Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D

1^ See, e.g., 47 CFR § 10.450 (geo-targeting); 47 CFR § 10.430 (character limit); 47 CFR § 10.400 (classification).

2^ See infra Figure 1 (WEA Architecture). CAP is an open, interoperable, XML-based standard that can include multimedia such as streaming audio or video. See OASIS CAP v1.2 (IPAWS Profile for the OASIS Common Alerting Protocol IPAWS USA). CAP messages contain standardized fields that facilitate interoperability between and among devices. See id.

3^ From a technical standpoint, the WEA system currently deployed by FEMA and Participating CMS Providers is based on standards created by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (jointly, ATIS/TIA), and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 7. We note that nothing in the WARN Act or the Commission’s rules requires WEA to be a cell-broadcast-based service.

1^ Daniel Gonzales, Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology, Wireless Emergency Alerts Mobile Penetration Strategy at 124 (2013) (WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy); Department of Homeland Security Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices (2014) (START Report); Department of Homeland Security Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices, at 29-30 (2015) (Updated START Report). START is a university-based research and education center, headquartered at the University of Maryland, comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. START was established in 2005 with Department of Homeland Security grant funding as a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence, tasked with utilizing state-of-the-art theories, methods, and data from the social and behavioral sciences to improve the understanding of the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological impacts of terrorism. See National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), About START, http://www.start.umd.edu/about/about-start (last visited May 12, 2015).

2^ See Larissa Herda, CSRIC IV Working Group Descriptions and Leadership 2-3 (2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC%20IV%20Working%20Group%20Descriptions%2010%2023%2014.pdf (last visited Oct. 2, 2015). CSRIC is a federal advisory committee charged with providing recommendations to the FCC to ensure, among other things, the optimal security and reliability of communications systems, including telecommunications, media, and public safety systems, subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). See 5 USCA § 10.

3^ See CSRIC IV, Working Group Two, Wireless Emergency Alerts, Testing Subcommittee, Final Report, at 7, 9 (2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG-2_Testing-Rprt_061814.pdf (last visited Apr. 16, 2015) (CSRIC IV WEA Testing Report) (exploring various facets of the current WEA testing paradigm with the goal of developing an approach that would support an option for state and local “end-to-end” testing); CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report (examining the feasibility and desirability of expanding the maximum character limit for Alert Messages; enhancing Alert Message content with multimedia; and improving WEA geo-targeting).

4^ See Government Accountability Office, Emergency Alerting: Capabilities Have Improved, But Additional Guidance and Testing Are Needed, GAO 13-375 (2013).

5^ Fourth generation (4G) mobile telecommunications technology standards include Long Term Evolution (LTE) and Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (mobile WiMAX). See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket 15-125, Eighteenth Report, 30 FCC Rcd 14515 (WTB 2015) (2015 Competition Report). “LTE increases the capacity and speed of wireless networks by redesigning and simplifying the network architecture to transition from the existing combination of circuit and packet switching to an all-IP architecture system.” See Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz Commercial Spectrum, WT Docket Nos. 12-332, 12-69, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 28 FCC Rcd 15122, 15126-27, para.7 (2013). A “smartphone” is a cellphone and handheld computer that has the functionality of a personal computer, but is compact, has a high-resolution screen, and supports voice recognition. See PCMag Encyclopedia, http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/51537/smartphone (last visited May 14, 2015).

6^ WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 13781. We received 104 comments and 8 replies in response to the WEA NPRM.

7^ Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Wireless Emergency Alerts, PS Docket Nos. 15-94, 15-91, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 594 (2016) (Alerting Paradigm NPRM). We received 71 comments and 7 replies to the Alerting Paradigm NPRM.

1^ 47 CFR § 10.430.

2^ See Legacy Networks, https://www.techopedia.com/definition/25121/legacy-network (last visited May 17, 2016).

3^ WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6174, para. 83.

4^ See id.

5^ WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13788, para. 9.

1^ See, e.g., AT&T Services Inc. Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 5 (Jan. 13, 2016) (AT&T Comments); T-Mobile USA, Inc. Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (T-Mobile Comments); Sprint Corporation Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Sprint Comments); Verizon Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Verizon Comments); Microsoft Corporation Reply, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Feb. 12, 2016) (Microsoft Reply); Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (APCO Comments); Wireless RERC Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 6 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Wireless RERC Comments); Letter from Michael E. Gerber, Meteorologist, Office of Communications, NOAA/National Weather Service to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed May 21, 2015) (NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte); Federal Emergency Management Agency Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Program Management Office Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Feb. 13, 2016) (FEMA Comments); Disability Advisory Committee Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jun. 17, 2016) (DAC Comments).

2^ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 6-7; T-Mobile Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 3-4; Microsoft Reply at 2.

