[Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
Dewey Bradley
dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com
Wed Jan 25 01:29:25 UTC 2012
Well lets hope so.
----- Original Message -----
From: <GeorTsoukala at aol.com>
To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
Maybe we can get them to understand that. They do understand money. with
the population getting older they stand to make even more money if they make
things accessible.
In a message dated 1/24/2012 8:11:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com writes:
If the companies would just understand that if they just spenta little
money
to get accessible boxes, they would make even more money, we could use the
on demand, and order movies, they would make the money back, then some.
Its just like sattlelight radeo, I know of 9 people off the top of my
head,
not counting my self, it it was fully accessible, we would get it.
Most blind people that I know have the I phone, because like I said, apple
gets it.
I see both sides though, forcing companies to do this, its a free market,
but at the same time, we get left behind.
Just like blind parents can't go in and block content without sighted
help,
and that's not fair.
But that's my soapbox.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at att.net>
To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
How much you want to bet it aint gonna even pass congress or even if it
does, that it aint gonna result in anything much at all?
Sincerely,
The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!!
Skype name:
barefootedray
Facebook:
facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1
On Jan 24, 2012, at 5:44 PM, GeorTsoukala at aol.com wrote:
> 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 ph
one,
> 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
>
>
>
> Copyright © 2012 American Foundation for the Blind. All rights reserved.
> AccessWorld is a trademark of the American Foundation for the Blind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/rforetjr%40att.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/electronics-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
More information about the Electronics-Talk
mailing list