[EAS] Should the RWT EAS Code be abolished?

Tue Nov 29 09:49:47 CST 2011

>From the outside looking in, it looks like FEMA is well... incapable,
given the recent history. If they're stuck behind archaic mission
statements, can't those be changed? I know our company can do that,
but given that it's a government entity, i'm not sure how easy that
is.

Yes, one size does not fit all, but you cannot make 100% of the people
happy 100% of the time. There will be compromise when it comes to
this. It's either make the shoe fit as best you can, or just give up
and move on. It's really that simple. Force feeding CAP down
everyone's throats is one way to do it. Yes, there was a window of
opportunity to chime in on that, but most broadcasters feel that EAS
is the "necessary evil". No GM likes it, the public is desensitized to
it, and all us engineers can do is submit our ideas, even if some do
fall on deaf ears and watch mayhem ensue...

I do respect the people who develop this stuff, as they're much
smarter than I am, however, i will submit that this is a "brave new
world". Without a firm understanding of how IP networks work, without
hiring a team of hackers to break into it, how do you know it's safe
to use? This is not your normal broadcast world of data bursts over
audio anymore. In the world where a bunch of kids in their moms
basements can shut down power grids 1/2 way around the world, what
makes you think that the CAP system is immune to these types of
attacks?

On paper, there's a lot of pro's and in the real world, it can fail
miserably. Disaster planning is FEMAs entire goal. But with no clear
direction from the FCC for us and how we're supposed to react to it,
i'd just rather let sleeping dogs lie. The feds have made it very
clear that broadcast is no longer top priority in public safety.
Cable, satellite, cell phones, broadband internet, that's what they
want.

Now, that being said, the suggestions that come from this list are
very good by the whole group. The "braintrust" if you will. I'm pretty
sure if everyone on this list wanted to, we could probably take over
the world if we put our mind to it.

This is what i meant by that statement. The broadcasters need someone
like NAB to represent us to FEMA and the FCC so that we can have a
clear direction on what exactly they're trying to accomplish. So far,
the NAB has done some things like push the date of CAP back until it's
finalized. But the beauty of IP networks is that they can grow and
change. Thus why CAP has a version number, unlike EAS. ;)  But without
this clear direction, we're just groping around in the dark, grasping
for whatever we *think* is what they want. The rules are about as
clear as mud on some of these issues.

--
Alex Hartman

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:39 AM, R. V. Zeigler <rzeigler at krvn.com> wrote:
> I have to disagree with the following statement:
>
> I think the broadcasters should "rise" up on FEMA and explain to them
> (maybe the NAB?) just how this should work. FEMA has no position in
> reality, whereas we sit in it every day. What they think is a good
> idea on paper, fails horribly in the field. (New Orleans anyone?)
>
> First, the FEMA IPAWS office has a number of meetings with broadcasters
> through PEPAC. We don't just talk about PEP centric subjects, but
> everything pertaining to emergency messaging. Secondly, Manny Centeno
> and Al Kenyon are experienced broadcast engineers with years of hands
> on, in the field, experience. They are hampered by having to play by
> rules set up by people outside of FEMA, as well as archaic mission
> statements that have not kept up with technology. I know from first hand
> experience that these two guys, and others in FEMA,  are busting their
> butts to make the Federal end of the alerting system work.
>
> The one thing Barry keeps saying, possibly a bit too nicely, is that one
> size does not fit all. Another way to look at that is trying to make a
> framework where 50+ state plans will all interface with a Federal
> alerting structure 24/7. Some of these state plans have not been
> maintained for years, some are ego exercises by strong personalities in
> certain areas, making sure THEIR stations were top dogs, whether it made
> sense or not. In other areas you have dedicated and passionate people
> that are trying to make EAS work in impossible geographic areas. (Kudos
> Adrienne!)
>
> We finally got the test we have all been clamoring for, and guess what?
> IT WORKED! Some thought that a 60% coverage would have been a success,
> we ended up in the high 80% area.
> Problems were found, some of which were known before hand, but had to be
> shown on the big stage of a national test before those with little
> technical knowledge would accept them as actual problems. Vendors had
> problems, states had problems, stations had problems, FEMA had problems,
> but it is now all out in the open. Those with an interest in actually
> serving the public are doing what they can to solve these problems.
>
> Are there systems better than EAS? Sure! Can these other systems be
> implemented in the current frequency/modulation scheme we all have to
> abide by today? Probably not. Will something better than EAS come along?
> Yes, but lessons learned from finally testing EAS have to be learned by
> some so that they are able to see the various pitfalls involved with any
> mass alerting system.
>
> Please "tune in" to the FEMA IPAWS Special Event on Tuesday, Nov. 29 at
>
> http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws/upcoming_events.shtm
>
> to learn more.
>
> Rod Zeigler
> PEPAC Board of Directors.
> Nebraska SECC, PEP
>
> --
> R. V. Zeigler, Dir. of Eng.
> Nebraska Rural Radio Assn.
> KRVN-KTIC-KNEB
> Newsletter: http://tinyurl.com/RRNnews
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>