New "D"s for Chula Vista and South San Diego

[RadeoEngineer]

Nice to know of your sordid past. Now I understand your point of view regarding playing by the rules.

 

[davideduardo]

Nice to know of your sordid past. Now I understand your point of view regarding playing by the rules.

The keyword in the first section of my post is "could have." While I did not drink or frequent bordellos, I could have. And the way drug stores operated was common in most underdeveloped nations in the 60's... your pharmacist diagnosed and dispensed what you needed save urgent conditions requiring a doctor.

Hardly "sordid."

There is even a radio anecdote there. While making an emergency move of my three stations to a new location, I had 48 hours to do the technical disconnect-move-reconnect of three studios and STLs. On the first night, I developed a bad toothache, and sent my bodyguard to get "something for the pain." He came back with some pills, the pain went away and I moved the stations with no loss of airtime by rotating them into the production room while I moved each studio and completed the wiring and testing.

As to the FM moves, the station that did all those unapproved changes was the first FM in northern South America... not another station on the band from Lima, Perú to San José, Costa Rica. The government had so little interest or concern for FM that they offered 20 licenses for the same fee when I applied for the first FM; they could have cared less if I moved the first one, upped its power or turned it off... any time I asked a question, they replied by saying, in essence, "FM is your White Elephant so don't bother us about it."

Of course, when that FM became immensely profitable, there was a flood of applications from others who wanted to cash in... and eventually they developed an allocation plan.

But, I suppose pioneering FM (with a format that ran only 2 minutes of commercials... 6 spots... an hour) is sordid too.

In any event, my examples were intended to not only show that radiodxrichmond's experience is not limited to Tijuana but also that things are done differently in different countries and that does not make those things bad, just different.

 

[RicoGregg]

This has nothing to do with culture. It's about the importance each nation places on enforcement of specific regulations. That was the point of my example of speed limit enforcement on a US highway in California: if there is loose enforcement, there will be a significant amount of "pushing the limits."

Just consider it fortunate we don't have Italy or Spain or Argentina on our border... places where regulation is so lax.......They all have rules, but either no budget or no interest in enforcement so the result is total chaos as opposed to relatively few incidents of international impact.

David is right about both the driving analogy and Spain. During a visit to Spain some years back, an obviously intoxicated Spaniard drove exceedingly fast, furious, and erratically through the Iberian countryside. He had just barely missed clipping me, and this happened right in front of local law enforcement. I pulled over and asked the officer if he was going to do anything about it, and he said no, that in Spain they don't arrest drunk drivers unless there's been an accident. And that's if they survive. So much different than in the U.S.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Nice to know of your sordid past. Now I understand your point of view regarding playing by the rules.

The keyword in the first section of my post is "could have." While I did not drink or frequent bordellos, I could have. And the way drug stores operated was common in most underdeveloped nations in the 60's... your pharmacist diagnosed and dispensed what you needed save urgent conditions requiring a doctor.

Hardly "sordid."

There is even a radio anecdote there. While making an emergency move of my three stations to a new location, I had 48 hours to do the technical disconnect-move-reconnect of three studios and STLs. On the first night, I developed a bad toothache, and sent my bodyguard to get "something for the pain." He came back with some pills, the pain went away and I moved the stations with no loss of airtime by rotating them into the production room while I moved each studio and completed the wiring and testing.

As to the FM moves, the station that did all those unapproved changes was the first FM in northern South America... not another station on the band from Lima, Perú to San José, Costa Rica. The government had so little interest or concern for FM that they offered 20 licenses for the same fee when I applied for the first FM; they could have cared less if I moved the first one, upped its power or turned it off... any time I asked a question, they replied by saying, in essence, "FM is your White Elephant so don't bother us about it."

Of course, when that FM became immensely profitable, there was a flood of applications from others who wanted to cash in... and eventually they developed an allocation plan.

But, I suppose pioneering FM (with a format that ran only 2 minutes of commercials... 6 spots... an hour) is sordid too.

In any event, my examples were intended to not only show that radiodxrichmond's experience is not limited to Tijuana but also that things are done differently in different countries and that does not make those things bad, just different.

More unrelated bloviated blather. None of this has anything to do with the blatantly illegal operations and disregard of the agreement between the two countries of the numerous Tijuana area stations I have mentioned.

 

[radio-darn]

I heard from Victor last night and he said to tell you mortals, "Watts up?"

One thing we have learned over the decades is that even with Mexican watts, everything works: sure some LA FM's may have complained over the years because their signal couldn't always be heard at the far fringes of what they thought should be their coverage area, but for radio listeners the hills and valleys of Southern California are what creates the reception problems that affect their ability to listen to their favorite stations.

