[EAS] EAS Monitoring Assignments

[Richard Rudman]

Mike is right, but the authority to do this and the reasoning behind doing this lies way above the FCC. The FCC and all the other Federal Partners need to all march to the same national policy for all things related to emergency public warnings which, I will explain, still does not exist.

As one of the 17 founding Trustees for the Partnership for Public Warning, Inc. (PPW), I need to remind everybody why we founded this public-private partnership in early 2002 that wrote reports to the FCC, FEMA, the NWS and others that have led to some progress.

The timing for founding the PPW so soon after September 11, 2001was no accident. The central premise for its was (and still is) that the United States of America did not have a unified, coherent public warning policy.

After efforts headed by Art Botterell, also one of the original 17 Trustees, led to international adoption of CAP as an open, non-proprietary standard, FEMA came up for a wonderful acronym for what the still non-existent USA public warning strategy should be: IPAWS. 

What we still lack and still need more than ever for the purposes in this thread (and more) is a USA public warning policy that fulfills the promise of the FEMA acronym, IPAWS. FEMA has and can provide needed leadership to get us that policy, but action has to occur from (shudder) Congress.

This is not the first time I have said this on this list and in many other places, and it will likely not he the last.

Richard Rudman
Core Member, BWWG
Vice Chair, CA SECC

>On Aug 26, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Mike McCarthy <towers at mre.com> wrote:

>This is why the FCC
>needs to step-up and clarify the use of EAS as being permissible from any
>source,  under what conditions, and transmitted by by what emission modes.