106

Automakers Want AM Radios Out of Cars. Congress Is About to Require Them (www.wired.com)

submitted 2 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

An AM radio can be put together for pennies. I've gotten them as giveaway swag before. This is the stupidest controversy. You could give everyone in America an AM radio for the cost of this lawsuit and they could just stick it in their car with the stereo jack.

I take no position on this. Seems to me the cost should be negligible if they are forced to include them and the harm will be negligible if they are removed.

My guess is this has been made a big deal by right wing media who see it as a threat to their ability to reach ~~imbeciles~~ listeners and this would be a footnote otherwise.

That being said, having an EBS receiver in cars isn't a bad thing. Cell networks are unreliable in emergencies. Cell phones didn't work for days after 9/11. Not that car radios would be particularly helpful in NYC with super low car ownership.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 50 points 2 months ago

No, AM radio is part of the infrastructure governments can reliably use to inform citizens of danger etc. so it should not easily be removed. And if it's so cheap it can easily be included.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

That only works if people actively tune into AM radio. The person you're replying to, I think, is implying that the number of people that would be affected by an emergency communication not going over AM radio... while tragic, costs less than losing the ability to have folks like Alex Jones get tiny pockets of crazy scattered all over funneled into one convenient silo.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

They should add a rider that reinstates the broadcast ownership rules eliminated in the 1997 Telecommunications Act.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, after listening to NPR’s “divided dial” it feels like a lot of how the US ended up where it is was when we he fairness doctrine was dropped or ignored.

And now citizens United has magnified and worsened it all.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

There are a lot of parks that have AM station signs for weather and emergency info. We've used it when we were camping during storms.

[-] aard@kyu.de 3 points 2 months ago

Ability for AM radios to interrupt other playback for announcements has been around at least since the 90s. Back then it was commonly used to pause cassette playback when traffic announcements were made.

This just requires for the device to monitor radio when on, and to be on - and with how integrated it is in modern days cars functionality I'd say the chance for them to be on is higher than it was in the 90s. So having that functionality is a pretty good way to reach a lot of car drivers.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

That is straight up not true.

AM radio cannot, has not ever, and will not ever be able to pause a cassette.

Wtf are you smoking?

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

I believe they are simply smoking facts. Maybe you should look stuff up before being so adamantly incorrect.

The RDS-enabled receiver can be set to pay special attention to this TA flag and e.g. stop the tape/pause the CD or retune to receive a Traffic bulletin. The related TP (Traffic Programme) flag is used to allow the user to find only those stations that regularly broadcast traffic bulletins, whereas the TA flag is used to stop the tape or raise the volume during a traffic bulletin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_announcement_(radio_data_systems)

[-] aard@kyu.de 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

RDS and related protocols like TMC have specifications for both FM and AM transmitters. Those are used to stop playback if an urgent message comes. I'm assuming you have AM stations with such signals in the US (I don't think we have in the EU) - otherwise the AM radio mandate would indeed be stupid.

edit: did some digging (it's been almost 30 years since I cared about that stuff) - seems the US was pretty late to the party for radio data channels, and side channels for AM (which wasn't of that much interest here due to the FM heavy radio landscape in Europe) only was discussed in the early 90s for the US specific variants. I couldn't find any details if that actually ever got implemented. Given that most documentation available on that topic is heavily focusing on EU I'd guess it never got that much use in the US.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I agree with you. I just think the reason the discussion is so loud is because of right wing AM radio and the people who would love for it to go away - people I don't even disagree with, but it is important and so cheap that any argument over cost is entirely misplaced. You can get AM radio on an IC for $0.41 in quantity. It feels disingenuous to argue against that on a basis of cost or "muh freedoms". Hence, my suspicion of a more political basis.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Oh I'll bet you are right on the money with the motivations.

But also don't discount the possibility that car manufacturers are in on the long game.. just remove radio all together so you can offer optional packages only. The reason their entertainment systems need to be reasonably priced is because else the customer will stick to just radio then.

If they remove the alternative.. sky is the limit for the options... Cause no entertainment in a car is not an option for most. Peak Enshittification

[-] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 2 months ago

The only reason they want them out is because AM radios reveal the amount of radio spectrum pollution the vehicle electronics are spewing out.

Solution is for the automaker to spend a few bucks on RFI filtering for LED drivers, etc.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

The only reason they want them out is because AM radios reveal the amount of radio spectrum pollution the vehicle electronics are spewing out.

