[BC] Re:EAS Issues

[Clay Freinwald]

I gotta respond to some of the comments re. EAS as there appears to be a
continued level of  mis-understanding - Read on...My comments start with
a CF - 
 
Clay Freinwald
Chair, Washington State SECC
Chair, SBE EAS Committee 

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.

CF- Anyone that understands EAS also understands that it IS NOT just a
Broadcast thing.   You are most correct, any public warning system
cannot be viable if it depends on someone having a radio or TV turned
off.  Broadcasting is just ONE FACET of Public Warning and EAS.
 
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).

CF - NWS is very much a part of EAS.  Check their WebSite for more
information.   I have been having EAS meetings at NAB for many years and
at these session we have explained just how this works...
 
We're wasting valuable time and resources with the current system. It's
a 
rat hole.

CF - Jerry - You apparently think that EAS is ONLY Broadcast Stations. 
 It can be that way in your area if this is what you wish...but it can
also be a whole lot more, if you wish.   If you would like to see what
CAN be done...take a look at the State of California.

>>How much more money are the gonna throw down this black hole?  The
friggin' >Weather Channel was telling people a week before the storm hit
that it was>coming and it was gonna be big.  How much more time to you
need?  EAS would have been worthless for this kind of disaster.  It is
much more suited to spot weather events like tornados, flash flooding
and evac notices.  

CF - Right you are !   EAS is NOT designed to inform the public about
events for which the media has been harping for days.  Its specifically
designed to provide a conduit for government entities (Such as NWS) with
a tool to inform the public as to SHORT FUSE events.  What I am seeing
here are crictical comments about EAS related to giving it a
responsibility that it does not have. 
 
CF - The biggest problem with EAS is that the capability of the system
has not been utilized by the majority of the government entities that
its been offered to.   The success of EAS is what people make of it.  
Its like a computer...you can choose to run programs with it...or use it
as a door stop.  Its wrong to criticize the computer when people choose
to use it as a door stop !
 

  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".

CF - Well said....The goal of public warning systems in this day and
age should be to utilize EVERY electronic communications system we have
to distribute life saving information.   Broadcasting is JUST A PART of
that effort. Its a valuable part...but its not the ONLY part.

  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...")

CF- This is a matter for you and NWS to discuss.   Every area should
have an EAS Committee and on that committee needs to be representatives
of the sources of information and reps from those that pass it on
(Broadcasters). Trust me, these problems can be resolved...but it
requires - interaction- to make it happen.
 
  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!)

CF - I would put pressure on your congressman to correct this one!
 


I would agree with Jerry. Build out NWS which can dispatch emergency
messages much more efficiently than broadcast OR let XM or Sirius do it.
They already have the coverage. The broadcast model is SOOO out of date.
 We all know that broadcasters independently will deliver better and
more in depth info but the initial alerting could be done so much better
without depending on broadcast relay.

CF- Apparently in this case the decision was made to do 'broadcast
relays' or 'daisy chains'.   We made the decision in Washington State
not to do that.  How and why did that happen do you think?
 
>   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.)

CF - NWR is the best bet for this....it works very well and presently
covers about 90% of the population.   What we need is coverage for the
remaining.  Hopefully the proposed mega-bucks will do just that.  
However...Don't overlook the opportunity for private/public partnerships
to enhance your areas NWR coverage.  We've done that here in Washington
State with great success.
 


It's a great idea, but when you factor in the general public, forget
it. Most 
people are quite clueless about Technology, and prefer to stay that
way.

CF - This is a classic problem.   Modern NWR Radios have EAS/SAME
decoders in them that can be programmed to deliver specific information.
The problem is that most folks simply will not take the time to do it,
nor do they have the desire.  These are the folks that only know how to
use half the buttons on their cell-phone and their VCR and microwave
still blink 12:00.  Perhaps a combo GPS/NWR receiver will do the trick.
 
 
The question is not how we abdicate as quickly as possible ( signing
our own death warrants ) but how we make it better.
That's a public responsibility that rests with EVERY licensee.

CF - Amen - One more time.............What we get out of EAS is very
dependent on what we put into it.   EAS is NOT a government agency with
an army of thousands that fan out across the landscape installing
wonderful public warning systems.  EAS is a system that has considerable
potential.  This explains why some states have great and well
functioning EAS system while others have not.   Again this is like
saying that TV is bad just because you don't like the programming.  Its
what you do with it that counts.
 
Questions about any of this....Contact me off list at - 
 
k7cr at wolfenet.com
 
-