[1] This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of people thought it had >been sent early. Because, in reality, there's typically a network delay over
On 23/04/2023 19:51, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 6:37:48 PM UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:
My phone (Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 - Voda) behaved itself and I had no alert >> as I had switched them off. I see in "Settings" under Emergency Alerts
there is "Emergency alert history". The entry for that is "No previous
alerts". What do others see if they have that heading?
Under "Emergency alert history", my phone (Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro
- 1p mobile / EE) says "Severe alert 23 Apr 14:59 - This is a test
of Emergency Alerts ..."
Did you have alerts switched on? If so, that would explain the difference.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
[1] This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of people thought it had >>been sent early. Because, in reality, there's typically a network delay over
I think this isn't a plausible explanation. Over several years and
several (Android) phones, I've found that "set phone time from
network" results in the phone's clock being within 1 second of NTP
time.
I think it's more likely that the test alert was actually started
slightly early because -- as I understand it -- phones are not
constantly listening for that sort of broadcast. They check in with
the network approximately once a minute (in the absence of any other >activity) and if the "hey, there's an alert" flag appears, only then
do they listen for the actual alert message. So I guess that by
starting just before 3pm, the networks hoped to avoid a barrage of
criticism if the alerts had started firing *after* 3pm. ("Late! Can't
even broadcast an emergency alert on time!" etc etc)
It's purely a broadcast system. That is, one way. The system has no
knowledge of which devices have received the message, or, indeed, which devices are able to receive it.
Mark
From there, it's a data trawl exercise to spot patterns. My O2 account, for example, knows the make and model of my phone despite the fact I've never told O2.
'... All phones allow users to opt out of the second and third
highest tier of the alerts, called "extreme" and "severe" alerts,
but few provide the option to opt out of the highest tier, officially
called "presidential" but renamed “government” in the UK. The
test was sent as a "severe" warning.'
On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 12:17:35 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's purely a broadcast system. That is, one way. The system has no
knowledge of which devices have received the message, or, indeed, which
devices are able to receive it.
I'd be interested to hear your views on what Three are going to do in
their "investigation" into why many of their users didn't receive the
alert.
As a former Business Intelligence Analyst, my project scope for this
would be along the lines of:
(a) identify all phones (i.e numbers) connected to a cell at 3.pm
(b) tie those phones (i.e numbers) to a cell tower
(c) identify which numbers received the alert
(b) identify which numbers didn't receive the alert
From there, it's a data trawl exercise to spot patterns. My O2
account, for example, knows the make and model of my phone despite the
fact I've never told O2.
So that's another avenue; was it only certain models of phone? Only
phones connected to a certain cell tower?
But the upshot is; they know *way* *way* more than you'd believe.
On 24 Apr 2023 16:00:31 +0100 (BST), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
[1] This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of people thought it had >>>been sent early. Because, in reality, there's typically a network delay over >>I think this isn't a plausible explanation. Over several years and
several (Android) phones, I've found that "set phone time from
network" results in the phone's clock being within 1 second of NTP
time.
I think it's more likely that the test alert was actually started
slightly early because -- as I understand it -- phones are not
constantly listening for that sort of broadcast. They check in with
the network approximately once a minute (in the absence of any other >>activity) and if the "hey, there's an alert" flag appears, only then
do they listen for the actual alert message. So I guess that by
starting just before 3pm, the networks hoped to avoid a barrage of >>criticism if the alerts had started firing *after* 3pm. ("Late! Can't
even broadcast an emergency alert on time!" etc etc)
The phone doesn't need to "check in" to get this. It doesn't go over the normal mobile phone network. It's a *broadcast* transmission, in exactly the same way as any other radio transmission, and, like any other radio transmission, is received entirely passively by any device capable of receiving it.
The fact that the broadcast mechanism uses the same cell towers as the
mobile phone network, and broadcasts over the same frequencies, and is received by phones, is all a bit of a red herring in this context. Cell Broadcast is a different technology to mobile telecommunications.
Because it is a broadcast, and doesn't require any use of the regular
two-way communication system, you could probably rig up a standalone
receiver using a Raspberry Pi or similar.
On 23 Apr 2023 20:37:46 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2023 at 20:09:37 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-04-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Presumably not. But they have the infrastructure to detect the
presence of a wifi connection with some of their customers' phones,
and this cannot coexist with an active 4G or 5G connection, so why not >>>> send an alert to those customers over the internet?
That would be effort. There are mechanisms for broadcasting information
over the Internet, but as far as I'm aware they have never seen
widespread adoption.
We're talking about sending a message over what is effectively a permanently >> open VOIP and SMS link between the mobile phone and the same EE servers that >> carry mobile calls. The Internet is just a transmission medium. The answer may
well be that mobile phones have a (2-way) voice to IP protocol and an SMS to >> IP protocol but not a IP to Alert one.
More specifically, the Alert system doesn't go over the Internet[1] and doesn't go over the mobile network. it's just a radio broadcast.
[1] This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of people thought it had been sent early. Because, in reality, there's typically a network delay over IP, and if your phone is set to take its time from the network, it may actually be a bit slow compared to the correct time. It's like listening to the pips on the radio over FM, DAB and IP. Network delays mean that they won't, actually, be heard simultaneously.
Mark
Also that the Welsh language version had a daft spelling mistake in and
that the alert was incomprehensible to those unsighted people who rely
on a reader app since the siren drowned out the spoken reading voice.
hould we just proclaim Kim Jong-Un our elected leader now?
On 23 Apr 2023 20:37:46 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2023 at 20:09:37 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-04-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Presumably not. But they have the infrastructure to detect the
presence of a wifi connection with some of their customers' phones,
and this cannot coexist with an active 4G or 5G connection, so why not >>>> send an alert to those customers over the internet?
