I agree with all you said....But I think this wouldnt be as big of an issue if it wasnt who owns 99% of those stations and what programing they play on there airwaves. Do you think its big news? or big money upset about there possible lost of the airways they own?
I think, and this is my opinion, that the "noise" issue of all-electric cars having AM came up somewhere in a laboratory for (some) manufacturers, and the easy way out was to pull it. The "big" people in broadcasting, like the NAB only got on board with trying to assist (AM) broadcasters when it became big enough of an issue to make THEM look good. The airwaves operated by the "big" players really have not done much in lobbying to make sure AM is kept in vehicles to the best of my knowledge BECAUSE they are deeply involved with entities like the NAB. The NAB speaks more to large stations than small ones. Large corporate owners are, however affected as I'll point out later.....
The "news" of this issue got big enough because of people like the owner of WRDN, Brian Winnekins, in Durand, Wisconsin taking it to his farm broadcasting partners. Farmers are known to rely on AM, and THOSE connections brought it to others, and the concern grew across the country with more and more articles about it. We need to be grateful, as an industry to him for his activism in this issue. Even our local TV-8 from Grand Rapids came to WION to discuss it with us. Eventually it made national headlines, and the attention of government officials who do what they always do...they held....drum roll please...A HEARING.
The ACTUAL issue(s) for AM broadcasters include: restriction of (our) trade. If, say 50 percent of our car manufacturers drop AM, they're restricting access to public airwaves that have been included in cars for decades....the same public airwaves that we, as broadcasters pay the FCC each year for the rights to use. In turn, those stations who stream because cars don't have AM anymore then will see increased fees in our streaming hours costing US more because of the car manufacturers decisions which force those who want to hear us to their phones and other devices.
If, as broadcasters we decide to stream (and many do not) we have to pay not only spectrum fees each year to the FCC, but also fees for streaming for any bumpers of music in and out of talk, and of course for all music played, plus bandwidth and distribution costs if applicable. If (certain) car manufacturers drop AM, then perhaps they should pay part of our fees as they increase, and...the FCC should consider lessening some of the regulatory (yearly) fees we pay to keep our licenses. It's a multi-faceted discussion with many people affected by the decision of "corporate America."
BTW, the hearing on AM being important in cars the government held was a JOKE. Almost everyone who spoke hung the argument on the need for "National Security" and the "Emergency Alert System" when FM also has this of course, and all the speakers did was use those popular buzzwords to look like they were informed legislators. They were NOT. You can see the pathetic effort here. One even called our industry, the "last defense" when other communcations fail, trying to help the (AM) industry. What a poor choice of words. I was screaming at the screen during the hearing.
The big broadcasters stand to lose just as we do. AM is still the top listened-to media or near it in markets with the blowtorch signals. Small broadcasters get hit the worst as the factors of cost, lost listenership, and loss of (participating) rated station "time spent listening" adds up. We can't just "fire" someone and report decreased stock value as money is lost like the big guys. We work with REAL checkbooks and REAL people who need jobs. Our options only include finding ways to increase revenue from existing advertisers, or cutting services to the public or internally that we find expendable as WE get h it with decisoins made FOR us but not in our best interest.
My personal curiosity as an owner in Michigan of a station is why Michigan's Gary Peters was AGAINST the idea of keeping AM in cars, as this headline came across my desk via some farming interests and organizations: The following headline was forwarded to me on July 27th.
"The Senate Commerce Committee cleared the
AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act -- to ensure AM radios remain in passenger vehicles -- by voice vote in their session this morning. The only member voting ‘no’ to the passage was Senator Gary Peters (D-MI)."
Grateful it cleared. Hopefully the momentum continues. VERY curious why Senator Peters is against AM radio, and I believe I have a right to know, he bought advertising to GET ELECTED on my airwaves last time around, much to my dismay. I try to keep politicals off our airwaves, but...some we are unable to refuse.
I hope I've helped you a bit, thank you for being interested...and maybe I didn't hit the nail on the head with your question, but it affects all of us, big and small....just in different ways, and it should NOT be happening...the removal of AM in cars, that is.....as the issue, if ANY can be fixed as FORD already proved by saying they'd add-back the AM button with an over the air software update. The hybrid from Toyota has kept AM all these years, and some other "EVs" still have it, so the interfence argument is an excuse to not solve a problem.
Now, the issue of electric cars making more noise than allowed by FCC interference regulations on nearby radio recievers......THAT is a whole different ballgame and THAT fight ...I think...is yet to come.
