The planned test of the CMAS system yesterday in and around NYC seems to have worked. At least, there are reports that people received the messages on their wireless phone. One tiny problem. Some of them, at least, didn’t know it was a test.
Insert snarky comment here.
I have to wonder – who crafted the test messages? Since this was a test of the IPAWS/CMAS message aggregation capability, I have to think the messages originated with EM personnel somewhere. If that is the case… shame on you. If the message isn’t real, either because it’s an exercise, system test, or whatever, the first part and the last part of the message should make that clear. For example, “Exercise exercise exercise. There is a civil emergency in your area…. This is an exercise.”
It seems that while the technology worked (people got the messages), the system failed. There is more to warnings and alerts than simply getting the message to the population, they need to know what to do next. Comments on the Gawker article (linked) show confusion on the term ‘shelter in place’ as well. Sounds to me like the risk communication teams have some work cut out for them in the near future.
Update (21 DEC 11)
As clarified in the comments section of this post, the issues here are spread over two separate system tests. The CMAS system test in NYC seems to have been mostly successful – at least, there was almost zero chatter about it afterward. Good.
However, a carrier system test (conducted the day before the NYC test) was carried out by Verizon in New Jersey. This is the test that startled many residents, as the message did not include any indication that it was only a test. While CMAS doesn’t allow for custom formatting, etc. (and I agree with the commenter that this may cause issues), the alert body still failed to indicate it was a test.
CMAS is going to be a valuable tool in the EM toolbox, and despite some early issues, I’m looking forward to full implementation.
I read the text in the gawker article, and it was inexcusable! Even so, I feel for the people who do this type of work, because even with the disclaimer you recommend, I fear a significant portion of the population would fail to grasp that the message was “only a drill”.
Posted by churchcr | 15 December 2011, 09:29The Cellular Emergency Alert Service association, CEASa, and the state of Florida concluded a three-year long trial of CMAS with a successful end-to-end broadcast of an EAS test message last year. It was the conclusion that all technologies required for cell-broadcast of public warning messages are present in both GSM and CDMA networks, and can be interfaced with the existing CAP EAS data stream.
It was recognized however, that without the use and public promotion of a common, recognizable, term (brand) to identify the message as being authorized government emergency instruction, most people would likely ignore the warnings.
Florida, is now considering expanding the project to include actual deployment of an totally integrated public warning capability as a commercially sustainable, public-private initiative.
More information is available on; CEASA.US….
Posted by D. D. Weiser | 16 December 2011, 10:45Those are great points. If the message isn’t viewed as ‘authoritative’, the recipients are likely to ignore it. Thanks for the input.
Posted by dfmerrick | 21 December 2011, 16:21Several issues with this reporting. First, CMAS by design does not allow an alert originator to have any control over the message that is displayed. The message is auto-generated within IPAWS based on the EAS Event Code, the Expiration Time, and (if included) the expected action. There are no parameters for live testing within the system. This is potentially one of many flaws in CMAS.
The next issue with the reporting here is that the linked Gawker story has nothing at all to do with the test conducted today in NYC but rather was Verizon specific testing that was conducted in NJ Monday afternoon and not intended to go live.
Posted by jhamilton | 15 December 2011, 20:01Thanks for the clarification and followup.
Posted by dfmerrick | 21 December 2011, 16:19