5 ms·

Submitted title gives the impression that he's going to do something about it. Actual article title: "FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on,

by avemg 10y ago

Submitted title gives the impression that he's going to do something about it. Actual article title: "FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it"

seltzered_ 10y ago
This. From the article: "“As a believer in free markets and the rule of law, I cannot support a government mandate requiring activation of these chips,” Pai said. He believes the FCC doesn’t have the power to issue such a mandate and says it’s best for the market to sort things out."
- sverige 10y ago
  Sometimes when the rights of sellers and the rights of buyers clash, it becomes obvious that the rights of buyers should be protected by the government through regulation since the market isn't fully free due to monopolistic or oligopolistic market forces. Even Mr. Pai can see that this is stupid, but is unwilling to require manufacturers to do the right thing. This is one of those cases where libertarianism loses its appeal.
  - macspoofing 10y ago
    No. In this case he's spot on. There's really no need for the government to interject in this specific matter.
  - wyager 10y ago
    Libertarianism loses its appeal because cell phone manufacturers don't want to waste money and engineering time supporting FM radio, which almost no one listens to anyway? There's plenty of competition among cell companies, and the market has spoken; people don't really care about FM radio on their cell phones.
    - Fej 10y ago
      It is a matter of safety. Given a national crisis, the cellular networks may go down, but the radio will practically always work.
      - oceanswave 10y ago
        If something takes out the 215,000 cell towers in the us, I wonder if that something will affect the 27,000 FM Radio towers as well - some of which are co located on the same masts. Granted, it's easier to broadcast FM and be received
        ouid 10y ago
        Cell networks can go down for non-structural reasons. Radio has no network load.
        chimeracoder 10y ago
        > If something takes out the 215,000 cell towers in the us, I wonder if that something will affect the 27,000 FM Radio towers as well - some of which are co located on the same masts. After Hurricane Sandy, all the cell towers in Lower Manhattan were out of service - between my roommate and me, were were unable to get any signal on Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint. Fortunately he had a hand-powered radio (electricity was also out) and we listened to that to determine when it was safe to go out, when the cabs were running, etc.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      I agree with you. It doesn't matter though. I think we can all predict the future here pretty easily. The instant this went into affect if anyone ever tried to create a rule (assuming it's survived court challenges, etc.) Apple would simply demand from its suppliers that they give them chips that DO NOT have FM radios. It's not like Apple is hiding GPS functionality from users will relying on it itself, it's just a little thing that happens to be tacked onto the silicon. If the government tries to force Apple to do something they don't want, they'll just choose to buy chips without it. At that point you're where the Radio industry tried to be many years ago where instead of asking for the thing that's on the phone to be turned on, you're now trying to mandate features into the phone to protect your business model. That's a very very steep slope to get support for. Consumers are free to vote with their wallets, this doesn't seem to be a big deal to many of them. I don't think there's a clear public interest in requiring it the way there was GPS functionality to help locate people calling 911 for emergencies. Even if the groups got their way, there are so many ways for Apple and others to wiggle out of it that I don't see how this would ever work.
  - pjscott 10y ago
    What? According to the article, "44 percent of the 'top-selling smartphones' in the US had activated FM radios". If you want a mainstream smartphone that can listen to FM radio, that is totally a thing you can just buy.
  - scarface74 10y ago
    What monopolistic market forces? There are dozens of phone manufacturers and you can buy an unlocked phone and use on any GSM carrier.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- frugalmail 10y ago
  >"...He believes the FCC doesn’t have the power to issue such a mandate and says it’s best for the market to sort things out." Good thing we're paying him to perform such an important job. ...Wait, what is supposed to be doing?
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
the FM radio on my phone uses the headphone cable as the FM antenna... without it, the signal is junk. new phones don't have headphone jack... so what good is a radio turned on with no way to hook up an antenna? you're all idiots.
wtbob 10y ago
> FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it That's a principled stand: 'I want to do something, but I do not have legitimate authority to make sit so.' It's actually amazingly principled for someone in Washington.
- MBCook 10y ago
  Right. He's simply expressing his own opinion without trying to force the law around it. This isn't really any different from a police sergeant disagreeing publicly with something but saying he still going to enforce the existing laws around it or he doesn't think would be legal to make a law to cover it. For example, flag burning. Lots of people think it should be illegal, lots of people know that that would be unconstitutional.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Political communication is not about transferring information or truth, but about manipulation. You and I aren't consumers of it or citizens, we're targets. Another way to think about it is the old poker advice: "If you look around and don't know who the sucker is, it's you." Many like him (I don't know him in particular) want to appear to appeal to our principles in order to manipulate us into support or at least quiescence, so they use the words that accomplish that. Meanwhile they are enacting policies (and ideologies) they desire, including enriching big business and other wealthy constituents of his party. It's like watching a magician - don't watch where they're directing your attention, look at the other hand. Or, 'follow the money' - who benefits? These messages are carefully crafted - literally; experts are hired to compose them, messaging is tested like marketing, and people are trained in what to say (talking points). For example, you may recall that in the debate about cutting estate taxes the GOP started calling them "death taxes" and taking about the cost to small farmers and businesses; all that messaging was composed, using the process I described, by a guy they hired in the 1990s - and sure enough, 10 years later people I know were repeating it like it was gospel.
  - bnolsen 10y ago
    but death taxes suck. government coming in during time of grief and taking people's money that likely was already taxed one or more times. cold, heartless, calculating, disrespectful. everything we hate about government.

