When will the FCC dump over-the-air EAS in favor of text messaging?

[MikeSmithWNYR]

I have never been a big fan of EBS/EAS. It assumes everyone is always listening to the radio to hear warnings. It seems to me using the cell phone network would be a much more efficient and reliable means to notify the public of emergencies.

 

[TomT]

We are supposedly going to get a new "black box" for EAS. one using the common alerting protocol, as modified by the homeland security bureaucrats to ensure proper non-functionality.

Since the present boxes are too complex for the folks in the 911 centers to learn, we will have a system allowing emergency messages to be typed in a terminal, sent to the new box, which will then spit out a voice message. Presumably by the internet. This will, I assume also be the input for text messaging over cell.

Of course, all this assumes that the disaster-in-progress allows both the internet and cell service to remain functioning...

 

[BobOnTheJob]

Of course, all this assumes that the disaster-in-progress allows both the internet and cell service to remain functioning...

Have you seen a typical cell station's installation? Lightning protection & grounding out the wazoo, massive banks of batteries, generators far larger than the modest power the cell site consumes, huge self supporting towers inisde a fenced, locked, well lit perimeter with windload capacities far beyond what the cell antennas require...compare those specs to the standards most radio stations are built to, and if I had to put money on one system surviving a disaster, I'd bet on the cell site. Sad but true...

That said, cell technology has it's own problems...mainly that the system is designed on the assumption that only a small percentage of cell phones will attempt to make a call at any one time (same thing applies to every utility from Electricity to Water). When a disaster strikes, the cell phones may stop working.

Perhaps a combination of Radio, TV and Cell may offer the best mix of emergency communication disbursment.

 

[w9wi]

I have never been a big fan of EBS/EAS. It assumes everyone is always listening to the radio to hear warnings. It seems to me using the cell phone network would be a much more efficient and reliable means to notify the public of emergencies.

Though the cellular network was never designed to broadcast anything... I think the right venue for emergency messages like this is the NOAA weather radio network.

They had da*ned well better ensure an effective opt-in scheme for this. I've already had to turn off my weather radio because of too many 4am Amber Alerts for the other end of the state. Sure would hate to have to turn off the ringer in my cell phone for the same reason.

 

[whit979]

If cell phone warnings happen, the government should try to implement something similar to the S.A.M.E. technology, which is now common in most newer weather radios. S.A.M.E. technology, for those who don't know, allows alerts for only the counties of your choosing to be broadcast on your individual NOAA weather radio. It would be nice to see this also on cellphones.

 

[kyscott]

The FCC can't fine anyone for not having the proper text messaging equipment in place and operating. It's likely to never happen. In today's info driven world, the EAS was outdated before it was ever implimented. How many people found out about the 9/11 attacks over the EAS system? None. News channels had the information on the air before the EAS system could have been activated. How did President Bush address the nation afterwards? It wasn't by the EAS system. Which is what I thought the EAS system was for.

The EAS system is based on an archaic system EBS which was based on the CONELRAD system. People have too many other ways to receive information.

 

[MikeSmithWNYR]

The New York State Emergency Management Office already has an alert system in place to notify the public of emergencies via e-mail, cell phone and soon Instant Messenger. You get to select the level of severity of emergencies in specific towns to be notified of.

 

[oldnewbie]

I think it is important to remember that not everyone has cell phones or does text messaging. In particular, very low income people of all ages, and many seniors who are simply uncomfortable with new technology. My mom fits the latter category - I bought her a new computer, got her DSL, and she still will not use e-mail.

I think the best way to communicate vital information is a combination of all available technology.

But don't we have a bigger problem if we try and use Radio for vital emergency communications? With the proliferation of unmanned, "jock in the box" stations, do we have any reliable system that will interrupt automation and get the news out? Lets face it, we are not going to go back to 24/7 manned stations. That train done already left the station, right?

Lets work towards a system that truly works given the realities of todays Radio business.

 

[MikeSmithWNYR]

If the Federal government can cough up $80 per household for digital TV converter rebates, you'd think they could spend the $20 or so it would cost to give the people who requested one an Emergency Notification Receiver that worked off NOAA, and the ones who do have cell phones and\or Internet could opt in for that system.

