I am unconvinced that requiring AM radio in new cars is just “fan service” or outdated.
Emergency scenarios often require a PSA (public service announcement), and it’s easy enough to envision a scenario where communications degrade in succession, such that you can get a PSA on how to use AM transmissions in case other communications go down. So if other networks are degraded, then at least people have AM to fall back on.
This house bill may sound like a bad idea to anyone who doesn’t work in disaster preparedness, or doesn’t have a paranoid security mindset, but it totally makes sense for someone who red teams emergency comms.
For starters, FM broadcasting is hardly more complex than AM broadcasting and any vehicle built in the last 50 years with an AM radio also has an FM radio.
I can't imagine a scenario where FM broadcasting is somehow unavailable, but AM is. But further, if AM is the last line of communication, we are in a VERY bad situation indeed, like apocalyptic. One in which I doubt any survivors are listening to the radio in their cars.
But even further, in an emergency, it's highly likely that car drivers aren't even listening to the radio. Like, unless it's something that everyone is made aware of with communications other than through AM radio. But if those lines are open, then why wouldn't communication be broadcast through those lines?
You may as well argue that we should make sure all homes have land lines or telegraph lines. After all, that's also a line of communication that could be used in an emergency.
They might not be listening to AM radio all the time, but it's often used as an emergency broadcast frequency in Australia, and not for apocalyptic reasons though it could be.
AM travels a lot further than FM, all other things being equal, and the local frequency is signposted on road signs around the country.
The big three typical emergency broadcasts down under include wildfire (which have, and do kill motorists caught in them), flood, and cyclone.
The problem with 'narrowcast' mediums like mobile phones (inc. SMS), and landline phones, is that mass emergency alerts can overload those networks which can delay the message getting out, and it takes time to contact each endpoint in the alert area. The message they get is also likely to be short.
AM broadcast is immensely useful for non-overloadable continual updates on an emergency (or several emergencies at once). Though like narrowcast mediums, broadcast mediums also have disadvantages.
AM is used as part of a wider solution. Sometimes the only way to get an alert to people is via AM radio. It's much easier to mandate AM radio in vehicles, and never need it, than to allow manufacturers to drop it because 'reasons' and then discover we suddenly can't warn some members of the community because they relied on AM broadcasting (even if they didn't know it at the time).
The same is true in the western US and much of Canada.
It’s pretty easy to find a place where you won’t hear any FM stations reliably, but much harder to find a place where AM service is degraded to unusability.
It’s pretty normal for weather and traffic alerts to go out on AM radio in remote parts of North America.
I don't buy this "narrowcast mediums like mobile phones" argument. Please watch any video of any Debconf 24 session. You'll hear how the mobile phones of all participants at the same time start reading emergency alerts (about the heat waves) aloud. So the mobile phone network was, in fact, designed with a broadcast use case in mind, and this gets regularly tested and does not overload the network.
I do agree that AM radio receivers are cheap to build and not a burden to require.
> I do agree that AM radio receivers are cheap to build and not a burden to require.
The actual burden of AM isn't the hardware it takes up, but rather the frequencies it hogs. Keeping AM indefinitely alive means we are reserving prime low frequency bandwidth for a dated tech for no real good reason.
Heck, I'd even agree that keeping the AM bandwidth dedicated to audio broadcasts is a desirable thing. However, I'd argue that it should be converted to a modern broadcasting format that can handle more than sermons and talk radio. Change it into a QAM digital broadcast with a fair bit of error correction and a modern codec and you suddenly can stuff a lot more stations into the same bandwidth, with a long range, and a crystal clear output.
AM radio travels farther for the same energy consumption, as a feature of the lower frequencies used. That means they can provide emergency information to a much larger area for a given power supply. AM radio also doesn't rely on huge towers since the waves can bounce off the ionosphere and travel as ground waves.
AM radio receivers are also very simple to make--check out the crystal radio!
A scenario where FM broadcasting is somehow unavailable, but AM is available, is not an event; it’s geography. There are vast stretches of highway in the U.S. that lack FM service, but you usually can receive groundwave AM service. At night, skywave AM service is accessible.
