# Emergency Alerts - Nanny State



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

How far we have fallen. How did the human race survive for eons without interrupting TV? How did we survive without the 911 system?

All hail big, intrusive government. It should be a system preference to disable this crap. The big thinkers in DC obviously know what's best for me in all circumstances. They should reimburse the money I put into my pair of Premiere XLs and Lifetime service since the boxes are basically useless for anything other than their purposes any time the weather gets interesting.

Given CHOICE, you people in Tornado Alley could leave it enabled.

And don't even get me started on Amber alerts.

We should all just get mandatory government digital receivers implanted into our central nervous systems at birth and be done with it.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Seriously? This is what you complain about on 9/11? How quickly we forget.......

The current system is a HUGE upgrade from the old system. Your TV show used to be interrupted completely. Now it just kicks you out of the show you are watching but the content of the show is not interrupted.

I for one am thankful that I live in country that has technology like this. It might save my life one day.


----------



## JoeTaxpayer (Dec 23, 2008)

aadam101 said:


> I for one am thankful that I live in country that has technology like this. It might save my life one day.


I couldn't have said it better, aadam.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aadam101 said:


> Seriously? This is what you complain about on 9/11? How quickly we forget.......


Yeah, it is an ironic day to complain that we get too much warning of potential disasters...


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Huh? I can't remember the last time directv has interrupted my programming....


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, it is an ironic day to complain that we get too much warning of potential disasters...


If you are against government doing these things, you are honor-bound to ignore the government warnings. Ride it out.


----------



## TWinbrook46636 (Feb 9, 2008)

CJLinst said:


> How far we have fallen. How did the human race survive for eons without interrupting TV? How did we survive without the 911 system?
> 
> All hail big, intrusive government. It should be a system preference to disable this crap. The big thinkers in DC obviously know what's best for me in all circumstances. They should reimburse the money I put into my pair of Premiere XLs and Lifetime service since the boxes are basically useless for anything other than their purposes any time the weather gets interesting.
> 
> ...


Did you misplace your tin foil hat?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I have no sympathy for anyone who uses the term "nanny state". But yeah, these things are annoying. Not so much the actual alerts, as the endless damn "tests". I finally got my first real alert the other day, but I've seen dozens (hundreds?) of tests.


----------



## Tobashadow (Nov 11, 2006)

I don't get the Series 3 style alerts only the cable system ones and Charter here has only interrupted once for a thunderstorm in the last 5+ but tests the damn system 15+ times a day.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

CJLinst said:


> All I want is a way to make the CHOICE to turn the stupid crap off. .


Unplug TiVo and/or your TV. No more warnings until you want them. When you do, plug back in whatever devices you unplugged.

You do ultimately MAKE the choice ...


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

@jfh3 A simple preference checkbox would be much more convenient.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

shadowplay0918 said:


> I do see your point of having the option to opt out but I'm sure if someone did and then something bad happened you know there's a good chance of a lawsuit somewhere....


Sue the federal goverment? good luck with that...

I'm with the OP. These emergency alert nuisances are unnecessary. My Bluray player doesn't know about the EAS. My Playstation 3 doesn't know about the EAS. My computer doesn't know about the EAS. My toaster doesn't know about the EAS. Why does my DVR suddenly need to know about it? and to forcibly change the channel? What's next? Should my TV turn itself on when there's an EAS signal and ramp up my volume?

Even if it is necessary to display an EAS banner, why can I not make the choice myself on whether I want to change stations?

It's technological overkill. We don't need it.


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

@shadowplay0918 I didn't say "democrats" I said "liberals." Plenty of nanny state liberals in the GOP. But they're usually better classified as police state liberals.


----------



## Millionaire2K (Jun 16, 2008)

There should be an option to disable. The end.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

Well instead of interrupting the recorded show they could just overlay it on whatever you are watching. Unfortunately its mostly half ass with everything else so its not surprising.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

The alerts aren't that bad of an idea (although getting incessant weather alerts with the advice to stay inside when I'm already inside watching TV is annoying). The bigger problem is tivo's implementation of the alerts. Things like getting yanked out of a recorded show you are watching, then not being put back into that recording at the place you left when the alert is done, so you have to play from the beginning again and fast forward till you see something you don't recognize. Tivo could make these things a lot less irritating without violating any nanny state regulations.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Seriously? This is what you complain about on 9/11? How quickly we forget.......
> 
> The current system is a HUGE upgrade from the old system. Your TV show used to be interrupted completely. Now it just kicks you out of the show you are watching but the content of the show is not interrupted.
> 
> I for one am thankful that I live in country that has technology like this. It might save my life one day.


I agree with this. Of all the things I could find to complain about when we look at what our government does and how it spends our money, this isn't one I would even find the slightest bit annoying.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

CJLinst said:


> As if a stupid TiVo alert would have helped the people in the towers, or at the Pentagon, or on 93.
> 
> Man, liberals are short-sighted. I don't want to deprive you your safety blankie. All I want is a way to make the CHOICE to turn the stupid crap off. You can leave it on if you think it's so invaluable.


The alert isn't just for people directly affected. Imagine sitting home on 9/11 and watching only recorded shows while a loved one is in the WTC. You could very well have missed the entire thing and not found out until the towers had fallen.

That is of course an extreme case, I think it gets more usage for things like tornadoes. I don't live in a tornado area but I think every second counts and I would want to know as soon as humanly possible.

I am far from a liberal. I don't know how often they test the system but I only see the alerts in the middle of the night if I happen to be up. I very rarely see them during the day and never during prime time.


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> The alert isn't just for people directly affected. Imagine sitting home on 9/11 and watching only recorded shows while a loved one is in the WTC. You could very well have missed the entire thing and not found out until the towers had fallen.


I can imagine lots of things. Unfortunately, so can politicians.

As the system is right now, it would yank me off CNN, where I might have been already watching said event getting important information, and put me on whatever channel it deems appropriate with no way to cancel even if I ALREADY KNOW what the message is telling me. And God only knows how many times an hour they would broadcast something like 9/11.

If I want to watch the news, I'll turn on the news.

If I want to watch live TV, I'll turn on live TV.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Time to exercise my option to disable CJLinst. *plonk*


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> The alert isn't just for people directly affected. Imagine sitting home on 9/11 and watching only recorded shows while a loved one is in the WTC.


Imagine sitting at home and watching a DVD... or sitting at home and reading a book... or cleaning your house... or sleeping...

I know people who don't even own televisions. What on earth are they to do?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

smbaker said:


> Imagine sitting at home and watching a DVD... or sitting at home and reading a book... or cleaning your house... or sleeping...
> 
> I know people who don't even own televisions. What on earth are they to do?


The government has an obligation to be able to communicate emergencies. TV is not the only way they do it but it is certainly an effective way of reaching millions of people all at once.

If you want to live in a country where there is little to no FEMA like organization I suggest you move to Haiti. I hear things are great there.

I live less about 15 miles from a nuclear power plant. If something were to go wrong at that plant I want it to be communicated to me as many ways possible as quickly as possible. I think it's a little more important than watching Jersey Shore.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> If you want to live in a country where there is little to no FEMA like organization I suggest you move to Haiti. I hear things are great there.


You've setup a false choice. There are plenty of options on the continuum between no emergency services, and seizing control of a DVR. For decades, a small text overlay sufficed and the viewer had the option to change the channel him/herself.



aadam101 said:


> I live less about 15 miles from a nuclear power plant. If something were to go wrong at that plant I want it to be communicated to me as many ways possible as quickly as possible. I think it's a little more important than watching Jersey Shore.


Well then I still hope you don't watch DVDs, read books, clean your house, or sleep, because none of those activities (or the stuff most people do for the 22hours/day they're not watching TV) are generally interrupted by an EAS signal.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

I'm ok with the idea of an opt-out feature, but TiVo doesn't have the option to provide one.

I do agree that it should be a video overlay, rather than being recorded, but that's not the way it is.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> I'm ok with the idea of an opt-out feature, but TiVo doesn't have the option to provide one.
> 
> I do agree that it should be a video overlay, rather than being recorded, but that's not the way it is.


It's not recorded depending on where you live. I think it depends on cable provider. The alert boots you out of whatever you are watching. Your show is still recorded in the background. The content of your program is not affected.

If you want to complain about this then I think we also need to complain about 2AM reboots for software updates. Tivo must be anti-America to do something like this!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aadam101 said:


> It's not recorded depending on where you live. I think it depends on cable provider. The alert boots you out of whatever you are watching. Your show is still recorded in the background. The content of your program is not affected.


That's the way it works here...which is why I find it an improvement over the old system, which messed up whatever show was on at the time.

IIRC, in the early days of S3 when it booted you out of your program, you had to start over (i.e., it didn't save your position in the show). If so, they've since fixed that glitch.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

can't wait till people get the first text message alert the government is starting to work on now....


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> can't wait till people get the first text message alert the government is starting to work on now....


Well luckily, phone carriers are opting into this system voluntarily. If you don't like it you can always change your phone carrier.


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> Time to exercise my option to disable CJLinst. *plonk*


Fingers in his ears saying 'la la la la la.'

Wish I had the option to disable the EAS on my TiVo. Isn't choice wonderful?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

CJLinst said:


> Fingers in his ears saying 'la la la la la.'
> 
> Wish I had the option to disable the EAS on my TiVo. Isn't choice wonderful?


