|
|
By Paul Thurst, on September 13th, 2011
Coming to an AM transmitter near you. The FCC announced that starting immediately, stations can employ Modulation Dependent Carrier Level or MDCL technology on AM transmitters. According to Public Notice DA 11-1535 (.pdf):
Use of MDCL technologies requires a waiver of Section 73.1560(a) of the Commission’s Rules, which sets upper and lower limits for an AM station’s operating power. We hereby establish procedures for AM broadcasters to seek a rule waiver in order to use energy-saving MDCL technologies.
Several transmitter manufactures offer some some version of MDCL in their newer models with the ability to update some older models. Harris Corporation offers something called “Amplitude Modulation Companding” (AMC) and “Adaptive Carrier Control” (ACC). While Nautel includes an option called “Dynamic Carrier Control” (DCC) on all NX series transmitters with the ability to upgrade some older transmitters. Continental offers Controlled Carrier level Modulation (CCM) on later model shortwave transmitters by installing SSM modulator, which can be retrofitted.
Nautel’s Dynamic Carrier Control (.ppt) (.pdf available here) reduces the carrier level during moderate modulation periods. The effect of this is to increase the perceived loudness at the receiver. During higher modulation periods, the carrier is increased to prevent distortion. The net effect is between 3 – 6 dB carrier reduction. During quite periods, the carrier is returned to full power to reduce noise.
 Nautel Presentation on Dynamic AM carrier control The potential savings is from 20-40%, which for a 10 or 50 KW station, would represent a significant reduction in the power bill. For a 50 KW station running an older transmitter, the savings would fall in the $37,000 to $56,000 per year range. In some cases, smaller stations may be able to get rid of a demand meter, which would also represent a significant savings. The threshold for demand meters around here is 5,000 KWh per month.
The FCC further notes that:
The reduction in AM signal power at certain modulation levels inevitably exacts some penalty upon audio quality. Depending on the content of the audio program, MDCL algorithms may introduce some audio distortion or may decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in the receiver. In addition, MDCL algorithms may erode coverage slightly at the fringes of the AM station’s protected service area. Both the long experience of transmitter manufacturers and broadcasters abroad, and the initial reports from experimental operations in Alaska however, indicate that such adverse effects are generally imperceptible.
Would be especially true for higher powered stations that stand to save the most money.
By Paul Thurst, on August 29th, 2011
 Creek overflows roadway, Ulster County, NY. Tropical Storm Irene, August 28, 2011 I read through the FCC’s Hurricane Irene information on which stations were off the air and when, I believe there are a few more to add to the list. Starting from South to North:
- WNYC (820 KHz) (New York Public Radio) See WMCA below.
- WMCA (570 KHz) (Salem Communications) went off when the fetid swamp known as the Meadowlands flooded, which is where their transmitter sites are located.
- WFAF (106.3 MHz) Mount Kisco, (Cumulus Broadcasting) Loss of power, no back up power
- WLNA (1420 KHz) Peekskill (Pamal Broadcasting) another AM located in a fetid swamp, this time in Peekskill. It is likely this station will be off for several days.
- WOSR (91.7 MHz) Middletown (Northeast Public Radio) reasons unknown.
- WKIP (1450 KHz) Poughkeepsie (Clear Channel Broadcasting) transmitter room flooded with about 18 inches of water, water over topped the base insulator and ATU.
- WVKR (91.3 MHz) Poughkeepsie (Vassar College) no backup power, back on at 12:00 pm 8/29
- WKXP (94.3 MHz) Kingston (Clear Channel Broadcasting) Loss of emergency generator when fan belt broke, restored four hours later.
- WAMK (90.9 MHz) Kingston (North East Public Radio) Kingston transmitter site, which looks like it is located in a Revolutionary War relic, is noted for being unreliable. It goes off frequently and was off and on all day.
- WFGB (89.7 MHz) Kingston (Sound of Life Radio) Located in same building as WAMK, is an LP-1 station.
- WKNY (1490 KHz) Kingston (Cumulus Broadcasting) antenna field flooded, back on the air by 9 am 8/29.
