[GTALUG] Landline and Bell revisited.

[Dhaval Giani]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:27 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:50 PM Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:36 AM Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 11:40 AM James Knott via talk <talk at gtalug.org>
>>> 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.
>
>

Then this is not the right venue to have this discussion. We cannot fix a
"Bell needs to fix this" issue on this mailing list. Regardless, it does
not excuse the name calling.



> 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.
>

No, a lot of the questioning has been about - this is what is happening. So
where is the gap?


>
> 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.
>
>

Well, then when someone who has a sense is trying to make sense of it,
don't attack them. The question being asked is "What is the gap?".  All the
other things, we cannot do anything about, they need to be fixed by Bell.


> 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.
>

Have the medical professionals defined it? No one is saying Karen should be
left behind. What folks are constantly asking for is to understand what the
gap is. There are defintions that are being met, standards that are being
met. This tells there is a gap. We need to identify the gap. But - you
cannot insist on providing technology for which spares do not exist. Is
your expectation that Bell manufacturer spares that are no longer
available? Who pays for it? Is it bell, is it our taxes, is it Karen? So
while I sympathize with where you are coming from, there may be real
constraints there.


>
>
>> 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.
>

And at this point in time I say, go to Bell. Complaining here doesn't help
and cannot help.

Dhaval
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20230907/43b6a3ca/attachment.html>