Well why don't you complain to Tivo instead of the government? Is Tivo required by law to have this?


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

there isn't any reason an unused TiVo tuner couldn't overlay the banner on currently watched content.

TiVo knows enough that an EAS is incoming, it should be able to handle the stream and display it a little less intrusivly.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aadam101 said:


> The current system is a HUGE upgrade from the old system. Your TV show used to be interrupted completely. Now it just kicks you out of the show you are watching but the content of the show is not interrupted.


That's actually not true. The alert is sent to the TiVo via an OOB signal, but it forces it to tune one of the tuners to a specific channel to display it. So if you have something recording on both tuners it will interrupt one of the recordings. This sucks when you go to watch something weeks/months later and realize that you're missing a few minutes of the program because of an alert, usually a test, that happened weeks/months prior.

I think the value of the EAS system kind of depends on where you live. If you live in a place prone to disasters then it's invaluable. However if you live in an area like mine where natural disasters are virtually nonexistent, it's more of a PITA then anything else.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aadam101 said:


> Well why don't you complain to Tivo instead of the government? Is Tivo required by law to have this?


Yes. It's part of the requirements for CableCARD approval

Dan


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

My understanding is putting tivo into standby mode will prevent the EAS from interrupting your recording.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

lew said:


> My understanding is putting tivo into standby mode will prevent the EAS from interrupting your recording.


Correct.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> It's not recorded depending on where you live. I think it depends on cable provider. The alert boots you out of whatever you are watching. Your show is still recorded in the background. The content of your program is not affected.
> 
> If you want to complain about this then I think we also need to complain about 2AM reboots for software updates. Tivo must be anti-America to do something like this!


They certainly get recorded here. I have been told that they don't get recorded if the TiVo is in "Standby", but I don't know if that is actually the case.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's actually not true. The alert is sent to the TiVo via an OOB signal, but it forces it to tune one of the tuners to a specific channel to display it. So if you have something recording on both tuners it will interrupt one of the recordings. This sucks when you go to watch something weeks/months later and realize that you're missing a few minutes of the program because of an alert, usually a test, that happened weeks/months prior.
> 
> I think the value of the EAS system kind of depends on where you live. If you live in a place prone to disasters then it's invaluable. However if you live in an area like mine where natural disasters are virtually nonexistent, it's more of a PITA then anything else.
> 
> Dan


That's interesting. I didn't realize it worked this way as I've never been impacted by it in this manner.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I think the value of the EAS system kind of depends on where you live. If you live in a place prone to disasters then it's invaluable.


If you live in a place that's prone to disasters, then you really need something other than a television. One of those weather radios that's always on in standby mode and wakes up for an alert. I had one of these when I lived in the tornado-prone midwest.

The television offers a false sense of security. When you most need to be alerted of a disaster will be the time it isn't turned on. A two-hour meeting once a year with your neighbors to come up with a disaster plan is far more valuable than all of this technology. (well, only for those who have neighbors, I suppose)


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

Exactly. My CC Radio has a weather alert. It'll wake up and alarm if I set it to do so. Nice that I can also turn if off.

I do not know if they have adapted the NOAA weather radio to relay general emergency alerts such as missing children or sort of reliable yet unconfirmed possibility of terrorist attack somewhere maybe.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

CJLinst said:


> Exactly. My CC Radio has a weather alert. It'll wake up and alarm if I set it to do so. Nice that I can also turn if off.


I gave it a brief google, and it looks like the newer ones even let you customize what county you're in and what type of alerts you'd like to receive.

Oh, and a little more googling reveals something about EAS event codes:



> National Presidential Address - Mandatory override
> EAS Weekly Test - Mandatory override
> EAS Monthy Test - Mandatory override within 60 minutes
> ...
> ...


That ought to leave aadam feeling safe and secure...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> The alert isn't just for people directly affected. Imagine sitting home on 9/11 and watching only recorded shows while a loved one is in the WTC. You could very well have missed the entire thing and not found out until the towers had fallen.


Ironically the EAS was never activated on 9/11, the one day it would have been useful.

Instead it's activated for lost pets, stolen cars, weather in other states, weekly tests, etc.

I don't think people would mind EAS alerts if they were actually emergencies. Personally, I don't consider Amber or Silver alerts to be emergencies that warrant an EAS on a TV, considering that there's literally no chance of me finding the person the alert is referring to in my living room.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

morac said:


> Ironically the EAS was never activated on 9/11, the one day it would have been useful.
> 
> Instead it's activated for lost pets, stolen cars, weather in other states, weekly tests, etc.
> 
> I don't think people would mind EAS alerts if they were actually emergencies. Personally, I don't consider Amber or Silver alerts to be emergencies that warrant an EAS on a TV, considering that there's literally no chance of me finding the person the alert is referring to in my living room.


I agree.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

andyw715 said:


> TiVo knows enough that an EAS is incoming, it should be able to handle the stream and display it a little less intrusivly.


AFAIK:
1) If you don't have cablecards in your TiVo, you won't get EAS problems
2) Thus this is a requirement of cablecards (possibly indirectly due to the FCC?)
3) Supposedly, if you put TiVos in standby, your recordings will not be messed up due to EAS

Anecdotally:
I have never actually seen an EAS (though once in a while I see a particular station still do the crawl on TOP of the picture with the same annoying high pitched whine as before -- I believe this is not an actual EAS.. actually I think the last time I saw it, it was on the analog version of a channel I was recording on a non-Tivo).. I seem to get a BLACK screen and TiVos locked up for a few minutes.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I know there's a requirement that EAS alerts must be displayed, but is there any requirement that says it has to be recorded as well?

I can't think of any reason why the TiVo tunes both tuners to the EAS alert. If there's a recording in progress, the TiVo could switch the free tuner to display the alert without interrupting the recording. If there are two recordings in progress, at least one of them could continue.

With the new 4 tuner box, EAS alert functionality makes even less sense. Having all 4 tuners tune to the EAS wouldn't make any sense, but my guess is that is what will happen.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

I don't mind the real alerts when live but the tests are too much!
And there is no reason for any of this to be recorded...


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

mattack said:


> Anecdotally:
> I have never actually seen an EAS


In my area, the tests seem to happen late at night. It all depends on my particular viewing/sleeping pattern which shifts around a bit.

Loud annoying beep, modem-like noises, EAS test voice, and then tuners dumped to a useless public-access TV station (I wonder what would happen if I marked that station as one I don't receive... Probably certain death at the hands of the emergency)



mightivo said:


> And there is no reason for any of this to be recorded...


I don't think it is recorded. But... it does force tune to a certain station, so if something is being recorded, the recording will be interrupted because the tuner was occupied with the EAS.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

smbaker said:


> In my area, the tests seem to happen late at night. It all depends on my particular viewing/sleeping pattern which shifts around a bit.
> 
> I don't think it is recorded. But... it does force tune to a certain station, so if something is being recorded, the recording will be interrupted because the tuner was occupied with the EAS.


It is recorded on a program I have from last night, looks like it came on at 1:53am. The recording continued normally before and after EAS.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

morac said:


> I know there's a requirement that EAS alerts must be displayed, but is there any requirement that says it has to be recorded as well?
> 
> I can't think of any reason why the TiVo tunes both tuners to the EAS alert.





smbaker said:


> I don't think it is recorded. But... it does force tune to a certain station, so if something is being recorded, the recording will be interrupted because the tuner was occupied with the EAS.


Actually what happens is if there is a free tuner (i.e. you're only recording one thing) then TiVo simply switches to that tuner and shows the message. The recording continues as planned. However if there is not a free tuner then TiVo switches one of the tuners to the EAS message and the message is recorded, annoying audio and all. I can't say for sure but I "think" TiVo interrupts the lower priority recording when this happens.

I have only ever seen one real EAS message since getting a S3. And it was for a county far away from mine. All the other times I see it is for a weekly tests. 

Dan


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

Perhaps, but this was recorded on a suggestion so it sounds like it should have been dumped by those rules and there were no other recordings going on at that time.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Huh? I can't remember the last time directv has interrupted my programming....


Again, I have no clue what you guys are talking about. This has *never* happened to me. Is this a cable thing?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Actually what happens is if there is a free tuner (i.e. you're only recording one thing) then TiVo simply switches to that tuner and shows the message. The recording continues as planned. However if there is not a free tuner then TiVo switches one of the tuners to the EAS message and the message is recorded, annoying audio and all. I can't say for sure but I "think" TiVo interrupts the lower priority recording when this happens.


I'm nearly certain, that's not what happens. I got a number of alerts during Hurricane Irene and the alerts showed up in my recordings on my Premiere and S3 even though only one thing was being recorded.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> Again, I have no clue what you guys are talking about. This has *never* happened to me. Is this a cable thing?


Yes it's basically a cable thing.

Or more accurately by legislation cable systems (and over the air broadcasts?) are required for forward the Emergency Alert System tests or warnings and cable card compliant devices must (if they are in use) interrupt the display of TV to show the EAS message.

This replaces the old Emergency Broadcast System which didn't have any mechansism to alert people who weren't watching / listening live.

I don't know why the legislation didn't require satellite companies to broadcast EAS alerts tagged to the registered geographic location of satellite receivers. Tag them with the affected zip codes and let the satellite receiver figure out which ones to display...


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Again, I have no clue what you guys are talking about. This has *never* happened to me. Is this a cable thing?


I don think the technology is there for t to happen with a sat tuner.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> I don't know why the legislation didn't require satellite companies to broadcast EAS alerts tagged to the registered geographic location of satellite receivers.


Satellite got off pretty easy with the cablecard legislation. Somebody must have had a friend in the government...



MighTivo said:


> It is recorded on a program I have from last night, looks like it came on at 1:53am. The recording continued normally before and after EAS.


Perhaps there is more than one technology at play here. Maybe some stations (particularly analog ones) are still overlaying EAS on their programming?

Every time I've got one of the new style EAS broadcasts, it has dumped the tuner on a public access station. I've never been recording a program at the time.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I believe from earlier threads that it depends on how the local headend is set up. Not sire what the possibilities are but if I recall from the old threads some ways were more annoying than others.

As anotjer aside I recall directv and the FCC going at it about the alerts. I thought that they were supposed to start implementing it in new receivers but guess maybe I remember wrong... if someone feels like ssearching FCC website can probably find more.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

A very good description of the different types of EAS alerts as well of examples of each type is documented in this thread over at AVS Forum.


----------



## HTH (Aug 28, 2000)

Could it at least take me back to what it interrupted when it finishes, be it where I was in the recording I was watching or the complicated Wishlist I was composing?


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

The bottom line is I didn't buy my TiVos so I could have an emergency alert system. I bought them to record TV shows.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

CJLinst said:


> The bottom line is I didn't buy my TiVos so I could have an emergency alert system. I bought them to record TV shows.


Luckily for you, that is exactly what your Tivo is doing.

You didn't buy your TV so you could have an emergency alert system either.

You didn't buy your house so you could have a police/fire department at your disposal. You didn't a computer so you could have a calculator. You didn't buy your shoes so you could have shoe laces.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

I bought my house to live in it, not to listen to these smoke detectors!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

rainwater said:


> I bought my house to live in it, not to listen to these smoke detectors!


Don't worry! If you take the battery out, they'll stop making noise. Might be hard to do with all the smoke though... 

If the EAS system only sounded in the case of a true emergency that affected you, then the analogy with a smoke detector might be valid. That's not the case though.

If the government sent a signal once a week that set off all your smoke detectors at 2am in the morning and installed a hydraulic lift to physically dump you out of bed then within short order there would be a lot of smoke detectors finding their way into the landfills. It's not the basic technology that's the problem, it's the over-reaching. Safety notification is fine. In a real emergency, I have the power to change the channel; I don't need someone doing it for me.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

smbaker said:


> If the government sent a signal once a week that set off all your smoke detectors at 2am in the morning and installed a hydraulic lift to physically dump you out of bed then within short order there would be a lot of smoke detectors finding their way into the landfills. It's not the basic technology that's the problem, it's the over-reaching. Safety notification is fine. In a real emergency, I have the power to change the channel; I don't need someone doing it for me.


Well, you are suppose to check your smoke detectors monthly. And yes, there are EAS tests that are annoying and inconvenient. But if a EAS helps save the life of one person, it is worth the inconvenience for a few people.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

rainwater said:


> But if a EAS helps save the life of one person, it is worth the inconvenience for a few people.


Under that line of reasoning, if confining the entire population to padded rooms would save the life of one person, it's also worth the inconvenience of a few.



BenjaminFranklin said:


> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

morac said:


> I'm nearly certain, that's not what happens. I got a number of alerts during Hurricane Irene and the alerts showed up in my recordings on my Premiere and S3 even though only one thing was being recorded.


I could be mistaken. I know I've seen a few live alerts popup that did not end up effecting a recording, so I assumed this is how it worked. Maybe it always uses tuner #1 so it depends on which tuner the current program is using whether or not it's effected.

In any case it *should* work like I suggested. The free tuner should always be used if available, and if not the lower priority show should be the one effected. And in the case of a Suggestion that suggestion should just be dumped completely. No one wants to watch a recording with a two minute interruption for an alert that happened days/week/months ago. Also, as another poster suggested, when it's done it should put you right back where you were before the alert. Not leave you sitting in live TV, which could spoil a recording program or cause you to lose your efforts in composing a WL, SP, etc..

I know TiVo is forced to follow these rules, but the least they could do is make them as unobtrusive as possible.

Dan


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Under that line of reasoning, if confining the entire population to padded rooms would save the life of one person, it's also worth the inconvenience of a few.


Absolutely, and if you are that person whose life is about to be spared or lost, I am just about 100% sure you would agree. It's unlikely there are any significantr number of people out there who, if a knife was held to their throat and told it would be slit if they did not push a botton that locked up every person in the U.S. to a padded room, would not push the button.

Watching TV is not a right, it is a priviledge, and in almost all cases, the welfare of every single individual in a society must when necessary (and effective) override the priviledges of any single individual or group, no matter what the size. So must the rights of every individual. After that, what is left is the appropriate venue for priveleges. We have more than plenty.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> II know TiVo is forced to follow these rules, but the least they could do is make them as unobtrusive as possible.


The big problem here, as is often the case, is the rules as enacted are stupid. The desired intent is to enhance the safety of the populace and when possible to save lives. The system as implemented does nothing of the sort WRT its actual implementation.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

rainwater said:


> I bought my house to live in it, not to listen to these smoke detectors!


So you keep hearing a beeping noise? Are you sure it is the detectors?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Watching TV is not a right, it is a priviledge....


That's ridiculous. Just because parents tell that to their children, doesn't mean it applies to the Government. The Government is not my parents, nor should they be. As long as I'm not harming anyone, I should have the right to do whatever I want, within reason.

The Government has been eroding rights for years (pretty much since it was formed) and people just roll over and accept it. There's no longer a right to privacy. People no longer have the right to eat whatever they want (eating is also a privilege now apparently).

Just because something can be legislated, doesn't mean it should be. For example, did you know that it is illegal where you live to take more than 3 sips of a beer while standing?


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

I was very surprised last night while watching Netflix, to be forced out of the Netflix App into LiveTV only to have to watch the EAS Test. :down:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> The Government has been eroding rights for years (pretty much since it was formed) and people just roll over and accept it. There's no longer a right to privacy.


Both in the context of this discussion and in the example you give here, that's an ironic statement! Since the government has considerably loosened its restriction on broadcasters over the past couple decades, and since the "right to privacy" is often cited as an example of government over-reach.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Watching TV is not a right, it is a priviledge, and in almost all cases, _the welfare of every single individual in a society must when necessary (and effective) override the priviledges of any single individual or group, no matter what the size._ So must the rights of every individual. After that, what is left is the appropriate venue for priveleges. We have more than plenty.


Perhaps the welfare of society as a whole would be improved if we:

1) Eliminated McDonald's because it's unhealthy and causes obesity

2) Eliminated automobiles because they might crash

3) Revoked the privilege of women to work, to encourage better parentage

4) Segregated our schools to prevent violence between ethnic groups and/or genders

5) Eliminated television at it leads to laziness and obesity

6) Eliminated the privilege of posting on Tivo Community Forums as it may cause stress and high blood pressure

The above are all just "privileges" and they're privileges enjoyed by mere subsets of society, we might as well start revoking them. If only we could just give absolute power to our politicians, they could make all of our decisions for us, and revoke some of those pesky "privileges" that we shouldn't be allowed to exercise.

It surprises me that you are willing to start throwing away your liberty so easily. If enough people believe that way, then perhaps we can move to a totalitarian society.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Both in the context of this discussion and in the example you give here, that's an ironic statement! Since the government has considerably loosened its restriction on broadcasters over the past couple decades, and since the "right to privacy" is often cited as an example of government over-reach.


Not only is it ironic, it is completely idiotic. The Constitution of the United States - which I think we can agree was designed to define the basic rights of the citizens that could not be abridged by federal authorities without due process of law except in time of war - contains not one single, solitary reference to anything that might remotely be called privacy, and for good reason: it's a stupid notion. The only thing which might be deemed coming close to a ban on "invasions of privacy" is the fourth amendment restriction against unreasonable arrest, search, or seizure of property without a proper warrant. They were justifiably tired of authorities being allowed to stop a man on the street or drag him from his home, arrest him without cause, search his person and property, and sieze anything they chose.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I say we burn all of the books and make TV the sole form of entertainment! We could start on Monday, only in German, and put all of it on channel 451.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Not only is it ironic, it is completely idiotic. The Constitution of the United States - which I think we can agree was designed to define the basic rights of the citizens that could not be abridged by federal authorities without due process of law except in time of war - contains not one single, solitary reference to anything that might remotely be called privacy, and for good reason: it's a stupid notion. The only thing which might be deemed coming close to a ban on "invasions of privacy" is the fourth amendment restriction against unreasonable arrest, search, or seizure of property without a proper warrant. They were justifiably tired of authorities being allowed to stop a man on the street or drag him from his home, arrest him without cause, search his person and property, and sieze anything they chose.