 

[TomT]

It would also make sense to create a new NWS radio system. One with more channels, and one with a little more bandwidth. Now you have only 7 channels, using narrow-band FM systems. In many rural areas there is no local NWS signal, and the distant signal interfere with each other.

 

[Play Freebird]

It would also make sense to create a new NWS radio system. One with more channels, and one with a little more bandwidth. Now you have only 7 channels, using narrow-band FM systems. In many rural areas there is no local NWS signal, and the distant signal interfere with each other.

I think there's a way to make this happen through private investment, rather than federal funding:

1) Discontinue the use of IBOC in the medium-wave band and allow AM broadcasters to share the 76-88 MHz spectrum with the few remaining TV stations to simulcast AM analog programming in a full digital format. This would solve the skywave interference problem and allow daytimers to provide 24 hour service. Full digital COFDM would allow single-frequency networks, so that gap fillers could be placed to cover shadowed areas of a market. The reliability of full-digital coverage would be far superior to hybrid digital; therefore, AM broadcasters would have a strong incentive to invest in construction of these VHF digital facilities (consider all of the small market AM stations which have jumped at the chance to simulcast on FM translators, even though the rules are not yet final.)

2) As a "quid pro quo" for use of this VHF spectrum (in lieu of an auction), a portion of bandwidth on the new digital channels would be designated for full time public emergency warning use by NWS, local and state EOCs and FEMA. A continuous data stream would allow area-specific text messages to be transmitted at any time without interrupting main channel program audio. Secondary and tertiary audio channels could also be offered; receivers would be automatically triggered by the data stream so that only those listeners in the affected areas would hear the relevant warning messages.

3) The public safety benefits of this system might just provide a justification for the Federal government to require digital-capable receivers in new cars. However, if the iBiquity digital system is adopted for this purpose, a more-reasonable licensing/royalty scheme will be necessary. iBiquity should be willing to reduce their demands sharply, in exchange for a great reduction in risk.

 

[Chuck]

While there are many high-tech schemes for doing this, my gut feeling is a low tech approach is best. Low tech usually works in an emergency situation while other technologies can fail. It has been suggested that the whole thing should come by satellite. That is a nice idea, except all a terrorist would have to do is jamb or otherwise disable the satellite. Many of you could figure out how to do that with a copy of the ARRL handbook under your arm.

Using VHF analog frequencies like NOAA, a reliable system could be implemented nationwide at very low cost. The patchwork daisy chain system we have right now is the real problem. It’s not the equipment. I predict that making every broadcaster replace their existing EAS equipment will accomplish very little.

The government should also pay some people a reasonable living wage to administer the system, As long as it is run by volunteers and not by someone who has a vested interest in its success, there will be problems. A paid staff won't solve everything, but it would help. You can only ask volunteers to do so much, no matter how good their intentions.

Where it works, NOAA is actually pretty good and receivers using SAME technology are very inexpensive. The major problem I see is the signal can be problematic or non-existent in many areas. I think that would be simple to fix, using technology that any ham radio operator is familiar with. I would cheerfully host a NOAA repeater on my radio tower, and I'll bet lots of other people would too.

Once you get decent nation-wide coverage, what is missing is a way for local authorities to use the system for local emergencies. That can't be that hard to do. Many of the people who read this list could come up with inexpensive equipment that would allow access via phone lines or other two-way radio devices.

Although I like high tech, I think there is a lot to be said for the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) line of thought.

 

[Basnya]

Here in Russia they have an old-school solution for announcing emergencies. On every street are loudspeakers that are connected to a central information station. In the event of an emergency, or other situation the speakers clearly announce to all within earshot -and that is pretty much everyone because they are LOUD- what is going on.

Really not that much different from the old style Civil Defense sirens.. except with audio.

 

[nd2023]

If they had those loudspeakers here in the states, I would hate to be woken up at 3 in the morning every week for a required weekly test. Especially if each individual loudspeaker does its weekly test at different times. Even a severe thunderstorm warning 40 miles away would piss me off.

 

[littlejohn]

now think a minute... here's a system which is EMP protected - tube electronics - and pretty much impossible for your enemy to jam. Even harder to spoof. and everybody can hear it in an emergency. It also fails piecemeal.

