On June 28, the Bangor Daily News published a lengthy Associated Press article about the inadequate performance and outdated status of this nation’s warning and alert systems. The article stated, among other things, that the Partnership for Public Warning (PPW) was concerned about the “tortoiselike movement” of the federal government’s effort to improve the system as a whole. It also emphasized the fact that the next generation of warning and alert systems might well be the end result of state initiatives.

As broadcast chair of the State Emergency Communications Committee (SECC), I am charged with the responsibility of overseeing the operations and functionality of the Emergency Alert System in Maine. I agree with both the basic thrust of the article and many of the issues raised by the PPW. We need to realize that the public is poorly served by the existing alert and warning system in Maine. As the article indicates, many states are acting on their own in the absence of coordinated federal action to address this situation.

In fact, establishing an integrated alert and warning system was identified as the top priority of the communications working group which was formed during the Maine homeland security planning session held in Bangor two years ago. This group met on numerous occasions until last summer, and while it was making steady progress on a number of key emergency communications concerns, the collective effort has stalled.

Today, there is little working group activity under way, with the exception of the work done by the sub-groups to address communication systems interoperability.

One possible solution, which has generated a good deal of interest and support in this communications working group, is worth mentioning. “MaineNet” is a proposed system which combines satellite delivery with data broadcasting over unused space in the digital TV spectrum allocated to Maine Public Broadcasting Corp. (MPBC).

The satellite part of the system, EM Net, is an enhanced alert and warning system which has already been deployed by several states.

Developed by Com Labs, a company formerly based in Owls Head, EM Net offers a sophisticated, reliable, and redundant way of issuing alerts and warnings using state of the art telecommunications and computer technology.

The second half of MaineNet is based on datacasting technology, or the broadcasting of data directly to personal computers equipped with inexpensive antennas and receiver cards, using the same network that has been created for MPBC’s digital TV transmissions.

This is not a futuristic approach. In fact, many states are currently experimenting with various combinations of satellite and broadcast-data technology as part of their emergency communications network. The best part of MaineNet is the relatively inexpensive cost – roughly about $2 million.

We have been seeking approval and funding for MaineNet since early last year, but a mix of budgetary constraints, competing agendas, and administrative gridlock, both federal and state, has resulted in the very same “tortoiselike movement” in Maine that has enveloped Washington. This combination of much rhetoric and minimal results is adversely impacting the process as a whole. Meanwhile, many of us who signed on to the homeland security mission in 2002, and who spent considerable time grappling with these and other complex issues which comprise the emergency communications environment today, now stand by and watch the months slip away.

In the homeland security communications sub-group I was working with, two proposals which could save millions of dollars in communications costs have yet to get out of the starting blocks. First, a Governor’s Executive Committee on Communications Interoperability should be formed. The committee would consist of communications decision-makers from the private and public sectors. Their mission would be to create policies and procedures designed to allow public safety agencies and first responders to communicate with one another. During the ice storm of 1998, two power crews working less than one mile apart could not talk to each other using two-way radios. This situation would be untenable in a 9-11-type crisis.

The other proposal would be the pooling of frequencies in an assigned area to relieve overcrowding in the public safety radio spectrum. Fire departments in Levant, Carmel and Glenburn could use one frequency, while maintenance crews in the three communities could use another channel for communications. Therefore, instead of six different frequencies, two could be used more effectively. However, in order for this to work, a communications czar would have to be appointed, with authority to work out the details and agreements between communities.

In 2004, the public should not be engaged in guesswork when it comes to their health and safety. The public must have confidence in the fact that the state has the ability to alert and warn everyone from Kittery to Fort Kent, and that everyone is well informed in that short critical span of time after an alert is issued. Funding is not the issue. None of the above-mentioned solutions require huge expenditures.

In a nutshell, efforts in Maine to date to solve this critical problem are not bearing fruit. However, this is not a lost cause either. The public should demand concrete results and a reliable alert and warning system. It is time for the Baldacci administration to regroup, and to put these activities and these working groups back on track.

The article in the Bangor Daily News concluded with a reference to the numbing effect of the current color-coded terrorist alert system. Yes, we live day to day with an inadequate and dangerously deficient warning and alert system. Maine has only one choice, and inaction is no longer acceptable.

Tristan Richards is director of operations at the Maine Public Broadcasting Corp.