[EAS] New EAS Forum posting: A vision for what to do now that the FCC has eliminated the GMC

[Sean Donelan]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Richard_Rudman wrote:
> we still do not have a true national warning policy based on the 
> "policy objective" for warnings as Sean puts it, of issuing, as I 
> define it as -- timely messages delivered through multiple means and 
> paths so people at risk can take better protective actions to preserve 
> their life and property. That, we thought, was a a key policy objective 
> we, and most people could agree on.

I was thinking of something more concrete such as the White House 
Statement of Requirements for EAS, but adding each stakeholder group's 
particular requirements (or perspective).  What requires a system above 
and beyond what local news coverage normally does before, during and 
after an ordinary catastrophe?

There are other systems that distribute weather warnings, traffic
alerts, press releases, etc faster, with more detail.

The FCC and NIAC did something similar in the early 1960s before 
satellite TV, cell phones or the Internet.  EAS changed some of the 
technical engineering, but the documented policy requirements 
from non-federal stakeholders don't seem to have been revisited even 
though the types of participants has expanded. That may explain why the 
current system policies seem to still be rooted in the 1960s.

It may be possible to leverage the work of the CMS Advisory Committee
which had many of the same stakeholders on the origination side.
Part 10 (CMAS) and Part 11 (EAS) have developed differing philosophies
on the distribution side.  The current FCC CSRIC advisory committee is 
looking at some of the technical issues, while previous FCC MSRC 
advisory comittee was able to get input from non-engineering type 
stakeholders.