You are undoubtedly aware of the Emergency Alert System (EAS), the national public warning system used to address the American public during emergencies. You may have seen the system in action, used by state or local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as AMBER alerts and weather information targeted to your area.

The EAS is actually a national system that also provides communications capabilities to the President to address the American public during a national emergency. It involves the resources of broadcasters, cable television operators, satellite radio providers, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers.

On November 9, at 2:00 p.m. (EST), the FCC and FEMA have scheduled the first-ever test of the Presidential Emergency Action Notification (EAN) of the EAS. The test will last about 30 seconds.  During the test, cable customers will see a special EAS channel regardless of the cable channel they are watching (You can see an example of an alert here.).

As the EAS test runs, the audio feed will advise viewers that it is only a test. The onscreen text will simply state:  “This is an Emergency Action Notification,” and in some cases, “for the United States” or “for the District of Columbia,” depending on the equipment.

The EAN message itself is set by the federal government; cable systems are required to pass through the government’s message to their viewers.

The cable industry is taking action to assist the government in educating consumers about the test.  Our member companies are airing public service announcements from the FCC to raise viewer awareness (Copies of these PSAs are posted on NCTA’s website).  Cable systems are also using invoice messages to alert consumers to the upcoming test.  And cable operators and programmers are linking to websites with more government information about the test, such as this one from the FCC.

Our message is simple:  This is just a test of the system, and no action is required.

NCTA continues to inform our member companies about test developments and has briefed other groups, such as the Cable Center Customer Care Committee and state and regional cable associations. Cable programmers also have pledged support in educating consumers.

An end-to-end nationwide test of the system is critical to assess the reliability and effectiveness of the EAS as a public alert mechanism. Cable will be expending every effort to help ensure the test is a success.

UPDATE: You might also want to read this post at the Time Warner Cable Untangled blog.

Steve Morris, Vice President & Associate General Counsel of NCTA, gave BroadbandBreakfast.com his first impressions on this week’s USF Reform Proposal. His commentary is also available here.

The Chairman, the commissioners and the FCC staff all deserve a great deal of credit for bringing this item to completion.  Universal service and intercarrier compensation are some of the most difficult, complex issues faced by the Commission and adopting an item of this magnitude is a significant accomplishment.  That we have concerns about some of the decisions made by the Commission in this order in no way diminishes our respect for its efforts and accomplishments.

On the positive side, we believe the item establishes a reasonable and workable process for transitioning to a more rational intercarrier compensation regime.  The Commission acknowledged over a decade ago that the current intercarrier compensation rules were irrational and created an environment ripe for regulatory arbitrage and disputes.  We are optimistic that the rules adopted today will help put an end to the arbitrage and the disputes.  We are particularly pleased that the item commits to placing carriers of VoIP traffic on equal footing with legacy telephone companies with respect to intercarrier compensation.

We are less enthusiastic about the universal service components of the order, which are far less ambitious than was recommended in the National Broadband Plan and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  At a high level, the Commission’s “new” approach to high-cost support through the Connect America Fund is to give the incumbent phone companies preferred or exclusive access to virtually all the money.  Cable operators will be able to receive broadband support only in areas where an incumbent price cap phone company chooses not to exercise its right of first refusal (or “state level commitment” as it is now called).  This overwhelming preference for incumbent phone companies violates the universal service requirement that support be provided on a competitively neutral basis, and is a step backward from the current regime, which gave competitors an opportunity to receive support in any area where they were willing to meet the Commission’s requirements.

The degree to which the Commission has granted special treatment to large price cap phone companies is particularly disheartening.  AT&T and Verizon are the two largest telecommunications companies in America and the so-called “mid-size” price cap companies (CenturyLink, Frontier, Windstream) pay out the highest dividends among S&P 500 companies.   Given the financial strength and size of these companies, it is unreasonable and unnecessary for the Commission to give them: (1) preferential access to $1.8 billion annually in high-cost support in 100 percent of their territory through a right of first refusal; (2) recovery of as much as 90-100 percent of their access charge losses from an Access Replacement Mechanism that will increase consumers’ phone bills; and (3) exclusive access to $300 million in new high-cost support, in addition to 100 percent of their legacy support (which is phased out for competitors) before the new Connect America Fund begins.  We look forward to reading the order to see if there is a reasonable explanation for this blatant favoritism.

Although the lack of competitive neutrality is a major concern, there are a number of bright spots in the USF reforms adopted.  The Commission proposes to eliminate support in some (but not all) areas where cable operators offer broadband without a subsidy, a policy that NCTA has advocated for many years.  The Commission also adopted a budget for the high-cost program for the first time, another long-standing NCTA policy recommendation.

Consequently, while the item is far from perfect, NCTA greatly appreciates the efforts the Commission has made to begin the process of modernizing the USF regime.

The cable industry is the largest provider of broadband in America with our high-speed networks available to 93% of U.S. homes. And even though 77 million U.S. consumers are using broadband to communicate, educate and conduct commerce, it’s clear that  simple availability of this game-changing technology isn’t enough of an inducement for some families to subscribe. Numerous studies have shown that if they don’t understand the relevance of broadband, or how to use the service, those remaining consumers may just choose not to connect.

For that reason, we applaud FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s announcement today of a new group called Connect to Compete, a “digital literacy corps” which will actively engage with consumers so they understand how high-speed Internet will enable them to find jobs, increase their skills and open up new opportunities.

