[nfb-talk] Losing DVS

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Sun Jan 18 05:06:09 UTC 2009

We represent the opinion of the majority of our members.  You can't 
seem to accept that.


At 08:32 AM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>The NFB has a responsibility to represent the needs of blind people, 
>not the government, not tax payers, not TV and movie producers.
>It's fine with me if you want to believe in social Darwinism. But 
>the NFB has a responsibility to represent blind people as a whole. 
>It's unethical for you or the NFB to impose your own political 
>philosophy on blind people as a whole.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter" 
><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Losing DVS
>>It is my opinion that the NFB is not responsible for others making 
>>excuses based on what we have said.
>>For example, I say that it should not be mandatory to wear a 
>>seatbelt in a car.  My justifications are that the government has 
>>no business telling me what I must or must not do to secure my own 
>>safety, and the basic Darwinian principle that if people choose to 
>>place themselves at increased risk of dying in the event of an 
>>accident, this takes them out of the gene pool.
>>If car makers respond to my statement that seatbelts should be 
>>optional by saying that they won't provide seatbelts in new cars, 
>>should I be held responsible for their decision?  What about if I 
>>were part of an organization that advocates for safety on the road?
>>I do happen to hold this view: It should not be illegal to choose 
>>not to wear a seatbelt in a car.  Of course, if you're pulled over 
>>for speeding and your kids aren't seatbelted in, you may possibly 
>>be guilty of reckless endangerment or something.  But that's 
>>neither here nor there--it should not be mandatory.  I do wear mine, however.
>>DVS is not significantly different.  The NFB found it premature to 
>>make it mandatory without even considering WHAT exactly to make 
>>mandatory, if and where it would be useful, and establishing some 
>>standards and practices for audio description.
>>Do you watch the evening news?  Without closed captioning, a deaf 
>>person cannot.  A blind person, however, needs no audio description 
>>whatsoever for the evening news.  What would you describe, and 
>>how?  There are sometimes short segments that could be 
>>described.  Many receivers support one or two SAP channels.  Many 
>>more are possible with the digital transition.  Could not one of 
>>these be standardized as the DVS channel? Those who need it should 
>>be able to acquire the means to support the appropriate channel.
>>Once some headway is made in other areas, regulation may make 
>>sense. Until then, there are questions that John and his friends do 
>>not consider. The way to make the headway is to incentivize the 
>>development.  Businesses took the cheap out in saying that if the 
>>NFB doesn't think it should be mandatory that they shouldn't do it 
>>because it wasn't worth anything to them to spend the money.  Make 
>>it worthwhile to help blaze the trail and set the standards, and 
>>watch how quickly they react then!
>>At that point, regulation would codify existing best practice, 
>>rather than becoming another unfunded mandate to "do something 
>>about this problem".
>>I supported the recent telecom accessibility act.  I think 
>>regulating DVS at this time is putting the cart before the horse, 
>>but the act was too important otherwise to be ignored.  I 
>>encouraged other Federationists to support it, and I know that many did.
>>I was saddened that the national office did not take interest in 
>>the legislation, but I understand why they did not--other than 
>>giving the FCC the right to mandate DVS without considering the 
>>problem first, it didn't really pertain to blindness.  I think 
>>sometimes that we get too caught up in our own disability and fail 
>>to recognize that there are other disabilities out there and we all 
>>face institutionalized exclusion practices.  If we can help end 
>>that in some way, we should.
>>We could have also used the opportunity to encourage the FCC to 
>>work to determine best practices and standards for DVS so that they 
>>may make an informed decision about what to regulate and when, once 
>>given the power to do so.  I consider that an opportunity missed.
>>On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 02:11:51PM -0500, Joel Zimba wrote:
>>>let me get this straight:
>>>to re-cap
>>>a gentleman posts saying that a service he enjoys is going 
>>>away.  He also says that the NFB is in part responsible for this.
>>>Another chap posts that he is wrong and can read about why he is 
>>>wrong in the organizations newsletters.
>>>The original statements of gentleman A are all confirmed to be true.
>>>As a rhetorical debate point, Gentleman C. reminds A that it is 
>>>simply his opinion that the services should be mandatory.
>>>Isn't it just opinion that these services should NOT be mandatory 
>>>on the part of others?
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 
>1/16/2009 3:09 PM

More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list