[GTALUG] Landline and Bell revisited.

[Karen Lewellen]

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 <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.
>
>
>> 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
>