[EAS] Best and Worst of New CAP EAS Rules

[Ed Czarnecki]

Full text of para 38 below.  I don't see a conflict, per se, unfortunately.
It's prohibited at the edge device level  until such time that the
Commission conducts a separate proceeding on text-to-speech.  Unless, as I
noted earlier, the FCC issues a clarification of its own accord, or in
response to a petition.

38.	One area where we deviate from the ECIG Implementation Guide,
however, is its provisions on text-to-speech.   The ECIG Implementation
Guide procedures for constructing the audio from a CAP message require that
"[i]f attached EAS audio is not present, and the EAS device supports
text-to-speech technology, then text-to-speech audio SHALL be rendered . . .
and used as the audio portion of the EAS alert."   Although use of
text-to-speech technology has some support in the record,  there are also
concerns in the record about whether text-to-speech software is sufficiently
accurate and reliable to deliver consistently accurate and timely alerts to
the public.   Allowing the text-to-speech conversion to be resolved by EAS
equipment software, as opposed to text-to-speech software that the alert
message originator might employ, could result in differing audio messages
being broadcast for the same EAS message, depending upon which software
brand and version a given equipment manufacturer elected to incorporate into
its EAS equipment.  As indicated in the Third FNRPM, we continue to believe
that discussion of text-to-speech and speech-to-text software is best
reserved for a separate proceeding, and we therefore defer these issues at
this time.       

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

    * Page 13 para 26. Requires the use of CAP and the generation .....of
the audio message contained in the CAP message IAW ECIG Implementation
Guide. (see conflict below)

    * Page 17 para 38. FCC expressed concerns about varying audio qualities
of TTS engines in EAS decoders and discussed use of server based TTS audio
instead. They deferred a decision on this TTS issue at this time. (see
conflict below)

    * Page 58 para 164 and footnote 496.  "We are incorporating conformance
with the ECIG Implementation Guide into our existing certification
process(para 164)" Then footnote 496 states" As detailed in other sections
of this order, we will NOT allow EAS participants to use text-to-speech
software configured in their EAS equipment to generate the audio portion of
an EAS message....".  This directly contradicts their statement above (see
page 17 para 38) to defer a decision at this time. 
    * Depending upon whether this footnote is correct or not....We could be
required to send WAV and MP3 files only or do the audio TTS at the server.
This will affect only the originators.  I elevated this conflict to the FCC.

Don MIller
SVP of Business Development
MyStateUSA, Inc. 

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Tom Taggart <tpt at literock93r.com> wrote:
>"FCC prohibits text-to-voice" conversion?"

>So, in other words, there was no real point in my spending $2K for two 
>boxes?

>Let's cut through the crap. NWS is what we need EAS for 99% of the 
>time. The other 1% is to keep the FCC goons off our back. NWS is used 
>to sending text to their system to be converted into voice by "perfect 
>Paul."  NWS is not going to have someone cut a voice message--convert 
>it to an MP3--and attach it to the CAP message.

>And having "Enhanced Text" on a TV crawl doesn't do much good if there 
>is a storm approaching & you are driving 70 miles an hour on the 
>freeway towards it.
>Had that problem in the past with Pittsburgh NWS kicking the tones but 
>not sending any voice message over their stations.

>I assume my Sage units have some means to do text to voice, haven't 
>seen any way to test it.  But I assumed that was the point of the 
>system.  As long as it is close to the same quality as the NWS that 
>would be a start. Since these are computers, that can always be 
>upgraded.

>We have our share of weird Indian names in both Ohio and WV.
>Tom Brokaw talki9ng about "KEN-awa county (charleston) comes to mind. 
>Then there's Ashtabula and Conneaut, which are not ASH-TAB-ula or 
>CON-Ute. But if the message gets out that there is a tornado going that 
>way that's irrelevant. The folks in ASH-ta-beaulah and Connie-Ought 
>will get the message.

>This is beginning to smell like another Beltway screw-up.

>_______________________________________________
>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