11/10/11

The Test That Took 15 Years

Wow, did we have fun yesterday?

FEMA has said the first ever National EAS Test was a success. No ... stop laughing! Think about it. It was only a test. (Commenting on "what if?" is not helpful unless you put into practice the lessons learned from the test.)

That said, there were disappointments. Yes, the audio was horrible. (Discussion of why, and audio samples are here.) But realistically, what should we expect from the first test of the entire system? And, yes, there is a lot to be sought in terms of improvements in the reporting system (those Web Forms). But it was the first time the entire national system was tested. And even tests with failures are good and useful tests.

Sure, we could hope for crisp, clean audio, voiced well, and containing good information. But even if the audio was something we would normally be ashamed of, if it were our doing, the EAS boxes generally did what they should do: they opened up and printed out the information from the header bursts. They passed audio (of a sort). They took the EOM (in most cases) and shut down.

As to the Web Forms, some folks at the FCC made the effort to let us know that information, not enforcement, was the goal. Still, they could have spoken to broadcasters a bit, and much more quickly addressed the many questions that came out of either imprecise or overly precise instructions. Efforts were made. Perhaps not enough. But it was a test.

Overall, if you really are honest about it: for a first test, all of that is not really so bad.

PREDICTIONS

More than a few folks have commented that the EAS system should have been tested from end to end 15 years ago. In fact, several of them have predicted many of the problems we saw displayed yesterday.

OK, fair enough.  We cannot go back and test in 1997 anymore - unless Dr. Who shows up. So, let us move on.

That said, we got to see a new problem ... one for which the solution should be simple - if the federal agencies will just stop mandating things and start listening to broadcasters. The existing system was already in danger of failure in 1997, and in many areas, little has been changed in 15 years.

Broadcasters have told the FCC for years how the system could be improved. Generally, it had a very low interest level, except at the Enforcement Bureau as a revenue generator.

Perhaps this test will be the catalyst for real change.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

Actually, the next steps are simple.  Let the feds spend their time working on their feed and procedures. The interacgency turf wars and finger pointing needs to stop. We have complained often that for federal communication agencies, the FCC and FEMA do not communicate very well. Often it is the need for many levels of manager and lawyer to vet every pronouncemnt. This has to stop!

FEMA: Please ... stop the web broadcasts and piles of paper plans. Develop a system to deliver good clean audio to the PEP stations, the national news networks, and whomever else you want to talk to. Leave the rest of the system alone.

FCC: PLEASE deliver changes to the EAS Rules that solve problems, not merely raise more questions. Talk to broadcasters, and see how the existing Rules are completely at odds with how many, if not most, stations operate.

FEMA/FCC: Most importantly, do something. Talk to your Congressional masters. Solve the problem of mandated operations by broadcasters coupled with "voluntary" operations by emergency managers, state officials, etc. Broadcasters do not need a Governor's Override to allow more political speech on the air. When emergencies occur, one of two things happen:

1. Stations stop programming and devote themselves - people and resources - to air emergency infomation.

2. Stations continue to play the automation until the power goes out.

If you (federal agencies) want to do something to make EAS truly useful, you will go back to your Congressional masters and solve the problem. Help those broadcasters who want to serve their community. Relieve those who do not; put the licenses elsewhere.

STATE/LOCAL  SECC/LECC

But there needs to be work at the other end of the system. The LECC's and SECC's need to ensure that their areas are working properly during the existing test schedules. 

This is not too hard. Some of the states already have, in place, regional systems that allow the SECC to "see" if all stations are online and ready ... or if one or more is not able to receive an alert.

Better audio paths, with fewer STLs, audio processors, and clippers in the path, would go a long way to solving issues. Why cannot we use the NPR satellites or affiliates as a primary national and/or state source?  Most television stations are ruggedized and have redundant power. Why can we not have one of the digital carriers used for EAS distribution in local areas? PBS stations are often owned by state and local entities. Why should they not be a hub for information?

Of course, this goes back to the nature of LECC/SECC in the pecking order. It is largely volunteer. Another unfunded mandate. The FCC needs to work with other agencies so the burden is not on broadcasters alone - with potential fines as the whip. It will take a lot of cooperation in DC to bring about an environment where the national broadcasters are able to have the tools they need to do the job.

In fact, if the FCC and FEMA truly want to ensure a robust, viable EAS, they could do a lot worse than use some of the budget that produces web broadcasts, paper chases, Web Forms that take hours to figure out and, instead, provide a national grid of available audio and EAS receivers. Take the financial and equipment budget out of the stations' hands, just as FEMA now does with the generators and spare transmitters they install at PEP sites.

It would not cost as much as all the regulatory issues that are now happening.

It is clear, we need another test before 15 more years pass. Why not make FEMA's feed, with a Test code NPT (National Periodic Test) every quarter or six months, part of the testing? Certainly it would be better for the system than the compelely useless Required Weekly Test that really proves nothing more than automation can start a test!

And then, we might just get clean, clear audio and instruction upon which stations, listeners and local EMs could rely.

---

What do you think?

What to share your thoughts here?  You are welcome - and invited - to do so.

Richard Rudman Responds:

Barry - You have covered a lot of ground and given a lot of EAS stakeholders a lot of food for thought and action in your EAS Editorial.

It is still too early to chart out a precise plan of action for all concerned, but of one thing I am certain. We all should be working toward getting away from SAME EAS and implementing CAP with non-Internet reinforcement, wired and wireless. As you know, Comments were filed with the FCC to that effect as part of the FCC's looking at the Part 11 rewrite. The ball is in the FCC's court to respond to what was said.

My prediction: Forces arguing to stick with SAME EAS will be met with more opposition as test results are assessed. I am hoping for that transition to happen in my lifetime. For anyone wondering how old I am, contact me off list. :-)
 

11/2/11

The Communications Commission that Does Not Communicate

Here is hoping we get *something* from the FCC today to clarify the questions about the web forms suddenly released last week for the National EAS Test. As of right now, we see nothing new on the fcc.gov site.  Like you, we are a bit annoyed.

Before anyone starts: there are some honest, sincere people at the FCC. They do try their best to help broadcasters.

But there are also politicians and the sort of bureaucrats the British call "Jobsworths"  (as in "I could help you, but it is more than my job's worth"). It apparently requires one of these Jobsworths to "bless" the information everyone has been waiting for before it can be posted - lest our collective FUD* be reduced before the absolute last moment. That is largely why, time after time, promised information does not appear or is excessively delayed for no apparent reason.

One of the good guys was our source for the information that there was going to be clarifications on the FCC Web Report Form. He was aware the issue was being worked on last Friday and the info should have gone up on Monday. For some reason, someone up the chain did not think it urgent to approve the clarifications. So, the guys on the line were subject to countless phone calls and emails asking for information that should have gone out.

Then you have to remember, the upper levels of the FCC have repeatedly shown they do not have any sense of urgency. We could get very cynical and comment on a certain "disease" that seems to afflict government agencies and employees that have never worked a day in the industry. But that does not help anything. It only reinforces the feeling by many that the EAS is

It does not help stations to understand what to do.
It does not answer key questions about the upcoming Test.
It does not respond to concerned and interested folks who want to help.

Also:

It does not tell us what Part 11 changes are coming.
It does not show any clarity of how and when CAP is really going to happen.
It does not give us any confidence that there will be attention given in future to improving the situation.

Is it no wonder that many stations - especially those with multiple station clusters - have already decided to file a paper report on their EAS Test experience and forgo the craziness of this web form?

About the only thing left is to wonder how close to the Test the FCC bigwigs will actually permit posting of the clarifications.

Right now?  That would be a good move!

---

What do you think?

What to share your thoughts here?  You are welcome - and invited - to do so.

===

*FUD = Fear, uncertaintly, doubt

10/15/11

Thanks, Alaska! 
The Upcoming EAS Test

(This editorial is from Richard Rudman. He saved me from having to write this, as I could not do it better.)

