Slashdot Mirror


FCC Silenced Puerto Rico Radio Station's Boosters In March 2017

An dochasac writes: WAPA (680 AM) is a radio station in San Juan, Puerto Rico. After Hurricane Maria took out power, phone lines, cell towers and internet, WAPA was the only Puerto Rican radio station on the air for crucial public emergency communication. But WAPA's signal coverage was significantly cut in March 2017 when the FCC refused to renew the license for synchronous AM booster stations at Arecibo, Mayaguez and Aguadilla in March due to procedural issues with the petition for renewal. This decision limited the coverage, signal strength and signal quality of this station for remote and mountainous parts of Puerto Rico where the need for emergency communications is greatest. The FCC audio division chief who pulled WAPA's synchronous booster license decided to retire a few days ago. The position is open but is focused on legal training rather than technical expertise and experience with emergency communications.

FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states. With IoT, cellular, mesh, satellite, social media and cognitive radio, communications technology is changing much faster than the FCC's legal efforts to regulate it. But its arcane regulations leave Puerto Rico as one of the few islands in the Caribbean without a long distance shortwave broadcast station. With line of sight FM stations offline and WAPA's AM station neutered, post-Maria Puerto Ricans have a better chance of getting news and emergency information from Havana, Cuba than from anything under the FCC's increasingly pointless jurisdiction.

155 comments

  1. smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No bias in that summary at all LOL....

    1. Re:smdh by PopeRatface · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What bias? That's a perfectly mainstream and obviously objective account! What are ya, some kind of a Nazi, or what?

      --
      Oy vey! It's anudda Shoah, I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
    2. Re: smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Sell Puerto Rico to mexicans, where it belongs.

      And then build a wall and make THEM pay.

      Oh, wait...

    3. Re: smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A russian Nazi, busily subverting the property of Clinton, of course.

    4. Re: smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you think the drive is too long too? I wonder if you are man enough to say those little thoughts in front of anyone except your mommy.

    5. Re: smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian Jewish nazi to be sure.

    6. Re:smdh by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure even the summary author knows exactly what he's complaining about here.

      Is he complaining that the FCC requires a radio station submit the proper paperwork to keep its boosters operating?

      Is he complaining that the FCC exists at all?

      Is he complaining that right-wing talk show hosts are allowed to broadcast in the U.S., and wtf does that have to do with Puerto Rico anyway?

      Dude, find a coherent thesis before you hit the submit button.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re: smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ajit Patel - this is an anything FCC rant.

      It was just created by an idiot that rambled on.

      Expect more FCC rants as his confirmation approaches.

    8. Re:smdh by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      hahahaha.. right so if some rightwing station neglected to follow procedure and bitched about being shut off, you wouldn't be all over them for not following the rules?

      mainstream does not imply objectivity.

    9. Re:smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A handful of corporations own all the TV and radio stations. People in most of the country do not have an alternate source of information, so they get right wing corporate approved opinions only.

      A one sided debate is not good for a democracy.

    10. Re: smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is remarks like this that emphasize that you REALLY should have paid more attention to world history or at least US history classes in high school. Puerto Rico was a concession of the Spanish/American War in the late 1800's and granted Commonwealth status and US citizenship in 1917. Pretty much the same thing in the Philippines, yet the Phillippines were actually granted full independence after WWII and thus no longer a US Commonwealth.

    11. Re: smdh by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      But its arcane regulations leave...

      Should be no suprise that's it's politically motivated; real writers at least know when to use correct tense.

    12. Re:smdh by Jerry · · Score: 1

      Good questions!
      Another question is: Since he is so concerned about what he considers extremist radio stations in the "lower 48" why didn't he mention the fact that the Far-Left has been broadcasting Marxist Theology on Pacifica Radio on the West coast for 71 years?

      Fortunately for America, the Comrades have, during that time, repeatedly re-enacted the Lenin-Trotsky wars by purging their ranks of those with politically impure thoughts. What was politically impure depended on who was in power at the time.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    13. Re:smdh by Jerry · · Score: 1

      "People in most of the country do not have an alternate source of information, so they get right wing corporate approved opinions only. A one sided debate is not good for a democracy."

      What?
      So, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NYT, WPO, LAT, and a host of other "Progressive" outlets aren't enough for you?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      "Progressive talk radio is a talk radio format devoted to expressing leftist, liberal or progressive viewpoints of news and issues as opposed to conservative talk radio. In the United States, the format has includedsyndicated and independent personalities such as Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Norman Goldman, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Bill Press, Alan Colmes, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mike Papantonio, Sam Seder, Leslie Marshall, John Fugelsang, Hal Sparks, Brad Friedman, Arnie Arnesen, and Ed Schultz.

      In contrast to conservative talk, progressive talk has historically been far less popular on commercial terrestrial radio;..."

      Air America and its syblings have been "less popular" because the vast majority of Americans still believe in Rule of Law under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You know, that "little book" you Progressives want to burn.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    14. Re:smdh by radiodavid · · Score: 2

      Objective? The post ignores all the other stations (WKAQ, WIPR, WODA, WUNO, etc.) that were on the air during or immediately after the storm. WAPA is not unique, as there are 131 fully licensed stations in Puerto Rico. The poster talks about short-wave, yet shortwave is long-gone from the Caribbean except for the propaganda mill of post-Castro Cuba. The poster blames the suspension of what was always an experimental operation of boosters for Puerto Rico's lack of news and information, yet the locations of those now-silent boosters were all severely flooded and could not have operated in any event.

    15. Re:smdh by radiodavid · · Score: 1

      hahahaha.. right so if some rightwing station neglected to follow procedure and bitched about being shut off, you wouldn't be all over them for not following the rules?

      WAPA Radio: the most conservative, right-wing news and talk station of all such operations in Puerto Rico.

    16. Re: smdh by radiodavid · · Score: 1

      I Puerto Rico was a concession of the Spanish/American War in the late 1800's and granted Commonwealth status and US citizenship in 1917. P

      Puerto Rico became a territory, administered by US appointed governors in 1898. It did not become a Commonwealth until 1952, when it got its first elected governor, Luis Muñoz Marín.

    17. Re:smdh by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      ok, and so therefore?

    18. Re:smdh by radiodavid · · Score: 3, Informative

      ok, and so therefore?

      Therefore any claim that WAPA was being punished for being a progressive voice is null and voided.

      WAPA had already replaced the boosters with existing stations which it bought in the respective cities of Puerto Rico, but they were not operative due to the effects of the storm... just as the boosters would not have been operative.

      The issue is simply that the storm was so destructive that only 4 or 5 stations were able to stay on the air or return to the air immediately after (WIPR, WKAQ, WAPA, WODA, WUNO) and the ability to operate and serve the Island had as its only limiting factor the logistics of getting transmitters on the air and getting staff members to a place where they could broadcast.

      For example, WKAQ had its building nearly destroyed, but within a few hours, they were on the air from the transmitter site which has an emergency studio. WKAQ has, for many decades, been the leading news and talk station in Puerto Rico.

      In many other cases, station owners sent their staff home before the storm. Most stations in PR do not have a news department, so placing the staff of each station in danger would have been irresponsible. In fact, many stations outside the San Juan and other big city metro areas have studios at the transmitter and that location is typically low, moist and flat and in a flood zone... so those stations had no way of staying on the air.

