Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Aug 2010 22:19 UTC
Multimedia, AV A couple of days ago we talked about how the RIAA and NAB are planning on asking US Congress to mandate FM radio chips inside every cell phone. This plan was met with some ridicule, so the NAB decided to write a blog post addressing the critics. Most of the post is overshadowed by an overdose of America's favourite national pastime: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. 9/11!
Thread beginning with comment 438241
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Dennis, you're a jacka@@
by HappyGod on Thu 26th Aug 2010 00:57 UTC in reply to "Dennis, you're a jacka@@"
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

You insensitive remarks about what Americans are afraid of really shows a lack of sensitivity and a lack of understanding regarding the proposed mandated chips. I was assigned to the Pentagon when it was attacked and cell phone networks were either overwhelmed by emergency responders and civilians trying to place calls or cell phone towers were damaged and unusable. Cell phones were totally unusable during the event and the ability to send out emergency info via an FM receiver embedded in cell phones would have undoubtedly saved lives and helped diminish the confusion and panic. ...


There are a few problems with your argument:

1. As stated in the article, in order to use the FM radio in mobile phones, you need the earphones.

2. Unless you design the phone to detect emergency broadcasts, the user would have to be actually listening to the radio at the exact moment the broadcast was sent.

3. Digital radio will soon replace analogue radio, removing the need for separate FM chips. So we are mandating the installation of an already obsolete technology.

4. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than to die in a terrorist attack, and far, far more likely to drown in your own bathtub.

If we take the "It would save lives" argument then why don't mandate the compulsory wearing of life jackets at all times on the off chance you might fall into a river - It would eventually save lives. Good idea? No.

Reply Parent Score: 12

jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Unless you design the phone to detect emergency broadcasts, the user would have to be actually listening to the radio at the exact moment the broadcast was sent.


Which, in the event of a national emergency where the phone networks go down, is quite possible (and even feasible).

You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than to die in a terrorist attack, and far, far more likely to drown in your own bathtub.


Large groups of people are not twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine, or to drown in their own bathtub, at the same time. And in some parts of the country, hurricanes are much, much more likely than either of these events.

Don't get me wrong; I think this is a stupid, stupid law. But some of the arguments being thrown against it are amazingly bad...

Reply Parent Score: 4

Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

Large groups of people are not twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine, or to drown in their own bathtub, at the same time.

Why does the size of the group matter? Any economic cost from 9/11 was largely psychological; the loss of office space was a small perturbation to the US economy.

The psychological effect can be muted by knowledge that vending machines are more dangerous than terrorism in terms of material economics costs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Which, in the event of a national emergency where the phone networks go down, is quite possible (and even feasible).


Your argument is circular. You suggest that in an emergency, the user would be more likely to be listening to his phone radio. That would mean he has already been made aware of the emergency from another source. So why have the radio?

Large groups of people are not twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine, or to drown in their own bathtub, at the same time. And in some parts of the country, hurricanes are much, much more likely than either of these events.


Firstly, I was countering the argument that we should be concerned with and introducing measures for terrorist attacks. Hurricanes are another topic entirely. Constrain yourself to the point.

The fact that terrorist attacks are so unlikely as not to warrant concern or countermeasures is perfectly valid.

The number of affected people (while tragic) in the extremely unlikely event that an attack might occur should not be a mitigating factor.

Reply Parent Score: 6