[EAS] : Fallout Over False Alert Continues

[Clay Freinwald]

No one is going to vet incoming alerts- !!!

Remember the major reason for the change to EAS was to accommodate
un-attended operation of broadcast stations. All EAS plans need to - first -
consider that all EAS boxes are in automatic mode in un-attended facilities.
Anything short of this will end up causing even greater problems.

In the most recent incident - EAS boxes did what EAS boxes are supposed to
do - (SK) 

Clay Freinwald

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

At 09:04 AM 10/29/2014, Geary Morrill,CPBE-CBNT wrote:
>"The guidance from FEMA IPAWS Friday asked broadcasters to configure their
EAS devices to "not forward" an EAS message with a header that does not
match the current date and time. "

        That is exactly 180 degrees from the FCC's
        expressed position, enunciated after the
        2011 National EAS Test, when the FEMA
        botched the time-stamp by three minutes
        and one manufacturer's box delayed the
        EAN by three minutes. 
        
        Responding to that delay, in particular,
        the FCC emphasized the word 
        "immediately."

        Or is there going to be a requirement now that
        stations must "vet" each incoming alert?

        What happens if someone decides to do a
        report or a "bit" on November 9th to recall
        the test, and includes the tones?

        "Those who forget the past are condemned to
        repeat it." - Santayana

  

__________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________