[Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 25

Mon Jan 30 00:24:01 UTC 2012

Well, I will say one thing about Cox cable, I didn't have any trouble
accessing my dvr on line and setting it to record shows, however never tried
to play them back nor have I tried to access Verizon online now that I have
fios as a instead of cox.

-----Original Message-----
From: electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
electronics-talk-request at nfbnet.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:00 PM
To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 25

Send Electronics-talk mailing list submissions to
	electronics-talk at nfbnet.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	electronics-talk-request at nfbnet.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	electronics-talk-owner at nfbnet.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Electronics-talk digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about Verizon settop/
      dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18 (Jude DaShiell)
   2. Re: Electronics-talk Digest,	Questions about Verizon settop/
      dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18 (Reese)
   3. Re: Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about Verizon settop/
      dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18 (Gerald Levy)
   4. Fwd: NBP-Announce: iPhone Tactile ScreenShot Quick Reference
      Guide (David Andrews)
   5. Re: Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about Verizon settop/
      dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18 (Jude DaShiell)
   6. Re: Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about Verizon settop/
      dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18 (Christopher Chaltain)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:06:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jude DaShiell <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
	<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions
	about Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
Message-ID:
	<alpine.BSF.2.01.1201291300160.87002 at freire1.furyyjbeyq.arg>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

This should have gone to the F.C.C. long ago.  I don't use verizon any 
more as a subscriber because of past accessibility problems myself so if 
anyone else is interested it's probably you write jamal.mazrui at fcc.gov 
directly and explain what has been explained on this list and ask him to 
forward the complaint to interested parties.  Beyond that if you have a 
Democrat as a senator or representative in Washington D.C. you might 
carbon copy them too.  After that, maybe the A.C.B. or N.F.B. might get 
interested in this problem and maybe one or more of those organizations 
might do litigation on verizon again.  As of now, I have no dog in this 
fight because where I live fios will never come and the cable provider is 
too small to be covered by the accessibility legislation for their set top 
boxes.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
<http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:12:43 -0500
From: "Reese" <atlanticstar1 at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
	<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest,	Questions
	about Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
Message-ID: <5B6AF8A30DC54804B3F53B1B28108046 at PeachtreeTravel>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Annette:

I also have a friend who has the Verizon DVR and I will be sure to pass them

the information you provided.

Even though the AT&T U-Verse DVR box isn't accessible, their DVR online 
service is accessible.  So Verizon can make their DVR online service 
accessible if they want to.

Reese

----- Original Message ----- 

Hi

I have not found a way to access the Verizon DVR option.  The box is not
accessible.  I've tried to use the iPhone FYOS App with no luck.  I've tried
using the online option with no luck.  I've filed a complaint and only got
lip service for 4 months and have not heard a thing in 6 months.  I provided
Verizon with names of companies who have worked with Verizon on other
accessibility issues, and as far as I know, there has not been any follow
through on Verizon's part.  I encourage you and anyone else who is a Verizon
FYOS user to call and file a complaint about the inaccessibility of their
set top boxes, their FYOS Apps through both the set top box and the
i-devices, as well as the internet.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:14:22 -0500
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited at verizon.net>
To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
	<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions
	about Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
Message-ID: <5065934949944EB4BCF4B64D53ABF642 at glevy>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
	reply-type=original

You can complain all you want, but the fact remains that the cable operators

really don't care whether their converter boxes are accessible to their 
blind customers.  If you're unhappy with their service, their attitude is go

ahead and cancel and see how easy it is to get reception on your digital TV 
with just an antenna.  They know you won't give up your cable service so 
fast unless you want to stop watching TV altogether.  Verizon doesn't care. 
Comcast doesn't care.  Time-Warner Cable doesn't care.  None of these cable 
monopolies give a rap about their customers.  So what can you do?

Gerald

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Annette Carr" <amcarr1 at verizon.net>
To: "'Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances'" 
<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about 
Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18

