[EAS] Source of the "scary" text in Suffolk Co

[Lucero, Mark]

The alerts were separate by about 20 min each

v/r
Mark Lucero, CISSP
Chief, IPAWS Engineering
FEMA National Continuity Programs
202-646-1386 (w)
202-257-1364 (bb)
mark.lucero at fema.dhs.gov
ipaws at fema.dhs.gov
 

From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net on behalf of Sean Donelan

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Lucero, Mark wrote:
> They sent three EAS messages. Each one had text in the description
> element. I have not seen any clips showing the actual crawl yet.

Yes.  And the ordering of CAP vs. EAS distribution channel is
unpredictable.  Each of the three messages may have reached different
video participants via a different distribution channel (EAS or CAP)
first.

Some video participants may have received the first message via EAS, the
second message via CAP, the third message via EAS.  And all combinations
and permutations.

Depending on which distribution channel video participants received the
message first, decides whether they broadcast a text crawl with only the
FCC required text or both the FCC required text plus CAP text.

Broadcasting three EVI's may have increased the likelyhood that some video
participants received one of the messages via EAS first; and when that
happens it broadcaasted a "truncated" FCC required text only.

The system worked as designed.  But probably did not work as the EM
expected.

__________________________________________________________
The EAS Forum Discussion List is hosted by the BWWG (Broadcast Warning Working Group). http://eas.radiolists.net
Please invite your friends to join our Forum! The sign up is at: http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
___________________________________________________________