Certainly the US is not adverse to playing games to give stations an advantage: look at our "North County" station KPRI with its transmitter on Mount Soledad. That is such a farce: why not just drop the pretense and license it to San Diego, which is where it is and which is its intended target area from Soledad.

 

[davideduardo]

More unrelated bloviated blather. None of this has anything to do with the blatantly illegal operations and disregard of the agreement between the two countries of the numerous Tijuana area stations I have mentioned.

You said, "Now I understand your point of view regarding playing by the rules."

I just gave you multiple, detailed examples about how not playing by US rules can be and is "playing by the rules" elsewhere. In fact, where rules don't even exist... as was my case with the FM band... you make your own.

You probably think that the British custom of driving on the "wrong" side of the road is "sordid" too...

P.S. The Tijuana stations are not subject to judgment based on the "agreement." Nor are they subject to judgment by Americans. The Tijuana stations... and all stations in Mexico... are subject to Mexican rules and regulations, some of which may be based on international agreements. The degree to which individual stations comply with the rules depends on the vigor with which they are enforced. Lax enforcement creates lax compliance and the tacit approval of a "margin" within which a station must operate as opposed to precise values.

 

[Lopaka]

The question about protecting FM emissions seems to have been answered, but how about AM? Given that XERB wanted to broadcast into the US on 1090 and XEAC/K on 690, how and why were those emissions into the US protected by the US? Was it just NARBA? (a simple "yes" is fine)

 

[davideduardo]

The question about protecting FM emissions seems to have been answered, but how about AM? Given that XERB wanted to broadcast into the US on 1090 and XEAC/K on 690, how and why were those emissions into the US protected by the US? Was it just NARBA? (a simple "yes" is fine)

This is a Scott Fybush question.

But 690 and 1090 were given as I-B clear channels to Mexico. US stations on or adjacent to them have to protect the Mexican border, just as US stations on Canadian clears had to, per NARBA, protect the Canadian Border. QUick reading leads me to think that the channels "belonged" to, in the later case, Canada and they could allocate pretty much at will and the US had to protect against posibilities, not actual stations. Again, a very quick search on NARBA got me this but I may be leaving out some details.

 

[fybush]

The question about protecting FM emissions seems to have been answered, but how about AM? Given that XERB wanted to broadcast into the US on 1090 and XEAC/K on 690, how and why were those emissions into the US protected by the US? Was it just NARBA? (a simple "yes" is fine)

This is a Scott Fybush question.

To which the answer is a simple "yes."

In the spirit of this discussion, one has to note that nowhere in NARBA (or the subsequent Rio treaty) is there anything about HD Radio, which unquestionably puts RF energy in parts of the spectrum to which the US is not entitled. (I'm thinking about WLW's sidebands that enter the bandwidth belonging to Canada's protected 690 clear channel, for instance.) And before we get too harsh on the Mexican authorities for failing to crack down on their licensees' "extraterritorial" behavior, we could also talk about the lack of effective FCC policing of the AM dial these days. How many US AM stations operate after dark with daytime facilities, or with DAs that are far out of whack - and how many of them are actually caught and penalized?

(For that matter, back in the days when Canada still had small-town AM stations, it often seemed more likely that they'd be operating on daytime or ND facilities at night than using their proper night DAs. Nobody's hands are completely clean here...)

 

[RadeoEngineer]

More unrelated bloviated blather. None of this has anything to do with the blatantly illegal operations and disregard of the agreement between the two countries of the numerous Tijuana area stations I have mentioned.

You said, "Now I understand your point of view regarding playing by the rules."

I just gave you multiple, detailed examples about how not playing by US rules can be and is "playing by the rules" elsewhere. In fact, where rules don't even exist... as was my case with the FM band... you make your own.

You probably think that the British custom of driving on the "wrong" side of the road is "sordid" too...

P.S. The Tijuana stations are not subject to judgment based on the "agreement." Nor are they subject to judgment by Americans. The Tijuana stations... and all stations in Mexico... are subject to Mexican rules and regulations, some of which may be based on international agreements. The degree to which individual stations comply with the rules depends on the vigor with which they are enforced. Lax enforcement creates lax compliance and the tacit approval of a "margin" within which a station must operate as opposed to precise values.

Geebus, how do you come up with this stuff? Look, it's a fact that XEPRS, XLNC, and XHTIM all operate outside of their authorizations. The rest of this crap you blow is just that, crap. Prove the facts wrong and I'll go away, but until you can make a factual argument I will continue to call BULLSHIT on you.