      Reality is a bummer.

    19. Re:smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure even the summary author knows exactly what he's complaining about here.

      The author is complaining that Donald Trump is President and not Hillary Clinton. That's all any of this crap is ever about. In this particular instance, it's a case of let's blame the people following the rules and not the people who apparently didn't read the rules after all because, you know, a lot of Puerto Ricans are not white and therefore racism, obviously.

      That crap about mesh networks, internet of things, etc. had me really confused though. That's all the stuff that is so fragile technically that it stops working after something like a hurricane, and it does so precisely because there is no effective regulation. Radio and TV stations have to have some technical resiliency to them--that's part of the rules they operate under because, get this, people actually might need to rely on them in case of an emergency. All the idiots in Texas, Florida, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico who don't need a radio, don't need a TV with a tuner, etc because they get all that on their smartphone just found out what a stupid plan that is.

    20. Re:smdh by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 2

      There is a reason that you put AM transmitter towers in low moist areas. The ground is more conductive in those areas and that makes the antennas more effective, meaning more signal coverage. Radio stations in richer parts of the world often have backup studio and transmitter sites, but most stations in Puerto Rico can't afford to do that.

      On the other hand, you put FM transmitter towers on high ground to get the actual antenna (which, unlike AM, is not the entire tower) as high as possible. FM reception is largely limited to line of sight; the higher the antenna is, the more places it has line of sight to. The antennas used for FM broadcasting are not dependent of the quality of the ground under them.

      The difference has no connection to the modulation method (AM vs FM), but is caused by the different parts of the radio spectrum that the services use.

    21. Re:smdh by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      It's true that shortwave broadcasting is mostly gone from the Caribbean. That's unfortunate, because it's a resource that is uniquely suited to the situation that Puerto Rico is in now; it can cover a large area with signal even when no infrastructure exists. That need is one reason that the Australian Broadcasting Company continues to offer shortwave broadcasts for the benefit of Australia's small islands.

      Existing shortwave broadcasters could beam additional broadcasts toward Puerto Rico, including the US's own Voice of America (which is now a much smaller operation than in its heyday but still exists). But few people still own shortwave receivers so the broadcasts would not be very useful.

    22. Re:smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the FCC. Just give independence to Puerto Rico. Or let them join the British Empire.

    23. Re:smdh by radiodavid · · Score: 1

      Australia cancelled its domestic shortwave broadcasts aimed at the outback, the Northern Territory and peripheral islands about two months ago. An appeal to their legislature failed and the broadcasts are silent.

    24. Re:smdh by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      That makes me sad. What service do they offer to those areas now?

    25. Re:smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from my observation it seems like the Conservative side is more concerned with "purity" than the left. or are you conveniently forgetting how the Tea Party purged anyone who doesn't follow their agenda as "Republicans In Name Only"

    26. Re:smdh by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      All of this may be true, but it has nothing to do with what either the GP insinuated or my response to him.

    27. Re:smdh by MercTech · · Score: 1

      How many even own a shortwave receiver any more?
      How many commercial shortwave stations are still a viable business?

      With internet and satellite broadcast, shortwave seems to be going the way of medium wave stations in the U.S. (commercial AM in the U.S. is "medium wave" to most of the world)

      I dug the shortwave out of the emergency gear. The numbers stations are still there. I got a futball match out of Australia. A couple of music broadcasts in Spanish, And way too many radio televangelists. Voice of America was lacking. Pravda World was nowhere to be found. But, Al Jazeera has a SW station now.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    28. Re:smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMH...

      Sure, progressives aren't so fond of the second amendment... but conservatives elected a president who wants to gut freedom of the press, and who appointed a attorney general who doesn't seem to give a crap about the 4th amendment...

      Really both parties are reading the constitution like it's the bible and picking and choosing the parts they like (you know over looking the whole "judicial branch"' thing because of "activists judges" or the emoluments clauses because eh, what's trump going to do make more money that he claims he already has?!)

      If you really think that the progressives are out to gut the constitution more than the conservatives, then you need to stop voting, because every time you do, you vote to gut the constitution... and you are personally responsible for destroying democracy....

    29. Re:smdh by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      I don't think commercial shortwave broadcasting has ever been a viable business. The audience is too diffuse and too difficult to measure. Most shortwave broadcasting was done by governments and religious organizations. But now the governments are shutting down operations, leaving just the religious stations.

      But those government broadcasts had the potential to be valuable resources in a disaster situation. They can't do that if they're off the air. But it's also true that they are no help if nobody has the receivers... which is a reason to not only keep the government stations on the air, but to have them run interesting programs so people have a reason to buy receivers.

    30. Re:smdh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right. they silenced them!
      its almost like they could see the hurricane coming 6 months ago!!! its deliberate fuckoffage of Puerto Rico!!

  2. By GOD Let There Be Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there wasn't!

    TRUMP powa!

    Where the crooks all came! And the walls fell!

  3. Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fill out the paperwork right next time.

    Are we really expected to be so dense as to bandwagon against a specific person because they failed to predict a hurricane six months in advance and the need for a specific station's radio boosters?

    1. Re:Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah in fact. This is a known hurricane area, the problem was 100% predictable.

    2. Re: Procedural Issues by coastwalker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It also demonstrates how a "free market" is capable of failing to be in the best interests of the population.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    3. Re:Procedural Issues by mikael · · Score: 2

      The petition provided accurate information. The FCC turned down the request to add booster AM transmitters, because they considered the introduction of "experimental stations" a backdoor way of extending the broadcast license of the station.

      "Blanco-Pi argues that he should be allowed to have a greater coverage area for the programming broadcast over his existing full-power stations, in part because he believes his programming to be superior to his competitors'"

      "establishment of a new AM booster station merely to extend the service of an existing AM station impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes."

      The FCC got all high and mighty about defending their commercial licensing. Because they require a license for every transmitter, requesting a new booster station requires extending a commercial transmitter license.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You monster, why didn't you warn them!

    5. Re:Procedural Issues by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Yep, it happens every year. Oh wait.

    6. Re: Procedural Issues by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also demonstrates how a "free market" is capable of failing to be in the best interests of the population.

      Slow down there, cowboy! Are we to understand now that a radio station being *forced*...by government regulation...to *stop* serving their market in the manner that they'd been doing and spent good coin on doing is the *free market* at work?

      These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

      And as far as this gem from TFS:

      FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states.

      Fuck you very much, and you could switch the terms to left-wing, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Nazi, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, etc etc, and unless they're actually inciting violence and/or armed rebellion/overthrow, I'd still tell you to fuck right off.

      Government has no business policing the content of speech outside the aforementioned incitement to violence and/or armed rebellion/overthrow caveats, particularly and especially concerning politics or religion. This idea of "hate speech" is simply Orwell's "Newspeak" re-labeled. A prison for the minds of the masses who cannot rebel when the words and the concepts they conveyed that were used to describe it, and even for the very concept of individual freedom itself, have been erased.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to say hack job, and that's from somebody who has no love for the current FCC. This wasn't news for nerds, it was a relatively content free editorial masquerading as a summary.

