Comment by cogman10

Comment by cogman10 6 hours ago

15 replies

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.

misswaterfairy 6 hours ago

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).

  • dghlsakjg 5 hours ago

    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.

  • patrakov 4 hours ago

    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.

    • cogman10 3 hours ago

      > 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.

hyrix 6 hours ago

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!

RF_Enthusiast 4 hours ago

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.

superkuh 6 hours ago

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.

  • freedomben 5 hours ago

    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!

7e 6 hours ago

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.

  • howard941 5 hours ago

    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.

    • Vecr 3 hours ago

      Unless there's some really fast surge protection, and then a temporary disconnect for the later, longer pulses.

    • 7e 3 hours ago

      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.

      • Vecr 2 hours ago

        Yeah, that's a better idea. Use a signal relay rated for the surge, and just have it off usually.

  • FireBeyond 3 hours ago

    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.

    • 7e 3 hours ago

      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.