Thread Subject: 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.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: geoff freed
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: rewording of 4.2B
per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of 4.2B,
Supplemental Audio Playback (http://teitac.org/wiki/
EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
CURRENT VERSION:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television
tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped
with ancillary audio program playback circuitry for support of video
description.
PROPOSED REWRITE:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
and decoding circuitry for support of video description. Digital-
signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers,
shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback and decoding
circuitry for support of video description.
comments?
thanks.
geoff/ncam
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
This looks good.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
looks fine to me.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: geoff freed
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:06 AM
Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of 4.2B, Supplemental Audio Playback (http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
CURRENT VERSION:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback circuitry for support of video description.
PROPOSED REWRITE:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback and decoding circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback and decoding circuitry for support of video description.
comments?
thanks.
geoff/ncam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
The EWG is reconciling such language to ensure consistency.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Greg Fields
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:47 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
Looks good. The only comment/question is whether we want to continue to
conform to using 'must' or 'should' and avoiding future-looking words
like 'shall'.
We're using 'must' and 'should' elsewhere as is other subcommittees.
Thoughts?
Greg Fields
-----------------------
Sent via BlackBerry Curve
----- Original Message -----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thu Jun 28 08:06:50 2007
Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of 4.2B,
Supplemental Audio Playback
(http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
CURRENT VERSION:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television
tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped
with ancillary audio program playback circuitry for support of video
description.
PROPOSED REWRITE:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback and
decoding circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal
television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be
equipped with ancillary audio program playback and decoding circuitry
for support of video description.
comments?
thanks.
geoff/ncam
From: Greg Fields
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
Looks good. The only comment/question is whether we want to continue to conform to using 'must' or 'should' and avoiding future-looking words like 'shall'.
We're using 'must' and 'should' elsewhere as is other subcommittees.
Thoughts?
Greg Fields
-----------------------
Sent via BlackBerry Curve
----- Original Message -----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thu Jun 28 08:06:50 2007
Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of 4.2B, Supplemental Audio Playback (http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
CURRENT VERSION:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback circuitry for support of video description.
PROPOSED REWRITE:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback and decoding circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback and decoding circuitry for support of video description.
comments?
thanks.
geoff/ncam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
From: Gerald Freda
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
Proposed rewrite looks good to me. thanks
_____
Gerald Freda
Vice President, Operations & Eng.
<http://www.captionmax.com/> CaptionMax, Inc
703.327.7735
202.257.3177 cell
800-224-6555 pager
"Faster. Better. Nicer."
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:42 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
looks fine to me.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: geoff <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > freed
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:06 AM
Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of 4.2B,
Supplemental Audio Playback
(http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
CURRENT VERSION:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers,
shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback circuitry for
support of video description. Digital-signal television tuners, including
tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio
program playback circuitry for support of video description.
PROPOSED REWRITE:
Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers,
shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback and decoding
circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal television
tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall be equipped with
ancillary audio program playback and decoding circuitry for support of video
description.
comments?
thanks.
geoff/ncam
_____
From: James Elekes
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
One editorial to be consistant with EWG instructions, change "shall"
to "must". Otherwise, Looks Good.
Jim/AB-TTC
At 07:06 AM 6/28/2007, you wrote:
>per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of
>4.2B, Supplemental Audio Playback
>(<http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback>http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
>
>CURRENT VERSION:
>
>Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
>computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
>circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal
>television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall
>be equipped with ancillary audio program playback circuitry for
>support of video description.
>
>
>PROPOSED REWRITE:
>
>Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
>computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
>and decoding circuitry for support of video description.
>Digital-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
>computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback
>and decoding circuitry for support of video description.
>
>
>comments?
>
>
>thanks.
>
>geoff/ncam
>
From: Blanchard, Robert
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
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
From: James Elekes
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
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
>
>
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff freed
>Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:07 AM
>To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
>
>
>per yesterday's telecon, here's a proposal for the rewording of
>4.2B, Supplemental Audio Playback
>(<http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback>http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#B._Supplemental_Audio_Playback)
>
>CURRENT VERSION:
>
>Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
>computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
>circuitry for support of video description. Digital-signal
>television tuners, including tuner cards for use in computers, shall
>be equipped with ancillary audio program playback circuitry for
>support of video description.
>
>
>
>PROPOSED REWRITE:
>
>Analog-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
>computers, shall be equipped with secondary audio program playback
>and decoding circuitry for support of video description.
>Digital-signal television tuners, including tuner cards for use in
>computers, shall be equipped with ancillary audio program playback
>and decoding circuitry for support of video description.
>
>
>
>comments?
>
>
>
>thanks.
>
>geoff/ncam
>
From: Jasionowski, Tony
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: 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
From: James Elekes
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
Think discussion occurred before Sean departed. My notes indicate
Karen, you and I agreed of the necessity to incorporate analog since
508 is not related solely to procurement as previously noted.
Jim/AB-T/TC
At 01:38 PM 6/28/2007, you wrote:
>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
>
From: Blanchard, Robert
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
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
>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>
From: Geoff Freed
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: 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
>>
From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
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
>>
From: James Elekes
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: 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
> >>
From: Jasionowski, Tony
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: rewording of 4.2B
Folks,
Since there are two (2) differing positions, I agree with Geoff that we should discuss and resolve this at our next July 11th conference call.
As Jim said Happy 4th to all.
