as key staff.
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, you are not aware of the "if the headline asks a question, the answer is invariably 'no'" meme.
Re: (Score:3)
While I'd agree that the dying in a disaster due to lack of enabling the radio is a silly stretch, if it can receive FM, why not?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Because the article is very misleading.
Smartphones MAY have a chip in them that is capable of receiving FM transmissions [probably as part of the Qualcomm/whomever chip for processing cell phone signals].
But not a matter of 'just turn it on' and everything magically works.
You need an antennae/other external hardware that receives those signals properly. I'm not an antennae engineer, but you either need a separate antennae [which would totally be a non-starter] or you have to compromise the design of existing antennae, because now it has to work for more frequencies.
You also need the software side to work. Since the signal is [most likely] coming from the cellular chip, it also affects the separate baseband software, as well as the main OS.
Then they need to see how it affects battery life with an additional radio turned on, as well as how it affects cellular, wifi and bluetooth reception/transmission.
And don't forget that NONE of the wireless carriers in the US would want the phone to have this feature, because it means the user can be listening to music that they are streaming to their phone FOR FREE, and the carrier would be making no money from it at all. They would rather the user just have the choice of 'do without or preload the music on the phone or pay for streaming music on the phone by paying the carrier extra money] (and they would really prefer to prevent that middle option, but that would have been a really tough sell earlier and impossible now].
Finally, these whiners wouldn't stop at just 'enable the FM reception' capability. It would be 'automatically detect an emergency broadcast and switch to FM automatically when one is broadcast'. Which means another radio always be on. And if that happened...how many days before an FM station sent a fake signal that would trigger this feature without really sounding like an emergency broadcast signal, so the phone would automatically switch to their station for a few minutes. And they could just say it was a bug in the cell phone, that they didn't broadcast a full, real emergency signal.
Anyway, Apple never did this, because they want people to get their music from the iTunes music store, and everyone else doesn't because the carriers won't let them [at least here in the US].
Re: Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
So, for a bunch of people, the FM feature would never work, because they don't use wired headphones.
"Please plug in a wired headset to enabled this feature".
A non-trivial number of people:
-just use it as a hand-held device, holding it up to their head when using it as a phone
-have a wireless headset
And it can't be great for those that do, because you don't know how long the antennae is, or how it's terminated [or even more fun, splitters so the port drives two sets of headphones].
These problems aren't insurmountable, but it all takes a bunch of time and effort [so it would add to the cost of every phone], along with competing goals of two separate wireless industries [FM Radio vs cellular providers]. And given that the cellular providers are a much bigger industry than FM Radio in the US, it seems unlikely that FM Radio will be able to give a large enough 'contribution' to Congress and/or the FCC to make this happen [and there definitely doesn't seem to be enough actual end users clamoring for this to get them to do it].
Re: Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the article is very misleading.
Smartphones MAY have a chip in them that is capable of receiving FM transmissions [probably as part of the Qualcomm/whomever chip for processing cell phone signals].
But not a matter of 'just turn it on' and everything magically works.
You need an antennae/other external hardware that receives those signals properly. I'm not an antennae engineer,........
Since I have some phones that have the FM radio enabled all that is needed is headphones.
The antenna is the wires of the headphones.
That is not to say that the pin for the antenna is connected to the headphone connector.
It is also not clear what the regulations domestic and international are for testing the
FM radio for unwanted interference and matching the national band allocations.
But the original question is interesting. Local radio is invaluable in a disaster. The power budget
and infrastructure (transmitter towers) for FM radio are much more available. The service area of
a single FM radio tower could cover hundreds if not thousands of cell towers. Cell towers also depend
on digital backbone and data connections (routers) that also need uninterruptible power.
Local emergency management need only contact the radio station and the radio station only needs
a single generator. Radio is part of the emergency broadcasting system and disconnecting the FM radio
is disconnecting the EBS.
Having said this I recall waiting on the local FM radio station to announce school closure on one
especially nasty blizzards winter morning. There was no announcement... the school system could
not connect to the station by phone and the roads were so deep in snow that direct contact was
impossible.
Legislatures in earthquake, tornado, blizzard, hurricane disaster risk areas (the entire US) should
be paying attention to this. Because of the EBS link your representatives should be demanding internal
communications that fail to enable this important service. Disconnection and de facto dismantling
of the EBS in favor of pay for service revenue should be blocked.
