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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is it illegal if it doesn't interfere with communications outside the car?
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).
It's "okay" for the government to do this because they're already making entry into the mass-produced car market very hard.
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-...
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.
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!
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 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.
Either way, the 5th circuit will stop the rules from going into effect.
One party has 6 supreme Court justices on the bench who we now know are explicitly working to further Republican causes [1]. The conservative supreme court is making rulings before hearing cases or reviewing evidence/decisions. They aren't interested in legal analysis which was clear with the trump immunity ruling.
So no, not "the same".
Here is a lengthy HN thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949
So we aren't actually wrong because it does not, in fact, work the same for both parties. The composition of the court right this moment is such that Republicans win and democrats lose. Divorced of what the law or prior precedence dictates.
You are right, congress can make changes to the court. But don't pretend like the law is being evenly or fairly applied without regard for the underlying politics.