National Association of Broadcasters executive vice president Dennis Wharton blasts critics for using usual “Washington-style tactics” that are “long on exaggeration, rhetoric and factual inaccuracies,” and cites evidence of a growing radio audience as proof that “cell phone subscribers deserve access to radio’s free service.” Says opposition is a “simple case of anti-competitive behavior.”
Last week I mentioned how reports had surfaced of a developing backroom deal between the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the RIAA to to get Congress to require all portable electronic devices to include an FM tuner in exchange for radio paying a reported $100 million annually in royalties to artists and record labels.
The pact would be a compromise between the two groups who’ve been clashing over radio’s longstanding exemption from having to pay performance fees under US copyright law. Radio, which would’ve been liable for billions in royalties, gets a substantial reduction in exchange for the RIAA’s support in expanding its reach. The RIAA, in turn, gets a nice annual check for $100 million which it sorely needs to subsidize continually declining CD sales.
After receiving widespread criticism, NAB executive vice president Dennis Wharton is trying to “set the record straight.” He says that critics are using a “customary Washington tactic” to denigrate this “pro-consumer feature” with arguments that are “long on exaggeration, rhetoric and factual inaccuracies.”
I think he’s trying to paint critics with the Washington tag in order to make them seem outside the mainstream, but I think it’s safe to say that most critics are average folks leery about govt mandating design requirements instead of the likes of tech companies like Apple or Motorola. If consumers really wanted an FM tuner they’d seek out those handsets that have them.
Wharton emphasizes that “radio’s audience is GROWING,” and that “when given the choice, consumers like radio-capable cell phones,” but is this really the case? It’s audience may be growing in potential, but I highly doubt that more people are tuning in these days. Radio’s not what it used to be. Consumers are able to dial into sites like Last.fm and Pandora to stream commercial free music ad nauseam! Companies like Clear Channel stripped radio down to a boring shell of its former self.
He oddly cites a study conducted in Latin America and Asia that found 45% of mobile users there listed radio as one of their top three reasons for purchasing a cell phone. Considering that that would makes it more popular than Internet access, texting, and digital camera function proves the study is worthless in the US. Talk about using “Washington-style” tactics.
Just because people Ecuador or Thailand like radio tuners on their cell phones doesn’t mean we ought to force manufacturers in the largest consumer market in the world to include them.
“Cell phone subscribers deserve access to radio’s free service,” he continues. “In a society where cell phones and other mobile devices are increasingly ubiquitous, it makes perfect sense to have radio-enabled chips in these devices, particularly from a public safety perspective.”
That’s the thing. The NAB’s main defense seems to be that an inclusion of a radio tuner is critical from an emergency information perspective. It doesn’t seem to get that people, for the most part, don’t want a radio tuner in their cell phone.
Wharton adds that a “radio receiver would also free up network capacity” and allow consumers to use less bandwidth, a point which he uses to suggest that some critics are concerned that this will mean less revenue for cell phone providers.
“So what’s motivating critics to oppose the inclusion of radio receivers in cell phones? It could be a simple case of anti-competitive behavior. Every minute a cell phone user listens to free, local radio is one less minute spent using the wireless industry’s fee-based applications. Moreover, since listening to local radio would require no network bandwidth, cell phone subscribers wouldn’t be forced to pay the escalating rates associated with streaming data-rich, fee-based applications,” he says.
This argument has to be the best of them all. Radio and the RIAA are trying to force manufacturers to include a product that consumers aren’t clamoring for, and yet manufacturers are the ones being “anti-competitive?” Whether it wants to admit it or not radio is losing its popularity. The playlists aren’t customizable like they are with online streaming services, and radio’s chalk full of commercials, fake DJ chatter, and homogenized music. People don’t want a radio tuner because the quality of content just isn’t there.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
If the RIIA demabnd to put a radio receive in each and every mobile phone,
I demand that each and every RIIA personell are forced to wear a radio transmitter….
Deal or no deal?
I remember hearing a joke once that this story reminds me of:
“The head of the National Grilled Cheese Sandwiches Association says, ‘Eat more grilled cheese sandwiches!’”
I used to listen to local radio, when local radio was local! But now virtualy all local radio stations have been bourt out, and had there names changed to Heart. Now they play music I don’t like.
While before I had a choice, as you could pick up a couple of local station you could pick the best one.
I agree. Loved it when it was local, but now that its taped elsewhere and played ad nauseum its painful to listen too.
Isn’t this sort of like requiring every new digital tv to include a built in VHS player.
Ha ha….or in every portable DVD player.
Last time I checked the Emergency Broadcast System had it’s own frequency, complete with a way to activate radios remotely when needed. Since that doesn’t need commercial AM and FM radio they can’t make the excuse that people must be forced to have that in order to receive emergency broadcasts.
We don’t need Washington-style meddling in our phones because battery life is already short enough and we just don’t want it.
That guy’s arguments are so pathetically easy to refute. Forcing inclusion of any feature that consumers would not even desire is not even remotely pro-consumer.
>”And while critics claim that a radio receiver would drastically drain a cell phone’s battery; that claim is simply not accurate. A typical cell phone with an FM radio chip could provide the cell phone subscriber with 10 or more consecutive hours of radio listening on a single battery charge. Given typical radio usage and the fact that the typical cell phone subscriber charges their phone on a daily or every-other-day basis, an FM radio chip would have a negligible effect on battery life.”
Begging the question. Instead of stating how much power the FM chip consumes, he claims it can provide ten consecutive hours of radio, but even that is pure speculation. He relies on typical” conditions and avoids giving actual examples.
>”But don’t tell that to our critics: They’d rather you believe — simultaneously — that a) no one wants an FM feature and b) an FM feature would be used at such extended lengths that it would drain the device’s battery. One reporter for a respected industry trade publication may have said it best when he wrote, “If FM radio is so outdated and consumers are not interested in having it, then it won’t take away from their broadband plan usage, nor drain battery power because they won’t be listening to FM much, right? So what are they afraid of?”"
That assumes that FM tuners seamlessly integrate into all electronics. That is simply false, because an electronic component requires a particular circuit in order for it to operate. What should happen when electronics advance too quickly? FM tuners would utterly become an annoying burden in electronic design. Ergo, this ultimately restrains innovation. Consumers would then deal with having something they do not want in place of something they would rather have.
Furthermore, he suggests no way in preventing battery drain due to the FM tuner other than not using it at all, which absolutely conflicts with him asserting that all consumers should have it. It can also be said that he assumes electronics will remain the same, because there is no mentioning of the future for FM radio technology whatsoever, which also has implications in power consumption.
>”Radio capability is common on many other innovative devices. If, as our critics claim, radio capability on cell phones represents a lack of innovation, what do radio-capable MP3 players represent? The U.S. MP3 market enjoys a 70 percent penetration of radio capability. Indeed, even the iPod nano contains FM capability.”
Music players generally play music from various audio formats, including radio waves. Radio capability in this case is thus not even remotely innovative.
All that remains is his “solution” for an emergency response system, but quite frankly, it is ludicrous. Everything else seems to be advertisement for music on radio, and that is invalid reasoning for forcing FM tuners in all cell phones.
If nobody wants FM in their cell phones, why not AM radio as well because they are just as maligned or worse than FM is and nobody as of yet is mandating it.