gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) (05/29/90)
> I can see doing it if the bandwidth > of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are > effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for > the same amount of time as hearing people... KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) wrote: > Indeed, this is the rationale. The standard figure in the literature > I've seen has been a 5:1 ratio; that is, a conversation via TDD takes > five times as long as a voice call to convey the same information. So, since I use Telebit modems and can send in two minutes what would take thirty minutes by voice, I should be charged 15x the voice rate for my long distance calls? I should move netnews over dozens of TDD's, so I can get those really cheap rates! Not only do deaf people burn up more time on the lines than the average subscriber, but they get charged less for it? Why don't they get surcharged instead, like BBS systems in some places? Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself. Years ago, a few companies made combination TDD's with 300-baud modems as well as Weitbrecht modems built in. Most deaf people didn't buy them. That's why they are now stuck with 45 baud modems -- they didn't buy faster ones when they were offerred. Nowadays you could get 1200 or 2400 for the same price (it's all in one chip) but still they buy 45's. What is worse, California phone subscribers are also being ripped off so PacBell can BUY these obsolete devices and GIVE them to the deaf! I already object to their forcing me to subsidize deaf people as a class, but if I chose myself to subsidize any deaf people, I'd at least give them a decent modem, or a fax machine, not this trash. > Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, [various rants about the > California Relay Service, a "free" service that lets deaf people TDD > to the service which reads their message to hearing people and vice > verse. By "free" I mean "you and I pay for it, not its users".] Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and receive from fax machines? I mean, we are at a severe disadvantage when *everybody* has a fax machine except us! Or howabout a Fax-to-voice service for the blind? And a voice-to-explanations service for the stupid? How can you advocate helping the deaf without helping all the other "deserving" multitudes? Personally I think helping people should be voluntary. I don't like the kind of "help" the government gives.
tad@beaver.cs.washington.edu> (05/30/90)
In article <8374@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: > Not only do deaf people burn up more time on the lines than the > average subscriber, but they get charged less for it? Why don't they > get surcharged instead, like BBS systems in some places? Because the idea is to try to DECREASE the isolation of deaf folks, not increase it! Besides, a really SMART network should be able to handle LOTS of 45 baud TDD calls over the same bandwidth as one voice call. > Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of > the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself. Years ago, a RIPPED OFF??? Yeah, "screw all the deaf folks ... let the 'free market determine their fate!" > few companies made combination TDD's with 300-baud modems as well as > Weitbrecht modems built in. Most deaf people didn't buy them. That's > why they are now stuck with 45 baud modems -- they didn't buy faster > ones when they were offerred. Nowadays you could get 1200 or 2400 for > the same price (it's all in one chip) but still they buy 45's. This is bullshit. Most of the TDDs today have both 45 baud Baudot and 300 baud ASCII. From a practical standpoint, most people don't type faster than 45 baud (60 WPM) anyway. > I already object to their forcing me to subsidize deaf people as a > class, but if I chose myself to subsidize any deaf people, I'd at > least give them a decent modem, or a fax machine, not this trash. You are just plain selfish. These people are incredibly isolated, and now that a little bit is FINALLY being done to help, YOU CAN"T STAND IT! > Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, [various rants about the > California Relay Service, a "free" service that lets deaf people TDD > to the service which reads their message to hearing people and vice > verse. By "free" I mean "you and I pay for it, not its users".] > Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and > receive from fax machines? I mean, we are at a severe disadvantage > when *everybody* has a fax machine except us! Or howabout a Go buy a fax machine then! Don't bellyache about the deaf! > Personally I think helping people should be voluntary. I don't like > the kind of "help" the government gives. Well, I have been doing voluntary work to help hearing impaired folks for quite some time now, and the volunteer efforts alone haven't cut it! If you object to the rest of us getting the government involved, what have YOU been doing to help?? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (05/30/90)
John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> writes: > Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of > the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself. Then there's the Lifeline business. Remember the original concept? In our modern society, the theory went, those with less than normal means still needed the security of a telephone, particularly the elderly. So that these people could afford a telephone, a special low rate (subsidized by all of the rest of us, and now even billed as a "lifeline surcharge") was created with a very small local calling allowance. Well, that seemed slightly reasonable: the phone was really necessary for emergencies and this subsidized rate would make it available for those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Then someone pointed out that those with lifeline service were also too poor to go anywhere or do anything and passed the hours talking on the phone. Since the cost could go through the roof with the limited measured service, the guilt squad decreed that lifeline should also be unmeasured. Done [said the king with a stroke]. My question is why stop there? How about free flat-rate long distance? How about free 976 (and just bill