3 ms·

Car Industry Seeks to Crush Am Radio; Congress May Rescue It

7 points by fortran77 3y ago

stop50 3y ago
Isn't us analog am radio pretty inefficient on the bandwith?
- fortran77 3y ago
  Car makers want to drop it because the electronics in modern cars -- and especially electric cars -- generate so much AM noise that it because very difficult to receive AM radio. I would love to see AM radio mandated in cars because it could be an excellent emergency communications system during a major crisis. A few AM radio stations in each area have been, for years, provisioned with generators and back-up hardened transmitters for this scenario. (see the "EAS" system: https://www.nab.org/amtoolkit/amEas.asp https://www.nab.org/amtoolkit/amEas.asp ) Even if the reception would be too noisy while the car was moving, it would still be useful when the car was stopped/off. After a big earthquake or blackout, if cell phones were out, people could still get information on AM radio.
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    > I would love to see AM radio mandated in cars because it could be an excellent emergency communications system That, and another thing: why are they lobbying against AM, as one would think that it would be dirt cheap for manufacturers? Note for instance that there are AM radios on some really cheap (non-smart) phones.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Do those actually work very well? My understanding is that AM works better with quite long antennas.
      - jruohonen 3y ago
        > Do those actually work very well? No idea, but I'd expect them to work in big cities at least. In any case, here in Northern Europe the state recommends having an AM radio with batteries for emergency preparations (although I seriously doubt how many citizens fulfill the recommendation).
      - RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
        While a long antenna offers superior performance, a shorter one can still function, but with reduced efficiency. This trade-off becomes less critical in environments with minimal RF interference, like in the desert or in a power outage zone, where even a short antenna can provide adequate reception. Also okay if you're close to the station (like in a city). Edit to add: The root of the issue here is increased interference from EVs, so the RF environment is messier.
- RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
  In the US, AM Radio (both digital and analog) runs from 540 kHz to 1700 kHz, packing 116 channels in approximately 1 MHz (with 10 kHz spacing between stations). That's impressive efficiency for a frequency range unsuitable for much else.
uberman 3y ago
I cant remember the last time I listened to am radio. Certainly not in the last 25 years. Probably near when I watched UHF tv for the last time. We lived through the phase out of analog tv just fine. I cant really understand anyone let a lone Republicans wanting to federally mandate am radio.
- countWSS 3y ago
  Cell networks are dependent on local electricity, anything major happens they get overloaded or shutdown, and much of society stops functioning without cell towers.
  - uberman 3y ago
    I'm not arguing against disaster preparedness and if manufacturers were allowed to remove am radios from cars and if one was concerned about cell availability, a portable am radio costs 6 bucks and in a disaster has way more utility than one fixed to your car. As the article points out though a portable am radio may cost 6 bucks, (and we have one with a hand crank though cranking it is a pita) the issue for manufacturers is shielding the internals from being effected by all the em of modern cars. I'm all for and practice disaster preparedness as we are often with out power. I carry a first aid kit and flashlight in the truck at all times. Should we mandate that all cars require them as well? What about defibulators? They also seem like a good idea to have around. How about Fire extinguishers?
- fortran77 3y ago
  I hope your area never has a major disaster. Why do you have to make this into a Blue vs Red battle?
  - uberman 3y ago
    The article made it such. I'm actually echoing what Rand Paul raises as an issue in the article. I also want to make it clear I am not arguing against disaster preparedness. Every one/family should be prepared and that likely includes a hand cranked multiband radio and flashlight. Being prepared and mandating am radio in every car seems like two very different things. I carry a first aid kit in my truck and when I am out working the ranch a shotgun. I dont think we should mandate every car come with a first aid kit let alone a firearm.
RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
Swap the city perspective for the raw reality of the desert: vast and quiet, devoid of FM radio and cell phone coverage. I often traverse the vast, signal-sparse landscapes of the western US desert. These stretches are radio silence. FM? It makes it to the horizon (if it has maxed-out power). Cell and UHF? Line-of-sight. So, besides satellite radio, information far from a population center is only available from AM. While the effectiveness of many AM stations in fulfilling their public service obligations is debatable, that's a separate discussion.

