Digital Alert Systems Opposes NAB's EAS Petition

While supporters said a software solution is a natural evolution for EAS, Digital Alert Systems (DAS) said the idea raises FCC oversight and cybersecurity concerns, and a rule change would be a “tailored regulation” improperly targeting a specific company. "By seeking to revise federal rules in a manner that appears to undermine a specific manufacturer, absent any public safety justification or demonstrable deficiency, the Petition risks crossing the line into ad hoc, targeted rulemaking," it said.

One of NAB’s justifications for the shift is that Sage Alerting Systems -- DAS’ primary competitor -- is ceasing production of a required EAS device due to supply chain issues. That will make it difficult for radio stations when they need to replace or upgrade their devices to comply with FCC rules, NAB has said.

Yet DAS argued that the FCC should “reject the Petition's unsubstantiated claim of industry-wide supply chain disruption as a valid basis for rule modification.” Instead, the agency "should recognize that at least one significant vendor has proactively mitigated such risks through responsible supply chain planning and ongoing product modernization.”

The Society of Broadcast Engineers said FCC rules should give broadcasters “the flexibility necessary for them to implement the best EAS solution" for their station’s specific circumstances. "Opening up the viability of flexible software-based EAS solutions” could prevent future situations where one manufacturer’s problems potentially affect the entire EAS system, the group said. New York Public Radio and the University Radio Foundation said that “hardware-based EAS equipment is the only element of the modern air chain currently without an option” for a software platform. CMG Media said that “in recent years, television broadcasters, radio broadcasters, and professional consulting engineers have come to a consensus that the EAS rules should be modernized to allow software-based EAS encoder/decoder (‘endec’) technology.”

But DAS said that eliminating the requirements for a physical EAS box would hurt “manufacturers that have invested in certified, compliant, and secure systems under the current rules” and make FCC oversight of EAS more difficult. It could also create a bifurcated regulatory regime, with more relaxed or uncertain rules for software-based systems than for physical ones, DAS added. Physical EAS boxes are certified through defined procedures that include lab tests and deployment verification. For software, the FCC would likely have to certify the initial release and also software updates, DAS said. “The potential for unapproved modifications -- intentional or accidental -- is high,” it said. There's “no guarantee that a system that was compliant last month will remain compliant after a routine update.”

The shift to software also raises cybersecurity and national security concerns, DAS said. “Most broadcasters do not have any in-house cybersecurity expertise, and therefore would need substantial, likely expensive, help from outside consultants.” This would be more burdensome for smaller broadcasters that don’t have in-house IT support, DAS said. The manufacturer is responsible for the security of physical equipment, but a software-only solution would “shift many of these responsibilities onto the end user or operator,” it said. “As a result, the overall resilience and reliability of the EAS ecosystem could be compromised."

Several commenters said cybersecurity concerns could be addressed by keeping the EAS software isolated from the internet. “NCTA agrees with NAB that any such solution should not be directly exposed to the internet or be fully cloud-based,” the group said. “This approach would be consistent with other software-based aspects of broadcast and cable network operations.”

The FCC should treat the NAB petition as “a request for major regulatory overhaul, requiring thorough public review and evidentiary development,” DAS said. “It strikes at the foundation of FCC oversight of emergency alerting equipment and introduces substantial risks to compliance, public safety, and technical interoperability.”