Tony
Tony Jasionowski
Panasonic Corporation of North America
AV Sub. Com. Co-chair
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:04:23 -0700
From: "Blanchard, Robert" < = 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"
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
>
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
This is what I said at the meeting as well. 508 is a law that guides not
only what the government can procure, but what it can use. If there are
old analog TVs sitting around federal agencies that were built before the
Decoder Circuitry Act kicked in (1993) - which I have absolutely no doubt
that there are - these are not going to have captioning capability and
should not be used. Thus it is absolutely essential that analog TVs
continue to be covered by this section. I have jury duty on July 11 and
will likely not be back in time to participate in the call. But this is
sort of non-negotiable - it goes to the very heart of television
accessibility.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Freed" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 6:31 AM
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
>>>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
Does this apply to more than TVs? Is all analog in all AV equipment
banned?
I don't understand the full scope of this. good to get an overview of this
provision from Larry and company as well as all the places it might apply.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jasionowski, Tony
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 11:54 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
Folks,
Since there are two (2) differing positions, I agree with Geoff that we
should discuss and resolve this at our next July 11th conference call.
As Jim said Happy 4th to all.
Tony
Tony Jasionowski
Panasonic Corporation of North America
AV Sub. Com. Co-chair
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:04:23 -0700
From: "Blanchard, Robert" < = 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"
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
>
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
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
>> >>
From: Salaets, Ken
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
Karen, everything is negotiable. :-) That's how processes such as this are steered toward consensus, I appreciate the sentiments you, Jim and others have expressed on this issue, but I also appreciate my industry colleagues' perspectives. It occurs to me that this matter may be out of scope relative to what needs to happen here, i.e., motivating Federal agencies to modernize their inventory to ensure comparable access. Is there another avenue or venue where the Board, advocacy and industry can collaborate to achieve the desired result?
Thanks and a good weekend to all.
Ken Salaets
ITI
From: Jasionowski, Tony
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: rewording of 4.2B
Jim, Karen,
I now understand and agree that analog TV should be included for the reasons you mentioned.
Paul,
Can you please redraft 4.2B inclusive of analog TV so we can wrap this up this weekend in time for the EWG to finalize in time?
Thanks.
Tony
Tony Jasionowski
Panasonic Corporation of North America
AV Sub. Com. Co-chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:13:27 -0500
From: "Karen Peltz Strauss" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID: <0b2d01c7ba81$92fadc90$9865fea9@PELTZSTRAUSS>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
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.
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2007 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
I'm not sure I understand the concern from industry. If new analog products
are not being made or sold, then the provision would not affect industry.
So what was the concern of industry on including it? Can you help me?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Salaets, Ken
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:25 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
>
> Karen, everything is negotiable. :-) That's how processes
> such as this are steered toward consensus, I appreciate the
> sentiments you, Jim and others have expressed on this issue,
> but I also appreciate my industry colleagues' perspectives.
> It occurs to me that this matter may be out of scope relative
> to what needs to happen here, i.e., motivating Federal
> agencies to modernize their inventory to ensure comparable
> access. Is there another avenue or venue where the Board,
> advocacy and industry can collaborate to achieve the desired result?
>
> Thanks and a good weekend to all.
>
> Ken Salaets
> ITI
>
>
From: Jasionowski, Tony
Date: Sat, Jun 30 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: rewording of 4.2B
Ken and all,
Agreed, therefore, as orginally proposed let's resolve 4.2B during next July 11 AV sub. com so others can weigh in here.
Thanks.
Tony
Panasonic
AV sub. com. co-chair
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:24:37 -0400
From: "Salaets, Ken" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
"TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Karen, everything is negotiable. :-) That's how processes such as this are steered toward consensus, I appreciate the sentiments you, Jim and others have expressed on this issue, but I also appreciate my industry colleagues' perspectives. It occurs to me that this matter may be out of scope relative to what needs to happen here, i.e., motivating Federal agencies to modernize their inventory to ensure comparable access. Is there another avenue or venue where the Board, advocacy and industry can collaborate to achieve the desired result?
Thanks and a good weekend to all.
Ken Salaets
ITI
From: Sean Hayes
Date: Sat, Jun 30 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: rewording of 4.2B
I don't think there is a real concern here. We wanted to essentially reference/harmonize with the current FCC requirement, which no longer talks about or allows the sale of analog TV's.
So the thought was that this is now redundant. However I don't think anyone has any issue with a prohibition against Federal Gov using pre-1993 TV's without caption playback capability.
Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 30 June 2007 01:23
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
I'm not sure I understand the concern from industry. If new analog products
are not being made or sold, then the provision would not affect industry.
So what was the concern of industry on including it? Can you help me?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Salaets, Ken
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:25 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] rewording of 4.2B
>
> Karen, everything is negotiable. :-) That's how processes
> such as this are steered toward consensus, I appreciate the
> sentiments you, Jim and others have expressed on this issue,
> but I also appreciate my industry colleagues' perspectives.
> It occurs to me that this matter may be out of scope relative
> to what needs to happen here, i.e., motivating Federal
> agencies to modernize their inventory to ensure comparable
> access. Is there another avenue or venue where the Board,
> advocacy and industry can collaborate to achieve the desired result?
>
> Thanks and a good weekend to all.
>
> Ken Salaets
> ITI
>
>
WebAIM is an initiative of:
