[Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes

Tue Jan 24 23:44:44 UTC 2012

It is the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.  
I have copied an article below.
 George

    AccessWorld ®  
Technology and People Who Are  Blind or Visually Impaired 

January 2012 Issue  Volume 13  Number  1     

>From AFB's Policy  Center
The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act:  
Highlights of a New Landmark Communications Law
Mark Richert

If you would have told me a decade ago that one day there would be a law  
requiring virtually all text communication, mobile phone Web browsers, TVs, 
and  broadcast emergency alerts to be fully accessible to people who are 
blind or  visually impaired, I would likely have told you to keep dreaming. But 
if you  also told me that this same legislation would be stronger than any  
communications law for people with disabilities previously enacted, that it  
would result in more than 60 hours a week of described video programming, 
and,  amazingly, that it would permanently make up to $10 million per year 
available  to put expensive communications equipment in the hands of people 
who are  deaf-blind, I might have told you that you have a rich, albeit nerdy, 
fantasy  life.

As incredible as it sounds, such legislation is now the law of the land,  
thanks to the passage of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video  
Accessibility Act, or CVAA. While readers of AccessWorld are no doubt some of 
 the more savvy and connected folks who follow developments in technology 
policy,  this brief rundown of what the CVAA does was written to provide a 
better  understanding of the changes people who are blind or visually impaired 
can and  should expect from the communications, consumer electronics, and 
video  programming industries.

Communications
Long before the CVAA became law, telecommunications  equipment 
manufacturers and service providers had some limited responsibilities  for ensuring that 
people with disabilities could independently make phone calls  and use both 
traditional and mobile phone technologies. Under these  long-standing 
rules, the equipment and services provided need only be accessible  when doing so 
doesn't require a company to invest much money or effort to make  it 
happen. What's more, with some exceptions-such as caller ID and address book  
functions-the old rules were limited to phone call accessibility. The many  
common functions people use their phones for today, such as text messaging,  
email, and browsing the Internet, were not covered. That's where the CVAA comes 
 in. Now, companies that make communications equipment or offer related 
services  must make advanced functions such as electronic messaging accessible 
unless it's  simply not possible to do so. In effect, the CVAA raises the 
bar considerably in  terms of what companies are expected to do for 
communications accessibility, and  goes a long way to clarify accessibility standards 
and responsibilities.

Any time a member of Congress talks about regulating something related to  
the Internet, people get skittish. So when access advocates made it clear 
that  full accessibility, including Internet accessibility, was required if 
people  with vision impairment were to have full use of the devices and 
services they  pay for, both industry and Congress got a bit nervous. 
Nevertheless, advocates  insisted that any law lauding itself as a twenty-first century 
accessibility law  had to deal with the Internet. As a result, the CVAA does 
cover Internet access,  but in a bit of a limited way. The CVAA states that 
whenever electronic  messaging is offered-whether it's on a mobile phone, a 
desk phone, a desktop  computer, or some other device-it must be accessible 
to people with  disabilities. In the case of Internet browsing, however, 
the law is a bit  narrower. Only the browsers on mobile phones need to be 
accessible, and the  CVAA, rather unusually and disappointingly, limits this 
accessibility  requirement to those who are blind or visually impaired. Those 
with other  disabilities are not covered.

Though the electronic messaging and Internet browser access requirements  
are already considered to be in effect, noncompliance complaints will not be  
heard by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) until October 2013. 
Why  this strange timeline? The law was signed by President Obama on October 
8, 2010,  and the FCC was required to issue regulations implementing the new 
law one year  from that date. As part of the process for developing those 
rules, the FCC heard  from industry that at least a two-year transition period 
would be required to  adequately prepare for the new mandates. The 
accessibility community raised  strong objections to the two-year delay, so the FCC 
compromised by requiring  that the new access obligations begin immediately, 
but that complaints about  noncompliance won't be entertained until the 
two-year window has passed. So,  starting in October of 2013, a complaint can 
be filed with the FCC concerning  equipment or service inaccessibility 
experienced at any time, including  retroactive complaints dating back to the 
start of the law's implementation. In  other words, if you buy a mobile phone in 
2012 that doesn't offer you accessible  text messaging or e-mail 
functionality, you can complain to the FCC about it-in  October of 2013. In any event, 
once the complaint is filed, the FCC will work  with you to resolve the 
complaint with the company. If the complaint is not  resolved, the FCC will 
make a final determination-which could involve anything  from a finding that 
your complaint is without merit or that the company violated  the 
accessibility law-within six months. If a company is found to have violated  the CVAA, 
it may be liable for financial penalties (payable to the United  States), 
and/or maybe required to a change in behavior on the company's part to  ensure 
accessibility going forward. The FCC is also empowered to make the  consumer 
whole, meaning that complaint resolution should include putting an  
accessible phone in the hand of the consumer at no additional cost, even if the  
accessible phone is a higher priced, more feature-rich device.