Richard Rudman
The BWWG (The Broadcast Warning Working Group)

8/24/11

Earthquake? Hurricane? Who Are You Gonna' Call?

This week is going to be remembered on the East Coast. First a rather unusual earthquake rocked places from Carolina to Vermont and out to Pittsburgh. Then Hurricane Irene started its run up the coast.

In a number of places, the limitations of the telephone network became instantly apparent. Since most telephone companies only build out for a peak of about 3% usage, any time there is a large panic - or even a crowd - service bogs down. Some cell providers will bring portable cells to some sporting events and conventions, but reports were that in some areas, it took as much as an hour and a half to get a call through. And that was with power. Remember the NE Blackout about six or seven years ago? Cell site batteries ran down and an hour and a half would have been wonderful. Actually, service was non-existent.

This is nothing new. Back in the early 90s, when the Internet was just taking off, phone companies discovered how modems could quickly tie up a large part of the available services, as they stayed on line for hours at a time.

Worse, the text messaging that went on displayed the lack of information many had, the anxiety evident, and the huge amount of mis-information. Some "tweets" missed the size of the earthquake by two full magnitudes, others spread rumors such as the Washington Monument was leaning and ready to fall, and undoubtedly the "chatter" caused panic and problems for first responders.

READY AND AVAILABLE ... AND GENERALLY ACCURATE

Meantime, people who were close to the earthquake and reeling from its effects, or hundreds of miles away and wondering what happened, had a source of accurate news and information. Of course, we mean that ancient method of communication: broadcast!

During the earthquake, a number of stations turned off the automation and went "wall to wall" with whatever ionformation they could get from the emergency managers in their area. People could learn what was happening, and even if they could not get instant satisfaction of calling their loved ones right away, they could learn that damage was very limited and few were even injured.

Broadcast - one to many. The most efficient means of mass communication.

SECOND VERSE, SIMILAR TO THE FIRST

So, with Hurricane Irene heading up the coast as this is being written, we can be sure that listeners and viewers will be turning to broadcasters for up-to-date weather news, as well as evacuation and other public safety information.

If your station is on the East Coast, we sincerely hope you are prepared to serve your community during this upcoming event. Is your generator ready in case of power loss?  Is the staff ready to react,  knowing who to call for current information? Are there provisions in case the staff cannot leave the studio for a while?

If so,  your station deserves the applause from near and far. 

However, if your plan is just to keep the automation going, you in effect are endangering the whole broadcast industry, giving the public the impression you really do not care about them. Yes, it might cost some overtime from payroll - and sure, it is possible that your station may lose some spots during this - and similar - events.

But really, if you think about it, nature is giving you a low-cost means of promoting your services to the market - and differentiates you from the jukeboxes both on the air and on the Internet. Broadcast is there.

Isn't this a good time to remind your listeners that you stand ready to provide what they want and what they need? (Perhaps it is a good time to repeatedly suggest folks make sure their radios have good batteries in them!)

Radio.  Television.  Reliable communication.  No waiting.

That is something in which to take pride.

----

What do you think?

What to share your thoughts here?  You are welcome - and invited - to do so.

7/17/11

EAS: Don't Just Sit There - Say Something!

I will make this short and get right to the point. The biggest changes in EAS in 15 years is coming this Fall. It is important to stop for a moment and answer the question: Are you happy with EAS as it is?

If so, fine. you are in one of the relatively few places where the local broadcasters and emergency managers are working well together and program directors ensure any important event is quickly put on the air. You need read no further.

On the other hand, if you are in one of the marginally functional (or non-functional) areas where between programmers and emergency managers hate EAS (and broadcasters) and little goes out on most stations except the Required Weekly and Monthly tests (which are generally fired off by automation systems), this is your real chance to tell the FCC exactly what improvements you want.

LAST CHANCES

This week, on July 20th, is the deadline for comments on FCC Docket 04-296. Reply comments, where you can respond to the comments, is set for a a 15-day period ending August 4th.

Can you make a difference?

Most would say the FCC's stated intention to "fast track" this and push it through means the books are "cooked" and nothing said in the comments will count.

On the other hand, if enough people make their voices heard on EAS procedure or content, it is possible the FCC will hear you.

EMERGENCY INFORMATION OR ENFORCEMENT TRAP

Do you think EAS usually serves the listener?

When an EAS alert goes off. Do all your listeners know:
         1. There is an emergency? Do you broadcast the alerts in the first place?
         2. Exactly what the emergency or event is?
         3. WHERE it is?  (What about visitors and folks on the highway - do they know your county name?)
         4. What to do, once the alert is over?  (Exactly where to go for more information?)
         5. Who you are/ where you are? (Or is your City of License "hidden" in the middle of a stop set at :47?)

The most common complaint is that the EAS is a "one size fits all" system imposed by bureaucrats who do not understand local needs - and that the FCC spends too much time on fining stations for EAS Violations, compared to fostering a working system that meets the needs of the listener.

For example: with so many stations running the Required Weekly Test via automation, what does it prove? Aside from LPs, few transmissions are even monitored. What does the RWT really accomplish for most stations where the Monthly test works, except as a paperwork exercise for the Enforcement Bureau to sniff at?

A LOT TO DIGEST, BUT EASY TO COMMENT

With the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making running to 110 pages, there is a lot in there to make your eyes glaze over. The temptation is to just "let it take its course, let the industry group lawyers file those comments."

On the other hand, short, direct comments can have a good chance to rise above the background noise.

Here is a brief summary of the key issues, to give you something to think about.

Common questions are answered here.

Here is where you can make an informal comment. Just fill out the form and make your point.

DO SAY SOMETHING

... If you do not tell the FCC what you think, you will get the EAS system the lawyers want, which may or may not you want - or need. If your goal is to serve your listeners, do not just listen, speak up!

What do you think?

What to share your thoughts here?  You are welcome - and invited - to do so.

6/28/11

A Good Time to Stop and Consider What Regulation is For.

A few years ago, the battle cry was "Deregulation."  In one industry after another, government was supposed to be "backing off" and not tying up businesses in ex-forests of paperwork. Broadcasters were supposed to benefit as well.

As you know, this is the year for the Great Part 11 Rewrite. We have commented several times on the issues and problems involved with the EAS many times. But that is not the only review of procedures going on. Among the myriad other things going on at The Portals, with relatively little fanfare, the FCC last year initiated a review of the Public File Rules, driven by The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). In among 20 pages of FCC Rules and Policies under review, DA 10-1741 lists the Public File requirements, 73.3526 and 73.3537 as items for review (OMB 3060-0214).

Last week NASBA (The National Association of State Broadcasters Associations) filed comments with the FCC, pointedly suggesting that enforcement of the Public File rules - aside from the political time part - should be suspended until the Commission can review them and decide if they are really in the Public Interest, or are merely a flimsy device for revenue enhancement.

We applaud this request and hope the FCC will take its role as a regulatory agency seriously, and not operate merely as a "tax collector" a la the Tax Collector in the movie Popeye.

For all the bellyaching we hear from broadcasters that the Public File is rarely, if ever, visited by anyone but station employees, not many filings were made on this matter.

On the other hand, we dare you to find this on your own. It is not easy. Searching the FCC site reveals little. Even if you learn about the RM number (11332), which goes back to 2006, it does not come up on the FCC site search.

After a while, we found this page. It appears that the ploy worked. Three filings are shown on the FCC ECFS page in the past five years, and the comment period apparently closed on June 17th. The page mentioned earlier in this paragraph still shows the proceeding is "open," but that appears to be in error.  According to one DC attorney, the next step is the final comment period at the Federal Office of Management and Budget, after the FCC tells them what it plans. 

THE PRA

Somehow it seems like the goals of the PRA, which directs government agencies to reduce wherever possible the paperwork burdens imposed upon businesses, were never really applied to broadcast regulation.

A look at the comment filed by NASBA shows why it is time for the FCC to change Policy in this area.

