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

[ckrugman at sbcglobal.net]

----- 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
>
>