Mobile Carriers, Device Makers Urge Congress to Reject FM Chip Mandate

Market forces should shape innovation, TIA President Grant Seiffert said in an interview. It’s wrong for two industries to resolve their differences by agreeing to burden a third, he said. The mandate would adds costs to consumers for a function they may not want, Seiffert said. Companies can make commercial agreements, but a government requirement isn’t needed and it would burden manufacturers and carriers, he said.

CEA President Gary Shapiro floated a possible compromise: Give manufacturers a cut of the proposed performance royalty. “If it appears that the absurd mandate moves forward in Congress, we will … fight for the royalty to be vastly increased and shared with those having to bear the cost of the mandate,” he said in a written statement. Asked about the possibility of a compromise, Seiffert told us: “We are not interested. It’s something we don’t want to be part of."

Consumers don’t appear to favor the FM-capable devices available now, the wireless associations said in the letter. “If they were, manufacturers and wireless carriers alike would rush to respond to that demand.” The participants in the performance-rights discussion “lack any expertise in the development of wireless devices and are in no position to dictate what type of functionality is included in a wireless device,” the six groups said. As devices continue to evolve, chip and antenna space is at a premium, the letter said: Requiring devices to carry FM chips may “foreclose opportunities to include other functionality that may be more highly valued by consumers and harm competition among device makers by limiting opportunities for differentiation."

Requiring an FM chip would require a separate antenna, to accommodate the significant differences between FM signal wavelengths and cellular/PCS signal wavelengths, the wireless groups said. Design decisions of this kind should be left to the market, they said: Manufacturers and carriers will provide services and functionalities that are demanded by consumers.

NAB fired back that the proposed requirement is important to public safety. “Day in and day out, local radio stations serve as a reliable lifeline in times of crisis and weather emergencies,” a spokesman said. “In an increasingly mobile society, it would be unfortunate if telco gatekeepers blocked access to public safety information offered by free and local radio.” MusicFirst didn’t comment.

The wireless groups disputed broadcasters’ contention. An FM chip mandate “could delay the development of a mobile broadcast emergency alerting system that the FCC, FEMA and other agencies have diligently worked to establish,” said RCA President Steven Berry. The groups letter said that “changing direction now and adopting an FM chip focused solution, which was considered and rejected during implementation of the WARN Act, will put this multi-year collaboration and investment at risk and delay the widespread availability of alerting capability.” An FM chip would provide a “materially inferior means of providing real-time alerts to mobile consumers,” they said.

Newspapers are giving national attention to the issue of whether to mandate FM radio in cellphones. “Although some consumers may welcome the feature, the market, not government, should decide whether phones include it,” the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial Monday. In an editorial Sunday, the Boston Globe said “the idea of making this technology mandatory via legislation smacks of backroom dealing that infringes upon consumers’ rights.” Consumers “value small, sleek phones,” and don’t want “outdated technology,” the paper said.

The wireless groups’ letter went to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and ranking member Lamar Smith, R-Texas. They had no comment.