In the Emergency Alert System (EAS) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding proposed rule changes for EAS was the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proposal for a so-called “Governor Must Carry” provision. This proposal was developed because of complaints that governors were not using EAS to tell traffic fleeing from events like Hurricane Ike that all highways were converted to head north.  In Texas, instead of using EAS for the shuttle disaster, the governor convened a news conference. Other instances of failures to originate proper warnings are in the record.

During the Comment period on the FCC’s NOI, the Broadcast Warning Working Group (BWWG) and the National Alliance of State Broadcasting Associations (NASBA) both called for a better, more rational, event-centered warning approach, administered and managed by professionals.

Our premise was simply that emergencies are event driven.  It made a lot of sense to us to trigger must-carry warnings based on risk and threat assessments by qualified emergency managers. This would of course include local offices of the National Weather Service as well as duly authorized state and operational area government warning centers. Basing must carry warnings on a governor or a designee appeared to us to simply not be good emergency management policy. As we explained it, it makes far more sense to have local and state EAS committees designate specific EAS event warnings as “must carry.” Our proposition can be expressed as Voluntary Event Must Carry (VEMC). This label may appear to be slightly oxymoronic, but it does address the quandary we face because the FCC can only require must carry EAS by broadcast and cable entities for Presidential Emergency Action Notification (EAN) messages.

On January 10 the FCC released their Fifth Report and Order on the EAS Rules. In that release they announced they threw out the governor must carry provision, their attempt in the NOI to get around their inability to mandate carriage of any local or state EAS non-test event codes. While this means broadcasters and cable system operators will not be required under the now revised FCC Rules to carry local and state warnings, the introduction in the EAS rules regarding the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) can bring us closer to getting event-driven warnings to people at risk. So, when CAP-enhanced EAS comes into being, can we create a “carrot” for broadcast and cable to want to volunteer, as well as a “carrot” for the emergency management community to want to originate?

I recently made presentations to an EAS Local Emergency Communications Committee (LECC) and one of the three California emergency management mutual aid regional coordination groups to outline VEMC. Making VEMC happen will require Operational Area emergency management to become certified to originate IPAWS OPEN messages, and broadcasters to work with their local weather service offices and their operational area emergency managers in order to agree on a short list of EAS event codes that directly affect life safety. Both groups reacted positively and understood the implicit “carrots”.

The goal for VEMC is to send a clear and strong message to broadcasters that those few life-safety codes should be broadcast – even if not specifically required under Part 11 as a public service.

Starting small, I propose that that VEMC list contain just a few codes:

(1) Codes for high risk, high probability weather life safety events based on local risk assessment and

(2) the EAS EVI and SPW and CEM codes[1].

Of these three codes, the CEM , coupled with IPAWS OPEN CAP messaging, can convey specific information not covered by EVI and SPW. CEM CAP messages can carry many specific directions to the public such as directives to boil water, curfew information, and realistic reassurance about response measures as the story of the emergency unfolds.

Yes, emergencies are stories, and effective warnings to a public at risk are the headlines for those stories. Just like stories in print, emergency management can garner a larger audience for their role in emergency response by creating timely and carefully crafted warning headlines. Stay tuned.

Stop by the EAS Category on the AWARE Forum for previous posts in this series on the new CAP EAS rules introduced in the Report and Order (R&O). In this final look at the R&O, we will detail the various items that FCC declined to make a decision on at this point. In addition, the Commission made several interesting statements regarding their apparent view on legacy EAS going forward. [xxx] below denotes the R&O paragraph which discusses the noted language. Also below, the use of the word “SAME” means Specific Area Message Encoding, the technical name for the legacy EAS protocol originally coined by the National Weather Service.

