3 ms·

>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 s

>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.