Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Apple reminds the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary iPhone FM radios (techcrunch.com)
31 points by helloworld on Sept 29, 2017 | hide | past | favorite | 70 comments



Better link: 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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


Home-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=c4285cfe54bf6085bc...


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.


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.


> 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.


Sure, but the set of rules applicable to one-off hobbyists are different from commercially manufactured/mass distributed electronics.


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.


I used it a lot on my old Nokia brick in the 90s and it was very useful. I listen to radio a lot on my phone via the BBC Radioplayer App these days, I would certainly welcome being able to listen to the broadcast signal and save some data.


Yes. If I'm listening with headphones. That's the only inconvenience for me, because it means I need to have my phone in my pocket. I usually don't use headphones when it's sitting on my desk. (I invariably move and pull the phone off the desk.)


I regularly do, but then again i live in a metropolis where every channel hosts a station; i imagine it's a bit less useful in the country. Also use it as a room monitor with the help of a small transmitter.


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.


Galaxy S7 has one; whether it's active depends on carrier, in he US at least (though I think, without checking, that it's only active on Sprint and possibly unlocked phones; the other US carriers only started activating them more recently and didn't go back; I'm pretty sure the S8 and Note 8 have active FM on the major US carriers.)


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


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


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


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.


> 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.


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


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


>Really, what's is the last time you did not have at least 3G reception ?

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.


Cell towers here have battery backups (it's a legal requirement). Also, power outages are extremely rare over here. Average reliability of the power network in my country (the Netherlands) was 99,995% over the last 14 years. The average outage takes about 30 minutes. IIRC cell towers have a 3-hour battery backup.


I live in Sweden, and major power outages are rare here too (latest was in 2003 and 1983). Small ones happens from time to time. I was convinced that it was a legal requirement here too, but it turns out that's not the case. Fortunately that will be changed, so from 2020 it will be mandatory here.

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...


> Really, what's is the last time you did not have at least 3G reception ?

Every day, at places in and around my work, within a stones throw of the California State Capitol.


At my home, now. There is no mobile phone reception here at all, not even 2G.


0. I'm not sure that quality is actually better. Yes, the highest frequencies of FM are lower, but a. Not everyone can even hear well above FM's 15 kHz. b. FM is analog with no lossy compression. Mp3-based radio stations @128kbps are noticeably worse than e.g. 256kbps and CD-quality audio. 256kbps stations are probably undiscernable though.

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.


> When I visit Miami, for example, there are many small, interesting radio stations with no internet portal.

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.


Listening to Radio in FM uses passive reception and dedicated chip, and thus has probably much lower power consumption.

Not having WIFI or 4G available is also a good reason.


> 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 ?


Yes, outside cellular coverage there is rarely any wifi coverage either...


I'm outside of wifi coverage for maybe 30 minutes a day, on my bike ride to/from work and a visit to the supermarket. 3G/4G coverage is practically 100% (actually 99.5%), only when you get close to the national borders there are some white spots because they aren't allowed to broadcast too far over the border and interfere with networks in Germany or Belgium.

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.


Well, if your country don't have any sea or mountains or any other remote area I guess that is "nice"...

Also, big difference between emergency service and 3/4G suitable for audio streaming.


So this is a pretty niche problem but my preferred radio station is a national broadcaster based on the east coast which is delayed for FM broadcast on the west coast (where I am), while the internet stream is live.


So the internet stream is even better than the FM stream.


Not if you want to listen to a specific program at a specific time, or if you move between your desk and your car on FM (as you'll hear the same songs), or if you want the local news broadcasts which are embedded in the west coast stream, or even just if your mate has a propensity to text you to talk about how great that song just was.


Data is expensive. Why pay telco companies to stream FM? Enable it on the phone and you can do it for free.


Not on an unlimited data plan?


You don't need a data plan for wifi.


I use listen to radio when I'm out and about, gardening, running, etc.


With good headphones, the ~30-15000 Hz audio frequency range of stereo FM feels somewhat limited, thus I prefer streaming over mobile data network.


I did once, on my last phone (a Samsung Note 2), because I wanted to record a specific event I knew about beforehand. I was actually impressed by how well that worked. From the whole "headphones as antenna" setup I'd always assumed FM radio to be rather dodgy...


I use FM receiver in my S7 to wirelessly listen to audio from TV. In my TV, I plug in an FM transmitter. Much less BS to deal with than Bluetooth.


I used to before mobile internet and music streaming were as ubiquitous as they are today.


The meaning of ubiquitous is very country specific.

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.


Quite useful to learn language when you live in a foreign country


Yes, since my Symbian devices.

All my WP and Android devices also have FM radio.


Has anyone ever used the FM radio in their phone?

Not since ~2001-2002


This article is misleading to say the least, and the issued a statement doesn't even link to anything relevant. Summarily clickbait garbage.


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...


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...


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.


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!!”


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


No 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.


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


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.


You can't add a non-existent antenna in firmware.


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.


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. :-(


Apple people always downvote... bunch of sheep trolls.


You say stupid shit, you get downvoted. That’s not even Apple, that’s just basic internet.


I said something that is observably true... that Apple like to pretend to everyone that hardware older than two years is obsolete.

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.


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"?


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.


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.


But 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.


FM 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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: