On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:01 , Josh de Lioncourt wrote:
I disagree with government interference in the development of
consumer products, which I have stated numerous times on this
thread now. If that puts me in direct opposition to one of the
above laws, then so be it. I support the ADA in the situations in
which it most frequently applies, (i.e. access to places of public
accomidation.)
I think I have illustrated my views pretty succinctly as to why.
Nope, I do not follow your arguments. From what I have read here on
this list, your reasons apply only to not extending ADA.
I do not support government interference in the design or
functionality of any consumer products. I really don't know how to
make it any more clear than that. If you don't follow it then...
*shrug* Others on the list have understood what I was saying.
Josh;
Surly you don't think that the government has no role to play here.
Otherwise we end up with all kinds of devices, in particular cell
phones and radio type devices interfering with each other. You must
agree that the FCC should have regulatory authority over the use of
the public airwaves don't you? How about insuring that phones are
always able to reach 911 as a safety matter? Or public phones which
would not be attachable to TTY? Or phone systems or phones which
could not reach a relay service for the deaf? How far are you willing
to take your logic?
I think it's wise to remember that phones are a public utility and
that cell phones use the public airways as a public trustee. They
give up certain rights that might exist in the open marketplace when
they use the publics airwaves. We give them the rights to use that
public space, tehe electromagnetic spectrum, only if they meet
certain legal requirements. Are you suggesting that companies should
have unfettered access to the public airways without meeting any
requirements, technical, safety of accessibility as a public trustee
of a public resource?
Greg Kearney
