Thread Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 12:20 PM

Ha - I wrote my response before even reading this. Having worked for the
feds on more than one occasion, this is my experience as well. You would
not believe the old stuff that they hang onto.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Elekes" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B


> Paul,
>
> Agree but, you're dealing with the Federal government (no demeaning
> intent to our colleagues). I know of at least three small,independent
> Federal entities, covered by 508 that rather than procure equipment
> are holding their old equipment together. It is the mindset of the
> "Career Bureaucrat" heading the organization. His belief, "Taxpayers
> bought it for us, we should maintain/use it for as long as reasonably
> possible".
>
> You can't fight a mindset like that so, you do the next best thing.
> Make sure he understands if you buy it, you will have to maintain it
> properly for as long as it remains in service.
>
> Just my two cents. Have A Fabulous 4th!
>
> Regards, Jim
>
> James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA/CPM
> Presidential Appointee/Public Member and
> Chairman, Telecommunications, Electronic/Information Technologies
> Committee
> United States Access Board
>
> (O) 888.564.8430
> At 09:19 AM 6/29/2007, you wrote:
>>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
>> >>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University