[BC] EAS

[Jerry Mathis]

Replies embedded below.



Jerry Mathis
Clear Channel Radio, Tupelo & Meridian MS





>From: "Keith Hammond" <monsterfm at monsterfm.com>
>Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>To: "'Broadcast Radio Mailing List'" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: RE: [BC] EAS
>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:28:09 -0500
>
>Jerry Mathis wrote:
>
> > I'm probably not the only one saying this, but I've come to
> > the conclusion
> > that EAS has no place on Broadcast Radio or TV. Why? Because
> > it only reaches
> > those who happen to be listening/watching at that given
> > instant. If it's
> > 2:30 AM, very few people will get the warning.
>
>
>
>   This is true but, you're advocating leaving US (the broadcasters)
>completely out of the loop! This will only further add to the illusion
>that broadcast radio and TV is only a source of meaningless drivel and,
>in order to get "fast-breaking facts and information", the public simply
>MUST turn to another (the inference will be) "more responsible source".
>

No, no--that is NOT what I meant--I just didn't explain fully.

EAS is, basically, a warning system. A data stream, maybe coupled with 
tones, that is designed to ACTIVATE A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND/OR SET OFF AN 
ALARM, and give a basic description of what the emergency is. There are then 
provisions, within the EAS system, for a minute or two's worth of 
information. THAT'S ALL EAS DOES.

What I'm saying is that Broadcast stations are not the most efficient method 
of conveying this warning. Because a piece of equipment has to be tuned to 
that station, and it must be turned on in order to be monitoring. People 
don't listen to their radio or watch their TV 24/7. There are no 
mass-produced radios or TV's that I'm aware of, other than NOAA weather 
radios, designed to sit quietly until an EAS alert is received, and then 
turn on and activate.

The second part of what I didn't say is that stations like yours do NOT need 
EAS to convey your fast-breaking facts and information. You've described 
your station's response to local emergencies and weather information in 
previous posts, and it sounds like you're doing a heckuva job. But what does 
EAS add to what you're doing, other than playing the duck farts for your 
audience to hear? At best it's an attention-getter. And surely you realize 
that even EAS activation in 3 in the morning is only heard by the few who 
happen to be awake and have their radio on (and are tuned to your station).

>
>
> > There needs to be a dedicated frequency/frequencies set
> > nationwide for EAS,
> > and radios specifically made for that purpose need to be
> > designed, built,
> > and sold. NOAA weather radios could fit this bill, but the
> > transmitter
> > network needs to be beefed up considerably (too many holes in
> > coverage
> > presently).
>
>
>
>   Or, just do what we've both discussed in the past: Build a (mandatory)
>EAS decoder into each receiver that is always and forever (except in the
>case of battery operated walkmans and the such) monitoring a local
>broadcast outlet (who will hopefully be responsible enough to relay
>pertinent information) and will un-mute on receipt of a valid alert for
>the given area. THIS would hopefully impress upon the audience that
>broadcast outlets ARE as important and as intent on local service as
>ever! (It would also NOT require the addition of yet another RF
>front-end and all of the associated - extra cost - circuits in our
>receivers and don't forget about the costs of beefing up that VHF
>network of transmitters.)

This is a possible scenario; I don't claim to have all the answers. However, 
there is a big BUT in this idea, and that is that some local stations would 
need to be MANDATED to carry EAS (not just "hopefully be responsible 
enough"), or this idea isn't any better than what we're now doing. That is 
why I suggested a separate radio network.

>
>   OK, call me "greedy" if you like. I just don't want people who listen
>to my stations to get the impression that "The music is good but, the
>government had to snatch my radio control away from me so I could listen
>to something serious while the radio station kept playing music..."

It doesn't have to be that way at all. The EAS alert network doesn't (and 
shouldn't, IMO) need to carry all the local details of the emergency, but 
just the officially released information. There should be a message included 
saying, tune to your local station(s) for more details and further 
information. You become a PARTNER, not a victim.

>
>   Generally, we cover local news and information in much more detail
>that NOAA or any government agency would even begin to consider. I'd
>like for those listeners to keep listening! (Seriously, I've been
>personally caught - on the air - in the middle of reading a tornado
>warning for the *THIRD* TIME when the EAS will kick-in and broadcast
>it's version of the warning for the FIRST time. Since it gives almost 10
>seconds of warning before snatching audio from the local board, I
>usually just say something like "We'll be back with in-depth local
>coverage as soon as the weather service tells you what I've been telling
>you for the past several minutes...")

For me, this just validates what I'm suggesting. Whoever's NOT listening to 
you will get the alert, and tune to you. They're getting fresh information 
as far as they're concerned. No apology needed by or for anyone.

>
>   My vote would be to add a decoder to the receivers that we already
>have. As I've stated before, I've demoed an EAS receiver here and the
>reaction is always the same, "OK. I'll buy one as soon as it's $29.95
>like the one at Radio Shack." (Never mind the fact that, although it
>MIGHT add $5.00 to the cost, the one at Radio Shack ONLY receives
>NOAA... Which is NOT available in our area and is not "in the works"
>anytime soon even though I've offered to provide tower space, the
>transmitter, the generator and the antenna!)

Again, IMO, broadcast station monitors will be useful ONLY IF the station 
they are tuned to carries ALL THE ALERTS. Very few stations do, at this 
point, one, because it is not mandated, and two, because they (the stations) 
don't feel it is necessary. And unless full coverage is mandated, 
broadcasters using EAS is useless. BTW, I am NOT suggesting that full EAS 
use be mandated; I still think that this is not the way to go.

>
>
>Keith Hammond
>
>KBKH-FM (Shamrock, Texas)
>
>(806) 256-1221
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/