235
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MxM111@kbin.social 114 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Requiring the installation of analog AM radios in automobiles is an unnecessary action that would impact EV range, efficiency, and affordability at a critical moment of accelerating adoption,” said Albert Gore, executive director of ZETA, a clean vehicle advocacy group that opposes the AM radio requirement.

I cried. They install like big screen TVs now instead of console with buttons and it is the radio which is expensive and eats the battery?! Please note, an amplifier and speakers are already in the car, so they just talk about the radio receiver, which in old days could run couple of days or more with AA batteries.

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

They are lying through their teeth

It's probably because am radio hurts their profit somehow

Fuckers can design in an option to turn the hardware off when not in use and use more power efficient components and programming

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

They have to put more shielding around the motor so it doesn't leak a bit of electromagnetic, because they can interfere with the Am radio. And shielding costs money and weighs a bit more. So they rather not have a built in electromagnetic radiation detector.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

There was an arstechnica piece that was a bit sooner (it’s passed the house). They said 82 million people “use AM radio”. (Most of that is probably while driving.)

The argument for it is basically, that AM-radio listeners are declining and that means stations are closing up. If they remove them, AM radio peeps “loose” the largest segment of their audience.

The “concern” is that the public warning system relies on 77 of the 4.5k stations to broadcast warnings.(emergency and weather/hazard radios)

The issue here is that it’s basically bullshit. They could just buy the towers as a stop gap until better systems come into play. (Though to be fair, as old as it is, it’s pretty much the best for that kind of alert. Might be permanent.) and its really doesn’t matter- AM radio is dying; at least as entertainment ornmews services.

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

I think it would be very difficult and very expensive to build enough towers to cover states like Alaska. A lot of people listen to AM radio there.

I'm guessing people will just start putting separate radios in their cars and use a bluetooth connector or something.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’m guessing people will just start putting separate radios in their cars and use a bluetooth connector or something.

That's fine and all, but it will just become a hobbyist thing like CB Radio...

And since funding for NPR has been significantly cut again and again by Republicans over the past few decades and is propped up almost entirely by listener contributions, it wouldn't last a year without mandatory AM radios in cars.

I enjoy listening to NPR while I'm driving, but I doubt I would go through the trouble of buying a separate radio to keep sitting on my passenger seat or something?

And hey, guess who produces all of your favorite podcasts? That's right, NPR.

[-] Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

NPR is on FM too.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

NPR is on FM, too, and, uh, they’ve transitioned to streaming by webcast or app.

(They’ve had NPR One one for years, there’s a new NPR app that’s out to replace it.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Podcasts aren't going to give you the latest news. Especially not the local, regional and state news that local public radio stations provide. Information you might want to know in a disaster in a place where FM radio might not reach.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 months ago

You can make an AM radio with a fucking potato. What a joke.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

The issue is the motors generate EM emissions that interfere with AM reception. To still have AM, they have to add shielding, which adds cost, as well as weight that will reduce range and efficiency.

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

An AM radio receiver would easily fit in the palm of your hand. You could shield it with material that weighs no more than a pound.

Taco Tuesday will have more impact on your EV range.

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

You can’t just shield the radio. That’s not where the antenna is. You have to shield the electrical components generating the interference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago

Hell, the off-the-shelf radio-on-a-chip components they use in their stereos probably already have the physical capability of receiving AM radio; but I'm willing to bet the motors or some other component produces interference that would be difficult to engineer around.

[-] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 3 points 6 months ago

... said Albert "Don't call me Al" Gore....

[-] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

But you called me Betty!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 49 points 6 months ago

In a different thread on this same topic, I posted some technical information relevant to AM and FM radio, trying to bring a bit of technical nuance to the discussion, from my background as an amateur radio hobbyist.

The short version is: People talk about AM having longer range both during the day and especially at night, when really it has more to do with the wavelength than the modulation scheme. The commerical AM broadcast band is transmitted at a wavelength of ~200 meters, which has both groundwave and skywave propagation properties, where commercial FM broadcasts at a wavelength of ~3 meters which is strictly line of sight. The real relevant detail is MF vs VHF, not AM vs FM.

The modulation scheme matters with the construction of the radio itself. AM radio predates WWI, and a functioning receiver can be improvised out of literal junk you find lying around. Consumer AM radio receivers have been in production for a hundred years, and the AM broadcast band is kept deliberately primitive to maintain compatibility with those ancient radios. VHF FM radio is about 50 years old, and though it is a bit more technically advanced also goes through some pains to remain compatible with radios made during the Ford administration. Both technologies are older than the majority of Americans today and have functionally "always" been here.

In the other thread, I didn't get around to this part: Is MF AM broadcast radio a good technology for "emergency communication?" Maybe. Depends on the emergency, depends on the information, depends on the audience.

If we're talking about information of interest to motorists, AM radio isn't a terrible choice because the vast majority of cars built in the last 70 years have AM radio receivers. Same could be said of FM radio; you can reasonably expect the average car on American roads to have an FM radio. A lot of people tout the superior range of MF over VHF. For traffic, road closure and weather advisory, how much range do you really need? If the message is something like "Interstate 40 Westbound between mile marker 76 and 81 is out of service due to road construction. Follow detour marked by signs from Exit 75. Delays of up to 45 minutes expected during peak traffic times." You might want to deliberately limit the range of that signal because it's a waste of spectrum to broadcast that message from Tennessee all the way up to West Virginia, a state that has no I-40 in it at all. Mind you, not all motorists are able to receive either one. Some cars, and nearly all motorcycles, have no AM or FM radios. Things like road closures, detours and such should be 100% navigable by signage alone.

