[EAS] EAS monitoring sources

[Clay Freinwald]

Responding to a couple of comments from MM - 

See below - 
Clay Freinwald

MM - This goes to the heart of my prior comment about the vast majority of
EMS managers mindset were they have (correctly) concluded anything EAS they
might send would not reach the intended recipients....the public.

CF - There are a number of reasons for this - 

1- There is no mandate that EAS participants carry anything beyond National
Level/Presidential messages
2 - EAS is not considered vital to the interests of many participants.
(Public service is all to often secondary) 
3-  Maintaining ratings and profits are far more important -
4- There is no penalty of something bad happens because the message was not
carried.
5-  Whether or not participants - truly participate - depends on the work of
LECC's and other cooperative organizations of which there is a tragic
shortage of.

MM -There is a giant perception all broadcast intended messages need to come
through the LP1/2 stations. This is an incorrect assumption. But one which
prevails never the less. Especially in larger metro's where 9x% of the LP's
do not forward non-compulsory messages and there is no other distribution
structure.

CF - Very correct Mike !   The concept of messages all flowing through LP's
is a carry- over from EBS where CPCS facilities were the sole source of
public warning messages.   When the FCC moved from EBS to EAS they changed
many - but not all - of the way things were done (CPCS'S became LP'S) .
The fact that many areas continued to use the EBS mechanism for message
distribution is what I like to call - The great assumption.    To the best
of my knowledge there is no requirement for this distribution architecture!
So why is this the case in so many areas?   My answer is because of a couple
of things- 

1- Lack of national level  Leadership
2- Lack of training.
3- Lack of desire of the participants to work cooperatively to improve the
system.

 MM - As others have opined, and I agree fully, all emergencies are local to
every local AHJ. The state structure and LP's are a wonderful thing for
state and national events. But they do nothing for a local station wanting
to be integrated with their local municipal or county EOC which may or may
not have distribution resources available for EAS messaging outside of their
own (busy) network.

CF - The SECC's are the organizations that should be addressing these
issues.   The Feds want a system whereby a presidential message reaches
every EAS Participant.   They DO NOT mandate that the LP/Daisy Chain be
used.    There is NOTHING that prohibits a state from improving on the
system.   For those of you that were involved with EBS - you know that the
Daisy Chain was the lightning rod for critical comments for that
system...yet it was the largely the method of choice for deal with EBS.
Those of you that read my comments know that I feel quite strongly that - 

1- No Broadcast station should be a 'relay-device' for the distribution of
EAS messages.   
2- Broadcast and cable system should be doing what they do best - Reach the
citizens
3 - Distribution system for EAS messages should - all - be background
channels (Think NWR) 
4- Back ground channels should be used for State and Local message
distribution 
5- In most cases these system can use - existing - distribution systems 
6- Yes, This is how Washington State is structured.
7 - There is nothing stopping any state or local area from improving upon
their EAS systems other than perhaps will and ambition.
8-  Sitting on your butt while maintaining there is no money therefore
nothing can be done is nothing more than a feeble excuse.

MM - Back to the small market scenario, Robert is on target here. With as
much red tape needed to craft a local plan and integrate local media into
EAS, and no one having the time resource available, let alone funding for
dedicated distribution equipment, this "back of mind" environment will
continue and perpetuate.

CF - I don't see the Red-Tape  problem.   What's lacking (in most cases) is
leadership.      As for time resources - Our success here in WaState is not
because I devote 40 hours a week to it...its because our work-load is SHARED
by a number of people.    Further I do not agree that it takes a pot of
money to create distribution equipment.    We need to stop thinking in terms
of -equipment and systems that are dedicated to EAS.   EAS message
distribution does-not require dedicated systems any more than it requires a
dedicated 24/7/365 broadcast station to deliver messages.   EAS message
distribution is a matter of -Time Sharing- existing systems.    

EXAMPLE - (Something we have done) 

For a Local Relay Network - I look for a public works 2-way radio repeater
system (the system that's used for dispatching dump trucks and snowplows
etc.)   A control system feed by an endec is the only hardware required on
the sending end.    At the other end (EAS Participants) have a receiver
connected to their endec - and presto you have a LRN.   The amount of time
that EAS uses this system is a VERY SMALL percentage - It's a win-win.

CF - With that being said - We (here) have moved on to the point that our
primary means of getting messages from Emergency Management to participants
is now CAP.    Either using our State CAP Server or FEMA/IPAWS.      All of
our legacy analog systems are kept in place and tested regularly.
State and Local government now use CAP to feed MP3 Audio Files to Radio, TV
and Cable (That sound really good) as well as Text Messages to TV and Cable.
The problem with using SAME Based Header Codes for crawls is alone enough
reason to use CAP exclusively for these purposes.

MM - In part, this is where Part 97 relay could alleviate or fill the void
of local or even unified regional message relay...and system testing. And
those resources are quintessentially available around the country if given
the opportunity.

CF - Yes part 97 systems could be used for ANALOG EAS messages...However I
believe there are plenty of government owned analog radio channels that can
and should be used for the legacy SAME based systems and this can be done
without changes to any FCC rules.