 

[oldiesfan6479]

How many US AM stations operate after dark with daytime facilities...?

At least one in the Phoenix market (in November, December and January).

Oh, and you forgot "failing to ID at sign-on and sign-off" (another one, year-round).

 

[600kogo]

Ok Mr. Buffaloe,

If I am reading Gleasons writtings correctly, then basically since the Mexican government doesnt care then why should we. So lets sign on a few stations to give co-channel interferrence. And perhaps its time to let KOGO go 50kw with those two towers which will blow Jaime's (directional with only one tower) 620 out of the water. Gleason, Buffaloe is right there is a treaty and unfortunately only one side abides by it so why should we anymore?? Bonilla and company dont believe in rules or treaties and neither does the Mexican government. The treaty needs to either be enforced, re-negotiated, or abolished and lets make flame throwers out of some historic sticks like 600 and 1360!!

 

[RadeoEngineer]

I hear Gleason firing up his PC. Let the fireworks begin.

Nah, if you don't understand by now that sovereign nations are free to implement and regulate (and even ignore) "agreements" in their own way, I can't say anything more.

Apparently you can.

 

[davideduardo]

Ok Mr. Buffaloe,

If I am reading Gleasons writtings correctly, then basically since the Mexican government doesnt care then why should we. So lets sign on a few stations to give co-channel interferrence. And perhaps its time to let KOGO go 50kw with those two towers which will blow Jaime's (directional with only one tower) 620 out of the water. Gleason, Buffaloe is right there is a treaty and unfortunately only one side abides by it so why should we anymore?? Bonilla and company dont believe in rules or treaties and neither does the Mexican government. The treaty needs to either be enforced, re-negotiated, or abolished and lets make flame throwers out of some historic sticks like 600 and 1360!!

As I said before, when two nations have much more serious issues at the diplomatic level, the one who needs the other to cooperate the most will not burn dry powder on things that are of relative unimportance. A couple of misbehaving radio stations that the Mexican government does not require compliance on is likely not worth the wasted diplomatic effort.

And provoking the Mexican government by conducting a power war is likely something that would not be done either.

The US has done this in other cases where diplomacy is not working at all, such as the STA's issued for stations interferred with by Cuban stations which granted abnormal higher power. But that was a nothing lost situation.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

factsFactsFacts

Ok Mr. Buffaloe,

If I am reading Gleasons writtings correctly, then basically since the Mexican government doesnt care then why should we. So lets sign on a few stations to give co-channel interferrence. And perhaps its time to let KOGO go 50kw with those two towers which will blow Jaime's (directional with only one tower) 620 out of the water. Gleason, Buffaloe is right there is a treaty and unfortunately only one side abides by it so why should we anymore?? Bonilla and company dont believe in rules or treaties and neither does the Mexican government. The treaty needs to either be enforced, re-negotiated, or abolished and lets make flame throwers out of some historic sticks like 600 and 1360!!

As I said before, when two nations have much more serious issues at the diplomatic level, the one who needs the other to cooperate the most will not burn dry powder on things that are of relative unimportance. A couple of misbehaving radio stations that the Mexican government does not require compliance on is likely not worth the wasted diplomatic effort.

And provoking the Mexican government by conducting a power war is likely something that would not be done either.

The US has done this in other cases where diplomacy is not working at all, such as the STA's issued for stations interferred with by Cuban stations which granted abnormal higher power. But that was a nothing lost situation.

And more empty blather. Address the facts Gleason.

 

[davideduardo]

And more empty blather. Address the facts Gleason.

The simple fact is that Mexico enforces and licenses in a lax manner when compared to the US, and broadcasters have 80 years experience in taking regulations as guidelines and not absolutes.

The other fact is that requesting better compliance by Mexico is not, obviously, something that the State Department has much time for or gives much priority to.

The fact is that the US government has no authority to demand enforcement, as the US government has no jurisdiction in Mexico.

The fact is that, with some regularity, Mexico... and most lesser developed nations... when pressured by the US will do exactly the opposite because "standing up to the imperialists" is is politically popular, particularly in the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

In classic terms, for many reasons, this is "a Mexican standoff."

The US government often turns a blind eye to issues like this when there are more important issues that need to be resolved.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

And more empty blather. Address the facts Gleason.

The simple fact is that Mexico enforces and licenses in a lax manner when compared to the US, and broadcasters have 80 years experience in taking regulations as guidelines and not absolutes.