Sorry, I can't agree with your basic premise. The constitution was designed to enumerate the delegated powers of the various branches of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was an add-on and explicitly listed certain rights that could not be violated even when those powers were exercised. It was not a complete list of individual rights. The next time you read the constitution, assuming you have actually done so, you should read the whole thing, including the last two of the first 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Perhaps the welfare of society as a whole would be improved if we:
> 
> 1) Eliminated McDonald's because it's unhealthy and causes obesity


No, the reason it should be shut down is because the food is lousy, highly overpriced, and poor quality. It is not the prerogative of the govenment to do so under any statue of which I am aware, but I certainly would not kvetch if someone came up with one. McDonald's is a company, not a person, and no individual's rights - not one - would be impacted in any way by its being shut down.



smbaker said:


> 2) Eliminated automobiles because they might crash


Except that then many other people would suffer injury or death due to the lack of vehicles - unless some other alternative is offered. It is not acceptable to trade off one person's life for another. It is also not acceptable to trade off one persons rights for another, other than in the case of criminal activity. We are not talking about either one of these, however. We are talking about an (very small) impact to the insufferable and inappropriate sense of entitlement of an indolent TV addict versus the potential loss of life or serious injury of innocent individuals - perhaps even that of the couch potato in front of his boob tube, himself.

I cannot help but be reminded of the idiots in the movie Airport who all decided the crew "had no right" to forcibly confiscate the briefcase from the suicide bomber. I can guarantee none of them (if it happened in real life) felt that way once they learned what the briefcase contained.



smbaker said:


> 3) Revoked the privilege of women to work, to encourage better parentage


Work is not a priviledge, but nonetheless I absolutely support a version of this, not only for all women a but all men with children as well. Federal law should prevent any parent of young children, married or not, from working more than 6 hours a day away from the residence of their children. 'Not more than 3 hours for parents of an infant less than 6 months old.



smbaker said:


> 4) Segregated our schools to prevent violence between ethnic groups and/or genders


First you are going to have to prove this would be the outcome. Since it would not, the question is moot. If it actually were true, then there might be some justification for the idea. Since it is pure horse#$^%...

Note as with most things, one cannot analyze a proposed official action based on a single statistical effect. Such moronic analysis is a significant part of the reasons we have such a bureaucratic, legally inept morass on our hands right now.



smbaker said:


> 5) Eliminated television at it leads to laziness and obesity


Perhaps it would not be that bad a thing, at that, although not for those reasons. Once again, though, the elimination of a device in no way impacts the rights of any citizen, regardless of whatever other effect it may have.



smbaker said:


> 6) Eliminated the privilege of posting on Tivo Community Forums as it may cause stress and high blood pressure


Certainly the stress part is probably true. OTOH, I have low blood pressure, so any rise in my blood pressure is not an issue. That said, this is the only point you have raised that, as stated, would actually represent a possible infringement upon someone's rights. You did not say "Eliminate TCF", which would not be an infringement of anyone's rights. You said, "Eliminate the privilege of posting...", and that might indeed be an infringement on a very important right, although a fairly unimportant aspect of that right. You see, there are two rights deemed by the founding fathers so utterly important that it was the very first amendment to the Constitution, the first ten of which are commonly known as the "Bill of Rights", which proscribed congress from making any law that impacted them. The rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the most important ones we possess - far more important than the 4th or 5th, for all that they are also crucial to the welfare of the citizenry. (Oh, I forgot. You don't think the welfare of the citizenry is important.)



smbaker said:


> The above are all just "privileges"


No, they aren't. All but 2 are not even remotely as important as a privilege would be, let alone a right. Regardless of their lack of importance - and they do lack importance - they are not either rights or privileges.



smbaker said:


> and they're privileges enjoyed by mere subsets of society, we might as well start revoking them.


The existence of McDonald's, automobiles, and yes, TCF, are not privileges. Presuming the existence of such artifacts, access to said artifacts may be properly seen as a privilege or even a right, but that's not what you said. (You might do well to learn how to come up with better and more salient examples.) At this point I am compelled to point out that the people (or at least white males) under the new Constitution in 1790 generally speaking enjoyed somewhat more freedom than we do today, and neither McDonald's, automobiles, or TCF existed in those days. Eliminating them now would not reduce our freedom.



smbaker said:


> If only we could just give absolute power to our politicians, they could make all of our decisions for us, and revoke some of those pesky "privileges" that we shouldn't be allowed to exercise.


You have quite a flair for the utterly non sequitur, I'll give you that. This has nothing to do with politics or politicians, and nothing with your making any choices - which is almost entirely what freedom is all about. It is utterly about your convenience, which I am sorry to inform you is unimportant on any scale. If anything threatens our rights these days, it is people confusing convenience with fundamental rights.



smbaker said:


> It surprises me that you are willing to start throwing away your liberty so easily. If enough people believe that way, then perhaps we can move to a totalitarian society.


Not me. I want all the other people to get off my planet and leave me alone. What seems likely, however, is that you would be extremely comfortable in a totalitarian society. You see, any successful totalitarian despot knows the best way to make sure no one worries about their rights is to deliver copious bread and circuses to the populace, and under no circumstances let the people's TV viewing be interrupted by such trivia as imminent widespread disasters or something so insignificant as the kidnapping and possible rape and murder of a child.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Sorry, I can't agree with your basic premise. The constitution was designed to enumerate the delegated powers of the various branches of the Federal Government.


Yes, but that is irrelevant. The body of the Constitution doesn't talk at all about citizen's rights, which is why the first ten amendments were added immediately.



lpwcomp said:


> The Bill of Rights was an add-on and explicitly listed certain rights that could not be violated even when those powers were exercised. It was not a complete list of individual rights. The next time you read the constitution, assuming you have actually done so, you should read the whole thing, including the last two of the first 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.


I am aware of the 9th and 10th amendment, their implications, and the reasons individuals such as Alexander Hamilton demanded they be added (or at least promised) before they would support the ratification of the new Constitution. I never said there were no rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I said the notion that a "right to privacy" was enumerated there is complete hogwash.

The larger issue, however, is privacy does not imbue freedom. Indeed, the only person who could be truly free is the one who has no secrets to hide (as well as nothing to lose, but that is another matter). Of course, liberty under a government is not so much a matter of being free as a matter of being able to choose whether or not to be free, it's true. It's also true that many fools will choose not to be free because it brings embarrassment to them, and that actions they may choose in secrecy are not ones they would choose when they know full disclosure is inevitable. The bottom line, however, is that a society bound by limits imposed by the protection of privacy suffers subtle and far reaching impacts on far, far more important freedoms, including the rights to freedom of the press and of free speech.

The founding fathers - quite rightly - were much more concerned about the right to have things about the individual known, not hidden. They were much more concerned about the right to speak than to shut up, except when accused of a crime. Even then, the right not to testify was (and is) expressly limited to the accused. Witnesses have no such right.

'You want to know something about me? Go find out. I won't stop you. 'Want to blurt what you find on the front page of the New York Times? 'Feel free. Want to post nude pictures of me on billboards? Well, I wouldn't care in the least, but out of respect for the sensitivities of those who don't want to be confronted with something that ugly when driving to work, I'll ask that you limit it to distribution among your friends so you can all have a good laugh. Either way, it's no skin off my nose. As a man who struggles most fervently for freedom, I have nothing to hide. As little as I care what you know about me, I care even less what the authorities know about me. (Actually, very large and high on the list of things they will discover is what I think of them, and I *WANT* them to know that - and hopefully choke on it.) The only unfortunate truth is that there is nothing in my life or my past about which anyone, least of all the authorities, would care to any measurable extent. OTOH, the only difference between me and everyone else is I actually realize how utterly boring I am.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> I say we burn all of the books and make TV the sole form of entertainment! We could start on Monday, only in German, and put all of it on channel 451.


No, but burning anyone who spends more time watching TV than reading might not be such a bad idea.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I am aware of the 9th and 10th amendment, their implications, and the reasons individuals such as Alexander Hamilton demanded they be added before they would support the ratification of the new constitution. I never said there were no rights not enumerated in the bill of rights. I said the notion that a "right to privacy" was enumerated there is hogwash.


You said far more than that. You said that "The Constitution of the United States - which I think we can agree was designed to define the basic rights of the citizens that could not be abridged by federal authorities without due process of law except in time of war". That is patent nonsense and, to use your word, idiotic.

As far as a "right to privacy" not being enumerated in the Bill of Rights - straw man. No one said that it was. Whereas you clearly implied that if a right _isn't_ enumerated, it doesn't exist.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

morac said:


> That's ridiculous. Just because parents tell that to their children, doesn't mean it applies to the Government. The Government is not my parents, nor should they be. As long as I'm not harming anyone, I should have the right to do whatever I want, within reason.


I never said that was not the case. You have every right, during an EAS broadcast, to engage in any activity that is not illegal. Indeed, if you can hack your TiVo so that it ignores the EAS, it is also perfectly legal. There certainly is no law requiring you to watch the EAS. There are regulations requiring that there be no impediment to it being presented to you, but that is a completly different matter. It is essentially no different than a law requiring that a public official who discovers a threat to the population must make that information publicly known.

That the way the regulation was written is moronic and the way it has been implemented brain dead doesn't make it an invasion of anything.



morac said:


> The Government has been eroding rights for years (pretty much since it was formed) and people just roll over and accept it.


This is true, and part of the reason is people are concerned more about watching TV than their rights.



morac said:


> There's no longer a right to privacy.