That would be effort. There are mechanisms for broadcasting information
over the Internet, but as far as I'm aware they have never seen
widespread adoption.
We're talking about sending a message over what is effectively a permanently >> open VOIP and SMS link between the mobile phone and the same EE servers that >> carry mobile calls. The Internet is just a transmission medium. The answer may
well be that mobile phones have a (2-way) voice to IP protocol and an SMS to >> IP protocol but not a IP to Alert one.
More specifically, the Alert system doesn't go over the Internet[1] and doesn't go over the mobile network. it's just a radio broadcast.
[1] This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of people thought it had been sent early. Because, in reality, there's typically a network delay over IP, and if your phone is set to take its time from the network, it may actually be a bit slow compared to the correct time. It's like listening to the pips on the radio over FM, DAB and IP. Network delays mean that they won't, actually, be heard simultaneously.
Mark
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 16:00:31 +0100 (BST), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote:
I think it's more likely that the test alert was actually started
slightly early because -- as I understand it -- phones are not
constantly listening for that sort of broadcast. They check in with
the network approximately once a minute (in the absence of any other
activity) and if the "hey, there's an alert" flag appears, only then
do they listen for the actual alert message. So I guess that by
starting just before 3pm, the networks hoped to avoid a barrage of
criticism if the alerts had started firing *after* 3pm. ("Late! Can't
even broadcast an emergency alert on time!" etc etc)
The phone doesn't need to "check in" to get this. It doesn't go over the
normal mobile phone network. It's a *broadcast* transmission, in exactly the >> same way as any other radio transmission, and, like any other radio
transmission, is received entirely passively by any device capable of
receiving it.
The fact that the broadcast mechanism uses the same cell towers as the
mobile phone network, and broadcasts over the same frequencies, and is
received by phones, is all a bit of a red herring in this context. Cell
Broadcast is a different technology to mobile telecommunications.
Because it is a broadcast, and doesn't require any use of the regular
two-way communication system, you could probably rig up a standalone
receiver using a Raspberry Pi or similar.
I'm having difficulty reconciling your "it's just a radio signal
unrelated to mobile networks" with "customers of Three didn't receive
it". If you had rigged up such a Raspberry Pi, how would it have known whether to fail to receive the signal or not?
On 24/04/2023 19:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 16:00:31 +0100 (BST), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote:
I think it's more likely that the test alert was actually started
slightly early because -- as I understand it -- phones are not
constantly listening for that sort of broadcast. They check in with
the network approximately once a minute (in the absence of any other
activity) and if the "hey, there's an alert" flag appears, only then
do they listen for the actual alert message. So I guess that by
starting just before 3pm, the networks hoped to avoid a barrage of
criticism if the alerts had started firing *after* 3pm. ("Late! Can't
even broadcast an emergency alert on time!" etc etc)
They touch base with the network I think every few minutes so that a >broadcast which lasts at least ten minutes ought to hit every phone
apart from the ones which are out of signal range.
The phone doesn't need to "check in" to get this. It doesn't go over the >>> normal mobile phone network. It's a *broadcast* transmission, in exactly the
same way as any other radio transmission, and, like any other radio
transmission, is received entirely passively by any device capable of
receiving it.
I think it probably does need to be registered with the base station and
when it pings the base station gets the pending broadcast message thrown
at it.
Broadcast in this context being equivalent to sending an SMS to
every possible number.
The masts know which numbers they have so send it
on. I don't see how Three could cock it up so comprehensively otherwise.
I'm having difficulty reconciling your "it's just a radio signal
unrelated to mobile networks" with "customers of Three didn't receive
it". If you had rigged up such a Raspberry Pi, how would it have known
whether to fail to receive the signal or not?
It could be just be a radio signal but I reckon it is more like a
message sent to the filename equivalent of *.* in phone number terms.
As a former Business Intelligence Analyst, my project scope for this would be along the lines of:
(a) identify all phones (i.e numbers) connected to a cell at 3.pm
(b) tie those phones (i.e numbers) to a cell tower
(c) identify which numbers received the alert
(b) identify which numbers didn't receive the alert
But the upshot is; they know *way* *way* more than you'd believe.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:47:23 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
Also that the Welsh language version had a daft spelling mistake in and
that the alert was incomprehensible to those unsighted people who rely
on a reader app since the siren drowned out the spoken reading voice.
Whilst this is a good illustration of the need to *test* the system, I struggle to believe such learnings have not been experienced - and
addressed - in places that have been doing this for years.
Which reinforces my observation that "Not invented here" is much more powerful a driver in tech than "Let's get this right".
There must be some explanation for all the local authorities that seem to
be incapable of configuring tried and tested systems in preference to spending eye watering sums on their own bespoke systems. That either
never work, or when they do aren't worth it (looks at Birmingham City Councils car crash efforts).
North Yorkshire has amalgamated its district councils into a unitary authority in a measure that supposedly saves money but in practice has
led to such an increase in most of the rural DCs that we have had to be protected from the insane jump in council tax by some ad hoc "discount".
Only spendthrift Harrogate has seen its council tax go down...
On 24/04/2023 22:23, Martin Brown wrote:
North Yorkshire has amalgamated its district councils into a unitary
authority in a measure that supposedly saves money but in practice has
led to such an increase in most of the rural DCs that we have had to
be protected from the insane jump in council tax by some ad hoc
"discount".
Only spendthrift Harrogate has seen its council tax go down...
You sure you mean 'spendthrift'?
The phone doesn't need to "check in" to get this. It doesn't go over the >normal mobile phone network. It's a *broadcast* transmission, in exactly the >same way as any other radio transmission, and, like any other radio >transmission, is received entirely passively by any device capable of >receiving it.
On 24/04/2023 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/04/2023 22:23, Martin Brown wrote:
North Yorkshire has amalgamated its district councils into a unitary
authority in a measure that supposedly saves money but in practice has
led to such an increase in most of the rural DCs that we have had to
be protected from the insane jump in council tax by some ad hoc
"discount".
Only spendthrift Harrogate has seen its council tax go down...
You sure you mean 'spendthrift'?
Absolutely certain. Their district councils profligate spending is now
being subsidised by all the other rural district council residents that
have been amalgamated into the new North Yorkshire Council.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 16:01:34 +0100, I <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I may, possibly, find out tomorrow. Because tomorrow happens to be St >>George's Day, and the local Scout Association will, therefore, be holding >>its annual St George's Day parade and church service. As a local councillor, >>I have been invited to attend. The church service starts at 2.30pm and will >>last about an hour. So, at 3pm tomorrow, I will be in church.
I will, of course, turn my phone off, because I don't want to be the one >>that everybody ends up glaring at (and I hope the vicar remembers to tell >>everyone else to turn theirs off as well, otherwise we're definitely going >>to be interrupted by at least one phone, albeit not mine). But I'll turn it >>back on when we're finished. So if the broadcast is still being repeated 30 >>minutes later, I'll get it.
Well, I didn't get the alert at 3pm, because my phone was in flight mode and therefore had no 4G connectivity at the time. Which is precisely what I expected. However, as I also expected, several other phones did go off, despite the vicar having made a point of reminding people to turn them off.
As it happened, though, the service was a lot shorter than I'd expected
(only just over half an hour, rather than an hour), so I re-enabled network services at 3:09pm. And got the alert. But a colleague who was also there didn't re-enable his until a few minutes after me, and didn't get it. So it seems to have been broadcast for about ten minutes.
There are reports in the media that not everybody got it who was expecting to. In particular, a lot of Three customers didn't get it. And there seem to have been other instances where specific cell towers didn't broadcast it. Some people also report getting multiple messages, which suggests a failure by their device to properly log the broadcast ID. So the system does appear to be not quite as robust as had been hoped, although of course that's precisely why a test was done.
I can't see a reason why they can't broadcast the same emergency message
to internet connected mobile phones as they to to mast connected ones -
apart from having forgotten completely about that functionality.
Martin Brown wrote:
I can't see a reason why they can't broadcast the same emergency
message to internet connected mobile phones as they to to mast
connected ones
They could. But it wouldn't be any use.
You can send a message to all phones on a mast saying "The high street
is shut due to a fire".
Which mast's messages would you like to see on an IP connected 'phone?
On 23/04/2023 21:03, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't see a reason why they can't broadcast the same emergency
message to internet connected mobile phones as they to to mast
connected ones - apart from having forgotten completely about that
functionality.
They could. But it wouldn't be any use.
You can send a message to all phones on a mast saying "The high street
is shut due to a fire".
Which mast's messages would you like to see on an IP connected 'phone?
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 16:00:31 +0100 (BST), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote: >>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
[1] This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of people thought it had >>>> been sent early. Because, in reality, there's typically a network delay over
I think this isn't a plausible explanation. Over several years and
several (Android) phones, I've found that "set phone time from
network" results in the phone's clock being within 1 second of NTP
time.
I think it's more likely that the test alert was actually started
slightly early because -- as I understand it -- phones are not
constantly listening for that sort of broadcast. They check in with
the network approximately once a minute (in the absence of any other
activity) and if the "hey, there's an alert" flag appears, only then
do they listen for the actual alert message. So I guess that by
starting just before 3pm, the networks hoped to avoid a barrage of
criticism if the alerts had started firing *after* 3pm. ("Late! Can't
even broadcast an emergency alert on time!" etc etc)
The phone doesn't need to "check in" to get this. It doesn't go over the
normal mobile phone network. It's a *broadcast* transmission, in exactly the >> same way as any other radio transmission, and, like any other radio
transmission, is received entirely passively by any device capable of
receiving it.
The fact that the broadcast mechanism uses the same cell towers as the
mobile phone network, and broadcasts over the same frequencies, and is
received by phones, is all a bit of a red herring in this context. Cell
Broadcast is a different technology to mobile telecommunications.
Because it is a broadcast, and doesn't require any use of the regular
two-way communication system, you could probably rig up a standalone
receiver using a Raspberry Pi or similar.
I'm having difficulty reconciling your "it's just a radio signal
unrelated to mobile networks" with "customers of Three didn't receive
it". If you had rigged up such a Raspberry Pi, how would it have known whether to fail to receive the signal or not?
On 23 Apr 2023 17:23:25 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2023 at 17:47:55 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Te impression given up until now is that it is sent out over the mobile
phone transmitter network(s).
Presumably not. But they have the infrastructure to detect the presence of a >> wifi connection with some of their customers' phones, and this cannot coexist
with an active 4G or 5G connection, so why not send an alert to those
customers over the internet?
It's purely a broadcast system. That is, one way. The system has no
knowledge of which devices have received the message, or, indeed, which devices are able to receive it.
It's no different to the fact that a radio or TV transmitter has no way of knowing which devices have received the signal. All that a transmitter does is transmit.
What's confusing a lot of people about the emergency alerts is that,
because, in this case, the transmitters are the same physical devices (the cell towers) that their phones communicate with in the normal way, they are assuming that it's part of the phone/data communication system that their [hones are a part of. But it isn't. It's just a broadcast system that
happens to use the physical infrastructure of the mobile phone netwoork as the transmitter, sending a broadcast that more recent phone OSes are capable of receiving. In every other respect, though, it's just the same as any
other radio broadcast.
Mark
On 2023-04-24, Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 12:17:35 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's purely a broadcast system. That is, one way. The system has no
knowledge of which devices have received the message, or, indeed, which
devices are able to receive it.
I'd be interested to hear your views on what Three are going to do in
their "investigation" into why many of their users didn't receive the
alert.
As a former Business Intelligence Analyst, my project scope for this
would be along the lines of:
(a) identify all phones (i.e numbers) connected to a cell at 3.pm
(b) tie those phones (i.e numbers) to a cell tower
(c) identify which numbers received the alert
(b) identify which numbers didn't receive the alert
From there, it's a data trawl exercise to spot patterns. My O2
account, for example, knows the make and model of my phone despite the
fact I've never told O2.
So that's another avenue; was it only certain models of phone? Only
phones connected to a certain cell tower?
But the upshot is; they know *way* *way* more than you'd believe.
... either that, or you know *way* *way* less than you believe.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:32:48 -0700 (PDT), Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> wrote:
As a former Business Intelligence Analyst, my project scope for this would be
along the lines of:
(a) identify all phones (i.e numbers) connected to a cell at 3.pm
That's possible.
(b) tie those phones (i.e numbers) to a cell tower
That's possible.
(c) identify which numbers received the alert
That's not possible with Cell Broadcast.
(b) identify which numbers didn't receive the alert
That's not possible with Cell broadcast.
But the upshot is; they know *way* *way* more than you'd believe.
No; the upshot is that you know far less than you believe.
Mark
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-23, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 15:06, JNugent wrote:
Anti-climax.
Out of curiousity which carrier and at what exact time?
Mine on EE was about 35s early!
That is pretty sloppy for a warning supposed to go out at 15:00:00!
Indeed, it being 30 seconds or so early is pretty inexcusable.
And I certainly wasn't expecting to get it twice! (Possibly this
is because my phone has dual SIM, but it's still surprising.)
Are you sure it's not the time on your phone which is 30 seconds slow? Bearing in mind that if your phone is syncing the time over the network, the it will be affected by network delays. The only reliable way to get an accurate timestamp on your phone is to use a non-IP means of getting it,
such as calling the speaking clock.
I have a clock in my kitchen that gets its time via the radio signal from
the NPL (a so-called "atomic clock"). It is, consistently, ahead of the
times displayed on everybody's phones. And the phones themselves aren't 100% identical to each other, or, indeed to other IP devices. My phone is 2 seconds ahead of my desktop Windows PC, and my iPad is about a second behind the PC.
Mark
On 24 Apr 2023 at 19:40:57 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 16:00:31 +0100 (BST), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote: >>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
The fact that the broadcast mechanism uses the same cell towers as the
mobile phone network, and broadcasts over the same frequencies, and is
received by phones, is all a bit of a red herring in this context. Cell
Broadcast is a different technology to mobile telecommunications.
Because it is a broadcast, and doesn't require any use of the regular
two-way communication system, you could probably rig up a standalone
receiver using a Raspberry Pi or similar.
I'm having difficulty reconciling your "it's just a radio signal
unrelated to mobile networks" with "customers of Three didn't receive
it". If you had rigged up such a Raspberry Pi, how would it have known
whether to fail to receive the signal or not?
ITYWF that, apart from the high frequencies involved, and the considerable complexity of the moduation, the receiver will actually have to be tuned to a frequency pre-negotiated with the nearest tower to get a good enough signal to
decode. And, as you say, will have to check that it is a message from its
chosen network, and negotiate encryption keys. So the theory that a phone could receive such a broadcast without first registeering with a cell tower is
not very convincing. Maybe it could be done without encryption, but that would
probably make authentication more rather then less difficult. And we don't really want anyone with appropriate equipment to be able to spoof alerts.
On 26/04/2023 00:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 at 19:40:57 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 16:00:31 +0100 (BST), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
The fact that the broadcast mechanism uses the same cell towers as the >>>> mobile phone network, and broadcasts over the same frequencies, and is >>>> received by phones, is all a bit of a red herring in this context. Cell >>>> Broadcast is a different technology to mobile telecommunications.
Because it is a broadcast, and doesn't require any use of the regular
two-way communication system, you could probably rig up a standalone
receiver using a Raspberry Pi or similar.
I'm having difficulty reconciling your "it's just a radio signal
unrelated to mobile networks" with "customers of Three didn't receive
it". If you had rigged up such a Raspberry Pi, how would it have known
whether to fail to receive the signal or not?
ITYWF that, apart from the high frequencies involved, and the considerable >> complexity of the moduation, the receiver will actually have to be tuned to a
frequency pre-negotiated with the nearest tower to get a good enough signal to
decode. And, as you say, will have to check that it is a message from its
I doubt it. The way spread spectrum works the whole channel may contain relevant data. The phone must listen at some level (receivers are
relatively low power - although SDRs are more thirsty).
I recall in the old days of CRT computer monitors you could tell when
you were about to get a call because the screen would distort in the
corner nearest to the phone as it began to transmit (and before it had actually started to ring out).
chosen network, and negotiate encryption keys. So the theory that a phone >> could receive such a broadcast without first registeering with a cell tower is
not very convincing. Maybe it could be done without encryption, but that would
probably make authentication more rather then less difficult. And we don't >> really want anyone with appropriate equipment to be able to spoof alerts.
It is spread spectrum so any SDR could in principle decode the message
if it knew the message key. The puzzle here is that it only works for 4G
and 5G phones - although that may well be a CBA to do it factor.
I somehow doubt that each phone gets its own personalised message from
the mast and that is *not* what the standard says.
See this Wiki entry that Mark kindly provided or the 3GPP standard if
you are a glutton for punishment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Broadcast
It doesn't explain how such a message is authenticated before broadcast
but I presume that they have made that stage secure.
The crucial point it that it is a one to many broadcast with no
verification of reception that can be repeated again and again for a predetermined period of time up to about half an hour. The message has identical ID tags so that it should only be displayed once.
It is spread spectrum so any SDR could in principle decode the message
if it knew the message key. The puzzle here is that it only works for 4G
and 5G phones - although that may well be a CBA to do it factor.
Martin Brown wrote:
It is spread spectrum so any SDR could in principle decode the message
if it knew the message key. The puzzle here is that it only works for
4G and 5G phones - although that may well be a CBA to do it factor.
certainly similar alert systems have been implemented elsewhere over
older mobile networks, but it seems to be a choice here not to bother
with GPRS/3G etc, probably sensible as they'll be on the way out soon.
resolve it. Maybe so. I don't know what the normal base station broadcasts advertising its presence look like.
I take it your sekrit fuck-buddy/drug-dealer phone didn't go off at 7am
then?
On 24 Apr 2023 at 19:39:25 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 12:17:35 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's purely a broadcast system. That is, one way. The system has no
knowledge of which devices have received the message, or, indeed, which >>>> devices are able to receive it.
I'd be interested to hear your views on what Three are going to do in
their "investigation" into why many of their users didn't receive the
alert.
As a former Business Intelligence Analyst, my project scope for this
would be along the lines of:
(a) identify all phones (i.e numbers) connected to a cell at 3.pm
(b) tie those phones (i.e numbers) to a cell tower
(c) identify which numbers received the alert
(b) identify which numbers didn't receive the alert
From there, it's a data trawl exercise to spot patterns. My O2
account, for example, knows the make and model of my phone despite the
fact I've never told O2.
So that's another avenue; was it only certain models of phone? Only
phones connected to a certain cell tower?
But the upshot is; they know *way* *way* more than you'd believe.
... either that, or you know *way* *way* less than you believe.
They know which phones were connected to which of their base stations
at the time of the alert (with some uncertainty related to phones
leaving or joining that exact minute or 10 minutes, whichever). They
could sample them, perhaps by SMS, to estimate the success rate from
each tower. It would probably be GDPR compliant if they made it clear
reply was voluntary. By definition, they are their own customers.
On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 19:58:50 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
I take it your sekrit fuck-buddy/drug-dealer phone didn't go off at 7am
then?
Erm, quite an interesting choice of vocabulary there but, no, it did not.
What I was more amused by was the report here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65391455
So we've gone from "there's no way we can trace who has received the alert, it'll just be any phone connected to a mast" to "we know that 7% of compatible devices didn't receive the alert".
How do they know that much?
A bit like how we went from "three weeks to flatten the curve" to "show us your papers" in the space of about six months.
The UK Government really is *so* transparent.
On 26/04/2023 16:40, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 19:58:50 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
I take it your sekrit fuck-buddy/drug-dealer phone didn't go off
at 7am then?
Erm, quite an interesting choice of vocabulary there but, no, it
did not.
What I was more amused by was the report here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65391455
So we've gone from "there's no way we can trace who has received
the alert, it'll just be any phone connected to a mast" to "we know
that 7% of compatible devices didn't receive the alert".
"Sunday's emergency alert did not reach an estimated 7% of compatible
devices in the UK, the government has said. ... The 7% of devices
that did not receive the alert includes those which were turned off
or on aeroplane mode, and where the user had opted out of emergency
alerts."
How do they know that much?
Unfortunately they don't say /how/ they estimated there were 7% of
devices which weren't reached. Nor do they say how they know that
this included phones turned off, in aeroplane mode, or emergency
alerts were turned off. There is nothing in Dowden's statement at <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-04-25/hcws740>
(which was linked to in the BBC article).
Basically the same information appeared on the ITV webpage at <https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-25/government-website-error-causes-uk-emergency-alert-confusion>,
so /someone/ in the government must have told them.
On 26/04/2023 17:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/04/2023 16:40, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 19:58:50 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
I take it your sekrit fuck-buddy/drug-dealer phone didn't go off
at 7am then?
Erm, quite an interesting choice of vocabulary there but, no, it
did not.
What I was more amused by was the report here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65391455
So we've gone from "there's no way we can trace who has received
the alert, it'll just be any phone connected to a mast" to "we know
that 7% of compatible devices didn't receive the alert".
"Sunday's emergency alert did not reach an estimated 7% of compatible
devices in the UK, the government has said. ... The 7% of devices
that did not receive the alert includes those which were turned off
or on aeroplane mode, and where the user had opted out of emergency
alerts."
How do they know that much?
Think of a number and divide by Three?
Unfortunately they don't say /how/ they estimated there were 7% of
devices which weren't reached. Nor do they say how they know that
this included phones turned off, in aeroplane mode, or emergency
alerts were turned off. There is nothing in Dowden's statement at
<https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-04-25/hcws740>
(which was linked to in the BBC article).
Basically the same information appeared on the ITV webpage at
<https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-25/government-website-error-causes-uk-emergency-alert-confusion>,
so /someone/ in the government must have told them.
Straw polls on some tech forums put it as high as 40% with a compatible
phone that didn't get the message and I heard a figure of 20% fail rate quoted much earlier on (for any reason) which with Three having a major
fail might be about right. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) 7% did say
they had such alerts disabled. eg.
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/04/three-uk-coughs-to-problems-with-emergency-alert-test.html
There is bound to be some sampling bias since people who didn't get it
and think they should have are more likely to complain and post...
You can view the straw poll at ISPreview by clicking on it.
On 26/04/2023 20:24, Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/04/2023 17:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/04/2023 16:40, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
What I was more amused by was the report here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65391455
So we've gone from "there's no way we can trace who has received
the alert, it'll just be any phone connected to a mast" to "we know
that 7% of compatible devices didn't receive the alert".
"Sunday's emergency alert did not reach an estimated 7% of compatible
devices in the UK, the government has said. ... The 7% of devices
that did not receive the alert includes those which were turned off
or on aeroplane mode, and where the user had opted out of emergency
alerts."
How do they know that much?
Think of a number and divide by Three?
Unfortunately they don't say /how/ they estimated there were 7% of
devices which weren't reached. Nor do they say how they know that
this included phones turned off, in aeroplane mode, or emergency
alerts were turned off. There is nothing in Dowden's statement at
<https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-04-25/hcws740>
(which was linked to in the BBC article).
Basically the same information appeared on the ITV webpage at
<https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-25/government-website-error-causes-uk-emergency-alert-confusion>,
so /someone/ in the government must have told them.
Straw polls on some tech forums put it as high as 40% with a compatible
phone that didn't get the message and I heard a figure of 20% fail rate
quoted much earlier on (for any reason) which with Three having a major
fail might be about right. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) 7% did say
they had such alerts disabled. eg.
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/04/three-uk-coughs-to-problems-with-emergency-alert-test.html
There is bound to be some sampling bias since people who didn't get it
and think they should have are more likely to complain and post...
You can view the straw poll at ISPreview by clicking on it.
Interesting. I'd searched for "7%" and "alert" and found nothing other
than the BBC and ITV news pages which mentioned it. Even on that
ISPreview page, search the text for "7%" and it doesn't find it - at
least, not until the straw poll results are revealed!
Do you think that page is the source of the 7% quoted in the news
articles??
Do you think that page is the source of the 7% quoted in the news
articles??
A phone won't hear it unless it is from a cell transmitter on their own >network that they have already checked in with.
On 25/04/2023 16:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/04/2023 21:03, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't see a reason why they can't broadcast the same emergency
message to internet connected mobile phones as they to to mast
connected ones - apart from having forgotten completely about that >>>functionality.
They could. But it wouldn't be any use.
You can send a message to all phones on a mast saying "The high
street is shut due to a fire".
Which mast's messages would you like to see on an IP connected
'phone?
An IP connected phone still knows approximately where it is according
to the node(s) through which it is connected.
Mine is about 3 miles out in its simplistic approach when GPS is disabled.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 19:39:52 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
and what about Dual SIM phones? I have such a beast and I have a EE sim
and a 3 SIM and I got one alert message..... I don;t know which network
it came over.
A lot of Three customers report not getting it at all, so it's possible that >the one you got was the one which arrived via EE. But it's also possible
that the software on your phone correctly recognises duplicate messages from >mutiple sources, and hence only displays it once. From social media
anecdata, it appears that some people with dual-sim phones got it twice,
once for each sim, but others only got it once. So I don't think there's any >consistency there.
What I was more amused by was the report here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65391455
So we've gone from "there's no way we can trace who has received the >>alert, it'll just be any phone connected to a mast" to "we know that
7% of compatible devices didn't receive the alert".
"Sunday's emergency alert did not reach an estimated 7% of compatible
devices in the UK, the government has said.
...
The 7% of devices that did not receive the alert includes those which
were turned off or on aeroplane mode, and where the user had opted out
of emergency alerts."
How do they know that much?
Unfortunately they don't say /how/ they estimated there were 7% of
devices which weren't reached.
As far as the time is concerned, bear in mind that your phone will show
14:59 from 4:59:00 right up to 14:59:59, so if your phone is a few seconds >slow[1] then it will still have been showing 14:59 at the time the alert was >first broadcast.
[1] Which it almost certainly is, because the timestamp on your phone is >obtained over the network and is subject to network delays.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:18:46 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
"The alert will disable users’ phones leaving a "welcome message" on
screen until they acknowledge it by clicking on an “OK” message.
I had four phones turned on and waiting ...
Nexus 1, this is a 3G device, with no SIM (emergency calls only), has no >>mention of emergency alerts in the settings and did not generate an alert.
Pixel 3, this is a 4G device, with an inactive (plusnet/ee) SIM
emergency calls only, alerts enabled in settings, but it did not
generate an alert
Samsung A21s, this is a 4G device, an active (asda/voda) SIM, alerts >>enabled, I was on a voice call from my landline waiting for the alert,
the alert popped up on screen, the call was not dropped, there was no >>interruption to the call in progress, the alert does appear in history.
Pixel 5a, this is a 5G device, with an active (virgin/voda) SIM, alerts >>disabled, it did not generate a alert, it has no alert in its history
Those four results are precisely what I would have expected.
Michael Chare wrote:
"The alert will disable users’ phones leaving a "welcome message"
on screen until they acknowledge it by clicking on an “OK” message.
I had four phones turned on and waiting ...
Nexus 1, this is a 3G device, with no SIM (emergency calls only), has
no mention of emergency alerts in the settings and did not generate an
alert.
Pixel 3, this is a 4G device, with an inactive (plusnet/ee) SIM
emergency calls only, alerts enabled in settings, but it did not
generate an alert
Samsung A21s, this is a 4G device, an active (asda/voda) SIM, alerts
enabled, I was on a voice call from my landline waiting for the alert,
the alert popped up on screen, the call was not dropped, there was no >interruption to the call in progress, the alert does appear in history.
Pixel 5a, this is a 5G device, with an active (virgin/voda) SIM, alerts >disabled, it did not generate a alert, it has no alert in its history
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:05:44 PM UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 23/04/2023 19:51, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 6:37:48 PM UTC+1, Jeff Layman wrote:
My phone (Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 - Voda) behaved itself and I had no alert >> >> as I had switched them off. I see in "Settings" under Emergency Alerts
there is "Emergency alert history". The entry for that is "No previous
alerts". What do others see if they have that heading?
