Apple reminds the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary iPhone FM radios
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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=c4285cfe54bf6085bc...
Last time I went up into the mountains.
In my country mobile coverage is 99.5%.
What country is that? Even relatively well connected countries like Sweden and Norway have lots of spots out on some islands, deep in the forests or out in the mountains that don't have any mobile connection at all.
The Netherlands.
That 0.5% is mostly on the borders where there is possibility of interference with networks in the neighbouring country. The problem is also being fixed after a bit of national outrage over the fact that people can't reach emergency services in that 0.5% and the operators had to make promises to quickly cover that last bit too.
Every day, at places in and around my work, within a stones throw of the California State Capitol.
Last time when there was a power outage. Every cell tower died. When the power come back, it took about half a day before the cell towers where working again.
But, even if it is a legal requirement, it will not always work. All that is needed is a major storm that disrupts the normal power, and it will be down for days or maybe even months...
Not having WIFI or 4G available is also a good reason.
Because WIFI and 4G being down at the same time is a thing that happens ?
There actually was a bit of outrage over that last 0.5% a while back due to emergency services not being reachable in those areas and the mobile operators had to make promises to cover those areas as well. So yeah, coverage is pretty much total.
Also, big difference between emergency service and 3/4G suitable for audio streaming.
1. Only radio stations over a certain size. That necessarily means more commercial, less off-the-beaten path material. When I visit Miami, for example, there are many small, interesting radio stations with no internet portal.
2. Discovery. If you don't know what stations are available in your area, there is no simpler way to find out than simply spinning a dial along one axis. And what's the advantage of stations in your area? See #3 :)
3. Relevance of local culture. I like to hear banter, jokes, news, weather and concert listings from around my area.
4. Use of a single device. This is more of a cell phone vs. FM radio question. Of course if your phone has FM radio, you can tune in, but then you can't be on the phone and using your GPS at the same time. In my car I can scan for local stations while the GPS is running on my phone.
5. Tracking. If I'm using FM radio, I'm listening anonymously. If I listen via digital network, that info can be sold to many different countries.
6. Quality of experience. On FM, the transition between stations is nearly instantaneous. On digital wireless networks, there's always buffering, making it longer to find something good.
7. Convenience of calling in to the DJ. I often like to call DJs on local stations and ask them about the music they're playing. This is more complicated when I have to turn off the station and turn it back on when i'm done. It often takes a few minutes for them to respond. I wouldn't want to have to turn off the radio while I'm waiting for them to answer. Of course, this might not work as good on a cell phone - like #4 above, it might depend on the implementation.
Isn't it a lot easier to start broadcasting over the internet than over the air ? Operating an FM station is a huge investment. First you have to take part in the FM spectrum auction, which only occurs every couple of years, and then you'd have to bid and win a piece of the spectrum. That alone will cost you millions (last auction in my tiny country an FM frequency set you back 20 million euro for 6 years). Then you need the broadcast equipment, etc. etc.
Broadcasting on the internet, you could do that on a €25 Raspberry Pi if you wanted.
> Discovery. If you don't know what stations are available in your area, there is no simpler way to find out than simply spinning a dial along one axis.
Sure, but you have a handful of stations and they are only available in a small area. With streaming radio you have a choice of thousands of channels available worldwide. It's much easier to discover a station you like and you are not limited to the few stations in range.
> Relevance of local culture. I like to hear banter, jokes, news, weather and concert listings from around my area.
That's personal. Most people I know can't stand the DJ's on the radio who only love to hear themselves talk. It's the #1 complaint you hear about radio. One of the most popular FM stations here is the one that just broadcasts music 24/7.
> In my car I can scan for local stations while the GPS is running on my phone.
In my car I can listen to streaming music on my phone while the GPS is running on my dedicated SatNav.
> Quality of experience. On FM, the transition between stations is nearly instantaneous. On digital wireless networks, there's always buffering, making it longer to find something good.
You don't need to 'tune in' to find something, with streaming you can easily browse through a huge list of different stations and click the one you like. My phone certainly switches streams faster than my car stereo changes stations. With 100+Mbit 4G networks being common, buffering a few kB is pretty much instantaneous.
Even here in Germany, ubiquitous is not a term I would use for mobile Internet access when traveling between major cities, let alone when I am on the countryside.
Not since ~2001-2002
All my WP and Android devices also have FM radio.
[1] - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says-app...
[1] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.p...
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.
“Apple would like to remind the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary FM radios that iPhones don’t have” is pretty damn informative as far as titles go. It’s editorialized, sure, but clickbait would be “You’ll never guess which major phone brand the FCC is trying to bully!!”
...Typed from a 10 year old MBP running linux - FU Apple
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.
That attracts a certain class of Apple user that don't like anyone bad mouthing their anointed one, for any reason, so dowvotes happen. By all means show evidence to the contrary, alternatively, if you happen to be a part of "that class" of Apple user (you know, the kind to pitch a tent outside the Apple store kind, willing to trade body parts for shiny squares) then just leave some downvotes and i'll know.
But you know what... you're right, that is basic internet, there are just to many of these people. Perhaps once Apple completes it's cycle and returns to the fragmented market milking monstrosity it was in the 90s this will all be over and the cult will shrink back to a more manageable size.
Do people genuinely believe if a head of marketing of a corporation tells them that they "care deeply about the safety of our users"?
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.
Consider light and Radio are the same thing, but frequency is really important.