ok.
here is what I found so far where I can build my own for cheap.

processor: $9 chip computer (with 4 GB of ram, 1 GB internal storage, USB 3.0 ports, Wi-fi, bluetooth and installable Linux OS). note the price: $9. That is just retail. Also, this is a full Intel cpu unit, not an ARM device which the current Braille Sense U2 uses.
Li-ion Battery (12V 1.5 Ah): 30
QWERTY style keyboard with USB port: $19. I will assume that a similar braille keyboard will be close to this)
A standard wall wart (12 VDC 1 Amp): $5
3-d printed plastic case (about $15 for a single unit, less if mass manufactured)
9 in 1 memory card interface with 3 additional USB 3.0 slots: $15
7 port USB 3.0 hub for additional ports (internal and external): $30 (fry's electronics)
32 braille cells: approximately $25 per cell (this is a correction based on info found here: https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/legacy/conference/proceedings/2009/TechnologyCognitiveSensory/Matheson.html).. The cost for 32 such cells is $800.

all of the above are retail prices. consider that actual cost of manufacturing on a mass production scale is about 30% of the above figures. Even at that, the cost of producing a single unit for myself is still less than $1200. account for actual cost of manufacturing, and it comes down to less than $600 per unit cost. the cost per cell could be lowered significantly if robot assembly was used in place of people at individual workstations. That would reduce the cost per unit cell from $25 to $5 per cell. even accounting for minimal markup due to shipping, distribution and other overhead, the cost of a unit for an individual would cost about 1/3rd as much as it does now (and that is using the parts I specified above). so, ethically, there is no reason to be charging such amounts as $6,000 per unit. please note the cost of the operating system for this: $0. That is because its freely available and open source. That means the TCO to the user is considerably less. Also, Linux has BUILT in facilities (modules) for interfacing with many devices, including braille interfaces. ABout the only other OS I know of that has this built in is OS X. forget Microsoft, their so-called accessibility is an afterthought and only minimally usable on some of their products.

so, my previous statement was a bit low balled, but it's still in the realm of realism. btw, the cost of the ARM CPU device is a lot more expensive than the above stated chip computer (that is a kick starter project). There is also an alternative called raspberry pie which is also about $50 and also has Linux. There is a project underway to make an accessible version of linux for it, so expect this device to become usable for us in the near future.

anyway, you get the idea that it should be considerably less expensive to purchase a braille note taker than it is. Like I said: price gouging on the government tit.

DE n7zzt Eric


On Jan 10, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Steve wrote:

> Prove that claim, Eric, please as far as the manufacturing cost per cell?  I 
> don't think that is anywhere close to accurate.
> 
> Steve
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Eric Oyen
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
> 
> 
> hmmm. mine must be a top of the line model. It's a Braille Sense U2 40 =
> cell model. retails for $5,995. I am still paying on a 72 month contract =
> to own it. I am about halfway through it, so I have a while to go. =
> Honestly, I don't see how these things should cost this much. Seriously, =
> the cost per cell to actually manufacture a cell is $0.15 (I know, I =
> checked and it took a lot of digging to find that). Mostly, a lions =
> share of the cost is probably the per unit license for windows CE. =
> still, with an alternative CPU and some other goodies (as well as an =
> open source OS), the unit could be made for far cheaper and be more =
> powerful and a better quality.
> 
> ANyway, this is a bit off the ham radio thing.
> 
> DE n7zzt Eric
> 
> On Jan 9, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Jose Tamayo wrote:
> 
>> A braille display, while ideal and very important, is beyond the reach =
> of
>> many folks who need it / want it.  I think the last time I checked, a
>> Braille display was priced at around $200 per refreshable cell.  I may =
> be
>> off since I recently heard a friend of mine purchased a Braille NSpeak =
> for
>> around $2000.
>> =20
>> =20
>> MY BrailleNote was a Humanware BrailleNote MPower BT 32 and it was
>> spectacular but the price tag was very high.  Not affordable for all =
> in Ham
>> radio.
>> =20
>> =20
>> So, indeed the  braille display would be helpful  but it would also =
> depend
>> on the software accessibility.  For example, if the Screen reader =
> can't read
>> the software interface, then a braille display would be useless, or =
> perhaps
>> we were discussing another topic and I am completely off.
>> Smiles=20
>> Jose Tamayo=20
>> =20
>> =20
>> =20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Tom Behler
>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:37 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>> =20
>> Jim:
>> =20
>> I hear you. ...  Braille access to ham rigs is great, and I truly =
> applaud
>> you for all your efforts with the J J software, which is on my list of
>> things to try just as soon as possible.
>> =20
>> But what about those who don't have access to, or cannot afford a =
> Braille
>> display?
>> =20
>> Perhaps I'm missing your point, so please feel free to correct any =
> errors in
>> my thinking here.
>> =20
>> Just trying to have an open discussion.
>> =20
>> Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>> =20
>> =20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Jim Shaffer
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 1:55 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>> =20
>> Ron, good point.
>> =20
>> However, I consider audio access to a radio as minimal accessibility.=20=
> 
>> Imagine a car where, in order to drive it, you had to take your eyes =
> off the
>> road.  I've become convinced that braille provides the only true =
> access to
>> ham rigs.
>> --
>> Jim, KE5AL
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dr. Ronald E. Milliman
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:21 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>> =20
>> Jim and others here on the list, please accept my comments in the =
> positive
>> manner in which they are intended. First, I certainly applaud the =
> actions
>> Mike and Jim have taken. Too many times we only complain but do little =
> to
>> solve our own problems.
>> =20
>> However, we need to communicate to Mike Dishop and John, the Ten Tec
>> developer, that Jim's software approach is only one solution and in =
> the
>> longer run, we need a solution built into the Ten Tec line of =
> transceivers
>> that is completely independent of Jim's software. We need to be able =
> to
>> purchase Ten Tec rigs that are accessible right out of the box just =
> like
>> they are for sighted hams, much like the Kenwood line of transceivers.
>> =20
>> Ron, K8HSY
>> =20
>> =20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Jim Shaffer
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:08 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>> =20
>> Here's a note I sent to the Ten Tec developer in response to his =
> query...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Shaffer
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility of Ten Tec radios
>> =20
>> John, in addition to VFO, Frequency and mode, blind hams need readings =
> such
>> as s-meter, SWR, AGC on/off and level, noise blanker on/off and level, =
> noise
>> reduction on/off and level, VOX/breakin settings, mic and speech =
> processor
>> settings, ALC, and anything that might effect operations.  For =
> example, the
>> TS-590 has a feature to drive an amp with minimal power from the =
> radio.  If
>> accidentally set, the rig basically doesn't transmit.  It is nice to =
> know
>> the receive filter settings, but these are generally set by ear =
> anyway.  I
>> would say that the ability to control the AF and RF gain is of minimal
>> importance, at least where accessibility is concerned.
>> =20
>> Also, for many radios, access to the memories and menus is often =
> difficult,
>> if possible at all.  My software reports and sets memory values as =
> well as
>> providing text for the menu settings.
>> =20
>> Also, I need to be able to provide support for reasonably priced rigs.
>> Unfortunately, many blind folks are on limited budgets.
>> =20
>> hth, and thanks again.
>> --
>> Jim Shaffer, KE5AL
>> =20
>> =20
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com=20
>> =20
>> =20
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com