[Electronics-talk] Electronics-talk Digest, Questions about Verizon settop/ dvr boxesVol 69, Issue 18
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Mon Jan 30 01:31:12 UTC 2012
Have you tried lodging a complaint with the Federal Communications
Commission, FCC? This will carry more weight than one to Verizon
itself. They may not take it the new law hasn't really kicked in
yet, although they keep saying they don't get that many actual complaints!
Dave
At 11:42 AM 1/29/2012, you wrote:
>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.
More information about the Electronics-Talk
mailing list