• Although the Public File rules have been in place for 45 years, and the categories and depth of information required to be put in the file have increased, most stations have never seen a member of the Public come and request to see the Public Files.
• Although many items in the Public File are now available on the FCC's website, the Enforcement Bureau (EB) inspections continue to put a huge focus on finding one or two papers out of order - and generating substantial fines, often several times as large as fines for more serious matters. The FCC EB's page indicates that over $2 million in fines have been issued over the past decade - mostly for missing documents in which the Public appears to have little or no interest.
• A requirement that certain "related" documents be on file in the Cumulus purchase of Citadel Broadcasting appears to mean that thousands of pages of copies need to be in every station file - over 357,000 pages of copies around the company just to cover about half the applications!
• The FCC has been collecting application fling fees on broadcast applications in direct contradiction of Section 1.2107(c) its own Rules from 1994 until it quietly changed the Rule yesterday.

If the FCC cannot understand and control their own Rules, can it be reasonable to send out the EB to assess fines to broadcasters who find it hard to do exactly as the FCC thinks it is saying?

Actually it is just plain unreasonable, especially with the FCC itself having most of the above mentioned files on-line, to kill thousands of trees such paperwork - a forest itself for the  Cumulus/Citadel deal.

We hope the FCC takes note of the NASBA comment and request, and moves to make whatever paperwork requirements are necessary clear, easy to comply with, and carry a fine in line with the severity of the issue.

We hope the FCC does this soon.

In the long run, we also hope that broadcasters will keep an eye out and actually comment to the OMB. Let us hope the OMB will be a bit more open than the FCC itself!

What do you think?

What to share your thoughts here?  You are welcome - and invited - to do so.

6/6/11

The Part 11 Re-write - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

The FCC released the text of the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Docket 04-296 on May 26th - the Part 11 re-write of EAS Rules. This has been long awaited. It could be good. It could be bad. Unless we all make the effort to let the FCC know how we feel it certainly will it certainly will be ugly.

We encourage you to be part of the process. Please let the FCC know what you think. Filing informal comments via the Internet is relatively easy: step by step instructions are found here.

Without going through each and every item (a fuller summary is here), here are some of the key thoughts that you should keep in mind when considering the FNPRM - all 100 pages of it.

THE GOOD

The FCC has, at the least, recognized there are some major issues with EAS that are long past due, as well as changes to meet the needs of the new equipment being mandated. There are many aspects of EAS that have been unclear since its inception in 1997, and there is some reason to hope that many will be resolved.

For most every station, the days of strips of hard to read paper will be gone. Aggregating and proving compliance with EAS Rules should become easier.

This is your chance to give comments. Not only the FCC, but FEMA and other agencies in government and from the industry have been involved in the process. As noted, the process to make your thoughts heard is not hard. You can compose your thoughts off line, fill in a half dozen lines on the on-line form, then cut and paste - and you are done.

THE BAD

Sadly, for a number of reasons, the FNPRM has been unexplainably delayed, causing panic to some - and not helped by some of the mis-information that has circulated to fill the similarly unexplainable lack of timely communication from a Federal agency with "Communications" in its name.

Another bad aspect is the announcement by the FCC that they want to "fast track" this proceeding. There is no question that it is far past the time to get this done, trying to rush it through now, just to save a few weeks - and presumably support the September 30th deadline for receiver installation - does not make sense, unless the goal is to ask for comments but effectively ignore them.

We hope wiser heads will prevail and not only approach this re-write in a way that shows sensitivity to users' needs, but clearly announce a reasonable schedule - as soon as possible - that both manufacturers and stations can adopt in their design, production, budget, purchase, and installation cycles. 

Although there is a question as to whether another delay is needed, the FCC seems to have a bureaucratic need to push the September 30th deadline for installation of new gear by stations whether or not there is a system to feed the boxes. Furthermore, there are operation issues - aside from purchasing products - that appear to be brushed aside in the race to make up for all the delays this far. (On the plus side, the FNPRM actually does call for Comments on an extension, so the door to a further postponement has not been slammed shut so far.)

Among the operation issues that seem to elude clear thinking in Washington are:

• a mandate that all station have continuous wideband Internet to poll/receive FEMA warnings.
• a lack of clarity and/or plan for integrating state and local information with national materials.
• how the Governor Must Carry will impact stations
• and - perhaps most importantly - while all these new Rules will be mandated for broadcasters, the message to emergency managers is merely "please cooperate." Broadcasters who have suffered through 14 years of missed, poor audio on tests and alerts (when the EMs choose to cooperate), and even continuing false alerts naturally are apprehensive of a system that is capable of taking over a station's programming without any consideration to its effect on the programming itself. There are few better examples that one in Chicago, not long ago, where the station was giving clear information and specific direction during a local emergency, when the EAS alert interrupted them to give a generic warning.

THE UGLY

Without making any lawyer jokes, why did this FNPRM have to be 110 pages, with something like 315 separate questions proposed by the writers? Yes, there was a great need for overhauling the EAS. But a lot of this could have been done incrementally over the past two or three years, and left the key issues for discussion at this point.

Does anyone think the average station owner, general manager, or program director will actually read the entire FNPRM? Probably only the same federal employees who believe all stations now have wideband Internet available 24/7.

The Governor Must Carry (GMC) has potential to be a real benefit in emergencies, but it also has the tremendous potential to become "yet another interruption" to station operations by people who have no real feel for how to get information to the public unless it is politically useful to themselves.  Already some areas have "Blue Alerts" "Silver Alerts" ... and what other new alerts will be thought of to appease some local advocate?

Finally, we need to emphasize that while large market stations most always already have plenty of Internet access available, many stations still are on dial-up, satellite (read expensive) service, or plain old FAX input. The associated costs are not huge, especially for the larger stations, but for the struggling small town stations the question needs to be asked: is it reasonable to require they buy 24/7 wideband Internet connections?

It is reported that some states actually have provided EAS boxes and Internet connections for their stations. Maybe if the federal government would stop sending money willy-nilly to local Sheriff's and EMs that go for toys, it could supply EAS boxes and Internet service to all the stations.

Then, perhaps, stations would feel a little bit better about the potential of having their programming interrupted without notice or control.

What do you think? Again .. it is important that you let the FCC know. Please do - right here.

What to share your thoughts here?  You are welcome - and invited - to do so.

5/6/11

A short thought on Spectrum

Right now, there is a strange sort of "push and shove" at the FCC about spectrum. It is largely TV related, but radio folks need to pay attention, too. The demand for spectrum is endless.

Supposedly, AT&T bought T-Mobile because they otherwise would not have enough spectrum to build out their system. Reaction ranges from FCC Commissioners who want to see TV stations "voluntarily" give up spectrum and get a piece of the auction price to the NAB studies showing there is plenty of spectrum - even hoarding going on - and there is no need to race to break down broadcast channels. (Indeed, most of the AM, even FM frequencies are of much less interest to the wireless companies.)

This past week some Congressional pushback was raised, primarily in terms of seeking an inventory of frequencies before taking any action. On the other hand, a former FCC counsel has made comments to the effect that public ownership of the airwaves is a passe` notion. In fact, with the FCC Auction concept over the past decade or so it might be argued that companies that buy CPs at the auction need not seek license renewal because they bought the channel. We are not aware of any such court cases as yet, but there clearly could be some issue of two classes of licensees: those that got their CP/license by application and those that bought them through the auctions.

In either event, if you have ever looked at a chart of frequencies and their use, it is amazing how much is in government hands, much like the land in the West (states like Arizona and Utah are overwhelmingly filled with Federal lands unavailable for development). But, as companies like AT&T are using the current spectrum issues to move to a per megabyte pricing model - as opposed to unlimited data - whether there is a real spectrum issue or whether wireless companies are stockpiling frequencies while not really building out their existing systems (have you ever noticed areas where cell sites are situated as far apart as possible? - you find this out largely by dropped calls... ) because, perhaps, of construction costs.

Like the so-called "Performance Royalty" tax ... what happens to spectrum, especially from the "spectrum manager" - which is why the FCC was created - should be something broadcasters need to note and keep an eye on - not merely assuming the NAB has their backs. The "coordination" mess that happened on the 950 MHz band did not impact broadcasters as it might have only because in most places there was no room to add more transmitters whether stations paid for PCN or not.

