Thread Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B

From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 8:25 AM

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

Folks: Here's my two cents. I don't understand logic of the
maintenance requirement. All current analog TVs in inventory should
already comply with this part and if they need "maintenance" it is
probably more cost-effective to purchase a new TV, which by FCC
regulation is required to be digital. There is probably no harm in
retaining these analog rules, but it seems unnecessary.

Thanks, Paul

Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Geoff Freed
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 7:31 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B


We should bring this up at the next call (which I believe is July 11)
to make sure it gets resolved, but I agree with Jim: even though it
won't be possible to buy analog televisions, current sets will be in
use for a long time. I don't see how it can be left out.

Geoff.


On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Blanchard, Robert wrote:

> 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: James Elekes: "Re: rewording of 4.2B"
• Previous message in Thread: Geoff Freed: "Re: rewording of 4.2B"