The FCC has deferred a number of decisions until after the completion of their review of the Nationwide EAS Test data. As detailed in the preceding Part 4 of this series dealing with SECC issues, two of those deferred decisions address revision or elimination of the FCC Mapbook and any new rules on State EAS Plans and SECC authority and responsibilities. [119 and 274] Other decisions deferred until after the test results are fully analyzed include: adding a new National EAS Location Code (000000 has been suggested) [Footnote 496], whether manual operation of EAS equipment should be allowed for processing the EAN [202], if the EAS Operating Handbook should be eliminated [210], deletion of Section 11.16 of the EAS rules addressing National Control Point Procedures [227], response to a commenter on a request that translators and satellite stations no longer be exempted from having EAS equipment so that they may carry State and local alerts [268], and finally considering comments whether there should be changes to the current Required Weekly Test (RWT) and Required Monthly Test (RMT) rules. [277]

The FCC had some forward-looking statements. Regarding future equipment modifications, it considers its current rules as adequate noting that revisions to EAS Event Codes, Originator Codes or Location Codes are permissive changes. With respect to revisions to the CAP-related standards, FCC notes it is incorporating by reference the version of the standards adopted by FEMA. FCC states, “Thus, any future revisions that may be made to these standards could not become effective in the Part 11 rules absent a rulemaking proceeding.” [180]

Lastly, the Commission makes numerous references to the future of legacy EAS, giving the impression they see SAME eventually going away. FCC states Next Generation EAS is being deployed “at least initially, in parallel to the legacy EAS” [16], and “we tentatively concluded… for the time being, we should… maintain the existing legacy EAS, including utilization of the SAME protocol” [18], and they call that policy “the transitional approach” [26, 27 and numerous other mentions]. However, they reject a commenter’s request to impose a “sunset date” on legacy EAS [29]. The really telling language the FCC used in its description of its outlook on the future of legacy EAS is its new phrase, “CAP-in, SAME-out transitional approach we adopt here”. [30] So the Commission definitely appears to see a world without SAME, but opted not to put a timeline on reaching that milestone.

To read the R&O use this link.

Check back to AWARE for updates on the new FCC CAP EAS rules, including any Petitions for Reconsideration asking the Commission to modify these “final rules”, as well as the FCC’s eventual revisit to the deferred decisions in the R&O once the Nationwide EAS Test results are fully reviewed.

Broadcast is dead.

Or at least it is dying.

This statement is a bit of a hyperbole, but it is worth a conversation.  A major theme at CES wasn’t the technology itself, but how the technology displays streaming media via an Internet connection.  Of all the new consumer technologies at CES, the vast majority assumed some sort of ubiquitous, fast, always on Internet connection.  This was shown in the number of TVs that connect to Netflix and other streaming TV/movie sights, as well as new TV set-top boxes that record TV via a DVR, but can also stream that to a mobile device.  As iTunes, Amazon’s Video on Demand, Netflix, and other services gain momentum, their use on a wide variety of devices is going to skyrocket.

The future is streaming

It is important to note that none of these new technologies used broadcast television as a means of disseminating the content.  The trend is for more and more media (entertainment or otherwise) to be streamed via the Internet instead of broadcast.  Even right now, according to a Sandvine report, Netflix usage accounts for over 30% of Internet traffic during peak hours.  While people are watching Netflix, they aren’t watching broadcast television, and ratings are therefore suffering.  While volumes can be written on the relative merits of streaming vs. broadcast from a consumer perspective, the point is from a technology perspective, the future is streaming.

Where this becomes relevant is that the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and other emergency alert programs have a very defined process for disseminating emergency information and a track record going back several decades.  The concept of a crawler on the bottom of your TV highlighting a flood watch or the “this is a test” EAS experience are very well socialized among the citizenry.  Right now, there is no equivalent process or socialization strategy when it comes to streaming content.  Of all the vendors I spoke with (anecdotal evidence, not a formal survey), everyone thought “someone else” was responsible for inserting timely emergency information into the content they were streaming.  Even more troublesome is the fact that vendors have not thought of how the emergency information would interrupt the user-experience and be displayed in a useful fashion, regardless of the device on which the content is viewed.

