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

[Crosby, John]

I am glad I just read all of the posts Today, Sean thank you for the statement below. I now understand what the real problem was and even with the flaws I still believe we are capable of getting a fix in the system.

I hope that none of my comments upset anyone that was not my intent. I'm just trying to get this to work for my citizens with as little conflict as possible. 

John F. Crosby | Warning Systems Manager | Sedgwick County Department of Emergency Management

-----Original Message-----
From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net [mailto: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.