[EAS] FCC NPRM on improving EAS just issued

[Clay Freinwald]

Don Heppelmann wrote - 

Broadcasters need to be a bit more accepting and configure their box to
"auto-forward". It's time for broadcasters to quite focusing on what is
inappropriate, and let the system automatically pass along the emergency
public information post haste.

Well said - but stop and think of the reasons why this equipment is often
not in Automatic Mode - (Here are a few that come to mind for Radio, TV is
another list) 

TIMING -
Stations....Just know....that if you put the EAS box in Automatic that it
will start barging into programming - will interrupt music and (horrors)
spots that will require make-goods and will create angry clients that will
take their advertising bucks elsewhere.....Therefore that decision will cost
them money and could cost the manager his job.

COMPETITION - 
Most stations view EAS messages as tune-outs.   They are convinced that Fred
Fickle (average listener) will quickly select a different station if they
hear anything other than entertainment programming and once they are gone,
their ratings and fortunes will go away too.   Add to this the feeling that
their competitor feels the same way.  (If all stations aired the same EAS
message at the same time, it might be a different story) 

CONTENT CONTROL - 
Most stations are fearful that the content of the message will be for
something that has little or no importance or value for their listeners and
they will-tune-out.    All it takes is for some 'do-good' emergency
management type to issue a warning for something that has minimal value to
the listeners of that station to convince the station to pull the plug on
anything but FCC required EAS stuff.

CONTENT SOUND - 
Station management has heard enough poor sounding EAS Audio delivered by
poorly qualified personnel that they want nothing to do with it.

LACK OF EFFECTIVE STATE AND LOCAL EAS COMMITTEES- 
Most broadcasters have no clue that a good deal of how EAS operates (beyond
the FCC's requirements) are under the control of the SECC's and LECC
(assuming their area have these committees) and that these committees can
control these public warning messages to a great extent.  They feel it's a
lost cause due to ignorance, or because their state or area lacks effective
EAS organizations.

LACK OF SECC/LECC PARTICIPATION - 
Most broadcasters are in the entertainment business and not at all
interested in participating with State and Local EAS Committees as it's not
their core business...besides...It easier and less expensive to just pull
the plug on anything other than FCC required messaging.

SENDING THE WRONG PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE WITH EAS COMMITTEES - 
Historically participation in EAS work has been left up to the Engineering
department.   This is one of the greatest mistakes of all.   Engineers are
not station decisions makers...They are not those that are likely to have
the authority to 'tweak' EAS messages so they sound better, or have more
applicable content, or are not over used etc.  If the broadcasters was
represented at the table of the LECC or SECC by station MANAGEMENT then they
could exert the kind of influence necessary to improve the outcome and
on-air product.      Until such time as station management tumbles to this
simple fact - their participation level will be minimal and Automatic Mode
will be viewed as it is now.

LACK OF FCC RESOLVE - 
IMHO - The FCC should -require- all broadcast stations -automatically air-
certain (Not all)  Event Codes.     The very fact that all stations can
refuse to air Tornado Warnings (TOR) and get away with it is nothing short
of shameful.  Other event codes, like EVI, SPW, CEM etc should also be
required to be aired also.    Why would anyone find it acceptable to not
warn the public using a life-saving warning via the EAS (see the above
reasons)??   The reasons that they are not a required item is simply because
some certain organizations of broadcasters have warned the FCC they'd better
not. (again for the reasons already stated).   The bottom line is that
broadcasters are in this to make a buck...If they can serve the public and
warn them of danger -without negatively impacting the bottom
line....fine....otherwise - Hands off Mr Government.

Don, this is my short-list.    I'm sure that I could come up with more.

On what do I base these comments ?

Involvement with EBS, including State Chair, since the middle 60's
State EAS SECC Chair since the start of EAS

Hope this is helpful

Clay Freinwald
Washington State