The challenge of location

Another issue to be mindful of is geo-targeting.  EAS and broadcast alerts are targeted to specific viewing areas as the local affiliates can “break into” the programming.  With streaming media, there is no local affiliate to break into a stream.  A process is necessary to determine how alerts can be disseminated across streaming media based on the consumers location.  This is particularly true with mobile devices as consumers will be viewing content far away from “home” at any given point.

While these aren’t major public safety issues now, streaming does appear to be the future of media consumption, so the sooner the community can come to an agreement on responsibility and process, the better.  The longer these issues linger, the harder they will be to address from a technology, standards, governance, and regulatory perspective.  The alternative is a missed opportunity to improve the dissemination of alerts or worse, no alert dissemination at all.

For previous posts in this 5-part series on the new CAP EAS rules introduced in the Report and Order (R&O), check out the EAS Category on the AWARE Forum. In this edition of our series we will address rules of interest to State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs). [xxx] below denotes the R&O paragraph which discusses the noted language. Also below, the use of the word “SAME” means Specific Area Message Encoding, the technical name for the legacy EAS protocol originally coined by the National Weather Service.

In that the Commission is now requiring CAP monitoring, perhaps the item of most interest to SECCs is whether the State EAS Plan can require CAP monitoring by State EAS Participants; will there be a “CAP Monitoring Assignment” in State EAS Plans on a par with the current legacy EAS Monitoring Assignments? My interpretation of the new rules is that no, there will not be CAP Monitoring Assignments in the State EAS Plans. Here in my logic.

As far as a State EAS Plan requiring CAP monitoring for State CAP EAS messages, logic would dictate that since State EAS messages are now still voluntary that there cannot be requirements for monitoring for State CAP messages. This is backed up by statements in R&O paragraphs 52 and 53; while CAP “monitoring requirements” can be set forth in an FCC-approved State EAS Plan, it talks about “EAS Participants voluntarily electing to meet the monitoring requirements associated with a given state’s CAP system specifications”. [52, 53 and 117]

So a State EAS Plan cannot require CAP monitoring for a State EAS message, but can it require CAP monitoring as a method for distributing the President’s Emergency Action Notification (EAN) message? R&O paragraph 116 says the FCC is “amending section 11.21 (a) to make clear that the State EAS Plans specify the monitoring assignments and the specific primary and backup path for SAME-formatted EANs and that the monitoring requirements for CAP-formatted EANs are set forth in section 11.52.” Section 11.52 requires EAS Participants to monitor FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) for CAP EAN messages. The R&O continues, “We do not know what role, if any, state alerting systems may play in disseminating CAP-formatted EANs in the future.” This sounds that State EAS Plans cannot require CAP monitoring for the EAN, at least at the present time. Paragraph 116 goes on to say, “to the extent a state may distribute CAP-formatted EANs to EAS Participants via its state alerting system, its State EAS Plan must include specific and detailed information describing how such messages will be aggregated and delivered, just as it must for state CAP-formatted non-EAN messages.” Later in the paragraph it refers to the FCC and FEMA using these state EAN dissemination details “to conduct meaningful EAS tests”, so it still doesn’t appear that these EAN dissemination details in a State EAS Plan equate to a “monitoring assignment”. [116] Section 11.52 (d) (1) still requires the two analog Monitoring Assignments, and 11.52 (d) (2) requires the IPAWS EAN CAP monitoring detailed in section 11.56. Section 11.52 (d) (3) says to see 11.21 (a) for State CAP message monitoring.

Here are some related FCC decisions, and non-decisions, regarding the SECC and the State EAS Plan. There were comments requesting that Section 11.20 describing State Relay Networks include a reference to CAP, but the Commission feels the current language “is broad enough to encompass EAS messages originated in CAP format” and they are thus not amending that section. This paragraph also provides a clarification that, “It is up to each state to determine whether to deploy a CAP-based relay network”; so state CAP networks are definitely not required. [113] The FCC deferred any decision on revision or elimination of the FCC Mapbook until after the completion of their review of the Nationwide EAS Test data. [119] Likewise, they deferred enacting any new rules on State EAS Plans and SECC authority and responsibilities until after the Nationwide EAS Test data is completely analyzed. [274] However, one glimmer of hope on that last point is that in two paragraphs the FCC refers indirectly that SECCs “already do… draft State EAS Plans” and “SECCs, the entities that draft most State EAS Plans”. While these are not new rules, the Commission’s tacit admission that the SECCs draft State EAS plans is more than we have in the rules right now. Hopefully when it does come to considering any new SECC rules, they will heed their own words in the R&O. [116 and 269] There are a few other deferred decisions with cursory impact on SECCs. See the upcoming Part 5 of this series for those details.