We’ve addressed the issue of broadband adoption before (“Bringing Broadband to Low-Income Families” and “Increasing Broadband Adoption”), making this point that pertinence, and not just cost, has repeatedly been identified as a significant barrier to broadband adoption. In other words, as we said in this post:

…we’ve seen firsthand that some consumers simply see no benefit in broadband…that is until they start using the service and then they can’t stop.

The cable industry has been a leader in developing public-private partnerships as an avenue to increase broadband adoption. Many cable companies are deeply involved in community-based programs designed to overcome barriers to adoption, improve accessibility to broadband services and provide training and education on digital and internet literacy.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Charter, Cablevision Systems, and Bright House Networks are just some of the cable operators that have launched community-based broadband adoption initiatives. (You can see more details on these efforts here, here and here.)

In addition, Discovery, one of cable’s premier programming companies, will contribute premiere educational content from Discovery Education, including video clips and digital lessons, to help bolster student achievement.

Cable has been a pioneer in proposing national partnerships, including the Adoption Plus program a few years ago, which included many elements that have been embraced in the FCC’s new initiative.

In addition, through Cable in the Classroom, the cable industry provides a variety of tools and resources to educators to encourage broadband adoption and enhance digital citizenship among the nation’s youth.

We’ll be continuing our efforts to encourage adoption and will also continue to engage in discussions with government policymakers and private sector partners to identify new ideas that will substantially advance our common goals.

Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech at LivingSocial’s Washington, D.C., headquarters about the economic impact of broadband. LivingSocial is a great example of a start-up company that has been empowered by broadband, becoming one of the leaders in the social-buying category and transforming the way consumers discover and buy goods and services.

The Chairman highlighted the economic force that broadband has become in the American economy, especially as a technology that powers job creation, and he cited a recent report by McKinsey which shows that broadband now creates 2.6 jobs for every one lost.

As cable was America’s first broadband provider, I welcome the Chairman’s remarks and enthusiasm about how broadband is sparking a renaissance in America’s economy.  But the irony of the entire speech is that not a single broadband company was even mentioned nor did we hear about the millions of jobs created by broadband providers which have built the networks that are the “indispensible infrastructure for America in the 21st Century.”

Sure, it’s to more fun talk about garage start-ups or cake delivery success stories, but let’s not forget who brought us to the dance.  Broadband is not some mystical force of nature. Broadband is the result of hard work and private investment, first from the cable industry and now many others.

The cable industry launched residential broadband service in the late 1990s and after $170 billion in construction and network upgrades, our broadband service is available to 93 percent of U.S. households – more than 123 million homes.  Cable’s broadband networks offer speeds of 5 Mbps or faster to more than 90 percent of U.S. households. Cable is also now providing next-generation wideband service, with speeds of 50 Mbps or more (in some cases, over 100 Mbps) to more than 90 million American homes.

Currently, 45 million customers rely on cable for their broadband Internet connections. As Chairman Genachowski notes, those broadband connections have become indispensible.

I know it’s been 15 years, but it’s important to remember that it was cable that brought broadband to life and gave birth to everything we delight in today.

But we also help impact the economy. Just this past March, we released the latest study by Bortz Media and Sports Group, Inc. on the economic impact of the cable industry. The study found that the U.S. cable industry supports nearly 1.8 million jobs representing gross economic output amounting to more than $251 billion.

Since 2002, direct and indirect employment attributable to the cable industry has increased by 638,000 jobs.  The industry added 4,700 jobs over the last three years at a time when the U.S. economy’s net loss of jobs was more than seven million.

We deployed broadband first; we offer some of the fastest speeds in the marketplace; we help keep American employed. When you think of the economic impact of broadband, don’t forget the critical role that cable has played.

In a recent debate on CNBC, my friend Gary Shapiro – head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) – said the Obama Administration was “the most anti-business” of his lifetime.  He went on to condemn the large number of proposed regulations and said of regulators, “They don’t care about business or the consequences of the rules they are proposing.”

I applaud Gary for speaking his mind, but feel a need to call his bluff.  Because while he is vehemently condemning some 200-plus new regulations that would cost industry hundreds of millions of dollars if implemented, Gary and CEA are leading an effort to push the FCC to adopt new regulations that would impose substantial costs on cable and other video providers, and that would have the very government bureaucrats that he so disdains set technical standards on a marketplace that is exploding with innovation.

And yes, I’m referring to the “AllVid” proceeding that has been hanging, like Damocles’ sword, over the industry for more than a year.  If implemented as Gary and CEA would like, an All Vid mandate would force video providers (job-producing business owners) to break up their services in a manner that would strip away valuable (and popular) content and allow competitors to pick and choose which pieces they want.  Such regulation would not only rip apart the fabric of a market that 100 million consumers participate in, it would also drive up costs in an economic era when consumers are already feeling pinched.

And why do we need these rules?  Video providers and services are already bringing new and innovative services to market – from streaming live TV to iPads, enabling consumers to watch video on multiple devices in and out of the home and delivering video straight to “smart” TVs without needing a set-top box – without government mandates.

The AllVid proceeding is the classic example of the jobs-killing, cost-raising, innovation-crushing regulation that Gary blasts as anti-business.   He should be true to his principles and walk away, and the FCC should shut down the proceeding and let the market continue working.