What do you think?  Let us know.

4/2/11

Site Security - It Cannot Be Left to Chance

The article by Kevin Kidd this week highlights a growing problem - theft and vandalism.

With copper prices well north of $4 per pound, and "used" copper well over $3 per pound, AM transmitter sites (as well as AC units, etc at any site) are attracting attention from the worst parts of society - the drug addicts and other creeps. The thieves are getting bolder and bolder.  Some actually "check out" a site, then spray paint cameras, or just come at night. Others get even bolder, and come out with a shovel and a barrel and see what they can get away with.

Unfortunately, many transmission sites are so far out of town, or in a difficult area, that thieves often can get away with the theft before anyone - station personnel or police - can respond. The fact that scrap yards will all to often take what they get with minimal checking just makes it worse. Can you imagine? During January a couple of yahoos stolen an entire transmitter in Ohio and took it to a scrap yard. If the police had not shown up, the transmitter likely would be shards of metal by now.

So how can stations protect themselves? Money. Kevin kids (pun intended) by suggesting that stations tape $100 bills to the fence, with a sign "Please take this and leave us alone" ... or some such line. The real answer is making station security a line item and put up fences, motion detectors, and video. Even then, unless there is prompt response,  it will be nearly impossible to stop the damage. And the toll adds up fast. A couple of hundred dollars of scrap can virtually destroy an entire ground system. Replacement can be very expensive these days.

It is unrealistic to expect the station engineer to provide security. The bad guys already know that some sites go unvisited for months. They take their time and grab up the copper. Others are more aggressive. Have you seen the video of the two that broke into KSL's transmitter site and stole something like $30,000 in value of copper and tools?

As Kidd notes, fortunately, most of the bad guys are pretty low in IQ, and lazy. It does not take too much to make it too hard for them ... and they move on.

Over the coming months, we plan to share some ideas on how to make your site more secure - and what to do if you are attacked. Short of opening a donut shop (with free goods to cops) or stationing a paramilitary brigade on site, there is no 100% sure way of preventing losses.  But a few simple steps will put you ahead of the game and reduce not only the costs, but the lost downtime - if someone decides to take your transmitter to the local scrap yard.

Your ideas and questions are welcome. What works for you? What can we do to help other stations get the message?

What do you think?

3/2/11

The FCC Fine Gun has been Reloaded -
But is it Pointed in the Right Direction?

The FCC Enforcement Bureau (EB) has always been a bit of a perplexing factor in the operation of stations. Communication is always difficult with these people, their decisions often cause substantial legal expense (in addition to any fines levied), they sometimes take years to even announce a violation, and the rationale can be as obscure as the legal definition of "willful" (no, it does not mean what you think it means, unless you are a lawyer!).

When you add to the trend in recent years to focus on tower lights and fences, EAS logs and Public Files, it is easy to think of the FCC less as an agency to help broadcasters do their best than a revenue enhancement source for the bottomless pit of federal debt. Many remember the days when the Field Inspectors would stop and help a station recalibrate meters, have a cup of coffee, and move on. There was less attention to quotas, fines, etc, than in improving broadcasting as a whole.

In recent weeks and months, the FCC EB has been issuing Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) like hotcakes.

The question is: what is the goal of current FCC actions?

NOT ALL FINES ARE CREATED EQUAL

We would not begin to suggest that all the fines are undeserved. There are many stations that have cut the technical budget beyond reason and either hide behind the promised three year ABIP "vacation" from inspections or simply hope the inspectors will never show. In general, They deserve what they get.  

What else could you really say about a station that did not check the lights on their tower - a clear potential public hazard - except during the daytime?  Or the one that did have an EAS receiver for five years - or another where they disconnected the power cord "sometime between 2000 and 2006 and remained inoperable since then?"  Or the company that is so concerned with ratings and sales that they apparently consider fines for broadcasting prank phone calls a cost of doing business?

There are many basic Rules that get violated because stations start to think "why not, we'll save a lot of money" by not having the Main Studio staffed during business hours, take the time to actually think about and produce the Quarterly Issues and Programs list, or

Then there are the stupid violations, like not giving a proper station ID at the top of the hour or when returning to air after a transmitter or power failure, now lowering power at sundown, failing to repaint a severely faded tower, or demanding the public make an appointment to view the Public File.

We could go on ... and on.

Yet we also hear of NAL findings because a station failed to run an EAS test perfectly. Or a fine issued for some minor matter that happened six or eight years ago. Do not even mention the license renewal debacle during the last cycle, when the renewal application asked if the station had violated any Rules during the last term. Many of those stations admitting such were rewarded for their honesty - with fines.

IS THERE ANY SANITY?

Perhaps the most annoying part is that there is no clear policy from the FCC to stations on many aspects of daily operation. Sure, there are Policy pronouncements that have appeared in proceedings over the years. But to find the citations and answers tends to require hours of billable time by the DC attorneys. Is this right? Fair?

Many good operators truly do their best to operate by the Rules and serve their community. Still, they cannot help but notice the egregious conduct undertaken by some of their competitors - blatant violation of common Rules - yet EB inspectors seem prefer to ding stations for small paperwork errors.

As an example, there are a number of aspects of the EAS Rules that are unclear at best. Instead of answering simple questions, the FCC has essentially decided to keep all the lawyers busy. How hard could it be to tell broadcasters what day the EAS week starts, or how the "random" requirement for EAS tests - or indeed the Required Weekly Tests (RWT) - do anything except provide opportunity for EB people to assess fines? Perhaps some of these issues will be resolved in the Part 11 rewrite everyone is waiting to see issued as an Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).

Put more plainly: If a station does or does not issue an RWT, what is the point? Most today are initiated by automation systems, and since no one monitors much beyond the LP-1 and LP-2 stations - and consumer radios do not decode the duck farts - what good does it do? One station engineer forgot to reconnect the audio after repairing a receiver, and it was at least three months before anyone noticed: "didn't we used to have some tones on the air?" someone asked. Issuing fines because RWTs were missed or the Chief Operator did not sign off the logs fast enough does not help the industry do its job.

THE ULTIMATE PENALTY

On the other hand, a good case could be made that some of these fine now being issued are long past due, that stations which have become lax over the years should be paying attention, that big companies who think certain fines (prank phone calls, overmodulation, hiding IDs in a stop set at :47), etc, should pay more and more - till it truly hurts the executive suite suits whose huge bonuses depend upon reducing expenses above all else.

Possibly it might even be time for the Commission to strip a license or two for egregious actions.

One can only contemplate the litigation that would ensue, but when KIKX Tucson lost its license in the 1970s, for a prank on the air that went bad, why should not a company that thinks pranks are a cost of doing business lose a license or two?

We continually hear of stations operating for years with no license or regularly failing to reduce power at sundown - not to mention the pirate issue in many areas. There was even a high powered station that did not change the Directional Antenna as required (one source said they could not!). Another, in a major market, was said to have operated without changing power/pattern for years.

Some broadcasters have tried to point the FCC to the real problems by filing documents showing the illegal operation, and are routinely ignored ... not even receiving an acknowledgement of their efforts to document the problem. In some cases, the EB arrogance has reached the point of suggesting that interested parties "watch the FCC site to find out what happened" ... even though it might be years before the EB actually posts anything, if at all.

With huge corporate ownership and management bureaucracies often overruling the engineer, placing blame is a bit more obscure, but as we all know, ultimately it is with the licensee, even if it is more of a fiction than fact that the licensee actually knows what is going on at all the stations owned. And this is where lawyers rush in, fingers are pointed at "that *(&^# engineer we fired last month," and the "NAL dance" is performed.

It is for these reasons that bigger fines are justified in many cases - but not all. There sure is no indication that there any motion to actually fine the managers and other people that purposely ignore the Rules.