> Hi
>
> I have not found a way to access the Verizon DVR option.  The box is not
> accessible.  I've tried to use the iPhone FYOS App with no luck.  I've 
> tried
> using the online option with no luck.  I've filed a complaint and only got
> lip service for 4 months and have not heard a thing in 6 months.  I 
> provided
> Verizon with names of companies who have worked with Verizon on other
> accessibility issues, and as far as I know, there has not been any follow
> through on Verizon's part.  I encourage you and anyone else who is a 
> Verizon
> FYOS user to call and file a complaint about the inaccessibility of their
> set top boxes, their FYOS Apps through both the set top box and the
> i-devices, as well as the internet.
>
> Annette
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
> [mailto:electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Johna Lynn 
> Nordin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:52 PM
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about
> Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
>
> Hello,
> Does anyone here know if Verizon's dvr boxes or set top boxes are
> accessible?  I'm curious to know if there's a voice over feature that or
> some type of text to speech functions?  Just curious, thanks in advance 
> for
> any suggestions or help
> Johna Lynn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
> [mailto:electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> electronics-talk-request at nfbnet.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:24 PM
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 18
>
> Send Electronics-talk mailing list submissions to
> electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> electronics-talk-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> electronics-talk-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Electronics-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Intro (Eric Calhoun)
>   2. Intro (Leroy Everett)
>   3. Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Tony Sohl)
>   4. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Julie Phillipson)
>   5. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>   6. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>   7. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>   8. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Jim Barbour)
>   9. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>  10. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>  11. Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility
>      Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes) (Jim Barbour)
>  12. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>  13. Re: Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
>      Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes)
>      (Dewey Bradley)
>  14. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Ray Foret Jr)
>  15. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Steve Deeley)
>  16. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Reese)
>  17. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Tony Sohl)
>  18. Issues with cox box (Tony Sohl)
>  19. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>  20. Re: Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessib...
>      (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>  21. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>  22. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (cheez)
>  23. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Ray Foret Jr)
>  24. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (cheez)
>  25. Reply to messages (Tony Sohl)
>  26. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>  27. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:15:47 -0600
> From: Eric Calhoun <eric at pmpmail.com>
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Intro
> Message-ID:
>
> <mailman.3716.1327454656.18094.electronics-talk_nfbnet.org at nfbnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi guys, I've been on the list for under 2 weeks and want to say hello.  I
> enjoy making new friends and enjoy electronic gadgets, including talking
> watches and clocks.
>
> Eric Calhoun
> .. .. Eric from Los Angeles.
>
> .. .. On Facebook at eric at pmpmail.com.
>
> Dog lover! .. .. .. .. Sports enthusiast!  .. .. A friend to all!  To
> join my Baseball List, please send a message to eric at pmpmail.com, and put
> in th subject line, "Eric, I'd love to join your Baseball List."  (Note to
> moderators: You may remove the baseball list reference in any email, if 
> you
> choose.)
>
>
>
> Happy New Year, and may God bless.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:33:15 -0600
> From: Leroy Everett <evereler at gmail.com>
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Intro
> Message-ID: <4F1EF96B.50701 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello all,
>
> My name is Leroy Everett.  I have been in the computer industry for over
> 20 years until I lost my vision.  I spent 10 years at Gateway
> computers...and some time at CompassLearning software...
>
> I am into Macs and PCs,,,
>
> I lost most of my vision 2 years ago..
>
> Leroy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:40:55 -0700
> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
> To: <Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <E8A3B1B398C04FFA9C10C11CD19EB5D4 at melissac300ff8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:36 -0500
> 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>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <CA45D174ACE9402BA827E6BBAE67B642 at acer4d025c48b8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:15:13 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <919DDBCEBE534D5DA1F60EEC9670B4C8 at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:08:02 -0500 (EST)
> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <a4a3.2ba4f2f.3c5093d2 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:13:05 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <3B85FA1AD8054DE0BE621265B0DE11AE at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:17:37 -0800
> From: Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <20120124231737.GC2409 at barcore.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>
> If we find the bill number, then what?  If the law was  passed in
> 2012, it's less than a month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>
> Jim
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>> 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%40ve
r
> izon.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.bradle
y
> %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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .com
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:36:34 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <9CFCC83E0355482782F26FB6A9E02CC1 at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Excuse me.
> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding 
> that
> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there boxes
> accessible.
> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>
>
>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>
>> If we find the bill number, then what?  If the law was  passed in
>> 2012, it's less than a month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> 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%40ve
r
> izon.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.bradle
y
> %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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:44:44 -0500 (EST)
> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <b994.2f0c44e4.3c509c6b at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:46:18 -0800
> From: Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications and
> Video Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes)
> Message-ID: <20120124234617.GD2409 at barcore.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I don't think the bill is off topic for the list, but it was dragging