The other fact is that requesting better compliance by Mexico is not, obviously, something that the State Department has much time for or gives much priority to.

The fact is that the US government has no authority to demand enforcement, as the US government has no jurisdiction in Mexico.

The fact is that, with some regularity, Mexico... and most lesser developed nations... when pressured by the US will do exactly the opposite because "standing up to the imperialists" is is politically popular, particularly in the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

In classic terms, for many reasons, this is "a Mexican standoff."

The US government often turns a blind eye to issues like this when there are more important issues that need to be resolved.

Good. So you admit the fact that the stations I have mentioned openly cheat on their authorizations and there is no enforcement of the agreement agreed to by the Mexican government, which equates to cheating. Took awhile to get there, but now you've got it.

 

[davideduardo]

Good. So you admit the fact that the stations I have mentioned openly cheat on their authorizations and there is no enforcement of the agreement agreed to by the Mexican government, which equates to cheating. Took awhile to get there, but now you've got it.

This is obviously viewed in Mexico as no more "cheating" than speeding... perhaps even less. Finally you have noted that operating with "parameters at variance" by any individual station is not a violation of any treaty or international agreement but rather a breaking of local law or regulation.

What you are still not understanding is that this is not viewed as anything really significant in Mexico. And that is my whole point.

And obviously, this is considered a minor "fudging" of the rules by the US Department of State, as they have done nothing to lodge any strenuous protest.

This sort of thing happens in border areas around the world. Get used to it. Diplomacy is the art of negotiation and give and take. The US is obviously "giving" Mexico flexibility here. So start putting a good portion of the blame on the US government for not acting with any vigor to request better compliance and thus creating a mood of extreme tolerance.

Or, as the owner of a TV station said when told his manger was taking trade items like TVs and appliances home, "as long as he makes me money and only steals small sh--t, I don't care."

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Good. So you admit the fact that the stations I have mentioned openly cheat on their authorizations and there is no enforcement of the agreement agreed to by the Mexican government, which equates to cheating. Took awhile to get there, but now you've got it.

This is obviously viewed in Mexico as no more "cheating" than speeding... perhaps even less. Finally you have noted that operating with "parameters at variance" by any individual station is not a violation of any treaty or international agreement but rather a breaking of local law or regulation.

What you are still not understanding is that this is not viewed as anything really significant in Mexico. And that is my whole point.

And obviously, this is considered a minor "fudging" of the rules by the US Department of State, as they have done nothing to lodge any strenuous protest.

This sort of thing happens in border areas around the world. Get used to it. Diplomacy is the art of negotiation and give and take. The US is obviously "giving" Mexico flexibility here. So start putting a good portion of the blame on the US government for not acting with any vigor to request better compliance and thus creating a mood of extreme tolerance.

Or, as the owner of a TV station said when told his manger was taking trade items like TVs and appliances home, "as long as he makes me money and only steals small sh--t, I don't care."

The U.S. State dept does address these issues with Mexico and gets no relief because Mexico doesn't care. You once again ignore the fact that stations are operating outside their authorization. That is a fact and everyone but you seems to know it.

So you now make it the U.S. fault for not acting with sufficient vigor, although I know for a fact that these issues are brought up often by Hal Grigsby working for the State Dept. You want to blame the victim here Gleason, when the perp walks scott free.

 

[davideduardo]

The U.S. State dept does address these issues with Mexico and gets no relief because Mexico doesn't care. You once again ignore the fact that stations are operating outside their authorization. That is a fact and everyone but you seems to know it.

So you now make it the U.S. fault for not acting with sufficient vigor, although I know for a fact that these issues are brought up often by Hal Grigsby working for the State Dept. You want to blame the victim here Gleason, when the perp walks scott free.

The issue was mentioned, put on the table but not pursued at a higher level by state. In other words, they went through the motions, showing that the necessary actions had been taken, but never pushed. And that is because there is obviously a perception of other issues having higher importance and, thus, those issues are being handled by the highest levels of diplomatic channels.

In the overall picture of US - Mexico relations, how important do you think non-engineering diplomats in Washington... and in the Distrito Federal... find some power variations by a few radio stations.

If the FCC does not police the seeming hundreds of US stations that don't change to night facilities or daytimers that stay on after sunset (see any of the DX clubs for constant reports of these) or stations using the infamous "Football STA" to remain on after sunset... do you really think they will do much about something in a foreign country? There are plenty of scofflaws here that are out of control... some operating for years (890 in Laredo, TX, running day facility at night for about a decade, off and on, is an example).