- WYJB (95.5 MHz) Albany (Pamal Broadcasting) Generator voltage regulator failed, equipment secured to prevent damage. Is an LP-1 station.
- WZMR (104.9 MHz) Altamont (Pamal Broadcasting) Co-located with WYJB
- WAJZ (96.3 MHz) Voorheesville) (Pamal Broadcasting) Co-located with WYJB
- WROW (590 KHz) Albany (Pamal Broadcasting) STL passed through WYJB transmitter site
- WPTR (96.7 MHz) Clifton Park (Crawford Broadcasting) reasons unknown
- WTMM (104.5 MHz) Mechanicville (Townsquare Media) reasons unknown
- WEQX (102.7 MHz) Manchester, VT (Northshire Broadcasting) loss of power
Most of these stations are now back on the air, however, several suffered much water damage due to flooding and will be off for a while. Lots and lots of roadways washed out, trees down, power still out for tens of thousands of people, it’s a mess.
These stations that went off the are are but a small fraction of the radio stations that serve the Hudson Valley and upstate NY. Most of the large class B stations, and regional AM stations, which are also the LP-1 EAS stations, stayed on the air for the duration of the storm, as did all of the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards stations in the area.
Kudos to the DJ’s, meteorologists, news people and field reporters for keeping us informed and safe.
By Paul Thurst, on August 27th, 2011
 And now, something completely different. It seems there is quite a kerfuffle going on in shortwave (AKA HF) pirate land. It seems there has been some FCC enforcement action of late, leading to at least one HF pirate being closed down, while some others are pointing fingers at another saying he is a rat, or a rabbit. Or something. I dunno, it gets a little hard to follow.
Anyway…
I have written about this in the past; Pirate Shortwave broadcasting. It is a very interesting phenomena that compels a person to gather together all the parts necessary, usually at some expense, and assemble a station. Further, keying the transmitter and broadcasting without benefit of a license is a violation of federal law, which can bring heavy sanctions. While most pirate broadcasters seem to get a slap on the wrist, this lax FCC attitude can change. There have been several steep fines lately for repeat offenders in the FM band. At least on the FM band and somewhat the AM band too, a unlawful broadcaster is assured of some public audience. On the shortwave bands, a pirate broadcaster’s audience is limited to only those that are looking for them, which is a very narrow segment of the population.
What are they trying to accomplish? Most of the shortwave pirate broadcasts that I have listened to are limited to a couple of songs from one particular genra, send an ID and then are off. Some will send a QSL card via slow scan TV. What compels these operators to go through all the trouble for a few minutes of irregular operation? Some of them have well equipped studios to go along with the transmitting equipment. Then there is the clandestine nature of the undertaking, often with mail drops and spoofed e-mail addresses.
Some seem to exult in sticking it to the man, that man being the FCC, big media corporations or any authority that tells them they are doing wrong. Acts of civil disobedience against authority perceived (rightly or wrongly) as oppressive or evil. Others seem to have some need to perform, no matter how small the audience may be. Some are just fooling around and do it simply because they can. Finally, others like the challenge of building a low power shortwave transmitter from scratch and seeing it to through to it’s end.
If the so said station is broadcasting with any appreciable power, it will get noticed quickly and sooner or later, the FCC will pay a visit. That is a foregone conclusion. The FCC has quite a few new tricks up its sleeve when it comes to direction finding and RF finger printing. That’s right, RF finger printing, it is exactly what it sounds like. Super resolution HFDF eliminates the need for triangulation, multiple vehicles, and wasting a lot of time driving around neighborhoods trying to figure out which residence an illegal broadcaster is using.
While I understand the compulsion to broadcast free radio; the need to inform under served communities, the fact that what we used to rely on for information and news is gone, a once vibrant and exciting art form has been reduced to a hollow shell of its former self, however, we have not yet reached a Magna Carta moment. There are still some legal methods of getting the word out on radio, both conventional and shortwave. International Broadcasting stations WBCQ and WRMI offer time brokered programming and are pretty liberal in the types of programs they accept. Not all US shortwave broadcaster are thus, many allowing only religious programming. Those shortwave stations have large coverage areas and existing audiences. There are also may AM radio stations that will do block programming over the weekend, for a price, of course. Then there is the possibility of setting up an internet station. Eventually, the new Low Power FM (LPFM) rules will go into affect and interested groups will be able to apply for licenses in that service.