> that thread into the weeds.
>
> I think this is the bill you're talking about.  From what I can see 
> here...
>
> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>
> the bill was signed in 2010, and is still in comment gathering stage
> before rules are written.  All this has to be done before anything
> real change can happen.
>
> Jim
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:34PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>> Excuse me.
>> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding
> that
>> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there boxes
>> accessible.
>> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>> >How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>> >cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>> >
>> >If we find the bill number, then what?  If the law was  passed in
>> >2012, it's less than a month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
>> >of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>> >
>> >Jim
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>> >>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%40
v
> erizon.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.brad
l
> ey%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/geortsouka
l
> a%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.brad
l
> ey%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/jbar%40barc
o
> re.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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .com
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:50:26 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <550988E0024D494FAEAFE97DF0FA5CC8 at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Thanks!
> I couldn't remember what it was called.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <GeorTsoukala at aol.com>
> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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/dewey.bradley%
> 40kc.rr.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:58:36 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications
> and Video Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top
> boxes)
> Message-ID: <EF2D3B468BE445699FEDAB788D484D23 at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> yes it is
> hopefully this will go through.
> Apple gets it, but no one else does.
> I would to be able to use my DVR, and maybe some day I will be able to.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:46 PM
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
> Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes)
>
>
>>I don't think the bill is off topic for the list, but it was dragging
>> that thread into the weeds.
>>
>> I think this is the bill you're talking about.  From what I can see
>> here...
>>
>> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>>
>> the bill was signed in 2010, and is still in comment gathering stage
>> before rules are written.  All this has to be done before anything
>> real change can happen.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:34PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> Excuse me.
>>> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding
>>> that
>>> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there 
>>> boxes
>>> accessible.
>>> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>>
>>>
>>> >How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>> >cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>> >
>>> >If we find the bill number, then what?  If the law was  passed in
>>> >2012, it's less than a month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
>>> >of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>> >
>>> >Jim
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> >>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%40
v
> erizon.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.brad
l
> ey%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/geortsouka
l
> a%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.brad
l
> ey%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/jbar%40barc
o
> re.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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:21:37 -0600
> From: Ray Foret Jr <rforetjr at att.net>
> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <A2AFB43B-1F62-4623-A150-14DB5E668A85 at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:31:46 -0500
> From: Steve Deeley <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <2D69BAF3-5E56-4C18-9680-22327C7251FA at insightbb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> So please answer the basic question are they're talking cable boxes
> available on the market today that work?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/stevep.deeley%
> 40insightbb.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:45:43 -0500
> From: "Reese" <atlanticstar1 at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <E7F0AE4E7DAE4BCB9C8C7811BE2C6F55 at PeachtreeTravel>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> None of the current boxes are accessible.  With sighted help you can get
> help memorizing some of the key sequences which worked for me when I had
> Direct TV.  I have also had some memorization using some of the remote
> features of U-verse.  However, there's no talking remotes out there and I
> doubt if there will ever be.  The closest we have ever come to that was 
> the
> old Zenith Talking VCR.  Which I still have here collecting dust.
>
> Reese
>
> ----- Original Message ----- How is this helping to answer the original
> question, which was "what
> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:05:23 -0700
> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <2A0C6CE159DF4761B105C0654097A230 at melissac300ff8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> No the question was how can I access some of the featers such as the 
> second
> audio program on my cox boc. I have to have someone sighted here whenever 
> I
> want to make a change and usually I don't have someone who's sighted 
> around.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>
>
>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>
>> If we find the bill number, then what?  If the law was  passed in
>> 2012, it's less than a month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> 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%40ve
r
> izon.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.bradle
y
> %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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .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/tonysohl%40cox
> .net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:07:48 -0700
> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Issues with cox box
> Message-ID: <AB8CDA0DC8E044ECAA1B97D024F09BB7 at melissac300ff8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi let me try and rephrase this in another way. Does anyone know the
> sequence to access the second audio option on the cox box? I know one of 
> you
> told me you had remembered the sequence and does anyone know the sequence
> once you get into the menus what buttons to press or how many options do I
> need to go down the box?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:10:53 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <7C57F0948E834494BE33FDE914B8B66D at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:11:22 -0500 (EST)
> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications
> and Video Accessib...
> Message-ID: <2c65.46a98501.3c50b0b9 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I never said it was  going to happen tomorrow. Just that it was  passed.
> Just trying to give an answer by posting the information. It does  give a
> time
> line in the article.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/24/2012 6:49:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jbar at barcore.com writes:
>
> I don't  think the bill is off topic for the list, but it was dragging
