Re: AM radio law opposed by tech and auto industries is close to passing

On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:03:03 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/05/2024 16:18, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 02 May 2024 05:24:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
 

AM radio law opposed by tech and auto industries is close to passing
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/05/am-radio-is-a-lifeline-lawmakers-say-tech-and-auto-industries-disagree/
A recent test of the emergency alert system found only 1 percent got it via AM.
>
Strange. most is FM these days, or digital?
Something to do with Soros buying radio stations ;-) ?

 
If there is a real emergency, it's crazy to require people to be
listening to the radio all the time or die.

>
Actually it isn't a bad way to update people. You would actually say
listen in every hour, three hours or fixed time daily (much like the UK
met office shipping forecast) if there was a truly cataclysmic event.
>
Cell phone network is dead after at most 2 days without mains. Main
phone network after about a week but VDSL and DECT go down immediately.
The latter caught a lot of people out in Storm Arwen Nov 2021.
>
AM/FM analogue radio is about the best solution and lasts well if used
sparingly. DAB radios eat batteries *very* quickly.

The alerts here are fast and brief, for traumatic events, tornadoes,
kidnappings, whatever. Listening to the radio hourly won't catch them.

Phone alerts make more sense. AM radio is repulsive here, and FM is
not much better, so listening constantly for an emergency alert
doesn't make sense.

A battery powered AM radio is useful during a sustained emergency
without power, like a hurricane or earthquake, assuming that the AM
stations have power.