[EAS] Authority to form State Emerg. Comm. Committees

[Barry Mishkind]

At 05:27 AM 3/3/2011, Tom Taggart wrote:
>CAP really isn't all that different. Just grafting the
>internet on 50's era structures. 

        ... at least until the Internet goes out
        due to loss of power, lines, etc. 

        As one example, consider this point:
        if CAP is designed, among other things,
        to verify the "secret code" for GMC, 
        then one of the federal agencies has
        to actually stop and address what will
        happen if the Internet ISPs go down
        during an emergency. Otherwise, the
        station engineer have to be sent out 
        to the local grocery store to get a
        "secret decoder ring" in the cereal
        department - which will be about
        as useful.

        IMHO, it seems that each stakeholder
        in the process seems to focus only
        on the very small part of the overall
        picture that is their "kingdom." As 
        often occurs in dialog in this country,
        there may never be full agreement on 
        the whole picture, but with each agency
        and group pushing their "vision," it is
        instructive to stop and notice all the
        blind spots.

        This disconnect is likely a large reason
        many are no longer interested in the
        entire EAS - or despair at the lack
        of attention to the major "what if?"s
        that still are not answered.

        Some now are wondering if the Part 11
        NPRM, long rumored to actually happen,
        will be the FCC's "gift" during NAB.

>However, adding more rules, creating more formal state
>structures, and more mandates would not help matters.  We
>don't need another sandbox for the politicians to play in.  
        
        True.  The only way things are going to
        improve (the Part 11 stuff, anyway) is if
        the folks in the field are not only 
        asked in a reasonably collaborative way
        to make suggestions, but if their input is
        actually listened to.  

        Nor can this process of transition be
        driven solely by the manufacturers. Their
        vested interests are no more, no less
        capable of complicating things as
        any other stakeholder.

        Nor can it be driven by mandates to
        broadcasters along with "please" to
        the EM community. Changes on 
        both sides (transmission) need to 
        be made, along with changes at
        the starting point (initiation of alerts).
        Otherwise, the end users - listeners -
        will not gain the benefits that all
        this effort could accomplish.

        Finally - since this thread has a subject
        noted above ... are we really to believe that 
        no one has asked the FCC for clarity on 
        SECC and LECC issues in over 15 years? 
        Either that is so, or surely the wonderful
        folks in DC would have issued a policy
        clarification long ago, wouldn't they?

        And, please, don't call me Shirley.