What happened and why is it still happening?

[davideduardo]

Just reiterating what I told Daryl in a prior reply. Minus the 1% forest dweller estimate, of course.

I agree that people who live in areas of high risk have different needs and requirements.

The average dweller in an urban area, whether it is Long Beach, CA, or Longview, TX, does not feel threatened by most of the hazards of someone living in a forest, a ravine or along a riverbed. They don't spend money preparing for eventualities that seem unlikely.

Example. On "Nextdoor" (for those unfamiliar, a national set of little neighborhood groups that post about speeding cars and neighbors who don't bring in their trash containers on time) in my area there has been a discussion of whether to get earthquake insurance. We are 6 to10 miles from the San Andreas Fault in part of the "Nextdoor" group I am in. Some people say "we are overdue" and buy insurance, have a portable radio and get that food that lasts 10 years in a Mylar bag. Others say, "it's been 100 years since we had a quake so I won't worry" and do nothing.

Most people, given a chance to do something or sit back and watch a reality show on TV will...

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

Here's an article from KQED, the PBS / NPR affiliate in San Francisco. It says that about 11 million Californians ( out of 39.5 million) live in a woodland-urban interface, where they are subject to wildfires. That is because the cities are built on the floors of valleys, with the suburbs built in the surrounding hills and mountains.
Just in Los Angeles County alone, there are heavily populated suburbs in the Hollywood Hills, the Santa Monica Mts., the San Gabriel Mts. (where Mt. Wilson and all the broadcast towers are located), the Verdugo Hills, the Santa Clarita Mts., the Palos Verdes Hills, part of the San Bernardino Mts., etc. etc.

Same with the cities of San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Oakland, Anaheim, Fresno, etc. etc.

Millions of Calif. Homes Are in Fire-Prone Areas. Researchers Say It's Time To Reimagine Where People Live | KQED

More than 11 million Californians, roughly a quarter the state’s population, live in high-risk wildfire areas known as the wildland-urban interface.

www.kqed.org

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

And, here's a link to a Best Buy store near me, where they have portable radios in stock on the shelves. In fact, they have multiple brands of portable radios in stock, most with both AM & FM, but some with only FM. They are the same design as boom boxes from 40 years ago, but they are still in demand, which is why the store provides shelf space for them.

Yes, some people that want keep radios around are "dinosaurs" with nostalgia for the "old days". But many more are practical, reasonable consumers who realize a practical need for a portable radio. It's not a nostalgic or emotional issue for them -- it's a practical need.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=Sony+portable+radios&_dyncharset=UTF-8&_dynSessConf=&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=&sp=&qp=&list=n&af=true&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys

 

[alok]

Regarding the radio & batteries story where it is questioned having a battery operate radio . . . today a person would have their cell phone fully charged in the event knowing there is say a hurricane coming, they should also BUY A RADIO & HAVE FRESH BATTERIES FOR IT.
And don't say RADIOS are not being made & sold !!! Yes, RCA, GE, Zenith, Atwater-Kent !!! are not making radios . . . those companies are all gone (more or less).

Remember as a broadcaster & JUST BEING A HUMAN BEING IN GENERAL you want to HELP people in peril . . . so CELL PHONES (if you insist) and RADIOS will do it . . . together in an emergency.

You mention broadcasters going to the Internet to get away from government regulations . . . I thought of that too, see great minds think alike.

I also think that broadcasters don't want to deal with a transmitter anymore, the upkeep of it . . . although today with solid state that upkeep is small. My friends in TV today tell me what is like today maintaining the new solid state TV transmitters, it is a far cry from the old tube types.

Question . . . if broadcasters go to just the Internet (they'll be streamcasters than) will the feds regulate them to BROADCAST EMERGENCY INFO . . . on the good old Internet ???

I also belive that if the feds did not want TV spectrum for wireless, OTA TV would have still gone digital, because it was "in the hearts" of TV broadcasters to do it. Plus as one person that was part of it, it was FUN and a great leaning experience to all involved in the TV business.
It is sad that radio people did not get that chance too, to go all DIGITAL . . . thus improving radio years ago but nope the radio business stumbled. No frequencies some say . . . they would have had to fight for it, they did not fight hard enough. I still beleive they could have got at least VHF TV Channel 5 & 6.

