[EAS] EAS Update at the NAB

[Mike McCarthy]

We touched on the subject at the SBE meeting, but the way we both know
works is FEMA goes to the FCC and says this is what is going to happen
never mind asking what the FCC things. They in essence say,"Make it happen
in your world".

In the mean time, the FCC has already done or is considering something,
potentially contrary to that of FEMA in some way. Both end up needing
actions (plural) on and by the stakesholders.  But because of their
interagency agreement, the FCC goes along and then shortly issues their
own R&O independant of FEMA. (Think T2S) There is a disconnect.

As you alude, there is an added signifiant cost to keep a PC co-located
with the box.  Not only to buy, but to sustain and insure it doesn't get
hacked and turned into a BOT. I don't need my ISP calling to tell me
they're suspending service because one of machines has gone rouge.

Someone asked me at the show when I plan to insert my boxes into the
program chain with the latest firmware. I said June 29 after I've run the
test for the week.

And I'll yet bet the FCC does something stupid between now and then
requiring yet another update in July.....

No...I'm not cynical.

MM

> Mike/Everyone:
>
> All the devices I am familiar with can be updated over the same IP
> connection that they have to have to be compliant.
>
> At the two remote sites I am responsible where EAS devices are installed
> we have a PC also installed running LogMeIn so I can control and monitor
> not only the EAS box, but other site issues as well. This is done as a
> supplement to the existing remote control web client.
>
> That said, there are costs to install a PC and good router at such
> locations, but so far my clients think its worth it in the long run -- not
> only for EAS but for other remote site support.
>
> As far as your three points:
>
> 1.  Having a unified 12-24 month roadmap from the federal partners would
> be a real help. That issue has and will be raised. Stay tuned here for
> more on this.
>
> 2. FEMA is not a regulatory agency and therefore does not issue Reports
> and Orders as does the FCC. there is the added challenge with FEMA because
> it composed of separate Directorates responsible for different parts of
> what we perceive as the same mission. Your point goes to the fact that the
> U.S. still does not have a document we can point to that describes its
> overall warning strategy. IPAWS is a means to achieve that strategy, but
> it is not the strategy itself. We pointed the lack of an overall U.S.
> warning strategy in several Partnership For Public Warning reports to the
> FCC, FEMA and NOAA.
>
> 3. The labor costs for EAS box updates and tweaks either takes away from
> the work day for employee engineers, or become direct costs when a
> contract engineer has to do them. All part of what is still the unfunded
> mandate of EAS compliance. Could go higher than $100 per change...
>
> Richard Rudman
> The BWWG
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Mike McCarthy wrote:
>
> let them know how frustrated we are for needing to repeatedly venture high
> and low, from mountain top sites to tropical
> islands to repeatedly update our boxes when one or the other comes out
> with something critical.
>
>> 1) MAKE UP THEIR MINDS ON EVERYTHING. Deliver a s unified, single,
>> comprehensive, and complete set of rules and regulations designed to
>> permit some level of stability beyond 12 months.
>>
>> 2) Tell both the FCC and FEMA to unify their reports and orders so as to
>> eliminate so many necessary differing and closely spaced iterative OS
>> updates to the equipment disbursed at those far and wide locations.
>>
>> 3) It costs a station on average $100 or per box to update including
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>