THE BOTTOM LINE

One big issue is whether the current cluster of enforcement actions and fines will change the way stations operate. If they do for the better, that is good. If we see a lot of "marginal" enforcement actions, it will not be good - it will further deteriorate the relationship the broadcast community has with the FCC. One has to wonder what the goal of the EB really is in this matter.

"Back in the day" most engineers - and even combo jocks - had respect for the FCC and the Rules. None wanted to be fined. They protected their licenses by knowing and obeying the Rules and Regulations. Very few had their licenses pulled.

Today, knowledge of and respect for the Rules is often replaced by ... well ... is often not replaced. Too many stations just operate as they do until something happens. While it may work for a while, it really is not good business.

To help identify and lead folks to information about what the EB is looking at, and what the potential costs are, we have set up a page of resources: www.theBDR.net/articles/fcc/insp/index.html

There you will find links to the FCC "Self-Inspection Checklist,"  some advice on how to avoid fines, and the newest feature "Enforcement Watch," with information on recent NALs, and links to the Rules involved.

We hope this will be of help to you as you seek to keep your stations operating in accord with your Authorizations - and free of fines from the EB!

1/11/11

A New Year ... A New Start

As broadcasters, we have been bruised like the rest of the economy. In some cases, worse, because so much of the industry has been automated.

However, as with many things in life, it is important to control what you can. On the tech side if means we are generally perceived as a service department. So, if we can super-serve our customers, we make ourselves more valuable in the eyes of the rest of the staff. That is good. And a good way to start the new year.

What is not so good is that finding new jobs these days often requires leaving an area, with the concomitant problems of tearing family away from jobs, schools, and friends. In many markets where there were 18-20 employers, some with multiple engineers, now we often see three or four mega-clusters. That also makes networking at SBE meetings harder, with fewer local techs and jobs to go around.

So, is 2011 the year things will turn around? That remains to be seen. It is clear that the industry will not be returning to the model we saw in the 1980s and 1990s. And, unless and until station owners see the need to build more content for the listeners and/or viewers, the attrition to portable devices is likely to continue. After all, even many broadcasters listen to the commercial-free online streams; given the chance, none of us wants to listen to 10 spots in a row.

Nevertheless, as we see the new products at the consumer shows like CES, we can tell what changes are coming ... and have a clue as to the technologies needed. Perhaps we are going to be much more IT oriented than RF, with more and more self-diagnostics being built into transmitters. But the bottom line is that the technology used is not so simple that stations can eliminate the tech departments.

SERVICE VIA EDUCATION

So, we are back to customer service. Each of us needs to consider what are our strengths and weaknesses - and act to shore up our knowledge in the areas we need to better grasp. During times of reduced station budgets, this means that it is just as important to maintain service credibility and availability by not taking on too many stations as it is to take the initiative to reach out for the education. And that is a great challenge.

Bottom line: Whether or not we are fans of HD, FMeXtra, or other tech, we need to be able to install and maintain the gear when called upon to do so. That requires we spend some time learning about things we do not normally use or maintain. When an employer adds some new tech to the facility, it now becomes the right time to learn about it - not when it breaks down!

The problem is that with larger clusters and fewer engineers, finding mentors is harder than ever. Many manufacturers are putting out tutorials, even web seminars. But this is only a partial solution - without good hands-on training, it is hard to truly learn the craft. That is not to say that alternatives are no good. It is easy to say that education is necessary, but the key is to do it correctly, not inexpensively. If a company tries to rely on web seminars, they are doing only half the job.

Individually, we need to be proactive, making sure we keep up with the current state-of-the-art. Then we are going to have happy "customers" ... the stations where we work or at those where we are contracted.

WORK WELL BY NOT SELLING OUT

Many news reports discuss people out of work for two years - or more. That puts a lot of pressure to take whatever jobs are open. This is a time to be clear about what it means to be a broadcast engineer. True, each person alone must make the decision to work for what wages are offered. Furthermore, the "new normal" may not be same as before. 

The trouble comes when a station tries to hire fulltime or part-time contractors at below normal rates, and then pack on additional duties, including installing and maintaining transmitters or automation systems - or dare we suggest, plumbing duties - for example. An engineer is worth a decent salary (or a proper charge by contractors) when they are hired. If it is for 24/7 coverage, a proper amount of money ought to be there. Even if you need the job, it will pay off not to give in too easily to a low-ball offer. In the end you will get the respect you deserve.

Be careful - especially be resolved that you should not use your money to buy things for a client. It is not unheard of, for example, for an engineer to be laid off just after the installation is complete. Nor is it uncommon for the contractor to suddenly find himself responsible 24/7 for an automation system, without even being sponsored to the training program. They count on the engineer to learn the system on their own time and provide support. It is a very short-sighted policy for stations to do this, but it does happen.

If you are required to learn a system, go ahead and do so. But make sure the facility pays for your time.

STARTING THE YEAR WITH THE RIGHT OUTLOOK

Broadcast engineering is a business. The only one who can make sure it is a profitable - and satisfying - business is you, yourself.

What do you think?  Please do let me know.

12/10/10

Serving the Public Interest, Convenience & Necessity

The major loss of telephone and Internet communication in the Reno, NV area earlier this week should give pause to those who continue to marginalize the part broadcasting plays in local communities. Yes, times have changed. Yes, there are more choices for consumers to get their entertainment and information. At least that is true until something happens.

PICN

It used to be that every broadcaster knew what PICN meant: the Public Interest, Convenience, and Necessity. It meant that when the community needed to know something, the broadcasters were on it. Live and Local. People turned on their radios (and televisions) to find out.

Perhaps it was to find out whether or not Johnny's school was closed due to snow or where to go to help neighbors deal with local emergencies. Perhaps it was nothing more than finding out if the local High School made it to the playoffs. Broadcasters were there. Not endless tapes of oldies and commercials played from an unoccupied building.

True - times have changed. The sheer economics of broadcasting have forced some changes in how stations operate. The FCC auctions have led some to feel "I bought my license - I don't have to do as much Public Service as others." And even though most markets have automated stations that never change - even if a tornado blows through - unless they are knocked off the air, many broadcasters do remember the PICN and, when thing happen, they get on the air quickly and deliver for their listeners. 

EAS IS NOT THE TOTAL ANSWER

The Emergency Alert System and its predecessors have been put into place by the FCC and broadcasters to share information and get it out as quickly as possible. In many places it works well. Lives have been saved.

In Nevada, a backhoe fade (when a contractor cuts through a major trunk line or fiber optic cable) caused the whole 911 and cell system to go down. There was no Internet to "google the news" or "tweet" that you needed help - or anything. There was no reverse 911 for some county manager to use.

On the other hand, EAS will work when backhoe fade happens.

In Nevada, there were broadcasters who stepped up and got the word out. And as the news of the problem circulated, aided by the EAS messages going from station to station, we can only assume a lot of public panic and anxiety was averted.

Of course, this does not work everywhere. Large metropolitan areas and those along state lines are among those places where EAS has often failed to shine. This give those who ridicule EAS an opportunity to point to such failures. But as we just saw in Nevada, it EAS can succeed.

Situations such as in Nevada show why it is imperative that local stations prepare and be ready to help deliver information tailored to the community. Getting that on the air is the responsibility of broadcasters. Saying that everyone went home for the night or the weekend and there was no one on duty is not good enough. And, in these days of multi-sourced entertainment and information, it is almost suicidal for a broadcaster to miss a chance to shine in the community by "super-serving" it.

MAKE THE DECISION

In many stations EAS issues are left to the engineer to handle. Mostly tests and logging. But the engineer cannot require the news department (or news man, as the case may be) to rush over and take over the airwaves. In one case, as fire raced up a mountain, cutting the power lines, and then headed down the backside to a small community, the engineer for their only local station was instructed to set up an emergency transmitter - in the large city nearby, so the oldies and commercials could run.

The residents of the small community had no local voice at all - they could not even hear "their" station. But the commercials did all get on the air. A curious rendering of PICN.

Meanwhile. stations that have a plan can respond to emergency situations and shine. They show why they are valuable members of the community and deserve support from the residents.