 

[nmoore6676]

While there are many high-tech schemes for doing this, my gut feeling is a low tech approach is best. Low tech usually works in an emergency situation while other technologies can fail. It has been suggested that the whole thing should come by satellite. That is a nice idea, except all a terrorist would have to do is jamb or otherwise disable the satellite. Many of you could figure out how to do that with a copy of the ARRL handbook under your arm.

Using VHF analog frequencies like NOAA, a reliable system could be implemented nationwide at very low cost. The patchwork daisy chain system we have right now is the real problem. It’s not the equipment. I predict that making every broadcaster replace their existing EAS equipment will accomplish very little.

The government should also pay some people a reasonable living wage to administer the system, As long as it is run by volunteers and not by someone who has a vested interest in its success, there will be problems. A paid staff won't solve everything, but it would help. You can only ask volunteers to do so much, no matter how good their intentions.

Where it works, NOAA is actually pretty good and receivers using SAME technology are very inexpensive. The major problem I see is the signal can be problematic or non-existent in many areas. I think that would be simple to fix, using technology that any ham radio operator is familiar with. I would cheerfully host a NOAA repeater on my radio tower, and I'll bet lots of other people would too.

Once you get decent nation-wide coverage, what is missing is a way for local authorities to use the system for local emergencies. That can't be that hard to do. Many of the people who read this list could come up with inexpensive equipment that would allow access via phone lines or other two-way radio devices.

Although I like high tech, I think there is a lot to be said for the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) line of thought.

When I lived in Ohio back in the 70's you could purchase a little cube radio that received the NOAA broadcasts. Radio Shack sold them, kept them right beside the cash register. These little radios were powered by a 9 volt battery and could be set so that in event there was a severe weather condition they would automatically awaken and play the broadcast. The problem was and still is that there is not uniform coverage of the NOAA transmitters. Why not put them on a major transmission tower or towers in all areas with back ups on other sites in case the mains were disabled? They have several frequencies so interference between adjacent facilities could be controlled. Then just require that every inhabited structure have at least on receiver in a location whee it would be noticed and the receiver would be configured to lock onto the strongest channel where it was.

Is there anyone here old enough to remember why or how the original 640 and 1240 Conelrad frequencies were selected. I remember older AM radios with the Triangle in a Circle logo at those spots on the dial. I always wondered why not 650 and 1500 for example. Or just two low band channels like 550 and 650.

 

[Chuck]

Why not put them on a major transmission tower or towers in all areas with back ups on other sites in case the mains were disabled? They have several frequencies so interference between adjacent facilities could be controlled. Then just require that every inhabited structure have at least on receiver in a location whee it would be noticed and the receiver would be configured to lock onto the strongest channel where it was.

That would be way too simple. You or I could probably put a VHF repeater on a tower for about the same money as the new EAS box will cost. Just because you could do it inexpensively, it doesn’t mean the government would do it that way. I’d bet they specify gold plated MIL-Spec equipment that is stupidly expensive.

Another variable is you might have to rent tower space, but I'd be willing to bet that many broadcasters would donate it, especially in exchange for not having to mess with the current or proposed EAS system. Maybe a tax break could be worked out? I'm sure this could be done fairly simply, although it would also require tower climbers, who are generally quite expensive (for good reason).

Still, it is chump change. When you compare the cost with what we spend at airports confiscating oversize tubes of toothpaste from tourists, it really would not be that much.

Is there anyone here old enough to remember why or how the original 640 and 1240 Conelrad frequencies were selected. I remember older AM radios with the Triangle in a Circle logo at those spots on the dial. I always wondered why not 650 and 1500 for example. Or just two low band channels like 550 and 650.

I'm certainly old enough, but I'm not sure why 640 and 1240 were chosen, but I'd guess it was because of the way existing stations were spaced. I'm not sure if it was because of Conelrad, but at one time a lot of AM frequencies were re-allocated, resulting in lots of heritage stations being forced to move.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I imagine 1240 was chosen because it is a class C frequency, so there are stations all over the place on 1240. Why 1240 instead of, say 1450? No idea

640 is a clear channel frequency, and KFI can be heard almost anywhere west of the Rockies. Might as well ahve stuck 650 on the list too for coverage of the east, though ???

I'm trying to think logically, but this is the government we're talking about ...