[nfb-talk] Fw: stop lobbyists from scuttling accessible TV equipment

Mon Jul 29 14:47:48 UTC 2013

I totally agree with you. I don't use the internet to watch tv. I know 
many blind and disabled people that don't even have access to computers 
for reasons including lack of funding.
On 7/29/2013 7:21 AM, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Joshua Lester" <JLester8462 at pccua.edu>
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] stop lobbyists from scuttling accessible TV 
> equipment
>
>
>>    Joshua, the issue is not whether TV is a thing of the past it is 
>> that full equality of access needs to be provided and while you may 
>> believe that all blind people use the internet there are many who for 
>> various reasons will not or cannot use it. When you start selecting 
>> what is going to be made accessible a slippery slope gets started 
>> that becomes irreversible when selection precedents are set. Now 
>> personally as I could care less about watching TV I could have chosen 
>> not to post this but that would deny potential access to a medium 
>> that is widely used by sighted populace.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Lester" 
>> <JLester8462 at pccua.edu>
>> To: <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>; "NFB Talk Mailing List" 
>> <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:09 AM
>> Subject: RE: [nfb-talk] stop lobbyists from scuttling accessible TV 
>> equipment
>>
>>
>> Who cares?
>> TV is a thing of the past, and will be obsilete, in the near future, 
>> because of the Internet, which is accessible!
>> Most stations are broadcasting online, and those that aren't will be 
>> soon.
>> What's the big deal?
>> What we need to focus on, is more audio description on all TV shows.
>> Blessings, Joshua
>> ________________________________________
>> From: nfb-talk [nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] on behalf of 
>> ckrugman at sbcglobal.net [ckrugman at sbcglobal.net]
>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:01 AM
>> To: NFB Talk; NFB of California List
>> Subject: [nfb-talk] stop lobbyists from scuttling accessible TV 
>> equipment
>>
>> the following action may be of interest.
>> Chuck
>>
>> Mayday! Mayday! Tech Industry Lobbyists Threatening Future of 
>> Accessible Television! With One Email, Tell Them and the FCC What You 
>> Think!
>>
>> !!!"This is not a test; this is an actual emergency"!!!
>>
>>
>> For further information, contact:
>>
>> Mark Richert, Esq. Director, Public Policy, AFB
>> (202) 469-6833 MRichert at afb.net
>>
>> Dear Advocate:
>>
>> When we all celebrated the enactment of the historic Twenty-First 
>> Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) almost 
>> three years ago, we were promised by our bipartisan champions on 
>> Capitol Hill, by the U.S. Congress, and the President of the United 
>> States, that one day, things would be significantly different. We 
>> were promised that the experience of people with vision loss in terms 
>> of our/their independence and full participation in American life 
>> through the full and fair use of today's most ubiquitous technologies 
>> would be forever changed.
>>
>> We were thrilled to know that there would be much more video 
>> description available on TV, and indeed today there is. We were 
>> gratified to know that the manufacturers and service providers of 
>> some of the most commonly used communications technologies, such as 
>> electronic messaging and mobile phone web browsing, would no longer 
>> be able to ignore the needs of people who are blind or visually 
>> impaired. And we were hopeful that emergency alerts would finally be 
>> meaningful for our community, and it looks like they will be.
>>
>> But we were also promised, and the new law requires, that TVs and 
>> TV-like equipment would need to be fully accessible to us. Now, in 
>> what is essentially the proverbial eleventh hour in the series of 
>> federal regulatory proceedings implementing the CVAA, the seemingly 
>> shameless consumer electronics lobby is demanding, with implied 
>> threats to go to court if they don't get their way, to strip the CVAA 
>> of its TV accessibility obligations and to violate the vision of a 
>> more accessible technology society that the CVAA represents.
>>
>> So what do our tech lobbyist "friends" want?
>>
>> Well, to answer this question, you need to know just a little bit 
>> about how the CVAA works. the CVAA says that your cable or satellite 
>> provider needs to make the equipment, the settop boxes and other such 
>> devices they give you to get their programming, accessible to you 
>> upon your request. While this is a good thing in comparison to how 
>> things have been, it is a compromise, and one that advocates reached 
>> with cable and similar providers as a condition for their willingness 
>> to allow the CVAA to become law. So, with regard to cable and 
>> satellite providers, they don't necessarily need to make all, or even 
>> most, of their equipment accessible as a matter of course; they 
>> merely have to accommodate your request for equipment you can use by 
>> providing you with something, even if it is not state-of-the-art.
>>
>> In contrast, the CVAA requires that TVs and TV-like equipment, 
>> essentially anything that receives or plays back video programming of 
>> any kind, a ton of very cool technology out there, must be accessible 
>> by default; TVs and TV-like equipment will only be allowed to be 
>> inaccessible in a given instance if, and only if, fairly strict legal 
>> exceptions apply. This means that, unlike the cable and satellite 
>> sector which may regularly traffic in inaccessible equipment so long 
>> as they can ultimately give us something we can use upon our request, 
>> makers of TVs and TV-like equipment are charged with the clear 
>> responsibility to fundamentally change their behavior in a way that 
>> would exponentially increase the commercial retail availability of 
>> the accessible and most popular video-related consumer electronics on 
>> the market.
>>
>> Ok, but what are those lobbyists up to?
>>
>> With forked-tongued craftiness, the consumer electronics lobby is, 
>> even as we speak, assuring the Federal Communications Commission
>> (FCC) of industry's commitment to the needs of people with 
>> disabilities while, without blushing, propounding some of the most 
>> contorted legal reasoning that we have seen yet. They are using the 
>> full weight of their over-indulged influence to pressure the FCC into 
>> applying the inferior, more limited cable and satellite requirements 
>> to TVs and TV-like equipment.
>>
>> If these "friends" of ours in the tech lobby get their way, rather 
>> than being able to shop for the digital TV or other video player you 
>> want and to have a robust array of choices just like everyone else, 
>> you will be forced to beg for an accessible product directly from the 
>> manufacturer. Rather than being able to enjoy the product you want to 
>> buy, you may even be expected to live with an inferior model, if you 
>> can get an accessible inferior model at all. Why are the tech 
>> lobbyists proposing this manifestly unfair arrangement? quite simply, 
>> their scheme would let their client companies off the hook for doing 
>> the right thing but leave consumers with little recourse.
>>
>> What can you do?
>>
>> Right now, the FCC is accepting comments from the public about how to 
>> implement the CVAA's TV and cable and satellite equipment 
>> requirements. AFB will help you voice your concern if you will take 
>> just a moment or two and write your thoughts in an email to us; AFB 
>> will file your comments for you. No, AFB's name will not be on your 
>> comments; your comments will be your own. We are simply offering to 
>> make the process as easy for you as possible because this issue is so 
>> uniquely critical.
>>
>> The FCC's electronic comment filing system is not the easiest system 
>> to use, and any comments filed need to include certain technical 
>> legal references. Send an email to:
>>
>> TV at afb.net
>>
>> We will be glad to add the technical pro forma details for you and to 
>> submit your comments on your behalf for the official record.
>>
>> So what exactly do you need to do?
>>
>> All you need to do to help get things back on the right track is the 
>> following:
>>
>> 1: Write an email of whatever length you wish stating in polite but 
>> pointed fashion that begging for an accessible TV or similar 
>> equipment directly from a manufacturer is categorically unacceptable 
>> to you. Tell the FCC that it was the obvious intention of Congress, 
>> and it is the expectation of people who are blind or visually 
>> impaired across America, that accessible TVs and TV-like equipment 
>> will be readily and regularly available at commercial retail stores. 
>> Remind the FCC that the so-called "upon request" compromise that we 
>> reached with the cable and satellite industries neither involved the 
>> consumer electronics lobby at the time nor applies to their client 
>> companies now. Tell the FCC that people with vision loss will not 
>> stand for the consumer electronics lobby's proposed gutting of one of 
>> the most popular and important parts of the CVAA. Tell the FCC your 
>> own story of frustrations trying to simply adjust the volume or 
>> channels on your equipment, to simply play a show or movie, to find 
>> and activate your TV's video description controls, and to otherwise 
>> make full use of your TV or TV-like equipment.
>>
>> 2: At the conclusion of the text of your email, be absolutely certain 
>> to type your first and last name, followed by your regular mailing 
>> address. When we properly format and file your comments, the FCC 
>> needs to know that you are a real person, and your comments must be 
>> accompanied by more than your email address; they must include a 
>> regular identifying mailing address. It is up to you to decide which 
>> of the addresses that you might be associated with you want to use, a 
>> home, work, or some other appropriate address. So long as your email 
>> includes both your full name and a real related address, your 
>> comments will be accepted as part of the official record. Don't worry 
>> about anything else; we will be sure to fill out the rest of the 
>> required information, such as the docket number for this proceeding 
>> and similar formalities.
>>
>> 3: Between now and Monday, August 5, send your email to:
>>
>> TV at afb.net
>>
>> and simply begin the text of your email with the greeting, "To whom 
>> it may concern." A simple "Sincerely" or "Respectfully" at the 
>> conclusion of your message and before your full name and address will 
>> be fine.
>>
>> Once we receive your email, we will properly format it and submit it 
>> to the FCC. The deadline for all comments is Wednesday, August
>> 7. However, given that we hope and expect that we will receive a 
>> considerable number of comments, please send us your email comments 
>> no later than Monday, August 5 or as soon as you possibly can.
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your advocacy, keep hope alive, and please 
>> share this call to action widely.
>>
>> This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
>> http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/jlester8462%40pccua.edu 
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/sleigland%40bresnan.net 
>