7 points by fortran77 3y ago

stop50 3y ago

Isn't us analog am radio pretty inefficient on the bandwith?

fortran77 3y ago
Car makers want to drop it because the electronics in modern cars -- and especially electric cars -- generate so much AM noise that it because very difficult to receive AM radio. I would love to see AM radio mandated in cars because it could be an excellent emergency communications system during a major crisis. A few AM radio stations in each area have been, for years, provisioned with generators and back-up hardened transmitters for this scenario. (see the "EAS" system: https://www.nab.org/amtoolkit/amEas.asp https://www.nab.org/amtoolkit/amEas.asp ) Even if the reception would be too noisy while the car was moving, it would still be useful when the car was stopped/off. After a big earthquake or blackout, if cell phones were out, people could still get information on AM radio.
- jruohonen 3y ago
  > I would love to see AM radio mandated in cars because it could be an excellent emergency communications system That, and another thing: why are they lobbying against AM, as one would think that it would be dirt cheap for manufacturers? Note for instance that there are AM radios on some really cheap (non-smart) phones.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Do those actually work very well? My understanding is that AM works better with quite long antennas.
    - jruohonen 3y ago
      > Do those actually work very well? No idea, but I'd expect them to work in big cities at least. In any case, here in Northern Europe the state recommends having an AM radio with batteries for emergency preparations (although I seriously doubt how many citizens fulfill the recommendation).
    - RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
      While a long antenna offers superior performance, a shorter one can still function, but with reduced efficiency. This trade-off becomes less critical in environments with minimal RF interference, like in the desert or in a power outage zone, where even a short antenna can provide adequate reception. Also okay if you're close to the station (like in a city). Edit to add: The root of the issue here is increased interference from EVs, so the RF environment is messier.
RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
In the US, AM Radio (both digital and analog) runs from 540 kHz to 1700 kHz, packing 116 channels in approximately 1 MHz (with 10 kHz spacing between stations). That's impressive efficiency for a frequency range unsuitable for much else.

uberman 3y ago

I cant remember the last time I listened to am radio. Certainly not in the last 25 years. Probably near when I watched UHF tv for the last time. We lived through the phase out of analog tv just fine. I cant really understand anyone let a lone Republicans wanting to federally mandate am radio.

countWSS 3y ago
Cell networks are dependent on local electricity, anything major happens they get overloaded or shutdown, and much of society stops functioning without cell towers.
- uberman 3y ago
  I'm not arguing against disaster preparedness and if manufacturers were allowed to remove am radios from cars and if one was concerned about cell availability, a portable am radio costs 6 bucks and in a disaster has way more utility than one fixed to your car. As the article points out though a portable am radio may cost 6 bucks, (and we have one with a hand crank though cranking it is a pita) the issue for manufacturers is shielding the internals from being effected by all the em of modern cars. I'm all for and practice disaster preparedness as we are often with out power. I carry a first aid kit and flashlight in the truck at all times. Should we mandate that all cars require them as well? What about defibulators? They also seem like a good idea to have around. How about Fire extinguishers?
fortran77 3y ago
I hope your area never has a major disaster. Why do you have to make this into a Blue vs Red battle?
- uberman 3y ago
  The article made it such. I'm actually echoing what Rand Paul raises as an issue in the article. I also want to make it clear I am not arguing against disaster preparedness. Every one/family should be prepared and that likely includes a hand cranked multiband radio and flashlight. Being prepared and mandating am radio in every car seems like two very different things. I carry a first aid kit in my truck and when I am out working the ranch a shotgun. I dont think we should mandate every car come with a first aid kit let alone a firearm.

RF_Enthusiast 3y ago

Swap the city perspective for the raw reality of the desert: vast and quiet, devoid of FM radio and cell phone coverage. I often traverse the vast, signal-sparse landscapes of the western US desert. These stretches are radio silence. FM? It makes it to the horizon (if it has maxed-out power). Cell and UHF? Line-of-sight. So, besides satellite radio, information far from a population center is only available from AM. While the effectiveness of many AM stations in fulfilling their public service obligations is debatable, that's a separate discussion.