[nfb-talk] Losing DVS

Steve Jacobson steve.jacobson at visi.com
Fri Jan 16 16:17:16 UTC 2009


John,

Did you resend the URL to the article in question?  If so, I missed it, but given the debate here I will make a comment or two anyway knowing that I may stand to be 
corrected.

First, to my knowledge, the mandate that we opposed only required that a certain number of hours of descriptive programming be produced.  I do not believe it dealt 
with the technical aspects at all that I recall.  The path that we thought should have been taken also required a SAP channel and is also affected negatively by the 
rough transition to digital TV.  The SAP chanel was never dedicated to descriptions as were the unused scan lines for captioning.  some cable companies didn't 
carry the SAP channel that accompanied TV stations.  

Technology creates some challenges.  While captioning is pretty solid on TV, you probably know that it is a problem on tv distributed by the internet.  While this may 
seem minor to you, it is not as there are an increasing number of TV shows available through the internet.  The road is not as smooth for captioning as you would like 
to think.  There are other reasons that captioning has been more widely accepted, too, and we've discussed them before, but they are probably not relevant here.

It is really not clear at all if anything that anybody did has an effect on digital TV.  To a large degree, the problem is a technical one, and as I have said, is one for 
which a solution is being worked on.  Had all of us been united behind video descriptions, it is more likely that something would have been implemented sooner.  
However, I think a very good case can be made that had the proponents of mandating descriptions worked with us on developing an approach that we could all 
have agreed on, that we would have had a more united front.  Had we taken the approach that we prioritize the conveying of information written on the screen such 
as emergency information and other text, something that is not subject to interpretation, thereby laying a solid groundwork that really could not be challenged by the 
entertainment industry, we would have had an infrastructure in place.  I think a very good case can be made that persons fixated on mandating descriptions are as 
responsible as anyone for the current lack of a digital TV solution.  Having a united front has to involve two sides moving together not one side being expected to 
drop all of its concerns.  

Finally, you have said in the past that you tend to argue using confrontation.  I don't remember the exact words, and am certainly willing to be corrected if I am 
wrong.  Whether you said that or not, you do argue that way.  You should not be surprised when some respond in the same fashion.  I do not believe it solves 
anything for either side to argue confrontationally because it heightens emotions.  The fact that you repeatedly argue that way has always caused me to wonder 
what your real motives are, yet you seem to me to generally be a sincere person.  It would be very helpful, though, if you and all the rest of us really try to deal with 
the issues while trying to suppress emotional responses.  I believe a system will be worked out to distribute descriptions with digital TV signals, and that it probably will 
be a better system than if one had been rushed.  I also believe that something would have been done sooner had we all been united behind a single position, but I 
am willing to take only half the responsibility for that with the other half belonging to those who backed mandating descriptions with no willingness to compromise.

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:27:19 -0600, John G. Heim wrote:

>The fact is that I'm making sense. You can't argue with my logic so you try 
>to make it about me. Well, it's not about me. It's about the NFB doing 
>things counter to the best interests of blind people.

>The NFB's actions are partially responsible for my losing access to DVS. Not 
>only is it fair for me to complain about that, it's a *good* thing. The NFB 
>has to get back on track. You should take this as constructive criticism. 
>The NFB is never going to improve if everyone just says that whatever it 
>does is fine.




>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Wm. Ritchhart" <william.ritchhart at sbcglobal.net>
>To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Losing DVS


>> John,
>>
>> Instead of wining at us, go forth and campaign for what you believe you
>> need somewhere where it can possible do you some good.  Most of us do
>> not share your belief.  So we are not going to try to force people to do
>> what you want.
>>
>> You could, if you were so inclined, begin lobbying the government for
>> what you want.  Before you claim that you cannot manage it as one
>> person, you can align yourself with the ACB.  They are of the same mind
>> set as yourself on this issue.
>>
>> All your posts have done here is reinforce the belief held by most of us
>> that all you really want to do is complain about the NFB.  Take some
>> positive action for a change and maybe we will take you more seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> THANKS, WILLIAM
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>> On Behalf Of John G. Heim
>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:43 PM
>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Losing DVS
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> The National Federation of the Blind -- note the word "blind" in the
>> name --
>> aligned itself withTV producers to overturn a FCC regulation that would
>> have
>> meant that I'd still have DVS.  I lost my access to DVS because the NFB
>> doesn't think it should be mandatory.
>>
>> Thanks NFB.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Alan Wheeler" <awheeler at neb.rr.com>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Losing DVS
>>
>>
>>> It's only your *OPINION* though that DVS should be mandatory.  You are
>>
>>> just mad because the NFB doesn't share your opinion.  Let's be honest
>>> about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> In Christ,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +-+-+-
>>>
>>>   Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.
>>> Deuteronomy 6:4
>>> ~~~
>>> awheeler at neb.rr.com
>>> IM me at: outlaw-cowboy at live.com
>>> Skype: redwheel1
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 08:47
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Losing DVS
>>>
>>>
>>>> Every time I criticize the NFB, all you people want to do is make it
>>>> about
>>>> me. Well, as usual, I'm not going to allow that. This is not about
>> me.  I
>>>> am
>>>> going to discuss the issue whether you like it or not!
>>>>
>>>> I already provided a URL for a page that quotes the TV and movie
>>>> producers
>>>> using the NFB's own statements in it's legal argument.  These are
>>>> *facts*.
>>>> If you don't like them, too bad.
>>>>
>>>> The NFB made a mistake in opposing the mandate for DVS. If the
>> mandate
>>>> had
>>>> continued, I'd have DVS on my digital broadcast today. Now, the best
>> you
>>>> can
>>>> do is argue that the mandate would have been over turned regardless
>> of
>>>> what
>>>> the NFB did. Yet the fact remains that the NFB opposed the mandate
>> and
>>>> almost certainly contributed to it being over turned.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Ray Foret jr" <rforetjr at comcast.net>; "NFB Talk Mailing List"
>>>> <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:48 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Losing DVS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ray,
>>>>>
>>>>> You're wasting your breath on this score.  The party line held by
>> some
>>>>> organizations is that we oppose DVS, and anyone who stops supporting
>> DVS
>>>>> does so because of us.  You've been baited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:50:39PM -0600, Ray Foret jr wrote:
>>>>>>With all due respect, sir, you are wrong.  Before explaining why,
>> let me
>>>>>>suggest that you correct your own misinformation by reading all we
>> have
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>say on the subject in the various Braille Monitors now available on
>> our
>>>>>>site.  Maybe instead of spouting off in impulsive and emotional
>>>>>>irrational
>>>>>>anger, you should better aquaint yourself with what we really said
>>>>>>first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>The Constantly BAREFOOTED Ray
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Old friend, what are you looking for?  After those many years
>> abroad
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>come With images you tended Under foreign skies Far away from your
>> own
>>>>>>land"
>>>>>>George Seferis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Phone or Fax::
>>>>>>+1 (985) 360-3375
>>>>>>e-mail:
>>>>>>rforetjratcomcastdotnet
>>>>>>Skype Name:
>>>>>>barefootedray
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1895 - Release Date:
>> 1/15/2009
>>> 7:46 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>> 


>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org








More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list