[BC] Re:EAS Issues

[Jerry Mathis]

My reply comments below are prefaced with JM:



Jerry Mathis
Clear Channel Radio, Tupelo & Meridian MS





>From: "Clay Freinwald" <cfreinwald at entercom.com>
>Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: [BC] Re:EAS Issues
>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:43:24 -0600
>
>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.

JM- Yes, but in many if not most states, it's the ONLY facet. Some time 
back, someone commented on one of these lists that Mississippi's EAS plan is 
a joke. After moving here and seeing the plan, I tend to agree.

>
>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.

JM- I'm going to try and find the time to examine California's--and 
Washington's--EAS plan in detail. I saw a good bit of Washington State's 
plan when I was there working on stations for LifeTalk Radio. Is CA's plan 
on the web? Lots of states are pulling their plans from the Web, thinking 
that terrorists will be less likely to find ways to exploit it.


> >>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.

JM- This actually was my original complaint: EAS's job is to inform the 
public about immediate emergency events. My observation was that the 
Broadcast model is very inefficient at doing that job.


>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 !

JM- Let me make it clear that I think a nationwide, and regional and state 
and local, emergency alerting system is a good idea. I am not criticizing 
EAS per se, but only the implementation. If you need to move a bunch of 
people from New York to LA, it's MUCH more efficient to use a jet plane than 
a Conestoga wagon train.


>   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.

JM- Again, broadcasting is a primary means of dissemanating emergency and 
lifesaving information; but it doesn't need EAS to do that. EAS should be 
used to alert the public that there is an emergency situation, and give the 
bare details; broadcasters should provide the bulk of the rest of the news 
and information. The current situation is like running promos for your 
station only on your own station: no one hears them unless they're already 
tuned in. (Yes, I've worked for stations that actually DID that!)


>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?

JM- Because obviously, you found that the existing system didn't work. DUH. 
And that's not intended as a smart-a** remark. And that's what I'm 
saying--in general, the system doesn't work, or doesn't work well, except 
where special attention has been paid.


> >   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.

JM- As I stated earlier, if they would take that $250 million they're going 
to line someone's pocket with to generate a few pieces of paper, and apply 
it to building the system out, we'd be much better off.

And BTW, the more I think about that, the madder I get. Who deserves $250 
million to do a study? Guys, we're in the wrong business  :(


>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.

JM- You can lead the horse to water.......but if we make it possible for 
everyone who WANTS to, to receive EAS alerts, then we have fulfilled our 
responsibility. If the public chooses not to partake, then it's THEIR 
problem. Then they can't blame Clear Channel, or any other broadcaster, for 
not being alerted before the flash flood washed them away.


>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
>
>-
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/