Lawmakers look to require AM radio in new cars despite automakers' pushback

chicago.suntimes.com

8 points·TMWNN··7 comments

> ...require automakers to include AM radio in new vehicles at no additional cost to consumers.

Mandating features at no cost to customers is like trying to argue with math. They aren't going to sell the cars at a loss. They'll just raise all vehicles by the cost of the radios, and it'll be impossible to prove without line item pricing.

Yes. The intent is not that AM radio be "free" in the abstract. It's that charging for it means it's an optional upgrade.

One which consumers likely won't buy.

They don't care if the sticker price goes up by the cost of the am radio. They care that manufacturers install it, and don't make it optional.

And they don't care because it's like $5 worth of parts (honestly probably less).

Are FM radios made which don’t include AM?

Can they produce a car which includes a radio that is practically useless because the vehicle gives off so much electric noise?

The point is to make sure every car has an AM radio installed, because it is still useful in emergencies. It's also not a particularly hard thing to do, it's the kind of thing that has for ages been squeezed into the corner of mobile phone radio chips and often just not hooked up in software.

It is hard. EVs need a lot of extra design and shielding in order to not absolutely destroy AM reception. That's the main reason manufacturers are arguing against them.

We have computers tho. The idea that it is hard is laughable. Why can so many cars have fm and am with non visible antennas and work fine?

Don't cars still put antennas on the roof? The stubby, rigid kind?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com