Under "Emergency alert history", my phone (Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro
- 1p mobile / EE) says "Severe alert 23 Apr 14:59 - This is a test
of Emergency Alerts ..."
Did you have alerts switched on? If so, that would explain the difference.
Well, yes. At least we both now know that it is possible to switch
the alerts off. At least up to a point. According to the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/23/uk-emergency-alert-test- >three-looking-into-why-users-failed-to-get-text
'... All phones allow users to opt out of the second and third
highest tier of the alerts, called "extreme" and "severe" alerts,
but few provide the option to opt out of the highest tier, officially
called "presidential" but renamed “government� in the UK. The
test was sent as a "severe" warning.'
Andy Burns remarked:
Nexus 1, this is a 3G device, with no SIM (emergency calls only), has
no mention of emergency alerts in the settings and did not generate an
alert.
You need a phone contemporaneously connected to at least 4G to get these alerts.
Pixel 3, this is a 4G device, with an inactive (plusnet/ee) SIM
emergency calls only, alerts enabled in settings, but it did not
generate an alert
First step in the diagnosis: Was it operating on 4G at the time? Or does
the lack of SIM mean it doesn't display that.
Samsung A21s, this is a 4G device, an active (asda/voda) SIM, alerts
enabled, I was on a voice call from my landline waiting for the alert,
the alert popped up on screen, the call was not dropped, there was no
interruption to the call in progress, the alert does appear in history.
Pixel 5a, this is a 5G device, with an active (virgin/voda) SIM,
alerts disabled, it did not generate a alert, it has no alert in its
history
Was it showing up as 4G connected?
Although "alerts" [which alerts though] disabled might well be aThat was indeed the intent, every alert setting which the phone exposes
clue.
As far as I can tell very few phones which allow alerts to beOf the two phones which had no reason to not receive the actual
disabled log the fact that there has been a "missed alert".
In message <u28u3f$ub5m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:25 on Tue, 25 Apr
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
On 25/04/2023 16:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/04/2023 21:03, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't see a reason why they can't broadcast the same emergency
message to internet connected mobile phones as they to to mast
connected ones - apart from having forgotten completely about that
functionality.
They could. But it wouldn't be any use.
You can send a message to all phones on a mast saying "The high
street is shut due to a fire".
Which mast's messages would you like to see on an IP connected 'phone?
An IP connected phone still knows approximately where it is according
to the node(s) through which it is connected.
Geolocation services are available which can make a guess at where
someone is (on whatever flavour of IP-connected device) based on a whole bundle of things they've observed in the past.
It's an app on the phone, not the phone itself, which can ask for that estimate of location.
Mine is about 3 miles out in its simplistic approach when GPS is
disabled.
That sounds more like cell-site based [coarse] location, but you
specified (only) IP-connected.
In message <kar72mFdsrU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:46:30 on Tue, 25 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
A phone won't hear it unless it is from a cell transmitter on their own
network that they have already checked in with.
And additionally, only if it's a 4/5G connection. The phone will only *translate* the alert into human-recognisable form if there's suitable firmware installed - and the phone settings haven't (where available)
turned that off.
My own theory about the "3" issue is still that despite having a 4G
phone many people end up being connected on 3G.
On 28/04/2023 07:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <u28u3f$ub5m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:25 on Tue, 25 Apr
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
On 25/04/2023 16:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/04/2023 21:03, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't see a reason why they can't broadcast the same emergency >>>>>message to internet connected mobile phones as they to to mast >>>>>connected ones - apart from having forgotten completely about that
They could. But it wouldn't be any use.
You can send a message to all phones on a mast saying "The high >>>>street is shut due to a fire".
Which mast's messages would you like to see on an IP connected >>>>'phone?
An IP connected phone still knows approximately where it is
according to the node(s) through which it is connected.
Geolocation services are available which can make a guess at where >>someone is (on whatever flavour of IP-connected device) based on a
whole bundle of things they've observed in the past.
It's an app on the phone, not the phone itself, which can ask for
that estimate of location.
Mine is about 3 miles out in its simplistic approach when GPS is >>>disabled.
That sounds more like cell-site based [coarse] location, but you >>specified (only) IP-connected.
My PC doesn't have any mobile network connectivity. I presume that when
I allow it to geolocate it tells me where the fibre I'm on goes to.
NB my phone got the emergency message OK and very early.
It was the phone on the much stronger Three 4G mobile signal that
didn't!
The government claim of 7% isn't credible based on a straw poll of
friends and neighbours (admittedly all on the same Three base station).
In message <u2g429$2ctmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:36:07 on Fri, 28 Apr
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
NB my phone got the emergency message OK and very early.
Please quantify "very". A few tens of milliseconds, or tens of seconds?
It was the phone on the much stronger Three 4G mobile signal that didn't!
Could be the phone just as much as the "Three" 4G.
on Mon, 24 Apr 2023, pensive hamster remarked:
According to the Guardian:
'... All phones allow users to opt out of the second and third
highest tier of the alerts, called "extreme" and "severe" alerts,
but few provide the option to opt out of the highest tier, officially >called "presidential" but renamed "government" in the UK. The
test was sent as a "severe" warning.'
"All phones" is such a breathtakingly sweeping statement, one should
really stop reading the remainder of their drivel.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:28:32 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
on Mon, 24 Apr 2023, pensive hamster remarked:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/23/uk-emergency-alert-test-three-looking-into-why-users-failed-to-get-textAccording to the Guardian:
'... All phones allow users to opt out of the second and third
highest tier of the alerts, called "extreme" and "severe" alerts,
but few provide the option to opt out of the highest tier, officially
called "presidential" but renamed "government" in the UK. The
test was sent as a "severe" warning.'
"All phones" is such a breathtakingly sweeping statement, one should
really stop reading the remainder of their drivel.