The point is, while the deck is stacked against the local or community radio broadcaster, it is still possible to get the word out in a legal way. The cost of buying block programming will likely be the same or less than buying all the equipment to set up a pirate station. Further, if the programming is compelling, you may get noticed and be able to flip the equation and actually get paid to do it.
By Paul Thurst, on August 16th, 2011
 Six weeks to go and time is moving fast. Many stations of a particular group have not done the required CAP upgrades to their EAS equipment. I’d imagine that we will be running around installing and programming these things at the last moment.
A list of certified EAS equipment vendors is available from the FCC website. The new FCC website, which seems to be dedicated to bringing broadband to America, somewhat at the expense of everything else. More about that later.
About CAP and EAS; I hope the effort and expense is worth it. Those CAP converters and CAP compliant EAS machines are not cheap. I would think that after all that mandated spending, the new, new EAS works better than the old new EAS which left quite a bit to be desired. I am still skeptical of the internet based distribution system, as the internet has proven to be less than 100% reliable in all locations. The method seems to violate the KISS principle, of which I am a firm believer. In any case, I will reserve judgement until after the nation wide test on November 9, 2011.
Regarding that test, I have already read some “expectations management” statements from FEMA and the FCC. I have to say, if, given a years notice to install the equipment and do local testing before the big test, the new system does not show great improvements over the old EAS, it is time to scrap EAS altogether. It would be far better to tell the public they are on their own and recommend buying NOAA weather radios or rather NOAA All Hazards radios to receive their emergency information on. Supplement that with an e-mail notification system like NY Alert, which I use for urgent traffic and weather information and be done with it. This way, at least, nobody will be expecting the nearest automated station from the borg collective to supply meaningful, up to date information.
By Paul Thurst, on August 1st, 2011
While I was away, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (11-105) regarding LPFM and translators. There are several issues with backlog of translator applications and the possible LPFM window that looms out in the future somewhere. The current FCC translator rules bear little or no resemblance to the reality of FM translator use today.
The basic translator rules are found in FCC 74.1206 through 74.1290 with the programming and permissible service outlined in FCC 74.1231:
Sec. 74.1231 Purpose and permissible service.
(a) FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of AM or FM broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct reception of such AM or FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers, and a means for AM Class D stations to continue operating at night.
(b) An FM translator may be used for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of a primary AM or FM radio broadcast station or another translator station the signal of which is received directly through space, converted, and suitably amplified, and originating programming to the extent authorized in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section. However, an FM translator providing fill-in service may use any terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being rebroadcast. An FM booster station or a noncommercial educational FM translator station that is operating on a reserved channel (Channels 201-220) and is owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational station it rebroadcasts may use alternative signal delivery means, including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. Provided, however, that an applicant for a noncommercial educational translator operating on a reserved channel (Channel 201-220) and owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational AM or FM station it rebroadcasts complies with either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section:
(1) The applicant demonstrates that:
(i) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is within 80 kilometers of the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast; or,
(ii) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 160 kilometers from the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station; or,
(iii) The application is mutually exclusive with an application containing the showing as required by paragraph 74.1231(b)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section; or,
(iv) The application is filed after October 1, 1992.
(2) If the transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 80 kilometers from the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast or is within 160 kilometers of the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station, the applicant must show that:
(i) An alternative frequency can be used at the same site as the proposed FM translator’s transmitter location and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant’s proposed 1 mV/m contour; or,
(ii) An alternative frequency can be used at a different site and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant’s proposed 1 mV/m contour.
(c) The transmissions of each FM translator or booster station shall be intended only for direct reception by the general public. An FM translator or booster shall not be operated solely for the purpose of relaying signals to one or more fixed received points for retransmission, distribution, or further relaying in order to establish a point-to-point FM radio relay system.
(d) The technical characteristics of the retransmitted signals shall not be deliberately altered so as to hinder reception on conventional FM broadcast receivers.
