[EAS] Fallout Over False Alert Continues

[Barry Mishkind]

At 09:28 PM 10/28/2014, Adrienne Abbott wrote:
>That's the problem...apparently no one ever thought that there would ever be a false EAN issued either accidentally or deliberately by stations which would have their EAS boxes configured to follow the   Commish's orders to immediately retransmit an EAN regardless of the date.

        This is one of many rules pushed out without
        any real effort to approach the people in the
        field who use the equipment before it is
        "mandated."  If some real, live end-users
        had been brought into the room, we might
        not have so many "oops" situations that,
        incrementally, is killing EAS' credibility. 

        Probably the first thing anyone who has
        ever worked in a broadcast facility would
        have noticed and rejected was regulations
        from two disparate federal agencies who 
        do not appear to talk or coordinate 
        what they are doing - with no regard to 
        the end-user, who is expected to walk
        the mine field of compliance and fines.

        How about the focus return to actually
        alerting the public to emergencies, rather
        that seeing what agency can amass the
        most rules or "best practices?"

> And that the false EAN would be received by LP stations which would propagate that EAN to Participating stations according to various state EAS plans. 

        We have seen false EAS alerts before, from a number
        of jurisdictions, including, if I recall properly, an EAN 
        in something like 2007, after which several folks in
        Illinois predicted exactly the failures that happened
        in 2011. 

        If the people "on the ground" already knew many
        (can't say "most" because, as has become clear to 
        any open-minded person) of the problems and
        issues, why was the 2011 "test" run with such fanfare
        and self-congratulatory messages - only to replicate
        the 2007 errors, instead of building on it?

        Why has there been no effort to ensure each station
        "network" works, except the recent one in West VA?
        That should have been the first step in any "National"
        protocol.

        ... and to this day, virtually no one has addressed the
        large elephant in the room: When disasters strike,
        the Internet is often among the first things to go. 
        No IPAWS. No FEMA web site. All there is are the
        broadcasters with boxes forced to a distribution 
        system mandated from above. 

        There is a current commercial Cox Communications
        is running in almost every break on ever cable channel,
        over and over again, about a woman calls "support"
        about her Internet service that has stopped working.
        The highly unconcerned "support" person advises her
        to go to the web page to file a report. Told she has
        no way to do so, he advises sending an email. Told
        she has no email, she is told to download the "helpful pdf."
        
        Finally, after she has repeated multiple times that she
        has no Internet service, the "support" tech says
        "you need to call someone."

        Perhaps the similarity is clear. But who do you call?
        Assuming your Internet works, where do you go
        for information? Can you quickly find up to date 
        information on any agency web site? 
        
>If the violation wasn't so egregious I would say Bobby Bones deserves an award for exposing a major fault in the FCC protocol that had been theorized by some and discounted by many...if there was a section in Part 11 for Felony Stoopid, Bobby should be cited for it 

        Just think if someone had *tried* do this
        specifically to cause alarm during a week
        with White House intrusions, attacks on 
        police, an attack on the Canadian Parliament,
        and some little concern about a virus.

        Bones essentially uttered "bomb" in an airport. 
        Should the FCC or the FBI have arrested him on
        the spot? 

        At the least, I would have though there would
        be national apologies by the companies involved
        in the production and distribution of the program.

        Some things to think about ... one might agree.

        Recently, we had the FCC issue a Public Notice
        regarding the mis-use of EAS tones. Some
        reports and publications continue to use the
        term "accidental" to what happened.  It was
        not an accident. Even "launched in error" is
        not fully accurate - it was done on purpose
        by a "talent" with no regard for its actions.
        Sort of like handing a loaded gun to a child.

        Adrienne is right. A major fault - one that many
        folks knew was there - has been exposed (again).
        Behind the scenes - because the government
        rarely moves with alacrity - discussions are being
        had, committees formed to study the situation, 
        and the inevitable "it's not our fault, it was 
        designed to work that way" messages.

        Who knows?  Maybe this time there will be
        a little outreach to the broadcast community
        to develop some truly "best practices?"

>while the rest of us try to figure out how to fix the time/date problem. 

        11.51(m)(2) and 11.52(e)(2), as reinforced by
        the NPRM that is out there somewhere, seem
        to be pretty clear. The issue now is controlling
        a distribution system that lost control - if in 
        fact the octopus ever had control in the first place.