[EAS] Cable TV Problems

[David Ostmo]

Channel exclusion was a mostly resolved issue in the days of analog cable.  It was relatively easy for cable operators to filter out their EAS crawl on the broadcast channels.  When digital cable systems were implemented, EAS channel exclusion was not designed into the system by the equipment manufacturers.  The EAS crawl and forced channel change occurs in the set top box and not at the headend.

I respectfully disagree with Ed Czarnecki.  The conversion to digital cable distribution occurred after EAS requirements were in place.  The cost of "several billion dollars" is a bit over stated.  It might cost that much if every cable system was forced to immediately implement that one particular feature.  I don't anyone is the television broadcast side is suggesting such an abrupt change.  A phased-in approach is both a practical and affordable solution.

At the present time some of the cable systems already have the ability for channel exclusion.  Older digital systems do not have channel exclusion capability will require a forklift upgrade.

IMO, the manufacturers should be required to have channel exclusion capability designed into their headend and set-top equipment.  The cable operators could implement the new equipment when it is replaced in the normal cycle of upgrades.  If there is no federal requirement for channel exclusion capability, the cable equipment manufacturers lack incentive to design the feature into their gear.

I agree with Richard Rudman; the default should be for cable systems to exclude local broadcasters.

One other thought; many broadcasters overlook cable systems when talking about EAS.  Cable operators play an important role in EAS and need to be included in all discussions of local, state and national plans.

David Ostmo
San Antonio, Texas

On 11/28/2011 2:36 PM, Ed Czarnecki wrote:

>I think was also discussed in another thread.  Most cable operators we're
>working with (if not all) would not object to this, per se, expect for the
>major impediment that their existing plants don't accommodate channel
>exceptions.  And changing systems to to accommodate channel exception would
>be a major undertaking, including wholesale replacement of network control
>systems and millions of cable set top boxes.

>Many cable systems were just not designed with channel exceptions in mind.
>Many cable systems installed key systems years before EAS requirements were
>set.  So while many cable engineers may agree in principle, in operation
>this would be an undertaking of several billions of dollars (no
>overstatement).

>Perhaps as existing cable plant gets retired or phased out over the next
>5-10-15 years, channel exception capabilities can be factored in (among
>other things).

>Ed

>Edward Czarnecki, Ph.D. 
>Senior Director - Strategy, Development & Regulatory Affairs  |  Monroe
>Electronics Inc.  |  Digital Alert Systems
>email ed.czarnecki at monroe-electronics.com | www.monroe-electronics.com
>| www.digitalalertsystems.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On
>Behalf Of David Ostmo

>One additional note, from the broadcast TV side we would prefer to have our
>channels excluded from forced channel tune, even if it is a national
>activation.

>David Ostmo
>San Antonio, Texas

>"Television is the sincerest form of imitation" - Fred Allen

>_______________________________________________
>This is the EAS Forum Discussion List

>Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
>http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas

>And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net

>_______________________________________________
>This is the EAS Forum Discussion List

>Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
>http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas

>And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net