1 / 16

Prepared by: Mark Wood, CTO, CellCast Technologies Presented by:

National Emergency Alerting Policy for CAP to Cell Broadcast Conversion in Multi-Language Cross-Border Scenarios. Prepared by: Mark Wood, CTO, CellCast Technologies Presented by: Paul Klein, Exec VP, International Sales & Marketing. Prepared For:

jesusc
Télécharger la présentation

Prepared by: Mark Wood, CTO, CellCast Technologies Presented by:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Emergency Alerting Policy for CAP to Cell Broadcast Conversion in Multi-Language Cross-Border Scenarios Prepared by: Mark Wood, CTO, CellCast Technologies Presented by: Paul Klein, Exec VP, International Sales & Marketing Prepared For: 2012 Emergency Alerting Policy Workshop

  2. The Rewards of Progress • Pre-CAP = No Unified Standard! • CAP arrives - Uniform coding possible: • Generating emergency communications in CAP puts the burden of dissemination on delivery systems and devices • The expectations for more precise geo-targeted, mass message delivery have increased • Volume and reasons for sending messages grows • All emergency response is local. Ergo, jurisdictions develop their own priorities and rules to reach people in the emergency manager’s endangered areas

  3. The Rewards of Progress (cont.) • Emergencies do not respect borders, jurisdictions must. • Delivery systems and devices to accept CAP instructions proliferate • Neighboring jurisdictions have some practices and expectations about notification in common and some that differ • Policy and enforcement issues arise

  4. Main Policy Decisions Needed(Blue = policy need) • The polygon created by the message origination system may have several jurisdictions within it. • separate polygons required for separate jurisdictions • separate jurisdictions require separate policies • these separate policies need enforcement to be effective • the receiving jurisdiction’s policy governs what final message is delivered • an Aggregator enforces policies

  5. Main Policy Decisions Needed(Blue = policy need) • CAPSAME codes/ Event Codes must be converted according to policy set by each message “receiving jurisdiction”. • Policy for language translation & multicast (such as cell broadcast) channel selectionis set according to regional policy in each “receiving jurisdiction”.

  6. Polygon Parsing • Different jurisdictions can fall within one polygon. Each jurisdiction may have its own separate policies. • Splitting polygons into separate ones and enforcingpossible disparate policies between them requires an Aggregator. • The jurisdiction to receive a message has authority over policy always.

  7. Separate Jurisdictions=Separate Policies • 1 disaster + 2 countries affected= 2 sovereignties + 2 sets of policies. • Separate jurisdiction=separate policy=separate enforcement. • Local policy regarding important local preferences such as languages used or the mix of alert technologies to be used are determined by the local authority.

  8. Coding & Language • In the USA, CAP messages have SAME codes which are used to create pre determined message text and “channel” parameters for its CMAS (Commercial Mobile Alert System) emergency mass notification system. • In Canada, CAP messages have ‘Event Codes’, which have different text than SAME codes. • In Canada simultaneous translation into both English and French is required on an equal basis. • A correlation of equivalents between the two event coding systems is needed going from the US to Canada and visa versa.

  9. Content & Language If a ‘Freeform Text message’ is generated by a US emergency manager only in English then the message may require editing based on local language policy. • Either accelerate message conversion by auto translating • Or, apply human intervention by a designated authority

  10. ETSI & CMAS Wireless Cell Broadcast (CB) Systems 1. Similarities a) Policy indicates how the CB message parameters below are to be performed separately in each direction for each jurisdiction b) Policy converts CAP into the following cell broadcast parameters: Content for the screen display, Languages to be used, Channel number (MI), Coding Scheme, Length of transmission time and number of repeats, 2. Differences CMAS= <English Primary + Optional Additional Secondary > ETSI = < Default language and additional languages >

  11. Wrap UpKey Policies Needed • Policy without enforcement is not effective policy • Separate jurisdictions take separate polygons  • The receiving jurisdiction has the sovereign position • Separate jurisdictions that will receive a message may have different  needs than the "sending" agent • language • event code • wireless & non wireless technologies available (handsets, signage, TV, radio, cable, etc.) • channels (in cell broadcast) • All of the above require an Aggregator capable of enforcement

  12. Paul E. Klein, Exec. VP International Sales & Marketing CellCast Technologies 17 Research Park Drive Suite 200 St. Charles, Missouri, 63304 832 326 0730 (mobile) P.Klein@CellCastCorp.com www.CellCastCorp.com

More Related