Re: Amber Alerts again

[Aaron Read <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 09:05 PM 3/13/2003 -0500, Dan Billings wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sid Schweiger" <sid@wrko.com>
>To: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:35 PM
>Subject: Re: Amber Alerts again
>
> > Methinks not.  The bill is in trouble in the Senate, and Elizabeth Smart's
>father "went off" on one of his Senators last night for not supporting it.
>
>What's the issue with the bill?
>
>It seems to me that this is something that is best accomplished by state
>officials working with broadcasters.  A one size fits all federal approach
>doesn't make sense to me.  California and Maine are very different.
>
>-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine


California and Maine are different states, but there's an awful lot of 
similarity in their radio and TV stations these days.   Hell, it's 
something we lament on a regular basis on the list!

Plus, in terms of broadcasters, we're talking about the FCC and EAS.  As 
was recently pointed out to me by several individuals (many of whom helped 
their states draft their EAS State Plans) the FCC runs the show with EAS - 
PERIOD.   The states have ZERO authority over the FCC when it comes to 
anything to do with EAS.   Yes, they can draft their own state EAS plans, 
but they are totally subject to the FCC's review and approval.

I don't see why a federal approach would be problematic...unless it gets 
too detailed in dictating the activation process.  For example, mandating 
that only the governor's office can authorize an Amber alert...which might 
work in Massachusetts where even in Pittsfield the governor isn't all that 
far away.   But it would be silly for California where the governor's got a 
state 50 times the size.   I wouldn't think federal legislation would do it 
that way, though...I would think it would just dictate that an appropriate 
bureaucracy be in place to authorize Amber alerts...much like how EAS 
alerts are controlled now.

The only controversial aspect I could see would be the FCC requiring 
stations to carry Amber alerts...or allowing individual states to require 
it (the latter being a major change since participation in State-level 
alerts has ALWAYS be optional so far).  Personally I think it's high time 
the FCC did *require* participation in State-level EAS.  It's the weak 
level of involvement that has allowed the glaring flaws in the system (on 
the national, state, and individual-station levels) to stay as long as they 
have.....more regular use would force the system up to a higher level of 
quality.   A system like EAS is invaluable to have, but if you can't rely 
on it then what good is it?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron "Bishop" Read             aread@speakeasy.net
FriedBagels Consulting          AOL-IM: readaaron
http://www.friedbagels.com      Boston, MA