[EAS] Cable TV Problems

[Sean Donelan]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, David Ostmo wrote:
> Keep in mind that EAS is created at the set-top box; it is not inserted 
> at the headend like it was in the days of analog systems. On most 
> digital cable systems, the subscriber is forced tuned to a virtual 
> channel created in the set-top box with text and audio pushed down from 
> the cable system headend.  Depending on how the system programmed, the 
> cable box could switch back to the original channel, be switched on a 
> different channel, or stay on the virtual channel until something else 
> is selected.

It varies a lot between systems and technology.  Assuming how something 
works in one place doesn't always apply every place. Many cable 
systems need to support multiple technologies Digital STB, Clear QAM (no 
digital STB), OpenCable (CableCard for Tivo's etc), and analog customers 
at the same time.  Even in STBs, there are differences between motorola 
and scientific atlanta (cisco).  Satellite and IPTV subscription 
television services have yet even more differences.

If a broadcaster or cable system has to be sure that the EAS message 
gets to every viewer or listener, regardless of what type of consumer 
equipment they have, the most straightforward way is to interrupt 
everything for the EAS message.

Why require a cable system have a written agreement with the broadcast
station based on whether the broadcaster has a newsroom?  If all 
broadcast stations are supposed to be EAS compliant, why is the cable
system responsible for any emergency information on those channels?  If 
all the broadcast channels are on the same cable tier, filter that entire 
tier out of the cable system EAS as a group instead of one by one.

Requirements to override some local channels under some conditions and not 
override other local channels under other conditions varying on local 
franchise rules or whether local broadcast stations change makes a 
complicated system even more complicated.  If a local news producing 
television stations decides to fire its news department and go 24x7 
infomercials, does that mean the local cable system has to change the
override policy for that television station?  Lots of local variations
also make it more likely something won't work when its needed.

Of course the same question can be asked of digital television 
broadcasters. Since technically over the air (ATSC/8-VSB) digital 
television stations could use PSIP EAS support for "directed channel 
change" (the ATSC version of "forced tuning") so consumer equipment can 
process EAS on differently depending which sub-channel the viewer is 
watching, or even treat different EAS alerts differently on different
televisions, why do DTV broadcasters have an all or nothing interruption 
policy for EAS messages?  The main DTV channel may be wall-to-wall news, 
but different DTV sub-channels may have different programming.

Reading the comments from industry groups representing broadcasters or
cable systems, it is interesting how they go back and forth about what
is or is not technically feasible depending on who has to implement it.

http://www.mstv.org/docs/EASComments.pdf

MSTV gives various technical and cost reasons to oppose the FCC requiring 
digital television broadcasters support selective alerting through DCC or 
ACAP on different digital television multicast streams.  On the other 
hand, they give various technical and cost reasons the FCC should require 
cable systems implement selective override on their systems.

If the EAS plan was re-written from scratch, should all multicast 
systems (digital tv, digital radio, cable, satellite, consumer equipment, 
etc) support selective alerting on each stream?

>
> I think most television broadcasters would simply prefer to have their 
> channels excluded from cable generated EAS.

That may be what television broadcasters want, but misses some important 
stakeholders. What local emergency officials and the public want? Some 
local emergency officials have repeatedly told the FCC they want the 
ability to override all channels on local cable systems, including 
television broadcast channels.

For example, New York City's comments:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view.action?id=6005541482

   >The City opposes any rule amendments that would prohibit cable systems
   >from overriding broadcasters' emergency-related programming with State
   >and local EAS messages. Allowing such broadcasters' programming to
   >supplant cable systems' EAS messages will diminish the accuracy and
   >effectiveness of a local-level EAS, and will also diminish
   >local preparedness for a successful national-level EAS. In addition,
   >because the provision of broadcasters' emergency related local
   >programming is discretionary, the City is unable to ensure adequate
   >dissemination on broadcast channels, of emergency information that is
   >necessary to ensure the public safety of its
   >citizens.

It took until 2004, New York City television and radio stations agreed to 
carry emergency messages from New York City's mayor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/nyregion/24mayor.html

   >That emergency message would be radioed to four AM stations - WABC
   >(770), WCBS (880), WFAN (660) and WINS (1010) - and once broadcast, it
   >would be captured almost instantly by equipment at other area radio
   >and television stations and cable television systems for immediate
   >rebroadcast. Television stations in the area have told the city that
   >they will relay the messages.

In other cities, comments filed with the FCC that they don't want any 
requirements to carry emergency messages from local officials.  Some 
commentors have even been opposed to carrying emergency messages from a 
state governor and other state emergency officials.  If local emergency 
officials could be sure emergency messages would be carried by all local 
television and radio broadcasters, not just a few news oriented stations, 
maybe their comments to the FCC would change?

If someone re-wrote national, state and local EAS plans from scratch 
today, would the monitoring requirements be reversed.  Would it make more 
sense to transmit a national presidental message through multiple 
national 24x7 satellite news channels, and require all terrestrial 
broadcasters to monitor multiple satellite feeds (complete with both 
video and audio) instead of using audio-only AM/FM radio feeds?  Better 
coverage, better quality, less local angst.

If the national plan was rewritten with the national satellite 
programming originators (24 hour news, sports channels, movie 
channels, etc) to switch their programming source to the presidential 
message, local cable systems could be treated just repeaters. The
national presidential message on the cable channels and repeaters of 
local television broadcast stations without needing any complicated EAS 
equipment at cable systems.  Local governments could use cable P/E/G 
channels for local emergency information that broadcast stations may
not carry without the cable system overriding the P/E/G channel with 
another EAS message.

It would be great to take all the lessons learned from the last 50 years
as well as technology advancements and re-think how the entire plan should 
work from top to bottom, national to local. All the participants play an 
important role.  Satallite works well on a national basis, terrestrial 
broadcastors on a regional basis, cable systems on a local basis, 
telephone/cell phone on a hyper-local/individual basis.  They each have 
strengths and weaknesses.  Instead of bickering between various industry 
groups, how can the whole plan work better?