    8. Re: Procedural Issues by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Slow down there, cowboy! Are we to understand now that a radio station being *forced*...by government regulation...to *stop* serving their market in the manner that they'd been doing and spent good coin on doing is the *free market* at work?

      That is exactly how the leftists think as is evidence by the non-stop comments that have been here on slashdot for years.

      It doesnt matter how involved the government is in creating the problem. What matters to them is that they can vilify something other than the government. The left have become Statists. Its why there is now the term "classical liberal." Modern liberals don't believe in liberty.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it is more a commentary on how generally useless and wrong the stories on SlashDot have become.

      I guess checking the facts before posting is asking too much. Cherry pick the sound bites and present them out of context. I feel sorry for the people in PR, but they are the master of their own destiny. It was a five year experimental license that expired a year and a half ago that was canceled six months ago by the FCC because the application was flawed.

      This story, with all the errors, omissions, and bias, should have never seen the light of day.

      Poor excuse for the author.

    10. Re:Procedural Issues by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Maybe not every year but quite often (2014, 2010, and 2008 being the last 3). Likewise with most islands in the Caribbean. Not really a surprise. What WAS a surprise was about 12 years without a major hurricane landfall in the US. But that was the exception, as anyone living long-term in Florida/Alabama/Louisiana/Texas/Mississippi would tell you...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re: Procedural Issues by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The alternative to the government regulating radio broadcasts, is them not regulating radio broadcasts. Since this is a tech site I'll assume you realize how much more difficult that would make the whole business of broadcast transmission. The summary here is total shit so I can't really determine if it was the station operators or the FCC that fucked up the licensing. To suggest that this outcome is an intrinsic effect of licensing radio broadcasters, or government regulation more broadly, shows either a lack of understanding of the issue, or a self-imposed ideological inflexibility.

    12. Re: Procedural Issues by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      12 years? Ike 9 years ago knocked out my power for weeks and I live over an hour from the coast. Widespread damage in coastal areas like Galveston. Large hotels collapsed, museums were flooded, etc. You mistake "we haven't had media hysteria about hurricanes" with "there haven't been hurricanes".

    13. Re: Procedural Issues by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ike was a cat 2 hurricane when it made US landfall. Yes, a hurricane, but not a major (3+) hurricane - as I stated.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re: Procedural Issues by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The alternative to the government regulating radio broadcasts, is them not regulating radio broadcasts.

      Not all regulations are equal.

      In this case nobody else is licensed to use this frequency anywhere even remotely near this location. Cogitate on that idea for a bit.

      The FCC is not mediating between rival licensees of this frequency. It is just standing in the way of what can easily be argued would be an easy increase in wealth for the residents of Puerto Rico. Wealth is goods and services, radio is arguably both, and expanding coverage means more goods and services.

      Why do you hate Puerto Ricans?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "free market at work" is Houston developers mispricing flood risk, and Puerto Rico service providers building cheap towers because that is what the logic of the market dictates. Markets don't care if ppl are out of power and communication for days, the returns on cheap infrastructure have already paid off handsomely and they can afford to sit on their behinds taking their time to repair damage.

    16. Re: Procedural Issues by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Fuck you very much, and you could switch the terms to left-wing, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Nazi, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, etc etc, and unless they're actually inciting violence and/or armed rebellion/overthrow, I'd still tell you to fuck right off.

      Government has no business policing the content of speech outside the aforementioned incitement to violence and/or armed rebellion/overthrow caveats, particularly and especially concerning politics or religion. This idea of "hate speech" is simply Orwell's "Newspeak" re-labeled. A prison for the minds of the masses who cannot rebel when the words and the concepts they conveyed that were used to describe it, and even for the very concept of individual freedom itself, have been erased.


      You are correct that freedom of speech includes the right to say things that a vast majority find disagreeable. But what point is there crossover between hate speech and incitement of violence? It seems like a very slippery slope. Would we have had the the vehicular assault on protesters in Charlotte occur if it were not for decades of far right media agitation? Trump's speeches (and election) have have a very obvious correlation on the rise of hate crimes across the USA. Companies like FOX are very obviously in the business of selling propaganda as a product, where they are interpreting news as evidence to support their worldview. When that worldview is to be afraid and hate other people, you need to ask some hard questions about the

      Where is the line? Clearly, telling people to go murder all foreigners right now is inciting violence, and unacceptable. But isn't it also going to have a negative consequences if you spend decades telling people repeatedly that all foreigners are thieves and rapists? That will result in murders and violence, but likely on a lesser scale.

      The right has some solid political ideas that are worthy of discussion, but they are in bed with some really questionable people with seedy ideas. The level of political animosity that exists right now is a direct result of decades of conservative political propaganda telling Americans to hate each other.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    17. Re:Procedural Issues by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, we're supposed to bandwagon against the head of the Federal COMMUNICATIONS commission for letting the holy paperwork come before maintaining an ability to effectively COMMUNICATE with the population in the event of an emergency. There's no need to predict a particular emergency, just be prepared when one comes up. As for the need for the boosters, they're SUPPOSED to know this stuff. They absolutely could know that they were necessary to reach all of the population. If they didn't know then they're incompetent. If they just didn't care they are culpably negligent.

    18. Re: Procedural Issues by sjames · · Score: 1

      I heard a radio preacher in Kansas calling for the extermination of inferior people (by which he meant of a race or religion he didn't fancy).

    19. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you ok with a left winger shooting up a bunch of republican senators playing baseball in a park?

      How come you lefty fucks always bitch about some dude who lost it during a protest where both sides were violent but never mention a left wing psycho fuck who planned out a cold blooded mass assassination?

    20. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down, son. It is a commercial license for a commercial station who has commercial competitors. He wanted to make more money than his competitors by cheating the licensing system.

      He is -not- an emergency broadcasting system and the only way for people in Puerto Rico to communicate. Had the hurricane damaged his stations and left his competitors' equipment I damaged then you'd be complaining about what? That we gave the wrong guy the booster licenses and he must be a rethuglican stooge who bribed his white supremacist masters in the trump White House despite his knowing the hurricane would close him down and only his competitors could communicate, but there was white privileged money to be made! (Did I miss any currently hot leftist buzzwords? Oh wait, I did. Racist. There, got em all!)

    21. Re:Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The petition provided accurate information. The FCC turned down the request to add booster AM transmitters, because they considered the introduction of "experimental stations" a backdoor way of extending the broadcast license of the station.

      How do you know what you claim here? Citation please.

      "Blanco-Pi argues that he should be allowed to have a greater coverage area for the programming broadcast over his existing full-power stations, in part because he believes his programming to be superior to his competitors'"

      A purely subjective marketing statement by the owner/operator of the license? Why should the FCC consider that if the FCC is to be "impartial" in all matters?

      "establishment of a new AM booster station merely to extend the service of an existing AM station impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes."

      And here we have a fact in this matter? Trying to "skirt the process" and "not follow the rules".

      The FCC got all high and mighty about defending their commercial licensing. Because they require a license for every transmitter, requesting a new booster station requires extending a commercial transmitter license.

      And here we have another fact in this matter? The FCC is trying to enforce the regulations and the licensee thinks the regulations do not apply to them.

      So the truth in this matter is a licensee that wants to expand their coverage for financial gain because "he believes his programming to be superior to his competitors". So the FCC is supposed to support the efforts of a money-making capitalist? here I thought everyone on /. was against "money-making capitalists" yet they are coming out in support of a poor down-trodden radio station operator in far-off Puerto Rico who can't get a license to operate legally.

