[BC] Fine? 5k for eas botch?

[Sid Schweiger]

"Sid, so that I and all the readers can understand EXACTLY what it is  
that you're trying to say here, would you clarify your statement a  
bit. As is, it can be interpreted to be a bit nebulous.

"Are you inferring that the radio cluster here in Minot did not do the  
service due to negligence, or perhaps that this event was a good  
example of why EAS needs to be in place AND working (at all stages,  
starting with the local government, not just the radio  
hardware/personnel)?"

I was using that as an example of how it can become politically correct to bash a broadcaster, especially if it's a major group owner, regardless of the facts of the matter.  If a broadcaster decides to drop out of EAS because of an overly zealous regulator (what we've been discussing on this thread), the first time a life-or-death disaster doesn't get relayed to the public, all the explanations in the world won't matter.  All anyone will see, rightly or wrongly, is that the local radio station didn't do (what they perceive as) its job.

I'm aware of the facts (the real ones, not the make-them-up-in-order-to-bash-Clear-Channel ones) of Minot, and would never suggest that they shirked their duties that day.

As for EAS as a whole, I guess I'm just not a believer.  As we engineers are fond of saying:  Too many potential failure points.  If they'd keep it around for its original purpose (to give the President a means of addressing most of the country during a national emergency), and devise a system of periodically testing the equipment without causing widespread panic, that would sit well with me.  The patchwork of state and local "plans" (and let's remember that some states still don't have either FCC-approved plans or any plans at all) is what's killing the system's usefulness, IMHO.

Sid Schweiger
IT Manager, Entercom New England
20 Guest St / 3d Floor
Brighton MA  02135-2040