3^ See Letter from Mark Lucero, Chief, IPAWS Engineering, FEMA National Continuity Programs, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 5-6 (filed Jun. 9, 2016) (FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte); accord AT&T Comments at 6-7 (stating that legacy networks could be supported by automatically parsing 90-character messages from 360-character messages, but that that operation should be completed in FEMA IPAWS). This filing amends FEMA’s previous statement that “[i]n no case should the IPAWS system be responsible for this [message parsing] function.”). See Letter from Alfred Kenyon, IPAWS Engineering Branch, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 17, 2016) (FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte). See also infra para. 17 (explaining in further detail how this approach will work). IPAWS is the Nation’s federal alert and warning system, and is administered by FEMA. See Integrated Public Alert & Warning System, https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system (last visited Aug. 22, 2016).

4^ FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5. Some alert origination software may also become able to automatically parse a 90-character Alert from a 360-character Alert Message. See APCO Comments at 4 (“APCO believes that the software used by public safety alert originators can break up messages as needed, so that consumer devices limited to 90-character alerts would still be able to receive longer messages as separate alerts until the full message length is transmitted.”); Clark County Office of Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016) (CCOEM Comments) (stating that messaging software providers should make such an option available); Letter from Tom Crane, Regulatory Counsel, Everbridge, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed May 12, 2016) (Everbridge May 12, 2016 Ex Parte) (stating that “[i]t makes more sense if IPAWS gateway accepts any length message and parses the message as needed” but also that “Everbridge software could parse a message into required pieces given appropriate lead time and provide the pieces in the required order within the XML document; Everbridge recommends IPAWS consider implementing a sequencing attribute so the consuming applications downstream know the order in which to concatenate the message pieces.”); Letter from Brian Murray, Emergency Public Information Planner, Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Mar. 8, 2016) (revised by erratum) (Harris County OHSEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte); Indiana Department of Homeland Security Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 3 (Dec. 14, 2015) (Indiana DHS Comments); Jefferson Parish Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 1 (Dec. 14, 2015) (Jefferson Parish EM Comments); New York City Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, at 2 (Dec. 29, 2015) (NYCEM Comments); but see United States Geological Survey Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016) (USGS Comments) (stating that this may be undesirable because it would undermine many of the expected benefits of expanded character length (e.g., jargon would still be needed to express the full message in the first 90 characters)).

1^ Sam Asher Computing Services, Inc., dba Hyper-Reach, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Hyper-Reach Comments) (Hyper-Reach is a mass notification provider); START Report at 30.

2^ See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Feb. 12, 2016) (T-Mobile Reply); Verizon Comments at 6-7; The Weather Company Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Feb. 12, 2016) (The Weather Company Comments).

3^ See Verizon Comments at 6-7 (stating that “much higher character limits—such as the 1,380 character message described in the NPRM or the use of multiple-part messages for legacy networks—would require new standards development as well as network and device upgrades that network vendors may be reluctant to embrace for legacy networks”); Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Beaufort County Comments) (reasoning that approximately 280 characters fit on a mobile device screen); see also Kansas City Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Dec. 2, 2015) (Kansas City EM Comments).

4^ See Wyoming Department of Transportation Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Wyoming DOT Comments); Beaufort County Comments at 1; see also Letter from Matthew Straeb, Executive Vice President, Global Security Systems, LLC, to David G. Simpson, Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Apr. 24, 2015) (Global Security Systems Ex Parte) (stating that “WEA service is not intended to be a reading service” and should only include pertinent “life-saving information for the Citizen.”). We urge all consumers to pull over if they receive a WEA Alert Message while driving and want to read it. See Distraction.gov, http://www.distraction.gov/ (last visited Aug. 29, 2016) (containing information and guidance on how to stay safe while driving).

5^ APCO Comments at 3.

1^ See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 44.

2^ See ATIS, Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length 18-19 (2015) (ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length).

3^ Id. at 17-18.

4^ See AT&T Comments at 6 (“The use of 360 characters as described in the ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions) Feasibility Study is a compromise solution that delivers a longer message to the user without adding significant delays in its delivery.”); T-Mobile Comments at 3 (“T-Mobile supports expanding the maximum permissible length of WEA messages from 90 to 360 characters of alphanumeric text for 4G LTE and future network technologies.”); Sprint Comments at 3 (“Based on the CSRIC IV recommendations, it may be appropriate to expand the maximum permissible length of WEA messages for LTE technologies.”); Verizon Comments at 2 (“Expanding alerts to a 360-character maximum for LTE-enabled networks and devices is technically feasible and in the public interest to enable alert originators to provide additional emergency information to consumers.”); Verizon Comments at 2 (“Expanding alerts to a 360-character maximum for LTE-enabled networks and devices is technically feasible and in the public interest to enable alert originators to provide additional emergency information to consumers.”); see also, e.g., Microsoft Reply at 2 (“Microsoft is not opposed to the expansion of alert lengths to 360 characters for LTE-capable devices on LTE networks in accordance with standards once they are developed and to the extent all the technical and implementation issues are resolved.”).