To read the R&O use this link.

Check back to AWARE for our last report in this series on the new FCC CAP EAS rules, which will outline all the decisions that are deferred and will analyze the Commission’s outlook on the future of legacy EAS.

This post is Part 3 of 5 in a series of reports on the contents of the FCC Fifth Report and Order released on January 10, 2012, which amends the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to accommodate Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) messages.

Part 1 and Part 2 of our series dealt with new CAP EAS rules added by the Report and Order (R&O). Here in Part 3, we will take a look at what the FCC left the same, updating of an often-used acronym, and four rules that the Commission eliminated. [xxx] below denotes the R&O paragraph which discusses the noted language.

One requirement that the FCC kept in the EAS Rules is that the visual display must start with the originator, event, location and valid time period of the EAS message as derived from the legacy EAS Header Code. Many commenters had advocated for replacing the Header Code derived text with the more descriptive text that could be derived for these four elements from the CAP fields. The FCC acknowledged that this less-descriptive Header Code text uses up a portion of the 1800 characters available, but feels that keeping the rule provides “some measure of uniformity and consistency” in the visual display. While this is somewhat disappointing, the Commission did go on to require the use of any available CAP-derived text following the Header Code text, as detailed earlier here on AWARE. [140]

Another issue that the FCC did not change its stance on is the commenter requests for EAS training. The Commission reiterated that it lacks the authority to raise or distribute funds for EAS-related purposes and therefore cannot provide training for state and local emergency managers. They noted they can however hold workshops and summits. [257] An update the FCC made is to acknowledge that the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) publication currently used to describe EAS Location Code numbering has been replaced by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) publication. So, the EAS location “FIPS Code” is now “ANSI Code”. [235]

As for rules that have been eliminated, the blockbuster is the previous requirement to broadcast a governor-originated CAP alert as covered earlier on AWARE. The FCC reasoning noted in the R&O includes problems implementing the mandate within the EAS architecture (possible new Originator Code, confusion on the requirement in state-border areas, etc.) and the Commission states “it is not clear whether it would provide any tangible benefit”. They said part of the logic for the requirement was to encourage states to adopt CAP messaging, but notes that nearly half of all states are implementing CAP without this rule in effect. Finally, noting that FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) will provide a means for a State governor to issue CAP alerts via EAS and mobile devices, FCC feels retaining the rule would “duplicate features offered by the IPAWS”. [191 and 193]

Another good move by the Commission is to eliminate the Emergency Action Termination (EAT) EAS Code as part of the Presidential alerting process. Originally, the Emergency Action Notification (EAN) EAS Code started a Presidential alert, EAS Participants filled with live scripts, and the process ended with reception of the EAT Code. Under the revised rules, the FCC implements what it calls “message-by-message processing” where the Presidential message follows the same sequence as all other EAS alerts; an initial EAS code, in this case EAN, followed by the audio message and terminated by an End-of-Message (EOM) code. Any further broadcasts would repeat this sequence. The FCC admitted that the EAT was a holdover from when EAS Participant manual operation was the norm. They conclude by saying the former rules “do not translate well for automated operation, are confusing, and in some cases, inconsistent with other Part 11 rules.” [201] Another rule which harkened back to the days of manual operation was the existence of Non-participating National (NN) EAS Participants which elected to discontinue operation during a Presidential alert. The FCC has dropped the NN status, saying “it is not necessary” and “it does not appear to serve any purpose today”. They noted that since 1995 when the EAS rules were adopted, fewer than 50 stations have applied for NN status and many of those changed to participating status prior to the National EAS Test. [215 and Footnote 655] Also being eliminated is rules section 11.44 on EAS message priorities. Formerly, the priority was to be Federal, then Local, then State, then National Information Center (NIC) messages. The Commission noted with the wane of manual operation and the Commission’s implementation of message-by-message processing, “this section is superfluous”. [220]

To read the R&O use this link.

