Plan program personal localized alerting network

The positioning of the alert indicators is also apart from others. Again these kinds of specifics are under an industry approved technical standard jointly developed with U. Adjoining Canadian marine areas became effective in October These are the first emergency consumer devices, including integrated TV's, to achieve this ability under a compatible North American standard.

The same device works in both countries, over the same emergency frequencies, the same way. Full implementation can be achieved rapidly, as it is occurring now , without detours. Low cost EAS radios reached the U. Yet there are no industry or government standards covering adequate reception and decoding capabilities for EAS consumer radios, nor any type of testing method outlined by FEMA.

By monitoring one centralized U. It also allows a uniform government transmission source or two when adding the compatible Canadian government system to simplify the delivery system. The FCC's recent response for satellite companies to explore the capabilities of specific reception area encoding, and for broadcasters and cable systems to relay multiple pathways are not the direction we should head.

How does a TV or radio manufacturer attempt to simultaneously monitor multiple incoming pathways or multiple frequencies? Tuners are traditionally monitoring only a single channel. Under the new FCC expansion how does a citizen know the proper conditions when a cable network is announcing three simultaneous alert conditions based on multiple affected counties on the network, and a satellite channel is reflecting separate alerts in adjoining geographic areas?

With one common emergency transmission system FM VHF transmission over common frequencies and using common digital data encoding and decoding , and one uniform alert reception method for consumers, there is simply no faster means to receive, decode, and alert. And simple and unified information, not more, is best for emergency communication. And while EAS proponents argue for allowing broadcasters the option to edit and eliminate the pass-through of incoming alerts, particularly EAS notifications of various advisories or watch-level alerts, other alerts targeted for elimination can include small geographic pockets within the total broadcast coverage area.

EAS places the option to notify in the hands of a resident employee or often an automated system preprogrammed to eliminate certain priority levels. Forty-eight other EAS events can be issued at will, or the broadcaster can substitute entertainment or commercials.

With automated systems particularly at night under multiple alerts, full notification of all area alerts can collapse. And once again, FEMA provides no national and uniform set of minimum guidelines among all alerts that should even voluntarily be set for immediate pass-through.

But the problem exists because realistically, EAS broadcasters cannot operate as full-time emergency coordination centers.

Under the present voluntary program many commercial broadcasters who issue EAS alerts and notifications have "cut back" to only issuing certain types of alerts, and many only when at WARNING level. Some airwaves and cable and satellite networks have become silent over vast coverage areas. This ability to "sort by level of severity" has never previously been standardized or implemented across more than 60 event codes. For the hearing impaired and the general public the instant recognition of indicator lights in green, yellow, orange and red matching the levels of alert severity is quickly accepted.

And parents report the steady green light that indicates the emergency transmission signal is being properly received and also confirms the TV is ready for an alert was comforting to both children and elderly adults.

The green, yellow, orange or red indicators always display the current status. The concerns:. EAS broadcasters have no mandatory broadcast interrupt beyond a single national alert which has never been issued.

Another failure is that EAS has no means to either nationally or regionally test multiple alerts without public interruption. EAS broadcasters have no means to silently download a test to conventional televisions and ask that the TV or radio respond and alert viewers when only if the transmission is weak or digital data fails to be properly decoded.

Thus EAS cannot help eliminate common problems such as incomplete alert reception prior to an emergency in the consumer's home. EAS broadcasters are often reluctant or incapable of passing on advisories or alerts when the location is only a smaller segment of their total coverage area this is particularly true during weather conditions when multiple simultaneous alerts are occurring.

The EAS network stations therefore become publishing systems, with significant editing and removal of alerts sent from NOAA and other emergency officials. Nor are there means to "replay" a text message once it has been issued, or translate it into a second language. And these individual countdown times for each active alert are displayed on the same screen as are the location s of the alert locations within their community.

There is no recognition that this work is completed, and finalized between global electronic companies with the participation of key Canadian and U. In fact these standards were adopted only after consumer focus and behavioral science studies and testing at more than 80 NOAA and EAS transmission sites over two years under actual alert conditions.

Additionally reception capabilities were tested at more than sites in 35 states from Pizza deli's in downtown Chicago to public libraries, hotel lobbies, tower suites, underground shelters, homes of multiple construction materials, and near ski resorts in Maine and Alaska.

Testing was conducted even near marine areas along the coasts of California, Hawaii and Florida and finalized, approved for production, standardized under a technical standard, and is now in use by the public. FEMA announcements have shown repeatedly an extremely naive and uninformed technical understanding of emergency transmission and reception capabilities. Quality control and oversight for the nation's most critical emergency network and communication system has been left as a volunteer program without even a basic technical set of compliance guidelines.

This means minutes of delays with EAS. Even when the EAS alert actually reaches a segment of the public where the alert is relevant, it can come too late. And FEMA provides inadequate senior staff positions for these personnel, with little time or ability to interface with similar personnel at NOAA or industry technical standards working groups such as those of the Consumer Electronics Association.

Proposals to create an effective 'Incident Command System' with effective consumer electronic device "universal" responders with selective triggering will likely take far longer.

Evolution won't improve the present EAS delivery system. While most outside of the broadcast community acknowledge the present U. EAS delivery system is broken , the ultimate irony is that the FCC now appears to actually support the replication of the system across additional transmission conduits, such as the Personal Localized Alerting Network for Smart phones.

Rather than attempting to understand the distinct components of our alerting systems, recommendations such as an 'Incident Command System' ICS may overpower and dismantle functioning systems already in operation. Their concepts seem to be delegated to a financial lobbying program for Public Television Stations to provide EAS expansion, not deal with the needed realities of emergency alerting through consumer products.

