Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Legislation Suggests Implementing Emergency Alerts Into Streaming Services Like Netflix and Spotify

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,214
38,993



Currently, when users in a certain area face potentially bad weather, threats of danger, or a nearby AMBER alert, their iPhone or other smartphone sounds off and displays a message explaining the emergency.

In new legislation shared today, United States senators Brian Schatz and John Thune hope to "explore" ways this system could improve to enhance reliability, including implementing these alerts into audio and video online streaming services (via TechCrunch)

netflix-ios-and-apple-tv.jpg

According to the Reliable Emergency Alert Distribution Improvement (READI) Act, more people would be successfully alerted to and aware of potential emergencies if these alerts played on services like Netflix and Spotify. In these situations, the legislation argues, users might have left their smartphone behind in another part of the house while streaming on a TV or computer, missing an alert in the process.

Senator Schatz explained that the mishap with the false missile alert in Hawaii earlier this year "exposed real flaws in the way people receive emergency alerts," inspiring change and the new legislation.
"When a missile alert went out across Hawai'i in January, some people never got the message on their phones, while others missed it on their TVs and radios. Even though it was a false alarm, the missile alert exposed real flaws in the way people receive emergency alerts," said Senator Schatz, lead Democrat on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet. "Our bill fixes a number of important problems with the system responsible for delivering emergency alerts. In a real emergency, these alerts can save lives so we have to do everything we can to get it right."

"Emergency alerts save lives but management mistakes can erode their credibility and effectiveness. The READI Act implements lessons learned from past incidents and recognizes that emergency protocols must change along with communication technology," said Senator Thune, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Click to expand...
Other aspects of the READI Act also propose eliminating the option for users to opt out of receiving "certain" federal alerts, like missile alerts, on smartphones. For iPhone, users can toggle off AMBER Alerts and Emergency Alerts completely under the "Government Alerts" section in Notifications settings.

government-alerts-iphone.jpg

Otherwise, the legislation would encourage State Emergency Communications Committees to "periodically review and update" their own alert system plans to keep them more up-to-date, as well as compel FEMA "to create best practices" for state, tribal, and local governments for issuing alerts, avoiding false alerts, and retracting false alerts if they happen. This false alert system would also see a reporting system implemented under the READI Act so the FCC can track when they occur and "examine their causes."

Article Link: New Legislation Suggests Implementing Emergency Alerts Into Streaming Services Like Netflix and Spotify
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/07/19/legislation-alerts-netflix-spotify/
Why? HBO and other premium channels are not interrupted by these weather and amber alerts. FCC wants to dip their hand in, again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: !!! and jw2002
So the government doesn't want to regulate the internet (i.e. net neutrality) but it still wants to force independent companies to be regulated to deliver its messages? Can't have it both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a generally good idea... if the government wants to pay these companies for the changes in their infrastructure to set it all up.
[doublepost=1532014465][/doublepost]Actually, it occurs to me that this would be even better if TV manufacturers incorporated this as part of OTA reception. Then it could show up regardless of what the viewer was doing.
 
We don't need another way for the government to interrupt our lives. We already have tons of connected devices capable of receiving Emergency Alerts. We don't need the alerts to be inserted into specific apps. I hope Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Apple, Google, and all the other streaming service providers lobby hard against this legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: !!!, jw2002, tonyr6 and 2 others
I would appreciate and find it handy if the government could arrange for an agent to enter my abode without impedance, approach me in my bed or bath, grab me by the lapels, and deliver at close range and high decibels whatever daily message they deem important for my safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jw2002, Dj64Mk7 and topmounter
Has the federal government run out of issues to fix? Do they really need to invent things to do?

What if I’m not watching tv when an event happens?
 
I thought the gov't alerts were a good idea until I started getting them for pointless reasons like "its 85˚F outside," which I got in SF once. Making a squealing alarm go off on my phone even while silenced is stupid and dangerous (could freak someone out while driving) unless it's something like incoming nuclear missiles. Except Hawaii has also shown that fake missile alerts can happen quite easily.