> that thread  into the weeds.
>
> I think this is the bill you're talking about.   From what I can see
> here...
>
> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>
> the bill was  signed in 2010, and is still in comment gathering stage
> before rules are  written.  All this has to be done before anything
> real change can  happen.
>
> Jim
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:34PM -0600, Dewey  Bradley wrote:
>> Excuse me.
>> This bill is supposed to help, I was  asking about it, my understanding
> that
>> it was going to force cable and  sattlelight companies to make there 
>> boxes
>> accessible.
>> So sorry  if I've jumped off topic.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From:  "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible  electronics and appliances"
>>  <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012  5:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top  boxes
>>
>>
>> >How is this helping to answer the original  question, which was "what
>> >cox cable boxes are most  accessible?"
>> >
>> >If we find the bill number, then  what?  If the law was  passed in
>> >2012, it's less than a  month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
>> >of 2011,  there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>  >
>> >Jim
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at  05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>> >>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%40
v
> erizon.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.brad
l
> ey%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/geortsouka
l
> a%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.brad
l
> ey%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/jbar%40barc
o
> re.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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:13:18 -0500 (EST)
> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <2d71.66239798.3c50b12e at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> You are vary welcome. Glad to help.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/24/2012 6:52:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com writes:
>
> Thanks!
> I couldn't remember what it was called.
>
> -----  Original Message ----- 
> From: <GeorTsoukala at aol.com>
> To:  <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:44  PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top  boxes
>
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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/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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:14:53 -0700
> From: "cheez" <cheez at cox.net>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <2E15BA5DA6EE48508AAA87AACD9BB263 at odyssey>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> LOL.  You've got to be smoking something illegal if you think companies 
> are
> going to make things accessible, when the government itself isn't 
> complying.
> Vince
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>
>
>> 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%40veri
> zon.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/cheez%40cox.ne
> t
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:15:34 -0600
> From: Ray Foret Jr <rforetjr at att.net>
> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <8A615DBD-4219-48B3-B596-F17DCD7B862F at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> In a word, nope.  not that I've been able to discover.  In closing, I 
> would
> ask you to have a little more patience than you seem to be exhibitting at
> the moment.  We don't often discuss cable boxes mainly because we have as
> yet found nothing truly accessible.  AT&T U-Verse has about the best set
> top box a blind person can use; but, keep in mind that even that box does
> not talk.  What makes it a little more blind person friendly is the way 
> the
> menu structure is set up.
>
>
> 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 6:31 PM, Steve Deeley wrote:
>
>> So please answer the basic question are they're talking cable boxes
> available on the market today that work?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/stevep.deeley%
> 40insightbb.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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:20:56 -0700
> From: "cheez" <cheez at cox.net>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <4DEA859B73794F3FB89C9B205C888D76 at odyssey>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> It seems every president signs the same law, just to make it look as if 
> they
>
> care.  Never did see that accessible DVD player, did we?
> No more.  We are getting off topic.  Let's refocus with the list's 
> purpose.
> Vince
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>
>
>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>
>> If we find the bill number, then what?  If the law was  passed in
>> 2012, it's less than a month old.  Even if it were passed on the fall
>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> 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%40ve
r
> izon.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.bradle
y
> %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.bradle
y
> %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/jbar%40barcore
> .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/cheez%40cox.ne
> t
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:22:00 -0700
> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Reply to messages
> Message-ID: <49026B6E4D3E434DB10130B8FBA4E7D8 at melissac300ff8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Thank you so much for all your assistance.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:22:19 -0600
> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <6935282D013341C3A8C3ABE070232649 at owner4d2e6f141>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Well of course with news line, it makes it so much easier, I love the T.V
> listings, that was one of the best things the NFB ever came up with, Among
> many.
>
> ----- 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 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>
>
>> In a word, nope.  not that I've been able to discover.  In closing, I
>> would ask you to have a little more patience than you seem to be
>> exhibitting at the moment.  We don't often discuss cable boxes mainly
>> because we have as yet found nothing truly accessible.  AT&T U-Verse has
>> about the best set  top box a blind person can use; but, keep in mind 
>> that
>
>> even that box does not talk.  What makes it a little more blind person
>> friendly is the way the menu structure is set up.
>>
>>
>> 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 6:31 PM, Steve Deeley wrote:
>>
>>> So please answer the basic question are they're talking cable boxes
>>> available on the market today that work?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/stevep.deeley%
> 40insightbb.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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:23:00 -0500 (EST)
> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
> Message-ID: <32f2.339be8ba.3c50b374 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> 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%40veri
> zon.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
>
>
> End of Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 18
> ************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/amcarr1%40veri
> zon.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/bwaylimited%40
verizon.net 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:06:32 -0600
From: David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>
To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Electronics-talk] Fwd: NBP-Announce: iPhone Tactile
	ScreenShot Quick Reference Guide
Message-ID: <auto-000045831059 at mailfront4.g2host.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

