[BC] EAS

[Cowboy]

 Preface:

 Some of you know, some of you don't, that I was one of the
 commenters when the whole idea of EAS was first floated
 as a replacement for EBS.
 Some of you know, some of you don't, that due in part, to
 personal correspondence with some of the commissioners
 at the time, the first draft was almost verbatim my ex-parte
 comments, made after the reply period closed.

 That first R&O allowed for, asked for, refinements and improvements
 from broadcasters, that didn't come.

 As such, this is an issue of personal meaning to me, and I'm trying
 really hard to not take any of it personal these days.....

 Now then....

From: A whole bunch of imbeded replies to imbeded replies.
   Therefore no particular quote is attributed to any particular
   individual, as I believe that however one may feel, there are
   certainly more who feel the same.


>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.

 That's absolutely correct. That's exactly what was intended from the begining.

>What I'm saying is that Broadcast stations are not the most efficient method 
>of conveying this warning.

 And I respectfully disagree.
 I know of NO place in the country, and territories, even ships at sea,
 ( within a some reasonable tens of miles ) where at least one
 broadcast station cannot be received.

>Because a piece of equipment has to be tuned to  
>that station, and it must be turned on in order to be monitoring.

 That is a fault of implimentation after the fact, and easily repaired,
 but ignored by receiver manufacturers and broadcasters alike.

> 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.

 Nor I, but that WAS the intention from the beginning.

>>   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.

 Thank you. Back to the future....

>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.

 This is WHY there are state and local plans !!
 If your state plan requires it, there is no need to hope for responsibility.
 What's mandated by the state and local plans is mandated.
 A violation of such, is a violation that is not taken lightly.

> 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.

 We agree, and apparently have since long *before* EAS was conceived.

>>   My vote would be to add a decoder to the receivers that we already
>>have.

 That WAS the original intent !
 That particular series of NPRM and such, was not a receiver issue,
 though, just as eliminating the *requirement* for the two-tone sounder
 wasn't part of that series.

>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.

 Exactly WHICH alerts would or would not be mandated for any particular
 station was to be part of the state and local plans.
 It was NOT the EAS system infrastructure that dropped THAT ball !
 The tools were provided.

>The problem is that you get woke up in the wee hours of the morning to hear 
>about a flash flood watch that's two counties over. It doesn't take too many 
>of those until you turn the thing off for good. THAT'S why the units need to 
>be programmable.

 Agreed !
 That's why that was part of the original vision, as it was a fairly major
 flaw in EBS, as it was, at that time.

>People who really want to know, will figure out the programming. A little 
>booklet furnished with the unit can list the FIPS codes, and give a web site 
>where they can be obtained on-line.
>If you care enough to take it with you  
>when you travel, then obtain the FIPS codes of your destinations.

 There were bugs, shortcomings, and such in the original design for
 which technology simply didn't exist to readily solve.
 We knew that. There was no internet, and we didn't know with
 any certainty that there ever would be.
 As anticipated, that technology DOES now exist, but is ignored.
 That's not a failing of the EAS system as envisioned.

>An  
>alternative method would be a "roaming" mode where the radio responds to ALL 
>alerts. I don't see an easy automatic setting of the FIPS codes unless the 
>units include a GPS system, and then we're again getting beyond the price 
>most people will pay.

 Really ?
 RDBS. HD/IBOC/IBAC. FM-subcarier data stream.
 Things that ALREADY exist, and have for quite some years, and
 things that were hoped for then, that are EASILY doable now !
 GPS is not one of them. That's quite unnecessary.
 The rest are, or will be shortly, in any radio broadcast receiver
 made. More is not needed, but only to use what's already there.

> Because a piece of equipment has to be
>tuned to
>>that station, and it must be turned on in order to be monitoring.

 BZZZZT !!
 Wrong.
 Plugged in, yes, but that's about it.
 Witness auto-time self-setting VCR's.
 ( nearly obsolete today, but around for some years now )

>  The current
>system was designed to get to the most people with the existing billions of
>radios.  We could always dream up systems that would do everything for
>everyone and hardly anyone would buy them.

 Thank you.

>	Don't try to make something out of the existing system that it was
>never intended to do.

 This is one of the BIG problems with the ney-sayers.
 BUT...
 Tech HAS come a long way, and today the EAS system CAN do things
 that were not envisioned at the time, and more easily today than ever.
 Extensibility WAS envisioned. The details of what and how were not,
 nor was that needed at the time.
 It CAN be improved. That's in the extensibility, and is why it's still
 as relevant today as it was then.

>>   What's wrong with alerting on ALL alerts 

>Because to 99.999% of the General Public, too many "irrelevant alerts" 
>becomes the "Chicken Little Syndrome". The thing goes off one too many times at 3am 
>and they'll chuck it out the window, smash it, or rip the battery out. All 
>done.

 Yes, but that's why there are codes in the system.
 That's why they've been there SINCE THE BEGINNING !!

>In order to be effective, it has to be relevant. That means more 
>sophistication.
>To make that simple to the user means it won't be cheap. (Combining it  
>with GPS, or cell-cites for example.)

 NOT AT ALL !!
 The broadcast means to accomplish this are there already.
 Yes, it does require some responsibility on part of receiver manufacturers
 to make receivers that can respond to coding received from off-air
 RDBS streams and such.
 That part requires agreement between EAS committees, broadcasters, and
 receiver manufacturers as to exactly the details of what and how, which WAS
 ALLOWED FOR in the original vision.
 That it has been ignored by all of the above is not the fault of the system.

 This was at the heart of the reasons for EAS at all.
 Gulf coast hurricane warnings, oil platforms, and refinery damage
 were given AT THAT TIME as one big reason for allowing this from the begining.

