Re: Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts?

[Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> [JL] Going onto to hardware like a smart TV will still result in lower 
> penetration that if you went to the app layer that is where attention 
> time is spent (which may be on a laptop or non-cellular-connected tablet 
> or a game console).

That's the problem with rules of thumb.  You have eight other fingers.

Recognizing how long it takes to change things, I'm prognosticating what 
things might be like 5+ years in the future, i.e., CES 2024.

I'm focused on devices with mediation layers, i.e. the intelligent 
assistants, for a reason.  Alert localization and user opt-outs should be 
as close to the end-user as technology allows. You need the mediation 
layer to do that per user/per household.  Emergency alerts localized at 
the cable head-end or cell tower are too overbroad, but maybe as specific 
as old technology can support for backward compatibility.

Having mediation layer is also important for multi-tasking. I often have 
Netflix, a web browser and email open at the same time on my computer. You 
don't want to interrupt the local news stream, CNN or the Weather Channel 
already covering a disaster with a non-local alert. If the alert is always 
embedded in the content, that's difficult to do.  For example, AT&T 
U-Verse doesn't record emergency on the DVR.  When you play back DVR 
recorded programming, you don't get old recorded emergency alerts. If new 
alerts happen while watching the U-Verse DVR, then you would get those 
new alerts.

Analog content and dumb devices may not be able to support that. So there 
will always be some exceptions.  See rule of thumbs :-)

Likewise, I'm not suggesting every possible electronic device needs 
emergency alerts. I'm focused on things that people typically interact 
with for entertainment and information, such as smart TVs and smart 
speakers. Not light bulbs, thermostats or smoke detectors.