FM radio is line of sight because of it's high frequency. Because of AM's much longer wavelength it can bounce off the ionosphere and it drops off slower with distance than FM. The range of AM stations is much greater than a comparable FM station for a given height-above-terrain of the antenna.
AM waves can also penetrate and pass through objects a lot better thanks to those lower frequencies.
Driving at night in the intercity mountain-west US, you can pick up radio stations quite far away. Not too long ago outside of Boise I was able to pick up some AM stations from Cleveland!
AM transmissions have a far greater range than FM transmissions, up to thousands of miles. This matters in a common emergency scenario, a nuclear bomb blast (or all out nuclear war), when EMPs will take out most electronics. Cars are Faraday cages and their electronics will likely survive an EMP. In this case, an AM radio in a car is likely the last surviving broadcast medium people will have access to.
A fair point, but there's no need to have the antenna connected unless the radio is actively on. It could be on a relay. Many radios would be off during the EMP.
In the event of a nuclear bomb blast or nuclear war, assuming that the plan isn't out and out annihilation, even then, communications infrastructure is going to be a strategic target.
FEMA maintains about 80 AM transmitters in Faraday cages, with backup generators, across the country. Amateur HAMs maintain a lot more, though of lower power.
I've never found the idea of an emergency radio itself as unconvincing but I've remained relatively unconvinced requiring them to be built into cars was a particularly reliable, useful, or efficient way to go about ensuring access to such radios in disaster scenarios. It seems a lot more like a "well that's the only place I know of that still has an AM radio today so it should stay that way!" regulation than a "AM radio access" regulation.
Due to safety concerns and the ability to get the message out, every home, building, bridge, mountain top, or structure must maintain a a pile of logs on top and a flame at the ready in the event of a national emergency so that way word or warning may be spread like beacons of Gondor.
Not sure I see a problem with that, really. Emergency response contributions are about as compelling a reason for social obligations as is possible, not everyone will benefit from them but anyone could need them. And since property exists and is maintained as a social construction, it makes sense it might come with some social obligations. About the only thing to quibble with is whether burning logs specifically fit a good set of requirements for relay comms, which might be the point of your comment beyond amusement, and I suppose it accomplishes both, though it starts to wear thin at the point where if you make a list of desirable features, AM radio starts to look pretty good.
I don't disagree with AM radio being a way. I do disagree with saying cars are required to have it though. Instead, we should focus more on advocating people to have a cheap battery operated/crank radio, which are fairly cheap, can be gotten for 10 bucks off amazon[1].
If your relying on AM radio for emergency broadcasts, a car radio is pretty piss poor unless your on a long drive, but most people probably will never head it because they are listening to podcasts, streaming music from their phones, etc.
To reiterate, I am fine with AM being used for emergency broadcasting, I just think requiring cars to have AM radios is silly. Everyone should have in their home and/or in a road side emergency packs with their tire jack, a cheap battery operated AM/FM radio.
Well, it's good to have that alternative when your modern emergency broadcast app refuses to work because your year-old phone is no longer supported by the vendor, and fails the remote device attestation check needed by the ad platform that's used to monetize the app. Not that having a newer phone would do you any good, as the app login servers on the other side of the planet are no longer reachable.
Seriously though, AM radio is a very good compromise: it has the best set of features for emergency use, and none of the commercial lock-in and ad cancer bullshit that's consuming modern technology.
This was passed 45-2, from a committee with 29 Republicans and 23 Democrats, so it's interesting to see a bunch of comments here acting like this is just a Republican thing.
As a happy side effect they will actually have to address the incredible amount of low frequency near-field electromagnetic interference that electrical cars typically generate. The reason manufacturers stopped putting AM radio in cars is that the cars themselves are so electrically noisy the entire AM band is washed out with static.
I understand car manufacturers want to ditch AM radios to reduce their part count, or so they can cheap out and use noisier electronics in the rest of the car, or whatever.
What I find a bit odder is the vehemence with which some online commenters also want them gone. I don't use either radio in my car, but their presence doesn't get me hot under my collar either. People say AM radio is useless and obsolete, but the same could probably be said for FM too, since everybody pairs their phones for music anyway. Why does AM have a target painted on it when nobody online seems to have an axe to grind with the equally useless FM radio? Is it just because there are a lot of conservative talk shows on AM? Is that the angle here? The bill to keep AM radios evidently has bipartisan support in Congress, and yet for some reason these discussions usually have people complaining about Republicans.