And the only reason Republicans want to keep them is because of the amount of bigotry and hate Republican hosts spew on the band. The party of GWB's response to Katrina and Trump's response to covid does not care about disseminating accurate information during a crisis.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm a radio enthusiast. I like listening to it at night because you can pick up stuff from thousands of miles away. When the ionosphere is higher and stronger. Especially camping out in the middle of nowhere.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

And that's fine. You don't need a mandate for cars to have AM radios in order to continue doing that.

It's not like they're gonna put in more than the bare minimum to say they complied with the law anyway.

[-] Sinful@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

If AM broadcasts lose listeners due to the bands removal from vehicles, they will also likely lose income from marketing and other revenue streams. I assume AM radio is already in a precarious entertainment space and doubt they want more risk.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

If right wing hate radio loses listeners, good.

[-] Sinful@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

While I agree with the sentiment, AM radio is also used for emergency broadcasts and other forms of communication. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Fix the underlying issues.

Edit: typo

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Maybe he does it from his car.

[-] esc27@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Seems like if they really cared about emergencies they would require car radios to support the actual weather band frequencies as well.

[-] Kelly@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Do they currently require that cars offer an audio system?

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

ha - they mandate you can receive AM signals. Does the bill state the receiver has to be connected to speakers?

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

To follow that path, doesn’t everything (people included) receive AM radio waves as it passes through us? We just can’t tune into it. But I’m pretty sure I have all the AM spectrum passing through me right now.

[-] criticon@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

They do require Bluetooth hand free, so I guess it goes implied with the audio system

[-] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 8 points 2 months ago

What's to stop auto makers from putting one crappy am radio with a tinny speaker built into the dash labeled "Emergency Radio"?

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Nothing, other than that there's no possible way that'd actually be cheaper than just including it in the godawful-complicated touch screen entertainment center that will pathologically already exist in every new car.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I can imagine a troll blasting all kind of crap for the lolz while stuck in traffic on the predefined channel if you can't turn it off.

[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

Then you severely underestimate the FCC and the amateur radio community. They might not find them immediately, but they will find them. People get tracked down for a lot less than fake emergency broadcasts.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Might be difficult if they only do it randomly.

[+] cyd@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago

This is an absurd abuse of government power, which "small government" Republicans are going along with because the AM radio listening audience skews right. By the same logic, I suppose the next step is to force homeowners to subscribe to a landline and cable TV.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago

This is being spearheaded by Ed Markey, a Democrat. The reason lawmakers want to keep AM radio is that it's still used for emergency broadcasts. AM radio may seem like a joke if you live in a urban area with good infrastructure, but if you live in a rural area with poor internet and cell service, AM radio may be vital in getting emergency alerts. Auto companies are fighting this because EV components interfere with AM signals, so they have to spend extra money to shield EV components. The narrative about Republican lawmakers wanting to amplify right wing radio hosts is neat, but this is just another case of automakers not wanting to shell out a few extra bucks for a safety feature.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Then people living in rural areas, who need AM radio, can spend a bit more to get it as an optional package. Or like 5 bucks to get a stand-alone radio. Why force everyone else to get it?

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Same reason we force new cars to come with a LATCH system for car seats, even if you don't have kids; we want safety features to ubiquitous, even in the resale market, and we don't want car manufacturers charging consumers more for them. This legislation would basically make carmakers treat AM radio like a safety feature, so they can't up-charge rural consumers who need it more. Also, this legislation doesn't put the entire burden on the carmaker. It also requires the government to look for alternatives to AM radio that could serve the same function (although I doubt they'll find a non-digital alternative with the range of AM):

The proposed legislation would also direct the Government Accountability Office to study whether “an alternative communication system” could replicate and have the same impact that AM radio has for transmitting emergency information. (Source)

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago

When I built a house in 2018 I was required to have a landline phone hookup somewhere in the house.

[+] foggy@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago

This is an aside. Using the term "skews" the way you did is common and incorrect. Generally, it'd be best to avoid the word skew when referring to right leaning or left leaning political ideas.

Why? Because a "Right Skew" would mean the data clusters to the left. And vice versa.

Google it! I swear!

It's a pet peeve of mine. Not when people say it, just that it's wrong even though it sounds right.

Carry on.

[-] SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

I like pedantry as much as the next person, but skew is a regular English word as well as a statistical term. It's clear here which usage they meant.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The context they used it was the statistical term, though.

They aren't describing something's appearance. They're describing the nature of the distribution.

They then are describing the visual aesthetic of the distribution, which is at odds with the description of the distribution. This is exactly my point. It stands.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

No it wasn't

[-] foggy@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

Yes it was.

The word "skew" cannot apply to a population in any other sense than a statistical sense. It cant be stretched and malformed as the nonstatistical definition would suggest.

this post was submitted on 04 May 2024

106 points (96.5% liked)

politics

18074 readers

3152 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News