Butch,
Sandy got 7500 dollars out of the ADA law suit she filed against a
transcriptionist company which wouldn't hire her because she was blind. It
was handled by the EEOC legally. Most importantly, within one year, they
hired a blind person to work for them. By the time we paid the taxes on it,
there wasn't a whole lot left quite frankly.
Phil.
K0NX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Butch Bussen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:58 PM
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
>>>>
>>
>>
>
|
