ISP-Based Severe Weather Warnings

[Jeff Miller]

I am not sure if this has been approached before, But I wanted to discuss an idea that has been on my mind.

As we are aware, there has been an immense shift with the power of the internet from television as a major telecommunications source to the internet.

I am not aware if such a system exists. Would it not be advantageous for legislation to be passed which would mandate that all Internet Service Providers work in tandem with the Emergency Alert System and the National Weather Service to provide immediate severe weather warnings for specific areas?

Maybe I am out of the loop - but to my knowledge, Internet Service Providers as a whole I do not believe - correct me if I am wrong - are required to be disemmenators (sic) of severe weather information. With this age of internet technology, I simply believe it is the next logical step for advanced severe weather warnings.

This thread is for discussion on the advantages/and or disadvantages of such a system. It is also to discuss if such a system is in discussions or enabled - and Stormtrack user opinions on such a system. Does this idea violate privacy rights? Is it necessary? Is it too expensive? What are your thoughts?

 

[Adam Reagan]

Greetings from the Boro,


To my knowledge there is no way to recieve warnings online other than going to NOAA's website or having Weather Bug, Accuweather, or any other premium weather website.

My personal opinion I don't think having the EAS implimented through your ISP would be necessary as there are other ways people can receive advance warning through means other than TV or radio.

I feel that the focus should be more towards cell phones than internet; there are services out there were you can receive severe weather alerts or any other emergency information but you either have to pay for the services or be a college student to receive it for free (I may be wrong on this one if I am please clarify were I can receive weather alert texts for free I'm searching for one right now).

 

[Tim Shriver]

Under 10 percent of the folks in the US have a All Hazards Radio. Over 82 percent
have cell phones. I also think cell phones are the way to go.
But we also need to have local broadcast media stations in the loop as well.

ISPs wont do it, but you will probably see more out of the Cell Service Providers
in the coming years.

Tim

 

[Robert Dewey]

To be honest, I don't like the idea. I'm more in line with requiring new homes / construction to have an all hazards radio. Even then, it should probably only be programmed to sound during life-threatening events (your location is in the imminent path of a tornado, damaging winds in excess of 80MPH, nuclear reactor melt-down, etc).

 

[rdale]

you will probably see more out of the Cell Service Providers in the coming years.

They will be required to with CMAS in 2012.

it should probably only be programmed to sound during life-threatening events (your location is in the imminent path of a tornado, damaging winds in excess of 80MPH, nuclear reactor melt-down, etc).

No such system exists, and no money is available to implement that...

 

[Robert Dewey]

No, but that's my line of thinking. We're talking 60 deaths per year as a result of tornadoes... I think there are a lot more pressing issues than overhauling ISPs and infiltrating cell networks with EAS notifications.

 

[Morgan Palmer]

I understand in Japan, a code is sent that physically turns on televisions when an earthquake or tsunami warning is issued. I think that if we were serious about warning people, the same thing would have happened in the U.S.

On the other hand, if you did that, there would instantly be kits sold to modify that appliance to not sound the alarm. Same with warnings sent to cell phones and other devices.

Most Americans won't tolerate it being mandated (look how long it took for nationwide seat belts). The best municipalities have been able to do has been outdoor warnings sirens, and many areas have done away with them as relatively ineffective compared to the maintenance cost.

I think most folks who really value that information will opt-in, and already have. Probably a percentage of population in the single digits.

Most folks don't care until it's plainly evident that their life is in danger. Trust me. Just try interrupting a NASCAR race for a tornado warning. I did that once. Sheesh. MP

 

[Rob H]

Ignoring the logistics of how to get the ISPs to even agree to this, the technical hurdles are huge.

It would have to be some sort of opt-in program, where the ISP would provide software that the customer could install on their computer specifically to receive these alerts. I know if it came packaged with Windows Server 2008 or something, and my web server had a weather alert pop up on it, I would be mad. If the hardware/software companies ever tried forcing this install on people the privacy groups would go bonkers. This software would have to accommodate OSX, Windows XP-7, Linux, Windows CE, and all sorts of offshoot things.

I can potentially see video services like Hulu and Netflix doing this, as they could easily inject the weather notice as an overlay on the video stream you're watching.

I think it's more likely that cellular networks send out SMS messages as Tim mentioned. The infrastructure is there, SMS messages are cheap, and if there's a way to opt out I don't think many people would complain.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I think it's more likely that cellular networks send out SMS messages as Tim mentioned. The infrastructure is there, SMS messages are cheap, and if there's a way to opt out I don't think many people would complain.

As Rob Dale mentioned, they're working on this. There was $106M allocated for the CMAS project, I believe (if that's part of the "no money" Rob Dale is speaking of, I'd like to be broke please ).

I'm not sure I like that solution though - I'd like to see more focus on accuracy and decreasing FAR. Again though, we're talking an average of 60 deaths per year due to tornadoes; how many of those people didn't receive the warning? How many would have simply ignored the warning? Of course, I'm ignoring other potential disasters that would require notification (SVRs, tsunami, hurricane, etc). You also have the fact that a lot of people mute their phone at night, making it pretty much useless as a warning device (that's like shutting off your fire alarm before you go to bed).

Until accuracy is increased and FAR is decreased, this will be nothing more than an annoyance to many people... and I think it might even create some sort of resentment. With more people being aware of a failed warning, perhaps you're increasing the chances that they'll ignore future warnings... ones that might actually verify?

IMO, notifications should only be sent in a truly life-threatening situation... which most TOR and SVR warnings, in hindsight, are not.

 

[Rob H]

I'm having a mental image of a bunch of people at an large venue function like a wedding, a funeral, or a baseball game when a warning alert is sent to *82% of the crowd* at the same time. This would have to be done only for nuclear strikes, incoming tsunamis, or tornado emergencies - the backlash against sheriffnado-driven tornado warnings would be massive. The great thing is, I think it could be able to be limited to specific cell phone towers so the message would truly only make it to the people that needed to hear it.

Who knows, maybe if the program is effective, cell phone manufacturers would be forced to include an emergency override for muted phones. I'd be angry if it went off every time there was just a warning, but I would never complain about a tornado emergency triggering it.

 

[rdale]

CMAS tests have already begun in FL & CA. This system is much more than just weather alerts, so it's not as though the funds were to be taken away from NWS.

It will use tower locations and polygons to disseminate alerts.