Broadcasters defend push for mandatory FM tuners

Newspaper publishers didn’t ask the U.S. Congress to put news-reading apps on mobile phones. Walkie-talkie and CB radio makers haven’t pushed Apple or Nokia for radio frequency compatibility.

But radio broadcasters are a bit more politically ambitious. Claiming public safety benefits, the National Association of Broadcasters is proposing a new federal law that would force manufacturers to implant FM tuners in all mobile phones.

In an interview with CNET on Thursday, NAB executive vice president Dennis Wharton said that because nonbroadcast wireless networks tend to become clogged during emergencies, “there would be a public benefit to have free and local radio on all of these devices.”

“I don’t think it’s a huge burden on cell phone manufacturers to add this device,” Wharton said. Lending its support is the Music First coalition, which includes the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the American Federation of Musicians.

What Wharton didn’t add, probably because it was obvious enough, is that giving radio stations a way to expand their audience–as more Americans turn to the Internet for news and iPods for music–also could yield a welcome increase in audience and revenue. (Since 2006, radio advertising revenue has plummeted from $21.4 billion to $16 billion, a 26 percent decline.)

This FM tuner proposal may seem to have popped, Aphrodite-like, out of the ether. But in reality, it’s been simmering for a while as part of a long-running discussion of radio royalties. One possibility: if NAB agrees to pay about $100 million a year to musicians and their managers in exchange for an FM tuner, then all that needs to happen is for Congress to order device makers to go along.

“If we were to present our legislative package [to Congress], we’d hope they’d take it seriously this year,” NAB’s Wharton said.

The NAB’s push for implantation of FM receivers has created–in what came as a surprise during the middle of Washington’s August doldrums–a political flap that is pitting broadcasters and the music industry against consumer electronics makers and technology companies. It’s even inspired some clever artwork.

Six of the largest tech trade associations have publicly opposed any forcible-FM-tuner-implantation. In a letter sent this week to the Senate and House committees with jurisdiction over the topic, the tech groups said the idea amounted to candlestick makers campaigning against the electric light bulb: “Calls for an FM chip mandate are not about public safety but are instead about propping up a business which consumers are abandoning as they avail themselves of new, more consumer-friendly options.”

Just so nobody missed the casual insult, Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association, likened the broadcasters and the recording industry to “buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

What’s more, said the letter that was signed by the Consumer Electronics Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, TechAmerica, and the Information Technology Industry Council–the groups behind the idea “lack any expertise in the development of wireless devices and are in no position to dictate what type of functionality is included in a wireless device.”

Wharton readily conceded that radio broadcasters have not sketched out a detailed proposal. He noted that the NAB board has not yet voted to proceed with asking Congress to enact mandatory FM tuners. When asked about whether an FM tuner would require a lengthy antenna, Wharton said that was a question for MIT engineers to figure out, not him.

But he’s not willing to shrink back from political cage-fighting either. “We understand their opposition,” Wharton said. “They’d rather usage based pricing, to have FM over IP so they can charge for it. That’s where their business model is headed.” FM broadcasts, he notes, are free.

“We’ve had discussions with cell phone makers, and there’s been some progress but not much,” Wharton said. “We argue that there would be a public benefit to have free and local radio on all of these devices.”

Even though revenues are shrinking, radio’s audience is growing. Recent Arbitron data suggests radio reaches 239 million people–aged 12 and older–in a typical week.

In an odd twist, though, the very manufacturers whose Washington representatives are savaging NAB’s proposal already appear to include FM tuners in their wireless gadgetry.

A teardown and analysis of the iPhone 3G performed by market intelligence firm iSuppli says Apple uses a single-chip Bluetooth/FM/WLAN device made by Broadcom. The Droid uses a Texas Instruments Bluetooth/WLAN/FM transmitter and receiver, iSuppli says, and the BlackBerry Torch is outfitted with a Texas Instruments WL1271A Bluetooth/WLAN/FM chip.

Of course, the mere existence of a built-in feature on a chip doesn’t mean the manufacturer has enabled it, added an antenna, or provided a way for the operating system to do anything useful with it. (Microsoft’s Zune does feature an FM radio.)

And this is precisely what the consumer electronics groups say: “Requiring an FM chip would require a separate antenna in order to accommodate the significant differences between FM signal wavelengths and cellular/PCS signal wavelengths.”

Disclosure: CBS, parent company of CNET and music site, is a member of NAB’s television advisory board.

I wear many hats but history, economics and political observance have always been a passion. I am a graduate of the University of Cincinnati College of Business with a degree in Information Systems and Digital Business with a minor in European History. I work for a small mom-and-pop IT consulting and software design company. We deal in servicing mostly government funded non-profit mental and behavioral health care agencies in the state of Ohio. In this I deal with Medicaid and Medicare funds and have a little insight on the boondoggles of government there. Thankfully the undemanding nature of my daily profession gives me ample time to read and stay aware of our current state of affairs which I find stranger than fiction in many instances. In addition to being in the IT field, I have also been self employed with a small contracting company so I might know a thing or two about the plight of small business that employs 71% of the American workforce. I however don't draw my knowledge from my day jobs, which I have had a few; I draw it from an intense obsession with facts and observation about the world in which I live. I do have formal education in things such as history, economics and finance particularly as it pertains to global issues, but I have come to find much of what I thought I knew from the formalities of a state university I had to unlearn through much time and independent research. I hope you enjoy what I bring you which is not often heard in the mainstream news outlets. I would like to think my own personal editorializing is not only edifying but thought provoking while not at all obnoxious. That last one may be a hard to achieve.

1 Comment

  1. Brig Young

    September 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    Actually, I think it sounds like a good idea, if people freely choose to do so. My problem is with the arrogant bastards that presume to use force against the rest of us.

    I’m an older guy, and I still listen to the radio some, I even (voluntarily) purchased a mp3 player that came equipped an FM stereo radio (that was voluntarily added to the device for assumably marketing/business reasons). I was looking for that feature specifically (it even records off the air or a built in microphone) in addition to the usual mp3 features. Just what I needed for MY purposes, MY tastes. That means they sold maybe 12 worldwide (LOL)

    I’m actually financially attached to radio, I wish everyone listened all day, but neither I nor anyone else has a right to use force (government) to make someone add it to their product or force me to buy it when I don’t want it and resent having to pay for it.

    If we really put radio to use as a public good they would scream and wail and gnash their teeth about all the profit they would lose from missed advertisements, etc. etc.

    I think they are also outrageously arrogant because lately they have been raising a stink about the royalties that they pay to artists for the right to perform it on radio. They claim they are doing the artists a favor by giving them publicity for their music while seemingly missing the fact that no one would listen to the GD radio if it wasn’t for our music. (of course I am assuming a music format choice) I actually listened (in person) to a station programming director prattle on about this while whining about new Federal Laws that control their format and broadcasting schedule. Just this year.

    I guess when you sell your soul to the devil you shouldn’t be surprised when he comes to collect payments. This entire subject is just that exactly. They sold out to be run by the government, the government sold them out, and now they want the government to bail them out by forcing others to give them a venue for their product, and pay for it too. Idiots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.