• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC In the matter of: ) ) Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission’s ) PS Docket No. 15-94 Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System ) ) Wireless Emergency Alerts ) PS Docket No. 15-91 ) COMMENTS OF REC NETWORKS I. INTRODUCTION 1. REC Networks (REC) is a leading advocate for a citizen’s access to spectrum with a heavy focus on Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations as well as full-service noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations and small “mom and pop” commercial stations. As a national regulatory advocate for LPFM, we have a deep involvement in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) including involvement in past stakeholder meetings and the promotion of EAS compliance by LPFM stations. In these Comments, we address the various issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.1 II. ISSUES RAISED IN THE NOTICE A. Wireless Emergency Alert System Offerings 2. At the time leading up to the previous National Periodic Test (NPT) in respect to the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system, there was a significant amount of controversy over the designation of “Presidential Alert” for messages that are originated by the Executive Branch. This controversy was stemmed around our nation’s societal political divide, including our distrust of our Nation’s leaders, regardless of which party is in control.2 Because of this “Presidential Alert” controversy, the reputation of EAS and WEA was substantially tarnished to the point of where questions were raised 1 See FCC 21-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2021) (“NPRM” or “Notice”). 2 See: The Long, Strange History of the Presidential Text Alert, Wired (Oct. 3, 2018), retrieved April, 18, 2021 from https://www.wired.com/story/presidential-text-alert-fema-emergency-history/ whether end-users should be able to opt out of Presidential Alerts and even to the point of where some EAS participating stations were considering opting out of the NPT due to this controversy.3 4 3. REC does support the name change of “Presidential Alerts” to “National Alerts”, as such a change would better represent the purpose of the alert as opposed to the originator of the alert. Because we are now in a “blue vs. red”/”us vs. them” culture, the use of the term “presidential” can be seen as continuing to divide this nation, where the term “national” would remove any perceived political party influence out of the objective of such alerts, which is to inform and unite the nation. In this case, perception is important. B. State Emergency Communications Coordinators 4. For the purpose of this discussion, we must continue to oppose the involvement of state broadcaster associations (SBAs) as a primary “voice” for all terrestrial broadcasters as some SBAs continue to engage in discrimination against NCE and especially LPFM licensees.5 In some states, such 3 See A Presidential Alert from FEMA Just Hit to Your Cellphone. But Can You Turn It Off?, USA Today (Oct. 3, 2018), retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/03/presidential-alerts-can-turn-off-notifications- fema-trump/1508301002/ 4 During this heightened awareness period in 2018, we had noticed numerous posts on social media and other discussion forums from stakeholders of stations of many different classes, that were opposed to the President at the time asking if they could “cut off President Trump” if an emergency alert was to be activated based on the fear that the President would use the EAS/WEA infrastructure to send messages that were not related to any kind of a national emergency. REC Networks actually received inquiries from both LPFM and full-service stations inquiring about their ability to “cut off” EAS if they felt that the system was being used “inappropriately”. Prior to the October 3, 2018 National Periodic Test (NPT), REC issued a public statement supporting emergency alerts despite the controversies and concerns. See https://recnet.com/node/2497 (“This is a test, this is only a test. Hopefully it will never be more than a test. But if it ever was, then I will be glad its there. Let’s not trivialize this, nor any future tests over some kind of political speculation. This goes for both sides of the aisle. IPAWS, EAS and WEA should not be political footballs in any way. They are an important part of our Nation’s infrastructure. Let’s treat it that way.”) 5 NPRM at ¶ 20. as Kentucky, LPFM stations are only eligible for an “associate” membership and have no voting rights.6 Some SBAs, such as New Jersey has had a track record of being downright hostile towards LPFM.7 5. We also continue to oppose the depth to which the Commission wishes to make state EAS plans, confidential documents.8 While we can understand the security concerns regarding portions of these plans in an effort to prevent false alerts, most recent cases of false alerts were caused by authorized stakeholders pushing “the wrong button” and not an intrusion of the infrastructure by someone “hacking the state plan”.9 6. If access to state EAS plan information is not directly available to national stakeholders, such as REC, Common Frequency, Prometheus Radio Project, Christian Community Broadcasters as well as the many consultants and consulting engineers that interface with broadcast stations of all sizes and classes, it will further hinder a station’s ability to comply with the EAS regulations, especially in the 6 See https://members.kba.org/join. Some other states, such as North Carolina and South Carolina, all NCE broadcast stations are considered “associate” or “affiliate” members. Some states, such as Maryland/DC/Delaware does not even have a provision for any kind of NCE membership. The Kentucky association specifically singles out LPFM and LPTV stations. The bottom line is that the SBAs do not represent the interests of ALL broadcasters and that those stakeholders deserve a place at the table. The Commission needs to seriously move away from its reliance on the SBAs and their associated national association as the “last word” on radio as they only represent a fraction of all broadcasting in this country. 7 We note that the New Jersey Broadcasters Association (NJBA) has made many comments about LPFM, both on the record and off the record. REC understands New Jersey’s unique situation being in the “birthplace” of FM radio with a dense population, the many closely spaced Class A FM stations that are not able to upgrade to 6 kW and the proximity to two major markets, New York City and Philadelphia. We note that NJBA has been successful in the past in getting legislation passed to deal with New Jersey specific issues such as Section 7(6) of the Local Community Radio Act (Pub. L. No. 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011) (“LCRA”)), which calls for specific interference remediation towards New Jersey full-service stations by LPFM facilities. Despite that protection, has never been a case in the 10-year history of the LCRA that any New Jersey full-service station has had to invoke that provision due to an LPFM station. NJBA, while well intentioned, continues to base their concerns on fear and conspiracy and not real-world results. 8 NPRM at ¶ 24. 9 See What Went Wrong with Hawaii’s False Emergency Alert, CNN (Jan. 15, 2018), retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/14/us/hawaii-false-alarm-explanation. See also False Emergency Alarms Set Off in Hawaii, Again, NBC News (Sep. 19, 2019), retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us- news/false-emergency-alarms-set-hawaii-again-n1056281. See also Hawaii Missile Alert: How One Employee ‘Pushed the Wrong Button’ and Caused A Wave of Panic, Washington Post (Jan. 14, 2018), retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/14/hawaii-missile-alert-how-one-employee- pushed-the-wrong-button-and-caused-a-wave-of-panic/. See also False Warning of ‘Radiological Hazard’ Invades TV Screens on Olympic Peninsula, Seattle Times (Feb. 21, 2020), retrieved April 18, 2021 from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/false-warning-of-radiological-hazard-invades-tv-screens-on-olympic- peninsula/. (In this case, the false alert was limited to subscribers of a single MVPD headend and there is no evidence that either Open IPAWS, nor the over the air reception of primary entry point, state primary, state relay nor local primary EAS participants were compromised.) LPFM space where one “authorized” source of information from the plan, the SBAs, have a historical track record of being hostile to LPFM stations. Speaking only for REC, I have no issue signing a confidentiality agreement if it means that I would be able to tell a station (including a station that was newly constructed due to a recent filing window) who their LP-1 and LP-2 stations are. This way, the SECCs, LECCs and the SBAs are not bogged down with requests (including the likelihood that requests by LPFM stations to the latter are downright ignored). Otherwise, it is likely that requests for information will be channeled to Commission staff by stations who feel they have no other place to turn to in order to comply. 7. Despite that, REC does support the Commission’s efforts to encourage states to form their SECC programs, but at the same time, we also need to assure that all participants, regardless of their broadcast class of service or nature of service (i.e. streaming services) have access to the information that pertains to their specific operations. C. Repeating EAS Messages 8.

Load more

  6

Copy Link