Why did this happen . . . you know but I'll say it again . . . AM / FM broadcasters, the FCC, the NAB and selfish companies in the radio business.

still like you all,

Al

 

[TheBigA]

Question . . . if broadcasters go to just the Internet (they'll be streamcasters than) will the feds regulate them to BROADCAST EMERGENCY INFO . . . on the good old Internet ???

The answer to your question is NO. The FCC doesn't require any internet broadcasters or streaming services to carry EAS material. However SiriusXM is part of the system. The question really is would the congress allow the FCC to regulate the internet. The previous administration passed rules preventing the FCC from having any authority over the internet.

I still beleive they could have got at least VHF TV Channel 5 & 6.

Believe what you want to believe, but you're wrong. There was absolutely no interest on the part of the government to use channel 5&6 for radio. I challenge you to provide any documentation to show any willingness on the part of any government agency at any time to make that change. It was a dead end. If the goal was digital, the best way to accomplish it was using the internet. The result is that the public has access to digital radio without having to replace their receivers. That's the system the public wanted.

 

[Kelly A]

Regarding the radio & batteries story where it is questioned having a battery operate radio . . . today a person would have their cell phone fully charged in the event knowing there is say a hurricane coming, they should also BUY A RADIO & HAVE FRESH BATTERIES FOR IT.

There's a big difference between your opinion that someone "should" have a battery powered radio with fresh batteries, and who actually does. Are you going to blame radio for consumer product buying evolution too? Most Gen Z don't know that portable radios even exist, nor do they care.

And don't say RADIOS are not being made & sold !!! Yes, RCA, GE, Zenith, Atwater-Kent !!! are not making radios . . . those companies are all gone (more or less).

Not in any volume. Sure, radio nerds will always seek out a portable radio, but they're in a teeny, tiny percentage of the total consumer population.

Remember as a broadcaster & JUST BEING A HUMAN BEING IN GENERAL you want to HELP people in peril . . . so CELL PHONES (if you insist) and RADIOS will do it . . . together in an emergency.

Name a recent man-made or natural disaster in the U.S. where AM radio was somehow the center of a life-safety situation? Go back, say ten years, and show us some examples.

You mention broadcasters going to the Internet to get away from government regulations . . . I thought of that too, see great minds think alike.

I didn't say that, but broadcasters and media organizations go where the listeners/viewers are. If you want to be in the pool party, you'll need to get wet.

I also think that broadcasters don't want to deal with a transmitter anymore, the upkeep of it . . . although today with solid state that upkeep is small.

Transmitters, sites, and utilities to run them are a significant expense. Especially if there are tower and ground leases involved. It's a valid argument that if broadcasters didn't have to deal with transmission facilities and just deal with content, everyone would be happier. That said; transmission facilities come with the business. Now that the Commission did away with local studio rules, some groups have been able to shed expensive building and land leases by consolidating studios and operations into a regional location. This especially has helped groups with mostly small or medium market stations. They can focus on just keeping transmission facilities, and not studios and transmission sites in every town/market.

My friends in TV today tell me what is like today maintaining the new solid state TV transmitters, it is a far cry from the old tube types.

For the most part, that's true for radio too. Sure, there are some low-budget operations who can't afford to replace their old tube rigs with solid state modern transmitters, but they eventually have to concede because of the declining availability of quality spare parts, including tubes. The cost of utilities to feed those older transmitters is also difficult to justify as advertiser support continues to decline.

Question . . . if broadcasters go to just the Internet (they'll be streamcasters than) will the feds regulate them to BROADCAST EMERGENCY INFO . . . on the good old Internet ???

I doubt that will happen in our lifetime anyway. Radio and TV still play a huge role in providing music, news, and entertainment. Will the number of viable broadcasts shrink due to change in consumer habits? No doubt. But the trend seems to be, with the exception of AM stations, be in OTA broadcasting, and streaming at the same time.

I also belive that if the feds did not want TV spectrum for wireless, OTA TV would have still gone digital, because it was "in the hearts" of TV broadcasters to do it.

I was part of that discussion back in the late 80's. early 90's. Sure, there would be some broadcast groups which were financially willing and able to embrace and invest in HDTV and DTV with diginets so one could have more channels to sell ads on, but not all. If the government hadn't forced TV to digital for auctioning-off spectrum to cell/PCS carriers, including financial incentives to do so, I'd bet you'd see a 50:50 split between analog and digital TV broadcasters today. That's especially true in smaller markets.