PICN AGAIN

There is much chatter in the trades about whether broadcasting as we have known it will cease - perhaps aided by an FCC and Congress that wants to sell off frequencies for cash.

The industry, as a whole, needs to step up and show that it is not merely going through the motions at renewal time but desires to be an asset to their communities.

Those Nevada stations that became the information center this past week deserve commendation. Those that did not? Well, one can only wonder what their listeners think ... if indeed they are still listeners.

(What do you think?  Let us know at the "contact" link)

11/8/10

Why Someone Has to Listen

Responses: Tom Ray                 
John Stortz            
 

In the past three months, a serious situation has developed that needs more attention in the field.

PLEASE - make sure someone is listening to your air product. It could save you a lot of money! In these days of automated clusters of stations, do not treat this as of little importance. Just because you have a modulated signal it does not follow that you are legal - even if you are running a satellite network program.

Here is why: for the second time in three months, an advertising agency has thought that running EAS data bursts in a commercial was a great way to get attention to their spot. The only trouble with that is it devalues the effect of the EAS sounds during actual emergencies, it is illegal, and can result in fines to the station running the spot.

Please do not stop reading. Yes, EAS has become a sad joke to many in the industry and among many in the general public. But, this is not an EAS-oriented editorial, even hough the symptom appears to be EAS data bursts.

The following is very important because the FCC Rules we are about to share with you do not affect the little geniuses at the ad agencies, the producers of the spots, any network that carried the spots, nor the salesmen who sold the time. However, if the Enforcement Bureau (EB) receives and investigates a complaint that your station caused alarm to local listeners, it is the station itself that is liable for what could be a nasty fine, especially if repeated airing of the commercials is proven.

Reports indicate that it has been the engineering community that has stopped or prevented the airing of some of these spots. That is good, but it demonstrates several problems in the way many stations operate today.

THE RULE

The FCC Rule that applies is Section 11.45, which reads:

11.45 - Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions.

No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the EAS. Broadcast station licensees should also refer to 73.1217 of this chapter.

Section 73.1217 is entitled Broadcast Hoaxes and relates to broadcasting false information that could be foreseen to cause "substantial public harm" and actually does. For example, think of a joke about a chemical spill or bomb threat and how people could get hurt in a panic. Or a warning sound that causes a car accident.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM

As noted, the Rule is placed upon broadcast and cable facilities, not the ad agencies, etc. It states pretty directly that sending an EAS signal "... or a recording or simulation thereof ... "  is a Violation. Under "willful and repeated" - which the EB lawyers can interpret as even one airing - all it takes is a complaint from the public. And, do we have to remind everyone that even if the complaint is eventually dismissed, the legal costs to defend a station can easily exceed the fine?

Here is what you need to know: In September, a run of commercials in some Western states for ARCO/BP included the data bursts that opened up some EAS receivers. The EOM data burst appeared to be from a Tampa station.

This past week, advertising for the new movie Skyline on television and cable included six sets of data bursts indicated an RMT in Pennsylvania.

In both cases, the spots were pulled after the technical folks heard the spots and alerted the industry. Unfortunately, many of those on the sales and programming side have never read the Rules or apparently are too young to remember "The Singing EBS Test" and the written frown issued by the FCC at the time.

Hence, in the past week or so, reports from around the country include several false RWT's issued as a joke during a program on the Fox Sports Radio Network that apparently decoded to Athens, OH.  There was also a program on the cable network TBS where a comedian decided to use EAS data bursts and a screen crawl to make snide comments about the "bit."

All of these are clearly illegal under Section 11.45 - and most of the originators were not under FCC control. You might be.

THE KEY ISSUE

It does not matter whether or not an actual EAS message that was transmitted. The Rule says "a recording or simulation thereof ... " is enough to trigger a Violation, leading to a fine.

And under current thinking in DC, even one time is enough to start an investigation. Think about how one complaint caused huge problems for KWVE, for example.

While it is true that under deregulation and consolidation, many stations and clusters are running with fewer and fewer personnel and more and more satellite programming. This does not relieve the licensee of the responsibility to monitor what goes on the air - and prevent the sort of abuses described above.

Unfortunately, listeners continue to hear stations throwing dead air for hours on end when the automation fails or an audio processor freezes. One can certainly assume that station personnel are unaware of much of what is broadcast - until a complaint happens.

PLEASE!  Ensure that someone from programming and/or sales is assigned to always monitor your air product. While it is never easy to predict what the EB will do - or when - the number of these violations is increasing. Until the industry teaches the ad agencies, sales departments, and production personnel about the Rule, this will continue until the Notices of Violation start to spread.

With increased attention to EAS because of the forced purchase of CAP boxes by stations - most of which will never need or use CAP as it is now set up - and the coming re-write of Part 11, it only seems prudent to pay attention to this and the other content Rules that broadcasters must obey.

You could save a lot of money and aggravation by training your key personnel to be vigilant on incoming programming and commercial content. Sit them down. Explain the "Singing EBS Test" to them. Help them see why broadcasting things like EAS data bursts is not "something funny to do."

The FCC sees no reason to issue any memo, warning, or Declarative Ruling on the subject, because the matter is pretty directly settled in Section 11.45   However, it seems to us there still could be ambiguity with the use of sirens, horns, etc.

And while you are at it, compliment your engineer if he was quick to alert you to this problem. At first you might have been a bit annoyed; you might have lost a sale - or had to do some make-goods. But his report may have prevented much more costly problems as well as the devaluation of what could be a valuable source of information and public safety instruction in time of disaster.

At least he was listening!

(What do you think?  Let us know at the "contact" link)

TOM RAY Responds:
11/14/10
 
You are spot on.  No one is listening. 

Technology is a wonderful thing.  It saves us time.  But have we gotten to the point where we simply drop things into the automation system without checking them?  That is VERY scary.  What if the wrong file were sent and you got the outtake (remember the TV Chesterfield Queens spot that wasn?t supposed to air and aired on network TV?  I suppose you have also heard the Rod Serling NY Telephone spot?).  In this case, we got an EAS test. 
 
Second: even scarier - I don't think most outside of the Engineering department would be able to identify something that sounds like EAS tones.  So while someone may listen to what is in the automation system, they may not comprehend that something is wrong. 
 
Third: have we gotten this low that - when something is identified as being illegal - we have to argue with management to get it pulled?  Do we all really need the money that badly that it's full speed ahead and damn the torpedos? It's illegal, so what??  Let the client be upset that his spot was pulled.  IT'S ILLEGAL!  They should be able to comprehend those two little words, coupled with a copy of 11.45 to back them up.
 
I think we, as an industry, are sinking to a new low.
 
*sigh*
 
Tom Ray
VP Engineering Buckley Broadcasting
WOR, New York

John Stortz Responds
11/19/10

If I were the GM, I would drop participation in the present EAS plan. Whenever I mention that, someone will gasp & remind me: "BUT, if an alert is activated, we would be required to sign off." Sure. But only if the US President activates EAS. And how often does this happen? Has any President activated national EAS? Not to my knowledge.

We are a regional group of stations, unable to direct a message of local content. And we are not required to do so with State or Local alerts. The way the Florida State Plan is configured, there is no local entry, without the local agency getting a message routed thru the State EOC. The State appears to be unwilling to tackle this & our LP station [singular] has channeled all State alerts to a subcarrier & call it "LP-2." Even our LP-1 station ignores state & local alerts.

If some event becomes so big that is causes the President to activate EAS, Most people will already know about it & be turning on their favorite TV station so they can see as well as hear. So without listeners, the radio station can easily shut down for a few minutes, just as we do in the middle of the night for maintenance..

John Stortz
KA4FLX@gmail.com

10/8/10

EAS - Will it Ever Really Be Ready for Prime Time?

Responses: Warren Shultz
Dave Burns

The seemingly unending march toward a better Emergency Alert System

I'll keep this simple and straightforward: while there is no reason to panic, all the poor judgments, the parochial actions, political positioning, and downright lack of attention from large segments of the broadcast industry are about to culminate in some annoying problems for everyone: a "new EAS" that has not really been thought through from end to end.

