[sbe-eas] FW: [EAS-OR] False Trips from a spot

[W2XJ]

I along with others do not think EAS should depend on a broadcast backbone.
There are many reasons to support broadcast as a vital part of informing the
public during disasters but daisy chain EAS that has not really evolved from
CONELRAD is a poor excuse.

I am still not convinced that these spots were the cause of the problem. It
will take more than some empirical suspicions there must be some science to
back this up. 


On 9/9/10 11:14 PM, "Adrienne  Abbott" <nevadaeas at charter.net> wrote:


> You are correct--the FCC only regulates broadcasters, not PR firms. But

> waiting for the FCC to fine a station before deciding that this ad violates

> Part 11 is absolutely ridiculous and seems to me to violate our principles

> as broadcast engineers and SBE members. However, we may be between a rock

> and a hard spot--a station that objects to the ARCO "EAS" spot may risk

> losing the entire campaign and the associated $$$ so in the current economy,

> they'll risk it. And maybe they're right--look at how hard we're working to

> make it seem like this situation really isn't as bad as I think it is.

> 

> Overall, however, with "props" to Harold for the work he did analyzing the

> ad, the problem is not whether the tones are technically close enough to the

> real thing to constitute a violation of Part 11. It's the overall intent of

> the ad to create an attention-grabbing effect through duplication of an EAS

> activation that is the concern in this situation. As I said earlier, if it

> looks like a duck, etc.

> 

> People--the Emergency Management community doesn't like the easy way the

> broadcast community rolls over for this kind of thing--so it all becomes

> part of the lack of respect the EM's have for EAS and their unwillingness to

> see EAS for anything other than a media ploy for easy access to disasters.

> It's hard to argue that we are legitimately "First Responders" when we so

> easily let anybody blow something that sounds like the EAS tones for

> commercial purposes. If we don't shut this down now, we have no one to blame

> when EM's choose telephone notifications and text messages over broadcast as

> their preferred providers of public warnings and emergency information. It's

> another nail in the coffin of the broadcast industry.

> 

> Pardon me if I'm feeling very much like Cassandra in front of the walls of

> Troy...ok-look it up in your Funk and Wagnall's.

> 

> Adrienne

> 

> "Radio burps, it cries, it needs to be fed all the time, it requires

> constant attention, but we love it." Jim Aaron WGLN

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org [mailto:sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org] On Behalf Of

> W2XJ

> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:54 PM

> To: SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion about the Emergency Alert

> System and other emergency communication issues.

> Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FW: [EAS-OR] False Trips from a spot

> 

> There is no way to pass blame. The FCC will only hold a licensee

> responsible. After that, it is a civil issue. I think the stations that

> think they are affected complain to the the stations they think caused the

> problem.

> 

> I am not convinced that this is a problem based on the reports here by those

> who examined the tones. It could be something purely coincidental. So far

> there is more hearsay than facts available.

> 

> 

> On 9/9/10 8:37 PM, "Adrienne  Abbott" <nevadaeas at charter.net> wrote:

> 

>> The question is...HOW do we want to hear from the FCC on this? Do we want

>> their response to be an NOV for some random station who happens to air the

>> spot when an FCC Field Agent is listening? Then it would be up to the

>> station to decide whether it's worth passing the blame to Ogilvy and

> Mather

>> or just to take the hit and pay the fine. Or should we be more pro-active

>> and call the FCC's attention to the matter before it ends up as fodder for

>> lawyers? And should it be SBE who calls the FCC's attention to the ad or

>> should it be an SECC chair or member in a market where the ad is airing,

> or

>> should it be a private individual?

>> Just asking...

>> Adrienne

>> 

>> "Radio burps, it cries, it needs to be fed all the time, it requires

>> constant attention, but we love it." Jim Aaron WGLN

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org [mailto:sbe-eas-bounces at sbe.org] On Behalf

> Of

>> Richard Rudman

>> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:53 AM

>> To: SBE EAS Exchange - a mail list for discussion about the Emergency

> Alert

>> System and other emergency communication issues.

>> Subject: Re: [sbe-eas] FW: [EAS-OR] False Trips from a spot

>> 

>> It is not so much a matter of what we think, it is more what the FCC

> thinks.

>> 

>> Personally, I do not think it is a good advertising strategy to use this

>> type of sound effect.

>> 

>> I agree with Harold's assessment statement about using EAS in spots:

> "Would

>> it confuse the listener - no.  Cause them to listen more closely - maybe.

>> Was it ill advised - probably."

>> 

>> Let's take 10 on this before recommending that SBE do or not do something.