There never was, nor for the most part should there be. Indeed, in 1787, had you used the term "personal privacy" to almost anyone other than the nobility in Europe, they would have looked at you like you had three heads. Most people lived in a single room with up to ten or more other individuals. Everyone in the town or village knew virtually everything about every other member of the town or village. Urination, defacation, and in many societies fornication were performed in public or semi-public places, in open view. Of course bathing was and is a popular public activity in many societies even today. Privacy was completely unheard-of in most aboriginal societies, and if you speak to a tribesman from the plains of Africa today they will tell you the thought of being alone for even a short time is uncomfortable. That every one in the village knows every single detail of their lives and their bodies is not only unimportant, it is unthinkable to them that it be otherwise.



morac said:


> People no longer have the right to eat whatever they want (eating is also a privilege now apparently).


You are going to have to expand on that before I will buy it. Are you saying you want to have the right to be unknowingly presented with tainted meat or contaminated vegetables? Be my guest, but I for one am happy there are regulations on the preparation of foodstuffs.



morac said:


> Just because something can be legislated, doesn't mean it should be.


Of course not. There should be no laws against taking or distributing drugs of any sort (but strict regulations concerning manufacturing standards). There should be no laws preventing anyone from copying and distributing any patented or copyrighted artifacts (but strict laws requiring anyone who does so to pay reasonable royalties). There should be no laws restricting any activities by any number of consenting individuals not involving a minor unless the activities directly impact other individuals. There should be laws preventing any re-distributor (like a broadcaster) from modifying the original content in any way other than that required by encoding. There should not be any laws governing the actual content delivered by the re-distriubutor.



morac said:


> For example, did you know that it is illegal where you live to take more than 3 sips of a beer while standing?


You mean Texas? No, but it doesn't surprise me. The number of idiotic laws on the books here in Texas is not only unbelievable, it is embarrassing. Not that I really care, though. I don drink beer, and if I did I would not have any inclination to drink it standing up. More to the point, if for some odd reason I did want to drink beer standing up, the law would not stop me. It's unenforceable. I'm not saying that is a good thing. Quite the opposite, but it is a fact.

It has nothing to do with the fact an EAS broadcast is in no way an invasion of privacy, any more than an air raid siren is. Privacy (whether protected or not) is entirely about what the individual must allow to be disemminated to the public, not what is presented to them by the public. The EAS is no more a violation of one's privacy than of one's freedom of speech or the right to peaceably assemble. Indeed, it is precisely as invasive of privacy as a public fireworks display on New Years' Eve. For that matter, an even better example of just such an "invasion of privacy" is broadcasting sports and weather during the news.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> You said far more than that. You said that "The Constitution of the United States - which I think we can agree was designed to define the basic rights of the citizens that could not be abridged by federal authorities without due process of law except in time of war". That is patent nonsense and, to use your word, idiotic.


Alright, to be more precise, I should have said "The Bill of Rights", or "The First Ten Amendments". It in no way impacts my point.



lpwcomp said:


> As far as a "right to privacy" not being enumerated in the Bill of Rights - straw man. No one said that it was. Whereas you clearly implied that if a right _isn't_ enumerated, it doesn't exist.


That was not the implication, although in fact, it did not exist. At the time, "personal privacy" was barely even a recognized concept. The entire notion of the existence of such a thing as "personal privacy" let alone it being a right, is a recent development. Regardless, it is a side issue. The regulations requiring an EAS are not a violation of privacy. They don't even pertain to the individual, any more than a regulation that the manufacturer of a prescription drug may not distribute a product that contains more than a certain tolerable level of potassium cyanide. The idiotic way the regulation were written and implemented aside, they do not require or prohibit any actions on the part of the individual.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

BTW, while I think that the EAS is annoying, I don't think it violates any of my rights, enumerated or not.

Never send to know for whom the alert sounds; It sounds for thee.*

*That high pitched whine you hear is John Donne spinning is his grave.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> You have quite a flair for the utterly non sequitur, I'll give you that. This has nothing to do with politics or politicians, and nothing with your making any choices - which is almost entirely what freedom is all about.


If you are presuming that my liberty should be limited, then someone must make the decision as to which of my liberties should be taken away from me "for the public welfare". Who would you suggest do it, if not our politicians? That is our current system. Should we elect a panel or learned men to do this? I suppose it's fine as long as they're really smart people who can keep us dumb masses from harming ourselves.



lrhorer said:


> (You might do well to learn how to come up with better and more salient examples.)


Right now, there is an erosion of our liberty on where we choose to eat, so McDonald's is certainly a valid example. I'm curious, you seem to think that McDonald's does not deserve to exist simply because you do not like their food. Perhaps you are the arbiter of what rights and privileges should be taken from the citizenry to satisfy your higher purposes? While McDonald's is not a person, the shareholders and workers are. I'm not sure if you are one of the anti-corporation/anti-capitalism crowd or not, but this is certainly one of their often repeated mistakes. We do have a right to the fruits of our labor ("Pursuit of Happiness", originally conceived as "Pursuit of Wealth"). If McDonald's was shut down, then certainly people would be impacted:

1) The people who own it

2) The people who derive a wage from working for it

3) The people who enjoy eating at it (not that I am one of them)



lrhorer said:


> Not me. I want all the other people to get off my planet and leave me alone.


However, you seem to advocating the position where more control will be placed on your freedom. You advocate in favor of limitations on how much you can work, what foods you can eat, and seizure of your television. You seem to believe that you have no right to property whatsoever.

If there is no right to property, then would it not be better for society as a whole if any wealth above the median level was seized and redistributed?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> I say we burn all of the books and make TV the sole form of entertainment! We could start on Monday, only in German, and put all of it on channel 451.


The reference to German is puzzling, and more than a little annoying, now I think of it. Ray Bradbury was not German, and the story was not set in Germany, past or future. It was a somewhat biting commentary on the effects of TV and the likely impact on civil liberties it could eventually have. In light of that, the inclusion of the reference in this discussion is puzzling, at best. The whole idea of the novel was TV => loss of civil rights. In that context, any interruption of TV viewing is at worst an alleviation to the erosion of civil liberties.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

smbaker said:


> If you are presuming that my liberty should be limited


It is not a presumption. Many liberties are in direct conflict with one another. In the absence of an a-priori choice between them, they will inevitably limited by reality. The only way to eliminate having to choose between liberties is to eliminate all liberty. There are some people who actually advocate this, but I certainly do not. I wish to enjoy the most important liberties and the largest number possible after importance is considered. Privacy doesn't even make the first cut.



smbaker said:


> then someone must make the decision as to which of my liberties should be taken away from me "for the public welfare".


Unless you live in a deserted island with no possibility of interacting with any other human being, then someone also needs to decide which ones will be granted to everyone. Unless you suggest throwing darts at the board, the welfare of the members of the society is the only metric that can be used. Scoffing at the fact a particular piece of legislation was enacted with that welfare in mind is just absurd. That said, I demand that the welfare of the public not be the primary consideration, but rather *EACH INDIVIDUAL* of the members of the public. It is an important distinction, and one that also happens to leave most privacy issues out in the cold.



smbaker said:


> Who would you suggest do it, if not our politicians?


I suggest that politicians are the last people who should ever be allowed to decide anything at all. In answer to your question, elected officials, should be doing it, but no politician should ever be allowed to seek office. Elected officials should be picked by draft. It's deemed good enough for selection to a jury to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused, which is a far, far more important task than any required of any public office. If it is good enough to be used to select someone to device whether a man lives or dies, then it is more than good enough to chose some one to decide how long the morning break during a meeting of congress should be. Once drafted, the vetted candidates should be chosen by direct popular election, forced to serve a single or at most two terms of office, and then absolutely prohibited from ever holding any other public office again. History has shown time and time again that virtually no one who wants to be in office is ever any damned good at it, so people who want to be in office should be eliminated.



smbaker said:


> That is our current system. Should we elect a panel or learned men to do this?


I don't know. Maybe. To my knowledge, we've never elected anyone but a moron to any office, so it's hard to say.



smbaker said:


> I suppose it's fine as long as they're really smart people who can keep us dumb masses from harming ourselves.


That's not their jobs. It is however, their jobs to see to it the lazy indifference of one idiot (or thousands of them) doesn't cost someone else their lives.



smbaker said:


> Right now, there is an erosion of our liberty on where we choose to eat, so McDonald's is certainly a valid example.


Please cite the regulation that makes it an offense for you to eat at McDonald's, should you be so utterly lacking in taste buds as to wish to do so.



smbaker said:


> I'm curious, you seem to think that McDonald's does not deserve to exist simply because you do not like their food.


Neither they nor any other business, group, or organization has any right to existence. They need to make it on their own merits without any protection from the government, or they need to go belly up. If a government regulation happens to put them out of business, it is of absolutely zero consequence to the liberty of any individual. If the business cannot make it without government interference, then it does not deserve to exist, let alone have any right to. If you want to retain your rights, you need to immediately stop thinking that anything other than each individual should have any.



smbaker said:


> Perhaps you are the arbiter


In fact I am, or rather should be. So are you, or rather should be. Legislators should propose legislation, present it to the people, and then the people should vote on it, not the legislators.



smbaker said:


> of what rights and privileges should be taken from the citizenry to satisfy your higher purposes?


