[GTALUG] Landline and Bell revisited.

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 1:36 PM Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani at gmail.com> wrote:


> 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.
>

Who did I call a name? What did I call them?

I've been around this block enough times to WELL know the difference
between confronting the speaker and confronting what's been said.

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

It is highly unlikely that enough information has been supplied in this
thread to enable a full diagnosis of the gap.


>  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.
>

My main thesis here is that technical speculation based on insufficient
input is doing little to solve Karen's problem. But since we're all
speculating, mine is that an all-digital solution exists but that Bell does
not want to spend the money to do it.


> 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.
>

Without knowing the specification of Karen's device or the quality of
Bell's service to her, it's unlikely that a solution can be derived here.
GIGO. I am saying that Bell needs to fix it because
a) its technicians are likely the only ones with enough information to
fully identify the gap
b) it's a regulated body with a federally-mandated Duty to Accommodate

IMO the solution here is bureaucratic and legal. Any technical speculation
is unlikely to be sufficiently informed to help Karen now.

There are defintions that are being met, standards that are being met.
>

I won't assume that. If Karen's device meets compatibility standards and
Bell can't support it, then Bell is not fully compliant. I don't know
enough to make a judgment if this is the case, but neither does anyone else
here.


> 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.
>

OK, but then the onus is on Bell to find an all-digital solution that meets
Karen's needs. Since we know that everything intenal to Bell is digital, it
is logical that a fully digital instrument should actually have less
latency (etc) than a path that requires a D-to-A transition. It's
implausible (but possible) that no all-digital solution to Karen's needs
exist, in which case this is purely a matter of Bell's willingness to pay.


> 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.
>

Karen has well-documented the futility resulting from "going to Bell".
That's why we're here.

And it's also why I am suggesting the best path for Karen is to treat this
as a human-rights accessibility issue. We may be at a point where Bell
won't fix the issue unless being compelled to do so.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20230907/db35a6d5/attachment.html>