323
submitted 6 months ago by tal@lemmy.today to c/news@lemmy.world

A controversial bill that would require all new cars to be fitted with AM radios looks set to become a law in the near future. Yesterday, Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) revealed that the "AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act" now has the support of 60 US Senators, as well as 246 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, making its passage an almost sure thing. Should that happen, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be required to ensure that all new cars sold in the US had AM radios at no extra cost.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

The justification of "emergencies" is problematic. Most people aren't going to hunt for an AM radio in an emergency. They are going to their phone/computer. If they want to prop up traditional communication then they should just require both AM and FM AND require the EAS included. With software defined radio this all can be implemented with a single chip and SiriusXM included probably. Just requires the appropriate antennas.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’m just going to assume there’s somebody that makes a single part, it’s all they make, but it has to go into every am radio; and that person paid off a bunch of lobbyists so they can keep selling that part.

It’s stupid. For emergency alerts, cell phones are vastly more useful, the Wireless Emergency System is far more featured, cell phones are likely in everyone’s pocket, and the system is as reliable as the EAS is.

Any other justification is stupid, and propping up AM is probably the result of said lobbyists…

[-] Count042@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

All of the comments like these don't understand the word emergency.

There are numerous plausible reasons cell phone towers, computers, and TV will be out in a true emergency.

I mean, hell, cell phone were unusable on 9/11 due to congestion, and even though it was a horrible event, it want an emergency the like of which are possible.

AM is dead fucking simple. Seriously. If you know what you're doing, you can make a receiver with a wire, a resistor, and a speaker. You don't even need power to run it.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The WES system that sends broadcasts to cell phones is more like a pager than cell phone. On 9/11, a WES signal was never sent given the extensive media coverage.

The fact that you mention two way communication getting blocked during 9/11 as an argument for a technology that doesn’t allow 2-way communicatio… is kind of amusing.

There is a further, critical advantage to cells. The vast majority of people wouldn’t have to build a cell phone to get that alert. Pretty sure the only am radio in my house is an unplugged and stored hand crank emergency radio.

We all already have phones in our pockets, or at least in arms reach practically 24/7. The hardware to maintain the network already exists and is going to be maintained regardless if it’s used for alerts.

AM is largely going away. There’s only a handful of niche uses (like very rural or remote locations,) where it’s more useful.

To further expound on that…. Are you running your car or truck or what ever 24/7 in case of an emergency broadcast? In an emergency it’s best to have your vehicle be a dedicated vehicle and your receiver a dedicated receiver. You don’t want to find your battery ran down or that you’re out of fuel.

Which brings us back to… this bill is stupid. Unless you’re a trucker, you’re probably not going to be around your car enough to reliably get the emergency broadcast.

And truckers have better systems than AM radios for communication.

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

Your phone ain't gonna be much use when there's no tower nearby.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Neither is that radio.

What’s your point?

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

AM travels significantly further than cell signals, chum. Hundreds of miles instead of just a few.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Yes yes.

And how large is that tower? What happens if say a forest fire rips through the ground station. Tornado. Hurricane. Ooops your entire coverage is gone.

Cell towers are more distributed, meaning loosing any single tower is far less critical. (Typically, phones are in range of 2-3 towers at any given time. Unless you’re way out in the sticks.)

The land under the am tower probably costs more than the entire cost of setting up a cell. (Especially in urban areas where they can go onto rooftops of existing structures.)

But of course this entire conversation is ignoring that it’s am radios in cars. I don’t know about you but most of my day is not spent in a car. Which is turned off when I’m not using it so as to not waste gas or run down the battery.

I have a cell phone inside arms reach practically 24/7. Most people do.

[-] BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

You know, I read this whole back and forth, and the only takeaway I have is that you have absolutely no idea how any of these technologies work. Like at all. I’m not saying this to be a dick or anything -it’s ok to not know things- but it’s painfully obvious in this case because your lack of fundamental understanding is the core of your argument.

And if you did understand how the tech works, you’d probably get why those options are used instead of your layman’s idea of a good idea. Which is not, in fact, a good idea at all for a variety of reasons. Which is exactly why these other things are being discussed and supported by people who do understand them (and I’m not talking about the rest of the Lemmy comments either, I mean in the real world).

