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

[Tom Taggart]

Next week's editorial on the BDR, Barry?

Agree with everything you say. I've seen this game before
with state government--the administration sets up a
committee, rounds up the "stakeholders" for input on some
proposed legislation, then when the actual bill comes up
it's clear that they just went ahead and did what they were
going to do in the first place. When complaints are raised
they then say "well, this is what we talked about in
committee and you agreed to it" (or "we've already discussed
this issue" if there has already been a round of screaming
about the proposal).

Been there, done that, as a rep. for the state bar on
various bills put forward by the welfare department. 

I think we also have to be aware of the added element in
this whole proceeding at the national level: This is NOT
just an FCC initiative...we have another, competing Federal
agency involved, FEMA.  There is a turf battle going on.  As
someone once noted, when elephants fight, it's the daisies
that get trampled. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Barry Mishkind <barry at oldradio.com>
To: The EAS Forum - accurate & up-to-date EAS information
<eas at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [EAS] Authority to form State Emerg. Comm.
Committees
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:11:57 -0700

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
>