Check back to AWARE for our next report on new FCC CAP EAS rules important to the State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs).

We intend this post to be a broad overview of CMAS — and the start of a discussion with CMAS stakeholders. Let us know what aspects of CMAS you want to learn more about by commenting here or telling us on twitter: @AWAREforum.

What is CMAS?

• CMAS is the mobile alerting component of the part of the larger Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), which also includes the Emergency Alert System (EAS).
• CMAS will provide local, tribal, state, territorial, and Federal government officials the ability to send 90-character, geographically-targeted text alerts to the public.
• Wireless providers, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are critical partners in developing the CMAS alerting capability.
• Once this system is operational in April 2012, FEMA will own and operate CMAS as a component of IPAWS.
• CMAS is sometimes also referred to as Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) or the Personal Localized Alerting Network (PLAN). (We previously posted about the naming issues surrounding CMAS.)

How Does CMAS Work?

• CMAS will use cell broadcast technology, which is distinct from many text-message alerting systems currently in operation. Cell broadcast simultaneously delivers messages to multiple recipients in a specified area using a broadcast from a cell tower — not unlike a radio. By using cell broadcast, CMAS avoids the congestion issues currently experienced by traditional SMS alerting services.
• There are three types of CMAS Alerts:
• Presidential Alerts: alerts issued by the President of the United States to all citizens
• Imminent Threat: alerts involving serious threats to life and property; most of these will probably be related to severe weather
• AMBER alerts: alerts regarding missing or abducted children
• Subscribers will be allowed to opt-out of the imminent threat and AMBER alerts. However, subscribers may not opt out of the Presidential Alerts.
• Alerts must be 90 characters long and may not contain any hyperlinks.
• According to current standards, CMAS alerts can be geo-targeted to the county level using the FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard) code.
• There is no charge to consumers for the alerts.

How Do I send a CMAS  Send a Message?

In order for emergency managers to send CMAS alerts they must do the following:

• Acquire an IPAWS-compatible alert authoring software (see here for a list of providers on the FEMA website). This software must be CAP compliant. If you have alerting software already, you may want to contact your provider to find out if they are currently CAP compliant or if they have plans to become so.
• Apply for a Collaborative Operating Group, or “COG.” This is done by signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with FEMA. For more information about signing up for a COG and signing an MOA see FEMA’s website here.
• Complete the EMI Independent Study “Effective Alert and Warning Messaging.” We understand the training takes about two hours. This training can be done at anytime.

We hope this gives you basic background on CMAS. We plan on posting subsequent articles diving deeper into some of the aspects of CMAS. So again, please let us know which topics you would like to learn more about.

This post is Part 2 of 5 in a series of reports on the contents of the FCC Fifth Report and Order released on January 10, 2012, which amends the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to accommodate Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) messages.

As in Part 1 of our series, this installment will continue a look at new and changed rules in the Report and Order (R&O). [xxx] below denotes the R&O paragraph which discusses the noted language.

As discussed previously on AWARE, the Commission adopted the EAS-CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide (I.G.) as the method to be followed for converting CAP messages to legacy EAS protocol. The Commission thus considers equipment conformance to the ECIG I.G. to now be part of the FCC certification requirements, which the Commission is allowing to be met by presentation of the Suppliers Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) issued to equipment passing the FEMA Conformity Assessment Program. Since the majority of EAS CAP equipment in the field already has an SDoC, this move will make for a streamlined equipment certification process. [37 and 165]

