/linked/2017/09/28/fcc-fm-iphones

Comments

Adam:
Regarding Apples statement regarding the antenna, didn't the nano at one point have a FM receiver that used the headphone cables as the antenna?

What bothers me a bit about this is that I believe if Apple wanted to, they could easily and cheaply add an FM receiver to future iPhones.
11:10 pm — Thursday, 28 September 2017
jimothy:
Lessons that Gruber would never admit:

1. Politicians and regulators should tell businesses to run their businesses, because they rarely have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.

2. If people are to rely on the government during a natural disaster at all, they certainly should not rely on the national government, because it rarely has enough knowledge to do so competently. The governments of Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico are much more likely to know how to respond to hurricanes than bureaucrats in D.C., because they are much more likely to have gone through them before, and are more closely connected to those who will experience the consequences of them (whether they have the resources is a separate topic).

11:37 pm — Thursday, 28 September 2017
Q*Bert:
Pretty sure the "FM radio" isn't going to work with no power anyway. I guess they should be demanding Apple flip the switch on the infinite power supply they have in all the iPhones as well.
12:10 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
ohm:
Wow, a reasonable article summoning Trump.

Q*Bert:

Certainly no power refers to the grid going down. Even when the grid is down, portable and emergency FM radio has domain, through backup batteries, stations, community depot, etcetera.
12:20 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
Steve Emballmer:
>What’s absurd is that the FCC commissioner would take his understanding of the iPhone’s technical capabilities from a newspaper editorial

What's absurd is the existence of an "FCC commissioner."
12:46 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
yawn:
"no antenna designed for FM radio."

the analogue headphone socket is where the antenna plugs in - coaxial cables to earpieces doing dual duty. As on the iPod Nano (RIP).

So, within the realms of possibility on the iPhone 6/6s/SE. But since FM frequencies are being reclaimed, a short term hack - and would users even know what FM radio is? HAM emergency types aren't using FM.
12:48 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
daniel:
I bet some guy in China could add FM radio to his iPhone 7 or 8 and make a youtube video documenting the process.
1:30 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
Vanilla Dry Ice:
Doesn't that fuckface Pai have a technical background? Which doesn't preclude from being entirely politically-motivated in his response, but still, the guy's a bonafide douchebag motherfucker.
1:38 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
Biff:
This FCC? [(link)](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170919/10061338239/fcc-sued-ignoring-foia-request-investigating-fraudulent-net-neutrality-comments.shtml)
2:31 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
My Optional Name:
>Doesn't that fuckface Pai have a technical background? Which doesn't preclude from being entirely politically-motivated in his response, but still, the guy's a bonafide douchebag motherfucker.

No, he doesn't have a technical background. He was a lawyer for Verizon, which is all you need to know.

And don't be so condescending. Fuckfaces and douchebag motherfuckers don't deserve to be compared to this child-eating dingo.
3:56 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
Anonymous®:
It's just grandstanding.
8:23 am — Friday, 29 September 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
jimothy his the nail on the head.

Just another example of why government shouldn't regulate things they don't understand (which is everything).
4:21 pm — Friday, 29 September 2017
anonymous:
> What bothers me a bit about this is that I believe if Apple wanted to, they could easily and cheaply add an FM receiver to future iPhones.

Before they got rid of the headphone port, this was probably true. For example, if one had the Samsung S8, you can just download an app to listen to the radio. Hopefully you thought of this before the storm hit.

It would make a lot more sense for people to include an FM (+weather band) radio to their emergency kit. And some extra batteries.
4:52 pm — Friday, 29 September 2017
Shame on Apple!:
Apple could have prevented countless deaths if they had overlooked their own greed and enabled the government to fully and indiscriminately access the contents of all their smartphones through some sort of backdoor, including location data, which would help rescue workers find missing citizens. (Don't worry, the government would use this tool very responsibly.)
4:59 pm — Friday, 29 September 2017
anonymous:
![hello](https://www.transdiffusion.org/images/volksposter.jpg)
7:56 pm — Friday, 29 September 2017
anonymous:
my emergency weather radio has a hand crank to charge the battery.
10:34 pm — Friday, 29 September 2017
Legion of Bad Ideas:
I'm not sure what the point would be, given the iPhone battery generally lasts less than a day.

That said, politicians have no real understanding of the details of the technology. Even Goober doesn't really, although he talks a good game, and he's a lot closer to real life than the head of the FCC.

I'm glad; they are there for policy, not for details. Even the most technologically literate Senator (Wyden) knows less about technology than most DFWC readers.
2:02 am — Saturday, 30 September 2017
anonymous:
Furthermore, I’m sure the timing of Pai’s “go blame Apple” letter has nothing to do with 'yesterday’s vociferous criticism of the FCC’s handling of the aftermaths of hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.'