(e) An FM translator shall not deliberately retransmit the signals of any station other than the station it is authorized to retransmit. Precautions shall be taken to avoid unintentional retransmission of such other signals.
(f) A locally generated radio frequency signal similar to that of an FM broadcast station and modulated with aural information may be connected to the input terminals of an FM translator for the purpose of transmitting voice announcements. The radio frequency signals shall be on the same channel as the normally used off-the-air signal being rebroadcast. Connection of the locally generated signals shall be made by any automatic means when transmitting originations concerning
financial support. The connections for emergency transmissions may be made manually. The apparatus used to generate the local signal that is used to modulate the FM translator must be capable of producing an aural signal which will provide acceptable reception on FM receivers designed for the transmission standards employed by FM broadcast stations.
(g) The aural material transmitted as permitted in paragraph (f) of this section shall be limited to emergency warnings of imminent danger and to seeking or acknowledging financial support deemed necessary to the continued operation of the translator. Originations concerning financial support are limited to a total of 30 seconds an hour. Within this limitation the length of any particular announcement will be left to the discretion of the translator station licensee. Solicitations of contributions shall be limited to the defrayal of the costs of installation, operation and maintenance of the translator or acknowledgements of financial support for those purposes. Such acknowledgements may include identification of the contributors, the size or nature of the contributions and advertising messages of contributors. Emergency transmissions shall be no longer or more frequent than necessary to protect life and property.
(h) An FM translator station that rebroadcasts a Class D AM radio broadcast station as its primary station may originate programming during the hours the primary station is not operating, subject to the provisions of Sec. 74.1263(b) of this part.
(i) FM broadcast booster stations provide a means whereby the licensee of an FM broadcast station may provide service to areas in any region within the primary station’s predicted, authorized service contours. An FM broadcast booster station is authorized to retransmit only the signals of its primary station which have been received directly through space and suitably amplified, or received by alternative signal delivery means including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. The FM booster station shall not retransmit the signals of any other station nor make independent transmissions, except that locally generated signals may be used to excite the booster apparatus for the purpose of conducting tests and measurements essential to the proper installation and maintenance of the apparatus.
With a possible exception for use by Class D AM stations, the translator service has gone far away from what it was intended to be and even, in some cases, contradicts the current rules. DIY Media goes more into this in: Unholy Alliance.
Consolidators are using translators to get around market ownership caps by using them to re-broadcast HD-2 and HD-3 channels, which would otherwise go unheard. Others are using translators to establish large networks of over the air relays to greatly extend their coverage far beyond any natural signal contour. Religious and public radio stations rely extensively on translators to establish radio signals that are several times the size of the original station. In one case, a translator in Harrisburg, PA is broadcasting a satellite feed of the True Oldies Channel that does not appear on any AM, FM or HD sub-channel in the market. The 80/160 KM distances noted above in section B(1)(i) and (ii) seem to be largely ignored.
What the FCC wants to know is this: There are thousands of pending translator applications; what is to be done about them in light of the new LPFM legislation congress passed last year? Should they be dismissed, approved or some market based combination of the two. Keep in mind, the new LPFM stations are on an equal regulatory footing with translators, unlike full power FM or the previous LPFM licenses granted in 2003.
Whatever the outcome, it would appear that this will be the final chance to get an LPFM license when the filing window opens. After this, there will likely not be a scrap of spectrum left to dole out. The deadline for filing comments with the FCC is August 29th.
By Paul Thurst, on June 24th, 2011
I wrote about this before, garnering several negative comments, both from the cost and effectiveness perspectives. Prompted by the New York State Broadcasters Association, the Senate and Assembly passed the legislation on Wednesday. It was refined somewhat, with frequencies specified in the AM broadcast and FM broadcast band. The revised writing softens the criminality somewhat, making the first offense a class A misdemeanor and subsequent offenses class D felonies.
It also broadens the enforcement actions to allow seizure and destruction of radio transmission equipment, antennas, computers, and studio equipment used during the act. The law provides no provision for part 15 broadcasting, which is defined as license free operation under FCC rules.