5^ FEMA Comments at 2. CSRIC IV observes that these standards and associated supplements would include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) ATIS-0700008 (Cell Broadcast Entity (CBE) to Cell Broadcast Center (CBC) Interface Specification); (2) ATIS-0700010 (CMAS via EPS Public Warning System Specification); (3) ATIS-0700014 (Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Handling of CMAS, Supplemental Information Broadcast); (4) J-STD-100 (ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification); (5) J-STD-101 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification); (6) J-STD-102 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Test Specification); (7) 3GPP TS 23.041 (3GPP Technical realization of Cell Broadcast Service (CBS)); and (8) OASIS CAP v1.2 (IPAWS Profile for the OASIS Common Alerting Protocol IPAWS USA). See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 50.

1^ See Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 22, 2016) (APCO Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte) (stating that “carriers should automatically concatenate and label messages appropriately” and stating further that “it may be possible that alert origination software products could perform this function”); Letter from Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 2 (filed Mar. 7, 2016) (Harris County OSHEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte). (“Harris County supports the option of releasing four concatenated messages”); Indiana DHS Comments at 3 (“The ability to send multiple 90 character WEAs in the interim would be a workable solution from the alerting agency's perspective.”); Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 1 (“If technology allows please let 90 characters phones receive multiple messages to receive the full 360 characters.”); NYCEM Comments at 2; cf. Letter From David Blonder, Director, Legal Counsel, Regulatory and Privacy, BlackBerry Corporation, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 21, 2016) (Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte) (noting that Alert Message concatenation would not contribute to alert delivery latency).

2^ See Letter from William L. Roughton, Counsel, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 17, 2016) (AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte).; AT&T Comments at 8; T-Mobile Reply at 4; Microsoft Reply at 2.

3^ See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 1.

4^ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7 (“[T]hese networks cannot receive 360-character WEA messages.”); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (“90-character limit on WEA messages on 2G and 3G networks . . . should be maintained due to limitations on these networks and the rapid transition of consumers to 4G LTE.”); Sprint Comments at 5; Microsoft Reply at 2. These commenters also state that an approach based on concatenation would be infeasible. See AT&T Comments at 6-7; T-Mobile Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 3-4; Microsoft Reply at 2.

1^ See infra Section 79.A (Compliance Timeframes). Where the alert originator provides no free-form 90-character maximum text, IPAWS’ existing capabilities will automatically generate a 90-character maximum Alert Message from the CAP fields of a 360-character free-form message. FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5. We note that many emergency managers have expressed a desire to send two separate free-form messages under this rule; our approach affords emergency managers to do so where they so choose. See, e.g., Hyper-Reach Comments at 2, 3 (stating that superior message quality will result if emergency management agencies retain responsibility for message creation because emergency management agencies have the most knowledge about public safety messaging, and will better suited for creating two separate and effective messages than would Participating CMS Providers or FEMA); Letter from Michael Gerber, Program Analyst, Office of Dissemination, NOAA/National Weather Service, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 9, 2016) (NWS Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte) (concluding that they would “prefer to provide both a freeform 360 and 90 character message for 4G LTE networks and legacy networks, respectively.”).

2^ See FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5.

3^ Id.; see also FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte Letter (“Under CAP parameters, there is a single identification number for each alert message. A single alert message may contain both 90 and 360 character message elements for display on WEA capable devices. Devices would process both and display a message dependent upon the device capability and the network to which the devices are connected. Each character length message may have a unique identifier that a device would identify. A device on a 4G LTE network would get both messages and display the correct message, while a legacy network would only receive a 90 character message.”).

4^ CSRIC IV supports the coexistence of different message-length standards for legacy and 4G networks. Cf. CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 44 (“It is recommended that the industry modify existing CMAS/WEA standards to support coexistence of both the legacy 90 characters of displayable text for use on 2nd and 3rd Generation CMS Provider Infrastructure, and a message length of 280 displayable characters for 4G LTE CMS Provider Infrastructure including the addressing of backward compatibility issues.”); see also FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte Letter (“Under CAP parameters, there is a single identification number for each alert message. A single alert message may contain both 90 and 360 character message elements for display on WEA capable devices. Devices would process both and display a message dependent upon the device capability and the network to which the devices are connected. Each character length message may have a unique identifier that a device would identify. A device on a 4G LTE network would get both messages and display the correct message, while a legacy network would only receive a 90 character message.”).

5^ See FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5 (stating, as well, that “[f]rom the CMSP Gateway perspective, this methodology is identical to the working proposal for Spanish language message retrieval”).

6^ Annex A of the Joint ATIS/TIA Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification (J-STD-101) contains guidelines for the generation of the alert message in English from the CAP parameters, identifies the CAP parameters to be used for the message generation, and associates CAP parameter values with the recommended phrase for the alert message. Annex A of the ATIS Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Supplemental Information Retrieval (ATIS-0700012) contains similar guidelines for the generation of Spanish alert messages from the CAP message. See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 17.

7^ This is the same approach that FEMA IPAWS currently takes to generating a 90-character Alert Message from the CAP parameters of an Alert Message that contains no free-form text.

8^ See infra Figure 2 (Our Approach to Expanding the Character Limit).

Download 1.19 Mb.

Share with your friends: