[gui-talk] {Spam?} Re: Fwd: more TV providers provide talking menus for blind subscribers

Thu Dec 29 03:33:25 UTC 2016

That could be true, but generally cities and 
towns give one cable company exclusive rights to 
a given area, for a "franchise fee."  There is 
now, of course satellite companies, and verizon 
and phone companies do fiber in some areas, in 
competition with the cable company for that area.

Dave

At 08:13 PM 12/28/2016, you wrote:
>Well, until recently, there was no way for us 
>here to take our business elsewhere.  Now, I was 
>told by somebody here, that I could switch cable 
>companies if I want to.  But before now, this 
>was Cablevision's area, not to be breached by 
>any other company.  Pam. -----Original 
>Message----- From: Mike Arrigo via gui-talk 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 5:37 PM To: 
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org Cc: Mike Arrigo Subject: 
>[gui-talk] {Spam?} Re: Fwd: more TV providers 
>provide talking menus for blind subscribers I am 
>a conservative republican, actually I would 
>probably lean towards libertarian views, 
>basically I want as little of the government 
>regulating things as possible, only enough to 
>maintain law and order. Other than that, let 
>businesses run themselves, if they make bad 
>choices, than they should face the consequences 
>of those choices without the government or 
>anyone else bailing them out. But I also want 
>equal access to products and services. I would 
>rather get this by convincing companies that 
>universal access is the right thing to do, 
>there's really nothing but benefits to this 
>approach. Again, no matter what, some companies 
>will not think it's worth the effort to do this, 
>and in those cases, I take my business 
>elsewhere. Original message: > I would caution 
>against the simple minded approach of claiming 
>that the > Republicans hate the blind and 
>donâ€™t want accessibility while the > Democrats 
>love the blind and want it.  To my way of 
>thinking, that > discussion would lead us in to 
>nothing but trouble which we donâ€™t want. My > 
>way of thinking is as I have stated before:  but 
>with this additional > thought.  I will put this 
>in the form of a question.  Which do you think > 
>costs more:  pursuation and willful compliance 
>there with or forceful > regulation?  Okay.  So 
>we donâ€™t live in an ideal world:  and 
>therefore, > yes, sometimes, the hammer of 
>regulation is necessary.  But, consider. > 
>Surely once the companies see the benefits of 
>actually doing it in > practice rather than mere 
>theorizing, they will more willingly comply > 
>because they know that there is a public 
>relations component to this.  IF > you knew of 
>some companies doing this and others not:  to 
>whom would you > give patronage?  OF course, the 
>companies providing the accessibility.  We > say 
>we are a small minority:  but, let me ask you to 
>think about this.  We > can make a lot of noise 
>about something:  and, I maintain that if we 
>make > a loud enough noise in the right way, 
>they will not be able to ignore us. > We 
>ourselves may be small in number:  but, think 
>about this too.  We know > other people and they 
>know people and they know people
get the 
>ppoint?  We > have a greater impact on this than 
>we might at first suppose. > Sent from my Mac, 
>The Only computer with full accessibility for 
>the blind > built-in > Sincerely, The Constantly 
>Barefooted Ray, > Still a very happy Comcast 
>XFinity Voice Guidance, Mac, Verizon Wireless > 
>iPhone7+ and Apple TV user! >> On Dec 28, 2016, 
>at 11:19 AM, Jen via gui-talk 
><gui-talk at nfbnet.org> >> wrote: >> I 
>respectfully disagree. I think the ADA fits into 
>this because these >> companies are getting 
>federal funding, and TV is an auxiliary aid. 
>So >> President-elect Trump's incoming FCC 
>chair's position wouldn't matter >> because the 
>ADA won't be repealed. What are everyone's 
>thoughts on this? >> -----Original 
>Message----- >> From: gui-talk 
>[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf 
>Of Gerald >> Levy via gui-talk >> Sent: 
>Wednesday, December 28, 2016 6:55 AM >> To: 
>Discussion of the Graphical User Interface, GUI 
>Talk Mailing List >> <gui-talk at nfbnet.org> >> 
>Cc: Gerald Levy <bwaylimited at verizon.net> >> 
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: more TV providers 
>provide talking menus for >> blind 
>subscribers >> Well, you can essentially kiss 
>the Telecommunications Accessibility Act >> 
>goodbye. The current FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, 
>will be stepping down on >> Jan. 20, and his 
>successor, appointed by the incoming 
>president-elect, is >> likely to favor less 
>government regulation of the airwaves and 
>minimal >> enforcement of FCC rules, so there 
>will not be any pressure on the cable >> 
>companies or TV manufacturers to make their 
>products blind accessible. >> Anyone who 
>believes otherwise is living in a dream world, 
>so unless your >> cable provider already offers 
>accessible boxes, you will probably have a >> 
>very long wait to get one. Spectrum Cable, which 
>has been bombarding >> local TV stations in New 
>York City to introduce itself and proclaim "a >> 
>new day" for cable TV service, still has 
>absolutely no plans to offer >> accessible boxes 
>any time soon, and now there will be little 
>pressure on >> them to do so. >> Gerald >> 
>-----Original Message----- >> From: David 
>Andrews via gui-talk >> Sent: Tuesday, December 
>27, 2016 8:12 PM >> To: 
>david.andrews at nfbnet.org >> Cc: David Andrews >> 
>Subject: [gui-talk] Fwd: more TV providers 
>provide talking menus for >> blind >> 
>subscribers >> The area of accessible television 
>is getting more >> activity of late -- this 
>information may interest you. >> Dave >>> From: 
>Ray Foret jr <rforet7706 at comcast.net> >>> 
>Subject: more TV providors provide talking menus 
>for blind subscribers >>> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 
>02:50:28 -0600 >>> To: David Andrews 
><dandrews at visi.com> >>> Greetings, >>> As we all 
>know, the Federal Communications Commission has 
>inacted the >>> Telecommunications act which 
>requires provision for talking menu and or >>> 
>talking guide structure for blind subscribers of 
>TV providing services. >>> The first link is 
>critically important for it leads to a FAQ sheet 
>in >>> which >>> there is information for filing 
>complaints if necessary: >>> 
><https://www.fcc.gov/television-and-set-top-box-controls-menus-program-guides-factsheet>https://www.fcc.gov/television-and-set-top-box-controls-menus-program-guides-factsheet  
> >>> Following is a list of TV providers who now 
>provide some kind of audio >>> or >>> talking 
>menu structure for blind subscribers.  Mostly, 
>these providers >>> require that the subscriber 
>have the top of the line DVR box for this to >>> 
>work.  I must admit that I was quite surprised 
>to see the TV satellite >>> companies on 
>board. >>> Comcast: >>> 
><http://www.comcast.com/accessibility>www.comcast.com/accessibility  
> >>> Tivo: >>> 
><https://www.tivo.com/accessibility>https://www.tivo.com/accessibility  
> >>> Spectrum, (formerly Charter) >>> 
><http://www.charter.net/support/accessibility/talking-guide-spectrum-guide-support/>http://www.charter.net/support/accessibility/talking-guide-spectrum-guide-support/  
> >>> Direct TV: >>> 
><https://support.directv.com/equipment/talking-guide-faq>https://support.directv.com/equipment/talking-guide-faq  
> >>> and Dish Network: >>> 
><https://www.dish.com/accessibility/>https://www.dish.com/accessibility/  
> >>> Verizon Fios: >>> 
><http://www.verizon.com/about/accessibility/text-speech?pos=1>http://www.verizon.com/about/accessibility/text-speech?pos=1  
> >>> Of course, Apple TV is accessible and 
>thatÃ¢€™s always a plus too. > >>> Sent from my 
>Mac, The Only computer with full accessibility for the