[sbe-eas] sbe-eas Digest, Vol 65, Issue 11

[Art Leisey]

Adrienne,

In the strictest sense, that which is displayed during the crawl of an
EAN alert, or any other EAS alert for that matter, over a cable system
channel lineup is derived from decoding the EAS header event code.  If
the code is an EAN, the EAS header is decoded as such and the crawl text
interpreted to say, "...an EAN has been issued...".  And this crawl text
continues for the duration of this "open-ended" type EAS event.  You are
correct to infer that if an EAN is issued, but it is issued only a test,
the EAS decoder will not recognize this as a test.  The audio associated
with the EAN will of course, include the added information verbally that
the EAN issued was simply a test.  This does no good, however, for the
hearing impaired, because all they notice is the text crawl over all of
their broadband channels indicate the interruption as a National Alert
and most times they cannot tune away from this message during its entire
duration.

To your point of the screen being blacked out during this EAN event or
EAN test, most cable systems could opt only for a full page raster with
the EAS crawl overlay due to technological constraints on producing just
the crawl overlay "in-band" on their encrypted channel lineups.  There
are a host of other reasons as well, the least of which is the monetary
aspect of creating 78 channels of gen-locked crawls, back-in-the-day,
and/or currently producing crawl overlays on 100-500 MPEG channels, many
of which are also encrypted.

As for adding any additional graphics features to the legacy character
generator which produces the crawl text from the decoded EAN header,
this would be, almost universally, another can of worms to open.  Since
the EAN is, an EAN, and since there is no EAS event code called EAN
TEST, the EAS decoder would not know to use a different text package for
the on-screen display.  Moreover, text-only character generators are
legacy NTSC devices and could not be altered or changed in their current
architecture due to their age, for any type of graphics or icon support.

Art Leisey
Director EAS Division
Trilithic Inc
Indianapolis, IN



-----Original Message-----
From: sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org [mailto:sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org] On Behalf
Of sbe-eas-request at sbe.org
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:33 PM
To: sbe-eas at sbe.org
Subject: sbe-eas Digest, Vol 65, Issue 11

Send sbe-eas mailing list submissions to
	sbe-eas at sbe.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sbe-eas
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	sbe-eas-request at sbe.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	sbe-eas-owner at sbe.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sbe-eas digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: FCC NPRM on the national test (Art Botterell)
   2. Re: FCC NPRM on the national test (Adrienne  Abbott)
   3. Re: FCC NPRM on the national test (Bob Reite)
   4. Re: FCC NPRM on the national test (felucia at att.net)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:33:40 -0800
From: Art Botterell <acb at incident.com>
Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FCC NPRM on the national test
To: "SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion about the Emergency
	Alert	System and other emergency communication issues."
	<sbe-eas at sbe.org>
Message-ID: <BBB67815-ADA2-448B-9EC7-F1A1AEDFE35D at incident.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mar 11, 2010, at 3/11/10 12:54 PM, Suzanne Goucher wrote:

> Maybe our Alaska friends can weigh in on this, and maybe I'm confused,

but doesn't sending an EAN alert mean they also have to send another,
separate, EAT alert to end the EAN?


Although the current FCC rules and also the current FNPRM do provide for
an EAN being followed by a separate EAT, the SAME-based EAS protocol
doesn't actually seem to require it, since the EOM associated with the
EAN has pretty much the same effect.  There was no EAT transmitted in
the Alaska exercise and, although there were a few hiccups, none of them
would have been solved by an EAT.

I'm thinking the EAN/EAT pairing may simply have been carried over
reflexively from the earlier EBS procedures.  Back in the day, the plan
was for the Emergency Action Notification to go out by teletype to tell
broadcasters to activate the audio relay system until the Emergency
Action Termination message came over the wire telling them they could
return to normal programming.  It was an "out-of-band signaling"
arrangement, where the control of the system went over a separate
network from the program content.  

When we moved to EAS, the signaling was moved in-band via the data
bursts.  The EOM burst became the effective equivalent of the EAT.  But
the idea of a separate EAT message was preserved without, as far as I
know, any explicit reason.  I suspect there may simply have been a fear
of potential unanticipated side-effects if it were dropped.

(In CAP, by the way, we actually return to an out-of-band signaling
approach, which is necessary because the CAP messages will activate
other warning delivery systems in addition to EAS.  For most alert types
each CAP message is "atomic," which is to say it's a complete entity in
itself.  But since an EAN launches a broadcast of indeterminate
duration, it requires a slightly different approach.  The initial "EAN"
CAP message serves as an announcement that the extended presidential
broadcast is beginning and provides a "pointer" to the audio stream.  A
corresponding CAP "cancel" message will indicate the end of the
broadcast.)  

Anyway, this illustrates the importance of actually exercising the
systems we build, preferably before we cast them in regulatory cement!

- Art




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:08:58 -0800
From: "Adrienne  Abbott" <nevadaeas at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FCC NPRM on the national test
To: <suzanne at mab.org>,	"'SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion
	about the	EmergencyAlert System and other emergency
communication
	issues.'" <sbe-eas at sbe.org>
Message-ID: <264D3B3260094633B669E17E4D3CF991 at ACE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

It occurs to me that David Ostmo has raised some good points about cable
override in this situation. If a cable system's EAS equipment overrides
the
video from the local stations and all viewers see is the black screen
with
the EAN crawl and that's on every channel as it is supposed to be, there
could be a problem. I don't know if there's anyway the cable provider
can
add in a graphic that says "This is a test" or if the black screen with
the
white letters is something that's produced by the cable TV equipment.
And it
will go on for two or three minutes, long enough to really irritate some
viewers and upset others. Does anyone know if/how the cable providers
are
responding to this? We will have to take cable override into account
when we
plan our education campaigns.