Given the context, "All phones" may be shorthand for "all mobile
devices connected to the UK’s 4G and 5G networks". I don't
think they meant to include landline phones, for example.
The Guardian article linked-to above earler stated:
"... The alarm was scheduled to sound at 3pm on all mobile
devices connected to the UK’s 4G and 5G networks,
"... Users whose phones have not received a software update
in more than two years, and those who were not within reach
of a 4G or 5G network were not expected to successfully
receive it."
Would you consider "All phones" in that sense to be a
breathtakingly sweeping category?
On 24 Apr 2023 at 12:36:33 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Are you sure it's not the time on your phone which is 30 seconds slow?
Bearing in mind that if your phone is syncing the time over the network, the >> it will be affected by network delays. The only reliable way to get an
accurate timestamp on your phone is to use a non-IP means of getting it,
such as calling the speaking clock.
Not so. There is at least one IP protocol for getting accurate time by measuring propagation delay and this is quite adequate for human perception purposes, within tens of milliseconds or better.
On 26/04/2023 00:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 at 12:36:33 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Are you sure it's not the time on your phone which is 30 seconds slow?
Bearing in mind that if your phone is syncing the time over the
network, the
it will be affected by network delays. The only reliable way to get an
accurate timestamp on your phone is to use a non-IP means of getting it, >>> such as calling the speaking clock.
Not so. There is at least one IP protocol for getting accurate time by
measuring propagation delay and this is quite adequate for human
perception
purposes, within tens of milliseconds or better.
The speaking clock will be slow on your mobile phone. Try calling
another phone in the same room - the delays are quite perceptible.
OTOH right now my left channel, right channel, and subwoofer are
synchronised perfectly. And they're running over WiFi...
On 29/04/2023 08:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <u2g429$2ctmp$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:36:07 on Fri, 28 Apr >>2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
NB my phone got the emergency message OK and very early.
Please quantify "very". A few tens of milliseconds, or tens of
seconds?
I stated at the outset 35s early - later revised to 37s early after I >discovered that the system clock on my phone was actually 2s *fast*
relative to my synchronised reference atomic clock.
I was counting down to message transmit at the time. It was early
enough to have my wife find her own phone put it into camera mode and
take a screenshot showing 14:59 and the msg (I didn't expect to be
believed when I claimed this).
There is no excuse for IP connected or network connected devices to
have system clocks out by more than a few tens of ms. NTP is pretty
good.
Government later said they authorised transmitting early to "avoid"
annoying sporting events that started at 3pm exactly. It might have
been smarter of them to say it will be at eg. 14:57 BST (or some other
daft exact time like some of the parcel delivery firms do).
It was the phone on the much stronger Three 4G mobile signal that didn't!
Could be the phone just as much as the "Three" 4G.
Apple iPhone X on iOS 16.4.1 should have been fully capable.
And obviously it was fully active from the moment the camera was in
use.
So many people on Three near me didn't get it that I strongly suspect
that Three either didn't transmit it at all or did it just once only
and the majority of phones didn't come out of torpor fast enough to see
it.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:28:32 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
on Mon, 24 Apr 2023, pensive hamster remarked:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/23/uk-emergency-alert-test- >three-looking-into-why-users-failed-to-get-textAccording to the Guardian:
'... All phones allow users to opt out of the second and third
highest tier of the alerts, called "extreme" and "severe" alerts,
but few provide the option to opt out of the highest tier, officially
called "presidential" but renamed "government" in the UK. The
test was sent as a "severe" warning.'
"All phones" is such a breathtakingly sweeping statement, one should
really stop reading the remainder of their drivel.
Given the context, "All phones" may be shorthand for "all mobile
devices connected to the UK’s 4G and 5G networks". I don't
think they meant to include landline phones, for example.
The Guardian article linked-to above earler stated:
"... The alarm was scheduled to sound at 3pm on all mobile
devices connected to the UK’s 4G and 5G networks,
"... Users whose phones have not received a software update
in more than two years, and those who were not within reach
of a 4G or 5G network were not expected to successfully
receive it."
Would you consider "All phones" in that sense to be a
breathtakingly sweeping category?
In message <u2ik4d$2sjdb$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:22:36 on Sat, 29 AprThat's unlikely since both Three and EE have 4G good coverage here from relatively nearby masts. It's unlikely they would be on another mast.
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
So many people on Three near me didn't get it that I strongly suspect
that Three either didn't transmit it at all or did it just once only
and the majority of phones didn't come out of torpor fast enough to
see it.
Or the were connected via 3G at the time.
on Sat, 29 Apr 2023, pensive hamster remarked:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:28:32 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote: >>on Mon, 24 Apr 2023, pensive hamster remarked:
According to the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/23/uk-emergency-alert-test- >three-looking-into-why-users-failed-to-get-text
'... All phones allow users to opt out of the second and third
highest tier of the alerts, called "extreme" and "severe" alerts,
but few provide the option to opt out of the highest tier, officially
called "presidential" but renamed "government" in the UK. The
test was sent as a "severe" warning.'
"All phones" is such a breathtakingly sweeping statement, one should
really stop reading the remainder of their drivel.
Given the context, "All phones" may be shorthand for "all mobile
devices connected to the UK's 4G and 5G networks". I don't
think they meant to include landline phones, for example.
The Guardian article linked-to above earler stated:
"... The alarm was scheduled to sound at 3pm on all mobile
devices connected to the UK's 4G and 5G networks,
"... Users whose phones have not received a software update
in more than two years, and those who were not within reach
of a 4G or 5G network were not expected to successfully
receive it."
Would you consider "All phones" in that sense to be a
breathtakingly sweeping category?
Yes, when that's the selective quote the newspaper publishes in its
opening paragraph.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 43:40:36 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,023 |