Conservative talk shows could be part of it. I think electric vehicle cheerleading is another factor, especially since Tesla is one of the more visible manufacturers to not support AM. There are always folks willing to defend to the death anything that company does. There can also be a fair amount of indifference towards non-techies on HN and other tech communities, even if we're talking about something regularly used by millions of people.
If the real motivation for people wanting AM radio gone is due to conservative talk, people are likely overestimating the ratings these stations bring in. It’s the exception, rather than the rule, for one of these stations to perform well. Most conservative talk stations barely attract local advertising, except in a few limited categories like “guns.” I know of more conservative talk stations that are struggling to stay afloat than those that are not.
If lawmakers ACTUALLY cared about public safety, they would fund the distribution of hand-cranked AM radios that could be stored in emergency kits.
This is just legislation purchased, incredibly cheaply, by iHeartMedia, Audacy, and the like cloaked in the delusion that people who failed to evacuate before a hurricane when all other infrastructure was operational will go out to their submerged or destroyed car to listen to the radio.
I’m not buying your argument. I doubt you can devise and pass legislation that’ll cause more people to have emergency kits with hand cranked AM radios than cars, even if you distributed them for free, and there are scenarios that require emergency communication that don’t involve all cars being destroyed.
That said I’m not saying that the public safety argument is genuine, but you can’t just propose something else you prefer to discredit it.
Yes. It should be the FCC enforcing their regulatory duties against specific car models not the house legislating in general. The amount of interference on the low frequency bands that some electrical cars produce prevents reception of AM. And that was already very illegal. You can't do that but car manufacturers were/are too big to care. The public safety aspect of it is entirely secondary.
Didn't the Supreme Court basically say recently that the FCC and similar Executive Branch groups can't enforce such rules? They must come from the Legislature to have any hope of surviving review.
The way the ruling was made, it will be a case by case basis. If a republican FCC does it, that will be fine and normal but if a democrat does it, it's out of the legislative authority.
Either way, the 5th circuit will stop the rules from going into effect.
If the FCC can't enforce the prevention of interference with radio broadcasts it is not the FCC. I'm not sure what ruling you're referencing but I doubt it nulls out the core idea of what the FCC does.
They're referring to the recent decision which reversed the Chevron doctrine, which allowed courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous regulations by regulatory agencies. The most common interpretation of this decision is that it has the effect of nullifying the ability of regulatory agencies to regulate, and removes the bulk of their former role to Congress.
I used to have a car with a broken AM radio and it was really annoying and sometimes stressful because all the traffic alerts were broadcast on an AM station
Congress is really just addressing a market failure, if you want to put it like that. It's not just that the car does not come with an AM radio, the car's electronics are jamming AM reception inside the car, even if you try to buy your own.
It's "okay" for the government to do this because they're already making entry into the mass-produced car market very hard.
In an actual emergency, cell towers may not function.
AM has significantly further range too and is pretty easy to standup as a backup for an area.
It’s also incredibly common for road conditions to still be shared over AM - you see this a lot while driving with all the “advisory - tune to …. AM” signs everywhere.
A part of me really wants to push this and see how far it would go. Why stop at AM? Add in shortwave radio and let us listen to stations on the other side of the earth.
Shortwave doesn’t work well as a mobile, moving medium. It is weak-signal reception (by design) and is likely to be compromised every time your car turns in a different direction.
I am unconvinced that requiring AM radio in new cars is just “fan service” or outdated.
Emergency scenarios often require a PSA (public service announcement), and it’s easy enough to envision a scenario where communications degrade in succession, such that you can get a PSA on how to use AM transmissions in case other communications go down. So if other networks are degraded, then at least people have AM to fall back on.
This house bill may sound like a bad idea to anyone who doesn’t work in disaster preparedness, or doesn’t have a paranoid security mindset, but it totally makes sense for someone who red teams emergency comms.
This doesn't convince me.
For starters, FM broadcasting is hardly more complex than AM broadcasting and any vehicle built in the last 50 years with an AM radio also has an FM radio.