Seems the issue boils down to dumb people having unilateral control over the most powerful notification system ever.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6, comakut, extrachrispy and 1 other person
Wait a second, there is proposed legislation that has actually been well thought out? Is this the twilight zone?

This legislation seems to address several key issues:
  • Most people no longer watch live TV or listen to the radio, which in the past have been the ways that emergency alerts get pushed out. We have replaced these with streaming services or at least DVR.
    • Now in an ideal world, it would be great to push this out to the individual devices instead of relying on the services, but in reality many devices that are currently available would not have the ability to receive such a signal, so relying on the services actually makes more sense.
  • This eliminates the ability to opt out of these very important alerts and yes, the Amber alerts are important and can literally save lives, as can the other emergency alerts.
  • This also establishes a program to reduce the number of false alerts and hopefully eliminate them all together, which would include things like the person talking about an alert that it was going to be 85 degree outside, that would be a false alert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: x.marX, Dj64Mk7, rocknblogger and 3 others
Wonder how much these alerts would help. For example, if it can be shown the addition of governmental alerts on cell phones have increased say Amber Alert child recovery rates by say 8% (for example) and a similar uptick could be demonstrated via the addition of streaming services, then yes, it probably be considered very worthwhile. I'd pay for any thing that helped like that.
 
Defthand said:
Has the federal government run out of issues to fix? Do they really need to invent things to do?

What if I’m not watching tv when an event happens?
Click to expand...
That is the point, this would also happen with streaming services and to your cell phone, which would greatly reduce the chances that you didn't see the alert.
[doublepost=1532018750][/doublepost]
litmag01 said:
Wonder how much these alerts would help. For example, if it can be shown the addition of governmental alerts on cell phones have increased say Amber Alert child recovery rates by say 8% (for example) and a similar uptick could be demonstrated via the addition of streaming services, then yes, it probably be considered very worthwhile. I'd pay for any thing that helped like that.
Click to expand...
From what I understand from local authorities Amber Alerts on cell phones have increased recovery rates by something like 40%, my guess is that these wouldn't see as much of an increase, but I would think another 20% would be a reasonable expectation.
 
KPandian1 said:
September 11, 2001 - not a single blip on the telecast of "Pay it Forward" on a premium channel - HBO.
Click to expand...
An example from nearly 17 years ago really isn't the evidence you seem to think it is. :p:D I don't know if every provider interrupts but Charter does. They also have fairly regular tests of the EAS. No channel is exempt. It overrides the signal regardless.
 
cmwade77 said:
  • This also establishes a program to reduce the number of false alerts and hopefully eliminate them all together, which would include things like the person talking about an alert that it was going to be 85 degree outside, that would be a false alert.
Click to expand...
They propose throwing another committee at the issue. I have no faith that they'll address it. They can't just reduce the number of false alerts, they have to make it zero. Every false alert destroys the credibility of future alerts. They also have to secure the alert system so hackers can't exploit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: comakut
spazzcat said:
Not sure that is true, I think your cable company can send an alert if needed no matter which channel you are watching.
Click to expand...
Key word is "can". They are not required to and typically do not. This legislation would require streaming services to interrupt programming for alerts and not give consumers a way to opt out.

Personally I turn my alerts off. Waaayyyyy too many irrelevant alerts, mainly for bad weather that may be miles away, that made the service worse than nothing at all. Until they can get their **** straight and use it only for imminent mass casualty events like an incoming nuclear missile or a nerve gas attack in my area then I'll continue to keep it disabled.
[doublepost=1532020160][/doublepost]
cmwade77 said:
Wait a second, there is proposed legislation that has actually been well thought out? Is this the twilight zone?

This legislation seems to address several key issues:

This eliminates the ability to opt out of these very important alerts and yes, the Amber alerts are important and can literally save lives, as can the other emergency alerts.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with making Amber alerts unable to opt out. I don't have a problem with them texting me unobtrusively with non-emergency messages like that, but the last thing I need is to have my phone blaring its emergency siren right in the middle of a meeting just for an alert that I can do nothing about at that particular time. If it doesn't affect EVERYBODY and require an IMMEDIATE response for personal safety then it shouldn't be sent out on the alert system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPandian1, jw2002, tonyr6 and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back