JAMAICA | “Technologies Evolve But Is It Making Us Better Human Beings”: Cordel Green on Hurricanes, AI, Starlink, and the Future of Jamaican Music

by Donovan Watkis

When Hurricane Melissa tore through Jamaica, it did more than rip roofs from houses. It exposed just how fragile the country’s media infrastructure remains.

“We’re fine in Kingston,” says Cordel Green, attorney-at-law, former Assistant Attorney-General and long-time broadcaster, speaking by phone for over an hour. “But I’m originally from Montego Bay… I have family members there who’ve just been completely devastated. Roofs off, homes blown down. But they have life, and from that point of view we are very thankful.”

From his vantage point as Jamaica’s chief broadcast regulator, Green has been managing a second crisis: keeping the country on the air.

“One site, Shafton, was badly affected. I think a transmitter even went down,” he explains. “Others were more affected by the loss of electricity… you’re now relying on generators and not only is the fuel expensive, but you run out of fuel, you’re off the air.”

Getting commercial power back to transmitter sites is now the priority. “Where over-the-air broadcasting is concerned, we should be good sooner rather than later.”

Cable television is another story. “Saying decimated would not be hyperbole,” Green says. “For every utility pole on the ground – and there are many – so too is the cable infrastructure. Fibre and coaxial cables on the ground.”

The hardest hit are the “mom and pop” cable systems that pioneered subscription TV in Jamaica. “They are facing an extremely difficult time,” he says.

Why cable is a regulatory flashpoint

Many Jamaicans still assume the Broadcasting Commission only deals with free-to-air television and radio. Green bristles at the idea.

“We regulate subscription television services as well,” he says. A decade ago, that role put the Commission at the centre of one of the island’s loudest media controversies: the removal of unlicensed foreign cable channels including Showtime and Starz.

According to the Jamaica Gleaner article date April 7, 2016, “local cable operators were given strict orders to desist from illegally transmitting several channels and programmes after US trade representatives met with local authorities during President Barack Obama’s visit to the island.”

At the time 98 US channels were being aired without the proper license and rumor had it that the 2015 visit of US president triggered the crackdown, after lobbying by American media companies. Green calls that pure myth.

“That entire thing linked to Barack Obama was misinformation,” he says. “What we did was not in anticipation of or a reaction to the president’s visit.”

The real driver, he explains, was the US Trade Representative’s monitoring of copyright violations. Jamaica had long been on a watch list for cable retransmission of channels for which local operators had no rights.

“The Broadcasting Commission even organised a regional conference in Jamaica with CNN, Turner and others,” he recalls. “We wrote to the chairman of HBO pressing them to take another look at their arrangement.”

The structural problem, he argues, is that Caribbean markets are often lumped into a broad “Latin America and the Caribbean” zone. “Socio-culturally we have distinctly different interests and tastes,” he says. Yet content packages arrive with Spanish adverts and advisories, while rights owners are reluctant to license small English-speaking territories separately — an environment that indirectly encourages piracy.

For the Commission, the core mandate is simple: “to ensure that persons who hold broadcast licences comply with copyright obligations” and that any transfer of ownership is vetted for the public interest. “We don’t immerse ourselves in commercial affairs,” Green says. “What we insist on is that licences are held by fit and proper persons.”

Starlink, low-orbit satellites and the next phase of access

The hurricane has also accelerated a new reality: Jamaicans in remote districts staying online via Starlink and other low-Earth-orbit satellite services.

“Advancement in your communication capabilities is great,” Green says, choosing his words carefully. “You want reliable connection and affordable connection. A low-orbit satellite option can only be good because that is competition – no different than when Digicel entered the Jamaican market and gave competition to Cable & Wireless.”

He sees Starlink as one more layer in an increasingly complex ecosystem: community Wi-Fi from the Universal Service Fund, small ISPs, national telecoms and now global satellite players. The upside is redundancy; the downside is concentration of power and geopolitical risk.

“There are security and geopolitical considerations that come in your communication framework,” he notes, “which is above my pay grade.” His focus is governance: what the technology does to people and institutions, not the gadgetry itself.

