6 ms·
Apple reminds the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary iPhone FM radios
- mark-r 9y agoThe article says the FCC must test all radio devices, but that's not true at all. The manufacturer is responsible for testing the device to ensure it meets FCC regulations.
- rwmj 9y agoI'd also be a bit surprised if the FCC were involved with FM radio receivers. Can you not make a simple transistor radio in the US without getting it approved by the FCC?
- culturestate 9y agoTo your specific question: no, I don't think a transistor radio would require certification unless it was somehow RF emissive. On a broader level, making things without the FCC is fine unless you start disrupting communications networks; selling them is a different issue. In reality, all of this testing and certification is done by independent laboratories and the FCC mostly just makes sure the compliance paperwork is in order.
- metaphor 9y ago> To your specific question: no, I don't think a transistor radio would require certification unless it was somehow RF emissive. How would you know your device wasn't RF emissive if it was never tested? By design, sure, but that doesn't account for radiated spurious emissions.
- makomk 9y agoDepending on the exact architecture used, it's surprisingly easy to accidentally leak your first IF oscillator out the antenna port and broadcast it to everyone in the area. The FCC seems to be relatively lenient about FM radio receivers in general though and let manufacturers self-certify their compliance with the rules without any independent testing.
- metaphor 9y agoSure, but the set of rules applicable to one-off hobbyists are different from commercially manufactured/mass distributed electronics.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jdietrich 9y agoHome-built devices made in quantities of five or less do not generally need FCC authorization. Most commercially-made electronic devices are subject to FCC authorization regardless of whether they're intended to act as a radio transmitter, because of the possibility of unintended electromagnetic emissions. The local oscillator in a superhet radio receiver, the clock in a digital circuit or the switching frequency of a switched-mode power supply could create harmful interference. The latter is notorious for causing interference today, but TV and radio receivers used to be a significant cause of interference. FM broadcast receivers are subject to verification, which is the lowest tier of authorization and is essentially a self-certification process; the manufacturer must ensure that the product complies with FCC standards, but the testing does not need to be performed by an accredited laboratory. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4285cfe54bf6085bc13a9437ab0957f&mc=true&node=pt47.1.15&rgn=div5 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4285cfe54bf6085bc...
- rwmj 9y agoHas anyone ever used the FM radio in their phone? I did once but got tired trying to orientate the phone and the headphone cable in a position to get decent reception.
- batiudrami 9y agoI used to use mine every day at work. Was frustrating to find that my Galaxy S7 doesn't have one (or it is disabled) - though a little portable replacement was inexpensive.
- Aaargh20318 9y agoMost radio stations have streams available in much better quality than FM. Why choose FM over streaming ?
- Angostura 9y agoNot on an unlimited data plan?
- Aaargh20318 9y agoYou don't need a data plan for wifi.
- Angostura 9y agoI use listen to radio when I'm out and about, gardening, running, etc.
- metaphor 9y agoReceived signal strength. Despite popular belief, cell service requires cell towers, which doesn't exist everywhere grass grows.
- Aaargh20318 9y ago
- metaphor 9y agoThis article is misleading to say the least, and the issued a statement doesn't even link to anything relevant. Summarily clickbait garbage.
- csydas 9y agoThey mislinked because the page they sourced for the statement has a weird set up where the url changes based on your scroll position on the page (scroll down and you will get this link [1]). It's an honest mistake, not clickbait. [1] - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says-apple-should-activate-iphones-fm-radio-chip-but-newer-phones-dont-have-idUSKCN1C328C?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtechnologyNews+%28Reuters+Technology+News%29 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says-app...
- metaphor 9y agoOr they could have, I don't know, linked to the actual statement[1] like the converse of clickbait garbage would have. [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.p...
- csydas 9y agoI do agree, and this discussion is a bit meta of the actual article, but I find that if mistakenly mislinking a source is all it takes to be labeled clickbait, then the definition of clickbait is too broad to be of any use. The article does discuss the inconsistency between the FCC's statement and the reality of the builds pretty clearly with other sources as well commenting on the same thing. I'm not quite sure what about the article is clickbait or how it's being defined here. It would have been great to have the original statement, yes, and it was lazy or an oversight (both?) to not include it, but I wouldn't really call it clickbait. It's a coy title, for sure, but the FCC statement is indeed factually incorrect in its assertion that Apple has FM chips in their iPhone that can be activated.