      So what part of "twisting the news to suit your agenda" does the original /. article suggest to you?

    22. Re:Procedural Issues by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The petition provided accurate information. The FCC turned down the request to add booster AM transmitters, because they considered the introduction of "experimental stations" a backdoor way of extending the broadcast license of the station.

      Not quite. The repeaters in question had been in continuous operation for anywhere from 14 to 18 years. The FCC denied permission to continue operating these repeaters because they felt that there was no further benefit to experimenting with synchronous repeater technology, and that they were effectively just being used as commercial stations at this point, which requires a competitive bidding process.

      The decision is, IMO, dubious, because they should have done this at least a decade sooner. De-licensing the repeaters after so many years of continuous repeater operation is tantamount to reducing the de-facto range of the main station, which represents the loss of a resource that the community had grown to depend on.

      Really, this was a screw-up by the George W. Bush FCC, after which the Obama FCC said, "Screw it, we're not touching this mess", and subsequently, the Trump FCC said, "Let's poke a stick into this round, brown, paper-like object hanging under the eaves and see what happens."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re: Procedural Issues by sjames · · Score: 1

      So wanting the FCC to lighten up on the regulations a bit make me a typical leftist? You're going to have to send me a program because that seems a bit off to me.

      The FCC should also, BTW lighten up on the competition's regulations so long as the use is non-interfering. In other words, the FCC's jog isn't to cripple everyone until they're equal, it's supposed to manage spectrum allocations so they don't step on each other. The boosters do not expand the spectrum allocation.

    25. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The boosters give an unfair advantage to his competitors. Sheesh. Why is this not obvious that the guy tried to scam the licensing system, got busted, and now pays the piper?

      I have zero sympathy for this guy. He didn't fail (due to stupidity and incompetence) to fill out the proper paperwork. It was malicious.

    26. Re: Procedural Issues by sjames · · Score: 1

      Go home, you're drunk!

    27. Re: Procedural Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lefty killing a bunch of fucking rightwads is doing the world a FUCKING FAVOR

  4. Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states.

    Can't tell if he's far right, and complaining about being silenced by the left, or far left, and complaining that "those pesky nazis" get to spew their hate speech.

    1. Re:Bias??? by peterofoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states.

      Can't tell if he's far right, and complaining about being silenced by the left, or far left, and complaining that "those pesky nazis" get to spew their hate speech.

      Either way its -10 points for off topic content.

    2. Re:Bias??? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states.

      Can't tell if he's far right, and complaining about being silenced by the left, or far left, and complaining that "those pesky nazis" get to spew their hate speech.

      I can tell. He's a lefty who's tweaked that the FCC won't censor his political opposition.

      Since the number of stations (and alternative media outlets) climbed to the point where there was no shortage to be used to justify forcing radio stations to present all positions on controversial subjects, the "fairness doctrine" regulations were removed. This let free speech came at last to radio, which enabled the talk radio industry.

      Talk radio ended up presenting primarily conservative viewpoints, mainly because progressive viewpoints tend to be presented as as 1984-style duckspeak rants attempting to enforce consensus, and this verbal abuse didn't attract enough listeners for such shows to achieve financial success.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a station in Puerto Rico can't broadcast help messages, it's a victory for right-wingers and free markets everywhere!

    4. Re: Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah commie, except that there IS a Relation between the two Things only in your Propaganda.

      And we Know, lefties are Always supporting censorship.

    5. Re: Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its accussing the FCC of bias. While it took efforts to limit WAPAs AM signal to protect licensing, the FCC has let similar signals go on in the continental US.

    6. Re: Bias??? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Maybe eliminating the fairness doctrine did increase freedom in some regard. It gave idiots like Limbaugh the freedom to establish a more cohesive, biased soapbox to stand on. But sustaining an informed, thinking, free society? Not so much.

    7. Re:Bias??? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      He's not complaining about right-wing AM talk radio. That's pretty much the only profitable AM radio market in the US.

      I mean, he may be, but complaining about the only profitable political discussion media in America seems dumb. And yes, I'm assuming that the mainstream media outlets are not making any money spewing left-wing propaganda (and profit is not their goal, so no problem).

      More than anything, I'm surprised but heartened that such vitriolic, hateful, and bigoted claims are made in the article. We should be convinced by now that the Left in America is intent on ruling, and prepared to use all means, political, legislative, judicial, and violent, to achieve that goal. All means, without limitation. We are seeing only the beginning of the Left's revolt in America, and this lament that the Government hasn't silenced dissent opposed to that is just a small, but instructive, example.

      The pot is on the boil.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re: Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time the left have launched a radio station they've failed in spectacular fashion. People don't want to hear the garbage that the progressive press are preaching, they don't want other garbage preached at them either. The reason why Limbaugh is popular is because he points a light back at the progressive press, and progressive politics doing stupid things. And just a FYI, it's not just the US. In Canada the only radio stations making ends meet easily are the ones who are broadcasting "right of centre" in the political arena, and there's a reason why on that too. I'll let you puzzle it out, it shouldn't be hard.

    9. Re:Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, the *lower 48* is an Alaskan thing. To Puerto Rico it's just the mainland.

      To tell the truth, I don't know how that paragraph got into the summary. Whatever became of subtlety?

    10. Re: Bias??? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      No, its accussing the FCC of bias. While it took efforts to limit WAPAs AM signal to protect licensing, the FCC has let similar signals go on in the continental US.

      Did the stations they "let go" fill out their renewal paperwork correctly and file it on time?

      If they did, and the station in Puerto Rico didn't, the only bias shown is against people who break the rules the FCC is chartered to enforce.

      = = = =

      Of course, if breaking the rules is more characteristic of left-wing than right-wing executives, enforcing politics-blind rules might provoke the rule-breakers to cry "Bias!" and point out numbers, out-of-context, to support their attempt to get away with rule-breaking. We've seen a lot of that with other parts of the legal code.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    11. Re:Bias??? by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      mainly because progressive viewpoints tend to be presented as as 1984-style duckspeak rants attempting to enforce consensus

      What a clearly unbiased opinion! It's a good thing conservatives so rarely engage in such things.

    12. Re: Bias??? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The clear relation the article was communicating is that the FCC is biased towards righty faggots who fetishize markets. ... the FCC has been co-opted by right wingnuts and thinks free speech for right fags must be encouraged but brown Puerto Ricans should be made an example of.

      Really?

      I thought the article showed a clear bias against failing to follow the rules when filling out and filing forms, then took a flying leap into differential regulation of left-right political speech (by an regulatory body whose charter doesn't allow that). This is the only thing in the Slashdot submission that leads me to suspect WAPA may have a left-of-center editorial policy, or not carry right-wing talk hosts.

      Just as you took a flying leap from enforcing paperwork requirements to allege bias over skin color.

      I support censorship at the client. Everyone gets to speak, you get to filter.

      Now THAT we can agree on. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    13. Re: Bias??? by radiodavid · · Score: 1

      "No, its accussing the FCC of bias. While it took efforts to limit WAPAs AM signal to protect licensing, the FCC has let similar signals go on in the continental US."