There are tons of scenarios where cell towers/fm transmitters for an area would go down, but cars would still be fully operable. But even if that wasn’t the case, why do you want to remove a public safety option that currently exists, even if you don’t and won’t use it? The only people who benefit are big companies (the exact ones whining they don’t want to comply) that don’t care about you, so why do you give a shit if this inconveniences them?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

You know, I read this whole back and forth, and the only takeaway I have is that you have absolutely no idea how any of these technologies work. Like at all. I’m not saying this to be a dick or anything -it’s ok to not know things- but it’s painfully obvious in this case because your lack of fundamental understanding is the core of your argument.

The two major systems in question here are the Emergency Alert System (ESA) which broadcasts across FM, AM, Sat Radio; Cable, Broadcast and Sat TV. The counterpart for cell phones is the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA), which broadcasts to cell phones, tablets, and similar devices. They're both coordinated under the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) managed by FEMA

An EAS message is triggered by FEMA, sending messages to the National Public Warning System (or Primary Entry Point,) stations. The NPWS stations are 77 AM-stations that get a phone call from FEMA. SiriusXM then broadcasts the message across it's sattelite network... of which those 77 AM-stations are connected into. (they receive it then they relay it.) They also broadcast it across their sat radio network. (that's been going on for ages.)

the WEA functions a bit like a pager or SMS. it broadcasts on the cell network- a one way transmission from the cellular site. Any WEA-capable cell phone or other device in the range of that transmission and not in Airplane mode (which turns the antenna off,) will register the alert. The previous mention of cell towers getting clogged during 9/11 isn't a problem, and the WEA system was established under the WARN act in 2008, and the system went live in 2012, so it wasn't even around for it. that said, it's relatively immune to mass calling events because it's a separate service on the tower, and gets priority over both SMS and Call services.

And if you did understand how the tech works, you’d probably get why those options are used instead of your layman’s idea of a good idea. Which is not, in fact, a good idea at all for a variety of reasons. Which is exactly why these other things are being discussed and supported by people who do understand them (and I’m not talking about the rest of the Lemmy comments either, I mean in the real world).

Naw. I understand the tech well enough. there's more to reliability than the tech working, though. There's the humans using the tech. of particular note are the people who are supposed to be receiving these alerts. Remeber, the whole purpose of these systems are to saturate an area (or the entire nation) with warnings and alerts, delivering those warnings to as many people as possible.

Lets look at some numbers. There are 336 million people in the US. per the article, 82 million "use AM". (note that probably includes every kind of receiver, not just car stereos. we'll go with it because I don't have a better number.) that's roughly 1/4 of the US population that will ever be in a position to hear an EAS broadcast on an AM channel.

97% of americans own a cell phone.

Even if we assume a quarter of the 326.2 million people who use cell phones receive the alert, that's still 81 million people.

Do you really think that the 82 million people that use AM at all... are always by a radio? or that, those 82 million people are always driving? Because the car radio only lets you know there's an alert if you happen to be listening to the radio.

For the vast majority of americans, the WEA alerts are going to be far more reliable than AM-band EAS alerts. Which, is probably why the FCC and congress spent oodles implementing and maintaining the WEA system as well as expanding mobile coverage. they're not dumb. they can see the writing on the wall for the ~4,500 AM stations that remain.

Even if you happen to find yourself normally in areas that don't have cell coverage... of which, 11% of the roadmiles in the US didn't have coverage... in 2016, there's much, much better solutions. a basic midland emergency radio goes for about $25 dollars. alternatively, you can get a weather alert radio that's not portable, but lets you filter what kind of alerts it wakes you up for; and location.

In terms of receiving emergency alerts... those are going to be far more effective than any car stereo for the simple reason that a car will not sound an alarm unless you happen to be actively listening to the radio. So, this bill is unlikely to improve the advanced warning people get. but what about after a nasty storm? Well. you'd have to drain your car battery to use your car radio. Sure, you could maybe time it so you check in when they're repeating the messages; but you're still draining the battery. Or you're idling the engine to charge said battery.

Either way there, that's a finite resource you're using. A resource that might be necessary to get you or someone you love to a hospital, an emergency shelter, or just out of the danger zone.

There are tons of scenarios where cell towers/fm transmitters for an area would go down, but cars would still be fully operable.

So, I'm going to assume this is an honest mistake and you know the difference between a transmitter and a receiver. Because, I mean, your entire comment is basically to tell me I should shut up for being dumb. gonna explain it anyhow.

the broadcast stations- FM or AM- are transmitters. They take a sound source and translate it into radio signal which is then broadcast. Anyone with a receiver (the radio in your car), then translates that radio signal into sound. Cell sites (be they a tower, or just the base station on a building rooftop) are technically transceivers. they go both ways. They're talking to your phone constantly, as well as to each other- that's what the "cell network" is. one cell talks to the carrier's connection to the internet or phone grid, relays that through the network to your phone; and your phone back to the carrier. A WEA message carried on a cell network is one-way communication, though. just to be clear.

But even if that wasn’t the case, why do you want to remove a public safety option that currently exists, even if you don’t and won’t use it?

Getting some real "they gonna come for your Ray-Dee-Ohs" vibes here. nobody is taking anything away. they're going to stop providing a certain entertainment and communication device in cars. That's all the car makers were going to do. All this law would do is make them add am radios back in. that's it. You want to listen to AM or get an emergency radio.... those are not going away (probably ever.) and if you really want your AM radio in your car... you can always get an aftermarket deck. but nobody is going to go into your current car and get rip out your AM radio. (not unless it's a nice radio and you left your car unlocked....but it's not the gooberment.)

I care because it offends me that politicians are using bullshit excuses to pass bullshit laws. if emergency preparedness was their concern, they could have passed a law requiring cell carriers to be participants in WEA messaging. that would reduce the number of cellphone peeps who don't get it. (all the big 3 companies are on. I'm guessing their sub-carriers are also.) Another useful law would be one that gives free emergency radios to people. just saying.

The only people who benefit are big companies (the exact ones whining they don’t want to comply) that don’t care about you, so why do you give a shit if this inconveniences them?

the people who benefit from the law are not the car companies or tech companies. which is why the opposed it. the National Association of Broadcasters lobbied hard for this. I think you know who they lobby for. those are companies that paid them to lobby the politicians. (and that also offends me. lobbyists should be outlawed.) these are companies that failed to keep up with uh... half-century old technology... oppps.

Politicians also benefit in the form of loony talkshow hosts repeating their bullshit. (probably a "bothsides" deal, if we're honest.) Also SiriusXM (whose being paid to maintain the sat uplink to those broadcasters. big contract that.) Also, the advertisers that advertise on AM. There's a lot of people who benefit from the law.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Try reading up more on AM radio signals, buddy.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago

My cell phone and FM radios won't work after an EMP. AM will be the first "broadcast signal" to return in such a worst case scenario.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

So. This bill is meant to force manufacturers to put am radios inside new cars.

Right?

New cars that, in a hypothetical emp… will be just as fried as your cell phone is.

And that’s why the emergency prep angle doesn’t hold water. You would literally be better off with a hand crank emergency radio (that can almost certainly survive.)

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

And if AM is removed from cars (AM's biggest listening base) it will die. If AM radio dies, then the hand crank emergency radio will have no use. Much like the portable UHF/VHF television.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Because there’s no possible way that the government could buy up the 77 stations thst broadcast the NPWS stations.

We’re already subsidizing them heavily because the backup systems to keep them on are expensive.

Edit to add: the demand for AM is going away. Content is cheaper to produce and distribute online.

In stead of passing legislation to bail out a dying industry (what this bill is really about,) they should be looking at ways of resolving the problem.

An easy first step is to buy or otherwise nationalize the 77 critical stations. We can then either maintain them as vital infrastructure or replace them with newer and more capable/effective technologies.

All this bill is going to do is prolong the problem.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

Gotcha... And just for funsies, how much money (taxpayer money) have we spent on say... failing banks? I'd say investing zero tax payer dollars to "save" AM radio is a better investment.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

But we’re not going to be able to save AM radio.

Outside of rural areas, AM radio has no advantage over cell based internet services. It’s less expensive for the content producers, and it’s inevitable that they switch to streaming instead of broadcast.

And those rural areas don’t provide the audience necessary to sustain the cost of the broadcast service.

Further this bill isn’t without cost- that cost is being paid by everyone who buys a car.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
323 points (98.2% liked)

News

23259 readers
2831 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS