[EAS] National Test

[ed.czarnecki at monroe-electronics.com]

I tend to agree that a full test should include EAN and EAT capabilities.  However, bear in mind that the Commission has asked whether the EAT is even needed...  If EAT is removed from the revised Part 11 rules, then its a moot point. 

Edward Czarnecki, Ph.D.
Senior Director - Strategy, Development and Regulatory Affairs
Monroe Electronics, Inc. / Digital Alert Systems
ed.czarnecki at monroe-electronics.com

www.monroe-electronics.com
www.digitalalertsystems.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kline [mailto:broadcast at snugglebunny.us]

I agree. If we're going to replicate a real EAN, then let's replicate it, including the EAT. If we don't test the EAT, then how do we know that the entire sequence works as intended?akOn 6/10/2011 5:11 PM, Kluger, Michael wrote:> My personal feeling on this is that if the test is supposed to replicate the performance that can be expected during an actual EAN, the procedure for terminating the test should be the same as the procedure for terminating an actual EAN. If an EAT will be used to terminate a real EAN, then it would make sense to use an EAT to terminate the test. If an EAT is not needed because the test can be terminated by the EOM, then it should be equally possible to terminate an actual EAN with the transmission of the EOM signal, instead of using an EAT. It would make sense to pick one or the other and stick with it in all cases._______________________________________________This is the EAS Forum Discussion ListPlease invite your friends to join our Forum!http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/easAnd, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net