• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    342 months ago

    This is being spearheaded by Ed Markey, a Democrat. The reason lawmakers want to keep AM radio is that it’s still used for emergency broadcasts. AM radio may seem like a joke if you live in a urban area with good infrastructure, but if you live in a rural area with poor internet and cell service, AM radio may be vital in getting emergency alerts. Auto companies are fighting this because EV components interfere with AM signals, so they have to spend extra money to shield EV components. The narrative about Republican lawmakers wanting to amplify right wing radio hosts is neat, but this is just another case of automakers not wanting to shell out a few extra bucks for a safety feature.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      Then people living in rural areas, who need AM radio, can spend a bit more to get it as an optional package. Or like 5 bucks to get a stand-alone radio. Why force everyone else to get it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        Same reason we force new cars to come with a LATCH system for car seats, even if you don’t have kids; we want safety features to ubiquitous, even in the resale market, and we don’t want car manufacturers charging consumers more for them. This legislation would basically make carmakers treat AM radio like a safety feature, so they can’t up-charge rural consumers who need it more. Also, this legislation doesn’t put the entire burden on the carmaker. It also requires the government to look for alternatives to AM radio that could serve the same function (although I doubt they’ll find a non-digital alternative with the range of AM):

        The proposed legislation would also direct the Government Accountability Office to study whether “an alternative communication system” could replicate and have the same impact that AM radio has for transmitting emergency information. (Source)