Plus as one person that was part of it, it was FUN and a great leaning experience to all involved in the TV business.
It is sad that radio people did not get that chance too, to go all DIGITAL . . . thus improving radio years ago but nope the radio business stumbled.

I was in the thick of the DTV conversion too, and I wouldn't have used the term fun. It was an expensive chore that took several years of a lot of work.

No frequencies some say . . . they would have had to fight for it, they did not fight hard enough. I still beleive they could have got at least VHF TV Channel 5 & 6.

As I mentioned prior, expanded FM band to former VHF TV channels would have been a disaster for anyone dumb enough to have moved there. By the mid to late 90's, consumer electronic habits had started to evolve away from buying radios. What came in their vehicle was good enough. Anyone who would have built, or migrated to an expanded FM band would have been stuck on an island for years, with few listeners. As I mentioned prior; it would have been a very bad investment.

Why did this happen . . . you know but I'll say it again . . . AM / FM broadcasters, the FCC, the NAB and selfish companies in the radio business.

Why did all what happen? Consumers moving to a different kind of technology because that handheld device can play whatever song, music genre, podcast, when you want anytime you want it? Or that handheld device can guide you somewhere? Or that handheld device could allow you to interact with friends and social media sites anywhere? Radio can't do any of that, and yet you continue blaming radio for the evolution of technology and human nature?

still like you all,

Good to know, but don't care.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Why did all what happen? Consumers moving to a different kind of technology because that handheld device can play whatever song, music genre, podcast, when you want anytime you want it? Or that handheld device can guide you somewhere? Or that handheld device could allow you to interact with friends and social media sites anywhere? Radio can't do any of that, and yet you continue blaming radio for the evolution of technology and human nature?

What people don't understand about this concept may be the most baffling. It isn't some nefarious corporate greed, or incompetence, or whatever phantom boogeyman someone invents. Something better came along and many people gravitated toward it. It's almost like that's happened time and again throughout all of history.

 

[Kelly A]

What people don't understand about this concept may be the most baffling. It isn't some nefarious corporate greed, or incompetence, or whatever phantom boogeyman someone invents. Something better came along and many people gravitated toward it. It's almost like that's happened time and again throughout all of history.

That's exactly right. If one looked back to the beginnings of radio itself, there was sector of the population incensed that the 'electric demon' was displacing print news and harming children and families.

 

[davideduardo]

Name a recent man-made or natural disaster in the U.S. where AM radio was somehow the center of a life-safety situation? Go back, say ten years, and show us some examples.

Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. One radio station, no TV, no landlines, no cellulars, no electricity for 24 hours up to several months. 3,400,000 people with just WKAQ radio to depend on.

 

[CTListener]

Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. One radio station, no TV, no landlines, no cellulars, no electricity for 24 hours up to several months. 3,400,000 people with just WKAQ radio to depend on.

Any mainland examples?

 

[Kelly A]

Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. One radio station, no TV, no landlines, no cellulars, no electricity for 24 hours up to several months. 3,400,000 people with just WKAQ radio to depend on.

As CT said; any mainland examples? Puerto Rico, where a U.S. territory, is an unusual case being an island and in a frequent hurricane zone.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

As CT said; any mainland examples? Puerto Rico, where a U.S. territory, is an unusual case being an island and in a frequent hurricane zone.

Okay, now you’re moving the goalposts, because in your mind, Puerto Rico is not a “real” part of the U.S. So natural disasters on myriad islands of the USA would not qualify.
It’s difficult to win an argument with David, so now you deflect to being disingenuous and hoping that no one will notice.
I noticed.

 

[davideduardo]

As CT said; any mainland examples? Puerto Rico, where a U.S. territory, is an unusual case being an island and in a frequent hurricane zone.

Yet the hurricane in question was, by one climate expert's opinion, the worst in the last 60 years anywhere in the Atlantic and could, with warming ocean temperatures, occur again anywhere along the Atlantic and Caribbean.

One opinion I read stated that such a hurricane striking coastal Florida or the Gulf Coast could be much worse as the very flat mainland coastal land does not have the more rapid draining paths of a mountainous island and the deaths and destruction from flooding would be vastly greater in a comparable storm.

 

[davideduardo]

Okay, now you’re moving the goalposts, because in your mind, Puerto Rico is not a “real” part of the U.S. So natural disasters on myriad islands of the USA would not qualify.
It’s difficult to win an argument with David, so now you deflect to being disingenuous and hoping that no one will notice.
I noticed.

