[Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
Christopher Chaltain
chaltain at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 02:40:27 UTC 2012
According to what I read, it already passed Congress. As to whether
it'll make any difference or not, it stands more chance of making a
difference than throwing your hands up, feeling sorry for yourself and
not doing anything at all or do you have a better idea?
On 24/01/12 18:21, Ray Foret Jr wrote:
> 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/chaltain%40gmail.com
--
Christopher (CJ)
chaltain at gmail.com
More information about the Electronics-Talk
mailing list