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 438365
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FuriousGeorge
Member since:
2010-08-26

Remember the Indonesian Tsunami?

Was it 100K or 200K that died?

Remember the images of of people walking up to the receded shoreline to gather the mysteriously beached fish?

In many cases, NOAA knew what could potentially happen for hours, but almost no one else did.

In the time between the detection of the earthquake by NOAA and the landfall of the first wave, how many lives could have been saved if 90 character blast message were sent out warning resident of possible Tsunamis, and advising them to tune to a local radio station for details?

90 characters alone may not be enough to fully convey the gravity of the situation, and it's a fallacy to assume that just because you are in your car that you happen to have the radio on and tuned to a station in the know.

It's estimated that in the US seat belts save about 10,000 lives per year, a tiny fraction of the number that died in the Tsunami, and probably cost at least a hundred times more per unit.

As I said before, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, and on a national-annual scale, this technology has the potential to save at least as many lives, if not more.

Sure, this scenario does not pass the "but-I-don't-want-Big-Gobment-increasing-phone-prices-by-$0.50" test, but if you are going to take that position you must explain why you are also opposed to the "seat belts in cars" mandate.

If you can stay ideologically consistent in this reductio ad aburdem style debate then I can respect your opinion, and agree to disagree.

(Remember, being a true libertarian means supporting the rights of private institutions or even governments to deny equal protection based on race, religion, or creed. It's very fashionable to claim libertarianism, but when push comes to shove how long will you really own it.)

Reply Parent Score: 0

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

FuriousGeorge trolled...

Sure, this scenario does not pass the "but-I-don't-want-Big-Gobment-increasing-phone-prices-by-$0.50" test, but if you are going to take that position you must explain why you are also opposed to the "seat belts in cars" mandate.

If you can stay ideologically consistent in this reductio ad aburdem style debate then I can respect your opinion, and agree to disagree.

(Remember, being a true libertarian means supporting the rights of private institutions or even governments to deny equal protection based on race, religion, or creed. It's very fashionable to claim libertarianism, but when push comes to shove how long will you really own it.)


Nice troll, only it is completely off topic to the issues involved.

The objection over the cost involved is minor compared to the question of why the NAB is insisting on using FM rather than NOAA radio frequencies or other such emergency broadcast channels. The self-interest of the NAB blinds them to how transparent their real motives are. The truth is this has nothing to do with security or emergencies and everything to do with legislating a failed business model.

Their diligent efforts over the last thirty or more years to make the airwaves into their own private club have resulted in their increasing irrelevance in every day life. The NAB has behaved like that bratty kid in the neighborhood with all the cool toys who insisted on having everything their way or they take their toys and go home--and just like the bratty kid they now find themselves alone with their toys as people find something better to do.

Bed. Made. Lie.

In any case I find myself skeptical more due to who exactly it is that is making the recommendation due to the self-interest involved than anything else. As has been said earlier this stinks of the "free hemp now" protesters who always seem to be slightly stoned and spend all their time in headshops. Thanks to whartung for such a perfect analogy to explain the situation to outsiders with!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Parent Score: 2

FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

Someone anonymous person safely behind his keyboard said
FuriousGeorge trolled...
Sure, this scenario does not pass the "but-I-don't-want-Big-Gobment-increasing-phone-prices-by-$0.50" test, but if you are going to take that position you must explain why you are also opposed to the "seat belts in cars" mandate.

If you can stay ideologically consistent in this reductio ad aburdem style debate then I can respect your opinion, and agree to disagree.

(Remember, being a true libertarian means supporting the rights of private institutions or even governments to deny equal protection based on race, religion, or creed. It's very fashionable to claim libertarianism, but when push comes to shove how long will you really own it.)

Nice troll, only it is completely off topic to the issues involved.


Someone seems both cranky and emboldened by the protective anonymity of his little keyboard across the internets.

The only thing off topic was your failure to address the question: why are you against seat belts in cars as a mandate?

And guess what: the only one trolling in this thread is you ;)

Point made, bye!

Edited 2010-08-27 12:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

... by the way. The notion that radio is a failing business model and people are going away from it is wrong. As a result, your entire argument is a fallacy.

As the article states, the AM/FM radio audience is growing yearly and steadily.

Respectfully, you should stick to talking about things you know.

Reply Parent Score: 1

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

Just some off-topic remarks..


(Remember, being a true libertarian means supporting the rights of private institutions or even governments to deny equal protection based on race, religion, or creed. It's very fashionable to claim libertarianism, but when push comes to shove how long will you really own it.)


Being a true libertarian is hardly about the rights of governments to do anything, maybe even to exist; it's all about the rights of individuals to have their natural rights respected by the government, if any government is to be tolerated at all. Bundling together the rights of private, peaceful institutions and the rights of governments is a non-starter for a libertarian.

Yes, freedom of association means I have no right to tell you with which kind of people you may or may not do business or hang around. What's wrong with that?

And who said mandatory seatbelts are justified? The fact that they save some lives is irrelevant. You own your life, not your government. What, are all those accidents a burden on public healthcare? Well, that's an example of the wicked character of a public healthcare system.

As for traffic lights, speed limits and the like, privatize roads and cities, and let the market decide.

So, in a sense, I basically agree, the FM chip is just more of the same, namely special interest groups with laughable excuses, lobbying governments to mandate expensive and redundant, or even stupid and wasteful regulations at the expense of everyone else. This case is particularly blatant, that's all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

I said:


(Remember, being a true libertarian means supporting the rights of private institutions or even governments to deny equal protection based on race, religion, or creed. It's very fashionable to claim libertarianism, but when push comes to shove how long will you really own it.)


You said:

Being a true libertarian is hardly about the rights of governments to do anything, maybe even to exist; it's all about the rights of individuals to have their natural rights respected by the government, if any government is to be tolerated at all. Bundling together the rights of private, peaceful institutions and the rights of governments is a non-starter for a libertarian.


Actually, I believe libertarians tolerate government as a necessary means to protect individual liberties. That could include the liberty of an individual to discriminate against another based on race, religion, or creed.

It is anarchists that believe there should be no government at all.

Yes, freedom of association means I have no right to tell you with which kind of people you may or may not do business or hang around. What's wrong with that?


Nothing, and I don't think I implied there was. I was saying that a true libertarian would be opposed to, for instance, the US Civil Rights act, which (among other things) makes it illegal for private business to discriminate based on race, religion, or creed.

And who said mandatory seatbelts are justified? The fact that they save some lives is irrelevant. You own your life, not your government. What, are all those accidents a burden on public healthcare? Well, that's an example of the wicked character of a public healthcare system.


Many countries have private health care (like the US), and they still mandate seat belts.

As for traffic lights, speed limits and the like, privatize roads and cities, and let the market decide.


You do realize that most private business fail, right? Also, I have a problem with a profit motive for transportation infrastructure on principal, but I could be wrong.

Do you have an example of a nation with a privatized highway system to serve as a model for the plausibility of this argument?

Also, why would a libertarian abide traffic lights and speed limits to begin with? Shouldn't you have the right to go as fast as you want?

Why enforce immigration laws? Shouldn't anyone be able to go anywhere they want, whenever they want to go there?

And how does one privatize a city? What did you mean by that?

So, in a sense, I basically agree, the FM chip is just more of the same, namely special interest groups with laughable excuses, lobbying governments to mandate expensive and redundant, or even stupid and wasteful regulations at the expense of everyone else. This case is particularly blatant, that's all.


I still think it is at least as reasonable or only as absurd as the seat belt mandate. That's my whole point.

As I said, you can express why you are against it, which you did quite eloquently, and I can still agree to disagree.

Edited 2010-08-27 12:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1