>
>iPhone Tactile ScreenShot Quick Reference Guide
>Produced by Tom Dekker, VRT with Tactile Vision, Inc.
>Braille, large print and tactile diagrams - all in one booklet, $27
>
>The perfect companion to Getting Started with the iPhone and
>Twenty-six Useful Apps for Blind iPhone Users!
>
>These tactile screen shots of various iPhone screens show you
>what appears where on the your iPhone's status bar, home screen
>apps, keypad, contacts, calendar, Apps Store, iBooks, iTunes.
>
>Readers will get a clearer sense of how to find icons and
>elements on the iPhone screen, as well as how to manipulate
>and interact with them. Explore diagrams with one hand while
>swiping through screen elements with the other, or practice
>the motions and gestures on the diagrams, and then try them
>on your iPhone. The iPhone Tactile Screenshot Quick Reference
>guide also includes some basic information on getting started with Siri.
>
>These tactile screen shots are meant to be used in conjunction
>with other teaching texts and are not meant to replace them.
>For a more complete tutorial, see Anna Dresner and Dean
>Martineau's 'Getting Started with the iPhone.'
>
>To order or read more about this book online, visit
>http://www.nbp.org/ic/nbp/IPHONE-TACTILES.html
>
>
>******
>To order any books, send payment to:
>NBP, 88 St. Stephen Street, Boston, MA 02115-4302
>Or call and charge it: toll-free (800) 548-7323 or (617) 266-6160 ext 520.
>Or order any of our books online at
>http://www.nbp.org/ic/nbp/publications/index.html .
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nbp mailing list
>Nbp at nbp.org
>
>PLEASE DO NOT respond to this message! It is an automated message 
>and your query will not reach us. Send questions to orders at nbp.org .
>
>Visit us at http://www.nbp.org

