Here is a part of a discussion from another list.  I thought it might be
enlightening.

 From: "Gashel, James" <[log in to unmask]
 To: David Andrews <[log in to unmask]
 Subject: Fw: NFB strategy and Video Description
 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:22:18 -0400

 The NFB's position on video discription is definitely not analagous to
that
 of the entertainment industry.  In fact, we have refused to sign on
their
 challenge of the FCC rule since our reason for opposing the rule is
much
 different.  I realize that some of the messages you have read from the
ACB
 proponents may say otherwise, and they try to paint anyone who opposes
 discriptive video as being the "bad guy," regardless of the reason.
 However, I would simply ask you to consider the following, which they
are
 not saying:

 The NFB membership has considered the question of Discriptive video in
 regard to whether or not it would merit a federal mandate.  The
question
is
 not whether people like or don't like the service.  So, as an
organization
 that must advocate for a whole variety of things, we always have to
consider
 whether the need justifies a mandate.

 Speaking in general, the question to be considered is the fact that
every
 mandate you do support has its price.  I don't mean that the group
wanting
 the mandate will necessarily have to pay money to have the mandate
 fulfilled, and, in fact, normally it does not.  The nature of mandates
is
 that someone else is going to be required to bear the financial burden
to
 abide by the mandate.

 However, the group insisting upon the mandate also pays a price for
 prevailing.  In this case the price would be in the extent to which
people
 who can see are willing to accept the view that blind people are able
to
 address most of their own needs and compete with others on equal terms.
 There may be other prices as well, but this would certainly be one of
them.

 In the view of many blind people, myself included, acceptance of blind
 people on terms of equality with others in society is our greatest
goal.
 So, in considering things like accommodations that we want because of
 blindness, we need to assess how the request might affect acceptance of
us
 by others.

 The NFB puts a great deal of effort into fighting for mandates that our
 members find will address real needs.  For example, we advocate for
laws
 that require schools to provide blind children with Braille literacy
skills.
 Also, we fight for laws that require governmental entities to purchase
 information technology that is compatible with speech and Braille
output
 technology used for nonvisual access.  Currently, we are asking the
Congress
 to require all new voting systems installed in the wake of the 2000
election
 to be independently usable by blind people.  Also, we are asking the
 Congress to authorize payment of Social Security Disability benefits on
 grounds of blindness, even if the blind person has an income of around
 $30,000.00 per year.  All of these things are requests for mandates,
and
all
 of them certainly do have prices attached.  However, we have felt that
the
 needs involved outweigh the costs.

 This has not been the case with described entertainment on television.
In
 my case, I grew up "watching" television, and I can attest to the fact
that
 blind people do enjoy television.  I suppose there may be things that I
miss
 out on by not seeing, but that is true with life in general.  Should I
 insist that the government provide me with a personal assistant to
accompany
 me throughout the day to describe things?  Some people with
disabilities
are
 definitely advocating for personal assistance laws, but these are
people
who
 are unable to do things physically for themselves.  Should blind people
also
 join this effort and try to get personal describers?  This is a
legitimate
 question.

 My point is that we need to think realistically about what we ask for
and
 consider the price to be paid.  It is not responsible just to advocate
for
 everything that comes along that we like.

 In the case of television, much of the content is audio.  Also, I am
sure
 that I probably gravitate toward programs where that is so.  This would
be
 because I can't see, but it might also be because I just enjoy
information
 more than entertainment programming now on television.

 Speaking of information, The NFB very strongly supports the view that
all
 information which is printed on the television screen should be spoken.
 This would be a mandate, but it is the kind of mandate that really
makes
 sense.  I am talking about the emergency warning information shown
across
 the bottom of the screen or even the telephone numbers that are often
given
 in advertising.  Unfortunately, the rule that the Federal
Communications
 Commission has made does not require this but does require described
 entertainment  To many of us, that makes no sense.