      Where? Examples of stations that are authorized despite not following the rules and not filling in the proper paperwork?

    14. Re: Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rules are fucked. Enforcement is arbitrary. The FCC likely came down on this station (which might be right-wing for all you know, despite your "suspicions") because it is small potatoes and can't raise a fuss. If it was a station on the mainland the FCC would likely have allowed it because the operators would have jumped through the hoops.

      To recap: the FCC rules are arbitrary and capricious, the product of a giant bureaucracy and little Napoleons wanting to assert their authoritah and make others do what they want. The FCC likely relaxes their rules for right wing mainland stations, because the stations know how to kiss the FCC's ass. Since the Puerto Rican station (which might very well be right-wing for all you know) didn't demonstrate proper obeisance to the FCC, they were denied. Stupidity all around, but there is no necessary discrimination against right wing stations implied in the summary. QED.

    15. Re: Bias??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right wingnuts have lots of stolen money that they throw at trial lawyers to make sure they get permitted to do what they want. If the rules still won't let them, they put Ajit Pai in charge and he changes the rules to favor them.

  5. As long as we are measuring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    When it comes to incompetence, the US federal government takes the cake (and keeps it until it is stale before giving out too-small pieces to people who probably don't deserve it.) But Puerto Rico is right up there with self-serving greed, corruption, and third-world trashing of anything that doesn't have armed guards around it. Perhaps they should give up their holier-than-thou "commonwealth" charade and get a real territorial governor that could start bringing them into the late 19th century overall.

    1. Re: As long as we are measuring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      While I dont like what you wrote, I cant help to agree with most of it. Corruption at the top of the political ladder is rampant and one of the reasons why PR is in dire straits.

      That said, the US should pay close attention. The political corruption and partisanship that brought PR down is the same surging throughout the USA at this very moment.

      Like it or not, the US is heading in the same direction.

  6. Stupids run the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discuss...

    1. Re:Stupids run the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupids are good at running things; they don't have any intelligence to distract them from following procedure manuals to the letter.

  7. The reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the FCC's increasingly pointless jurisdiction.

    Broadcast radio can't be used to monetize data channels and the data packets within them; therefore not important.

    1. Re:The reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody knows Google invented advertising. So innovative bro.

  8. Puerto Rico is by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing but a corrupt banana republic run by a handful of thieving families.......it's no different than Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands or American Samoa. Illiteracy even in government officials is rampant. I personally know one representative in Washington who is a high school dropout (he's also a Democrat). Getting a permit filled out is beyond most of them. The US allows them self-government and this is what happens. And of course, getting lawyers involved in any government department is asking for trouble.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Puerto Rico is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... allows them self-government and this is what happens ...

      If a culture doesn't have a concept and history of serving the "greater good", then government will result in apathy or, as family alliances are invoked, nepotism. For government to work, it must demonstrate it is trustworthy, or at least, rules with consistency.

    2. Re:Puerto Rico is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... cronies get some.

      While the USA champions the poor in some situations (eg. "... your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"), the main purpose of the republic was ensuring no, one person gained unchecked power. To that end, the current USA is still a success. The US constitution giving rights to poor people, as the Magna Carta did, was a matter of coincidence, not intent.

      The failure of unions to protect the market and of bureaucracy to provide perfect regulation, in the '70s, allowed naysayers like Reagan to proclaim that responsibility for the country should be handed to the rich. The government was no longer the ruler of the rich, who in turn decreed that government wasn't responsible for all classes of citizenry. The result is various forms of 'the haves' leeching from the government, while 'the have-nots' suffer even more.

    3. Re:Puerto Rico is by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Puerto Rico has been created in its current form by the USA.

      Investigate the Jones Act and then come back and tell us how the USA has allowed free commerce to develop the economy there.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Puerto Rico is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you've been modded insightful shows that this site has completed its downfall into irrelevancy.

    5. Re:Puerto Rico is by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Really? I find that very hard to believe. Per the US government's own website: "Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. Because it is not a state, it has no senators and its representative in the House of Representatives is a delegate, called the Resident Commissioner, with limited voting privileges. Delegates have a marginalized role in Congress and their constituents are not represented in Congress in the same manner as most citizens."

      So you personally know Jenniffer González-Colón (who is a Republican, not a Democrat) and is NOT a "representative" but the Resident Commissioner, aka their official delegate? And the way you say "one", are you implying that there is more than one, like some secret cabal that only you know about? Or do you "personally know" Pedro Pierluisi, the previous Resident Commissioner, who is Democrat?

      Now, I'm not contesting the idea of "a corrupt banana republic run by a handful of thieving families". I could counter that the USA itself is becoming "a corrupt intellectual property rights republic run by a handful of thieving corporations"

      What happened here is a symptom of what our forefathers rebelled against in the first place..."taxation without representation". PR has no "real" power in the Federal government, and is perceived by the current POTUS as an "an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water." He can't even speak in complete sentences, so PR is probably SOOL.

  9. Bullshit. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But WAPA's signal coverage was significantly cut in March 2017 when the FCC refused to renew the license for synchronous AM booster stations at Arecibo, Mayaguez and Aguadilla in March due to procedural issues with the petition for renewal.

    Bullshit. It wasn't "procedural issues" it was a lack of compliance with the terms they were allowed to add boosters.

    Blanco-Pi sought and received annual renewals for the Stations' licenses, albeit often without the
    required reports of his experimental progress.
    5 In 2009, he sought to add a third synchronous booster to
    the two he was already operating in conjunction with station WISO.6 After initially denying the
    application based on an erroneous interpretation of the rules,7 the staff denied reconsideration based on
    Blanco-Pi ' s failure to demonstrate any further experimental benefit of adding a third AM synchronous
    booster, at Guayama, Puerto Rico, to WISO and the two existing AM synchronous boosters.
    8 In seeking
    review, Blanco-Pi attempted, for the first time, to justify the addition of a new AM booster station on
    technical and experimental grounds; the Commission disregarded these new arguments pursuant to
    Section 1.115(c) of the rules.9

    Who would have thought that flaunting the rules would eventually get you shut down, right?

    Also, if you think all this regulation on radio frequencies is silly then you should realize that the shielding on power supplies (that would otherwise jam most of the RF spectrum) only exist because of regulation that protects the RF spectrum from mass contamination.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the technical claim of reaching people in an emergency has been validated now?

    2. Re:Bullshit. by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. It's a shame they didn't apply for a license to do just that.

    3. Re:Bullshit. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      To add more fuel to the article bashing fire:

      This is WAPA's Daytime Signal Propagation at 10000 Watts.
      This is WAPA's Nighttime Signal Propagation at 9500 Watts

      At local range not only does it cover all of Puerto Rico, but starts to hit the Dominican Republic. Even cheap AM radios should be able to pick it up over most of the island.

      A higher quality radio (such as a car stereo since power is out over most of the island) should have no trouble picking this up anywhere on the island at any time of the day short of deep in a valley.

      Night should have no issues whatsoever anywhere on the island in any terrain short of a crystal radio on the western side.

      Also, WAPA has 6 affiliates stations (although they could be down) According to Wikipedia

    4. Re:Bullshit. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Maps like that necessarily gloss over terrain interference and such. If you could zoom in and the map was inch for inch accurate, you would see shadowed areas where reception is poor to non-existent.