There is no higher purpose than the rights of each person. Not the citizenry as a whole, but each individual. Each specific right, of course, has a relative importance. I think most people would agree the right to life itself is the most important. Very few people are so vapid as to believe taking away the right to protect that life from one person so that another doesn't miss 5 minutes of a TV show represents a proper set of priorities.



smbaker said:


> While McDonald's is not a person, the shareholders


Shareholders should not exist. First of all, it is intensely bad for both the business themselves and the economy as a whole. Secondly, the whole notion that an "owner" of a business deserves to reap the profits of the business simply because of who he is is nothing but a remnant of the whole "divine right of nobility" horse crap. If the individual does not work for the company, they should not perpetually reap any of its profits. If they do work for the company, they should share in the profits based upon how much work they do, not who they are or what position they hold.

Businesses should not be owned (nor bought or sold). Shareholders provide nothing for a business but ready capital, and there are much better, if slower and less efficient, means of obtaining capital.



smbaker said:


> and workers are.


Not as workers they are not. The rights of individuals has nothing to do with what they do to make money - or at least it shouldn't. Again, the very most important right is the right to life, which inherently means the freedom to starve to death. It should not be up to the government to decide who lives or dies, only to give every individual the chance to either live or die as they see fit. That means doing everything possible to alert each individual when danger encroaches on any individual.



smbaker said:


> I'm not sure if you are one of the anti-corporation/anti-capitalism crowd or not, but this is certainly one of their often repeated mistakes. We do have a right to the fruits of our labor


Absolutely. Shareholders perform no labor. They deserve nothing. The CEO also deserves compensation for his labor - in proportion to the amount of labor he actually does.



smbaker said:


> ("Pursuit of Happiness", originally conceived as "Pursuit of Wealth").


Originally meaning when? For at least 3000 years, indiviuals from all walks of life have emphasized that happiness != wealth. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers agreed. Being wealthy and well educated themselves, they were very well aware of the fact.

First of all, that phrase is not from the Constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence, which was mostly a very clever stream of rhetorical B.S. designed to legitimize the treasonous acts being planned by the colonies. That is not a condemnation, and I am quite glad it worked, but it is nonetheless a fact it never had any force of law, constitutional or otherwise. More importantly, it specifically says life (first on the list, you notice) and liberty were inalienable rights. It very clearly and specifically does not say happiness (or wealth, if you choose to interpret it that way) was an inalienable right. It said the *PURSUIT* of it. That means if you lose a job, you must be given the right to look for another one, not that the government must see to it you don't lose a job. Again, even if employment were a right, which it isn't, the importance of getting money through employment is a bit further down the list of importance than a number of other things, although nowhere nearly as far down as watching TV.



smbaker said:


> If McDonald's was shut down, then certainly people would be impacted:


Of course they would, just as the vast number of restaurants driven out of business by McDonald's impacted the people who worked in those establishments, and so would the people who would be hired by the businesses that replaced McDonald's if it were to go out of business. (Actually, it's likely a lot of the people working for a McDonald's would not be out of a job. Most McDonald's are franchises, not owned by the corporation at all. If corporate McD's went down the tubes, there would be nothing preventing the owners from converting the restaurants to independent businesses.)



smbaker said:


> However, you seem to advocating the position where more control will be placed on your freedom.


Not by any stretch of the imagination. I do, however, realize that in practical terms businesses, particularly giant ones, have a much greater negative impact on my freedoms than government. This is even true in the most aggressively totalitarian governments. Of all organizations, only religion has a potentially greater impact on freedom. One could argue organized religion is a cross between government and business, so it is perhaps not surprising.



smbaker said:


> You advocate in favor of limitations on how much you can work


Only parents, and that is because children are vastly more important to the society and to the maintenance of freedom than any adult. Again, however, it is up to the individual themselves. If they choose to have children, then they choose to make their freedom unimportant, comparatively speaking. If you don't want your freedoms temporarily curbed, then don't have children. If you don't want to have them permanently curbed, then don't commit murder. Inherent in the very notion of freedom itself is the ability to chose actions which will reduce or eliminate that freedom. All laws are by definition a restriction of freedom. Unless you re arguing there should be no laws at all, which some people do, then you agree there must be situations where freedom is limited or removed and certain freedoms that cannot be allowed at all. Most people agree you should not be free to murder your neighbor.



smbaker said:


> what foods you can eat


Not even a little bit. I would never support any law forbade people from eating at McDonald's and would fight it tooth and nail. A law which for some reason shut McDonald's down would be of no consequence. The point you seem to be missing is that the corollary to the fact the ends never justify the means, is that it is only the means that are important, not the ends. In the case of McDonald's the end would be the same, but one means would be unworthy of comment, the other worthy of revolution. You also missed what I was trying to say about McDonald's specifically. It should be put out of business by the simple fact their customer base wakes up to the fact their food tastes terrible and is way overpriced, so they choose not to eat there. The fact people exercising the freedom not to eat there would lose a lot of people their jobs is just tough noogies. Such should always be the result of a business producing an inferior product. It usually isn't, but it should be.



smbaker said:


> and seizure of your television. You seem to believe that you have no right to property whatsoever.


The entire notion of property is an internally inconsistent one. Not every society has such a notion, at all. Our laws regarding property extend from the codification in the 14th and 15th century of the notion that ownership extends only to the limit of how far one may defend the property. If one could not prevent an adversary from using the object as they chose, then it did not belong to the person claiming ownership. It's a very wobbly concept, and our extensions of it to this day result in a dizzying array of paradoxes. So I do in fact feel the notion of ownership is badly in need of an overhaul, and so does nearly every lawyer who deals with the issues. That said, no, I never suggested there was no right to property.



smbaker said:


> If there is no right to property, then would it not be better for society as a whole if any wealth above the median level was seized and redistributed?


It's been tried before. It doesn't work. It's also every bit as unethical as a CEO raking in funds he did not earn. Both result in people who did not earn the money being given it. It's irrelevant, though. The question is not, "Do I have a right to own property?" The question is, "Does the state have a right - or in a stronger sense the duty - to make use of public infrastructure and even private resources on a temporary basis during an emergency to mitigate the effects of the emergency?" The answer is, "You had damn well better believe it!" The operative words here are "temporary and "emergency". The founding fathers obviously agreed. Just read the constitution concerning the powers of the President during wartime. Heck, they even felt seizure of property outside an emergency and in the absence of criminal activity for the good of the community was appropriate in some circumstances. Look up "eminent domain".


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

smbaker said:


> at 2am in the morning


I just hate it when people do that. am means after midnight and before noon, thus, morning Mr. Redundant!


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> The reference to German is puzzling, and more than a little annoying, now I think of it. Ray Bradbury was not German, and the story was not set in Germany, past or future. It was a somewhat biting commentary on the effects of TV and the likely impact on civil liberties it could eventually have. In light of that, the inclusion of the reference in this discussion is puzzling, at best. The whole idea of the novel was TV => loss of civil rights. In that context, any interruption of TV viewing is at worst an alleviation to the erosion of civil liberties.


Go to a translation site and look up the German word for Monday.

Some of the posters are claiming that interfering with their TV viewing violates their rights. I was proposing a world where that is one the few rights they would have left. It's called sarcasm.

Oh, and the proper phrasing is that Ray Bradbury _*is*_ not German. Still alive and kicking.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Not even a little bit. I would never support any law forbade people from eating at McDonald's and would fight it tooth and nail. A law which for some reason shut McDonald's down would be of no consequence.


This is where your logic fails. The government rarely enacts laws outright banning you from doing something, but they do often enact laws making it infeasible to do so. There's many ways of doing this. You can raise the cost of doing business so it is no longer profitable. You can use taxation to reduce demand. The end result is the same, you have prevented people from eating at McDonalds. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

As far as examples, there have been recent efforts to control the amount of salt placed in meals in New York, to place a sin tax on Soda Pop, and to alter the contents of 'happy meals'. There are school districts that search children and confiscate candy. The goal of these is to remove choice (liberty) from the consumer and place it in the hands of someone who knows better.

The individual does have a right to eat unhealthily, even if it is to his own detriment.



lrhorer said:


> The point you seem to be missing is that the corollary to the fact the ends never justify the means, is that it is only the means that are important, not the ends.


In any nontrivial system it's easy to find the means to achieve any ends you desire.

You've made the same error with the TCF, citing that it would be a violation of the right to free speech to prevent someone from posting on the TCF, but not a violation to shut down the TCF. Both are limitations on the right to free speech, the first is the more direct route, the latter denies the speech by eliminating the venue in which it was conducted. This is why the freedom of assembly is important.



lrhorer said:


> Neither they nor any other business, group, or organization has any right to existence.


Ok, freedom of assembly, and the first amendment to the constitution is now thrown out the door. What's next?



lrhorer said:


> Businesses should not be owned (nor bought or sold).


If I did not own my business, then it would not exist, because I would not have created it. I suspect this would be the common case within our nation. It takes risk to achieve reward. If you eliminate the reward, then few will take the risk.



lrhorer said:


> That means doing everything possible to alert each individual when danger encroaches on any individual.


"Everything possible" for "on any individual" is quite the generality. "Everything possible" can only be done if there is no liberty, as any use of my liberty reduces my ability to be notified. I may not be sitting in front of the EAS receiver, nor may I be paying attention to it. To do "everything possible", you must compel me to to do both.

