2 ms·

Blizzards, earthquakes, mudslides, and forest fires don't take out FM radio EAS (many of these don't even take out cell phone EAS...), so why are you listing th

Blizzards, earthquakes, mudslides, and forest fires don't take out FM radio EAS (many of these don't even take out cell phone EAS...), so why are you listing them as reasons AM in particular is needed? Perhaps was I not clear EAS already uses more than AM? The only time AM is relevant is when the _ENTIRE_ radio communication infrastructure except AM is unusable due to the disaster, such as after a hurricane or in nuclear war, and in those cases you don't urgently need the alert while driving down the highway. If you can't defend new regulation as worthwhile beyond "we, by happenstance, typically had it before so we should keep doing that" then you've failed to defend the new regulation. It either makes sense and should be done properly because of actual safety reasons or it isn't worth doing half assed and inconveniently just because it used to be a possibility. I'm a huge fan of regulation, especially around safety, but only when it targets the actual goal directly. If the goal is "you must guarantee that a vehicle is sold with a way to receive EAS communications from at least x miles away" then make that the regulation and let manufacturers choose if that's a built in AM radio or not, don't just regulate "all cars must have AM radio" as you've just locked things into being the low quality solution until it becomes a big enough issue to actually go make a whole new federal law about it.

shkkmo 3y ago
How is EAS over AM useful if people don't have AM recievers? FM (as currently used and licensed in the US) has much more limited range EAS is also much more limited than an AM station as is designed mostly for national level emergencies. It has limited ability to update it's message as the situation evolves and doesn't work at all for low level emergencies. EAS works great for nuclear war but not at all for a landside that makes a road impassable. > The only time AM is relevant is when the _ENTIRE_ radio communication infrastructure except AM is unusable due to the disaster This is simply false. I use AM regularly to check driving related alerts. > If you can't defend new regulation as worthwhile beyond "we, by happenstance, typically had it before so we should keep doing that" then you've failed to defend the new regulation. We have an existing system of AM emergency information that works well because every car has an station. It won't work in cars don't have AM radios. If you want to change the status quo, you need to demonstrate that you are already solving those issues in a new way. I'm all for findign a better solution here, but it has to be rolled out first. > If the goal is "you must guarantee that a vehicle is sold with a way to receive EAS communications from at least x miles away" First off, that isn't the goal. Secondly, that would be a horrible regulation that would be hard to test given how radio waves work with terrain. Generally reception has far more to do with location than it does with hardware ( at the antenna scale under discussion). Thirdly, this approach isn't capable of addressing the hundreds of local areas that would need to update their infrastructure to the new system.

shkkmo 3y ago

How is EAS over AM useful if people don't have AM recievers? FM (as currently used and licensed in the US) has much more limited range EAS is also much more limited than an AM station as is designed mostly for national level emergencies. It has limited ability to update it's message as the situation evolves and doesn't work at all for low level emergencies. EAS works great for nuclear war but not at all for a landside that makes a road impassable. > The only time AM is relevant is when the _ENTIRE_ radio communication infrastructure except AM is unusable due to the disaster This is simply false. I use AM regularly to check driving related alerts. > If you can't defend new regulation as worthwhile beyond "we, by happenstance, typically had it before so we should keep doing that" then you've failed to defend the new regulation. We have an existing system of AM emergency information that works well because every car has an station. It won't work in cars don't have AM radios. If you want to change the status quo, you need to demonstrate that you are already solving those issues in a new way. I'm all for findign a better solution here, but it has to be rolled out first. > If the goal is "you must guarantee that a vehicle is sold with a way to receive EAS communications from at least x miles away" First off, that isn't the goal. Secondly, that would be a horrible regulation that would be hard to test given how radio waves work with terrain. Generally reception has far more to do with location than it does with hardware ( at the antenna scale under discussion). Thirdly, this approach isn't capable of addressing the hundreds of local areas that would need to update their infrastructure to the new system.