    5. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you even rambling on about? Why don't you go back to sucking Hillary's dick? The adults are talking here.

    6. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the right wing stations applied for that eventuality even though they probably never use it for that purpose but just to spread right wing hate speech.

    7. Re:Bullshit. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      Thats correct, there is going to be some terrain loss when it comes to propagation, but it shouldn't be that large of an issue overall with AM. Here's an example of what you're referring to using UHF.

      WAPA TV's coverage map.

      Unfortunately, I can't find a site that does maps quite like this for anything other than TV, but it shows what terrain can do to a UHF signal.

      The difference however between UHF and MW when it comes to propagation is huge. UHF is typically received via Line of Sight and needs massive ERP to get long range vs AM, which can propagate using groundwave as well as skywave (mostly at night. This is why many stations dial down their ERP at night) and can penetrate hills and buildings easier with much less ERP at the tower. Also WAPA AM is low on the AM band which also helps in groundwave and skywave propagation.

      In the end we're talking about a 100 mile island and a 10K MW transmitter. Unless there's damage or a design issue with the transmitter antenna then just about any car stereo on the island should get this signal. Especially at night.

    8. Re:Bullshit. by sjames · · Score: 1

      OTOH, if that was true, I can't imagine any commercial operation saying, "What the heck, lets blow a few $100K on repeaters anyway.".

  10. Really, antifa??? by eclectro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states.

    Perhaps you should have mentioned that you want to censor people you disagree with instead of assuming that everyone on Slashdot happens to have your same brave wave pattern.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Really, antifa??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wouldn't say this so casually if he viewed as existing, or as human, the many people who disagree with promoting your own views by silencing your opponent.

      The view itself is dangerous and tried before. A couple generations of Russian literature don't exist because of it. And it's arrogant. A group of elites should shape views then indoctrinate the rest of us with a message curated by FCC licensing (and, presumably, other bureaucratic infiltration, like domain registrars).

      I don't know what's more shocking: to find an American holding the views of a Communist propagandist, or to see his unconscious disregard for his political opposition. But I think it is the latter. I'm not surprised he exists at all, just frustrated.

  11. Project Loon and Amazon drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't Google give the Puerto Ricans emergency data service, and why can't Amazon fly in supplies by drone?

  12. What a load of crap. by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative
    The whole summary reeks of an opportunistic attempt to drum up support for someone who has been trying to abuse the system for commercial gain.

    First, AM booster stations only work when they have power, so there's no weight behind the implication that communications are being affected. Second, other than the "7 words" and some advertising (cigarettes, booze) the government doesn't control content, especially political content, which is protected by this 1st Amendment thing. Third, the author apparently thinks AM radio is "shortwave." It isn't.

    Finally, AM Synchronous Boosters are classified as experimental, and are licensed "with a view to the development of science or technique." When WAPA first started using them, licenses had 1 year renewable terms, reflecting their temporary nature.

    Eng. Wifredo G. Blanco-Pi, the owner of WAPA, has been using this experimental license for commercial, rather than experimental, purposes for 6 years. Current rules limit the total term of experimental licenses to 5 years. So, the FCC didn't renew them the last time around. As the FCC's decision says,

    ...he is not presently operating the Stations within the parameters set forth for experimental authorizations, that is, solely in order to utilize "radio waves in experiments with a view to the development of science or technique." Rather, he is operating the Stations as regular full-time programming adjuncts to WAPA and WISO, including advertisements. ...such operations are not appropriate for stations with experimental authorizations. In the Petition, Blanco-Pi makes it clear that he seeks to retain the Stations, not based on any further experimentation, but rather on their value as full-time re-broadcasters of the programming carried on WAPA and WISO. ...he opposes the loss of the Stations because they extend WISO and WAPA's service to other parts of the island of Puerto Rico. Blanco-Pi argues that he should be allowed to have a greater coverage area for the programming broadcast over his existing full-power stations, in part because he believes his programming to be superior to his competitors'. However, no broadcaster can simply transform experimental stations into full-time program services, much less extend those services to other communities in order to program against its competitors. ..."establishment of a new AM booster station merely to extend the service of an existing AM station impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:What a load of crap. by Xylantiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [operation of these] impermissibly circumvents our commercial AM filing window and competitive bidding processes. (from your quote) -- The story is pretty close to the level of fake news. It conflates boosters for commercial stations (which these were never supposed to be) with boosters for radio science (what these were permitted as) in order to give a false impression of the situation. There is a legal way to have boosters, but this station was intentionally avoiding that process, almost certainly in order to avoid the bidding. The headline should be "FFC blocked station's attempt to cheat on regulations." If there is any blame here it is on the station not the FCC.

  13. Wait....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states." Is the FCC supposed to be censoring conservatives or something? I didn't realize the FCC worked for the DNC.

    1. Re: Wait....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commies are Always supporting pro commie censorship.

    2. Re: Wait....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize the Slashdot editors would greenlight something so self serving. This is Roland Piquepaille level bullshit again, and this ridiculous screed masquerading as a summary is why Slashdot is no longer news for nerds, but for SJWs.

    3. Re: Wait....what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I was actually trusting of the author until I hit that bit. I'm not into political ideologies of any sort, but that was a groaner. If he was trying to convince anyone of his opinions, he failed miserably.

  14. OP was fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...until the last line "pointless jurisdiction."

    lol - wonder if he realizes what would happen if there weren't rules set in place for the airwaves.

  15. Rules for emergencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC rules for all radio services can be overridden in an emergency critical to saving lives, to the extent needed to support emergency communications. Light 'em up, let the enforcement division come down there and shut it down... This is arguably such an emergency.

  16. Left by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >"FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states."

    WTF does that have to do with the story? So every Slashdot posting now has to be turned into a left-wing political statement/commentary?

    1. Re:Left by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I wonder as how the story itself in it current form managed to get to the front page of /. in the first place.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Left by msauve · · Score: 1

      "I wonder as how the story itself in it current form managed to get to the front page of /. in the first place."

      C'mon. A 4 digit UID, and you still don't understand how /. editors do their job?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  17. Why isn't Puerto Rico more prosperous? by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know there are some legitimate beefs about its relation to the Federal Government, but it would seem to have a lot of things going for it. Direct participation in the US dollar economy, border free movement of goods and people between the US. And as Florida fills up and becomes more expensive, wouldn't Puerto Rico become an appealing substitute with the same kind of tropical appeal?

    Sure, it's got more poor people than may be average for the US mainland, but shouldn't that result in more business investment due to labor cost advantages? Or contribute to its viability as a retirement/vacation/resort destination?

    I suppose there are standard, pedantic arguments that its handicapped by "colony" status and that racist US politicians have treated it poorly because its residents are Spanish speaking "foreigners" and so on.

    But generally speaking, I would expect Puerto Rico to be doing better given its relative advantages over someplace like Jamaica or the Dominican Republic.

    1. Re:Why isn't Puerto Rico more prosperous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to agree with you here, and often wondered why the 'toricans (as they refer to themselves) place a value on being on the mainland, when they are actually a part of the U.S. itself, with all that that supposedly entails.