 That "we" ( all of us ) were given the tools, and did nothing with them,
 is not the fault of the tools !!

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>> > ACTIVATE A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND/OR SET OFF 
>>AN ALARM, and give a basic description of what the emergency is.

>>	That's all it was intended to do.

>Thank you for verifying that bit of information.

 Hell, THAT bit of information was in the ORIGINAL proposals, even
 before EAS was being talked about as anything more than a pipe dream !!
 Even Sage Alerting ( who sent me hate mail for many years ) and I
 agreed on that point !

>>	Correct, but any other method was a matter of requiring the public
>>to buy something to make the system work (sound like IBOC???) 

>That was the infamous "unfunded government mandate" that made the broadcast 
>industry pay for the system, and not the government or the "public".

 No, it wasn't.

 Some kind of national emergency alert system was inevitable.
 Even back then, it could have included broadcast, or not.
 I, and others, argued successfully that it MUST include broadcast.
 I, especially, argued that it must include AM broadcasters as well.
 Why ? Because I hate AM of course !
 NO. To prevent, in my own small way, AM from becoming totally
 irrelevant all those years ago.
 And, not only AM, but TV as well.
 The Sage proposal is a matter of record, and can be looked up by anyone.
 It rather explicitly confined their vision of profits to FM subcarrier ONLY.
 It was even argued at the time that including AM and TV would be detrimental
 to the preservation of human life.
 It pissed me off then, and it still does.

 Broadcast, as a means to, well, BROADCAST public safety and preservation
 of human life emergency alerts is NOT an unfunded mandate.

 It is a freely accepted condition of access to the public airwaves.
 With ability, comes responsibility.

>> I have an NWS at home, one in my office, and could dial
>>it up on my Yaesu VX2 on my hip if I so chose, but I'm an EAS geek.  Most
>>people don't want to be bothered.  Unlike the Satellite radio stuff, there
>>is no incentive for the radio makers or car companies to make such radios.
>
>And that's a big part of the problem right there. "Most people don't want to 
>be bothered".

 Yes, but that's not the fault of the EAS.
 That the horse isn't thirsty is not my problem.
 It wasn't then, and it isn't now.

>EAS has been mandated now for how long? Going on 2 decades I  
>think. And nobody wants to be bothered. Most people still had to listen to 
>radio or TV for entertainment way back when EAS was first mandated. Now they 
>have literally dozens of options for entertainment, and radio isn't one of 
>the major sources. So why is the major focus still on the broadcast model? 
>That's what I'm questioning. They buy gadgets by the score to be 
>entertained. Why can't they buy one to be SAFE?

 It's my contention that they can, and they will.
 I have yet to see anyone refuse a new car because the radio
 had an added feature.

 HDTV is proving that, as are all those things cited here as to why
 radio is irrelevant, useless, and should simply be abandoned for
 "broadcasting" emergency alert information.
 They DO buy gadgets, and candy bars, and softdrinks, and WATER for
 crisssake !
 Then, folks bitch that they absolutely will NOT pay for a new radio when
 the old one breaks, or wears out, or they buy a new car.
 Balderdash !

 It's not EAS that has failed to provide means to use it.

>> The Duck Farts certainly get my
>>attention when I have the radio low or am not really paying much attention.
>>	Don't try to make something out of the existing system that it was
>>never intended to do.
>
>A-HA! That's something I've been waiting to hear for years. The main purpose 
>of the duck farts is to alert the DJ at the monitoring station.

 No, that's NOT the main purpose, and that's why you've been waiting for years,
 AND that's not what he said !
 The noise, or two-tone sounder, or a siren for that matter, gets attention.
 In the case of the duck-farts, the primary purpose was then, and is now,
 to automaticly carry an alert code that can be used to automaticly sound
 an alarm, or open a squelch, or turn on a receiver to receive the audio
 alert message content. 
 The two-tone was designed to get attention, and also to unmute a receiver.
 The duck-farts intent is exactly the opposite.

>Having admitted to that, please tell me why the myriad, majority of stations 
>at the END of the EAS daisy chain, are required to re-broadcast EAS tones, 
>duck farts, and test messages?

 To automagicly activate the consumer equipment that would automagicly
 respond to them, as originally envisioned in the original design.

>They serve NO purpose to anyone, because  
>there is no equipment out there anywhere to decode them.

 Again, that's not the fault of the EAS system as designed, but,
 your logic that regardless of intent they have become all but useless
 can not be argued.
 On this point, of eliminating them from the last mile, I can take no
 issue, and agree, though with some reservation.

 At the moment, consumer receivers could, if the decoders were there,
 respond. If the data stream is eliminated from reaching the audience,
 then there would be no chance we'll ever see the consumer receivers
 as originally envisioned, though that's not likely to happen at this point
 anyway, and would become obsolete as soon as HD/IBOC/IBAC is included.

>Why not stop the  
>signals AT THE MONITORING STATIONS and be done with it?

 Today, in 2005, to discard tools that no one has used for 20 years
 is a position I can take no issue with.
 They would have, could have, been EXCEEDINGLY useful, even
 during Katrina, had someone, ANYONE used them as provided.

 Now that they merely rust on the shelf, I can not disagree
 that turning them off at the ends of the chain could possibly
 do any damage, especially with the far more capable digital
 broadcast model just around the proverbial corner.

 I'll support you on this point.

 To anyone still reading this missive, my appologies, and I'll do my
 best to keep my blood pressure down, and refrain from further
 diatribes.

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboys.homeip.net

My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not
signed.
		-- Christopher Morley