Adrienne

 

 

"Radio burps, it cries, it needs to be fed all the time, it requires
constant attention, but we love it." Jim Aaron WGLN 

  _____  

From: sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org [mailto:sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org] On Behalf
Of
Suzanne Goucher
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:54 PM
To: SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion about the Emergency
Alert
System and other emergency communication issues.
Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FCC NPRM on the national test

 

 

Maybe our Alaska friends can weigh in on this, and maybe I'm confused,
but
doesn't sending an EAN alert mean they also have to send another,
separate,
EAT alert to end the EAN?  I just think that, first time out of the
gate,
they want to test the system end-to-end, not any particular event code,
and
using a dedicated test code like NPT with an EOM embedded in it reduces
the
potential headaches by half. -Suzanne 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/sbe-eas/attachments/20100311/001c52
86/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:13:00 -0500
From: Bob Reite <br at telcen.com>
Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FCC NPRM on the national test
To: suzanne at mab.org, 	"SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion
	about the Emergency	Alert System and other emergency
communication
	issues." <sbe-eas at sbe.org>
Message-ID: <4B996AEC.9070002 at telcen.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

The only issue that I can see in using the NPT code is that it does not 
ensure the boxes will forward the EAN live.   In fact, I did some bench 
testing a few years back on a Hollyanne HU-961 (sorry I don't recall the

firmware version), and it did NOT treat the EAN code correctly, it 
stored and forwarded it just like any other code,  and was subject to 
the two minute limit.   This is why the Alaska test was run with a 
"live" EAN code.

Suzanne Goucher wrote:

> Hi folks,

> 

> Starting a new message thread -- The Maine SECC is going to file 

> comments in the national test proceeding, urging the FCC/FEMA to use

the 

> NPT, National Periodic Test, code instead of doing "live code" EAN 

> testing. This will avert public confusion, as well as obviating the

need 

> to massively pre- notice the American public that "this is only a

test" 

> AND to have to send a second "EAT" termination message.  I believe

this 

> suggestion is also going to be worked into the NASBA filing.  It's not



> clear from the FNPRM whether they're contemplating live-code testing

or 

> not, but the public is accustomed to hearing RWTs and RMTs, and using 

> NPT would avoid a lot of confusion, IMHO.  I toss it out there in case



> any of you want to second this idea in your comments.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Suzanne D. Goucher

> President & CEO

> Maine Association of Broadcasters

> 69 Sewall St., Suite 2

> Augusta, ME 04330

> 207-623-3870

> fax 207-621-0585

> suzanne at mab.org

> 

> 

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> _______________________________________________

> sbe-eas mailing list

> sbe-eas at sbe.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sbe-eas



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:27:45 +0000
From: felucia at att.net
Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FCC NPRM on the national test
To: "SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion about the
	EmergencyAlert	System and other emergency communication
	issues."<sbe-eas at sbe.org>
Message-ID:
	
<031120102227.25861.4B996E61000397350000650522230706129B0A02D29B9B0EBF0E
070C9A040A00 at att.net>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi All

Excellent discussion.  I am sure the FCC and FEMA will advise WHCA on
these points.  WHCA is the decider on this issue.  In the past, during
the national Closed Circuit Tests (CCTs) conducted every quarter with
the national broadcast and cable networks, WHCA was and is rightfully so
in charge.

Non-participating stations that want to leave the air during a national
EAN are instructed to sign off upon EAN receipt.  They are to return to
the air after receiving an EAT, not upon receipt of the EAN EOM.  There
were many NP stations in the past but their present number is unknown.

Of course with CAP I assume these instructions will change.

Frank



 
-------------- Original message from "Adrienne Abbott"
<nevadaeas at charter.net>: -------------- 


It occurs to me that David Ostmo has raised some good points about cable
override in this situation. If a cable system?s EAS equipment overrides
the video from the local stations and all viewers see is the black
screen with the EAN crawl and that?s on every channel as it is supposed
to be, there could be a problem. I don?t know if there?s anyway the
cable provider can add in a graphic that says ?This is a test? or if the
black screen with the white letters is something that?s produced by the
cable TV equipment. And it will go on for two or three minutes, long
enough to really irritate some viewers and upset others. Does anyone
know if/how the cable providers are responding to this? We will have to
take cable override into account when we plan our education campaigns.
Adrienne
 
 
?Radio burps, it cries, it needs to be fed all the time, it requires
constant attention, but we love it.? Jim Aaron WGLN 



From: sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org [mailto:sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org] On Behalf
Of Suzanne Goucher
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:54 PM
To: SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion about the Emergency
Alert System and other emergency communication issues.
Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FCC NPRM on the national test
 
 
Maybe our Alaska friends can weigh in on this, and maybe I'm confused,
but doesn't sending an EAN alert mean they also have to send another,
separate, EAT alert to end the EAN?  I just think that, first time out
of the gate, they want to test the system end-to-end, not any particular
event code, and using a dedicated test code like NPT with an EOM
embedded in it reduces the potential headaches by half. -Suzanne 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/sbe-eas/attachments/20100311/b3b9a4
9c/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
sbe-eas mailing list
sbe-eas at sbe.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sbe-eas


End of sbe-eas Digest, Vol 65, Issue 11
***************************************

Notice: This e-mail is intended solely for use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, company confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Information contained in, or documents attached to, this email may contain technology subject to U.S. export control laws.  Recipient is solely responsible for ensuring that any export, re-export, transfer or disclosure of this information outside of the United States, or to foreign nationals within the United States, is in accordance with applicable export control laws.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or collect telephone call and delete or destroy all copies of this e-mail message, any physical copies made of this e-mail message and/or any file attachment(s).