EAS Nationwide Test Form 3

[Brian Bowers]

EAS Form 3 reads:

Explanation (if you only passed the alert to a subset of your communities, please specify)

Just wondering what the typical response is for this question statement. Seems a little vague to me.

Thanks

 

[RadeoEngineer]

I would say something like "The duck farts killed my flowers."

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Good one!! LOL! It's pretty confusing how they ask the question but we took it as stations monitoring us, etc. Their question is confusing, vague, and will result in a myriad of answers, most likely to futher confuse the report forthcoming. It's too bad that nearly everything the federal goverment touches has to be so substandard.

 

[roynilsen]

I was surprised to hear that such a high percentage of stations 'successfully passed' the test on to those below. Even that data may be skewed, since this was a Yes / No check-box on Form 3. My stations all passed the test on, but the test, as it arrived at my facilities, was already flawed (not all audio received and rebroadcast). Should this count as a 'Yes' or a 'No'?

 

[Chuck]

I was surprised to hear that such a high percentage of stations 'successfully passed' the test on to those below. Even that data may be skewed, since this was a Yes / No check-box on Form 3. My stations all passed the test on, but the test, as it arrived at my facilities, was already flawed (not all audio received and rebroadcast). Should this count as a 'Yes' or a 'No'?

yes

 

[WNTIRadio]

This test and the forms were a joke. Answering "YES" will do nothing to address the problem. Sure, I got audio at some sites, but a cellphone call from a submarine would have been clearer.

 

[Chuck]

This test and the forms were a joke. Answering "YES" will do nothing to address the problem. Sure, I got audio at some sites, but a cellphone call from a submarine would have been clearer.

I agree, but the answer is still "yes." We got the alert, but no audio, so it was useless if it had been an actual emergency. Still getting the headers was the end of your responsibility. The test sort of worked and FEMA and the FCC are busy congratulating themselves for a total success, despite the fact that many broadcasters either got no audio, or severely garbled audio. Had this been an actual emergency, you would be on your own.

In fact, the problem with the test originated at FEMA (what a surprise). The whole thing was evidently started by a big conference call, using conventional POTS. What a joke. Conference calls don't usually well right on a good day.

The system is broken, and it won't be fixed until somebody is actually paid to make it work. Whether it is worth the price is questionable, but relying on a rag-tag band of well intended, but unpaid broadcasters, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[bossbill]

And many of us are able to do an incredible job and covering actual local emergencies without EAS. Would an operational EAS system help us in this case? No, not really. EAS was not even designed to deal with the followup.

Are there any real world examples anywhere in this country where the EAS system itself assisted in any emergency?

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Bill, other than a few things like Tornados and Fire evacuations, I've NEVER seen EAS to be all that useful. I think it should be continued for that use, but the thought of King Obama hitting the red button and talking to the entire country is laughable into itself. If he wants to talk, he could call a press conference and talk within 5 minutes to about 80 percent of the broadcasters via the news and it would actually have enough fidelity to be intelligable. If the stupid federal goverment demands this system to work, they need to provide a real backbone to deliver it. If they cannot or are are unwilling to deliver the audio to us in a useful manner, we should he relieved from a national EAS system.