[EAS] New EAS Forum posting on Intermediary Devices

[Sean Donelan]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012, Richard Rudman wrote:
> Actual goals include but are not limited to getting warning details in 
> video crawls so the hearing impaired community can benefit more than the 
> "canned" SAME EAS code messages. While a lot of video sources certainly 
> do expanded warning information on their own, let's not loose sight of 
> assuring that the best possible warning information gets on the air at 
> 3AM.

An excellent beginning requirement and goal.  Are there any other
requirements or goals?

Some results, paraphrased, from 1994:

1) monitoring of multiple source of emergency information
2) alerting small geographic areas without affecting other areas
3) easily relayed via different transmission means
4) equipment could automatically receive, store, and forward alerts and 
messages
5) coexistance of in-band and subcarrier transmissions 
6) interface with satellite and cable systems
7) mobile reception of in-band and subcarrier transmissions have similar 
propagation anomalies
8) consumer radio receiver equipment could automatically turn "on"

Not all of those things tested in the early 1990's were eventually 
included in EAS. Using the EAS/SAME codes to generate the video crawl was 
a clever idea in the early 1990's to solve a problem at the time.  Since 
then weather and breaking news systems have gone through two or three 
generations of hardware and software.

If EAS is supposed to be a low cost, last resort system; it may have one 
set of requirements.  Other non-EAS systems may handle getting weather and 
emergency information on the air during normal disasters.

If EAS is supposed to be the best possible way emergency information gets 
on the air at 3AM, it may have a different set of requirements.

Its up to the stakeholders to decide what they want.  But that underlying 
difference between wanting the best all-hazard warning system or wanting a 
minimum, last resort system doesn't seem to have been resolved.