The FCC approved the use of what it calls “intermediary devices”, which are stand-alone devices that convert CAP messages to legacy EAS messages and then route those messages to an existing non-CAP legacy EAS unit for airing. There was some question whether these intermediary devices would be required to be certified. The Commission has clarified that if the intermediary device outputs the messages in legacy EAS protocol, then the device needs to be certified and possess an SDoC as well. The one exception is for intermediary devices that do not directly output legacy EAS protocol. These are units the FCC calls “component intermediary devices” which are typically designed to be used with one particular brand of legacy EAS unit and communicate through a data port, thus they don’t output legacy EAS protocol messages and don’t need to be certified. There was additional question whether the FEMA-issued SDoC for intermediary devices represents adequate testing, but the FCC stated that it would accept the current intermediary device SDoCs for certification of those devices. [164, 170, 171 and 175]

The new FCC rules require EAS Participants to monitor the FEMA Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Internet-based feed for national-level CAP EAS alerts. The Commission admits that some EAS Participant facilities may have difficulty acquiring a broadband Internet connection. Thus, on a case-by-case basis, the FCC will consider issuing waivers to EAS Participants with “physical unavailability of broadband Internet service”. These waivers will exempt the EAS Participant from being required to purchase an EAS CAP Encoder/Decoder, but their legacy EAS unit must remain in operation. The waivers must be renewed every 6 months. As to whether the cost of any available Internet service is grounds for a waiver, this will be decided on a case-by-case basis as well. [152]

One simple FCC change made is that the EAS Attention Signal length is to be 8 seconds exactly; no more selectable range of timing. [246] Also, a new rule provides that it is permissible, but not required, for an EAS unit to retransmit an alert that was received without its End-of-Message (EOM) code. The retransmitting EAS unit must then generate its own EOM to replace the missing EOM when rebroadcasting the alert. [251]

To read the R&O use this link.

Check back to AWARE for our next report on what current EAS rules were eliminated in the new FCC CAP EAS rules.

Caesar Augustus

We’ll start with the Romans. Caesar Augustus set up a group called the Vigiles in AD 6, who patrolled the streets of Rome at night. They were responsible for fighting fires, identifying fire hazards, alerting the community of conflagrations, and preventing thefts in the night. The Vigiles’s main tool was a bucket made of rope sealed with pitch, which was used in bucket brigades. Later, they had crude water pumps to assist in fighting fires. The prime alerting mechanism was by yelling through the streets. The obvious shortfall of this approach is the risk that the Vigiles happen not to be on your street when your house catches fire.

Great Wall of China

Another civilization had an early warning system more national in importance–and a good deal more strategic. For over two-thousand years, the Chinese relied on the Great Wall of China to keep out nomadic enemies. Apart from being a barrier to invaders, the wall also served as a long range early warning system. By lighting fires in towers connected by sections of the wall, warning of an advancing army could be sent hundreds of mile in just hours. It’s easy to imagine this as a precursor to CONELRAD, which was designed to alert the entire United States of the start of nuclear war, and its successor the Emergency Alert System. In a way, each ignited tower served as a kind of PEP station, carrying the message further.

Flashing forward to more modern times, the introduction of the telegraph ushered in an era where it was possible to transmit a message over long distances almost instantaneously. In 1852, the Boston Fire Department became the first to send out a fire alarm by telegraph. Later, radio and television created the ability to broadcast emergency messages to the general public. The first tornado warning to be transmitted over radio and television is believed to have been sent out in 1954 to residents of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Japanese Tsunami

Today’s early alerts and warnings systems provide a level of precision and timeliness that authorities throughout history would certainly be impressed by. One great example is the Earthquake Early Warning system in Japan. When an earthquake of sufficient magnitude is detected by seismometers distributed throughout the country, a message is automatically and instantaneously sent to mobile phones, televisions, radios and sirens in areas that may be affected by the quake. The alert is sent out in five languages. Residents are given valuable seconds to take shelter in doorways and under tables before the tremors reach them, saving lives and preventing injury in many cases.

We have come a long way since the Roman Vigiles. While we may never reach a point where we can prevent all deaths and injuries due to emergencies and disasters, each advancement in warning systems gives us the ability to save lives and property.