1. The criticism came from a partisan.

2. The response to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria has been praised.

3. Rosenworcel cannot explain what benefit hearings would bring. She admits earlier hurricanes were investigated. The problem isn't the costly investigation, but our inability to draw sound conclusions from them for political reasons.

4. Rosenworcel cannot describe how the FCC response could have been better.

5. This article is emblematic of why CNN has lost all credibility.
3:16 am — Saturday, 30 September 2017
My Optional Name:
>Just another example of why government shouldn't regulate things they don't understand (which is everything).

Tom Wheeler seemed to understand these things just fine. It sounds like the problem is simply the Republicans' choices in running things.
3:52 am — Saturday, 30 September 2017
John Horseshitter:
>It sounds like the problem is simply the Republicans' choices in running things.

Tom Wheeler's competence would be of no more pertinence than Ajit Pai's incompetence if the position doesn't exist in the first place.
6:57 am — Saturday, 30 September 2017
My Optional Name:
>Tom Wheeler's competence would be of no more pertinence than Ajit Pai's incompetence if the position doesn't exist in the first place.

No shit, Sherlock. But since the FCC isn't going anywhere, nor should it since it does serve an actual purpose, we'd be better served by people who know wtf they are doing.
3:03 pm — Saturday, 30 September 2017
ass:
I thought Wheeler was going to be a dickhead but he was one of the best chairman we've had and may ever have. Pai sucks donkey shit.
6:28 pm — Saturday, 30 September 2017
Carmen Yulín Cruz:
> The response to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria has been praised.

_chupa mi pinga, pendejo_
7:29 pm — Saturday, 30 September 2017
anonymous:
I 've seen Carmen Yulin Cruz – I wouldn't be surprised if she did have a dick. It gives her something to play with while not doing her job.
7:50 pm — Saturday, 30 September 2017
John Horseshitter:
>But since the FCC isn't going anywhere, nor should it since it does serve an actual purpose

Every government bureaucracy deems itself to "serve an actual purpose." The FCC is not necessary.
9:40 pm — Saturday, 30 September 2017
anonymous:
yeah, the FCC is totally not useful. let's just let everyone pollute the spectrum as much as they want, nothing bad can come from that.
12:38 am — Sunday, 1 October 2017
Legion of Bad Ideas:
The FCC originally was just a registry for tracking and allocating spectrum.

At some point it got into its head that it needed to ensure "equal access." How does it do that in the world of TV and radio?

Answer: it doesn't, as long as the content isn't political.

So why does it think that it needs to impose that sort of regulation on the internets?
1:11 pm — Sunday, 1 October 2017
Carmen Yulín Cruz:
> It gives her something to play with while not doing her job.

![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKiMBcdU8AAqBuo.jpg:small)

*puta tu madre!*
1:16 pm — Sunday, 1 October 2017
John Horseshitter:
>yeah, the FCC is totally not useful. let's just let everyone pollute the spectrum as much as they want, nothing bad can come from that.

Just because they originally served a purpose as a simple spectrum registry does not mean their current bloated existence is necessary.
7:13 pm — Sunday, 1 October 2017
anonymous:
> Just because they originally served a purpose as a simple spectrum registry does not mean their current bloated existence is necessary.

you know that little FCC logo on all digital devices? that means the device complies with FCC limits on radiated and conducted emissions. but totally, the FCC is useless. MAGA, amirite?
11:24 pm — Sunday, 1 October 2017
Gaping Firecock:
>you know that little FCC logo on all digital devices? that means the device complies with FCC limits on radiated and conducted emissions.

So what?

>but totally, the FCC is useless.

Yep.

>MAGA, amirite?

A stupid response. Trump loves big government.
11:28 pm — Sunday, 1 October 2017
Legion of Bad Ideas:
When it comes to Class A and B testing: do you know if the FCC actually does the testing itself?

Answer: it doesn't. Vendors submit devices to third parties for certification. Yes, the industry self-tests their electronics. How many devices actually are compliant? It's unclear, because nobody ever validates the testing "in the field." Anecdotally there are a lot of non-compliant devices; you'd have to talk to an RF guy, and that guy will rant for hours.

It's nice the FCC is trying to be more relevant, but in most aspects they just don't have the authority. That's why the previous "net neutrality" rules were struck down by the courts: because the FCC was overreaching.

You can read about it if you want, but you won't because it doesn't fit your personal belief system.

The FCC does a lot of good stuff...but America would be better served by the FCC allowing/allocating local-area digital HD transmissions (like with analog TV).
1:26 am — Monday, 2 October 2017
Legion of Bad Ideas:
General point: the FCC should not be anywhere near the content business, even if that business is making sure that a pipe is content-neutral.

That's the FTC's job, not the FCC's job.
1:27 am — Monday, 2 October 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!