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.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
National EAS test
- Thread starter Bengalsfan
- Start date
PTBoardOp94 said:
I recall once being told that the LP-1 in Evansville at one time monitored WSM as a National source.
In recent years, it has been difficult to get the FCC to approve a State EAS plan. In part, this is due to a little realized issue with that Federal approval called “State Sovereignty”. Some want the FCC to require in CFR that broadcasters must be able to put the Governor or other state or local officials on the air. We have analyzed many State EAS Plans and discovered they are about as unique as snow-flakes.
As far as monitoring a National PEP source, there is a keen awareness of the problems with that in wide areas of the country. PEP National EAS is also carried on the NPR CUE channel and affiliated NPR stations can simply wire that to a monitor input on their EAS encoder/decoder. Downstream stations then have the ability to monitor that NPR affiliate as their National source. It is not required of them, so you might want to give your local NPR affiliate a call and ask them if they have done this. Now this is not the cure-all and you should know that other alert paths are being developed as we type. Third party carriers may claim they carry the National EAS, and they indeed may ; however, it is not a direct link at this time.
Interesting comments. Still a lot of people in radio expect stations to provide emergency information regardless of time of day, and fault station ownership for failure to provide public services.
After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was put in charge of EAS, and they take full responsibility for all emergency notification. If radio is to have a role in providing emergency information, they have to test the system every now and then, so we don't have situations like Minot. That's what happens when everyone is not on the same page.
So there are flaws in the system, and people have many other ways to get emergency information. But that doesn't mean radio can just roll over in this area, and occasional tests like this are not a huge price to pay.
After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was put in charge of EAS, and they take full responsibility for all emergency notification. If radio is to have a role in providing emergency information, they have to test the system every now and then, so we don't have situations like Minot. That's what happens when everyone is not on the same page.
So there are flaws in the system, and people have many other ways to get emergency information. But that doesn't mean radio can just roll over in this area, and occasional tests like this are not a huge price to pay.
B
bilco
Guest
The FCC for whatever reason has left the individual states the responsibility to provide their own plans within the framework set up. This is a good thing, since it allows for local input and customization. IF your state plan is out of wack, or your local plan is unrealistic, it is YOU the broadcaster who is at fault, for not bringing it to the attention of the proper operational area people. I have been an operational area chair of two areas in AZ and am co-chair of the Southern NV (Las Vegas) and Inyo county, CA area. Our state EAS director and our local committee keep on top of things. I am constantly amazed when I hear other areas that complain about things that changed years ago, things in the local plans that have not been changed and problems that are easily cured. When we had a LP1 station that kept screwing up, we changed it. It took less than a day from the time the decision was made until it occured. If I am contacted by a station in my op area who is having trouble, I can help them with suggestions or if they are unable to get the LP stations, authorize alternate monitoring assignment that are then written into the plan. It is up to us, the broadcasters to take responsibiliy for seeing that the plan works. How recently have you checked to see if the plan in your control room is up to date, and have you bothered to read it? Have you volunteered to be part of your operational area committee? IF not, don't complain to me.
Bill Croghan,
Lotus Las Vegas
Bill Croghan,
Lotus Las Vegas
Check this out on the Classic Radio board
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=201046.msg1790030#msg1790030
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=201046.msg1790030#msg1790030
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
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
TomZ said:
This has exactly what to do with the national EAS test??
That;s right Tom. Do they know something we DON't?? This is scary as hell!!
TheBigA said:
No, we just didn't want a government run broadcast monopoly like most of Europe started out with, nor do broadcasters use the airwaves for free. We pay licensing fees, annual regulatory fees and so forth. It is true that broadcasters are trustees of the public airwaves and, as such, do have a responsibility to serve the public's interest, convenience and necessity. There is no requirement to keep stations on the air during emergencies, however. Broadcasters that do make an effort to be on the air for emergencies perform that task out of their own desire to serve their communities better.
Kmagrill said:
"We" didn't get that choice. It was a decision made by the government because it didn't want to spend the money to own and operate radio stations. And yes, broadcasters pay license fees, but they're pretty minor compared to what it would cost to buy the spectrum. The Congress is currently debating a spectrum fee too.
The American system, as you say, is a licensed system, but the government still owns the spectrum. And the government expects that it will have access to those airwaves in the event of an emergency. So the idea that broadcasters could circumvent the EAS system without penalty is false.
There are stations that don't relay EAS messages. They're required to go silent or off the air during national emergencies.
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. Other countries, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union saw it differently.
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. Other countries, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union saw it differently.
Kmagrill said:
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.
TheBigA 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. The fact that Canada and the UK and most of Europe have moved away from government monopolization of the airwaves in recent decades by allowing independant broadcasting to compete has reduced the risk quite a bit. I applaud them for it.
Domestically, you migh want to glance through the Communications Act of 1934 which is the foundation of our system. It's a very well conceived document and an interesting read. Incidently, FDR, a liberal Democrat, was in office when the bill was written and passed. FDR signed it.
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. In Europe, governments paid for the infrasructure by taxing receivers. We just didn't want to do it that way. We saw no reason for government to be involved when private companies were already building the infrastructure very well indeed. In this way, we remain also compliant with the 1st amendment.
Kmagrill said:
I'm not disagreeing with that, but it's not the reason there is no federal broadcasting system in the US.
I'm very familiar with the Communications Act of 1934, as well as the Radio Act of 1927, which was passed under President Coolidge. The previous Act is what set up the American system and established the Federal Radio Commission. If you read it, you'll see that the government set up the system in such a way that it could co-opt the airwaves if a need arose. The more recent Homeland Security Acts, passed under George Bush, went further in identifying who is responsible for emergency notification.
The FCC has fined numerous stations for various issues relating to EAS procedures, so clearly it's seen as an important area of responsibility for the government.
Kmagrill said:
You really should read the writings of the day, including Herbert Hoover's autobiography. The debt was a key issue at the time. He was Secretary of Commerce and it was his idea to have broadcasting operate as private businesses to save the government money. However, the government wanted access to the airwaves, and broadcasting was soon removed from the Commerce department's purview.
Kmagrill said:
Off topic, but worth pointing out that the only real discussion Congress had on this was in 1967, while debating the Public Broadcasting Act. It's why they created levels of insulation between the government and broadcasting. That system has served public broadcasting well. During my time in the system, there never was any federal interference in what we could say or do. The fact is that you can create a system that is removed from the political process, and we have such a system in this country. But that doesn't exempt them from participating in EAS.
- Status