AM radio law opposed by tech and auto industries is close to passing
US lawmakers are advancing the “AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act,” which would require all new cars to include AM receivers at no extra cost, framed as a public-safety measure for emergencies when cellular and internet networks fail. Supporters emphasize AM’s long range, technical simplicity, and role in existing traffic and hazard alerts, while critics argue the mandate is technologically outdated, driven in part by broadcasters’ interests, and poorly targeted compared with portable radios or NOAA weather channels. A major technical concern is electromagnetic interference from EV power electronics, with some seeing the law as a backdoor way to force better RF shielding, and others warning it may simply lead to token, low-quality AM implementations.
Emergency communication & resilience
- Many see AM as a uniquely robust “last resort” channel: long range, simple receivers (even crystal radios with no power), and decades of existing infrastructure.
- Advocates argue it still works when cell networks, internet, and much of the power grid fail, and is valuable in disasters (earthquakes, storms, wildfires, avalanches).
- Skeptics counter that most real-world emergencies today are handled via cell alerts, NOAA Weather Radio, and FM/EAS; AM only rarely matters and its role is overstated.
- Some worry more about the reliability of staffing at stations: automation and consolidation mean nobody may be present to break in with local alerts.
Cars vs. portable radios
- One camp: mandating AM in cars is a low-cost way to guarantee near‑universal receivers, since most adults have access to a vehicle.
- Opposing view: a car is not always accessible or safe in a disaster; better to subsidize or encourage cheap portable/wind‑up radios or home receivers.
- Middle-ground suggestions: include a portable AM set with each car instead of building it into the dash.
EV interference & electromagnetic pollution
- A major theme: EV motor inverters and switching power supplies generate strong RF noise in the AM band.
- Some claim this bill will indirectly force automakers to clean up emissions to preserve AM reception, reducing spectrum pollution that already harms AM, shortwave, and ham radio.
- Others respond that the bill doesn’t actually set EMI limits; manufacturers could comply with poor, nearly unusable AM implementations (“malicious compliance”).
Technical arguments: AM vs FM/other systems
- AM’s advantages cited: lower frequency → larger coverage area, usable under marginal SNR, can sometimes propagate hundreds or thousands of km (esp. at night).
- Counters: for planned emergency coverage you assume only line‑of‑sight is reliable; in that regime FM and AM reach are similar, and AM’s extra skywave reach is irrelevant noise.
- Some highlight that “AM” debates conflate modulation with band; the range comes mainly from frequency, not amplitude modulation itself.
- Alternative systems suggested: NOAA Weather Radio on VHF, digital modes (DRM, HD Radio, ham digital), satellite radio, and more direct functional requirements like “must receive EAS from ≥X miles” rather than “must have AM.”
Politics, industry, and cost
- Many view the bill as cheap safety infrastructure; estimates of incremental cost per car are very low.
- Others see it as a protectionist subsidy for legacy broadcasters (especially talk radio) and a distraction from designing better, band‑agnostic emergency systems.