[EAS] Should the RWT EAS Code be abolished?

[David Turnmire]

Perhaps I may be so bold as to make the case FOR RWTs?

    * Let me begin by saying that if your point is that the typical EAS Participant at the END of the chain should not be required to ORIGINATE an RWT... on that we can agree.  But... I would argue there are many valuable uses for RWTs in the EAS system.
    * It is often stated that a problem with RWTs is that they don't have voice.  My reading of the FCC rules indicate that voice isn't required for RWTs... but it isn't prohibited either.  In fact, emergency management in Idaho (and NOAA weather) has been doing so for some time.  My reading of the rules is that IF you CHOOSE to include voice with an RWT... then you must include the attention tone as well.
    * RWTs DO allow those on the receiving end to identify problems with antennas (lots of wind here!), crappy receivers (don't get me started on the receivers in my new EAS box), mis-tuned radios, and a host of other issues.
    * When voice is used, they can also identify audio quality issues.
    * They can be used by emergency managers to train their staff.  I encourage all of our CACs (central activation centers) to do so weekly at random days/times... using the EXACTLY SAME PROCEDURES as they would an actual alert... so staff get practice using hardware and software.
    * They verify CAP configuration is done right... especially at this early stage, seeing those first alerts show up in the log when I configured mine gave me a nice warm fuzzy feeling!
    * Yes, they do NOT test the ability to relay alerts.  But that is also their strength.  They can be used for point-to-point testing of State Relay Networks and CAP servers without fear they will interrupt air space.  Usually our SRN just has a few RWTs a week from the various CACs.  But occasionally I see a half dozen over a short period from one source when an LP or whoever has requested some tests to verify their system is working right.  That is particularly helpful for our SRN, because unlike broadcast sources, the SRN is dead silent EXCEPT when an alert is sent... making setting levels or verifying receiver performance trickier.  And since those RWTs aren't relayed... sending a bunch within a few minutes doesn't impact air space.  Maybe kill a tree or two for those using paper logs... ;-)

So, don't sell the RWT short.  There is no need to create a new event code.  Just add voice and attention tone to your RWTs. As I stated at the beginning, there probably is a case to be made for dropping the requirement for EAS Participants at the end of the chain to ORIGINATE an RWT.  But RAMP UP their use earlier in the infrastructure (are you listening FEMA?). 
And we can make a variety of tests more useful at FEMA's level if the FCC (and whoever) would explicitly define a FIPS code for ALL USA!  People on this list have been arguing for getting rid of the legacy equipment in part because it is easier to upgrade software in the new equipment.  So... it should also be easy to upgrade that equipment to add support for that new FIPS code!  Once that is done... then FEMA can do RMTs, NPTs, whatever.
Dave Turnmire

On 11/23/2011 3:50 PM, Richard Rudman wrote:

>The Broadcast Warning Working Group (BWWG) made a number of suggestions to change Part 11 in the Comments we filed in July.

>I just posted a piece based on the BWWG Comments concerning the future of the EAS RWT (Required Weekly Test).

>Should the FCC do away with the RWT as the BWWG suggested, or does the RWT have some value that we overlooked?

>This is the second in a series of posts on BWWG proposals made in our Comments on the EAS Forum. The first was on the Governor Mandatory issue.