The law amends the NY State Penal code, by adding section 190:
S 190.72 UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AN UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE SECOND
DEGREE WHEN SUCH PERSON:
1. KNOWINGLY MAKES OR CAUSES TO BE MADE A RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THIS
STATE, ON RADIO FREQUENCIES ASSIGNED AND LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL COMMU
NICATIONS COMMISSION FOR USE BY AM RADIO STATIONS BETWEEN THE FREQUEN
CIES OF 530 KHZ TO 1700 KHZ, OR FM RADIO STATIONS BETWEEN THE FREQUEN
CIES OF 88 MHZ TO 108 MHZ, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE OR
OTHER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, OR DULY
AUTHORIZED FEDERAL AGENCY; OR
2. KNOWINGLY CAUSES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, INTERFERENCE TO
ANY AM RADIO STATIONS BETWEEN THE FREQUENCIES OF 530 KHZ TO 1700 KHZ, OR
FM RADIO STATIONS BETWEEN THE FREQUENCIES OF 88 MHZ TO 108 MHZ WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OR DULY AUTHOR
IZED FEDERAL AGENCY.
ANY EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE TRANSMITTING ANTENNA,
TRANSMITTER, MASTER CONTROL, SERVERS AND COMPUTERS, USED TO PROVIDE SUCH
ILLEGAL RADIO TRANSMISSIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND, UPON
CONVICTION, SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN OF THIS CHAPTER.
UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS A CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR.
S 2. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 190.73 to read
as follows:
S 190.73 UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE FIRST
DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE COMMITS THE CRIME OF UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANS
MISSION IN THE SECOND DEGREE PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.72 OF THIS ARTICLE
AND HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED WITHIN THE PRECEDING TEN YEARS OF
UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE SECOND DEGREE. ANY EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE TRANSMITTING ANTENNA, TRANSMITTER,
MASTER CONTROL, SERVERS AND COMPUTERS, USED TO PROVIDE SUCH ILLEGAL
RADIO TRANSMISSIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND, UPON CONVICTION,
SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTEEN OF
THIS CHAPTER. UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS A CLASS D
FELONY.
S 3. The penal law is amended by adding a new article 417 to read as
follows:
ARTICLE 417
SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF TRANSMITTING ANTENNA, TRANSMITTER,
MASTER CONTROL, SERVERS AND COMPUTERS, USED TO PROVIDE ILLEGAL
RADIO TRANSMISSIONS
SECTION 417.00 SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF TRANSMITTING ANTENNA, TRANS
MITTER, MASTER CONTROL, SERVERS AND COMPUTERS, USED TO
PROVIDE ILLEGAL RADIO TRANSMISSIONS.
S 417.00 SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF TRANSMITTING ANTENNA, TRANSMITTER,
MASTER CONTROL, SERVERS AND COMPUTERS, USED TO PROVIDE ILLEGAL RADIO TRANSMISSIONS.
ANY EQUIPMENT UTILIZED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 190.72 OR 190.73 OF
THIS CHAPTER MAY BE SEIZED BY ANY POLICE OFFICER UPON THE ARREST OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL IN POSSESSION OF THE SAME. UPON FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
CHARGES, THE COURT SHALL, UPON NOTICE FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ENTER
AN ORDER PRESERVING ANY TRANSMITTING ANTENNA, TRANSMITTER, MASTER
CONTROL, SERVERS AND COMPUTERS, USED TO PROVIDE ILLEGAL RADIO TRANS
MISSIONS FOR USE IN OTHER CASES, INCLUDING A CIVIL ACTION. THIS NOTICE
MUST BE RECEIVED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CHARG
ES. THE COST OF STORAGE, SECURITY AND DESTRUCTION OF ITEMS SO ORDERED
FOR PRESERVATION AND USE AS EVIDENCE IN A CIVIL ACTION, OTHER THAN A
CIVIL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE THIRTEEN-A OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND
RULES INITIATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SHALL BE PAID BY THE PARTY
SEEKING PRESERVATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR A CIVIL ACTION. IF NO SUCH
ORDER IS ENTERED WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR
CUSTODIAN OF THE SEIZED PROPERTY MUST CAUSE SUCH ITEMS TO BE DESTROYED.
