[EAS] New EAS Forum posting on Intermediary Devices

[Mike McCarthy]

I'm not sure about that.  EAS as we know it was officially converted in 
1997 and most boxes were procured during 1997 using parts likely made in 
late 1996 or not long thereafter.  If in doubt, look at the date codes 
on the chips and capacitors.

So that means most (I'd argue >90%) of the boxes out there are 14 years 
old with 15 year old parts. OR roughly about 5 times the MBTF of typical 
electronic equipment (25,000 hours).  Most Sages have seen their power 
supplies fail and every one I own is showing printer aging. My 911's 
have also begun to show wear.

I've also completely lost two original EAS boxes in the past year.  One 
a TFT911 and the other is a Sage.  While I think the 911 can be repaired 
by replacing a blown audio input chip, the Sage is likely not so lucky 
as the printer I/O has failed (tested with several known working printer 
modules).  I've not replaced them as the stations are co-owned, 
co-located, and simulcast.

The bottom line is the 15 year old hardware is at the end of reliable 
useful life absent the manufacturers opening their document vaults and 
allow field folks access to the deepest innards of the boxes (Think fed 
techs keeping 30 year old FAA radar gear going) to continue sustaining 
the devices. Maybe rebuild the SAGE or 911 or GR with a new compliment 
of mechanical parts, chips, caps, and other sensitive devices known to 
age.  Or a daughter board to allow CAP and IP access and logging.

Nope...not gonna happen. Since the manufacturers desire to keep their IP 
a secret, we have no choice but to mitigate the risk of absolute failure 
on something deemed to be mission critical. This is not a rant...merely 
a reflection of fact.

MM

On 1/23/2012 6:45 PM, Tom Spencer wrote:
> 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.