 Also, I should add that the position we have taken on this is not in
any
way
 identical to that of others who are challenging the discriptive video
rule.
 For example, we have refused to simply sign on to the suits that were
 brought by the Motion Picture Association or any of the others.  Our
suit
to
 get the rule turned back to the FCC is entirely our own position, and I
 doubt that the other plaintiffs will agree with us on some points.  As
for
 our position, we definitely don't agree with the other plaintiffs in
there
 argument that requiring discriptive video would be a violation of
freedom
of
 speech.  If we did agree with that position, then we might also be
saying
 that requiring accessible information on a web site would be a
violation
of
 free speech as well.  That is one reason why we couldn't sign on to the
 industry lawsuit.

 Speaking of access to technology, I really know of no organization of
or
for
 the blind that has done more to advocate effectively for accessible
 technology than the NFB, and we have been willing to put our money
where
our
 mouth is.  Those who are advocating for discriptive video have not been
out
 there doing nearly as much as the NFB does in this area.  But
advocating
for
 a mandate to have discriptive video on the one hand and advocating for
 accessible technology on the other are very much different issues as we
see
 it.

 Finally, I should tell you that the NFB's position on this matter is
 required by votes of our national convention, with between 2,000 and
3,000
 blind people present each time the resolutions have come up.  The votes
have
 not been on whether or not we like descriptive video but rather on
whether
 or not we think it should be mandated by the government.  Frankly,
since
 this has been the issue, there has really not been a controversy.

 Anyway, this is our answer to your question.  I realize that you may
find
 having discriptive video to be particularly helpful, but I hope you
will
at
 least give some thought to the broader issues we are facing.  You might
also
 wonder why the ardent proponents of a discriptive video mandate don't
put
in
 nearly the effort or resources that the NFB puts into other access
issues.
 Perhaps we just have a different understanding of what blind people
really
 need.  Anyway, I hope you will think about this and about why many many
 blind people who do enjoy this service just don't think it should be
 required by the government.

 Thanks, J. G.
 For our future communications, please note my e-mail address and verify
that
 your system is current.

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Randy G. Black <
 [log in to unmask]

 To: <
 [log in to unmask]

 Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:52 PM
 Subject: NFB strategy and Video Description

 After reading various messages on various lists about the latest video
 description spat, I feel compelled to express my opinion.

 I understand the ACB strategy. They see this as an informationaccess
 issue all
 the way. They put it on a par with closed captioning. Is that the case?
 I think reasonable people can argue both sides of the question. But I
 don't
 think you can say closed captioning is an exact science with video
 description being cast aside as just pure guesswork. Having spent some
 time
 on general disability lists, I recall major threads discussing the
 captioning
 quality of various programs and captioners. From what I know, standards
 are
 continuing to evolve in this area as well.

 I don't understand the NFB. strategy. Why are we siding with the
 entertainment industry that wants to deny us access to visual
information?
 How do the blind win if the federation side of this case prevails? All
I
 see
 there is access to less information. I'm open to listening to other
 opinions.
 But as a part of your answer, please help me understand how blind
people
 benefit if the side we've taken wins. I know what the entertainment
 industry
 gets out of winning this case. But I don't see what the members of this
 organization get other than bad press and less access to visual
 information,
 some of which I'd like to know about. Video description is more than
just
 phone numbers not spoken and emergency weather bulletins important as
 those
 things are. In our city, there are a couple of companies who put out
very
 artsy tv ads with only music included in the sound track. Some of you
may
 not care who puts out that ad but if I do, the information should be
 readily
 available to me.
 I personally believe video description proponents have at times
oversold
 its importance. Oponents have tried less successfully in my mind to
 undersell it. I hope the federation will reconsider its position and
end
 its
 support of the entertainment industry.
 There are times to fight ACB. I don't think this ever has or should
have
 been one of those times. And even if their are reasons not to like the
 current scheme, we'd be better off staying out of the industry backed
 lawsuit. I don't think our interests mesh with theirs.

 Randy Black Member,
 Dane County Chapter,
 National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin

Hands-on Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet
http://members.home.com/poehlman1/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
voice: 301.949.7599


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html