"on any individual" implies that I should be concerned if someone on the East Coast is about to hit his thumb with a hammer.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Fortunately the thread was titled "Emergency Alerts - Nanny State" so we are still pretty much on topic.  

I am glad we all have the liberty to discuss this. Unless the moderators decide otherwise.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

daveak said:


> Unless the moderators decide otherwise.


You mean the nannies?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

aadam101 said:


> You mean the nannies?


Do not underestimate the power of a nanny.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aadam101 said:


> You mean the nannies?


So you're suggesting that if there's an emergency, the moderators should take over our browsers to protect us?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Haven't you heard? Nanny-technology can take over your mind!


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So you're suggesting that if there's an emergency, the moderators should take over our browsers to protect us?


The TCF EAS. During the alert you are dumped into the browser of their choice and they run the software of their choice (maybe even flash  ) and instruct you as to the extent of the emergency. Once the alert is finished, the browser closes and your computer reverts to its previous state.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

daveak said:


> The TCF EAS. During the alert you are dumped into the browser of their choice and they run the software of their choice (maybe even flash  )


Flash might be too powerful for some users' computers in this forum. Better to play it safe and reboot into DOS to display the alert. Once the alert is finished, never fear, it can bootstrap Windows 3.1* from within DOS without needing to reboot, and you can resume your forum browsing using Hyperterminal.

* Calm down Linux users, we know you'll hack out our EAS anyway, so you're moot.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Sue the federal goverment? good luck with that...
> 
> I'm with the OP. These emergency alert nuisances are unnecessary. My Bluray player doesn't know about the EAS. My Playstation 3 doesn't know about the EAS. My computer doesn't know about the EAS. My toaster doesn't know about the EAS. Why does my DVR suddenly need to know about it? and to forcibly change the channel? What's next? Should my TV turn itself on when there's an EAS signal and ramp up my volume?
> 
> ...


Last alerts in my area started just as the commercials ended and show started, and not only did I get the TiVo EAS message, but I also got the cable EAS message as both scrolled across the screen. I understand the need for them, but I question the timing.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

The other idiotic emergency alerts are the ones that interrupt radio. I've been in places that had piped in radio stations for background music when a storm was coming through and the recorded message that plays after the annoying blaring alert tones is utterly unintelligible. It sounds like someone with a mouth full of gravel shouting down a 50 foot culvert with a cheap carbon mic at the other end recording in 4 bit 800HZ precision. You can usually make out "..e .ation.. .e.t.hr.. ..ervic.. has ..sued.." then it goes downhill from there . What is the point of an alert system where the alerts cannot be understood?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

daveak said:


> The TCF EAS. During the alert you are dumped into the browser of their choice and they run the software of their choice (maybe even flash  ) and instruct you as to the extent of the emergency. Once the alert is finished, the browser closes and your computer reverts to its previous state.


While funny, this is an interesting point otherwise - with many people cutting the cord and watching TV online (or not at all), why doesn't the gubmint mandate an EAS system for the internet? Or smartphones? Or e-readers? 

Silly I know, but that's kind of the point with the nanny state, inability to opt-out, and selectiveness of it all.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

tomhorsley said:


> The other idiotic emergency alerts are the ones that interrupt radio. I've been in places that had piped in radio stations for background music when a storm was coming through and the recorded message that plays after the annoying blaring alert tones is utterly unintelligible. It sounds like someone with a mouth full of gravel shouting down a 50 foot culvert with a cheap carbon mic at the other end recording in 4 bit 800HZ precision. You can usually make out "..e .ation.. .e.t.hr.. ..ervic.. has ..sued.." then it goes downhill from there . What is the point of an alert system where the alerts cannot be understood?


Alerts on my cable system are like that too.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqbl-7DNyJ0[/media]

By the way, the national weather service, who put out that alert, tends to put the same alert out several times so the alert above actually happened a number of times. I made the recording on the third or fourth alert. I couldn't even hear the first one since the volume was extremely low and only coming from the left speaker. I ended up turning the volume way up to get the recording.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> why doesn't the gubmint mandate an EAS system for the internet? Or smartphones? Or e-readers?


The government has a lot of control when it comes to regulation of cablecards, that's why it is cablecard-using DVRs that are the target here.

... and what good has all that regulation done? Cablecards are a mess, cablecos go out of their way to make cablecard installs unfriendly, Satellite was given a complete pass (did someone have a buddy in the FCC?).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> While funny, this is an interesting point otherwise - with many people cutting the cord and watching TV online (or not at all), why doesn't the gubmint mandate an EAS system for the internet? Or smartphones? Or e-readers?
> 
> Silly I know, but that's kind of the point with the nanny state, inability to opt-out, and selectiveness of it all.


They're working on text messaging systems for all mobile phones located in certain geographic areas. So just a matter of time till your phone/smartphone (and maybe tablet/netbook/chromebook) gets the alerts....


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> While funny, this is an interesting point otherwise - with many people cutting the cord and watching TV online (or not at all), why doesn't the gubmint mandate an EAS system for the internet? Or smartphones? Or e-readers?
> 
> Silly I know, but that's kind of the point with the nanny state, inability to opt-out, and selectiveness of it all.


You people have it all wrong, we should do as North Korea does, put loud speakers on every corner (and maybe in homes also) so all can have warnings when the gov thinks you should have such warnings.
Think of the advantages of this speaker system, the president can make a speech to all of us at once without using oil (leaving a Carbon Footprint) to fly somewhere. I think I am on to something here.
_*In the interest of full disclosure I must tell you all I own a loud speaker co.*_


----------



## belunos (Sep 19, 2002)

While I keep reading terms like _nanny state_, all I'm seeing is petty complaints about a disaster warning system. This.. this is what you attribute to nanny state?! Seriously? There are valid reasons to label it a nanny state, you missing 2 minutes of a Sox game or whatever is barely a blip on the radar.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

lessd said:


> You people have it all wrong, we should do as North Korea does, put loud speakers on every corner (and maybe in homes also) so all can have warnings when the gov thinks you should have such warnings.
> Think of the advantages of this speaker system, the president can make a speech to all of us at once without using oil (leaving a Carbon Footprint) to fly somewhere. I think I am on to something here.
> _*In the interest of full disclosure I must tell you all I own a loud speaker co.*_


Just like cruise ships.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

There will be a national EAS test on 11/9 at 2pm EST. The ones we've been seeing are state or local EAS tests. There apparently has never been a national EAS activation or test, so no one knows if it works.

The test will run about 3 minutes. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/emergency-alert-system-nationwide-test


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

I get a "weekly" every single night! Now in spanish too so it's twice as long.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

lessd said:


> You people have it all wrong, we should do as North Korea does, put loud speakers on every corner (and maybe in homes also) so all can have warnings when the gov thinks you should have such warnings.
> Think of the advantages of this speaker system, the president can make a speech to all of us at once without using oil (leaving a Carbon Footprint) to fly somewhere. I think I am on to something here.
> _*In the interest of full disclosure I must tell you all I own a loud speaker co.*_


Suurrrreeee. Just like with the complaint that in Asia and Europe hey get 1024mbs over the air to their earrings.

The US has large areas of miles and miles and miles of nuttin. Other countries have miles and miles and stacks and stacks of people.


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

That's interesting, there was just a commercial from the FCC on the local NBC. In This commercial the commissioner stated that on Wednesday, November 9th at 2 PM Eastern there will be a nation wide / national test of the emergency alert system. This will include all tv stations, cable systems, satellite systems, radio and satellite radio. 

They also stated do not fear this message, it is only a test.


I don't think I have ever seen a national test before or an advertisement for something like this.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

LoREvanescence said:


> That's interesting, there was just a commercial from the FCC on the local NBC. In This commercial the commissioner stated that on Wednesday, November 9th at 2 PM Eastern there will be a nation wide / national test of the emergency alert system. This will include all tv stations, cable systems, satellite systems, radio and satellite radio.
> 
> They also stated do not fear this message, it is only a test.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen a national test before or an advertisement for something like this.


We got a whole thread on it here . . .

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=478078


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

LoREvanescence said:


> That's interesting, there was just a commercial from the FCC on the local NBC. In This commercial the commissioner stated that on Wednesday, November 9th at 2 PM Eastern there will be a nation wide / national test of the emergency alert system. This will include all tv stations, cable systems, satellite systems, radio and satellite radio.
> 
> They also stated do not fear this message, it is only a test.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen a national test before or an advertisement for something like this.


 I remember once when I was a kid, they had a national Conelrad test. Don't remember if I tuned to 640 or 1240. Also not sure how we were supposed to do either while we were busy ducking and covering.


----------



## Jeanesco (Dec 29, 2003)

CJLinst said:


> How far we have fallen. How did the human race survive for eons without interrupting TV? How did we survive without the 911 system?
> 
> All hail big, intrusive government. It should be a system preference to disable this crap. The big thinkers in DC obviously know what's best for me in all circumstances. They should reimburse the money I put into my pair of Premiere XLs and Lifetime service since the boxes are basically useless for anything other than their purposes any time the weather gets interesting.
> 
> ...


