Thread Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B

From: Blanchard, Robert
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 1:05 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: rewording of 4.2B"
• Previous message in thread: James Elekes: "Re: rewording of 4.2B"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I clearly don't understand the logic. Manufacturers are prohibited from
manufacturing analog only TVs, but the government is allowed to buy such
devices and also require legacy devices to magically conform to a new
requirement?

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:54 AM
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B

Per other email by ???

Analog will be in gov a long time
I would include it.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jasionowski, Tony
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:38 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
>
> Jim, Robert,
> As I recall only 3 people (Jim, Karen, me) were on the call
> when we discussed this and we agreed that there were not
> enough participants to conclude that analog should be included?
> I might be wrong?
> Does anyone else recall this discussion?
> Thanks.
> Tony Jasionowski
> Panasonic
> AV Co-Chair
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:27:22 -0500
> From: James Elekes < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Message-ID:
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Robert,
>
> Issue discussed yesterday's Audio/Video S/C. As noted during
> discussion, Section 508 is not only a procurement but, also a
> maintenance of purchased technologies requirement. Based on service
> life for these technologies, it is quite possible Federal agencies
> will continue to have analog technology in daily use far beyond the
> implementation of the revised 508 Standards. There was consensus on
> the call yesterday that not including any reference to analog may
> imply or, could be read that Federal agencies cannot use that which
> is not specified.
>
> In light of our conversation, analog was included.
>
> Best, Jim
>
> James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA/CPM
> Presidential Appointee/Public Member and
> Chairman, Telecommunications/Technologies Committee
> United States Access Board
>
> 888.564.8430 (Direct Voice/Fax)
>
> At 10:58 AM 6/28/2007, you wrote:
> >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7B99D.241B6BFE"
> >
> >A point of clarification: the sale of analog only televisions in the
> >US is illegal. Devices containing tuner must have both analog and
> >digital reception capability. The rewrite contained below is
> >technically flawed.
> >
> >Robert Blanchard
> >Sony
>

• Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: rewording of 4.2B"
• Previous message in Thread: James Elekes: "Re: rewording of 4.2B"