G'day Everyone.
I want every deaf person in the USA to send a message. That's right, A TRUE HARD HITTING MESSAGE to the writer of the article in the LA TIMES Newspaper that says HE OPPOSES HR 3101! I was like "what the hell?!". I couldn't believe it when it showed up on the Caption Action 2 website: http://captionaction2.blogspot.com/2010/01/la-times-writer-blasts-hr-3101.html
and here's the LA Times Editorial in question:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-szoka25-2010jan25,0,1722467.story
So here's what we ought to do. We need to have Berin Szoka, the writer who wrote that opinion in the LA Times, to spend at least a week of wearing WHITE NOISE ear plugs. The National Technical Institute for the Deaf used to make white noise plugs to put in people's ears to simulate "deafness" so that they could feel what it's like being deaf. I don't know if NTID still does that or not.
But the idea that Berin Szoka should be fitted with ear plugs that cancels noise completely in his ears. For one week, Berin should keep these in his ears. Let him experience of what it's like being deaf. Let him experience from our point of view of the world.
Yes, technology is growing out there. TVs and movies are coming on the 'net. Products are being developed to allow the visual disabled to use the 'net is happening. But closed captioning of various programs and web pages is what needed the most. Like YouTube, Netflix, hulu and CNN, they do need closed captioning.
If HR3101 isn't passed in time before TV programming leaps away from Cable TV to the Internet completely, then what Berin Szoka is saying that we the deaf and disabled don't need captioning at all. How far wrong Berin is!!!
Would it take a major lawsuit to force various places on the 'net to provide closed captioning if HR 3101?
Let's hope this does not come to that in the future. HR 3101 wouldn't be costly. Technology is becoming to be cheaply mass producible as well as affordable.
I ask Congress to please CONSIDER the needs of the deaf and disabled community and pass HR3101!
But my challenge to Berin Szoka stands. Berin, spend a week in our shoes. See what it's like to be deaf 24 hours/7 days a week/ 365 days a year! JUST ONE WEEK. Exposure to our quiet world and ASL can have a profound effect on you. Try watching a movie or the news without sound, Berin Szoka. Can you figure things out without speech reading ability when people speak at you and you wear ear plugs that cancels noise? Just one week, come on Berin Szoka!
For the LA Times: SHAME ON YOU! You that allowed some one, like Berin Szoka, to write a shameful discriminative opinion article is a SPIT of injustice upon all of us: hearing, deaf, and disabled community.
I stand and SUPPORT HR 3101! I CALL UPON CONGRESS TO PASS IT ASAP!
SEMPER FI!
5 comments:
Wow-- take a deep breath and relax. Even if you hadn't entirely missed the author's point, there's really no reason to be outrageously offended by a differing opinion. Speaking of which, that's really what the *opinion* section is for. Are you that close-minded that you limit your reading to only articles you agree with?
I read that article from top to bottom and nowhere does it say that Berin Szoka doesn't support the *ideals* of the bill. In fact, he spent three whole paragraphs talking about the benefits of technology to disabled users. What he opposes is legislation that, by its very nature, stifles creativity and competition.
Do you like the automatic captioning feature of YouTube? Nobody forced Google to implement that feature; instead technology and the free market made that possible. You want the government to swoop in and save you, but that's not likely to happen. This bill could *limit* the growth of technology and *delay* advances for us deaf. Sure you get immediate satisfaction. But what about five, ten, or twenty years from now?
And what's even more laughable is that you think the author would change his mind if he were deaf for a week. Even if that mattered, what you're essentially saying is that he can't oppose this bill because he doesn't understand what it's like to be you. So only people who are affected by the bill should have a say? That's not democracy...
Now I'm not saying that I don't support the bill, but I do think the author makes a good point. Really, the only shame I see is that of people who want to idly sit by and wait for help.
Cheers!
I am all for the bill. But, I am still waiting for them to properly provide captioning for 'On Demand' movies, DVDs, and movie theaters.
It may be that captions can be better provided through technology and the free market.
But, not everyone will do this. Only a handful will be so thoughtful--which is why we need the bill passed.
I don't think people really understand how frustrating it is to watch anything when you have a mild-moderate hearing loss.
(e
I agree with RJ. I think the author wrote mostly about device standards, not content. What you want is accessible content.
The author's point was that if we impose standards on hardware devices, then manufacturers might find it hard to deliver advances in that area. Delivering captions on mobile devices is a matter of site content (flash, etc) and that responsibility falls on the site's creator.
It's unfortunate that many sites do not understand that, reason why I quit Netflix and went to Hulu. But it will take time, the right approach and concept. Instead of pointing fingers out at problems, we should get together and deliver a solution that is doable and easy for the industry to adopt.
Cheers!
Rj and others.. here's what you MUST consider about:
The previous Caption Action never prevented innovation but encouraged it.
2nd, did the television decoder circuitry act prevent the development of LCD TVs?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
3rd: did the requirement to have relay services prevent the development of video relay services? Nope. While Relay depended on the early Instant Messages on the 'net and on TTY were *important* to develop into the video phone.
so there is no reason to believe that this proposed legislation, HR 3101, would stifle innovation either. We're calling for inclusion and encouragement to make various internet sites including TV internet sites to be accessible to the Deaf community by adding the option of closed captioning.
You RJ, just like Berin Szoka, needs to realize that opposition to HR 3101 would HINDER the deaf and disabled community.
IF HR3101 were to be a dead bill today, you would be blamed for it.
I say HR3101 must pass and then we'll deal in compromise. Think about it.
I thought about it, and I've concluded that I don't like rhetoric. Vomiting a bunch of barely-related, unsupported sentences on a page does nothing to help your cause. You feel strongly about this issue; I get it. But how about some facts?
* The first Caption Action was actually a letter-writing campaign to home movie producers that *eventually* led to lobbying Congress. It neither prevented nor encouraged innovation because there was nothing innovative about closed-captioning in the late 80's. This has nothing to do with the argument unless you've been writing to websites asking for captions.
* CC decoders have nothing to do with the invention of LCDs. The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 didn't require TV manufacturers to invent CC circuitry. The law simply required that existing technology (CC decoders) be incorporated into TVs. By the time LCDs came around, the two technologies had been merged for *over ten years*.
* Video phones are not the next generation TTY. In fact, they couldn't be anymore dissimilar. TTYs transmit analogue data over a telephone circuit (very similar to a computer modem) while video phones transmit multiplexed, digitised audio and video over a data network. TTYs have nothing to do with video phones being here today. That's like saying "if Henry Ford didn't invent his model-T, NASA wouldn't have space shuttles".
* TTYs have been around since the 1960's, and TTY relay was started in 1973 by a non-profit organisation. Government-mandated relay service was established *30 years later* with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1993. The law had nothing to do with the development of relay services for the deaf. VRS was simply a natural extension of TRS with newer video technology.
So maybe there's no reason to believe that HR3101 will stifle innovation, but *nothing* you've mentioned supports that belief. Laws do not "encourage", they mandate.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 is a great example of a law that stifles innovation. Thanks to the DMCA, video distributors have to license the technology necessary to decode video content (including CC). That law is the *exact* reason you do not have CC on your cellphones. Instead of using open source software, you're forced to use often inferior vendor-supplied software that *limits* how you can display copyright-protected content.
So you'd blame me if the bill didn't pass? It's nice to know that you're so tolerant of other people's opinions. You, Steve, need to realise that the goal is not to pass the bill, but instead to make the Internet more accessible to us deaf. Maybe there's a better way?
I say we stop wishing the government would solve all of our problems and let the free market work to our advantage. I don't compromise when it comes to my rights. Think about it.
Post a Comment