Then there is: "As Radio.no notes, Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) will provide Norwegian listeners more diverse radio channel content than ever before. Indeed, DAB already hosts 22 national channels in Norway, as opposed to FM radio’s five, and a TNS Gallup survey shows that 56% of Norwegian listeners use digital radio every day. While Norway is the first country in the world to set a date for an FM switch-off, other countries in Europe and Southeast Asia are also in the process of transitioning to DAB." (gizmodo-dot-com)
Thus I also want DAB support in future phones...
Re: (Score:3)
But the original question is interesting. Local radio is invaluable in a disaster. The power budget and infrastructure (transmitter towers) for FM radio are much more available. The service area of a single FM radio tower could cover hundreds if not thousands of cell towers. Cell towers also depend on digital backbone and data connections (routers) that also need uninterruptible power.
But the thing about the cellular network is that it's incredibly resilient. Some years ago we had a major earthquake here that wiped out significant chunks of a city and the surrounding area. No power, no water, nothing. The cellular network partially functioned (on banks of lead-acid batteries at many cell sites) until crews got generators in as a priority (which included, among other things, competing cellphone providers servicing and powering each others' gear), and cellphones themselves were battery p
Re: (Score:3)
[probably as part of the Qualcomm/whomever chip for processing cell phone signals]./ Since the signal is [most likely] coming from the cellular chip
It's apparently part of the bluetooth module in a lot of phones, rather than the cellular radio..
You need an antennae/other external hardware that receives those signals properly.
This is generally accomplished by using headphone wires as antennae.
Hardware-level support for FM [google.com] is apparently present for some fairly popular devices, but not activated in software. I don't think that the difficulties (power requirements, technical difficulty of implementation, etc) are as serious as you're making them out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a meme, it's a law.
Betteridge's law of headlines
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except it's not a law ... not a natural law, not a man-made law ... it's an observation, that's about it.
You can call it a law all you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Ergo, meme.
Re: (Score:3)
I've gotten Amber Alerts on my phone without using any data service. If the RF protocols that kind of emergency broadcast, I am sure they support more traditional ones as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because mobile makers have the FM capability switched off. The National Association of Broadcasters has been asking mobile makers to change this. But the mobile industry, which profits from selling data to smartphone users, says that with the consumer's move toward mobile streaming apps, the demand for radio simply isn't there."
It's not the mobile makers (excepting Apple) that don't want FM turned on, it's the carriers who want you to upgrade to a plan with more data.
Re: (Score:2)
Already worked. Unlike FM radio, Amber alerts and storm warnings show up.
Only problem for broadcasters is I'm not listening to their sponsors all day. That is the beef, not a missed alert.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also while the cell phone infrastructure is controlled by four large companies, anybody can send out a fm signal with the right (cheap) equipment. Also, strong fm signals can go 100 miles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cell towers also have emergency generators.
Good, then there will be more redundancy.
I've gone through enough hurricanes to watch even land-lined phones becoming a luxury. Cell towers are useless, and their backups wouldn't even last a week. FM is old stable tech and easier to use to give out information.
Even from the consumer perspective, using FM would likely reduce the power consumption compared to streaming from a web service.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
AM would be better but can it be done on a chip?
Re: (Score:3)
AM is even better, because of the range. So, keep an AM/FM radio with your emergency supplies. If your emergency supply is only a cell phone, you're screwed anyway.
While AM has a better range it is next to worthless during a storm. Lightning strikes interfere with the signal making it impossible to hear the broadcast.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
I've gone through enough hurricanes to watch even land-lined phones becoming a luxury.
Well, it seem to me, that living in a hurricane zone increases your chances of dying in a disaster.
So, if you are worried about lack of FM support on phones . . . just move somewhere else.
Jokes aside, most of us live in areas that are not prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or Godzilla. If you do choose to live in such places, it is important to be prepared, and have an emergency kit. In which you can just pack in a good ole' FM battery.
Re: (Score:3)
Jokes aside, most of us live in areas that are not prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or Godzilla. If you do choose to live in such places, it is important to be prepared, and have an emergency kit. In which you can just pack in a good ole' FM battery.
I dunno, a large fraction of America is under threat from the first three of those natural disasters.
Hurricanes can strike essentially the entire southeast quarter of the country with devastating force, and can even hit further north along the Atlantic coast. They're possible on the Pacific coast, too, but much less likely, I believe.
Tornadoes are common in more or less the middle third.
Earthquakes are only highly common in California (that I know of offhand), but can be something of a threat in other areas
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes aside, most of us live in areas that are not prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or Godzilla. If you do choose to live in such places, it is important to be prepared, and have an emergency kit. In which you can just pack in a good ole' FM battery.
