[EAS] IP transmission of CAP Authority to form State Emerg. Comm. Committees

Thu Mar 3 13:22:22 CST 2011

Why do we keep equating CAP exclusively with terrestrial Internet? A considerable number of states have satellite or terrestrial wireless systems - either deployed or in development. 

One case study  is the EMnet states - a not inconsequential block of states already have an upgradable capability to relay CAP directly via satellite or Internet. Satellite EAS penetration from that one system exists in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, DC, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

Even if satellite downlinks are not available to all, CAP can be sent directly via Internet to the remainder.  Should Internet fail, then legacy EAS can be used to retransmit from the satellite enabled stations.  Fairly elegant built in redundancy...

I guess one issue is an assumption that the IPAWS aggregator will be the sole source of CAP alerts.  That is not true - there are something like 22+ states with their own CAP origination capability of some sort.

Another assumption that could be challenged is IPAWS disseminating only via the Internet.  There's no reason why a system like EMnet could not uplink IPAWS messaging from the source, and relay it via its own satellite network.  

I'm not sure the threat of ISPs going down is completely convincing given the solutions that are already out there and can be brought into the mix.

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: Barry Mishkind [mailto:barry at oldradio.com]Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2011 10:11 AMTo: 'The EAS Forum - accurate & up-to-date EAS information'Subject: Re: [EAS] Authority to form State Emerg. Comm. CommitteesAt 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 ListPlease invite your friends to join our Forum!http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/easAnd, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net