Video Programming
As exciting as the CVAA communications requirements  are in terms of their 
potential to revolutionize our personal and workplace  inclusion and 
competitiveness, the CVAA video programming provisions are sure to  be among the 
new law's most popular features. First and foremost is the CVAA  unambiguous 
requirement that greatly increases the availability of video  description of 
prime-time and children's programming. While PBS has offered  described 
programming for years and a couple national broadcast networks have  described a 
few programs here and there, the commercial broadcasting, cable, and  
motion picture industries have fought tooth and nail to prevent video  
description from becoming a right of the blind and visually impaired television  
audience. The CVAA unambiguously establishes that the four national broadcast  
networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, as well as the top-ranked channels' USA, the 
 Disney Channel, TNT, Nickelodeon, and TBS, must describe at least 50 hours 
of  their prime-time and/or children's programming during each calendar 
quarter.  That's an average of at least four hours per week.

These new video description regulations make a bit of a distinction between 
 the obligation of the CVAA-covered networks to provide description and the 
 obligations of your local station or rural cable company to pass that  
description on to you. There are some protections in the CVAA for small cable  
providers and for local stations that would experience a serious 
technological  and/or financial burden in order to provide the service. That said, 
since  passing through description shouldn't be a big technical or financial 
deal for  almost every station and cable provider in America, we should assume 
that  description will be very widely available.

So, beginning next July, what do you do if your favorite show isn't being  
described or you can't seem to get your hands on a description? You of 
course  can contact your local station or cable provider and ask them how to 
receive  their pass-through of the described programming. You can also contact 
the  national networks to request that a given program be described. If your 
local  station or cable provider tells you that they do not pass description 
through or  that they don't know how to make it happen for you, you can 
lodge a complaint  with the FCC. While the station or cable provider might 
reply that they don't  have to guarantee description and/or that passing 
description through would  constitute prohibitive cost, the FCC needs to determine 
whether either of those  claims is true. As a side note: the disability 
community asked the FCC to set  parameters for stations and cable providers who 
might claim that getting  technically up to speed to pass description 
through would require more than a  modest cost, and the FCC declined.

A related issue is how to tune into a program if our TV and/or cable box or 
 satellite equipment is itself inaccessible. The CVAA states that digital 
TVs and  other devices that receive and play broadcast and cable programming 
must have  controls that allow people with vision loss to use all 
programming-relevant  menus, to scan channels, to easily turn on description for 
programs offering it,  and to manipulate any and all features related to these 
functions. Gone will be  the days when simply using the volume control 
requires sighted assistance.

As always, there are a few provisos. While equipment like digital TVs will  
have to provide accessible controls and menus out of the box, cable and  
satellite providers need only make their equipment accessible upon the request 
 of a customer. Why the difference? Well, some tech experts have pointed 
out that  the set-top box's days are numbered in terms of being the primary 
way for cable  and satellite companies to securely deliver their programming, 
so including them  in the law would be legislating a dying technology. 
Regardless, whether access  is built into the device or provided upon request, 
it's clearly required by the  CVAA. Implementation of this requirement is 
still being defined, but will  certainly take place over multiple years. AFB is 
playing a leadership role in  this process, joining industry and advocates 
to set the direction the FCC will  follow in issuing the next major set of 
regulations to make all this possible.  It's a slow process, but in the end it 
will result in substantial improvements  to accessibility.

Other Key Benefits of the CVAA
As mentioned earlier, the CVAA will break  down enormous barriers for those 
of us who are deaf-blind by establishing, for  the first time, a clear and 
substantial source of funding for the often  incredibly expensive equipment 
needed to communicate interpersonally and via the  telephone or the 
Internet. This $10-million program, administered by the FCC  through an array of 
agreements with organizations and consortia from around the  country, will 
provide both equipment and training in the use of equipment.  Methods for 
procuring equipment and receiving training will depend on location.  As of this 
writing, the FCC is still setting up various agreements with regional  
organizations and agencies, but the bottom line is that the CVAA will fill a  huge 
gap by creating a reliable resource pipeline.

