Public emergency alert - being sent to your phone

[rscott]

OutInTheShed said:

rscott said:

Phones aren't constantly connected to the base stations - they poll at regular intervals, so the base had to repeat it multiple times.

The actual mobile delivery system is a well defined international standard, in use in several other countries. The only custom part is the interface used by government to communicate to the 4 network operators.

So did Three not implement the 'well defined' standard properly?

The fact that it worked for some Three customers (if that's correct?) suggests the gov't bit worked?

Correct - Three didn't. I posted a link earlier to a detailed set of tweets by someone explaining how Three screwed up. Basically, they're supposed to repeat the "I have an alert" broadcast multiple times over a set period (in this case 20 minutes) but instead only sent it once.

[dvs_dave]

Randy Winkman said:

Yes - we didn't need alerts on our smartphones when we beat the Nazis did we?

No, they used air raid sirens instead. But you didn’t have the option to turn them off!

I bet everyone then was also moaning about the damn government forcing its unwanted nanny state alerts into their ears, and what a waste of tax payer money it was.

[toastybase]

Who remembers the Broadmoore alarm?

[ajprice]

If the alert was for Noah's Ark

https://youtube.com/shorts/TIsIhVFNhgw

[OutInTheShed]

rscott said:

Correct - Three didn't. I posted a link earlier to a detailed set of tweets by someone explaining how Three screwed up. Basically, they're supposed to repeat the "I have an alert" broadcast multiple times over a set period (in this case 20 minutes) but instead only sent it once.

Did they screw up, or maybe they learned a lot by trying the single broadcast?

I don't bother with Twitter.

[rscott]

OutInTheShed said:

rscott said:

Correct - Three didn't. I posted a link earlier to a detailed set of tweets by someone explaining how Three screwed up. Basically, they're supposed to repeat the "I have an alert" broadcast multiple times over a set period (in this case 20 minutes) but instead only sent it once.

Did they screw up, or maybe they learned a lot by trying the single broadcast?

I don't bother with Twitter.

They screwed up. There's info here - https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/emergency-alert-te... and here - https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/04/thre... .The latter link has a quote from Three where they say they deployed a fix for it not alerting.

[mikey_b]

toastybase said:

Who remembers the Broadmoore alarm?

No, but having grown up in Plymouth I remember the alarm at Devonport dockyard being tested periodically. It is/was intended to be used in the event of a nuclear accident at the submarine base.

What a waste of money it was, installing that. There's never even been a real alert using it!

[OutInTheShed]

rscott said:

They screwed up. There's info here - https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/emergency-alert-te... and here - https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/04/thre... .The latter link has a quote from Three where they say they deployed a fix for it not alerting.

" Three UK didn’t appear to propagate the test message correctly through its core."

Isn't it a bit poor that it might take 20 minutes to broadcast a message?

"same department also said engineers had spotted a trend of phone functions failing to work afterwards."
So it's broken a few phones?
I guess people won't be complaining about that, they can't, their phones don't work!

[eharding]

OutInTheShed said:

Isn't it a bit poor that it might take 20 minutes to broadcast a message?

I think the 20 minute reference is relating to the duration of the public test broadcast rather than an inherent delay in the broadcast - if there was a genuine emergency going on the signal would keep broadcasting until the situation was resolved - and individual handset wouldn't display the alert more than once, but as handsets come into signal range of a cell some time after the start of the broadcast they would then be notified at that point.

[DickyC]

The Mad Monk said:

See it

Say it

Sorted

I once reported two unattended bags in the multistorey car park at Reading Station adjacent to the footbridge to the platforms. The response was, "Oh, they'll be all right."

[Gazzab]

DickyC said:

The Mad Monk said:

See it

Say it

Sorted

I once reported two unattended bags in the multistorey car park at Reading Station adjacent to the footbridge to the platforms. The response was, "Oh, they'll be all right."

I was at the Man Utd football ground when there was a (fake) bomb found. There was no info but they emptied 2 stands, so I decided to take me and my son out of the ground as it was clear there was probably a bomb. They asked me to return to my seat. I ignored and left. There is rarely any good comes from the actions of ‘staff’ in these situations.

[bongtom]

page3 said:

I’d like to know by what mechanism the message was delivered to my son’s phone, seeing as it has no SIM and is not registered to any provider.

It still picks up a signal because it’s a phone. The SIM communicates with the tower.

It’s not rocket science.

[jm8403]

bongtom said:

It still picks up a signal because it’s a phone. The SIM communicates with the tower.

It’s not rocket science.

he just said it has no sim

[xx99xx]

I think phones are constantly broadcasting/receiving and the SIM just does the handshake between phone and mast to allow the signal to be used on the phone. Without a SIM, the phone will show as no network/signal although it will be connected to the tower.

I haven't tried it in the UK, but apparently you can still make emergency calls (and receive emergency broadcasts) in the USA if you have no SIM card.

[xx99xx]

jm8403 said:

bongtom said:

It still picks up a signal because it’s a phone. The SIM communicates with the tower.

It’s not rocket science.

he just said it has no sim

I think what he means is, it's the handset that picks up the signal, not the SIM. The SIM just identifies the handset to the network (Subscriber Identity Module).

[surveyor]

xx99xx said:

jm8403 said:

bongtom said:

It still picks up a signal because it’s a phone. The SIM communicates with the tower.

It’s not rocket science.

he just said it has no sim

I think what he means is, it's the handset that picks up the signal, not the SIM. The SIM just identifies the handset to the network (Subscriber Identity Module).

Although given these were sent by networks I am a little surprised still

[craigjm]

xx99xx said:

I think phones are constantly broadcasting/receiving and the SIM just does the handshake between phone and mast to allow the signal to be used on the phone. Without a SIM, the phone will show as no network/signal although it will be connected to the tower.

I haven't tried it in the UK, but apparently you can still make emergency calls (and receive emergency broadcasts) in the USA if you have no SIM card.

This is correct. It is a legal requirement in the UK that any mobile with or without sim and without credit if payg can make a 999 call. They do this through attaching to the nearest tower regardless of carrier. With the emergency alerts then it would receive it as a broadcast from the tower. This was also a requirement of the alert system. The sim only identifies you to the tower to allow delivery of your calls and messages

[Phud]

surveyor said:

Although given these were sent by networks I am a little surprised still

The handset will listen to all broadcast channels but to use one dedicated slot, then the SIM has to authenticate with the correct network list and then connect.

It is the same for emergency numbers if you have no signal from your service provider you can use any network you can recieve to call emergency numbers

The emergency alert is a push solution from the government

[OutInTheShed]

craigjm said:

This is correct. It is a legal requirement in the UK that any mobile with or without sim and without credit if payg can make a 999 call. They do this through attaching to the nearest tower regardless of carrier. With the emergency alerts then it would receive it as a broadcast from the tower. This was also a requirement of the alert system. The sim only identifies you to the tower to allow delivery of your calls and messages

When a phone has a SIM in it, will intermittently communicate with one or more 'towers'.
The network then knows that phone is in reach of the nearest tower, so an incoming call can be directed to the phone.

A phone with no SIM in it, or a phone out of reach of the network its SIM relates to, may do nothing, not attempting to register with any towers until you try to make an emergency call. If you are out of reach of your own network, but your phone picks up a foreign (e.g. French) network, it will treat that differently and 'roam' to the foreign network. I used to know a basic amount about 2G, 3,4,and 5 G may be a little different!

[Vipers]

As it seems there were some glitches in it will there be another test?

Mine never did get the alert.