[EAS] ipawsnonweather question

[Suzanne Goucher]

Because the government can't compel content (thank the good Lord!! Although with the present attack on the media, it appears they're trying), thus the government can't compel EAS carriage, except for presidential alerts, and even that is constitutionally suspect and would probably be stricken down if challenged.  

The federal government can't compel the states to stand up an SECC or use EAS for its intended purpose.  This is what Ann Arnold in Texas railed against for many years- her governor issued an Amber alert to warn people not to touch pieces of the exploded space shuttle, because it was the only thing he could think to do.  She tried mightily to get her state folks to take the system seriously.  

I don't know the status of things there today.  But it's also what caused the late Roy Stewart of the FCC to write into a rulemaking that EAS participants should, by mandate, air all EAS alerts issued by a state's governor (a well-intentioned but very wrong-headed mandate, which I take pride in having a hand in overturning).  EAS is an event-specific system, not a person-specific system.  So if the government can't compel content, it can't mandate EAS carriage.  

We did away with severe thunderstorm alerts in Maine some years back because we get t'storms all the time in the summer, they are predictable, and, on one summer afternoon, there were two tornado alerts mixed in among 30+ t'storms alerts.  We want people to hear the TOR alerts!!   That Constitution is a pesky thing.  

> On Aug 1, 2018, at 9:49 PM, Adrienne Abbott <nevadaeas at charter.net> wrote:
> 
> Sean asks: Why does so much of the nation's emergency alerting and public
> warning system rely on unfunded volunteers?