Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#51

Post by lupusreal »

cogman10 wrote: post #15
brewdad wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the Supreme Court basically say recently that the FCC and similar Executive Branch groups can't enforce such rules? They must come from the Legislature to have any hope of surviving review.

The way the ruling was made, it will be a case by case basis. If a republican FCC does it, that will be fine and normal but if a democrat does it, it's out of the legislative authority. Either way, the 5th circuit will stop the rules from going into effect.

That's not right either, you're both wrong. Federal agencies are still allowed to make up regulations not explicitly found in the letter of the law, and courts are allowed to strike down those regulation if they think they're too far outside the spirit of the law. It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#52

Post by cogman10 »

lupusreal wrote: post #51
cogman10 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way the ruling was made, it will be a case by case basis. If a republican FCC does it, that will be fine and normal but if a democrat does it, it's out of the legislative authority. Either way, the 5th circuit will stop the rules from going into effect.

That's not right either, you're both wrong. Federal agencies are still allowed to make up regulations not explicitly found in the letter of the law, and courts are allowed to strike down those regulation if they think they're too far outside the spirit of the law. It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.

> It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.

One party has 6 supreme Court justices on the bench who we now know are explicitly working to further Republican causes [1]. The conservative supreme court is making rulings before hearing cases or reviewing evidence/decisions. They aren't interested in legal analysis which was clear with the trump immunity ruling.

So no, not "the same".

[1] https://theweek.com/politics/supreme-court-roberts-maga

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#53

Post by lupusreal »

cogman10 wrote: post #52
lupusreal wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not right either, you're both wrong. Federal agencies are still allowed to make up regulations not explicitly found in the letter of the law, and courts are allowed to strike down those regulation if they think they're too far outside the spirit of the law. It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.

> It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said. One party has 6 supreme Court justices on the bench who we now know are explicitly working to further Republican causes [1]. The conservative supreme court is making rulings before hearing cases or reviewing evidence/decisions. They aren't interested in legal analysis which was clear with the trump immunity ruling. So no, not "the same". [1] https://the…

The composition of the court is subject to change, as always. In any case the court made Chevron Deference so it can obviously unmake it. Congress is free to amend the Constitution to change the rules, of there is a political consensus, which there isn't.

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#54

Post by EasyMark »

nis0s wrote: post #10

I am unconvinced that requiring AM radio in new cars is just “fan service” or outdated. Emergency scenarios often require a PSA (public service announcement), and it’s easy enough to envision a scenario where communications degrade in succession, such that you can get a PSA on how to use AM transmissions in case other communications go down. So if other networks are degraded, then at least people have AM to fall back…

It’s also cheap as hell to keep in cars. Sometimes you just have to push back against the bean counters.

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#55

Post by EasyMark »

dotnet00 wrote: post #16

This was passed 45-2, from a committee with 29 Republicans and 23 Democrats, so it's interesting to see a bunch of comments here acting like this is just a Republican thing.

I think it’s definitely more of a republican “issue” because their constituency of older Americans which lean pretty heavily republican are in up in arms over it. Democrats are more ho-hum about it, but probably see it as a net positive rather than a “you shall not pass!”moment

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#56

Post by cogman10 »

lupusreal wrote: post #53
cogman10 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said. One party has 6 supreme Court justices on the bench who we now know are explicitly working to further Republican causes [1]. The conservative supreme court is making rulings before hearing cases or reviewing evidence/decisions. They aren't interested in legal analysis which was clear with the trump immunity ruling. So no, not "the same". [1] https://the…

The composition of the court is subject to change, as always. In any case the court made Chevron Deference so it can obviously unmake it. Congress is free to amend the Constitution to change the rules, of there is a political consensus, which there isn't.

> It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.

So we aren't actually wrong because it does not, in fact, work the same for both parties. The composition of the court right this moment is such that Republicans win and democrats lose. Divorced of what the law or prior precedence dictates.

You are right, congress can make changes to the court. But don't pretend like the law is being evenly or fairly applied without regard for the underlying politics.

Re: House committee approves bill requiring new cars to have AM radio

#57

Post by xp84 »

JB_Dev wrote: post #18
xp84 wrote: post #6

[flagged]

In an actual emergency, cell towers may not function. AM has significantly further range too and is pretty easy to standup as a backup for an area. It’s also incredibly common for road conditions to still be shared over AM - you see this a lot while driving with all the “advisory - tune to …. AM” signs everywhere.

Okay, true in theory, but I still question how much difference it makes. In a situation so bad that it knocks out all the cell towers, landlines, cable TV, and broadband, people aren't flocking to their cars to check every AM frequency for instructions. They're panicking and looting the nearest grocery store either way.

And if it's not a cell-tower-destroying emergency, those terrible, low-power, scratchy AM stations are 1000x less efficient to get road condition news out there than Google Maps. I've tried to tune to one maybe twice in my life and learned nothing of use. Honestly, it would be a better use of government money if we shut them down. If there are areas that one of those stations effectively reaches that isn't reached by cell signals, use the money from not operating them in the other 90% of America to pay some wireless company to put in a few towers there and allow anyone to roam (at 3G speeds). That would actually save 100x the lives the AM stations ever will, since an AM station can't help you call 911 when you crash your car on a lonely mountain road.

Post reply on HN