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:25:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Jude DaShiell <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
	<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions
	about Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
Message-ID:
	<alpine.BSF.2.01.1201291520300.92813 at freire1.furyyjbeyq.arg>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Ending TV use disconnects people from all those fine political events and 
sports events as well as what movies are on any more.  You also loose out 
on hearing all of those corporate commercials and charity commercials and 
hair club for men infomercials.  I can do it and have done it in the past 
when finances got too tight and had TV off for more than a year and didn't 
miss it either.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Jude 
<jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net> 
<http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:59:58 -0600
From: Christopher Chaltain <chaltain at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
	<electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions
	about Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
Message-ID: <4F25CF6E.3030700 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Well, one way to ensure nothing changes for the better is to do nothing. 
Instead of just giving up, I'd suggest filing the complaint and taking 
advantage of the laws so many have worked so hard to have signed into 
law. One of the reasons the cable providers don't care is because of 
this defeatest attitude. If they don't hear from blind users, and if 
blind users don't complain to the FCC and the gernment then of course 
they aren't going to care and nothing's going to change for the better. 
As I said, instead of feeling sorry for yourself, file the complaint and 
work along side other blind people and blind organizations who are 
working to make things better for the blind, even those who won't help 
themselves.

On 01/29/2012 01:14 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
>
> You can complain all you want, but the fact remains that the cable
> operators really don't care whether their converter boxes are accessible
> to their blind customers. If you're unhappy with their service, their
> attitude is go ahead and cancel and see how easy it is to get reception
> on your digital TV with just an antenna. They know you won't give up
> your cable service so fast unless you want to stop watching TV
> altogether. Verizon doesn't care. Comcast doesn't care. Time-Warner
> Cable doesn't care. None of these cable monopolies give a rap about
> their customers. So what can you do?
>
> Gerald
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Annette Carr" <amcarr1 at verizon.net>
> To: "'Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances'"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about
> Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have not found a way to access the Verizon DVR option. The box is not
>> accessible. I've tried to use the iPhone FYOS App with no luck. I've
>> tried
>> using the online option with no luck. I've filed a complaint and only got
>> lip service for 4 months and have not heard a thing in 6 months. I
>> provided
>> Verizon with names of companies who have worked with Verizon on other
>> accessibility issues, and as far as I know, there has not been any follow
>> through on Verizon's part. I encourage you and anyone else who is a
>> Verizon
>> FYOS user to call and file a complaint about the inaccessibility of their
>> set top boxes, their FYOS Apps through both the set top box and the
>> i-devices, as well as the internet.
>>
>> Annette
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> [mailto:electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Johna Lynn
>> Nordin
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:52 PM
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about
>> Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
>>
>> Hello,
>> Does anyone here know if Verizon's dvr boxes or set top boxes are
>> accessible? I'm curious to know if there's a voice over feature that or
>> some type of text to speech functions? Just curious, thanks in advance
>> for
>> any suggestions or help
>> Johna Lynn
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> [mailto:electronics-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
>> electronics-talk-request at nfbnet.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:24 PM
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 18
>>
>> Send Electronics-talk mailing list submissions to
>> electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> electronics-talk-request at nfbnet.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> electronics-talk-owner at nfbnet.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Electronics-talk digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Intro (Eric Calhoun)
>> 2. Intro (Leroy Everett)
>> 3. Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Tony Sohl)
>> 4. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Julie Phillipson)
>> 5. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>> 6. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>> 7. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>> 8. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Jim Barbour)
>> 9. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>> 10. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>> 11. Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility
>> Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes) (Jim Barbour)
>> 12. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>> 13. Re: Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
>> Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes)
>> (Dewey Bradley)
>> 14. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Ray Foret Jr)
>> 15. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Steve Deeley)
>> 16. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Reese)
>> 17. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Tony Sohl)
>> 18. Issues with cox box (Tony Sohl)
>> 19. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>> 20. Re: Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessib...
>> (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>> 21. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>> 22. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (cheez)
>> 23. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Ray Foret Jr)
>> 24. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (cheez)
>> 25. Reply to messages (Tony Sohl)
>> 26. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (Dewey Bradley)
>> 27. Re: Issues with Cox remote top boxes (GeorTsoukala at aol.com)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:15:47 -0600
>> From: Eric Calhoun <eric at pmpmail.com>
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Intro
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <mailman.3716.1327454656.18094.electronics-talk_nfbnet.org at nfbnet.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi guys, I've been on the list for under 2 weeks and want to say hello. I
>> enjoy making new friends and enjoy electronic gadgets, including talking
>> watches and clocks.
>>
>> Eric Calhoun
>> .. .. Eric from Los Angeles.
>>
>> .. .. On Facebook at eric at pmpmail.com.
>>
>> Dog lover! .. .. .. .. Sports enthusiast! .. .. A friend to all! To
>> join my Baseball List, please send a message to eric at pmpmail.com, and put
>> in th subject line, "Eric, I'd love to join your Baseball List." (Note to
>> moderators: You may remove the baseball list reference in any email,
>> if you
>> choose.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy New Year, and may God bless.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:33:15 -0600
>> From: Leroy Everett <evereler at gmail.com>
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Intro
>> Message-ID: <4F1EF96B.50701 at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> My name is Leroy Everett. I have been in the computer industry for over
>> 20 years until I lost my vision. I spent 10 years at Gateway
>> computers...and some time at CompassLearning software...
>>
>> I am into Macs and PCs,,,
>>
>> I lost most of my vision 2 years ago..
>>
>> Leroy
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:40:55 -0700
>> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
>> To: <Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <E8A3B1B398C04FFA9C10C11CD19EB5D4 at melissac300ff8>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:36 -0500
>> 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>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <CA45D174ACE9402BA827E6BBAE67B642 at acer4d025c48b8>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:15:13 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <919DDBCEBE534D5DA1F60EEC9670B4C8 at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=response
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:08:02 -0500 (EST)
>> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <a4a3.2ba4f2f.3c5093d2 at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:13:05 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <3B85FA1AD8054DE0BE621265B0DE11AE at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:17:37 -0800