I can't imagine a scenario where FM broadcasting is somehow unavailable, but AM is. But further, if AM is the last line of communication, we are in a VERY bad situation indeed, like apocalyptic. One in which I doubt any survivors are listening to the radio in their cars.
But even further, in an emergency, it's highly likely that car drivers aren't even listening to the radio. Like, unless it's something that everyone is made aware of with communications other than through AM radio. But if those lines are open, then why wouldn't communication be broadcast through those lines?
You may as well argue that we should make sure all homes have land lines or telegraph lines. After all, that's also a line of communication that could be used in an emergency.
They might not be listening to AM radio all the time, but it's often used as an emergency broadcast frequency in Australia, and not for apocalyptic reasons though it could be.
AM travels a lot further than FM, all other things being equal, and the local frequency is signposted on road signs around the country.
The big three typical emergency broadcasts down under include wildfire (which have, and do kill motorists caught in them), flood, and cyclone.
The problem with 'narrowcast' mediums like mobile phones (inc. SMS), and landline phones, is that mass emergency alerts can overload those networks which can delay the message getting out, and it takes time to contact each endpoint in the alert area. The message they get is also likely to be short.
AM broadcast is immensely useful for non-overloadable continual updates on an emergency (or several emergencies at once). Though like narrowcast mediums, broadcast mediums also have disadvantages.
AM is used as part of a wider solution. Sometimes the only way to get an alert to people is via AM radio. It's much easier to mandate AM radio in vehicles, and never need it, than to allow manufacturers to drop it because 'reasons' and then discover we suddenly can't warn some members of the community because they relied on AM broadcasting (even if they didn't know it at the time).
The same is true in the western US and much of Canada.
It’s pretty easy to find a place where you won’t hear any FM stations reliably, but much harder to find a place where AM service is degraded to unusability.
It’s pretty normal for weather and traffic alerts to go out on AM radio in remote parts of North America.
I don't buy this "narrowcast mediums like mobile phones" argument. Please watch any video of any Debconf 24 session. You'll hear how the mobile phones of all participants at the same time start reading emergency alerts (about the heat waves) aloud. So the mobile phone network was, in fact, designed with a broadcast use case in mind, and this gets regularly tested and does not overload the network.
I do agree that AM radio receivers are cheap to build and not a burden to require.
> I do agree that AM radio receivers are cheap to build and not a burden to require.
The actual burden of AM isn't the hardware it takes up, but rather the frequencies it hogs. Keeping AM indefinitely alive means we are reserving prime low frequency bandwidth for a dated tech for no real good reason.
Heck, I'd even agree that keeping the AM bandwidth dedicated to audio broadcasts is a desirable thing. However, I'd argue that it should be converted to a modern broadcasting format that can handle more than sermons and talk radio. Change it into a QAM digital broadcast with a fair bit of error correction and a modern codec and you suddenly can stuff a lot more stations into the same bandwidth, with a long range, and a crystal clear output.
FM radio bands are in fact used for various emergency services, but they are more specialized in usage https://strykerradios.com/ham-radios/ham-radio-emergency-fre...
AM radio travels farther for the same energy consumption, as a feature of the lower frequencies used. That means they can provide emergency information to a much larger area for a given power supply. AM radio also doesn't rely on huge towers since the waves can bounce off the ionosphere and travel as ground waves.
AM radio receivers are also very simple to make--check out the crystal radio!
A scenario where FM broadcasting is somehow unavailable, but AM is available, is not an event; it’s geography. There are vast stretches of highway in the U.S. that lack FM service, but you usually can receive groundwave AM service. At night, skywave AM service is accessible.
FM radio is line of sight because of it's high frequency. Because of AM's much longer wavelength it can bounce off the ionosphere and it drops off slower with distance than FM. The range of AM stations is much greater than a comparable FM station for a given height-above-terrain of the antenna.
AM waves can also penetrate and pass through objects a lot better thanks to those lower frequencies.
Driving at night in the intercity mountain-west US, you can pick up radio stations quite far away. Not too long ago outside of Boise I was able to pick up some AM stations from Cleveland!
AM transmissions have a far greater range than FM transmissions, up to thousands of miles. This matters in a common emergency scenario, a nuclear bomb blast (or all out nuclear war), when EMPs will take out most electronics. Cars are Faraday cages and their electronics will likely survive an EMP. In this case, an AM radio in a car is likely the last surviving broadcast medium people will have access to.
