Thread Subject: Re: Need comments on provision for InterferncewithHearing Devices

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 26 2007 10:30 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Need comments on provision forInterferncewithHearing Devices"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Yes.



Also

"As much as possible" - raises the question - 'possible with what?"
possible with current hardware? current software? with how much effort?



Remember - readily achievable and undue burden are still in effect. So the
"lowest possible level" language may be ok because it automatically becomes



"lowest possible level that is readily achievable" for 255



"lowest possible level that isn't an undue burden for the government to
purchase" for 508



Actually, if we just leave it as lowest possible - then the limits
automatically engage.

This is testable by companies but not by anyone else.

Makes it possible to comply but hard to externally verify without company
providing rationale and/or info.






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:48 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Need comments on provision for
InterferncewithHearing Devices

The original standard is problematic because the "lowest possible level" is
extremely subjective which leaves procurement officials with no way to judge
conformance based on vendor provided information. Without reference to a
metric or some measurable way to evaluate the level of interference, the
standard doesn't accomplish much. Unfortunately, the suggested re-wording
doesn't address the problem -- "reduced as much as possible" is no more
measurable than "lowest possible level". Is there not some metric used to
measure interference or is it just a subjective rating?



Diane Golden

NASCIO





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Brenda Battat
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:13 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Need comments on provision for Interfernce
withHearing Devices

At the TC SC yesterday the following provision was discussed. Consumers
want to keep the original 508 text at 2.3-B. Alternative language has been
proposed - see below - as some people have expressed concern about the
"lowest possible level" wording. We do not want to weaken the provision,
which we believe the new alternative text does. Please review the two
versions below and give me your feedback ASAP



Thank y ou



Brenda Battat Co chair TC SC

1194.23(i) Interference with Hearing Device

This text is unchanged from original 508 text. It is at 2.3-B of the EWG
July 6 Draft.

Interference to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear
implants, and assistive listening devices) must be reduced to the lowest
possible level that allows a user of hearing technologies to utilize the
telecommunications product.



Note: Text may need to be reviewed again; "lowest possible level" is
problematic. Possible alternative text:

Potential sources of interference to hearing technologies (including hearing
aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) must be reduced as
much as possible to provide a more compatible environment for a user of
hearing technologies to utilize the telecommunications product.

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Need comments on provision forInterferncewithHearing Devices"