>> From: Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <20120124231737.GC2409 at barcore.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>
>> If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>> 2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> 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%40ver
>>>
>> izon.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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:36:34 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <9CFCC83E0355482782F26FB6A9E02CC1 at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Excuse me.
>> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding
>> that
>> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there boxes
>> accessible.
>> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>>
>>> If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>>> 2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>>> 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%40ver
>>>
>> izon.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:44:44 -0500 (EST)
>> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <b994.2f0c44e4.3c509c6b at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 11
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:46:18 -0800
>> From: Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications and
>> Video Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes)
>> Message-ID: <20120124234617.GD2409 at barcore.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> I don't think the bill is off topic for the list, but it was dragging
>> that thread into the weeds.
>>
>> I think this is the bill you're talking about. From what I can see
>> here...
>>
>> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>>
>> the bill was signed in 2010, and is still in comment gathering stage
>> before rules are written. All this has to be done before anything
>> real change can happen.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:34PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> Excuse me.
>>> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding
>> that
>>> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there
>>> boxes
>>> accessible.
>>> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>>
>>>
>>> >How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>> >cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>> >
>>> >If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>>> >2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>>> >of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>> >
>>> >Jim
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> >>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%40v
>>>>>
>> erizon.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.bradl
>>>>>
>> ey%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/geortsoukal
>>>>>
>> a%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.bradl
>>>>>
>> ey%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/jbar%40barco
>>>>
>> re.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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 12
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:50:26 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <550988E0024D494FAEAFE97DF0FA5CC8 at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Thanks!
>> I couldn't remember what it was called.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <GeorTsoukala at aol.com>
>> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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/dewey.bradley%
>>
>> 40kc.rr.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 13
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:58:36 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications
>> and Video Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top
>> boxes)
>> Message-ID: <EF2D3B468BE445699FEDAB788D484D23 at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> yes it is
>> hopefully this will go through.
>> Apple gets it, but no one else does.
>> I would to be able to use my DVR, and maybe some day I will be able to.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:46 PM
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
>> Accessibility Act (was: Issues with Cox remote top boxes)
>>
>>
>>> I don't think the bill is off topic for the list, but it was dragging
>>> that thread into the weeds.
>>>
>>> I think this is the bill you're talking about. From what I can see
>>> here...
>>>
>>> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>>>
>>> the bill was signed in 2010, and is still in comment gathering stage
>>> before rules are written. All this has to be done before anything
>>> real change can happen.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:34PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>>> Excuse me.
>>>> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding
>>>> that
>>>> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there
>>>> boxes
>>>> accessible.
>>>> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>>> >cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>>> >
>>>> >If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>>>> >2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>>>> >of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>>> >
>>>> >Jim
>>>> >
>>>> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>>> >>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%40v
>>>>>
>> erizon.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.bradl
>>>>>
>> ey%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/geortsoukal
>>>>>
>> a%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.bradl
>>>>>
>> ey%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/jbar%40barco
>>>>
>> re.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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 14
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:21:37 -0600
>> From: Ray Foret Jr <rforetjr at att.net>
>> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <A2AFB43B-1F62-4623-A150-14DB5E668A85 at att.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 15
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:31:46 -0500
>> From: Steve Deeley <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
>> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Cc: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <2D69BAF3-5E56-4C18-9680-22327C7251FA at insightbb.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> So please answer the basic question are they're talking cable boxes
>> available on the market today that work?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/stevep.deeley%
>>
>> 40insightbb.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 16
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:45:43 -0500
>> From: "Reese" <atlanticstar1 at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <E7F0AE4E7DAE4BCB9C8C7811BE2C6F55 at PeachtreeTravel>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> None of the current boxes are accessible. With sighted help you can get
>> help memorizing some of the key sequences which worked for me when I had
>> Direct TV. I have also had some memorization using some of the remote
>> features of U-verse. However, there's no talking remotes out there and I
>> doubt if there will ever be. The closest we have ever come to that was
>> the
>> old Zenith Talking VCR. Which I still have here collecting dust.
>>
>> Reese
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- How is this helping to answer the original
>> question, which was "what
>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 17
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:05:23 -0700
>> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <2A0C6CE159DF4761B105C0654097A230 at melissac300ff8>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> No the question was how can I access some of the featers such as the
>> second
>> audio program on my cox boc. I have to have someone sighted here
>> whenever I
>> want to make a change and usually I don't have someone who's sighted
>> around.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>>
>>> If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>>> 2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>>> 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%40ver
>>>
>> izon.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .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/tonysohl%40cox
>>
>> .net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 18
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:07:48 -0700
>> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
>> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Issues with cox box
>> Message-ID: <AB8CDA0DC8E044ECAA1B97D024F09BB7 at melissac300ff8>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi let me try and rephrase this in another way. Does anyone know the
>> sequence to access the second audio option on the cox box? I know one
>> of you
>> told me you had remembered the sequence and does anyone know the sequence
>> once you get into the menus what buttons to press or how many options
>> do I
>> need to go down the box?
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 19