It would be much wiser to pack in a good ole' hand-crank FM radio. Prices range from just a few bucks on up. Around $30 will get you a halfway-decent radio/flashlight combo.
Of course, $5 will get you a hand-crank cellphone charger...
Re: (Score:3)
...and work great when everyone tries to use them at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't matter much if the links are cut. A radio station could at least install a temporary antenna if it doesn't have one on its roof.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why do you assume they wouldn't be? Broadcast facilities usually are engineered with disasters in mind; it doesn't mean they are invincible, but there are almost always backup batteries, backup generators, and alternate transmission sites available. Your typical 3G tower is not as well engineered and can't be as reliably counted on for disaster communication.
Re: Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Its coverage. One single FM transmitter can cover area within a hundred miles, while cell towers can handle only a few miles. To have the same coverage as an FM tower, you need a lot more cell towers. What is easier to keep running ? One FM tower or hundreds if not thousands of cell towers ? Furthermore, FM transmitters are a lot simpler than cell transmitters.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
>FM would mean being able to "broadcast" information to a lot of people at once, and discourage them from clogging up the network.
GSM had this feature many years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Broadcast
"Cell Broadcast is not as affected by traffic load; therefore, it may be usable during a disaster when load spikes (mass call events) tend to crash networks, as the 7 July 2005 London bombings showed. Another example was during the Tsunami catastrophe in Asia. Dialog GSM, an operator in Sri Lanka was able to provide ongoing emergency information to its subscribers, to warn of incoming waves, to give news updates, to direct people to supply and distribution centres, and even to arrange donation collections using Celltick's Cell Broadcast Center, based on Cell Broadcast Technology."
But even though it is many many years old, it is still in an infant stage in actual implementation on handsets and MNOs, e.g. local MNOs implemented CB over 3g networks in 2013, still nog 4g support for it.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Because these FM transmitters:
1. Have a much greater range. In most cases you will be able to hear a station transmitting from tens of kilometers away, in some cases, hundreds. Cell tower range is limited to single digit kilometers in most cases due to optimization for speed over range. Towers over less populated areas will be optimized for range, but even those barely cover ten to twenty kilometers in best case scenarios. Also, see 4.
2. Are typically designed to have backup power in case of an emergency, and are generally often hardened against many disasters because they are supposed to be used to transmit emergency messages.
3. On a final note, most FM receivers also have AM receiver function. That has range of hundreds of kilometers, thousands during the night due to skywave effect. This is the best technology for emergency broadcasts, as one station can cover up to thousands of kilometers radius around itself.
4. Are one way transmitters. That means they don't rely on phone's weak transmitter's ability to reach the tower.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you assume FM transmissions would still be working?
Because they continued to transmit during disasters in the past. The best predictor of future performance is past performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... can the phones only receive or also send?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in freedomland we have something called HD Radio. I guess its like DAB but I've never seen an actual physical receiver or known a person who has one.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that for less than the cost of a burger and fries you could stop by a dollar store and pickup a half dozen headphones and distribute them throughout your life (home, work, car, etc) in case of emergency? No doubt that the chances of it actually being necessary aren't all that high but I can't think of any cheaper method of disaster preparation either. By the way a radio is #3 on the FEMA disaster preparedness kit right behind Food and Water.
http://www.ready.gov/kit [ready.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
By the way a radio is #3 on the FEMA disaster preparedness kit right behind Food and Water.
More important than shelter!
Re: (Score:2)
Its a kit, besides a small tent "shelter" isn't exactly something you can stuff into a duffel bag. And its a FEMA list, no one said it was perfect. Though I'd guess that the intent of most preparedness lists/kits is for immediate survival & getting out of the disaster area. Shelter would be provided afterwards by emergency services, in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the audio cable works as an antenna. It also works with portable, wired, speakers.
No one listens to music while walking the dog or jogging, or have they all switched to bluetooth? Headphones are very popular with commuters who crave a reason not to strike up conversations with random travellers!
I must buy one of those gamer headsets that cover your ears. I find bud-style earphones annoying as they inevitably fall out when the wearer inadvertently yanks at the cord.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most cell phones turn off the internal speaker when there is anything plugged into the headphone jack....
Re: (Score:3)
There is no additional drain unless you are actively using the FM receiver.
Also, your phone people already has the chip, it's just disabled.
This isn't about mandating an FM chip in every cellphone, it's about mandating that the existing FM chips not be disabled (which only happens in the US versions)