The CVAA also fills a gap in the way emergency information is broadcast to  
those of us who can't see on-screen text. The status quo simply alerts the  
viewer with vision loss about emergency information through a simple tone. 
The  CVAA says that the FCC will establish more meaningful ways for viewers 
with  vision loss to access emergency information, particularly through 
audible  messages containing the text of the displayed emergency alert. AFB is 
leading  advocacy efforts as the FCC hammers out the specifics of this 
element of the  law.

Future Issues
Of course no single law can anticipate every contingency  or address every 
problem-particularly a law concerned with communications  accessibility-but 
the CVAA does tackle a wide array of barriers to access.  Devices that 
aren't yet covered by the CVAA but that will clearly need to be  addressed in the 
future include:

Hand-held gaming devices that also allow users to text each other. 
TVs  that connect to the Internet and allow phone calls. 
The increasing number of  devices that can connect to the Internet but are 
not within the communications  and entertainment realm, such as the kitchen 
appliance or the thermostat that  can be manipulated from the cloud. 
With respect to multi-function devices,  like the gaming device that also 
offers text messaging, the CVAA regulations  state that the FCC will look 
both to the way a device is designed and how the  device is marketed to 
determine what the primary purpose of a given device  really is. If that primary 
purpose is not a communications function covered by  the CVAA, the device need 
not be accessible. So, does the gaming device that  offers text messaging 
need to be accessible? If the device is designed to allow  the user to send 
and receive text messages between individuals and is at all  marketed for its 
ability to do so, it should be covered by the CVAA. That said,  the CVAA 
allows industry to petition the FCC for a waiver of coverage for  
mixed-function devices that they argue have a primary purpose other than  CVAA-covered 
communication. We'll have to watch for any such petitions and  respond 
accordingly. We also need to do a much better job in our community with  complaint 
generation and follow-through. While it's true that the FCC doesn't  have a 
very good track record of aggressive enforcement of communications  
accessibility laws, it's equally true that the disability community has  generated 
precious few complaints to hold industry accountable for the uniformly  bad 
job it has done to make traditional and mobile phones accessible. If the  
vast array of new expectations created by the CVAA are going to have any  
meaning, individual consumers must refuse to put up with unusable technology and 
 be willing to make their voices heard through the complaint process. 
Remember  that if you think that a device you're using is noncompliant, and 
you're willing  to take action, AFB stands ready to help as you navigate your way 
through the  complaint process.

Comment on This Article 

In a message dated 1/24/2012 6:15:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com writes:

Do you  know what bill it is, I couldn't find it, I wasn't aware that it 
had  
passed

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  <GeorTsoukala at aol.com>
To:  <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:08  PM
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top  boxes

>I believe it was part of the law that passed in  2012.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/24/2012 3:18:12  P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com  writes:
>
> Isn't  there a bill in congress to require  companies to make that stuff
> accessible?
>
> -----  Original Message ----- 
> From: "Julie  Phillipson"  <jbrew48 at verizon.net>
> To: "Tony Sohl"   <tonysohl at cox.net>; "Discussion of accessible 
electronics
>  and  appliances" <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent:  Tuesday, January 24,  2012 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re:  [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top   boxes
>
>
>>a few years ago there was some articles I  think in the  monitor but it 
may
>>have been from access world  or could have been  both.  It compared a few
>>models as to  which were the easier ones  to use.
>>
>>
>>  Julie Phillipson
>> ----- Original  Message ----- 
>>  From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
>> To:   <Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24,  2012  1:40 PM
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox  remote top  boxes
>>
>>
>>> Hi I was  wondering are there any accessible  cable boxes on the market
>  or
>>> any way I can access the menus such  as turning on the  second audio
>>> program for DVS? If anyone has  some  suggestions, then let me know.
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>  Electronics-talk  mailing list
>>>  Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>   http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>  To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  for
>>> Electronics-talk:
>>>
>  
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/jbrew48%40verizon.net
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>>  Electronics-talk  mailing list
>>  Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>   http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>  To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  for
>>  Electronics-talk:
>>
>  
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/dewey.bradley%40kc.rr.com
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Electronics-talk   mailing  list
> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>  To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  for
> Electronics-talk:
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electroni
cs-talk_nfbnet.org/geortsoukala%4
>  0aol.com
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Electronics-talk  mailing list
> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>  Electronics-talk:
>  
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/dewey.bradley%40kc.rr.com  

_______________________________________________
Electronics-talk  mailing  list
Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
Electronics-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/geortsoukala%4
0aol.com