[EAS] Activity at the FCC

[k7cr]

One needs to keep in mind a couple of factors here.    We are going to 
assume that the creators of messages are going to use CAP (at least that is 
the direction we are going here in Washington State)...  At some point the 
CAP message is going to be 'reduced' to SAME and that message may undergo 
additional distribution.    Again, using Washington State as an 
example...When our State EOC issues a message they send it via two paths - 
1) CAP (via IP) and 2) SAME via our existing State Relay Network.    On the 
receiving end you have some choices, based on the type of equipment you have 
and how you have connected yourself to which distribution system.  Counties 
are now up and running with them now all originating EAS messages using CAP 
as well  and everyone understands that their messages are likely to be, at 
some point, down-converted to SAME.   Some broadcasters will likely be OK 
with staying with SAME, while others will want to upgrade sooner rather than 
later.

 This will all likely change when (and perhaps if) the FCC requires everyone 
to have a CAP capable box.   At some point we will likely see SAME go away 
in favor of the more feature rich capabilities of CAP

I hope this makes sense.  Questions are certainly welcome.

Clay Freinwald

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Adler" <EAdler at wskg.org>
To: "The EAS Forum - accurate and up-to-date information on the EAS 
anditsimplementation" <eas at radiolists.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [EAS] Activity at the FCC


> Thank you Richard,
>
> Digging in to this a bit, in the available IPAWS documents from fema.gov, 
> I see very few internet/IP references.  I see two in the "CAP IPAWS FAQ" 
> answers, one that appears to dodge the question "Does CAP require an 
> internet connection?" by using the wording "may be pulled (...) via an 
> internet connection"; another states "Message delivery using CAP via 
> Internet Protocol is proposed as a supplementary layer of message 
> dissemination.".
>
> Full IPAWS OPEN 2.0 documentation doesn't appear to be available (at 
> least, not easily).
>
> Eric
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Rudman <rar01 at me.com>
> Sender: "eas-bounces at radiolists.net" <eas-bounces at radiolists.net>
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:19:08
> To: The EAS Forum - accurate and up-to-date information on the EAS and 
> itsimplementation<eas at radiolists.net>
> Reply-To: The EAS Forum - accurate and up-to-date information on the EAS 
> and
> its implementation <eas at radiolists.net>
> Subject: Re: [EAS] Activity at the FCC
>
> CAP says nothing about IP protocols.
>
> CAP is no more and no less than a subset of the XML markup language, so I 
> think of CAP as "data."
>
> So, since CAP by any other name is data, IPv6 capability would have to be 
> a part of what various CAP message aggregators push out and what the push 
> through to get to entry points,  and what various EAS entry points have as 
> connections.
>
> Richard Rudman
> =====
> On Jan 22, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Eric Adler wrote:
>
>> Speaking of technology lock-in: Do the current standards allow and/or 
>> require IPv6 support?
>>
>> Eric
>> Sent from my BlackBerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Adrienne  Abbott" <nevadaeas at charter.net>
>> S
> _______________________________________________
> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>
> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>
> And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>
> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>
> And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
>
>
>