Harvey,
I changed the subject line to try to make it more relevant to the content of
the messages.
I understand what you're saying about having more than one service provider,
pretty much and I agree. The kind of standards I'd like to see have to do
with the type of technology used. For example, why can't we standardize on
one type of set-top box that would work for all cable companies? The same
thing goes for cell phones; I should be able to change my cell phone
provider and still use the same phone I have now (assuming the technology
itself hasn't changed). It makes no sense to have to get rid of a phone I
like just because I want to switch my carrier for a plan I like better. But
a Verizon iPhone won't work on AT&T, and that's just plain silly.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 18:25
Subject: Re: blindness sucks and more
> IF we standardized on one cable company, the price would go through the
> roof
> and no one could afford it. Perfect example, where I live, you can have
> Comcast cable, or Verizon FIOS, Comcast's prices and willingness to work
> with you if you want a better rate is much better here, than where my
> mother
> lives, just across town, where there is only comcast, they priced her
> right
> out of watching tv. I switched to verizon for the internet speed increase
> and being sick of dealing with comcast before verizon came in, the whole
> attitude was 100% different all of a sudden.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: blindness sucks and more
>
>
>> Harvey,
>>
>> One reason England can have accessible set top boxes is that they don't
>> have
>> to deal with multiple methods of distributing TV programs. Here in the
>> US,
>> we have at least three different cable companies as well as two different
>> satellite providers, and each one has its own set top boxes, all of which
>> are different. Add to that the fact that each company has multiple
>> generations of set top boxes, and you begin to understand the tangled
>> mess
>> we have.
>>
>> It goes against the grain to say it in America, but we would have been
>> much
>> better off if we had picked one standard for each distribution method and
>> adhered to it. Incidentally, the same problem exists with cell carriers.
>> If you need an example to demonstrate my point, consider the cassette,
>> which
>> was developed and standardized in the mid 60s by Philips. The cassette
>> remained viable until it was replaced by better technologies, but it took
>> about thirty years for that to happen. Today, we have this silly notion
>> that we should let the marketplace decide, with the result that we keep
>> differently inventing the wheel.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Harvey Heagy" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 15:13
>> Subject: Re: blindness sucks and more
>>
>>
>>> Look at England where they have accessible cable boxes, accessible DVD
>>> players, DVR recorders made by Panasonic. So if Panasonic can make them
>>> for
>>> England, why not for us? There seems to be more sympathy for
>>> accessibility
>>> over there than here.
>>>
>>> Cobalt still makes the talking microwave oven that speaks everything,
>>> but
>>> no
>>> longer for the United States, and I don't know if a converter would make
>>> it
>>> work here. But my point is that England seems to have far more
>>> accessibility than we have. Someone from England spoke at last year's
>>> ACB
>>> convention on that very issue.
>>> Harvey
>>>
>
|
