With such volatile, violent weather, Alabamans are understandably looking to how alerts and warnings could enable people to get information faster, thus saving lives. The NYT article references a report issued by a committee appointed by the Governor, which calls for more geographically targeted, timely alerts on multiple platforms. (The report also points out the shortfalls of tornado sirens, which people believe are becoming less effective.) The NYT article states:

The council of community and business leaders called for a better system of warnings that would incorporate Global Positioning System technology and smartphones. People need to be warned through e-mails, text messages and voice mail based on the current location of a device, not its user’s billing address, the report suggested. The state could also make better use of electronic billboards and offer warnings in languages other than English, the report said.

Unfortunately, the article makes no mention or reference of IPAWS or the Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS), which offer some solutions to these ideas.

IPAWS was established to enable the dissemination of alerts and warnings via multiple channels and platforms. Display of emergency messages on electronic billboards and traffic signs has been talked about as one platform that IPAWS could serve.

CMAS, which was tested in the New York Times‘ own home city last month, will disseminate SMS-like messages to compatible mobile phones based on their geographic location. The threat of tornadoes and other extreme weather would likely be cause for a CMAS alert, as they would probably constitute an “Imminent Threat” (one of the circumstances that trigger a CMAS message).

Some of the capabilities mentioned in the report and article are still being figured out. Alerts via social media and commercial electronic billboards are definitely in this category. But it merits mentioning that the government is making progress on many of these challenges.

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.

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.

• 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.

If you are thinking that you have heard of Wireless Emergency Alerts before, it is probably because you have. You may know them by one of two other names, CMAS or PLAN (the Personal Localized Alerting Network). They all refer to the same system: the mobile alerting component of FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS).

“CMAS”

CMAS has been the primary name used in Federal communications because it was the original name and is the term most referred to by the FEMA IPAWS Program. (For this reason, we at AWARE will continue to refer to it as CMAS.)

“PLAN”

The term PLAN first came to the forefront in an announcement in New York City on May 10, 2011. An excerpt from the press release is included below:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator W. Craig Fugate, top executives from AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon and others convened at the World Trade Center site to announce PLAN–the Personal Localized Alerting Network [emphasis added]. PLAN is a free service that will allow customers with an enabled mobile device to receive geographically-targeted, text-like messages alerting them of imminent threats to safety in their area. This service will be available in New York City by the end of 2011, at least two calendar quarters before the rest of the nation.

“Wireless Emergency Alerts”

Additionally, the wireless carriers that disseminate messages in this system generally refer to Wireless Emergency Alerts, a term used in communications from AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. AT&T also makes mention of the potential for confusion over the name of CMAS.

Why all the names?

The multitude of names for these wireless alerts is likely a product of the number of groups across the public and private sectors that are involved in this effort: the FCC, FEMA, DHS S&T, wireless carriers, and other stakeholders such as local emergency managers and first responders that will serve as originators of emergency alerts and warnings.

As the deployment of CMAS in April 2012 nears, public education about the capabilities and benefits of this system will be very important. Confusion over the different names for the system may pose a challenge to education mobile subscribers, and coordination between the government and industry partners will be key. As more testing is conducted over the next several months, there should be more clarity around this issue.

• Have you experienced confusion due to this naming issue?
• How much of a challenge do you think this naming issue poses?
• Do you prefer one name over another? Are any of the current names confusing?

The major topics of Denis’s discussion included the recent CMAS test in New York City, plans for future testing across the country, the CMAS research agenda and opportunities, and S&T’s Alerts and Warnings using Social Media program. Denis brought up multiple opportunities for government and industry stakeholders to get involved in RDT&E activities. There were also a number of questions from the audience about how CMAS works, how jurisdictions can plug into the system to establish the CMAS capability, and how jurisdictions can become more involved in CMAS testing.

The slides and recording will be available soon. Contact Amy Sebring at asebring [at] emforum.org to be added to the IPAWS Practitioner email list and be notified with the slides and recording from the session will be available.

