The interesting thing about David Leopasty's bell complaint is that David
is seeking what I sought from bell, an accessible set top satellite
box...starting in 2018.
Bell's solution? we will just not charge you.
When Fibe tv came along, bell did not, has not insured that audio
description will work there either.
Bell's solution? we will just not charge you, or we will give you
equipment for free that itself is not accessible.
For the engineering record, latency is not the problem with digital,
the problem is frequencies used on the VOIp connections tested...and that is
another part of the problem.
I went to an entirely different company...who must use bell, because bell
owns the floor.
Due to my other conflict with bell, they simply said no. The copper
infrastructure is here, has not been removed, nothing needs upgrading.
Connecting the inside wire to the outside, which ought to be achievable
via one of those so called digital options, was not even tried.
And yes, I tested bell's VoIP modem, and fainted from the effort.
All bell had to do was complete an order from a contracted company,
instead they racked up fees, without doing a single thing Teksavy paid
them to do.
Analog is more sound rich than VOIP too, which is only as solid as the
connection involved.
We have an aging population that still needs even 911, something lost with
bell's VOIP too, before you get to what can happen with aging ears.
Could I visit a teksavy location to see how their equipment works? no,
likely they do not even have their own anymore.
what really bothers me is that all the infrastructure is in the hands of a
company who gets to decide that if you are not disabled by their
definition, you cannot connect with the world..no matter t how modern the
technology.
Karen
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023, Evan Leibovitch via talk wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:50???PM Dhaval Giani <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:36???AM Evan Leibovitch via talk <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 11:40???AM James Knott via talk <[email protected]>
wrote:
Bell faces human rights complaint over allegations of inaccessibility for
blind customers
https://globalnews.ca/news/9373449/bell-human-rights-complaint/
This is about what Bell is not providing, even though other companies
do. However, this is current technology, not obsolete, which Karen seems
to need.
I call shenanigans on that perspective.
Given the nature of our group it is natural that some here will see the
issue as merely one of choice and pace of technology, but IMO it must be
seen as a broader issue of problem-solving.
Evan, I did not read James' response in that vein. I read it as genuine
curiosity.
Forgive me for insisting that technical curiosity take a back seat to the
real-world medical needs of people. But I will insist. This is a real
problem, not an experiment nor a business decision.
Keep in mind that this group is primarily engineers/problem solvers.
So far the engineering-based problem-solving I've witnessed in this thread
has amounted to "you can't get there from here". Explaining how Bell's
system works now does zero to solve Karen's technical issues, let alone the
quality of the customer-service response to her actions to date.
And I think it is an important question to answer. What is it that changes
that it causes Karen issues?
Indeed, that is Bell's problem that it MUST solve. If the transition has
broken backwards compatibility (to use our lingo), they must fix the
breakage. Their current digital-to-analog solution may work for many users
(such as my landline) but clearly isn't sufficient for Karen's needs.
The best possible solution is to find something that addresses Karen's
requirement with a purely digital connection. Maybe it's a latency issue;
remember how sensitive faxes were to even slightly unstable connections? I
don't have any clue on the technical issues, but simply insist that the
onus is on Bell to address them since they broke compatibility. I care less
about "how" than that it gets done.
While we are not medical professionals, we are engineers and it is our job
to solve the problem. In order to do that we do need to understand the
problem. This doesn't mean that Karen needs to participate in that process.
Maybe the medical professionals have an idea on what is getting affected
physically, but they are not engineers and they cannot comment on how to
answer the question on how to solve it.
The medical professionals are required to define the problem, ie the
specifications required for their instruments to work properly. The comms
engineers then need to solve that problem by whatever means necessary. We
know that an analog solution using POTS works. Karen cannot simply be left
behind by the move to digital.
If Karen's accessibility needs require analog service in 2023, then that
service is not obsolete merely because it's convenient for Bell to declare
it so.
The service is obsolete because the technology is no longer being actively
maintained
I don't want to digress over semantics and definitions of "obsolete", see
below.
This doesn't absolve Bell of the responsibility to ensure accessibility
requirements are met. It just means the technology is obsolete.
If you agree that Bell has the responsibility to be backwards-compatible,
then designations of "obsolete" are irrelevant.
I am reminded (once again) of the brilliance of Jon Stewart's 2021 rant on
the Colbert show <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8>, talking
mainly about the COVID lab leak "theory" but coming up with this general
comment:
*"We owe a great deal of gratitude to science. Science has, in many ways,
helped ease the suffering [...] which was more than likely caused by
science."*
Bell broke it. They need to fix it. Full stop. No excuses.
- Evan
---
Post to this mailing list [email protected]
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
