[EAS] New EAS Forum posting on Intermediary Devices

[Tom Spencer]

Richard_Rudman wrote:
> ...
>
> The BWWG believes that the three year allowance specified in 11.51(d) is not "as soon as possible". Allowing these devices to be used for three years beyond the June 30, 2012 CAP implementation deadline is, to say the least, controversial. Allowing them to be built in the first place may have been a serious mistake. If you agree or disagree with the BWWG's position on this issue, please let us know on this list

I'd have to pick somewhat disagree.  The problem being all those 
low-budget Mom & Pop stations, LPFMs on a shoestring, and other 
tight-budget operations.  The original legacy EAS endecs were purchased 
and fully compliant.  However, not even the oldest of these devices are 
at their *actual* end-of-life (as opposed to the end-of-life imposed by 
a manufacturer's arbitrary cut-off date), and can be expected to still 
be functional for several years yet.  The converter devices are a good 
intermediary solution allowing these devices to remain in service.  
Given the outlay needed, and having what appeared to be a short 
deadline, I suspect many stations eagerly went for the intermediary 
solution.  With the date for being CAP-capable getting pushed back, 
though, it probably behooves stations that were about to make the 
transition *now* to go ahead and replace the entire unit, if at all 
possible. 

An extra three years is probably not as big a deal as some might thing; 
after all - how many times did the DTV transition get pushed back? 

One other thing that I've been wondering about - the 2015  date seems to 
refer to the visual output requirements, in which case a legacy endec 
and converter should still be a viable solution for radio stations. 

Sidebar Query, because I know most if not all of the manufacturers read 
this list:

Most of the boxes I've seen appear to be able to upgrade the software to 
be CAP-compliant, with little or no additional hardware. ( the G-R box, 
for example, seems to have spare data ports that could be connected to 
an RS-232 transceiver or the like and connected to a dialup modem;; and 
the appears to be room on the backplane (and inside) for an RJ-45 for an 
Ethernet connection.  That being the case, just how difficult would it 
be to upgrade such a box?  It would seem to be a cost-saving measure 
(less expensive than a whole new chassis, power supply, display, control 
interface...)

-- 
Tom Spencer