One major aspect for mandating FM radio in every cell phone (and making it ON remotely) may be requirement from emergency announcement and security response. In case of earthquake, tsunami, flash flood, terrorist attack etc. this may be able to save few life. Take an example of 9/11. Having cell phone with FM radio and making it ON remotely would have played significant difference to many lives. Same thing could be true for Virginia Technology University shooting incident.
I would also strongly recommend this form cultural point of view. You must get engaged to local community announcement and having this in cell phone may encourage family to do so. You may always use other options of your choice.
Mandating FM radio in every cell phone handset appears to be nothing more than a ploy to increase broadcast royalties. There is no other valid reason to include FM in a handset. For local community announcements, the wireless provider can send a text to every cell phone in the local area (such as the ones I get every time I get near the southern US border on IH-8 or IH-10) telling me what the costs are for services in that country. There are a number of things that can be done that would be far better and less obtrusive than requiring an unused FM receiver in every cell phone.
A federal, state or local mandate in the US for FM reception by mobile handset cry's out - - special interest!
This feature, in the not too distant had been available on mobile phones from both Nokia & Motorola. This seldom used feature by US consumers eventually feel off the feature-function marketing requirement list, and from this product engineer's perspective should stay out of the design of handsets until considerable consumer demand requires and begs for FM radio on the handset.
Here's a feature-function I'd like to see in mobile phones --- How about a quality of service requirement that would result in "fewer dropped calls."
Now this is a feature where we have pent-up consumer demand!
It is already possible to broadcast messages to mbile phones - by texting. That is more effective than FM radio since you will receive the message also if your phone is off at the time of broadcasting. This method is already used in several countries.
Politicians mandating technical features is not how I prefer to life. If a need a nanny I will hire one.
I was hoping that this was going to be a safety issue as hm said, but I caught this article on Information Week (http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226900096&subSection=News) only to discover that this is a non-taxpayer funded bailout of the radio industry and the recording industry. In exchange for bumping up bogus listener numbers to boost ad sales, the NAB is promising to to pay the recording industry $100M annually for broadcasting music. what a waste of effort.
Bailing out radio industry is one aspect. However, we really doubt its efficacy.
But I see distinct difference between text message and forced and loud radio message. If I am working on something interesting/ important or talking to someone, I will not read text message at that time. I will wait until it is over. This may be few seconds to few minutes. However, when a radio switches on remotely at high pitch with sudden announcement, it will get my attention immediately. The difference of attention by few seconds saves lives. Is not that the purpose of smoke detector – it makes alert sooner and those few second gives us chance to escape.
If the phone is off, as it usually will be, an emergency message will not be received. Also, AM radio, not FM, is used for emergencies!
Finally, how many emergencies occur to people NOT in emergency zones such as at sea in a boat or skiing on Mt. Rainier? Those people use scanners or other dedicated emergency receivers.
What good would have been done by broadcasting to cell phones on FM band during the 9-11 attacks? Such broadcasts would have INTERFERED with emergency cell communications.
How many tsunamis or floods have occurred recently during which an "emergency warning" would have helped?
During Katrina, in New Orleans, people would have tuned in on their radios, not sat around with cell phones on, waiting for an emergency message.
Do we really need government mandates by people obsessed with "emergencies", when the current threat is CHRONIC unemployment and recession?
This has nothing to do with emergency alerts. It is quite simply a recording industry bailout. The difference is this time the NAB is involved for it's own self-interested reasons. An FM receiver in every cell phone would give a boost to FM radio audience numbers and help radio stations better compete -- if not in reality, then at least in theory.
The NAB is hoping it can get this tuner mandate imposed on cell phones in much the same way that the ATSC digital off-air tuner mandate was imposed on TV manufacturers for the U.S. market a few years ago. Nevermind the fact that almost nobody uses those off-air HDTV tuners -- the mere fact that every modern TV includes one gives the NAB some hope that a few more years of profits can be squeezed out of the obsolete business model of U.S. commercial TV broadcasting. Now they want to do the same for their FM radio broadcaster members.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.