“We moved from the printing press to radio, to television, to subscription TV, to satellite,” he says. “Technologies evolve. The question is: is this making us better human beings and making our home Earth a better place that can sustain human life?”

AI, charts and the value of human creativity

Al Singer Xania Monet

That question looms largest over artificial intelligence, now moving rapidly into music.

World Music Views’ YouTube and Apple Music charts already capture AI-assisted songs when they stream in large numbers. Some global broadcasters, such as iHeartRadio, have announced they will not play AI-generated music at all. How should regulators respond?

Green rejects the idea that charts are purely neutral reflections of consumption.

“Things don’t work by magic,” he says. “We make decisions. Would you put on your chart a song that goes number one that is promoting child pornography? No. So there is always an editorial judgment somewhere.”

For him, the first line in the sand is transparency.

“At a minimum, if artificial intelligence is involved, disclose it to me,” he insists. “Just like we do with food: it’s organic or it’s not. We have an obligation to disclose it.”

He draws a distinction between AI as a tool and music that is entirely machine-generated.

“I find it very difficult to believe that a creative should be told: in your studio you have live drums, a trumpet, a synthesiser, artificial intelligence – but if you touch the AI you are no longer an artist. I don’t belong to that school of thought.”

Where he becomes uneasy is with fully synthetic songs competing directly with humans.

“I don’t believe I should be judged against a machine that doesn’t sleep,” he says. “What it has is the capability to, within a matter of seconds, go through millions of streams, mix and mash them up and create something new. That is not a fair comparison.”

One possible future, he muses, is separate lanes: “This is the human reggae chart and this is the AI reggae chart.” But he is adamant that any settlement must be evidence-based, not emotional or purely commercial.

“We need to arrive at some consensus on which functions artificial intelligence should not perform,” he says. “Not because it can, but because as humans we decide it should not. That’s what we did with genetic manipulation and nuclear capability.”

Addiction, mental autonomy and the Swedish warning

Green’s concerns extend beyond royalties and airplay into mental health. He points to Sweden, which recently rolled back its push for fully digital schooling after evidence that heavy screen use was harming children’s cognitive development.

“We are still focused on opioids,” he says, “when there is another form of addiction taking place that is affecting our mental autonomy.”

Al Singer Xania Monet

TALISHA JONES

That question looms largest over artificial intelligence, now moving rapidly into music.

World Music Views’ YouTube and Apple Music charts already capture AI-assisted songs when they stream in large numbers. Some global broadcasters, such as iHeartRadio, have announced they will not play AI-generated music at all. How should regulators respond?

Green rejects the idea that charts are purely neutral reflections of consumption.

“Things don’t work by magic,” he says. “We make decisions. Would you put on your chart a song that goes number one that is promoting child pornography? No. So there is always an editorial judgment somewhere.”

For him, the first line in the sand is transparency.

“At a minimum, if artificial intelligence is involved, disclose it to me,” he insists. “Just like we do with food: it’s organic or it’s not. We have an obligation to disclose it.”

He draws a distinction between AI as a tool and music that is entirely machine-generated.

“I find it very difficult to believe that a creative should be told: in your studio you have live drums, a trumpet, a synthesiser, artificial intelligence – but if you touch the AI you are no longer an artist. I don’t belong to that school of thought.”

Where he becomes uneasy is with fully synthetic songs competing directly with humans.

“I don’t believe I should be judged against a machine that doesn’t sleep,” he says. “What it has is the capability to, within a matter of seconds, go through millions of streams, mix and mash them up and create something new. That is not a fair comparison.”

One possible future, he muses, is separate lanes: “This is the human reggae chart and this is the AI reggae chart.” But he is adamant that any settlement must be evidence-based, not emotional or purely commercial.

“We need to arrive at some consensus on which functions artificial intelligence should not perform,” he says. “Not because it can, but because as humans we decide it should not. That’s what we did with genetic manipulation and nuclear capability.”

Addiction, mental autonomy and the Swedish warning

Green’s concerns extend beyond royalties and airplay into mental health. He points to Sweden, which recently rolled back its push for fully digital schooling after evidence that heavy screen use was harming children’s cognitive development.

“We are still focused on opioids,” he says, “when there is another form of addiction taking place that is affecting our mental autonomy.”

-30-