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:10:53 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <7C57F0948E834494BE33FDE914B8B66D at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 20
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:11:22 -0500 (EST)
>> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Twenty-First Century Communications
>> and Video Accessib...
>> Message-ID: <2c65.46a98501.3c50b0b9 at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>>
>> I never said it was going to happen tomorrow. Just that it was passed.
>> Just trying to give an answer by posting the information. It does give a
>> time
>> line in the article.
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/24/2012 6:49:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> jbar at barcore.com writes:
>>
>> I don't think the bill is off topic for the list, but it was dragging
>> that thread into the weeds.
>>
>> I think this is the bill you're talking about. From what I can see
>> here...
>>
>> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>>
>> the bill was signed in 2010, and is still in comment gathering stage
>> before rules are written. All this has to be done before anything
>> real change can happen.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:36:34PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> Excuse me.
>>> This bill is supposed to help, I was asking about it, my understanding
>> that
>>> it was going to force cable and sattlelight companies to make there
>>> boxes
>>> accessible.
>>> So sorry if I've jumped off topic.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>>
>>>
>>> >How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>> >cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>> >
>>> >If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>>> >2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>>> >of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>> >
>>> >Jim
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>> >>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%40v
>>>>>
>> erizon.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.bradl
>>>>>
>> ey%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/geortsoukal
>>>>>
>> a%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.bradl
>>>>>
>> ey%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/jbar%40barco
>>>>
>> re.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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 21
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:13:18 -0500 (EST)
>> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <2d71.66239798.3c50b12e at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>
>> You are vary welcome. Glad to help.
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/24/2012 6:52:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com writes:
>>
>> Thanks!
>> I couldn't remember what it was called.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <GeorTsoukala at aol.com>
>> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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/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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 22
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:14:53 -0700
>> From: "cheez" <cheez at cox.net>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <2E15BA5DA6EE48508AAA87AACD9BB263 at odyssey>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=response
>>
>> LOL. You've got to be smoking something illegal if you think companies
>> are
>> going to make things accessible, when the government itself isn't
>> complying.
>> Vince
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dewey Bradley"
>> <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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/cheez%40cox.ne
>>
>> t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 23
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:15:34 -0600
>> From: Ray Foret Jr <rforetjr at att.net>
>> To: Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <8A615DBD-4219-48B3-B596-F17DCD7B862F at att.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> In a word, nope. not that I've been able to discover. In closing, I would
>> ask you to have a little more patience than you seem to be exhibitting at
>> the moment. We don't often discuss cable boxes mainly because we have as
>> yet found nothing truly accessible. AT&T U-Verse has about the best set
>> top box a blind person can use; but, keep in mind that even that box does
>> not talk. What makes it a little more blind person friendly is the way
>> the
>> menu structure is set up.
>>
>>
>> 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 6:31 PM, Steve Deeley wrote:
>>
>>> So please answer the basic question are they're talking cable boxes
>> available on the market today that work?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/stevep.deeley%
>>
>> 40insightbb.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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 24
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:20:56 -0700
>> From: "cheez" <cheez at cox.net>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <4DEA859B73794F3FB89C9B205C888D76 at odyssey>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> It seems every president signs the same law, just to make it look as
>> if they
>>
>> care. Never did see that accessible DVD player, did we?
>> No more. We are getting off topic. Let's refocus with the list's purpose.
>> Vince
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Barbour" <jbar at barcore.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>>> How is this helping to answer the original question, which was "what
>>> cox cable boxes are most accessible?"
>>>
>>> If we find the bill number, then what? If the law was passed in
>>> 2012, it's less than a month old. Even if it were passed on the fall
>>> of 2011, there's still not enough time to have implemented the law.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:13:05PM -0600, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>>>> 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%40ver
>>>
>> izon.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/jbar%40barcore
>>
>> .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/cheez%40cox.ne
>>
>> t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 25
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:22:00 -0700
>> From: "Tony Sohl" <tonysohl at cox.net>
>> To: <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] Reply to messages
>> Message-ID: <49026B6E4D3E434DB10130B8FBA4E7D8 at melissac300ff8>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Thank you so much for all your assistance.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 26
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:22:19 -0600
>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <6935282D013341C3A8C3ABE070232649 at owner4d2e6f141>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Well of course with news line, it makes it so much easier, I love the T.V
>> listings, that was one of the best things the NFB ever came up with,
>> Among
>> many.
>>
>> ----- 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 7:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>>
>>
>>> In a word, nope. not that I've been able to discover. In closing, I
>>> would ask you to have a little more patience than you seem to be
>>> exhibitting at the moment. We don't often discuss cable boxes mainly
>>> because we have as yet found nothing truly accessible. AT&T U-Verse has
>>> about the best set top box a blind person can use; but, keep in mind
>>> that
>>
>>> even that box does not talk. What makes it a little more blind person
>>> friendly is the way the menu structure is set up.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 6:31 PM, Steve Deeley wrote:
>>>
>>>> So please answer the basic question are they're talking cable boxes
>>>> available on the market today that work?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at kc.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/stevep.deeley%
>>
>> 40insightbb.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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 27
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:23:00 -0500 (EST)
>> From: GeorTsoukala at aol.com
>> To: electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] Issues with Cox remote top boxes
>> Message-ID: <32f2.339be8ba.3c50b374 at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>
>> 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%40veri
>>
>> zon.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
>>
>>
>> End of Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 18
>> ************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/amcarr1%40veri
>>
>> zon.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/bwaylimited%40
verizon.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%40gma
il.com
>

-- 
Christopher (CJ)
chaltain at gmail.com

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Electronics-talk mailing list
Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org

End of Electronics-talk Digest, Vol 69, Issue 25
************************************************