- alpb 9y agoBetter link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/fcc-chief-ajit-pai-wants-apple-to-stop-disabling-fm-radio-chips-in-iphones/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/fcc-chief-ajit-pai-w... Until iPhone 7, there was a FM chip but it was from a commodity board and Apple actually never connected the chip to the phone. After iPhone 7, it simply does not exist. All this is in FCC filings of Apple.
- larrykwg 9y agoThats almost certainly a lie or misinformation, the baseband and wifi chips of an iPhone do have that capability, they are basically software defined radios. Its just that the firmware of those chips might have deactivated that capability. [edited]Apple generally wants you to use their music streaming service not radio.[/edited] Do people genuinely believe if a head of marketing of a corporation tells them that they "care deeply about the safety of our users"?
- Yaggo 9y agoBut do the devices have adequate antenna for FM band? Especially the newer phones without traditional headphone connector (headphone wire cannot be used as antenna). AFAIK you cannot easily have effective FM antenna inside the device because FM wavelength is relatively long.
- ploek 9y agoGenuine question, because I know little to nothing about SDR: Even with SDR, don't you need an antenna that fits the wavelength? WiFi and cellular frequencies are far from FM frequencies. And I think most other phones use the headphones as antenna, rather than inbuilt antennas.
- larrykwg 9y agoYes, all phones with FM capability uses the headphone jack, usb connector or passive antenna adapters to get the FM signal in the first place. There would be some options for the latest iPhones aswell even without headphone jack. Using an SDR you can generally receive a very broad range of frequencies its only a matter of the antenna. You can even build them yourself, there some tutorials that use a Pringles chips container to make a wifi antenna.
- Retric 9y agoFM bands ~(88 to 108 MHz) are very different than cellular bands ~(850 MHz - 1900 MHz). All radios have frequency limits, so sure they could add AM or FM radio but it physically does not exist in iPhone 5+ so they would need to manufacture it. Consider light and Radio are the same thing, but frequency is really important.
- tomxor 9y agoApple thinks every piece of hardware older than 2 years is imaginary. They wish. ...Typed from a 10 year old MBP running linux - FU Apple
- Retric 9y agoNo 4 year old iPhone could physically be used as an FM Radio. The only thing that changed in the last 2 years was removing chip logic that had never been connected to a radio making it pointless.
- joncampbelldev 9y agoWell I'm sure Apple would love to hear your ideas for remotely activating to unconnected FM chip inside the older iPhones
- tomxor 9y agoUnconnected? these parts are all on a single IC these days, "connecting" is almost always a matter of firmware... you think they would have bothered including a physically separate device that they intended to not use? the reason old models had FM is because it's all on one chip based on someone else's design that is difficult to modify, unwanted features aren't worth removing on that scale.
- chrisbennet 9y agoYou can't add a non-existent antenna in firmware.
- tomxor 9y agoSeriously? I did not know that... so they didn't just drop that pin to the headphones just in-case? what bunch of dicks. So lets see the full Apple response is really: "We finally rid the radio of that extra FM functionality in our last two phones, and we intentionally made it physically impossible to use in older phones because we have vested interests against FM radio even though it's a potentially life saving form of communication." And you are defending these people why.
- intoverflow2 9y agoNot sure why the article needed that smug condescending tone, not everyone is a tech blogger who upgrades their phone every year, plenty of people are still using sub iPhone 7 devices which as the article states DID include a radio hardware just not connected, yet the article seems to focus on how absurd it is that someone could be using an old device.
- c256 9y agoI'm not talking about the tone, but since the FCC demands and gets detailed technical specs of all cellphones sold in the U.S., it's hard to believe that the information "the thing that the head of the FCC has been asking about for a long time is clearly not possible" wasn't known by the FCC. It's not just about very recent devices versus phones a few years old; the FCC has the information to know that there hasnt been anything like a "switch to flip" for (at least) many years.