
Apple reminds the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary iPhone FM radios - helloworld
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/whose-fcc-is-this/
======
alpb
Better link: [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/fcc-chief-ajit-
pai-w...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/fcc-chief-ajit-pai-wants-
apple-to-stop-disabling-fm-radio-chips-in-iphones/)

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.

------
intoverflow2
Not 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
I'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.

------
mark-r
The 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
I'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
To 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.

~~~
makomk
Depending 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.

------
rwmj
Has 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
I 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
Most radio stations have streams available in much better quality than FM. Why
choose FM over streaming ?

~~~
metaphor
Received signal strength. Despite popular belief, cell service requires cell
towers, which doesn't exist everywhere grass grows.

~~~
Aaargh20318
Really, what's is the last time you did not have at least 3G reception ? In my
country mobile coverage is 99.5%.

~~~
dagw
_Really, what 's is the last time you did not have at least 3G reception_

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.

~~~
Aaargh20318
> What country is that?

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.

~~~
dagw
Well the Netherlands is a bit of special case. Small, densely populated
countries are trivia to cover in mobile reception

~~~
metaphor
To the contrary, someone who lives in the Netherlands is quite prototypical of
who I'd expect to hold such a naive purview.

------
metaphor
This article is misleading to say the least, and the _issued a statement_
doesn't even link to anything relevant. Summarily clickbait garbage.

~~~
csydas
They 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-
app...](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)

~~~
metaphor
Or 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.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.pdf)

~~~
csydas
I 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.

~~~
cdubzzz
Further to that, I would argue that clickbait is really based on the _title_
of an article.

“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!!”

------
tomxor
Apple thinks every piece of hardware older than 2 years is imaginary. They
wish.

...Typed from a 10 year old MBP running linux - FU Apple

~~~
joncampbelldev
Well I'm sure Apple would love to hear your ideas for remotely activating to
unconnected FM chip inside the older iPhones

~~~
tomxor
Unconnected? 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
You can't add a non-existent antenna in firmware.

~~~
tomxor
Seriously? 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.

~~~
chrisbennet
I didn't defend them, I just explained why they couldn't do what you suggested
(reconnect the radio with a firmware change). If you want to get angry, ponder
why they took away my beloved headphone jack. :-(

------
larrykwg
Thats 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"?

~~~
ploek
Genuine 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
Yes, 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.