This only works if the AM antenna is protected, inside the Faraday cage, next to the radio. Otherwise you're left with a fried front end.
Unless there's some really fast surge protection, and then a temporary disconnect for the later, longer pulses.
A fair point, but there's no need to have the antenna connected unless the radio is actively on. It could be on a relay. Many radios would be off during the EMP.
Yeah, that's a better idea. Use a signal relay rated for the surge, and just have it off usually.
In the event of a nuclear bomb blast or nuclear war, assuming that the plan isn't out and out annihilation, even then, communications infrastructure is going to be a strategic target.
FEMA maintains about 80 AM transmitters in Faraday cages, with backup generators, across the country. Amateur HAMs maintain a lot more, though of lower power.
I've never found the idea of an emergency radio itself as unconvincing but I've remained relatively unconvinced requiring them to be built into cars was a particularly reliable, useful, or efficient way to go about ensuring access to such radios in disaster scenarios. It seems a lot more like a "well that's the only place I know of that still has an AM radio today so it should stay that way!" regulation than a "AM radio access" regulation.
Especially since the tech is already there, and everywhere. It's madness to lose a capability so easily kept.
Due to safety concerns and the ability to get the message out, every home, building, bridge, mountain top, or structure must maintain a a pile of logs on top and a flame at the ready in the event of a national emergency so that way word or warning may be spread like beacons of Gondor.
Not sure I see a problem with that, really. Emergency response contributions are about as compelling a reason for social obligations as is possible, not everyone will benefit from them but anyone could need them. And since property exists and is maintained as a social construction, it makes sense it might come with some social obligations. About the only thing to quibble with is whether burning logs specifically fit a good set of requirements for relay comms, which might be the point of your comment beyond amusement, and I suppose it accomplishes both, though it starts to wear thin at the point where if you make a list of desirable features, AM radio starts to look pretty good.
Mostly it was for amusement, haha.
I don't disagree with AM radio being a way. I do disagree with saying cars are required to have it though. Instead, we should focus more on advocating people to have a cheap battery operated/crank radio, which are fairly cheap, can be gotten for 10 bucks off amazon[1].
If your relying on AM radio for emergency broadcasts, a car radio is pretty piss poor unless your on a long drive, but most people probably will never head it because they are listening to podcasts, streaming music from their phones, etc.
To reiterate, I am fine with AM being used for emergency broadcasting, I just think requiring cars to have AM radios is silly. Everyone should have in their home and/or in a road side emergency packs with their tire jack, a cheap battery operated AM/FM radio.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/J-166-Transistor-Excellent-Reception-...
Well, it's good to have that alternative when your modern emergency broadcast app refuses to work because your year-old phone is no longer supported by the vendor, and fails the remote device attestation check needed by the ad platform that's used to monetize the app. Not that having a newer phone would do you any good, as the app login servers on the other side of the planet are no longer reachable.
Seriously though, AM radio is a very good compromise: it has the best set of features for emergency use, and none of the commercial lock-in and ad cancer bullshit that's consuming modern technology.
This was passed 45-2, from a committee with 29 Republicans and 23 Democrats, so it's interesting to see a bunch of comments here acting like this is just a Republican thing.
S.1669 – AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2023
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41585397
I predict a Jeff Geerling video about this.
He has one where he talks about the lack of radio in cars and mentions the possibility of a bill but i can't remember if he said anything specific.
As a happy side effect they will actually have to address the incredible amount of low frequency near-field electromagnetic interference that electrical cars typically generate. The reason manufacturers stopped putting AM radio in cars is that the cars themselves are so electrically noisy the entire AM band is washed out with static.
I understand car manufacturers want to ditch AM radios to reduce their part count, or so they can cheap out and use noisier electronics in the rest of the car, or whatever.
What I find a bit odder is the vehemence with which some online commenters also want them gone. I don't use either radio in my car, but their presence doesn't get me hot under my collar either. People say AM radio is useless and obsolete, but the same could probably be said for FM too, since everybody pairs their phones for music anyway. Why does AM have a target painted on it when nobody online seems to have an axe to grind with the equally useless FM radio? Is it just because there are a lot of conservative talk shows on AM? Is that the angle here? The bill to keep AM radios evidently has bipartisan support in Congress, and yet for some reason these discussions usually have people complaining about Republicans.
