[EAS] Cable TV Problems

[Ed Czarnecki]

Hi David - I don't completely disagree with your disagreement (how's that
for living in the DC area too long ;^)

Some background on where I was coming from... I have over the past few
months been in numerous meetings where there have been suggestions that
implied (if not explicitly stated) that an abrupt change was needed.  Not
too long ago, I believe there were such sentiments even here on the EAS
list, as well as the other SBE list.  Similarly, I've also heard statements
suggesting that implementing channel exceptions was just a matter of
"switching something on" or "loading the right software".  Wish that was the
case.

I think we are both in strong agreement that a phased approach leveraging
normal replacement cycles makes the most sense.  I think we might also agree
that revised standards/specifications would likely needed on the cable side,
both for cable set top boxes and the network control systems.  Even in this
case, the industry-wide budgetary commitment is substantial, but it is what
would be normally planned, spread over the planned equipment lifecycle.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the thought that if there is no
federal requirement for channel exclusion capability, the cable equipment
manufacturers lack incentive to design the feature into their gear.  The
cable operators need to make the request (i.e. create the specification)
that the manufacturers respond to.  And .I'm not sure there is any
disincentive to design that feature into the next generation of gear either.
Perhaps the point is that the cable operators might look at a federal
requirement that would inform their specifications that ultimately drives
their manufacturers ...  but I'm not necessarily a fan of yet more
governmental requirements where organized industry effort could potentially
meet that goal.

Now, off to watch the webinar...

Ed

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

_______________________________________________
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