[EAS] Anothe NPRM: Needless & Pointless Rule Making

[Ed Czarnecki]

A bit more about the process might help in understanding the context by
which this NPRM emerged.

Gary Timm precisely identifies that this was a Congressional requirement (by
law) .. but that law also required the FCC to create an advisory committee
(called the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee (VPAAC).  It
did so, with a broad base of membership, including (just to name a few),
NAB, NCTA, CEA, the American Council of the Blind,  (ACB), National
Captioning Institute, National Assn of the Deaf,  American Foundation for
the Blind, etc...

For the NPRM, the FCC Media Bureau used some of the info that VPAAC provided
in its reports to the Commission - among many other things, I suspect.
Again, this NPRM is primarily about Part 79 accessibility, carrying
emergency info like school closing info (like one sees in a crawl at the on
screen during a weather emergency) on an audio channel.  Yes, the NPRM
mentions EAS (Part 11), but the thrust of this rulemaking is about more
general emergency public information. 

Edward Czarnecki, Ph.D.
  Senior Director - Strategy, Development & Regulatory Affairs
Mornoe Electronics, Inc.
www.monroe-electronics.com
www.digitalalertsystems.com

This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be
confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended
recipient, you may not use, copy, forward, or disclose to anyone the message
or any information c ontained in the message or from any attachments that
were sent with this email.   If you have received this email message in
error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Caution
should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in
this e-mail, which is not intended to be a legal representation or legal
advice.  Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail
should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory,
tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors.

-----Original Message-----
From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On
Behalf Of Brian Law

__________________________________________________________
The EAS Forum Discussion List is hosted by the BWWG (Broadcast Warning
Working Group). http://eas.radiolists.net Please invite your friends to join
our Forum! The sign up is at:
http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
___________________________________________________________

Congress made the law, Congress can reverse it.   I would suggest the NAB
lobby to get the law overturned or changed.  That is what the NAB lobby is
for.

Brian
Living Proof Inc

On 11/29/2012 5:59 AM, Gary Timm wrote:

 So FCC must find a way to do this. If we feel that putting that aural
information on the secondary audio stream is not the way to go, then we must
suggest an alternative. Otherwise, I presume FCC will adopt the secondary
audio channel as the method. FCC must adopt some law to do this - Congress
has given FCC no choice in that - our influence is to what method that rule
will require.

Alternate ideas out there?

Gary Timm WI SECC