Leslie Stimson / 10.20.2010
How the EAS-CAP Shot-Clock Could be Delayed


Engineers and others in radio have questions about what’s happening with EAS. I asked public warning systems consultant and educator Art Botterell, also creator of the Common Alerting Protocol, a few EAS questions via e-mail.

RW: FEMA just recently approved CAP V1.2 and says their 180-day shot clock for stations to have CAP-capable EAS gear has begun. Is there a chance the clock could be delayed?

Botterell: The FCC has the power to do that, assuming broadcasters file for an extension or even a reconsideration. So far I'm not aware of what anyone has filed. If an extension doesn't happen quickly it'll be moot, as stations will need to order equipment fairly soon in order to be sure of meeting the current end-of-March deadline. So delay in filing, in this case, is essentially acceptance.

[NAB told Radio World it would support a “modest extension” of the 180-day deadline and this week the trade group and several other organizations asked the commission for at least a six-month delay.]

RW: How would a station know if its EAS gear can receive and or send a CAP-enabled message?

Botterell: Well, their vendor will say so. But that may mean less than it seems, since vendors are giving priority to getting federal CAP alerts from FEMA's "IPAWS" servers. And IPAWS connectivity isn't necessarily the same thing as that used for state or local CAP relay networks.

RW: What is a “Governors Must Carry” message? An FCC working group has asked FEMA to clarify how “Governor Must Carry” messages will be implemented.

Botterell: Basically, under the amended FCC rules the State Emergency Communications Committees in states that implement CAP relay networks (or decide to rely on FEMA's network, I suppose) can elect to give their Governor and "designees" the authority, equivalent to the President's, to require stations to carry their EAS messages or else sign off the air. The details will need to be spelled out by the SECCs and then approved by the FCC. We don't know what the FCC will or won't approve yet.

RW: Is there anything else stations need to know?

Botterell: I think the main thing broadcasters need to understand is that FEMA's IPAWS program is mainly focused on national security and the presidential capability of EAS. The particular office within FEMA that manages IPAWS has no responsibility for state and local public safety or emergency management. So if folks are concerned about AMBER alerts and other state and local functions they need to get busy and contact those folks.

The other thing of which I'd remind broadcasters is that cellular alerting is coming in 2012. That's going to be a game-changer in ways that go well beyond the immediate politics of FM chips. One major example: Cell phones will be able to select where to alert people selectively in particular areas instead of having to interrupt service for their whole audience.

About Botterell’s involvement with CAP… He tells me he came up with the concept in 1999, organized the original open-source effort to define it in 2001. He then shepherded CAP through a series of field trials and revisions in 2002 and 2003, and contributed the work to the standards-setting group OASIS, the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, and edited the 1.0 version of the OASIS spec in 2004.


Comments
Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

1.
Posted by: Carl LaFong rest of story
Mon, 10-25-2010 - 9:12PM Report Comment
(during past emergency events) that the broadcast plants are a survivable link not dependent on landline or Internet to function. Indeed, why are NAB and others pushing to activate FM receivers in personal wireless devices? Because when all else stops that is all that will be working. Of course, these tools have not yet been tested or fully utilized. · FEMA is going back to the State of Alaska for yet another EAN test this January, 2011. · The FCC has proposed an end-to-end test of the EAN hot code nationwide. But this nationwide test has yet to progress and has been pushed back a full year into 4Q 2011. A BETTER WAY TO IMPROVE CAP and EAS Instead of adding the CAP overhead to all EAS transmissions, I am calling for a plan in which NASBA (the National Association of State Broadcast Associations) leads the nation to draft and submit a letter to halt the CAP insanity – instead requesting the FCC to set a reasonable three-year rollout plan for CAP compliant equipment. In the meantime: · Testing - CAP compliant testing should be done by independent agencies and not the manu-facturers or developers. 1. Testing should include compliance with Presidential Directives for alerting the America Public. 2. A year should be allowed for through testing in the lab and field, so we do not end up with what we have today - an untested Alert system. Note: FEMA has two test labs. One is a Kentucky university operating under a FEMA grant for EAS equipment testing and the other is JITIC (Joint Interoperability Test Command) lab on a military base in the Washington DC area. JITIC tested the DEAS (digital alert system over the PBS HDTV satellite backbone) and rejected the future development of the product. DEAS is a dead end product. · Rollout - A two-year rollout should be started for the change out of the existing equipment this will allow time for stations and alert centers to budget and replace their aged legacy system equipment
2.
Posted by: Carl LaFong
Mon, 10-25-2010 - 7:27AM Report Comment
80% of radio can easily continue with present-day endecs for EAS. So, let's utilize them to their maximum capacity until a force-to-buy replaces them. No one at fed level will listen, anyway, so this is for those who know, and who deal in and take huge delight in, confusing others with facts... WARREN SHULTZ RESPONDS: 10/15/10 CAP IS A TRAIN WRECK IN PROGRESS! The entire CAP product is an IT-developed alerting system and should not have been forced on broadcasters at this point in time. It is a political solution that does not work for broadcasters. This all goes back to a very weak FCC knowledge base and having no EAS Czar to oversee the product. Because of this, EAS is a headless snake weaving its way through the federal bureaucracy. At last report the EAS concept spans nine federal agencies with no one at the head. We are nine years out from 9-11, yet we have failed to improve the warning system in place as revised in 1997. FEMA has given so much traction to this faulty product simply because the IT side got their attention. CAP DOES NOT WORK YET I suspect in the testing this will be found out. FEMA has only approved the software. The FCC staff of attorneys has no idea what to do with the CAP product and was not consulted on the development of the product. Like the rest of the broadcasters all they heard was the media hype. What we know: • The CAP payload is so large it cannot be handed off over the defined wireless broadcast relay network commonly called the “Daisy Chain.” •Stations are expected to have and use reliable Internet connections to access CAP data. •CAP does not meet the Presidential EAN requirement for a live audio feed. EAS IS already IN PLACE – USE IT! Of course, there are tools already in place: the legacy EAS system. The defined EAS network is a wireless concept that depends on wireless broadcast stations to hand off an alert over a defined path. History has shown (during past emergency ev




Thursday 12:00AM
Broadcasters File Suit Against FCC’s Political File Rules
“The FCC decision to put the political files online will bring broadcasters into the 21st century, and will make already public information more easily accessible to everyone.” Free Press Senior Policy Counsel Corie Wright.

 
Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology