Is the EAS Hanbook going to be updated before the test? In it currently the instructions for a National Level Activation are very confussing. It states that broadcasters will recireve the EAN and then have to instert a script including their station id, then put the national source on the air. I understand that this is not how it happened in Alaska?
A number of cable systems today are locked into blanket channel override right now for EAS. The FCC should set a "date certain"when all cable head end equipment should be capable of selective override and at that "date certain", cable systems should assume TV stations will not be overridden UNLESS they ask their cable system in writing that they be overridden - a reverse of present policy. Part 11 should be adjusted accordingly. ...more »
Currently Required Weekly Tests (RWT) do not include audio and therefore do not simulate all the elements of a real EAS event. Further, broadcasters are not warning originators so weekly tests do not simulate either manual or automatic relay of warnings from authorized emergency managers. I suggest that Part 11 be changed so closed circuit weekly or daily testing using IP can be used (if local plans permit it) to verify ...more »
We'd like to welcome the EAS community to A National Dialogue of the Emergency Alert System (EAS). We look forward to your ideas and discussions on the various EAS topics and categories (on the left hand side of the page). Thank you for participating as we look forward to the June 9th EAS Participant Virtual Roundtable (click the link above).
There is currently no mandatory participation by Emergency Managers. This should be changed. The Emergency Managers in our Area do not care to use EAS and have little idea how to utilize it if they wanted to. This must change
The EAS system needs an overhaul.
It has been reported tha the FCC will require all broadcasters to submit a report after the National Test. Included in this report will be issues and information about whether or not a station did relay the test. Many people are concerned that this will open broadcasters upto potential fines from FCC. Will the FCC use any of the information, gained from the National Test,against broadcasters? What assurances will broadcasters ...more »
The EAT is redundant to the EAN's EOM. Propose to change part 11 to remove this alert code from EAS system.
What would it take to receive the national level test from Sirius-XM and Directv? If a station/cable was willing to subscribe would the EAN alert be available? Would'nt this be a good redundant national level source?
Some of us are wondering who is going to create the public awareness campaign for the national test. The state broadcasting association was of immense value for the two Alaska tests, and came up with their "Chill, it's only a Drill" campaign. We need to ask for help with this from the advertising community, maybe through the NAB. The message may have to be adjusted since we will be dealing with 49 other states, but most ...more »
I have to ask, why is this the first National EAS test? I would've thought that since the initial program began (circa 1953) there would be national tests. After the false alarm of 1971 (EBS), or more recently after 1997 when EAS was implemented (using SAME). What caused the delay up to this point?
I understand that the FIPS codes used for this test will be the Washington DC codes. I also understand that many EAS encoders will have no issue with this, as they ignore the FIPS codes for a EAN. Is there a list of equipment that will have issues using these codes?
How will this impact stations close to the Washington DC area, that can hear and may even monitor a DC station as their PEP?
Why does CAP have to control EAS? CAP should work along side EAS to provide additional information when needed. Why not have EAS and CAP messages originate in the same system but be independent of each other. Making them redundant and not dependent on each other provides a more robust and reliable system. This provides us with the benefits of the new system but does not open the existing EAS chain to the frailty of the ...more »
Assuring that both CAP and classic EAS messages propagate should be listed as a "best practice" for SECC's to consider when rewriting state plans.
CAP should not be required until the Next Generation EAS system is fully implemented and tested. CAP compliance can be voluntary till the entire system is hardened and emergency personnel as well as broadcasters have been given time to become familiar with it. Part 11 should not be modified and equipment should not be mandatory until the time that the Next Generation EAS system has been developed and implemented on a ...more »