Emergency Alert Committee Approves Final Report
Members of the FCC’s Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee clashed Wednesday on whether their final report specifically should state that carriers may pass on to consumers some costs tied to sending alerts to cellphones, including handset upgrades. The provision passed after sharp debate. The committee, mandated by the Warn Act, approved a final report on broadcast of emergency alerts to cellphones. The report goes to the FCC, which is to issue a rulemaking seeking further comment.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The report offers technical details for a system by which to alert people in emergencies using text and other messages sent to cellphones. Carrier participation won’t be mandatory, but most are expected to retool their systems to carry alerts.
“I don’t see why people should be charged for getting additional kinds of services we all agree would be appropriate and helpful,” said Ann Arnold of the Texas Association of Broadcasters. Other committee members complained that the report shouldn’t impose any demands on carriers’ business practices. Members also asked how the FCC will guarantee that subscribers will know they are paying for Warn Act-mandated upgrades or for other functions they may not want or need.
Christopher Guttman-McCabe with CTIA said the amendment aimed for clarity on the WARN Act ambiguity about not charging for alerts. “With regard to the idea that the devices are going to likely cost more and there will be upgrades and things like that the idea is not to capture a per-message cost,” he said. “But if there are additional costs involved in handsets and other upgrades that just naturally, normally, independent of this process would be passed on to consumers the idea is to capture that here.”
Guttman-McCabe noted that the WARN Act makes program participation voluntary. “The only measure of success in this process is if the carriers say yes at the end of this,” he said. “The idea here is not to bless some business proposal… but to make sure the process is one that there’s enough clarity around it such that carriers feel comfortable when it’s done.”
“For the rural wireless carriers to opt into this they're going to have to make sure they keep themselves whole,” said Art Prest, representing the Rural Cellular Association. “If there’s an increased cost to the mobile device… the rural wireless carrier should be able to charge extra for the mobile device.”
Anthony Melone of Verizon Wireless urged clarity so that carriers can charge appropriate prices for new handsets. “If a new device is required for a customer, which it’s likely to be… is it the requirement of the carrier to provide that new device to the customer free of charge?” he asked. “If it’s ambiguous… the net result of that will be carriers will opt out of this.”
The change came as part of a broader amendment by Brian Daly of AT&T, leader of the committee’s Communications Technology Group. “This is an awful lot of text to just seem to be omitted by accident,” complained William Wertz of the Michigan Association of Broadcasters. Wertz asked if the amendment was a “second attempt” to insert language that the committee decided earlier not to include in the final report.
The committee made no major changes to earlier findings on the appropriate size of geographic areas for broadcasting alerts. At a Sept. 19 committee meeting, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin urged that alerts target areas as small as possible. Martin cited congressional concerns.
“Early implementations will emphasize targeting, loosely speaking, at the county level,” said Jeffery Goldthorp of the FCC’s Public Safety Bureau, who presented key conclusions by the group. “Carriers that choose to target on a more granular level than that are free to do so,” he said. “It’s not a prescription. It is a recommendation that not be a requirement at this point that it may be more precise.”
Among other key committee recommendations is to send alerts only in severe emergencies. Presidential alerts trump all others. The committee also found that to qualify, an emergency must pose an “imminent threat to life and property.” AMBER alerts also would qualify.
The committee recommended broadcasting alerts using a common audio attention signal and a vibration cadence. “A lot of the requirements for the disabled access community are essentially the same as the requirements that would exist for the mass market,” Goldthorp said. “That was a surprise to me.”
The committee decided subscribers will not be allowed to opt out of presidential level alerts but will be able to opt out of all other alerts, severe alerts and AMBER alerts. At this point alerts will air only in English, with other tongues perhaps to be supported in the future. The committee decided that alert capacity’s impact on cellphone battery life likely will not be as big a concern as thought when its inquiry began, Goldthorp said.