Butch,

Perhaps you should talk with some of the people who are pushing for more 
access (as I have).  It's a very complicated knotty problem, often with one 
group working at cross purposes with another, and I'm talking about the 
groups that want the access, not even considering the broadcasters and cable 
providers, all of whom have their own issues.  For example, if you have 
audio description and Spanish language running on SAP, which one takes 
precedence if a show has both?  According to the law as it now stands, 
Spanish language.  This is not easy to fix.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Butch Bussen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:58
Subject: Re: blindness sucks and more


> We're not talking about one cdompany, just a standard way of delivery.
> We all have had a standard telephone, land line that is, and look at the
> competition there.  And, there is also utility regulation, well at least
> there use to be.  No reason you can't have several companies using
> same boxes, in fact if all boxes were the same, the price of the boxes
> would go down.  The main reason we don't have accessible stuff in this
> country is no one really gives a damn, and neither organization we have
> pushes for it.  Look at what we got in a d a, not much.
> 73
> Butch
> WA0VJR
> Node 3148
> Wallace, ks.
>
>
> On Thu, 30 May
> 2013, John Miller wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>