>> We will probably have FCC's "read" on this sooner rather than later....

>> 

>> Richard

>> 

>> 

>> On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Ralph Beaver wrote:

>> 

>>> Thanks Harold.  Valuable information!

>>> 

>>> That is a noble gesture (offering a "safe" tone set for commercials) and

>> would seem to be the cure to this particular problem *except* for

>> distribution.  That would be in the same thought stream as a "555"

> telephone

>> number.

>>> 

>>> What think we?

>>> 

>>> Beaver

>>> 

>>> 

>>> At 01:10 PM 9/9/2010, Harold Price wrote:

>>>> Kent, thanks for the audio.

>>>> 

>>>> I gave it a listen and ran it though some analysis.

>>>> 

>>>> The data is sent using the proper EAS mark/space frequencies (within a

>> 0.5% as measured by a crude desktop software FFT). The data EAS frames

> sent

>> are partial.  They aren't valid EAS frames, they don't have a duration or

>> other required elements.  They should not cause an EAS unit to put an

> alert

>> on the air.  Unlocking the local receiver, or printing something on the

>> display/printer is vendor preference.  Speaking for Sage only, we don't

>> display alerts with non-compliant headers.

>>>> 

>>>> The data frames are also overlaid with the two tone signal, so

> mark/space

>> and the two "EBS" tones are present at the same time.  It isn't a real

>> alert, or close enough to one to get on the air in any circumstances,

>> assuming a Part 11 certified encoder/decoder.

>>>> 

>>>> I'll let the lawyers decide if it violates the FCC rules.  They did use

> a

>> real alert as the basis for the mix, but they did chop it enough so that

> it

>> wasn't complete.  Is that "sending the EAS codes"?  Probably not.  They

> did

>> send the EBS tones, mixed with the other stuff, and for short duration

>> (three bursts of .6 seconds).

>>>> 

>>>> Was it a "simulation"?  Not a very good one. Would it confuse the

>> listener - no.  Cause them to listen more closely - maybe.  Was it ill

>> advised - probably.

>>>> 

>>>> In any case, movies and video games (and you tube) will continue to cut

>> and paste alerts.  Some of these may inadvertently end up on the air.

>>>> 

>>>> The SBE might want to ask one of us to make up something that sounds

>> legit, for non-broadcast use, that can be used by production companies,

> that

>> when it finds its way to a broadcast outlet won't cause an alert to be

>> issued.

>>>> 

>>>> Please doing material intended for air should probably think twice - or

>> as many times as necessary.

>>>> 

>>>> Harold

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> At 06:57 PM 9/8/2010, Kent Randles wrote:

>>>>> From Chris Murray, Chair, Oregon State ECC

>>>>> 

>>>>> Here is a new one.

>>>>> 

>>>>> ARCO/BP our beloved oil company is running a commercial that has EAS

>> header tones in front. They use the terms "This is a test" and simulate

> the

>> 8 second tone. However it seams that the header tones even running faster

>> than 1100 baud but is still tripping EAS units that are monitoring KKNU.

>>>>> 

>>>>> The decoder that was tripping was Florence's  KCST-FM  TFT 911 unit.

> The

>> header tape read. "ZCZC-EAS-RWT-012057-012081-012101- then blank.

>>>>> 

>>>>> I called Darryl Parker at TFT and played the commercial to him. His

>> first response was "It is against FCC rules to transmit false and

> defective

>> signals" It appears that this may be the case. The header tape indicates

>> that the location is in Florida. Hillsboro, Manatee, and Pasco Counties.

>> These are the three counties that surrounds Tamps.

>>>>> 

>>>>> The commercial has been running frequently and does not trip every

> time.

>> KCST repots that they have had five events. Their EAS units unlocks and

> she

>> hears this commercial every time. I listen to the commercial and it seams

>> that they took a weekly test header and increased the speed to perhaps not

>> make it a problem.

>>>>> 

>>>>> It is a problem. I would ask all stations that use TFT decoders if they

>> have seen incomplete data receipts on their EAS units. It would only

> affect

>> stations that both are being monitored and play this specific commercial.

>>>>> 

>>>>> There will be more to come.

>>>>> 

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> sbe-eas mailing list

>>>>> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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

>>>> 

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> sbe-eas mailing list

>>>> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> sbe-eas mailing list

>>> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> sbe-eas mailing list

>> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> sbe-eas mailing list

>> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> sbe-eas mailing list

> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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

> 

> _______________________________________________

> sbe-eas mailing list

> sbe-eas at sbe.org

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