(Want to see a Question and Answer discussion of key points?  Click here.)

True, there are some signs that a few companies are starting to pay attention, but that is mostly because money is involved.

The essential nature of the EAS is at odds with industry practices, listener expectations, and a mess of government mandates that do not really include the entire body of stakeholders.

At the very end of September the long-awaited announcement by FEMA of their adoption of the CAP V 1.2 finally happened, starting the "180-Day Clock" countdown mandated by the FCC.

NO ONE IS PREPARED

The problem is that nothing more than FEMA is ready. The FCC certainly is not ready, aside from the lawyers in the EB who think their whole job is to find technicalities to generate money (think KWVE). In fact, more than a few cynics say the FCC has dragged this thing out so that broadcasters will be in a panic, make mistakes, and be subject to more silly fines for a system many stations do not really want in the first place.

The Part 11 re-write has not seen the light of day - not even a preliminary view. Some of the manufacturers of EAS gear continue to see a need to wait and find out what the Rules will say before committing to the expense of producing the EAS boxes with CAP capabilities. For example:

• How will the mandatory "Governors' Override" be handled? 

• Will the useless Required Weekly Tests be abolished?

• When will we see a reasonable test of the entire system, EAS or EAN?

• What should stations do if they do not have reliable (or any) Internet access?

This is not to mention the other problems:

• The IPAWS protocols are not finished - and are not compatible between versions 2 and 3

• Many companies will find the 180-day clock is impossible to meet given capital acquisition and expenditure cycles

• Most manufacturers do not even have their final design ready for production.

WAIT A MINUTE! WHO WILL USE THIS?

All the way back to Conelrad, the idea was to make the US broadcast stations available to the President in case of emergency. We have that basic capability - although the Alaskan Test in January identified some problem areas. Unfortunately, they are caught up in the bureaucracy - and there is no current plan at FEMA to tell everyone what went wrong, nor why they are taking a full year to do a follow-up test.

But a major issue is why are stations being required to buy and use CAP devices when there is no state nor local framework anywhere to put them into use? In fact, for the vast majority of non-TV stations, there will likely never be a need for CAP output. In the unlikely event an automated station needs information, it would be simpler and quicker to have a web address and look for it. Or call for a FAX from the local Sheriff's office.

While examining the problems, and possible solutions, it becomes clear that among the large stumbling blocks are the conflicting goals of different governmental agencies with different foci - and none seem to have either the authority or the will to put into place a framework that covers all the important players.

• The FCC cannot force the emergency managers (EMs) to cooperate with the broadcasters, and in many places they refuse to do so.

• FEMA might be able to do so, but thus far have limited their actions to the national EAN distribution model.

Do not misread me: there are many sincere, hard working government folks trying to make things work. They should be applauded. But there apparently is also a lot of bureaucratic infighting and turf protection, resulting in Rules that affect one side of the distribution chain - threatening fines - while the other half is just "asked" to cooperate.  A recipe for disaster, as has been seen many times in recent years. Do I have to say "reverse 911" to explain?

Of much more value would be Rules requiring someone to be available 24/7 to receive - and act on - emergency information, whether by Internet, FAX, email, or some other means. Of course, that would require a national law to force emergency managers to communicate with the broadcast media. So, this is a broken link likely to remain so.

Another major broken link is at the output of the system. Listeners want to know three things - and quickly:

• Exactly what the emergency is and where it is happening.

• Who, What, Where and When with the station call letters must be in any alert. (And not from an ID hidden in a stop set at :47)

• Where it is in relation to where they are (and not with some arcane county name)

The current system often fails to provide any of these three critical pieces of information. Yet, there is NO indication that FEMA or the FCC really seem to understand this. The emphasis at FEMA (and, to be brutally honest, rightly so) is merely on getting Presidential access to broadcast facilities. But a technologically solid system for that is essentially in place already. The people who have been working hard for the past several years on CAP, IPAWS, CSRIC, etc, have done a good job of getting the message out to broadcasters. Sadly, the main result is anxiety and panic about buying equipment that is not fully ready.

Finally, there is the connection between the listeners and the broken linked EAS - the program directors and station managers. In far too many cases, they do not want any of the EAS alerts on the air at all, with the exception of those mandated. That means EAN, RWT and RMT. Period.  Once they find out the Governor (or his designee) can appear on their stations, open-ended, at will, they will be upset. But it might be too late at that point to make any common sense changes.

Frankly there is still a lot to be done to make the EAS useful in many places. We can only hope the NAB will do more than just try to delay the expense of buying the CAP machines, and address the underlying problems in a way that will provide a robust, useful emergency alert system without mandates that are little more than traps for the collection of fines.

In some places the EAS works and works well. Sadly, state and local politics, favoritism, and downright incompetence have made the EAS a joke in far too many places.

Is ANYONE listening in Washington?

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 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.

It is, after all, pointless to install a relay base of CAP equipment when the sending portion has not been deployed.

If the government bureaucrats will just take a step back from their empire-building, we could stop this train wreck and, instead, build a system that will be of use to stations and the emergency management communities.

CAP is not ready for use in the real world, no matter what FEMA says. Someone needs to stand up and say so. I, for one, am doing so.

Warren Shulz
Former Chairman Illinois State EAS Committee
 

DAVE BURNS RESPONDS:
10/15/10

The ongoing buzz about the released Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and its use with the Emergency Alert System with the FEMA acceptance of CAP almost totally forgets concern and compassion for the average citizen at the local level.
 
All of the drive to improve technology to and ensure that state and federal messages get through the nationwide broadcast-radio-daisy-chain in a disaster, appears to forget about us on the home front.
 
It happened to me and my wife here in Richmond 2 years ago as we absorbed a little of the tailend wrath of hurricane Ike.
 
Our neighbors in nearby Cincinnati were in an emergency situation for two weeks.  Fortunately we were out of all communication, and more than a little nervous for two days.
 
We depend on Comcast cable for television, internet and telephone.  Cable was out.  Our cellphones are incapable of text, so there was no alert or warning or helpful information there.  Cell service was out anyway, for those two days.
 
Historically we have always turned to ubiquitous radio in these situations.  We have 4 battery-operated radio sets.  Our local stations were entertaining, but were on auto pilot/robot operation for that entire weekend.  No local information or warnings on important things such as how and whether we might get to medical care, food, potable water, what roads were closed due to live electrical wires down, trees across roads, etc.
 
Our situation, in a smaller and thankfully less dangerous way, was not unlike that of  Minot, ND.
 
On January 21, 2002, A train derailment in Minot spilled harmful chemicals creating a toxic cloud that scared residents and which was responsible for at least one death.
 
Local law enforcement through emergency management personnel were unable to execute radio EAS (Emergency Alert System) procedures that night because, tragically, local emergency management people had not installed equipment for this purpose. Instead, in the midst of chaos, they turned to telephone lines which were already clogged by calls to them from citizens attempting to learn what was happening. As a result, the local community was not fully and immediately informed of a life-threatening situation.
 
It was determined later that the Minot EMA authorities did not preempt regular radio programming to get the emergency warning on the empty local radio station.
 
A train derailed in Graniteville, SC, At 2:39 am on January 6, 2005,
spilling harmful chemicals. This resulted in 9 fatalities, sent 550 to hospitals and 5400 people were eventually evacuated.
 
Local emergency agencies (EMA) were not successful in manually interrupting radio broadcasts to alert citizens of the dangerous conditions.  Local EMA-type authorities sometimes have the ability to do this.  They should have the ability to do this since 90+% of radio stations are devoid of human population much of the week.
 
There is a solution which should be included in any arrangement. No, it's not stations' 24 hour staffing. That would kill many operations.
 
Please consider the positives of stations working with and ceding friendly commandeering of their facility to and by their local EMA, first responders, and law enforcement officials. There is always somebody at EMA and, properly equipped, they can and will interrupt programming for these empty automated stations to help keep their citizens alive and well.
 
