[BC] Usefulness of EAS

[Cowboy]

On Wednesday 13 June 2012 10:04:57 am Jeff Glass wrote:
 
> Lots of good points about EAS, but this is what we have, for better or 
> worse.

 It was intended to be built upon, and get better.
 If it had been known, or even hinted, at the time that it would
 be used more as a political "I'm doing good!" football.....

> But until the FCC lets us come up with our own national alert protocol (it 
> might be a procedure, it might be an infrastructure) all we can do is our 
> best with the system we have. 

 They did that, some years ago.
 *We* came up with EAS, largely what we have now.

 Oh, it's been patched since then, and some areas have done a really,
 really good job with it, but largely apathy by the majority of the
 players has developed it into what it is now, in most places.

>  Just that there is the appearance of going 
> through the motions; not if the motions were effective or not.

 Sadly, that does seem to have been, and still is, the primary
 purpose, and use, of the whole system.
 Shame.

> So with this kind of leadership at the "head end" I don't have high 
> expectations for EAS nationally.

 Nationally, my respect for the system ( of which I was an architect )
 has waned along with my opinions and respect for federal politics
 and politicians as a whole.

> Locally and state wide however, I think EAS is  
> very valuable, helpful, and it has a good track record for helping the public. 

 With exception of excessive crying wolf, you're probably right.

> It should therefore be kept with the idea of optimizing its usefulness on 
> the local/regional level. This is one more thing where the federal government 
> needs to get out of the way. 

 Good idea, so a safe bet *that* will not happen.

 The EAS system is a tool, just like a handgun.
 Properly used, a life saver for which there is no substitute.
 Improperly used, or abused, worse than no tool at all.

 The way it's gone, I'm out of suggestions.

-- 
Cowboy