Kelly does have a valid point, which is that Puerto Rico is an "isolated" island in the middle of the ocean. Climactic conditions favor more frequent storms. However, experts who evaluated the Puerto Rican hurricane have stated it could as easily have hit Florida or anywhere on the Gulf Coast of the US mainland, such as Houston, Port Arthur, New Orleans, Pascagoula, Mobile, Pensacola, Corpus, and all the coastal Florida cities

 

[CTListener]

Kelly does have a valid point, which is that Puerto Rico is an "isolated" island in the middle of the ocean. Climactic conditions favor more frequent storms. However, experts who evaluated the Puerto Rican hurricane have stated it could as easily have hit Florida or anywhere on the Gulf Coast of the US mainland, such as Houston, Port Arthur, New Orleans, Pascagoula, Mobile, Pensacola, Corpus, and all the coastal Florida cities

Did any part of Florida lose all radio -- or all but one station -- during Hurricane Andrew?

 

[davideduardo]

Did any part of Florida lose all radio -- or all but one station -- during Hurricane Andrew?

Andrew passed almost directly over Homestead, FL, in southernmost Dade County. It took out the one AM station in Homestead, and felled the FM/TV tower that was near Goulds. There was really not much significant in radio facilities until the AMs in the vicinity of "The Trail" (SW 8th) and Krome Ave. and the FMs on top of one of the downtown buildings (One Biscayne Plaza, I think it was).

Andrew sliced the southern tip of Florida, where there is nearly nothing else. In Puerto Rico, the hurricane sliced the island with a much wider eye on a diagonal course that had about 85 miles over highly populated land before going back to sea in NE Puerto Rico.

 

[Kelly A]

Okay, now you’re moving the goalposts, because in your mind, Puerto Rico is not a “real” part of the U.S. So natural disasters on myriad islands of the USA would not qualify.
It’s difficult to win an argument with David, so now you deflect to being disingenuous and hoping that no one will notice.
I noticed.

Still don't care.

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly does have a valid point, which is that Puerto Rico is an "isolated" island in the middle of the ocean. Climactic conditions favor more frequent storms. However, experts who evaluated the Puerto Rican hurricane have stated it could as easily have hit Florida or anywhere on the Gulf Coast of the US mainland, such as Houston, Port Arthur, New Orleans, Pascagoula, Mobile, Pensacola, Corpus, and all the coastal Florida cities

And point is; not everywhere within the U.S. is the same, nor would it be as to the effectiveness of having AM radio around just in case.
People who live in Kenai, Alaska are in the U.S., but have a completely different parameters for natural and man made disasters verses Houston, Texas, or Duluth, Minnesota. And with few exceptions, since the government doesn't fund broadcast radio specifically for emergency use, most broadcasters aren't staffing radio stations, let alone AM stations 24/7 to cover every possible contingency. As we've both mentioned prior, emergency services are also more diverse than assumed based on geography and need. To assume that it's broadcaster responsibility to take on that role, is 1960's thinking.

 

[DaveBayArea]

Any mainland examples?

I mentioned this before, but in the small rural community where I'm the engineer at a radio station we've had multiple situations where there was no electricity, Internet, or phone service to a fairly large swath of the population. The most recent in memory was a run of big snowstorms last winter. You can take a look at the archive of news here:

Happening Now - March 2023

Happening Now brings you community news, updates and announcements throughout the day. Don’t forget to refresh/reload this page to see the latest updates. Infrastructure in Nevada County – what are Your priorities? In between winter storms and before fire season, we’d like to ask you about the...

yubanet.com

We also had the Mosquito Fire, River Fire, a snowstorm in 2022, and these things called "PSPS" - Public Safety Power Shutoffs - where the utility shuts off the power during times of high fire risk. That's somewhat of a man-made disaster, but it still results in people not being able to charge their phones, medical emergencies where private generators fail, etc. What people want to know in that case is "when is my power coming back". Radio, in cooperation with PG&E, can deliver that information.

That's just an example. There's many others.

Dave B.

 

[gr8oldies]

Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. One radio station, no TV, no landlines, no cellulars, no electricity for 24 hours up to several months. 3,400,000 people with just WKAQ radio to depend on.

I was going to say Katrina with WWL, though it was relayed on every other New Orleans AM and FM as I recall, and broadcast from Baton Rouge.