3 ms·

Could people create a synthetic simulated EAS tone that contains no data and couldn't be decoded by any EAS equipment, but that would still remind a human viewe

by schoen 7y ago

Could people create a synthetic simulated EAS tone that contains no data and couldn't be decoded by any EAS equipment, but that would still remind a human viewer of the EAS tone? Would that be OK with the FCC, or are they also concerned with human listeners recognizing the sound and believing that an alert is imminent? I worked on the engineering team for my high school radio station, but we didn't learn much about how EAS worked, other than that it was mandatory and was replacing EBS. :-)

pqoef 7y ago
¶4 from the article: To protect the purpose of the warning system, the agency has a rule against use of EAS tones or their simulations -- except in actual emergencies, authorized tests or qualified public service announcements. ¶1 from the linked order: To preserve and protect the unique purpose of the EAS Tones, the Commission enforces laws prohibiting the use of the tones, or simulations of them, except in actual emergencies, authorized tests of the EAS, or qualified PSAs. Answer to your question, no, the FCC is not okay with simulations of the EAS tone.
- schoen 7y ago
  Thanks!
finnthehuman 7y ago
>Could people create a synthetic simulated EAS tone that contains no data and couldn't be decoded by any EAS equipment, Yup, you could generate two different sine waves that would seem reminiscent of the EAS two-tone alert and be near indistinguishable to all but an FM engineer and forwarding hardware. The SAME header could be invalid data, for a non-existent region code, or out of spec in some other way. > Would that be OK with the FCC, or are they also concerned with human listeners recognizing the sound and believing that an alert is imminent? No, if it was meant to be confused with the EAS tone, it's just as if you used the EAS tone. The FCC is a step ahead of "clever" ways of skirting important rules. WiFi deauth attacks are still "malicious interference" even though they're layer 2 attacks that don't "jam" the band.
- schoen 7y ago
  Thanks, I didn't mean this hypothetical as a way of skirting the rule—I just didn't know if the FCC was concerned about how EAS-like broadcasts are processed by machines or how they're processed both by machines and by humans. I remember that the old EBS tone could automatically trigger some stations (like ours) to switch over to rebroadcasting a transmission from another station. I believe that the EAS signal does the same. At least in the EAS case, I didn't know whether the FCC was specifically hoping to catch humans' attention with the tones, or just to use them as a signal to transmission equipment to rapidly change the content it was broadcasting over to emergency announcement content, even without human intervention. Several of the replies here, including yours, suggest that the FCC explicitly means for it to serve both purposes.
rdtsc 7y ago
> Could people create a synthetic simulated EAS tone that contains no data and couldn't be decoded by any EAS equipment, Could, but probably shouldn't. From FCC link https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-investigations-misuse-emergency-alert-tones https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-investigations-misu... > These rules aim to protect the integrity of the alert system by helping to avoid confusion when the tones are used, alert fatigue among listeners I like the term "alert fatigue". Very descriptive and useful. Definitely a good thing to avoid.
- 14 7y ago
  This reminded me of the illegal number [0]. People being told the number was illegal so created flags that also represented the number. The neat thing was that by making numbers illegal anything that can be used to represent those numbers also becomes illegal. Like art work painted a certain way. Imaging being told you can not paint a certain color pattern as it is illegal. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    The term illegal number is like calling ink contraband because the use of ink in a manner which communicates something illegal may itself be illegal. Illegal numbers aren't illegal themselves. (And, anyway, by the theory justifying calling them illegal, every configuration of matter is illegal, since not only can any information be encoded in a number, but any information can be encoded—by selecting the right encoding scheme—in any finite number, and any configuration of matter can be represented by a number, so any information can be, by choosing the right scheme, be encoded in any configuration of matter.
daniel-cussen 7y ago
> but that would still remind a human viewer of the EAS tone? That's what authorized tests are for.

by schoen 7y ago

pqoef 7y ago

¶4 from the article: To protect the purpose of the warning system, the agency has a rule against use of EAS tones or their simulations -- except in actual emergencies, authorized tests or qualified public service announcements. ¶1 from the linked order: To preserve and protect the unique purpose of the EAS Tones, the Commission enforces laws prohibiting the use of the tones, or simulations of them, except in actual emergencies, authorized tests of the EAS, or qualified PSAs. Answer to your question, no, the FCC is not okay with simulations of the EAS tone.

schoen 7y ago
Thanks!

finnthehuman 7y ago

>Could people create a synthetic simulated EAS tone that contains no data and couldn't be decoded by any EAS equipment, Yup, you could generate two different sine waves that would seem reminiscent of the EAS two-tone alert and be near indistinguishable to all but an FM engineer and forwarding hardware. The SAME header could be invalid data, for a non-existent region code, or out of spec in some other way. > Would that be OK with the FCC, or are they also concerned with human listeners recognizing the sound and believing that an alert is imminent? No, if it was meant to be confused with the EAS tone, it's just as if you used the EAS tone. The FCC is a step ahead of "clever" ways of skirting important rules. WiFi deauth attacks are still "malicious interference" even though they're layer 2 attacks that don't "jam" the band.

schoen 7y ago
Thanks, I didn't mean this hypothetical as a way of skirting the rule—I just didn't know if the FCC was concerned about how EAS-like broadcasts are processed by machines or how they're processed both by machines and by humans. I remember that the old EBS tone could automatically trigger some stations (like ours) to switch over to rebroadcasting a transmission from another station. I believe that the EAS signal does the same. At least in the EAS case, I didn't know whether the FCC was specifically hoping to catch humans' attention with the tones, or just to use them as a signal to transmission equipment to rapidly change the content it was broadcasting over to emergency announcement content, even without human intervention. Several of the replies here, including yours, suggest that the FCC explicitly means for it to serve both purposes.

rdtsc 7y ago

> Could people create a synthetic simulated EAS tone that contains no data and couldn't be decoded by any EAS equipment, Could, but probably shouldn't. From FCC link https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-investigations-misuse-emergency-alert-tones https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-investigations-misu... > These rules aim to protect the integrity of the alert system by helping to avoid confusion when the tones are used, alert fatigue among listeners I like the term "alert fatigue". Very descriptive and useful. Definitely a good thing to avoid.

14 7y ago
This reminded me of the illegal number [0]. People being told the number was illegal so created flags that also represented the number. The neat thing was that by making numbers illegal anything that can be used to represent those numbers also becomes illegal. Like art work painted a certain way. Imaging being told you can not paint a certain color pattern as it is illegal. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The term illegal number is like calling ink contraband because the use of ink in a manner which communicates something illegal may itself be illegal. Illegal numbers aren't illegal themselves. (And, anyway, by the theory justifying calling them illegal, every configuration of matter is illegal, since not only can any information be encoded in a number, but any information can be encoded—by selecting the right encoding scheme—in any finite number, and any configuration of matter can be represented by a number, so any information can be, by choosing the right scheme, be encoded in any configuration of matter.

daniel-cussen 7y ago

> but that would still remind a human viewer of the EAS tone? That's what authorized tests are for.