[BC] Re: RE: That Guy at the PAB who inspected Dana Puopolo'sStation

[Jerry Mathis]

This whole thing is beginning to look like the proverbial "failure to
communicate". If you were in LA when the station was inspected, then you
weren't the stations' Chief Operator. The CO is responsible for maintaining
the EAS system and making sure that all tests/alerts are conducted and
logged properly, and missing ones investigated. That apparently wasn't being
done. And it's now been stated that the AIP inspector DIDN'T fault your
system, but rather the lack of weekly maintenance of the system. So, if my
assumptions are correct, we can say the following:

1. Your system was legally functioning, according to the Rules;
2. The failure of the inspection was not your fault;
3. Local station management and/or the Chief Operator failed to maintain
weekly inspection and proper operation of the installed EAS system.
4. Local station management SHOULD have had a person familiar with the
station, INCLUDING the EAS system, on site at the time of the inspection.
5. If you were terminated because of this incident, then station management
did not themselves understand what the issues were, and failed as well to
communicate the issues to you.

--
Jerry Mathis

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Dana Puopolo <dpuopolo at usa.net> wrote:

> When the station was inspected (it was almost a year after the system went
> in-and by the way the monitoring worked so well that we caught the LP2
> station
> missing a monthly test!), I had already moved to los Angeles. There were at
> least two other engineers in Boston who knew how the system worked. I have
> no
> idea whether they were called or not, but my phone here in LA works
> great-and
> it never rang. I was still doing things for the client from here, but that
> stopped after the inspection.
>
> Again-the coding was 128 kbps MPEG-2. We tested extensively before putting
> the
> system in.
> I also have dozens of Barix clients doing the same identical thing
> successfully every day. Most of these are TV stations who operate satellite
> stations in distant communities. Let me assure you, the 'duck farts' are
> quite
> robust. The fact that the clock was not set indicates to me that perhaps
> the
> system was tampered with after I left. Nontheless, I still believe that
> having
> an EAS device in a location that's manned 24/7 is better then having it in
> a
> local studio that's only manned 40 hours a week.
>
> This whole technology isn't new-National Supervisory network was doing this
> almost 20 years ago-with the FCC's blessing no less.
>
> I'm not saying that Matt was wrong in not passing them-what I AM saying is
> that moving the EAS to the local studio should NOT have been a requirement
> of
> it.  Do any of really think that an untrained secretary knows more about
> EAS
> then a bunch of seasoned operators?
> What really needed to be done was to smack THEM into doing their jobs!
>
> Not to mention that the system now in place has the transmitter audio going
> THREE places (Boston, studio, transmitter) instead of two-a source of
> additional unreliability (the old system went from Boston right to the TX,
> while the 'new, improved' chain makes a stop at the local studio where it
> goes
> through an additional board, ANOTHER set of coders and a wireless link
> that's
> twice as long as the original link. Also, now the audio goes through TWO
> different ISPs (Verizon and Comcast) while the old system stayed strictly
> Verizon (we couldn't get DSL of sufficent upload speed at the studio).
> In the past, flooding in the community resulted in the station being signed
> on
> at night. It was programmed from Boston, with public safety people being
> quickly put on the air via telephone. If power goes off at the local studio
> OR
> AT ANY PHONE POLE COMCAST HAS A POWER SUPPLY ON-they are screwed-the cable
> Internet will not work. How is this system more reliable then the one that
> worked off Verizon't CO battery?
>
> Like I said-what they have now is FAR inferior then what was set up in the
> first place (and 100% legal).
>
> -D
>