Subject: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:55:11 -0400

Apparently the new version of iOS 5 is capable of receiving alerts from the Japanese earthquake alert system.  It also comes with a warning that maintaining a connection to the alert system will reduce battery life.  Anyone know any details of how this works?

<http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/21/ios-5-includes-early-earthquake-warning-notifications-for-japanese-iphone-users/>

---

From: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTSI)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:56:11 +0000

It is standard GSM cell broadcast. ETWS is standardized as part of the 3GPP PWS feature.

--------
Brian K. Daly
Director, Core Network & Govn't/Regulatory Standards
AT&T Services, Inc.
+1.425.580.6873
[email-masked]

Rethink Possible

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:55 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system

<http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/21/ios-5-includes-early-earthquake-warning-notifications-for-japanese-iphone-users/>
_______________________________________________
atoca mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:58:25 +0200

As Brian says.

3GPP TS 23.041. Look for the message identifiers that are MMI settable.

Keith

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> DALY, BRIAN K (ATTSI)
> Sent: 22 August 2011 16:56
> To: Richard L. Barnes; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system
> 
> Apparently the new version of iOS 5 is capable of receiving alerts from
> the Japanese earthquake alert system.  It also comes with a warning that
> maintaining a connection to the alert system will reduce battery life.
> Anyone know any details of how this works?
> 
> <http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/21/ios-5-includes-early-earthquake-warning-
> notifications-for-japanese-iphone-users/>

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:01:52 -0400

Thanks Keith and Brian.  I guess this is just the iOS operating system reading and rendering the ETWS broadcast message.

I suppose the interesting question for this group would then be how interworking might work with these things.  Suppose an iPhone receives one of these alerts while it's in tethering/hotspot mode.  How could it relay the alert to other endpoints connected over WiFi?

--Richard

On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:58 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

>> Richard L. Barnes

---

From: Arnoud van Wijk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:14:44 +0200

Another question is what if you are deaf or hard of hearing?
Will it vibrate? How long? How strong?
Will it blend? (oh that is something else :-))

But cell broadcast is a good thing that is essential for people who have 
no or low ability to receive audio alerts like sirens for Tsunami, 
Earthquakes, Tornadoes or any other disaster like a chemical spill.

/Arnoud

On 22-08-11 18:01, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>> Director, Core Network&  Govn't/Regulatory Standards
>>> AT&T Services, Inc.
>>> +1.425.580.6873
>>> [email-masked]
>>>
>>> Rethink Possible
>>>

---

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:37:03 +0100

Hi Arnoud;

Yes, you are right, 

The Japanese ETWS, European EU-ALERT and US CMAS, are indeed, as Brian says,
implemented by regular vanilla flavoured standard Cell Broadcast. (Though I
think Japan has an additional method over the paging channel also, which is
more rapid but only delivers a special tone indication).

The main new feature required in addition to normal cell broadcast is a
special more intrusive 'alert tone' (which has already been defined in the
USA) and 'attention getting' behaviour such as pop ups and flashing, from
the terminal in case of an alert message.  

The behaviour of the terminal decides what happens when you receive a cell
broadcast message. It is perfectly possible for the terminal to have
vibration and flashing to get attention on receipt of a cell broadcast
message, just the same as receiving a SMS message. This is set by the user
from the MMI menu system.   

I understand that there is a move at the 3GPP to include new flags in unused
bits of the 'serial number' of the 023.041 standard so that pop-up and
special alert tone can be demanded. But in the mean time, the terminal can
deduce this from the MI number. 

This is why there has been sustained effort for many years to define a range
of addresses for which more intrusive behaviour is required, so that
terminal vendors can use this in the interim.

In fact one driving reason why the Netherlands chose to use cell broadcast
is exactly so that the deaf are not disadvantaged by its use (over the more
traditional sirens), I think the University of Delft (Netherlands) made a
detailed study about this. I think Wim Van Setten and Dick Gerbrands of SPMM
were involved in that study.  Perhaps one of our Netherlands colleagues can
point you to that study.

I wonder if Mr Daley can tell us what the status is of the proposed flags
for setting this behaviour.  Was it included in the standard yet?

Warm regards, Mark Wood.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Arnoud van Wijk
Sent: 23 August 2011 11:15
To: Richard L. Barnes
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system

/Arnoud

---

From: "Peter Sanders" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:04:58 +0200

Hi Mark,

CMAS does not use the flags for pop-up and alert-tone and neither does
EU-Alert. The two bits in the serial number (which are by the way not unused
bits!) that are used for pop-up and alert-tone are exclusively for ETWS use.