CMAS Testing

DHS S&T, FEMA, and the New York City Office of Emergency Management conducted an end-to-end test of CMAS in all five boroughs of New York City on December 15th. (We previously covered it here and here.) All four major carriers participated in the test: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Although the results of the test are not yet fully known (New York is working on this analysis), the test procedure was a success.

S&T is planning four other regional tests and a national test of CMAS in 2012, before and after the deployment date of CMAS in April. The dates and locations of these tests are not yet determined. If jurisdictions are interested in participating in testing, contact CMAS_Forum [at] sra.com.

There were a number of technical questions about how jurisdictions can develop their CMAS capability and potentially test with the FEMA Alert Gateway. The full process for jurisdictions to connect to the Gateway and begin testing is available on the FEMA IPAWS website. Generally, a jurisdiction must: 1) obtain a tool capable of sending a CAP message; 2) take an EMI training; 3) sign a Memorandum of Agreement with FEMA for access to the system. (Mark Lucero from FEMA reported that they currently have 92 signed MOAs, of which 27 jurisdictions are actively testing with FEMA.) Jurisdictions interested in becoming an alerting authority should work with state coordinators to obtain authorization as a CMAS originator.

One participant asked how many mobile devices are on the market that are capable of receiving a CMAS message. Some wireless carriers (such as Verizon and Sprint) have posted lists of which of their devices are CMAS capable.

CMAS Research Agenda

S&T’s RDT&E Program is focusing on two key areas as part of its research agenda:

• Geo-targeting. Targeting alerts and warnings to be delivered to specific geographic areas.
• Public response. Understanding how the public responds to CMAS messages. One area mentioned is that we don’t currently know how people will respond to 90-character messages. This will be a focus of the RDT&E Program.

Research funds have to be obligated by the end of FY2012 (September 30, 2012). If you are interested in applying for research funds as part of this program, visit FedBizOpps.

How to Get Involved

Three CMAS Forums are planned for 2012 as venues for engaging stakeholders in CMAS RDT&E and testing activities. The first will be hosted on February 21st in Las Vegas as part of the International Wireless Communications Expo. Dates and locations of the other two CMAS Forums are TBD.

S&T will also be hosting monthly conference calls and webinars. The next call will be January 11 at 2:30 PM EST. To get involved or for more information, join the Alerts and Warnings group on the First Responder Communities of Practice or email CMAS_Forum [at] sra.com.

Alerts and Warnings using Social Media

Denis provided an overview of S&T’s Alerts and Warnings using Social Media (AWSM) program. Sample findings from this research include:

• One-size solutions don’t fit everyone. EMs need to assess their community’s needs.
• Don’t reinvent the wheel. Look at best practices from other jurisdictions.
• Make a clear distinction between preparedness and alert and warning programs.
• Build procedures for using social media in advance of an emergency.
• Test your social media capability to ensure it is reliable.
• Partner with government and community organizations.

He also mentioned that a tool is in development that will be able to translate a CAP message for dissemination via Twitter or Facebook.

Top photo by sffoghorn

The CMSSAC Recommendations were instrumental in shaping the technical development of CMAS and were holistic in their approach. However, given that the CMAS deployment date of April 2012 is nearing, now four years after the Recommendations were published, it is necessary to revisit them to see if they are still relevant. For example, for the area of message creation, CMSAAC recommended using Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) fields to create elements of the Commercial Mobile Alert Message (CMAM) message (the message sent to the mobile device). While CAP still serves as the base standard, FEMA IPAWS has adopted the CAP Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Profile as part of the standards. The recommendation of geo-targeting at the county level offers another example. While targeting to this level this may work for a few areas of the country, it may not be specific enough to be of high value in urban areas. Finally, another consideration is to reexamine the 90 character limit constraint of the CMAM message.

The CMSAAC has recognized the need to reexamine its recommendations on a frequent basis. As part of its recommendations, it suggests reviewing and updating them periodically based on advances in technology and experiences with deployment.

Let us know your thoughts. What other areas/issues need to be revisited in the CMSAAC recommendations?