    2. Re:Why isn't Puerto Rico more prosperous? by Xylantiel · · Score: 0

      Um, being governed by a remote power is pretty bad for local development. While you mention it, you don't seem to realize that "colony" status is typically hugely economically stifling because the people managing the government at the top level have NO interest in local issues because they have no ties to the locality. While this FCC story is a red herring, there are many instances where Puerto Rico is simply ignored by the people in charge on the mainland. How long did it take to just allow foreign supplies to be delivered during a major natural disaster? Imagine how things work when there is no disaster.

    3. Re:Why isn't Puerto Rico more prosperous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being governed by the Federal Government hasn't been that awful for California or Texas or Hawaii.

    4. Re:Why isn't Puerto Rico more prosperous? by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      "How long did it take to just allow foreign supplies to be delivered during a major natural disaster?"

      I take that as an oblique reference to the Jones Act, which has no effect on foreign supplies. It applies to shipments between US ports, and its effect is economic, so doesn't prevent any shipments.

      Furthermore, the current issue is not getting supplies to PR, it's getting them off the docks there and on to where they need to be due to blocked roads and a lack of truckers. Making it cheaper to put a cargo container on the dock isn't currently helping the situation at all.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Why isn't Puerto Rico more prosperous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California and Texas and Hawaii have these things known as Senators and Representatives...

  18. Wrong approach anyway by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

    What is needed is a 50kW regional channel broadcast with directional antenna (one end of the island point to the other). This should be more than sufficient to cover the island.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    1. Re:Wrong approach anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possible reading #1:

      Perhaps, one big station with a directional array was the original plan, but the synchronous secondary stations was a cheaper way to get the same end.

      Unfortunately, the station tried to do this with temporary experimental licenses for the secondary stations.
      This has two problems.
      First you are not supposed to use experimental license for commercial things with adds.
      Second, if you want to put up a new commercial station, the is an auction process to give others a shot at getting the same spectrum.

      The owners of this station appear to have chosen not to follow the rules.
      The FCC may have let them get away with it for too long, so now the owners are upset because they aren't grandfatherd to violate the rules.

      Possible Reading #2:
      The FCC has a different plan to 'revitalize' AM broadcasting.
      That is secondary FM stations, rebroadcasting the AM content.
      This plan in PR is not the one size fits all FCC plan, so the FCC doesn't like it.
      There is nothing in the filings or response to support this theory, but it could be true.

      Possible Reading #3:
      There is a competitor to this AM station that wants the rules followed so they will have less competition.

      It is pretty lame the the owners of the station are not able to file FCC documents.
      That is, after all, their primary business.
      If they can't do that, I'd bet a technical investigation of the primary station would find a bunch of other reasons to shut the whole thing down.
      Given the hurricane, that would probably be an unfortunate outcome.

      Seems like the FCC guy's decision to retire might have been a smart move.
      He may have just simply had enough.
      Probably an unfortunate loss.

    2. Re:Wrong approach anyway by green1 · · Score: 1

      If terrain is in the way, no single transmitter, no matter how powerful (within reason), is enough.
      If terrain is not in the way, you don't really need all that much power

      From what I gather, there is a terrain problem that makes it very difficult for a single transmitter to cover the entire territory, hence the "booster" stations strategically located to get around that issue.

      Now it appears that the owner of the stations has been trying to use the wrong licensing for those stations, and therefore got shut down. Maybe had he applied for the right type of licensing (as it appears the FCC instructed him to do) he would have been able to operate, however it really looks like he was just trying to circumvent the rules in the first place.

      For those that don't think there's a place for an agency regulating the airwaves, I'd be curious as to what you propose as an alternative. The usable radio spectrum is quite limited, and a setup where anyone can use any frequency for any use would very quickly become unworkable. We can quibble over the details of exactly how spectrum is allocated and to whom, but the fact that there is a need for an agency to regulate it should be pretty well uncontroversial to anyone with a basic understanding of how radio transmissions work.

    3. Re:Wrong approach anyway by radiodavid · · Score: 1

      The terrain is the issue. The news / talk networks on the Island use combinations of 4 or 5 local stations in each of the larger cities (San Juan, Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo) to cover most of the territory. Single transmitters, like 50 kw WKVM in San Juan, don't even fully cover much more than their immediate metro and surrounding areas. Ing. Blanco was simply trying to add coverage without having to buy additional stations, and he did it the wrong way. There are 131 licensed AM and FM stations in the Commonwealth. There is no shortage of radio coverage or radio stations. Another consideration is that it has been nearly a century since the last storm of this magnitude and nearly two decades since Georges and three decades since Hugo, the most destructive storms in modern times. What would sustain an AM station in between emergencies in an era when AM stations are struggling to survive? Another government boondoggle would be the only way to keep such a facility running, assuming that it could even be licensed in accordance with international treaties and the existing assignment of 70 AM stations all over Puerto Rico.

  19. Wah wah wah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First I thought it was related to Puerto Rico being set to be the first territory to declare bankruptcy at $70 billion USD. Why on earth would the FCC approve anything that would increase debt?

    But no, it turns out this AM booster in question was experimental, and didn't operate within its regulatory range. That's the kind of stuff that gets everyone routinely denied. That should be the article topic since this used to be a technology website.

  20. Wrong. The Decision did NOT limit coverage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These were EXPERIMENTAL stations that did not file the required annual reports of progress with their experimentation. Their licenses were renewed for years in error. That their chickens finally came home to roost should be no surprise as they were simply getting away with breaking the rules for years.

  21. Why is this BS even up here? by munitor · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    1. Re:Why is this BS even up here? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It's intended to provoke a response from Trump supporters, thus alerting honest, intelligent Americans to their presence.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  22. Total BS. by CrAlt · · Score: 3

    WAPA replaced the synchronized stations by buying other stations on different frequencies. They have 6 stations across the island.
    WAPA was not "neutered". People just had to move the dial as they moved around the island.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The synchronized relays where licensed for EXPERIMENTAL use.
    With no power the old synchronized stations would be off the air just like the 5 other stations they maintain now.

    The synchronized system was more complicated then just running the stations on different frequencies like they do now. Each relay had to be GPS disciplined and needed perfect back-haul. If one of the relays become out of sync it would actually end up jamming the other stations. Imagine one of the relay stations getting out of wack and you have no way to get to the site to fix it or shut it down.

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  23. One of Ajit Pai's buddies? by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    "The FCC audio division chief who pulled WAPA's synchronous booster license decided to retire a few days ago.

    I bet he did. The son of a bitch probably has blood on his hands. Not that this administration would care, given the location.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re: One of Ajit Pai's buddies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd cut back on whatever it is you are smoking. Or maybe actually learn something about what the station owner was doing.. or maybe note that the guy owns other stations on PR.. all of which could be used for broadcasting emergency messages..

    2. Re:One of Ajit Pai's buddies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit you're a retard.

    3. Re:One of Ajit Pai's buddies? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  24. Station is only one of many AM and FM outlets in P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many other AM and FM radio stations in Puerto Rico. The allegations of nefarious FCC actions are a red herring....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_U.S._Territories#Puerto_Rico

  25. None of the other radio stations are operating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the stations on this list of broadcast stations have power or backup power? There ought to be a cite in the summary somewhere supporting that claim.

  26. Does Slashdot check for Russ-bot sourced comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because I think I may have found a few.

