[EAS] [BC] The words we use

[Botterell, Arthur@CalOES]

Ed, it sounds as if someone touched a nerve.  Quite unnecessary to defend the work of the ECIG in my view; given that we had zero flexibility in the SAME schema, there really was no alternative to having both the IPAWS Profile to specify what CAP pockets would correspond to SAME pockets, and the ECIG recommendations to ensure consistency in the presentation of SAME.  The latter was perhaps not as ambitious as the aforementioned "Common Look & Feel" specs, but the underlying need to present alerts in a predictable and consistent way was the same.  

I prize it as one of the major accomplishments of CAP that we were able to take such a large step forward on a global scale without leaving EAS and NWR behind.

Had it been possible to reengineer EAS and NWR at the same time as the CAP relay network was being designed we might have had fewer problems with fitting round pegs into square... um... pockets.  But that wasn't an option, although we're starting to make a bit of progress as broadcasting becomes increasingly digital.  Perhaps as more of the analog broadcast infrastructure is depreciated and replaced it will be possible to revisit Part 11 in a strategic way rather than as an accumulating patchwork of fixes.

Then again, given many ownerships' sense of entitlement to their licenses, it may prove infeasible to rely on broadcasters as a key part of our warning infrastructure.  That will, indeed, be the end of an era, but not, I think, the end of the world.

Art
________________________________________
From: EAS <eas-bounces at radiolists.net> on behalf of Ed Czarnecki <ed.czarnecki at monroe-electronics.com>

No flames or bombs coming from over here.  But this whole talk of cargo pants, etc is *soooooo* 1990s (from a fashion perspective).

The EAS vendors really didn't touch the cargo pants per se.  We came to a fairly collegial discussion about which pockets in the pants needed to be used to comply with the Part 11 rules, and that fostered some decent level of interoperability across vendors and implementations.

So actually, there are fairly few differences among vendors in terms of how to utilize the CAP cargo pants.  From this perspective, we're all wearing cargo pants the same way, and reaching into the same pockets.  That in and of self is a modest success IMHO.

Differences among gas vendors stem from more fundamental ambiguities within part 11.  So any problems with the "cargo pants" really stem from ill-defined requirements within part 11, not CAP itself.  Think about it ... all the issues about the definition of immediacy, usage of time, etc... are all within part 11, not CAP - and in part due to bilateral discussions between government and some of the vendors - we're different manufacturers. Somewhat different opinions at different points of time, and some manufacturers did not even get the benefit of an opinion while others did.

There is an expression about trying to put a saddle on a cow (not to quote Stalin too much).  In a lot of ways that's how retrofitting CAP to fit Part 11 is like.  Or maybe part 11 is the out-of-style style bell bottom jeans, if CAP the questionably fashionable elasrltic cargo pants.  We're trying to take something with a lot of pockets and utility (CAP), and retrofitted back to something with almost no pockets and zero flexibility (FSK EAS).

Still, when all the cargo pants are gone, it's good feeling to know that the bell bottom jeans are still there in the back of the drawer.

Have we beaten the analogy to death yet?

Edward Czarnecki, Ph.D.
Senior Director - Strategic and Government Affairs
Monroe Electronics Inc. / Digital Alert Systems

ed.czarnecki at monroe-electronics.com
585-765-2254 | fax 585-765-9330
Reston VA | Lyndonville NY