Not a new debate is the one over exactly who should be able to activate the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Hardly anyone disagrees that the President of the United States should be able to activate EAS (although none ever has). And, most agree that governors should be able to execute EAS alerts. But, what about the local level?
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), for one, is not keen on the idea of local emergency managers having ability to, in effect, take over the airwaves to make an announcement. In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission last week, NAB reiterated its position that emergency messages (other than those from the President) should come only from a gubernatorial designate and only under certain conditions. The NAB said, "multiple sources of alerts may lead to audience confusion or desensitization to emergency alerts". This presents a dilemma, since some people argue that emergency alerting is a local responsibility, not a state one, not a federal one.
In the same filing with the FCC, the NAB asked again for the commission to limit cable TV overrides for EAS alerts - those non-graphic, text-only messages that pop up on cable telvision. Broadcasters complain that these alerts override local programming at a point where local stations may already be providing important information about the emergency at hand. Instead, says the NAB, cable companies should be forced to "selectively" override. In others words, interrupt the channels that don't carry broadcast TV. In some markets, "selective override" is negotiated, with the FCC's blessings, between local broadcast and cable operators.
There's more. The NAB also expressed concern about talk about requiring that EAS messages be in multiple languages. But, more on that later this week.
In this post, we're just touching the surface. There are many legitimate considerations and debates going on about how to best notify the public through EAS. We just hope that local emergency managers, broadcasters, and other "communities of interest" are paying close attention. And, by all means, speak up (like the NAB did in its filings with the FCC). We believe the debate, even controversy, is born out of a real desire to make ours a better informed and prepared nation.
All the best,
Rick
Top
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), for one, is not keen on the idea of local emergency managers having ability to, in effect, take over the airwaves to make an announcement. In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission last week, NAB reiterated its position that emergency messages (other than those from the President) should come only from a gubernatorial designate and only under certain conditions. The NAB said, "multiple sources of alerts may lead to audience confusion or desensitization to emergency alerts". This presents a dilemma, since some people argue that emergency alerting is a local responsibility, not a state one, not a federal one.
In the same filing with the FCC, the NAB asked again for the commission to limit cable TV overrides for EAS alerts - those non-graphic, text-only messages that pop up on cable telvision. Broadcasters complain that these alerts override local programming at a point where local stations may already be providing important information about the emergency at hand. Instead, says the NAB, cable companies should be forced to "selectively" override. In others words, interrupt the channels that don't carry broadcast TV. In some markets, "selective override" is negotiated, with the FCC's blessings, between local broadcast and cable operators.
There's more. The NAB also expressed concern about talk about requiring that EAS messages be in multiple languages. But, more on that later this week.
In this post, we're just touching the surface. There are many legitimate considerations and debates going on about how to best notify the public through EAS. We just hope that local emergency managers, broadcasters, and other "communities of interest" are paying close attention. And, by all means, speak up (like the NAB did in its filings with the FCC). We believe the debate, even controversy, is born out of a real desire to make ours a better informed and prepared nation.
All the best,
Rick