  27. There is (or was up to January) no permanent licen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See here: http://www.radioworld.com/business-and-law/0009/rackley-on-synchronous-am-boosters/338881

    The FCC only licensed syncronous booster transmitters for AM under experimental licenses. So everyone here says 'flaunting the regs' is wrong, or saying that for other reasons

  28. They want HAM operators but do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a conspiracy

  29. Because they make money by blindseer · · Score: 1

    FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states.

    I'll listen to the local NPR affiliate and the local news and talk station with the "right wing nutjobs" depending on which one happens to hold my interests that day. On Rush Limbaugh's show I hear him giving away brand new high end iPhones to people that call in. On NPR they keep asking listeners for money and trying to keep their government funding.

    How much money does Rush make on his show? I don't know. Enough to hand out a dozen iPhones every week? Maybe he gets the phones for free from Apple but then Apple is making money on this from the advertising it brings in.

    It's not the FCC's job to stop the "right wing stream of consciousness" that licensed stations bring to people. If you don't like it then listen to the competition. Buy the stuff advertised on those stations, give them money on their funding drives, and so on. If you want them to keep transmitting then make sure that they can pay their bills.

    Why hasn't the FCC done anything about the "right wing" slant of AM radio? Because those stations make money, pay their fees, and file the proper license applications.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  30. Original Post Error-Filled by radiodavid · · Score: 1

    The 107 comments so far relate to an inaccurate original post. First, with the exception of Cuba's probaganda machine called Radio Havana, there is no longer any use of short-wave anywhere on the Caribbean islands. On most Caribbean island nations, AM radio has been shuttered with many FM stations operating from seemingly every island and atol in the region. Further, there are no shortwave radio receivers available. Then there is the question of why anyone would open a shortwave station in Puerto Rico, since US radio regulations prohibit serving the domestic population on shortwave. The poster seems to believe that WAPA is a unique service. Not counting translators and LPFM stations, Puerto Rico has over 120 licensed AM and FM stations. Several others, including WIPR, WKAQ and WODA were only briefly, if at all, off the air and continued to serve the Island population. WKAQ and WIPR, in conditions where there is little man-made interference, cover the entire island adequately. So does WAPA's single San Juan transmitter. Other stations, like news outlet WUNO, came back shortly after the storm had passed. There is no lack of radio signals; there is a lack of power and even batteries to operate radio receivers at the listener end. The discussion of program content on the US mainland does little to solve the horrible problems of basic necessities for food, water, power and information in Puerto Rico. Our communications policy is not to regulate content, and, in fact, Puerto Rico had a thriving radio sector with multiple Island-wide networks of news and talk stations reflecting both of the major political parties and philosophies in the Commonwealth.

  31. Regulatory agencies by pgnas · · Score: 1

    Regulatory agencies should be removed every 10-20 years. This would mean completely eliminating all personnel and a minimum of regulation. government does not have the agility to meet the needs of the changing technologies and regulatory agencies tend to stifle growth, cater to companies that pay them off and do not listen to the consumers . They need a time limit, I would actually suggest that everything have an expiration date, WTF is this that politicians make decision with lifelong generational effects ? This is making a decision in a vacuum

  32. Nonsense summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states"

    what?

    "FCC's increasingly pointless jurisdiction."

    what?

  33. If it was important to them... by kenh · · Score: 1

    If it was important to the station owners, they wouldn't have messed up the license renewals.

    But WAPA's signal coverage was significantly cut in March 2017 when the FCC refused to renew the license for synchronous AM booster stations at Arecibo, Mayaguez and Aguadilla in March due to procedural issues with the petition for renewal.

    They messed up the paperwork, the gov't merely expected the station to follow the rules...

    This decision limited the coverage, signal strength and signal quality of this station for remote and mountainous parts of Puerto Rico where the need for emergency communications is greatest.

    This so-called "decision" was not, in fact, a decision, it was in fact the the result of failing to follow the legal process of requesting a renewal six months before the hurricane hit the island - nothing more.

    --
    Ken
  34. Topic submitter does not under US Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states."

    We call this free speech
    AKA The First Amendment

    If you don't like it, there's an island very close to Puerto Rico named Cuba
    Try spouting your ideas off there and see how far you get!

  35. RE: ". . . broadcasting right-wing streams-of-cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And worse yet, FCC regulations, the Constitution & The Bill of Rights allow subversive, facist, communist, socialist, democrats to spew hatred, racism, and lies out every orifice!!!

    So if you are not happy here, I suggest you give up your citzenship, move, at your own expense, to a facist, socialist or communist country of your choice where I'm sure you will be much happier!!!

  36. The summary smells... by Bartles · · Score: 1

    ...like bullshit. I can pretty much guarantee that this story is full of holes.

  37. time to ignore the rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the equipment exists on the island and the need is there then it's time to ignore the rules and do what is needed to try and help people ans protect their lives.

    If that means firing up these synchronized stations so that emergency radio transmissions can be spread across the island then do it and the feds won't be able to do anything to you as it would mean turning on people who actually saved lives.

  38. now that you mention it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Puerto Rico COULD have senators (it would have two) and congressmen (it would have more than connecticut) if only its people would decide to be a state.

    As it is, they have been allowed representatives in congress who may bring their concerns to the House (this is more than a territory is entitled to), but may not vote on bills.

    The simple fact is that there are many in Puerto Rico who enjoy US Citizenship but who are perfectly happy to not have many of the burdens of being a state. The USA, NOT being the imperial power the left has often accused it of being, has not forced Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, or Guam to become states. Also disproving the whole xenophobia and racism theme, the USA has not forced these non-white and non-English-speaking people to separate and lose their American citizenship. The US Government has been perfectly content to allow the peoples of these island territories to have the relationship with the USA that they prefer. For now they seem to want to just be territories.

  39. Good.... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    "FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states" - good - they're not supposed to do that, due to the pesky 1st Amendment. Free speech and all that.

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  40. Free Speech by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    "FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states." Seriously? Guess you don't believe in free speech.

  41. FCC's muddled strategic goals by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    WAPA replaced the synchronized stations by buying other stations on different frequencies. They have 6 stations across the island. WAPA was not "neutered". People just had to move the dial as they moved around the island.

    Thus allowing this single station to unnecessarily monopolize valuable public bandwidth that could have been used for competing stations, competing ideas, community radio, emergency broadcasts...

    So which of the FCC's strategic goals does this fall under? 1) Promoting Economic Growth and National Leadership, 2) Protecting Public Interest Goals, 3) Making Networks Work for Everyone or 4) Promoting Operational Excellence?

    This experimental license had been renewed for more than a decade. It was pulled with only a 30 day notice for public comments and many of those comments were ignored for procedural issue. It was not possible for WAPA obtain a non-experimental synchronous A.M. booster license because despite this experiment's success, the FCC provided no legal path to such a license. Blanco-Pi complied with the FCC's demand to go back to the original license despite its inferiority in spectrum efficiency and coverage.

    Regarding the use of the 455-1600Khz A.M. spectrum as a vehicle for anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, pro-gun, pro-hate, white-supremacists propaganda. This does go against the FCC's goals,especially regarding universal service, public safety and national security. This administration's failures make it clearer each day how toxic this propaganda has been. The hate, conspiracy theories and accusations spewed here is another indication. But I apologize for adding that final paragraph. It deserves a separate story.