[EAS] Why we need Text-To-Speech

[Clay Freinwald]

Ed Czarnecki wrote - 

 

Access to CMAS may also be a de facto influence on how EAS codes are used at
the local level - to get to cell phones via CMAS, only codes imminent
threats to life and property would be forwarded to the carriers.  That would
inevitably effect how local emergency managers use CAP to get to CMAS - and
feed EAS via IPAWS as a by-product.

 

The Washington State SECC recently heard a presentation about CMAS by Brian
Daly of AT&T.    From this, I suspect,  we in this state will be working
toward incorporating the message generation processes of CMAS and EAS.
There seemed to be considerable interest in avoiding having sources of these
messages have to write two messages for the same event.   Certainly this is
preliminary as it will be a while before CMAS becomes a significant factor
in public warning.

 

I should point out that the input method for CMAS will certainly be TEXT and
not the spoken word which underlines our contention that the input vehicle
for the majority of public warning systems will indeed be text.   If the
system downstream wishes to have the message voiced, it should be
'converted' by the devices that needs it.

 

Clay Freinwald

Washington State SECC Chair