by avemg 10y ago

Submitted title gives the impression that he's going to do something about it. Actual article title: "FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it"

seltzered_ 10y ago

This. From the article: "“As a believer in free markets and the rule of law, I cannot support a government mandate requiring activation of these chips,” Pai said. He believes the FCC doesn’t have the power to issue such a mandate and says it’s best for the market to sort things out."

sverige 10y ago
Sometimes when the rights of sellers and the rights of buyers clash, it becomes obvious that the rights of buyers should be protected by the government through regulation since the market isn't fully free due to monopolistic or oligopolistic market forces. Even Mr. Pai can see that this is stupid, but is unwilling to require manufacturers to do the right thing. This is one of those cases where libertarianism loses its appeal.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  No. In this case he's spot on. There's really no need for the government to interject in this specific matter.
- wyager 10y ago
  Libertarianism loses its appeal because cell phone manufacturers don't want to waste money and engineering time supporting FM radio, which almost no one listens to anyway? There's plenty of competition among cell companies, and the market has spoken; people don't really care about FM radio on their cell phones.
  - Fej 10y ago
    It is a matter of safety. Given a national crisis, the cellular networks may go down, but the radio will practically always work.
    - oceanswave 10y ago
      If something takes out the 215,000 cell towers in the us, I wonder if that something will affect the 27,000 FM Radio towers as well - some of which are co located on the same masts. Granted, it's easier to broadcast FM and be received
      - ouid 10y ago
        Cell networks can go down for non-structural reasons. Radio has no network load.
      - chimeracoder 10y ago
        > If something takes out the 215,000 cell towers in the us, I wonder if that something will affect the 27,000 FM Radio towers as well - some of which are co located on the same masts. After Hurricane Sandy, all the cell towers in Lower Manhattan were out of service - between my roommate and me, were were unable to get any signal on Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint. Fortunately he had a hand-powered radio (electricity was also out) and we listened to that to determine when it was safe to go out, when the cabs were running, etc.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    I agree with you. It doesn't matter though. I think we can all predict the future here pretty easily. The instant this went into affect if anyone ever tried to create a rule (assuming it's survived court challenges, etc.) Apple would simply demand from its suppliers that they give them chips that DO NOT have FM radios. It's not like Apple is hiding GPS functionality from users will relying on it itself, it's just a little thing that happens to be tacked onto the silicon. If the government tries to force Apple to do something they don't want, they'll just choose to buy chips without it. At that point you're where the Radio industry tried to be many years ago where instead of asking for the thing that's on the phone to be turned on, you're now trying to mandate features into the phone to protect your business model. That's a very very steep slope to get support for. Consumers are free to vote with their wallets, this doesn't seem to be a big deal to many of them. I don't think there's a clear public interest in requiring it the way there was GPS functionality to help locate people calling 911 for emergencies. Even if the groups got their way, there are so many ways for Apple and others to wiggle out of it that I don't see how this would ever work.
- pjscott 10y ago
  What? According to the article, "44 percent of the 'top-selling smartphones' in the US had activated FM radios". If you want a mainstream smartphone that can listen to FM radio, that is totally a thing you can just buy.
- scarface74 10y ago
  What monopolistic market forces? There are dozens of phone manufacturers and you can buy an unlocked phone and use on any GSM carrier.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
frugalmail 10y ago
>"...He believes the FCC doesn’t have the power to issue such a mandate and says it’s best for the market to sort things out." Good thing we're paying him to perform such an important job. ...Wait, what is supposed to be doing?

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

the FM radio on my phone uses the headphone cable as the FM antenna... without it, the signal is junk. new phones don't have headphone jack... so what good is a radio turned on with no way to hook up an antenna? you're all idiots.

wtbob 10y ago

> FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it That's a principled stand: 'I want to do something, but I do not have legitimate authority to make sit so.' It's actually amazingly principled for someone in Washington.

MBCook 10y ago
Right. He's simply expressing his own opinion without trying to force the law around it. This isn't really any different from a police sergeant disagreeing publicly with something but saying he still going to enforce the existing laws around it or he doesn't think would be legal to make a law to cover it. For example, flag burning. Lots of people think it should be illegal, lots of people know that that would be unconstitutional.
hackuser 10y ago
Political communication is not about transferring information or truth, but about manipulation. You and I aren't consumers of it or citizens, we're targets. Another way to think about it is the old poker advice: "If you look around and don't know who the sucker is, it's you." Many like him (I don't know him in particular) want to appear to appeal to our principles in order to manipulate us into support or at least quiescence, so they use the words that accomplish that. Meanwhile they are enacting policies (and ideologies) they desire, including enriching big business and other wealthy constituents of his party. It's like watching a magician - don't watch where they're directing your attention, look at the other hand. Or, 'follow the money' - who benefits? These messages are carefully crafted - literally; experts are hired to compose them, messaging is tested like marketing, and people are trained in what to say (talking points). For example, you may recall that in the debate about cutting estate taxes the GOP started calling them "death taxes" and taking about the cost to small farmers and businesses; all that messaging was composed, using the process I described, by a guy they hired in the 1990s - and sure enough, 10 years later people I know were repeating it like it was gospel.
- bnolsen 10y ago
  but death taxes suck. government coming in during time of grief and taking people's money that likely was already taxed one or more times. cold, heartless, calculating, disrespectful. everything we hate about government.