New concepts utilizing portions of the digital television transmission bands, and a satellite based system for EAS messaging have significant "geographic targeting" and public participation limitations. Centralized internet data hubs have potential, but remain years away from being effective distribution command centers directly to the public.

Proposals to transition to IPAWS some means of "integrated public alert warning system" also lack clarity and specifics, and appear extremely naive to many of the necessary capabilities.

And as of May the "standards" surrounding Personal Localized Alerting Network devices are at best haphazard in their failure to acknowledge existing and overlapping patents and intellectual property rights by numerous consumer electronic companies. Today there are large concerns that newer alert delivery proliferation will further spread the inherent problems in the present EAS delivery system, creating multiple intrusions of the same alert s across multiple platforms.

For those of you who have been told this a good thing, consider the following. Perhaps neither is right as they correspond to the location of the viewer. And is a computer coupled to the internet really a means to alert you at am that the dam broke up stream?

These types of complexities in attempting to manage the issuing of specific alerts to specific geographic locations within a total coverage area, and consolidate those decisions across multiple platforms satellite, cable, internet, cellular carriers, TV NTSC transmissions, HDTV transmissions, and any DTV sub carrier transmissions , are not minor points. Lives in a tornado's path, a tsunami, or nuclear power plant accident are often at stake. Such products can sit at your bedside, unlike a PC.

They function when home power fails, a likely event preceding tornados, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, dam breaks, or terrorist attacks. The Association of Public Television Stations does not address the merits of using PC's and DTV tuner cards during electrical storms, power surges, power failures, or as a simple downloading software exercise.

Additional funding perhaps for the APTS? Even during mid-day nearly 3 out of 4 Americans do not receive an EAS alert. Before proponents of alternative systems portray an appearance of congealed support behind new platforms, they are advised to first perform even the most basic intellectual property research. They are quite extensive.

The emergency "e-chip" that doesn't exist. No member among the worldwide membership of the Consumer Electronic Association has ever shown such a chipset.

And no worldwide chipset manufacturer has ever announced a de facto standard which might be accepted for industry development. And commercializing alert reception services with subscriber fees is not a federal solution when all segments of the public must be offered life-saving protection. Yet this is an undisclosed financial pillar which supports many proposals.

A similar statement by others was cited in 'USA Today' while other media reports from have noted a "50 cent chipset" that could solve the nations alert notification problems in consumer electronic equipment. Not even two. Many require 5 chipsets. Development costs will be reduced, but far from 50 cent levels. EAS delivery system: Commercial and "e-chip" don't mix.

An "e-chip" solution must derive intelligence in part from the transmission it receives. Today EAS doesn't even prioritize all event conditions or instantly provide text translations into multiple languages. Those favoring an 'Incident Command System' using an "internet backbone" fail to acknowledge that while a centralized information hub with security entry and exit makes sense, the outgoing data taken from that hub would be re-transmitted with many of the same problems as EAS today.

It's not just filtering and centralizing the data, but distributing the alert data over distribution conduits to the public that is the key issue. Their appeal seems to be their extreme ambiguity. As such, they can be everything to everyone. And proposed costs can have little basis in fact. NEWS as a government operated centralized data hub meets the necessary requirements, and unlike some NPRM responder proposals , eliminates liability risks over some newer alert delivery systems that propose alternative centralized internet data hubs.

The working current system is structured today so individual government agencies such as NOAA, the U. Fortunately they also are fully user adjustable in volume increments, including models that provide automatic slow ramp-up volume to a user adjusted maximum level.

EAS: "The wolf is coming! The wolf is coming! And may well be a critical question yet to be addressed by Personal Localized Alerting Network devices without first licensing patent held designs. Broadcasters therefore stress the alerts issued, not the percentage that correctly corresponds to the need of their audience.

Coupled with new multiple delivery systems, including DTV, cable, and poorly enabled PLAN Smart phones, this "cry wolf" issue may further reduce the urgent attention required by alerting systems. Current EAS problems cannot be resolved by just expanding the coverage areas ever further. As the specific alert segment becomes a mere niche, the annoyance of the total listener base increases. Coverage across the globe is in place now. For a brief period of time going forward multiple forms of public alert communication are beneficial, though the deficiencies of the EAS media dissemination system have been critical for several years.

However, when examining the percentage of the population which will be alerted through EAS delivered alerts via the media , or via an NOAA reception device, an interesting comparison is seen.

IPAWS, which has been plagued by troubles since its launch , is now drawing criticism after news broke that the new WEA system would be able to follow cellphone users anywhere in the country. But not so surprisingly, the location feature may just be the tip of the privacy iceberg. One not so publicized feature of this new WEA system is the presidential alert feature. Without the ability to opt-out, your cell phone will now be able to receive presidential alerts directly from the President of the United States.

In compliance with the National Alerting Program, new cell phones will all be chipped to allow these alerts. While government officials insist the Presidential Alerts will only be used in the case of a national emergency, what constitutes a national emergency has yet to be defined.

I have been a Ham radio operator for about 35 years. If a storm is fast approaching, the public must be informed quickly! Most people carry a cellphone at all times so using the WEA system is a great way to alert a very larger part of the public quickly.

Most people do not carry a Weather Radio with them, most are left at home if they even have one. President: Does anyone know where Jimmy Cracked Corn is right now? Louis and Chesterfield. President: Move in. I agree that the speed and access to information can be critical. I am a trained weather spotter, and carry a NOAA radio with me all the time.