RERC Comments on CMAS Cited by FCC

The Wireless RERC continues to make headway in achieving our short-term outcome to influence policy making and policy makers.  In December of 2007 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released The Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket No. 07-287 in which the policy division of the Wireless RERC filed comments.

On April 9, 2008 a First Report & Order regarding CMAS was issued and adopted by the Commission.  We are pleased to inform you that the Wireless RERC’s comments were cited FOUR times in the body of the document.  This is significant because 1) there were 70 comments and reply comments filed on the topic and 2) the Commission’s acknowledgement of the technical feasibility of providing accessible emergency alerts was made evident through their extensive discussion of accommodations such as text-to-speech software for the blind and low vision population and vibrating cadences for the deaf and hard of hearing population.

The FCC noted the Wireless RERC comments supporting the implementation of a common audio attention signal and common vibrating cadence that would alert people of all abilities to incoming emergency alerts on mobile devices, and that “commercial mobile service providers should provide clear instructions on the alert capabilities of their devices, including labels identifying mobile devices suitable for persons with audio and visual disabilities.”  Furthermore, the FCC observed the Wireless RERC’s recommendation to adopt the existing 8-second EAS attention signal.  Incidentally, the EAS signal is currently being employed by the Wireless RERC’s Wireless Emergency Communications project’s field tests of accessible emergency alerts for people with sensory disabilities.  In the first two field tests, respondents indicated that the attention signal was sufficient to both get the attention of the user and differentiate the alert message from standard incoming text messages.

The FCC refers to the Wireless RERC’s “insightful comments” regarding serving non-English speaking users.  The recommendation to encourage providers to install software that automatically translates emergency messages into other languages to avoid any potential delay caused by the originator having to send out multiple messages in multiple languages was noted and the Commission concludes that further investigation is needed to solve this technical challenge.

You can read the areas in which our comments are noted by reviewing paragraphs 62, 77, 83 and 85 and the corresponding footnotes.  Also of note are paragraphs 2, 7, 13, 20, 25, 29, 57-58, 60-66, 68-69 and Appendix B at paragraph 3 as they all address accessibility for persons with disabilities.