If we're talking about weather alerts, the NWS maintains a network of VHF FM transmitters called the National Weather Radio or NWR that transmit on one of seven channels around 162 MHz with weather observations, forecasts and warnings. They have a technology that transmits a code that can automatically turn on radios for severe weather warnings. These transmit with a power of 5 to 1,000 watts, and there's about 1,000 of them dotted around the country. I've been spending the last day saying to myself "Yeah, why don't all car stereos have NWR receivers in them?"

General emergency things, like widespread natural disasters, civil emergencies, national security emergencies etc. are perhaps a different story. If there's a hurricane or something, the ability for one station in Tennessee to broadcast to the entire Eastern seaboard could come in handy. Temper this with the idea that they might only reach the Outer Banks or Savanna Georgia or Rhode Island at night.

Something to consider though is do 21st century people "have" AM radios? Sure, every alarm clock, boom box and walkman have AM radio tuners...but how many people these days actually have those devices? Search on Amazon for "boom box." They've gone out of fashion. Especially for younger folks tend to use their cell phones as alarm clocks and music players. I bet there's a lot of households nowadays that don't have a working AM radio, in the same way that they probably don't have cassette players or VCRs. I imagine a large swath of the population whose only functioning AM radio they own is in their car stereo, and I imagine they never use it. Outside of Rush Limbaughs audience, who listens to AM radio these days?

It is a bit of a problem, actually. Up until the 90's, you had AM, FM and TV. You didn't have to worry about congestion on these platforms, so the normal stations people listened to or watched could be redirected to emergency broadcasts. That has changed. As noted, who listens to the radio? We all have Spotify or Apple Music. Who watches "television?" We all cut the cable for streaming services delivered via the internet, who has a set of rabbit ears hooked up to their TVs anymore? We're all used to getting information from our cell phones, which are nearly useless during a widespread power outage because everyone suddenly hits the cell towers slowing everything to a useless crawl.

Hell, winter before last there was a weather related power outage. Normal stuff, ice took down some power lines. My local FM radio station stayed up under generator power, and they were trying to broadcast a press conference with the governor...but couldn't because their downlink from the state capitol was through Facebook and the internet wasn't working correctly. They had no microwave relay or satellite uplink or whatever, they were trying to stream audio from the state capitol, across the internet via Facebook, then over the air via FM. This is the state of emergency communications in 21st century America.

Is mandating car stereos have AM receivers the solution to that problem? I'm not so sure; is it the Republicans just want to keep their rage bait shit on the air? Prolly. As I said it would be much wiser to mandate NWR receivers in new vehicles.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 6 months ago

Alternatively, since most modern day vehicles come with satellite radio standard, they could just make it a requirement that satellite radio broadcasts emergency messages on their preview channel during an emergency.

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

The issue is many emergency broadcasts will have location specific information, while satellite will be the same message nationwide.

But it’s still a dumb mandate. Not everyone has cars. I keep an emergency radio (which also receives weather and several short wave bands) for emergencies.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

I've heard worse ideas.

[-] abrinael@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

FM is more affected by physical barriers (buildings, etc.). Range is around 30 miles. AM range is around 100 miles during the day and further at night.

Don’t states with frequent hurricanes still recommend switching to AM in the event of disaster? There are a lot of situations where cell phones or FM may not work, but you could get an AM signal.

[-] JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

See this comment: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/11323676 on an alternate thread to this same discussion which gives a great run down of AM & FM radio systems.

[-] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Would be nice if phones came with am/fm radios built in

It's a shame that they took out this feature from smartphones when they killed the aux jack

[-] cristo@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

They used to, back when we lived in a real society

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

I’m not sure what people would do with normal radios, but people in a severe weather area might own a weather radio that gets alerts from NOAA, and that’s on VHF, though they usually have AM/FM as well. I lived in tornado alley for a while and yeah, we would listen to whatever we could receive (FM in more populated areas, but AM when way out in the sticks) and we had a NOAA radio too.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Can’t have right wing talk radio cut off at the knees. Considering the interference generated by electric motors, I look forward to the added expense in EVs to add a feature I will never use.

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

To be fair the law seems to require it be done at no extra cost to the consumer, but I'm sure they'll find something else that suddenly becomes much more expensive to install than it was before.

[-] Zier@fedia.io 8 points 6 months ago

Drivers Seat $10,000.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] astreus@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 months ago

Unless there's an emergency.

The way I read it, this is ensuring everyone has the most effective analogue radio in their car because that's how emergency broadcasts would go out. Seems sensible to me.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

There are also AM NPR stations (I wasn't aware of this myself until a few days ago), especially in large states with small populations like Alaska.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I listen to NPR, and not requiring AM radio in cars would literally (or "finally" if you're an idiot conservative) kill the National Public Radio system for good.

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago
[-] robocall@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

I've run out of free articles. Can someone please post the article?

[-] CountVon@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 months ago

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica

Looks like you can read the article, without a paywall, here: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/05/am-radio-is-a-lifeline-lawmakers-say-tech-and-auto-industries-disagree/

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Open in browser, enable reader mode, (likely on the right side of the address bar)

[-] OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 6 months ago

I'm ok if this requires better EM shielding of electric vehicles. RF bands are a natural resource, and we should prevent short term profit-seeking from shitting them up.

[-] AnAnonymous@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

What would nuclear Armageddon sickos do then?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
235 points (98.0% liked)

News

23284 readers
1813 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