[EAS] Need new excuses for multilingual support with global supply chain

[Sean Donelan]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, David Turnmire wrote:
> All of this is a moot point if the alert originators can't do multi-lingual.? 
> Getting software and protocol support is just part of the picture.? Same

Yes, its a chicken and egg problem.  Emergency managers don't want to use 
something that isn't widely supported. Industry doesn't want to create 
something that isn't widely used.

The good news is the rest of the world doesn't need to wait for the U.S. 
to figure either chickens or eggs. And likewise, the U.S. doesn't need to 
wait either, other than some vendors gaslighting the FCC about the lack of 
multi-language support in international standards used in their products.

Standards used and products sold in the rest of world are presumed 
to support multiple languages, or no one else will buy them now.  While 
ISO has grandfathered old, pre-1990 country-specific standards, like 
ASCII; essentially all new global standards in the last 10 years with 
language content must support multiple languages.  I don't think you 
could pass a new ISO standard which supported English-only or even just 
languages using western european latin-based script anymore.

The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), which the U.S. IPAWS is based on, can 
support over 1,000 languages. The current FEMA IPAWS software might use 
old libraries which support fewer, but I'm assuming the new FEMA IPAWS 
software will use recent vintage software libraries.

The 3GPP and 3GPP2 standards used by mobile devices for nearly 20 years 
support multiple languages. The biggest mobile device markets in the world 
don't use English as the primary language. U.S. cellular companies buy 
nearly all their gear from non-U.S. manufacturers. The manuals often need 
to be translated into English. The Consumers Electronic Association 
standard for the EAS protocol, which is language agnostic, includes 
appendices for English, Spanish (US) and French (Canadian) for at least 10 
years.

The ATIS CMAC standard is the biggest roadblock, due to the proprietary 
way it defines "language" instead of using a global language standard.

Other countries seem to bypass the ATIS CMAC standard's limitations based 
on FCC-specific rules.

U.S. based companies, which want to sell products in other countries 
like Canada, quickly learn that customers in most countries expect 
multiple languages and product localization. Or they won't sell many 
products. Its nearly impossible to buy a consumer electronics device that 
doesn't include  multiple languages.

That doesn't mean the European Union with 43 official languages transmits 
warning messages in all 43 languages everywhere. EU countries seem to use 
a combination of a few primary languages, which are customized in 
different countries and sometimes a secondary language in some 
households. They also use standardized pictographs and alert sounds with 
outreach to smaller language communities, physically disabled, 
literacy-challenged and tourists.

Japan has a national goal that non-weather emergency warnings will be
available in five major languages, which is a bit of an international 
over-achiever.  NHK (the national broadcaster) and NTT (the national 
phone company) tend to view emergency warnings and response as part of 
their official mission. Even in Switzerland which has four official 
languages, tends to transmit warnings in each canton in a couple 
of languages, but with different cantons choosing which languages.

The FCC rule in 2008 saying CMAS/WEA only needs to support English, and 
support for other languages needs to be "studied" was a quaint 
kick the can down the road decision.

8. Multi-Language CMAS Alerting
[...]
"In the CMAS NPRM, we sought comment on the technical feasibility of 
providing commercial mobile alerts in languages in addition to English, 
including how the provision of alerts in multiple languages could affect 
the generation and distribution of messages on a local, state, and 
national level. Based on the record before us, we find that it would be 
premature to require CMS providers to transmit alerts in languages in 
addition to English. As explained below, we agree with the CMSAAC and 
those commenters that state that further technical study is needed to 
enable the provision of alerts in multiple languages."

In 2019, industry reps still making claims that global alerting standards 
don't yet support multiple languages, and they need more "studies," are 
just doing the standard U.S. lobbyist dance.

If the U.S. held an emergency alert workshop with regulators from around 
the world, there would be a lot of polite diplomatic talk about regulatory 
capture and the naivete of U.S. regulators.