Or in Nashville. I have the same problems on getting answers for Kentucky's EAS plan. I really don't like monitoring two stations emanating from the same building.
PTBoardOp94 said:This topic reminded me to look at the EAS handbook for Indiana.
There's several flaws in the EAS plan. For example:
My region is served by "state relay" WWBL-FM. They are supposed to monitor WBZ 650 Nashville (Yes, Watt, if you read this, that's what it actually says!) and WZZQ-FM. WZZQ has been dark for the best part of a decade, and "WBZ" is not often received during the day (as far as I can tell).
And there's 2 or 3 areas of the state that don't have a station serving as an LP-1.
TomZ said:Considering the recent purchases of DHS ammo and such: we might be entering a new era of communications.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15067584/dhs%201.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15067584/dhs%202.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15067584/dhs%203.jpg
Hopefully: nothing! But I'm not comfortable with the possibility of numerous presidential messages being mandated.dumber than a box of hair said:This has exactly what to do with the national EAS test??
TheBigA said:The main reason broadcasters are allowed to use the public airwaves for free is to keep the stations on the air in the event of an emergency.
Kmagrill said:No, we just didn't want a government run broadcast monopoly like most of Europe started out with,
Kmagrill said:There was not an issue of cost in the decision to privatize broadcasting. It was a philosophical difference where we didn't want the government controlling the information flow through the powerful new medium of radio.
TheBigA said:Kmagrill said:There was not an issue of cost in the decision to privatize broadcasting. It was a philosophical difference where we didn't want the government controlling the information flow through the powerful new medium of radio.
Maybe you can show me when that philosophical discussion happened. Every democratic country in the world has a government-run broadcasting system, including Canada and England. If you study the history of the 1920s, we had a Republican administration that didn't want to spend federal money on broadcasting. The country was still in debt from World War 1, and they didn't want to add more debt from a national broadcasting system. But the government clearly wanted input in what was on the air, and you can see that in the rules they wrote. And part of this is making the people's airwaves available to the government for emergencies.
Kmagrill said:I'm simply pointing out that there's an inherent danger in state controlled media.
Kmagrill said:Building radio stations is cheap compared to the rest of the costs of running a government. There would not have been a need to increase the national debt in order to fund a government build out of broadcasting.
Kmagrill said:I'm simply pointing out that there's an inherent danger in state controlled media. Just because some governments, like Canada, have not abused it as much as others doesn't lessen the risk. Even so called benevolent governments can, and do, spin or suppres information for their purposes.
VelvetR said:Read Orwell's "1984".
THEN weep.