Conservative talk shows could be part of it. I think electric vehicle cheerleading is another factor, especially since Tesla is one of the more visible manufacturers to not support AM. There are always folks willing to defend to the death anything that company does. There can also be a fair amount of indifference towards non-techies on HN and other tech communities, even if we're talking about something regularly used by millions of people.
If the real motivation for people wanting AM radio gone is due to conservative talk, people are likely overestimating the ratings these stations bring in. It’s the exception, rather than the rule, for one of these stations to perform well. Most conservative talk stations barely attract local advertising, except in a few limited categories like “guns.” I know of more conservative talk stations that are struggling to stay afloat than those that are not.
The public safety argument is bullshit.
If lawmakers ACTUALLY cared about public safety, they would fund the distribution of hand-cranked AM radios that could be stored in emergency kits.
This is just legislation purchased, incredibly cheaply, by iHeartMedia, Audacy, and the like cloaked in the delusion that people who failed to evacuate before a hurricane when all other infrastructure was operational will go out to their submerged or destroyed car to listen to the radio.
I’m not buying your argument. I doubt you can devise and pass legislation that’ll cause more people to have emergency kits with hand cranked AM radios than cars, even if you distributed them for free, and there are scenarios that require emergency communication that don’t involve all cars being destroyed.
That said I’m not saying that the public safety argument is genuine, but you can’t just propose something else you prefer to discredit it.
If they actually cared about public safety, they would pursue legislation to require analog controls & eliminate touchscreens in vehicles.
Yes. It should be the FCC enforcing their regulatory duties against specific car models not the house legislating in general. The amount of interference on the low frequency bands that some electrical cars produce prevents reception of AM. And that was already very illegal. You can't do that but car manufacturers were/are too big to care. The public safety aspect of it is entirely secondary.
Didn't the Supreme Court basically say recently that the FCC and similar Executive Branch groups can't enforce such rules? They must come from the Legislature to have any hope of surviving review.
The way the ruling was made, it will be a case by case basis. If a republican FCC does it, that will be fine and normal but if a democrat does it, it's out of the legislative authority.
Either way, the 5th circuit will stop the rules from going into effect.
If the FCC can't enforce the prevention of interference with radio broadcasts it is not the FCC. I'm not sure what ruling you're referencing but I doubt it nulls out the core idea of what the FCC does.
They're referring to the recent decision which reversed the Chevron doctrine, which allowed courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous regulations by regulatory agencies. The most common interpretation of this decision is that it has the effect of nullifying the ability of regulatory agencies to regulate, and removes the bulk of their former role to Congress.
Here is a lengthy HN thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949
> The amount of interference on the low frequency bands that some electrical cars produce prevents reception of AM. And that was already very illegal.
Is it illegal if it doesn't interfere with communications outside the car?
I used to have a car with a broken AM radio and it was really annoying and sometimes stressful because all the traffic alerts were broadcast on an AM station
> Conservatives are also worried about losing a lucrative platform for right-wing news and media.
You are guaranteed the right to free speech. You are not guaranteed that other people are obligated to carry that speech for you, at a cost to them.
Cry me a fucking river. (The same would equally apply to left-wing media, for perfect clarity).
Congress is really just addressing a market failure, if you want to put it like that. It's not just that the car does not come with an AM radio, the car's electronics are jamming AM reception inside the car, even if you try to buy your own.
It's "okay" for the government to do this because they're already making entry into the mass-produced car market very hard.
[flagged]
In an actual emergency, cell towers may not function. AM has significantly further range too and is pretty easy to standup as a backup for an area.
It’s also incredibly common for road conditions to still be shared over AM - you see this a lot while driving with all the “advisory - tune to …. AM” signs everywhere.
[flagged]
A part of me really wants to push this and see how far it would go. Why stop at AM? Add in shortwave radio and let us listen to stations on the other side of the earth.
Shortwave doesn’t work well as a mobile, moving medium. It is weak-signal reception (by design) and is likely to be compromised every time your car turns in a different direction.
Why not we just have a system like the beacons of Gondor?