This is one (among several) reason I am ditching tivo. I could understand if it was a real emergency, but these stupid tests are annoying.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

Jeanesco said:


> This is one (among several) reason I am ditching tivo. I could understand if it was a real emergency, but these stupid tests are annoying.


All CableCARD tuners are required to support an EAS broadcast, the Ceton and SiliconDust are not exempt. It is a CableLabs specification.


----------



## Jeanesco (Dec 29, 2003)

CoxInPHX said:


> All CableCARD tuners are required to support an EAS broadcast, the Ceton and SiliconDust are not exempt. It is a CableLabs specification.


Right but not even windows media center will yank you out of the show you're watching and disable all actions until its over. And then when it finishes and you rewind, if you were watching livetv, the time when the message began and where it ended has skips in the video/audio.

Tivo really didn't think this one through, they just kind of tossed it in there with the bugs it has and they never looked back.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Jeanesco said:


> Right but not even windows media center will yank you out of the show you're watching and disable all actions until its over. And then when it finishes and you rewind, if you were watching livetv, the time when the message began and where it ended has skips in the video/audio.
> 
> Tivo really didn't think this one through, they just kind of tossed it in there with the bugs it has and they never looked back.


You're assuming WMC is in full compliance with the CableLabs requirements and that

A.Those requirements are the same as those that apply to TiVo and

B. That they haven't changed since the TiVo code was written.

Meanwhile, at least 2 or 3 days last week, Comcast had multiple "weekly" tests over a couple of early morning hours. Sometimes within 5 minutes of each other.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Jeanesco said:


> Right but not even windows media center will yank you out of the show you're watching and disable all actions until its over. And then when it finishes and you rewind, if you were watching livetv, the time when the message began and where it ended has skips in the video/audio.
> 
> Tivo really didn't think this one through, they just kind of tossed it in there with the bugs it has and they never looked back.


It must have something to do with the transmitting party, as my TiVo does NOT do this. I intend to test this more fully next week, during the national test, but coincidentally, we had a test this morning. Here's what happens:

When I turned on the TV, there was a scroll across the top telling me that this was an emergency test, if it was a real test yada yada. Immediately below the black banner with blue letters was "Press clear to clear this screen". And in the background was live TV.

I was recording a show at the time. The show continued to record, and had no banner in it. The banner appears to be an overlay on the TV, but it does NOT affect the recording. I could not change channels until I pressed CLEAR. But again, the recording continued, unimpeded.

THIS is the way to do it. And since it's a TiVo, I can only assume TiVo handles it properly if the broadcaster does.

Maybe we should turn our wrath on the feed, not the recorder.

BTW, there are some comments in the thread I linked above about how different broadcasters handle it differently.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

astrohip said:


> THIS is the way to do it. And since it's a TiVo, I can only assume TiVo handles it properly if the broadcaster does.


I agree, that's the way it should be done, unfortunately many cable areas (including mine) don't do it that way. They use the older "change to channel x to show alert" (analog) method. That disrupts recordings as the recording contains the channel change.

I wish Comcast in my area used the newer non-intrusive method. Considering Comcast dropped all but a handful of analog channels I can't see why they insist on using the older alert message.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Ditto here. I had a 2am recording of Off Limits last week that was riddled with Comcast EAS alerts, about every 5 minutes, and it yanked away the channel to a black alert screen every time. Pretty much made it unwatchable.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Ditto here. I had a 2am recording of Off Limits last week that was riddled with Comcast EAS alerts, about every 5 minutes, and it yanked away the channel to a black alert screen every time. Pretty much made it unwatchable.


That's why I have started putting mine in standby. Unfortunately, last weeks disruptions came when I was actually trying to watch something.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

This massage was included in my Cox bill today:

IMPORTANT NOTICE! The first-ever nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) will occur on November 9, 2011, at 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time/11 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. The test is expected to interrupt all TV programming for approximately three minutes. This test is being conducted jointly by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Weather Service. For more information, please visit www.cox.com/support. Is this the beginning of the new Republican/Fascist State?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Johncv said:


> Is this the beginning of the new Republican/Fascist State?


No.  But it's interesting how many notices I've received about this stupid non-event. I guess more people will notice it at 2pm than at 3-4am, when they usually occur, but still.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> No.  But it's interesting how many notices I've received about this stupid non-event. I guess more people will notice it at 2pm than at 3-4am, when they usually occur, but still.


The test has been shortened from 3.5 minutes to 30 seconds. It might make it less noticeable since it apparently takes longer than 30 seconds for the test to actually take effect.

[media]http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/alerts/National-EAS-Test-Shortened-110311.html[/media]


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

morac said:


> The test has been shortened from 3.5 minutes to 30 seconds. It might make it less noticeable since it apparently takes longer than 30 seconds for the test to actually take effect.
> 
> http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/alerts/National-EAS-Test-Shortened-110311.html


Somewhere on the FCC website I saw that this was being shortened due to complaints on the TCF website. I can't find the link.


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

astrohip said:


> It must have something to do with the transmitting party, as my TiVo does NOT do this. I intend to test this more fully next week, during the national test, but coincidentally, we had a test this morning. Here's what happens:
> 
> When I turned on the TV, there was a scroll across the top telling me that this was an emergency test, if it was a real test yada yada. Immediately below the black banner with blue letters was "Press clear to clear this screen". And in the background was live TV.
> 
> ...


Mine hasn't worked that way (THD). I recorded last week the 1am showing of Project Accessory and when I went to watch it during the 1 hour show, there were THREE different emergency alert broadcast tests RECORDED in the show. I could rewind and go back and watch the alert a second time if I wanted to.

I understand the need to test, but 3 tests in a single hour? really?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Krandor said:


> Mine hasn't worked that way (THD). I recorded last week the 1am showing of Project Accessory and when I went to watch it during the 1 hour show, there were THREE different emergency alert broadcast tests RECORDED in the show. I could rewind and go back and watch the alert a second time if I wanted to.
> 
> I understand the need to test, but 3 tests in a single hour? really?


Unless you're actually watching it, put the TiVo in standby. It shouldn't record the EAS tests. I'm not saying that this situation is right. Somebody is doing way more tests than they need to. If it can be shown that their DVRs don't behave like this, I would suspect that they are engaging in a little hanky-panky.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

morac said:


> I don't think people would mind EAS alerts if they were actually emergencies. Personally, I don't consider Amber or Silver alerts to be emergencies that warrant an EAS on a TV, considering that there's literally no chance of me finding the person the alert is referring to in my living room.


Agreed. It's ridiculous that I was interrupted by an amber alert today at ~12:30 pm.  This is the first time I've seen one of these on TV.

This type of crap might be going on the in the middle of my recordings, explaining why some of them are inexplicably (to me) partial recordings.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

...and that's one of the reasons to put a Tivo into standby.. so you don't screw up your recordings.

BTW, Amber alerts bug me too, but I bet you would feel differently if it were a relative of yours...


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

mattack said:


> ...and that's one of the reasons to put a Tivo into standby.. so you don't screw up your recordings.
> 
> BTW, Amber alerts bug me too, but I bet you would feel differently if it were a relative of yours...


Don't think that's entirely accurate. Frequently on my THD I see two alerts running simultaneously. Once from the THD alert function and another that TWC broadcasts across all analog channels.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

But if you're not recording analog channels, what does that matter? I'm referring to the ones that CHANGE THE CHANNEL and thus ruin your recording.

(actually, for me, I've only ever seen the screen go black and obviously miss that sectino of recording.)


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

mattack said:


> But if you're not recording analog channels, what does that matter? I'm referring to the ones that CHANGE THE CHANNEL and thus ruin your recording.
> 
> (actually, for me, I've only ever seen the screen go black and obviously miss that sectino of recording.)


Since I have Series 2 TiVos, don't want to buy Premieres to replace them, and am using Analog so I can transfer shows between TiVos I have never seen an alert that does change the channel. Don't get me wrong, it may as well change the channel since you can't see most of the screen for the scroller at the top and bottom and the sound is done with the alert tone going off every few moments. It would actually be less annoying to switch away for a moment and perhaps leave an icon on screen. One of those stupid "thumbs up" to see a weather alert would be great.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

A data point, that EMs could be handled better.

I had a series of severe thunderstorm warnings while watching recordings on my UVerse DVR. It automagically pauses the program, makes a not-too-loud alert tone, and played the actual audio weather warning from the NWS. At the end the program continued from where it was.

What more could you ask for?

On my TiVo with Comcast the alert was loud enough to scare the dogs and after it switched to a garbage channel where at the end I had to go back to where I was manually. Aggravating.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

There is a method of showing alerts so they don't get recorded. Actually they were specifically designed to not interrupt recordings as they get sent in the OOB data. The problem is that many cable companies don't use they since it requires new head end equipment and likely requires new equipment by the alert provider (i.e. the police). I have Comcast and have complained a number of times about this to the local contact email address and I've simply gotten a "thank you for your suggestion" response.

My guess is that they don't want to spend the money. That doesn't surprise considering one of the DOCSIS upstream channels in my area has been FUBARed for 2 months because of bad equipment in the head-end which Comcast doesn't feel like replacing. Fortunately there's 2 working channels so it's not causing problems (despite my modem reporting errors in the logs every 30 seconds for 2 months).

BTW, this is the result of what happens when you use antiquated equipment:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqbl-7DNyJ0[/media]


----------

