FCC Seeks EAS Overhaul to Meet Modern Public Safety Needs
[July 2025] The FCC has announced they will be voting on an NPRM for the Emergency Alert System in early August. The recent debate on Software EAS has now blossomed to a discussion of the many ways in which it can be improved and augmented. Ed Czarnecki has read the entire NPRM, and offers some commentary on the various issues.
The FCC is undertaking a comprehensive reassessment of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), with an eye toward modernizing the nation’s public alert and warning infrastructure. In a sweeping Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission is asking fundamental questions about how these systems should function in the digital age—reexamining their core goals, technical capabilities, and ability to meet the expectations of both alerting authorities and the public.
For more than 70 years, the FCC has regulated emergency alerting as part of its mission to promote national defense and protect life and property. Historically, it has relied on incremental improvements, leveraging commercial broadcast and mobile infrastructure to deliver alerts. But the FCC now acknowledges that this approach may be hindering innovation by preserving decades-old frameworks that no longer reflect how people consume information or how emergencies unfold in a connected, mobile-first society.
Key Areas of the FCC’s Inquiry
1 – Clarifying the Objectives:
The FCC proposes that alert systems must (1) rapidly notify the public of emergencies, (2) provide protective action guidance, and (3) support authoritative communication before, during, and after an incident. The agency is seeking input on whether these are the right priorities and whether systems should be judged not only on what they transmit but also on their effectiveness in prompting protective action.
2 – Broadening the Scope of Alert Originators:
The Commission is exploring whether the ability to initiate alerts should be extended beyond federal, state, and local governments to include non-governmental entities such as utilities or automated systems like networked sensors. It also raises questions about how to manage overlapping alerts from multiple sources and avoid contributing to public desensitization or “alert fatigue.”
3 – Enhancing Presidential Alerting Capabilities:
Given the critical nature of national-level alerts, the FCC reaffirms the importance of enabling the President to reach the public quickly and effectively. The NPRM asks whether alerts should support rich media—such as video messages—and seeks estimates of the technical and financial implications of implementing a universal video-capable alerting system.
4 – Improving Transmission and Resilience:
Should alert delivery be guaranteed, or is a “best-effort” approach sufficient? The FCC wants to ensure that systems are resilient not only during ideal conditions but also amid power outages, infrastructure damage, and cyberattacks. It is also examining whether EAS and WEA should be independently resilient or serve as backups to each other.
5 – Refining Geographic Precision:
Improving geo-targeting is a top concern, as inaccurate targeting may result in people receiving irrelevant alerts, which can reduce trust and engagement. The FCC seeks input on how current technology can support dynamic targeting—especially for threats like wildfires or hurricanes that move rapidly—and how its rules might better enable precision without increasing burden.
6 – Modernizing Content and Presentation:
The FCC highlights that many alerts today lack critical elements, such as the name of the hazard, recommended actions, or source attribution. It asks whether inclusion of such elements should be mandatory and whether rich media (e.g., static graphics, videos) should become part of future alert design.
7 – Adapting to Changing Public Media Habits:
With audiences increasingly consuming content on streaming services, smart speakers, wearables, and gaming consoles, the FCC questions whether EAS and WEA—currently focused on broadcast and mobile networks—are keeping up. Should alerts be extended to these new platforms, or should entirely new systems be developed?
8 – Device-Level Innovation:
The FCC is exploring whether “smart” devices could receive EAS alerts directly from the source, bypassing traditional broadcast and cable systems. This could enable greater personalization and accessibility while reducing the burden on traditional EAS Participants.
9 – End-User Experience:
Recognizing the public’s frustration with vague or confusing alerts, the FCC is soliciting ideas for improving presentation—such as better language, clearer formatting, or optional user customization—and how to balance these features with the need for alert consistency and authority.
What This Means for Broadcasters
For broadcasters, the FCC’s proposal signals both opportunity and challenge.
EAS remains a foundational part of national emergency communications, and broadcasters have long served as a trusted backbone for public safety messaging. However, the NPRM suggests that the system may need substantial modernization to remain relevant and effective.
Key implications for broadcasters include:
- Expanded Role or Redundancy?
While the FCC continues to see broadcasters as essential to system resilience – particularly during network outages—it is considering whether EAS should evolve to incorporate new pathways, such as direct-to-device alerts or integration with IP-based systems. This could shift broadcasters’ role from primary distributors to one of multiple complementary channels. - Technical Upgrades and Compliance Costs:
If video-based alerts, enhanced geo-targeting, or richer multimedia formats are adopted, how would this work for broadcasters. In radio, what more could HD radio do? In television, could ATSC 3.0 be a solution to many of the Commission’s questions? The FCC is seeking cost estimates and input on what these changes would mean, particularly for smaller stations. - Policy on Voluntary Participation:
Currently, state and local alerts are voluntary for EAS Participants. The FCC is questioning whether this model should continue or be modified to ensure more uniform alert distribution—potentially increasing obligations for broadcasters. - EAS Relevance in the Streaming Age:
With more consumers turning to streaming and on-demand platforms, broadcasters may need to advocate for their continued inclusion in the national alerting strategy or explore how to extend their reach through hybrid models that incorporate digital distribution. - Opportunities for Innovation:
Broadcasters could play a leading role in piloting next-generation alerting technologies—such as ATSC 3.0-enabled services, multilingual or accessible alert formats, or IP-based delivery models—to demonstrate EAS’s continued value in the evolving media ecosystem.
Looking Ahead
The FCC’s inquiry presents a rare and sweeping opportunity to reimagine how emergency alerts function in the U.S. As it solicits input from public safety agencies, wireless providers, tech platforms, broadcasters, and the public, the Commission is focused on building a system that is not only effective and secure, but also forward-looking.
For broadcasters, active participation in this Rulemaking will be essential to ensuring their continued relevance in the alerting landscape—and to shaping a system that remains trusted, resilient, and vital in times of crisis.
– – –
Ed Czarnecki is the VP – Government and International for Digital Alert Systems. He also is a member of the FCC’s Communications, Security Reliability Council, FEMA’s IPAWS National Advisory Council Subcommittee, and numerous broadcast and cable standards groups. You can contact him at: ed.czarnecki@digitalalertsystems.com
– – –
Stay up-to-date with the industry with the one-time-a-week BDR Newsletter.
Click here for a quick signup – it only takes 30 seconds.
– – –