[Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes

Fri Jan 27 02:41:02 UTC 2012

I know! I totally agree with you; the problem is that we're such 
a low-incidence disability, and in the big scheme of things, 
companies don't really care about us because we're such a 
minority compared to their larger market.  But what they don't 
get is that by making their products accessible, they're 
expanding their market and therefore allow more people to buy 
their products, which in turn increases their revenue.  And the 
end goal of a business is to make a profit, right? * Smile! Off 
the soapbox! :)

Chris

"The real problem of blindness is not the loss of eyesight.  The 
real problem is the misunderstanding and lack of education that 
exists.  If a blind person has the proper training and 
opportunity, blindness can be reduced to a mere physical 
nuisance."
-- Kenneth Jernigan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com
To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and 
appliances"<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
Date sent: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:10:53 -0600
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes

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 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/jbr
ew48%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/dew
ey.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/dew
ey.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/geo
rtsoukala%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/rfo
retjr%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/dew
ey.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/dot
kid.nusbaum%40gmail.com