Encourage and empower our radio stations to perform in the public interest, convenience, necessity and safety which has always been a source of pride for them and which they've accomplished historically with pride and dedication.
 
Station operators' vital and irreplaceable links of information, alerts, and warnings down here on the local level will fulfill an obligation they've always paid with great alacrity to their listeners and to their advertisers.  It's only good business.  No operator I know would want to face their listeners and advertisers after an unreported serious disaster.
 
For radio broadcast, only, something north of $20 million is about to be spent on new CAP-capable EAS receivers. Cash investments which will result in new equipment for this purpose occupying a rack space or two in the station, complying with the letter of the law, but useless and worthless at the local level without motivation for performance.
 
Small and medium radio operations, primarily for economic reasons, have been forced into precarious positions regarding the most dependable source for emergency deployments of alerts, information and warnings.
 
We believe that overtures and exchange of information between and among station operators and EMAs, first responders, fire, police, sheriff, EMTs is imperative to add security to any plan.  Your personnel's contact information, landline and cell, so that, if necessary in the big one, a pickup could be arranged via helecopter or snowcat, etc.  I'm sure stations' operators dedication and commitment could make this happen.
 
Articulating as clearly as I can, any interruption to a station by others must be a real emergency and that
must be stressed in any arrangement as described here.
 
Please help local public service.  Save lives.  EMAs can make you heroes with very little or no continuing
expense.
 
If your tower is not on the ground, you can reach us like no other medium.
 

Dave Burns

9/1/10

Should FM Chips be mandated for Cell Phones?

There has been a lot of "buzz" lately about the efforts on the part of the NAB to promote the addition of FM chips to all cell phones, turning them into FM radios. At first, I was totally against it. However, the more input I get and consider, the more I can see some good possibilities, if the efforts do not get derailed in political fights.

The potential drain on the battery notwithstanding, having an FM radio in every cell phone could be a good idea. Perhaps you have noticed many people today no longer wear watches - but they carry a cell phone everywhere. Having a way to reach out to alert them to emergencies and dangers would be a true public service.

SOME GOOD POINTS, BUT IS IT READY FOR PRIME TIME?

One good argument actually exists: although cell phone companies have the ability to issue "broadcast text alerts" for emergencies, it is a character limited ability - but one they have rarely bothered to implement. Having an FM radio at every cell phone equipped hand during an emergency might be a good idea. Broadcasters are often the only lifeline communities have in times of emergency.

On the other hand, there is still a lot that would need to be resolved before this would truly be a useful solution to a problem. For example, can good is the reception that can be had on a cell phone, aside from the most powerful stations? Where does this leave the smaller stations? How would a useful antenna be implemented (remember the Apple iPhone antenna mess from a couple of months ago?) without requiring users to keep a long wire attached to the cell phone? What about battery life? And, is this to be HD capable (even more battery stressing) or analog? 

And then we have to ask: what about AM stations?  They were promised HD would revitalize the AM band. Most AM operators would suggest that promise has not done much for them. There is nothing here for AM in the current proposal.

Furthermore, some would argue that Radio has boxed itself in, with years of shoehorning marginal facilities onto the AM and FM bands, with little thought to actual Public Service. More than a few stations cannot truly cover their City of License, even if there were staff to provide content.

Unfortunately, part of the NAB's effort is tied to the Performance Royalty Tax issue that has been pressed by the recording industry for the past couple of years. The current NAB leadership appears to be trying to make a "package deal" where the industry would accept a small royalty fee in return for having the government mandate the FM chips in cell phones. To some this seems like a good deal. Here I am not so sure.

The biggest hurdle to overcome seems to be in identifying the basic goal. Is it to get listenership for Radio? If so, the Performance Royalty issue is going to be a big one to overcome. Discussion of that aspect is more oriented toward the owners and managers arena - after all, engineers, programmers, announcers, and other staffers have little to say or do in the face of such payments.

EMERGENCY ALERTS - THE REAL DIFFICULT ISSUE

If the big concern and issue really is about getting out information during emergencies, there are several major problems - and these affect more folks than realized by most.

• First, there is the coverage issue. Well, clearly any coverage is better than none.
• At the same time, the EAS has proven to be a broken system. Will having FM chips improve a system that is not working very well now?
  • Most stations will not run any EAS alert except those required (including the increasing useless Required Weekly Test) by the FCC.
  • Those that do often give only vague information on the locations involved. The name of some county gives no useful information to people driving on the highways. When drivers can get seven different stations running the same satellite talk program, each hiding their station ID in the middle of a spot set at :49 and identifying only a county (or counties), how can a listener know if they are not driving head on into a tornado, for example?
  • Stations often over-hype any storm or possible danger to the point many listeners no longer pay attention. 24/7 coverage of hurricanes that do not actually cause much damage make it harder for authorities to get cooperation during the next event.
  • Many Emergency Managers who have EAS entry points view it as the last thing on their list to do - there is no partnership with broadcasters in many areas, and they do not welcome scrutiny of their actions and timing of warnings during an emergency. News reports continue to feature EMs who think "reverse 911" is the Holy Grail of warning systems.
  • When alerts come from EMs or the National Weather Service, they often are unintelligible either due to personnel who do not know how to speak into a microphone properly, or have long, rambling text messages written by someone who thinks "legal" not "communicate." The results from a lack of training or priorities, from personnel that do not know nor really care what their message might do to cause listener tune-out. "That's not our job."
  • With LP stations worried that the FCC will issue fines for any slipup, there is a lot less interest in doing anything except relay the required tests and alerts.
  • With so many unattended stations - especially over holiday weekends - there is little opportunity for stations and EMs to communicate at all. Should there not be someone designated at every station for 24/7 contact?
  • While CAP promises more data, more information, who will be in the stations to see it?
• Meanwhile, the bureaucratic fiddling has not helped. Unfortunately, it is the nature of governmental agencies to study, confer, delay, and communicate only when they unveil new policies and laws after they are adopted - and often without considering how they really will affect those involved on the state and local level.
  • After years of talk, FEMA and the FCC are still debating possible changes to Part 11 and the final standards for implementing new EAS procedures, the CAP, and what new hardware stations might be forced to purchase.
  • Although the first ever EAN test was conducted in Alaska in January, have you heard anything since? Any information at all about what changes need to be made? When the promised National Test will occur?
  • We keep hearing about the "180 Day Clock" when stations must install CAP. The start of the clock keeps slipping. The reason? We are not sure. The agencies that control this are not talking. Once the clock does start, will it be subject to NASA-style "holds?"  And who will pay for the new boxes? All in all, we have a lot of questions.
  • The engineering community has done tremendous work in the recent years to develop a system that could deliver a lot of information and data to stations. But the best system in the world is useless if no one uses it.
  • Management and programmers have yet to be truly brought into understanding what is coming with the new receivers, the mandated "Governor's Override" and what this might mean to their on-air product. Why not?

It may sound a bit like we have drifted from the issue of the FM chip in cell phones to problems with the EAS.

Perhaps we have.

But they are interrelated.

Maybe this is a good time to get NAB, NASBA, owners, and managers to give attention to the larger issue of how stations serve their listeners. Maybe if they sat down and helped form the outlines of the next generation of EAS procedures, the nation and local authorities might have a warning system that was more than an aural "annoyance" (a recent cartoon called EAS the "Extremely Annoying noises System) and more of a reason for people to remember to turn on the radio when there is an emergency or other such event.

If all this talk about adding FM chips to cell phones puts some attention to the EAS from the entire industry, then we have the starting point where options can be explored. If no one pays attention, an unfunded federal mandate will eventually come out of the bureaucratic cubicles that will merely cost stations money, while making little difference in the overall warning system.

Do I want to see FM chips in cell phones?  Yes.  No.  Maybe.  This could be a great idea. It could be a waste of effort. Frankly, I think it all depends upon whether or not everyone makes their voices heard at the FCC, FEMA, and NAB. Yawning could be dangerous for EAS and Radio itself.