[EAS] Blue Alert reply comments due Tuesday, August 29

[Ed Czarnecki]

Agreed that similar same politics of "voluntary" could apply to a blue
alert.  As with CAE, would anyone want to answer why a station didn't run an
alert and then someone was harmed?

Implementation will be the challenge, particularly if originators misuse the
capability (again thinking of those entities that already filed with the FCC
basically stating that they intend to unilaterally expand the scope of "blue
alerts").  

But even when the blue alert is used as intended, it will be a matter of -
to quote Suzanne Goucher - "training, training, training"

From: EAS [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Dave Kline

While all non-required alerts are voluntary, a few of them are "voluntary."

Locally, our biggie "non-required" alert is the TOR.
On a statewide basis it's the CAE.
Both are voluntary because they are not required by the FCC, but only
"voluntary" in that not running these really says something about a station.

If a child ends up dead, post CAE, do you really want to be the person that
explains to that child's parents why your station didn't run the alert?

Were is the Blue Alert going to fit in for the question of voluntary vs
"voluntary?"
And if you are a state relay station how does that skew the definition of
voluntary?
Especially if that station had no choice or say so in the matter of being
assigned as the S.R.

Not complaining about the way things are, I'm just pointing out that there
may be different opinions of what voluntary really means.

----------------------------------------
Dave Kline
----------------------------------------

On Aug 31, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Clay Freinwald wrote:

>Again -

>Like all non-EAN alerts - It's all Voluntary - States/SECC's can say no 
>as can all EAS Participants.
>They can stack on all the new event codes they want, using a rainbow of 
>colors...Does not alter much except for making the proponents happy.

>My (Un-officiall) $.02

>Clay