9/1/10

Should FM Chips be mandated for Cell Phones?

There has been a lot of "buzz" lately about the efforts on the part of the NAB to promote the addition of FM chips to all cell phones, turning them into FM radios. At first, I was totally against it. However, the more input I get and consider, the more I can see some good possibilities, if the efforts do not get derailed in political fights.

The potential drain on the battery notwithstanding, having an FM radio in every cell phone could be a good idea. Perhaps you have noticed many people today no longer wear watches - but they carry a cell phone everywhere. Having a way to reach out to alert them to emergencies and dangers would be a true public service.

SOME GOOD POINTS, BUT IS IT READY FOR PRIME TIME?

One good argument actually exists: although cell phone companies have the ability to issue "broadcast text alerts" for emergencies, it is a character limited ability - but one they have rarely bothered to implement. Having an FM radio at every cell phone equipped hand during an emergency might be a good idea. Broadcasters are often the only lifeline communities have in times of emergency.

On the other hand, there is still a lot that would need to be resolved before this would truly be a useful solution to a problem. For example, can good is the reception that can be had on a cell phone, aside from the most powerful stations? Where does this leave the smaller stations? How would a useful antenna be implemented (remember the Apple iPhone antenna mess from a couple of months ago?) without requiring users to keep a long wire attached to the cell phone? What about battery life? And, is this to be HD capable (even more battery stressing) or analog? 

And then we have to ask: what about AM stations?  They were promised HD would revitalize the AM band. Most AM operators would suggest that promise has not done much for them. There is nothing here for AM in the current proposal.

Furthermore, some would argue that Radio has boxed itself in, with years of shoehorning marginal facilities onto the AM and FM bands, with little thought to actual Public Service. More than a few stations cannot truly cover their City of License, even if there were staff to provide content.

Unfortunately, part of the NAB's effort is tied to the Performance Royalty Tax issue that has been pressed by the recording industry for the past couple of years. The current NAB leadership appears to be trying to make a "package deal" where the industry would accept a small royalty fee in return for having the government mandate the FM chips in cell phones. To some this seems like a good deal. Here I am not so sure.

The biggest hurdle to overcome seems to be in identifying the basic goal. Is it to get listenership for Radio? If so, the Performance Royalty issue is going to be a big one to overcome. Discussion of that aspect is more oriented toward the owners and managers arena - after all, engineers, programmers, announcers, and other staffers have little to say or do in the face of such payments.

EMERGENCY ALERTS - THE REAL DIFFICULT ISSUE

If the big concern and issue really is about getting out information during emergencies, there are several major problems - and these affect more folks than realized by most.

• First, there is the coverage issue. Well, clearly any coverage is better than none.
• At the same time, the EAS has proven to be a broken system. Will having FM chips improve a system that is not working very well now?
  • Most stations will not run any EAS alert except those required (including the increasing useless Required Weekly Test) by the FCC.
  • Those that do often give only vague information on the locations involved. The name of some county gives no useful information to people driving on the highways. When drivers can get seven different stations running the same satellite talk program, each hiding their station ID in the middle of a spot set at :49 and identifying only a county (or counties), how can a listener know if they are not driving head on into a tornado, for example?
  • Stations often over-hype any storm or possible danger to the point many listeners no longer pay attention. 24/7 coverage of hurricanes that do not actually cause much damage make it harder for authorities to get cooperation during the next event.
  • Many Emergency Managers who have EAS entry points view it as the last thing on their list to do - there is no partnership with broadcasters in many areas, and they do not welcome scrutiny of their actions and timing of warnings during an emergency. News reports continue to feature EMs who think "reverse 911" is the Holy Grail of warning systems.
  • When alerts come from EMs or the National Weather Service, they often are unintelligible either due to personnel who do not know how to speak into a microphone properly, or have long, rambling text messages written by someone who thinks "legal" not "communicate." The results from a lack of training or priorities, from personnel that do not know nor really care what their message might do to cause listener tune-out. "That's not our job."
  • With LP stations worried that the FCC will issue fines for any slipup, there is a lot less interest in doing anything except relay the required tests and alerts.
  • With so many unattended stations - especially over holiday weekends - there is little opportunity for stations and EMs to communicate at all. Should there not be someone designated at every station for 24/7 contact?
  • While CAP promises more data, more information, who will be in the stations to see it?
• Meanwhile, the bureaucratic fiddling has not helped. Unfortunately, it is the nature of governmental agencies to study, confer, delay, and communicate only when they unveil new policies and laws after they are adopted - and often without considering how they really will affect those involved on the state and local level.
  • After years of talk, FEMA and the FCC are still debating possible changes to Part 11 and the final standards for implementing new EAS procedures, the CAP, and what new hardware stations might be forced to purchase.
  • Although the first ever EAN test was conducted in Alaska in January, have you heard anything since? Any information at all about what changes need to be made? When the promised National Test will occur?
  • We keep hearing about the "180 Day Clock" when stations must install CAP. The start of the clock keeps slipping. The reason? We are not sure. The agencies that control this are not talking. And who will pay for the new boxes?
  • The engineering community has done tremendous work in the recent years to develop a system that could deliver a lot of information and data to stations. But the best system in the world is useless if no one uses it.
  • Management and programmers have yet to be truly brought into understanding what is coming with the new receivers, the mandated "Governor's Override" and what this might mean to their on-air product. Why not?

It may sound a bit like we have drifted from the issue of the FM chip in cell phones to problems with the EAS.

Perhaps we have.

But they are interrelated.

Maybe this is a good time to get NAB, NASBA, owners, and managers to give attention to the larger issue of how stations serve their listeners. Maybe if they sat down and helped form the outlines of the next generation of EAS procedures, the nation and local authorities might have a warning system that was more than an aural "annoyance" (a recent cartoon called EAS the "Extremely Annoying noises System) and more of a reason for people to remember to turn on the radio when there is an emergency or other such event.

If all this talk about adding FM chips to cell phones puts some attention to the EAS from the entire industry, then we have the starting point where options can be explored. If no one pays attention, an unfunded federal mandate will eventually come out of the bureaucratic cubicles that will merely cost stations money, while making little difference in the overall warning system.

Do I want to see FM chips in cell phones?  Yes.  No.  Maybe.  This could be a great idea. It could be a waste of effort. Frankly, I think it all depends upon whether or not everyone makes their voices heard at the FCC, FEMA, and NAB. Yawning could be dangerous for EAS and Radio itself.
 

Home - Opt-in Newsletter - Tech Mailing lists - Contact - Help