[EAS] New EAS NPRM now posted on the EAS Forum Website

[Clay Freinwald]

Brian - 

A couple of thoughts regarding your comments -

> We need to remember that the FCC has a pretty narrow area of interest in
EAS matters.   Their Primary Focus is the role of broadcasters and cable
systems in the distribution of EAN's or Presidential Messages.   The use of
the EAS for. Weather and state/ local public warnings is acknowledged by the
FCC but stop there.

> You are very correct that the FCC can't do anything to get EM's to
increase their participation in the EAS....Remember that the FCC's authority
is with their licensee's and the Presidential Order....and perhaps not with
emergency management entities.

> I want to (again) underscore what I have been preaching for years - The
EAS, to be effective - MUST BE a -cooperative- and -collaborative- effort.
Add to this the fact that broadcaster and cable participation is 100%
voluntary.     Perhaps the best way to enhance EM Participation, as well is
participation by Broadcasters and Cable is to pay greater attention to the
beneficial aspects of the LECC's and SECC's.    The goal of these
committee's should be create an atmosphere where cooperation and
collaboration can produce increased awareness and utilization by all.
These committees must be round-tables where - ALL - the stakeholders are
present and where commitments to utilize and participate can be hammered
out.

> I agree that we need greater participation by EM's  - However, this is a
TWO WAY STREET.    Emergency Management are not likely to view the EAS as
viable if broadcasters don't run the messages.    Stations the ignore EAS
delivered public warnings in preference to airing the latest hits or re-runs
of Leave it to Beaver are an indication of something very wrong.   The
question is - How do we get this to change?  One area where improvements can
be made is to -STOP - the notion in the minds of broadcasters that the EAS
is 'an engineering thing'.     For way too long I have seen broadcast
operations send their engineers to handle their EAS chores.    Why do you
think this is the case?   Is it because the managers and programmers of
Radio and TV stations feel that the EAS is full of technical gobbly-gook and
they would not understand?       One of the great problems with broadcast
participation is the lack of participation by managers and programming
people.    I have heard, over the years, the argument that the 'EAS Product'
is not aired because of its content, quality, length, frequency etc.    If
we are going to increase the use of the EAS, then we need to work to get the
Emergency Managers sitting across the table from broadcaster and cable
MANAGEMENT....This is where progress can really be made.   Emergency
Managers sitting across from station and cable system Engineers is not
cutting it!    The LECC's and SECC's need to be comprised of - Decision
makers !

> Another classic problem with the lack of use by EM's of the EAS is that
EM's reach into their 'box' of public warning tools and pull out those
things that they know about and are familiar with.   Tools for which they
have not had any training are not likely to be used.     So where is this
training likely to come from ?    Again I maintain that the LECC's and
SECC's have a role here and a job to do.     If you look at all the things
that can - and should - be done to enhance the viability and utilization of
the EAS, I think you will understand why these EAS Committee's are critical.
Unfortunately, many of these groups are often not being led by those that
can really make a difference, in some cases, they are just one person....and
with that level of participation the LECC or SECC is doomed to fail, or at
least not fulfill the potential of the EAS.

Clay Freinwald
Chair, Washington State SECC

   

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

>From a first read, I would say it is pretty neat.  Only thing is, there is
not a way to get EM's on board, and to me, that is more important right now
than national alerting.  I know the FCC cannot do anything to get EMs to
participate in EAS, but without local EM participation, its a lot of cost
(again) to us, without providing anything locally for our listeners.  So the
Cost-Benefit analysis is kind of missing the point.  Sure, these changes are
great for the national level alerts, which there have not been any that I
know of, but locally, for those of us still living within counties who do
not participate in EAS, it does little for our listeners.

Brian
KWTW