As a follow-on to our preliminary synopsis of the FCC Report and Order, this five-part series will take a more in-depth look at the new rules. Two of the highlights of the new CAP EAS rules might be the best and the worst decisions made in the ruling, both of which deal with how CAP alerts are converted for presentation as legacy EAS messages on broadcast stations and cable systems. First the good news…

Although the Commission was originally not in favor of allowing the use of the enhanced text displays that could be derived from CAP alerts because it felt the difference between CAP-derived text and that of text derived from legacy EAS messages might lead to public confusion, the Commission was swayed by public comments on this topic and thus changed its position. The FCC in the final ruling not only allows the enhanced CAP text, its use is required “to the extent that such text is supplied by the alert initiator”. CAP converters, which the FCC calls “intermediary devices”, must also include this ability to display the enhanced CAP text, but those devices have until June 30, 2015 to comply. As the FCC itself noted, the enhanced CAP text will make EAS messages more accessible to all Americans, especially Americans with disabilities. This is truly a commendable turnaround by the FCC, and it is to be acknowledged for taking the public comments to heart.

Unfortunately, there is also bad news in the FCC actions regarding CAP alerts. EAS Rule 11.56 (a) (2) starts out sounding promising saying that the FCC adopts the EAS-CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide, which was another good move by the Commission, but it goes on to say, “(except that any and all specifications set forth therein related to using text-to-speech technology… shall not be followed).” The FCC has thus prohibited the use of text-to-speech (TTS) for assembling the legacy EAS audio messages derived from CAP alerts when no CAP audio file is provided. The discussion for this decision is in Paragraph 38 of the Report and Order, citing concerns as to whether TTS is “sufficiently accurate” for EAS use and FCC feels that different TTS software could produce differing audio messages from the same EAS message. Although this decision is attributed in Footnote 121 to a comment from an EAS equipment manufacturer, one would think the FCC’s interpretation was not the intent of the original comment. It will be interesting to see if EAS equipment manufacturers, either individually or as a group through ECIG, file a Petition for Reconsideration on this issue. Such a Petition can be filed within 30 days of the Report and Order being published in the Federal Register. Broadcaster organizations and others may wish to chime in on this issue as well. It would seem TTS is already well proven through its use for alerting on NOAA Weather Radio, as well as the preliminary deployment of EAS CAP units already in the field. Let us hope this FCC decision is reconsidered.

To read the R&O use this link.

Check back to AWARE for future reports on the new FCC CAP EAS rules coming soon.

• Amends section 11.55 of the Commission’s rules to eliminate the requirement that EAS Participants receive and transmit CAP-formatted messages initiated by state governors.
• EAS Participants are permitted to use intermediary devices to meet their CAP-related obligations, provided that all intermediary devices must provide that capability of utilizing the enhanced text in a CAP message to meet the visual display requirements in section 11.51(d), (g)(3), (h)(3), and (j)(2) of the Commission’s rules, as set forth in section 3.6 of the ECIG Implementation Guide, by June 30, 2015.
• The EAS CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide (I.G.) is accepted as the method to convert CAP-formatted messages into legacy EAS format, and incorporates the ECIG I.G. into the Commission’s existing certification scheme.
• EAS Participants are required to monitor FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) for federal CAP-formatted alert messages.
• Further on the IPAWS monitoring requirement, the R&O clarifies that it would be inappropriate to adopt any form of blanket exemption from the basic obligations of monitoring for, receiving, and processing CAP-formatted messages, but concludes that the physical unavailability of broadband Internet service offers a presumption in favor of a waiver.
• The Non-Participating National (NN) EAS Station Designation is eliminated.
• Action is deferred on revising the EAS Operating Handbook until after results of the November 9, 2011 Nationwide EAS Test are analyzed.
• Revises section 11.32(a)(9)(iv) of the Commission’s rules to limit the duration of the Attention Signal to no more than eight seconds.

Read the R&O at this link.