There is also no effort ongoing to assign the use of those bits to anything
other than ETWS.

The more intrusive ring tone you are referring to in your mail below is also
required in EU-Alert. Since the ring-tone itself is not specified in the
EU-Alert specification, the mobile device vendors will select one that is
different than the standard ring-tone and your safest bet would be that the
CMAS ring-tone will also be used for EU-Alert.

Best regards,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Mark
Sent: dinsdag 23 augustus 2011 13:37
To: [email-masked]; 'Richard L. Barnes'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system

Hi Arnoud;

Yes, you are right, 

Warm regards, Mark Wood.

-----Original Message-----

/Arnoud

---

From: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTSI)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:40:11 +0000

Thanks for that clarification Peter.

CMAS also has FCC-defined alert tones and vibration cadences that are triggered by the cell broadcast message identifier.

--------
Brian K. Daly

Rethink Possible

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peter Sanders
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:05 PM
To: 'Mark'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system

Hi Mark,

Best regards,
Peter

-----Original Message-----

Hi Arnoud;

Yes, you are right, 

Warm regards, Mark Wood.

-----Original Message-----

/Arnoud

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:37:25 +0100

Hmm...  :-)

Thanks Peter,

(With apologies to ATOCA members, I want to explore this question because, I
promise, it does impact the matter in question). 

I wonder why the two bits that Brian kindly mentioned are not used by CMAS
or EU-ALERT? I can't think of any specific reason why they should not, as
the only real difference between them is the MI space used. So far as I can
tell, those bits are not blocked when the MI range changes?

If we used these bits, then we would be released from the "tyranny" of a
fixed MI range for alerting; that may be valuable in the future especially
in enterprise wireless networks where various private address ranges are
typically deployed. 

Is there some reason why it is not being done, am I missing something? 

It seems to be so, that the alert requirement is 'deduced' by the terminal
due to the MI. 

In that case (IMHO) we need to do some work to standardise the MI ranges
used for 'alerts' so that terminal vendors can preset a whole range of them
to Alert, just in case the user is roaming to a country which does not use
either EU-ALERT, CMAS or ETWS. 

I suggest that if there were a 'well known' range of MIs exclusively for
alerting, then member states could choose one to their liking (if they
choose not to use one of the existing standards), and the special alert tone
would work even for roamers. [Member states sometimes have their own reasons
for needing a national solution]. 

Such a scheme is still being proposed at the ITU-T SG2 but has so far found
no consensus. 

I am still concerned about this, because if any network operator chooses to
use IP multicast as one means of alerting hosts, then referencing the
framework used for CB may make some sense, at least for discussion. It is
for others to propose the solution but we could at least have a suggestion
that has a really good roadmap.

Warm regards, Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
DALY, BRIAN K (ATTSI)
Sent: 24 August 2011 05:40
To: Peter Sanders; 'Mark'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [atoca] iOS 5 tied into Japanese early warning system

CMAS also has FCC-defined alert tones and vibration cadences that are
triggered by the cell broadcast message identifier.

---

From: "DALY, BRIAN K (ATTSI)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:35:25 +0000

Mark -

I think this is a discussion outside ATOCA and would be happy to explore further.

--------
Brian K. Daly

Rethink Possible

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [atoca] Alert flags versus MI range.

Hmm...  :-)

Thanks Peter,

Warm regards, Mark.

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:21:52 +0200

For 3GPP public warning systems, the list of allocated message identifiers for alerts is managed by 3GPP.

What is happening is that while there are various national or regional alerting schemes for alerting, values of similar importance in different national or regional areas are allocated the same message identifier, to allow roaming terminals with alerts turned on to receive alerts pertaining to the country they are visiting.

A Korean one is currently under discussion.

If you need to register (create) a new national scheme, talk to 3GPP - they will appropriately update the specifications after discussion.

Keith

> [email-masked]
> Sent: 24 August 2011 12:37
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Peter Sanders" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:22:45 +0200

A more logical method than (mis)using the serial number to trigger the
special alert tone would have been to use the Data Coding Scheme for that.
After all, the DCS tells the mobile device how the message is to be decoded
and subsequently displayed. However, 3GPP has chosen to link the special
alert tone to the range of PWS MI range.

The MI range for PWS is quite large: from 4360 - 6399, and the special alert
tone should be triggered by any MI in this range.

Since 3GPP has chosen to link the alerting tone to this MI range, changing
that can only happen if there is no backwards compatibility problem, and
there are compelling reasons to do so. Otherwise....

Best regards,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 13:37
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [atoca] Alert flags versus MI range.

Hmm...  :-)

Thanks Peter,

Warm regards, Mark.