DESTRUCTION SHALL NOT INCLUDE AUCTION, SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ITEMS IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM.
Law takes effect on November 1, 2011.
In order to gain a conviction, some amount of evidence would be needed. Signal strength measurements and or spectrum analysis would be a minimum requirement, in addition to any equipment seized.
Discuss.
By Paul Thurst, on June 13th, 2011
This is a test, you have been warned. The FCC has scheduled the first nationwide mandatory EAS test for November 9th, 2011 at 2pm EST (1900 UTC). According to James A. Barnett, Jr., Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:
For the test, FEMA will trigger the EAS “cascade” architecture by transmitting the EAS code used for national level emergencies to the first level of broadcast stations in the national-level of the EAS, which in turn will rebroadcast the alert to the general public, as well as to the next level of EAS participants monitoring them. This should continue through all levels of the system until the alert has been distributed throughout the entire county.
Since this date is beyond the CAP deadline of September 30, 2011, it seems like CAP would be the distribution method, but there is not anything I can find to verify that. The above paragraph makes it sound like the PEP system might be used.
This will be an interesting evolution for a number of reasons. If the EAS system fails operate as planned after giving five months warning for a nationwide test, it would point toward a fundamental design flaw in the system. A more realistic test of the EAS system would involve perhaps one hours notice and then trigger the event. Notice should be given so that broadcast station personal can answer questions from the listening and viewing public.
Then there is the EAS EAN protocol itself. There are many that feel, rightly or wrongly, that the federal government should not be able to take control of privately owned broadcast stations and cable systems for any reason. The way that the EAS encoder/decoder units are now required to be wired into the audio air chain means it would be very hard to override any mandatory alert, such as an EAN, if there were a reason to do that. There have been several instances of false alerts, WGN-AM being the most recent, where programming on down stream broadcast and cable systems were disrupted for several minutes.
So, save the date. It will no doubt be interesting to see how this all works.
By Paul Thurst, on June 2nd, 2011
Lots of ink has been spilled about the new CAP (Common Alert Protocol) implementation and what it all means. Since the FCC started the six month CAP clock ticking on September 30th of last year, they have extended the deadline by six months to September 30, 2011.
The idea of upgrading EAS is a good one. When EAS replaced EBS in 1997 it was supposed to do away with the over the air relay system also known as the daisy chain. This was left over from the 1960′s CONELRAD system implemented by Kennedy. That replacement never occurred and stations today are still monitoring other broadcasting stations for their EAS alerts. The daisy chain was and still is the source of all EBS and EAS failures.
CAP is supposed to eliminate that weak link by allowing the EAS unit to access government IPAWS message servers directly, allowing FEMA to automatically send out alert messages to designated areas. This has some libertarians in an uproar, as they see government intrusion and taking over privately owned radio stations to broadcast emergency information as a form of tyranny. In as much as the definition of “emergency message” has not been codified by FEMA in any of their information, they may have a point. In the past, the general definition of emergency communications were those that were pertaining to imminent threats to the safety of life and property. According to Executive Order 13407, Public Alert and Warning System, the purpose is to:
…have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other hazards to public safety and well-being…
Which is certainly much more broad in scope. How does one define a hazard to “well-being?”
SAGE alerting systems have completely revamped their ENDEC to include CAP 1.2. It uses the internet to connect to IPAWS servers and receive CAP messages. As the SAGE ENDEC owners manual notes, participation in local and state level alerts are at the discretion of the station management, as regulated by the current version of FCC Part 11. National level participation is manditory:
Participation at the national level is mandatory for most broadcasters. You may petition the FCC to become a “Non Participating National” station, but you must still receive and broadcast the EAN code, and then leave the air. These requirements are always evolving, refer to the FCC rules, in particular CFR 47 Part 11 for details.
Often times, it is the local emergencies that are greatest and most immediate threats to human life; the tornado, the tsunami, etc. Those are the most pressing threats, not the national level alerts, which were implemented in the 1960′s to warn of a major attack from a foreign country, something not very likely these days.
 SAGE ENDEC Further, the internet has proved to be less than reliable when trouble occurs. During the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, dial tone, cellphone and internet service for much of lower Manhattan were disrupted because the TELCO facilities were in the buildings that were destroyed. Most internet services rely on wired or fiber optic services provided by TELCO or cable company, which can be effected by power outages, damaged infrastructure and so on, which would likely occur in a major emergency.
It does not seem to be the most robust method for distribution of emergency messages.
By Paul Thurst, on May 12th, 2011
I received this rather humorous, hyperventilating email from some group called “Freepress.net.”
Outrageous!
FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker is leaving the FCC to become a lobbyist for Comcast – just four months after she voted to approve the Comcast-NBC merger.
This is nothing new under the sun and has, in fact, been going on for years. It’s called “The Payoff.” Conflict of interest? On the surface, it sure seems that way, but perhaps there is some other innocent explanation for this move. I can’t, for the life of me, think of what that might be, but I’m sure somebody will come up with something.
The email continues on with a plea to call some congressman to investigate the FCC. Perhaps I have grown a little cynical but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of such an effort.
In spite of my cynicism, as their motivations seem to be in the right place, I applaud Free Press for their efforts. Other like minded groups need to keep the pressure on and keep this in the spotlight. Naturally, NBC and other networks have uttered not a peep about it. The public blindly goes along while big business and wall street banksters continue their efforts to return to Feudalism.
Soon, one company will own the entire country. Everyone will shop at the company store, Wal-something or another, live in company housing, go to the company medical clinic and worship at the company church.
The answer, of course, is independent voices, independent investigations, in depth reporting, in short, everything that is currently missing from the media landscape today. That, and some kind of electric shock or something to get people off of their fat asses and care about something.
Update: Several people have taken notice; The New York Times, TIME magazine, and The Daily Show.
More like this please.
By Paul Thurst, on April 14th, 2011
The rest remains to be seen, of course. I found this speech given by Commissioner Copps on April 9, at the National Conference for Media Reform in Boston, MA interesting. He gets this part exactly right:
We see investigative journalism on the endangered species list, hundreds of newsrooms shuttered, reporters fired by the thousands, walking the street looking for a job instead of a story. And it didn’t start with the Internet because the process of media being high-jacked by the profit-at-all cost gang has been going on for decades. For the consolidated owners of radio and TV, the license to broadcast became a license to despoil. Visions of sugarplums danced in their heads–spectrum that belonged, they decided, to them rather than to the people.
And this:
Left to their own devices, these absentee landlords would put local and independent programming on a starvation
diet and feed us instead monotonous homogenized music and mindless infotainment masquerading as “news.”
And that has already happened in many places. The issue with traditional media in general is that the public can smell a rat. Watered down, syndicated “news” whether on the TV, radio, newspaper or news-magazine is not fooling anybody. When he was the president, Bill Clinton chided the American public for being cynical. I’d suggest that it wasn’t cynicism but fatigue due to lies. The degree to which licensees have ceded control of their stations to bankster masters is not known. I would hazard that it is far more common than not.
To some extent, “new media” has filled the vacuum. People in search of information and things they have, in the past, found on radio and TV now look to the internet. Youtube has become the launching platform for new music. News from all over the world is available with the click of a mouse. The problem with the internet is miss-information, either by ignorance or design. The other issue is it can be hard to come upon local news. I can read all about the tsunami in Japan, but try and find out what happened at the local school board meeting, good luck with that.
The question is; how to unscrew this mess, return competitive and credible media to this country. Further, this should be done without increasing administrative burden to licensees or increased enforcement and other expenses to the FCC. It should be a simple idea, like requiring a certain number of programming hours be live, from the main studio, putting the main studio back within the city grade contour, beginning to walk back the ownership limits, etc. The FCC is going to have to have the wherewithal to carry through. In this day and age of political expediency, wherewithal seems to be in short supply.
So, we’ve at least acknowledged the problem, now back to the fiddling.
|
Axiom
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~1st amendment to the United States Constitution
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
~Benjamin Franklin
...radio was discovered, and not invented, and that these frequencies and principles were always in existence long before man was aware of them. Therefore, no one owns them. They are there as free as sunlight, which is a higher frequency form of the same energy.
~Alan Weiner
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
~Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Article 19
|
Heard in the clear