the providers as if they had recieved a pay call, but of course they don't get paid)? > And a voice-to-explanations service for the stupid? I love it! But it would have to be paid for with a surcharge on people with IQs over 70. > Personally I think helping people should be voluntary. I don't like > the kind of "help" the government gives. Unfortunately, utilities are a favorite target for the "assistance afficiandos". You know, give away the first few cubic feet, kilowatts, etc., then charge like hell for any amount over that. It's called "social manipulation pricing". The telephone, being just a bit different, requires a different contortion of rates. It has to have a special rate available only to the target beneficiaries, and a surcharge is collected from everyone else. Frankly, I think it's unfair that I have to pay so much for my telephone lines. Why can't I get ten lines at lifeline rates? Then my money could go for things I REALLY want. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (05/31/90)
Tad Cook <ssc!tad@beaver.cs.washington.edu> writes: > RIPPED OFF??? Yeah, "screw all the deaf folks ... let the 'free > market determine their fate!" > You are just plain selfish. These people are incredibly isolated, and > now that a little bit is FINALLY being done to help, YOU CAN"T STAND > IT! I'm getting the impression that Mr. Cook and those who are setting up the subsidized TDD service are of the conviction that Deaf = Poor. Just so we don't misunderstand each other, years ago I worked with the deaf in some of the poorest "hollers" of North Carolina. That was POVERTY. But just as in the community at large, so was there a spectrum of accomplishment among the deaf community. With that exposure, I have never had the impression that our deaf citizens are somehow unable to provide for themselves. Indeed, the non-hearing persons I number among my acquaintences are somewhat better off financially than I am. As far as isolation goes, a person who is deaf can adjust his own isolation. While there may be some who are content to sit back with self-commiseration, there are many others, who like those in North Carolina, will not let ANYTHING stand in their path toward achievement. BTW, what's the matter with some type of batched e-mail for the deaf? What about devices (like this computer?) that allow the user to compose and edit a message OFF LINE and then transmit it at high speed to a destination? Why does TDD communication all have to be on line, in real time? Hell, if I wrote and received my daily e-mail interactively on line at even local rates, the bill would be staggering. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
"Fred E.J. Linton" <FLINTON@eagle.wesleyan.edu> (05/31/90)
In <8374@accuvax.nwu.edu> gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: > Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and > receive from fax machines? ... Or howabout a > Fax-to-voice service for the blind? It's not _quite_ free, but darned close: -- both AT&T Mail and MCI Mail certainly _send_ e-mail _to_ fax machines, at very nominal charges (and at least one of these outfits will also send e-mail to a teleprinter). Unconfirmed rumors (who knows, maybe they're even unwarranted :-) ) suggest they may _eventually_ serve as fax receiver/forwarders for their customers, as well, forwarding fax printout via USPS (this, however, is not yet an announced service). Not Fax-to-voice but e-mail-to-voice is a current offering at least of AT&T Mail (available, though I've never used it, from any TT phone in the US, maybe elsewhere -- 800 number and keypad overlay were provided with AT&T Mail's new customer documentation package when I joined up). Fred <FLinton@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU> <attmail!fejlinton> <414-2427@mcimail.com>
cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) (06/01/90)
In article <8451@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ssc!tad@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Tad Cook) writes: > In article <8374@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: # # Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of # # the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself. Years ago, a # RIPPED OFF??? Yeah, "screw all the deaf folks ... let the 'free # market determine their fate!" Why assume that deaf people can't afford to pay for their own services? It's certainly true that deaf people, on average, have lower incomes than hearing people -- but there are deaf people who don't need the subsidy. Hell, the TDD subsidy isn't even "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" -- it's a subsidy that benefits poor, middle class, and rich deaf people equally. # # Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, [various rants about the # # California Relay Service, a "free" service that lets deaf people TDD # # to the service which reads their message to hearing people and vice # # verse. By "free" I mean "you and I pay for it, not its users".] # # Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and # # receive from fax machines? I mean, we are at a severe disadvantage # # when *everybody* has a fax machine except us! Or howabout a # Go buy a fax machine then! Don't bellyache about the deaf! You missed the whole point of the posting -- why do we have subsidies for some groups, but not for others? # # Personally I think helping people should be voluntary. I don't like # # the kind of "help" the government gives. # Well, I have been doing voluntary work to help hearing impaired folks # for quite some time now, and the volunteer efforts alone haven't cut # it! If you object to the rest of us getting the government involved, # what have YOU been doing to help?? If the "rest of you" are any significant number of people, then there should be no problem raising the money privately. If not, why are you forcing the rest of the society to fund it? I have one deaf acquaintance. He is a highly paid software engineer. He doesn't need my help -- he's quite capable of taking care of himself. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) (06/03/90)
I guess I should comment, although I'm not sure whether I can adequately cover in one message all of the subtopics that are now tearing off in all directions. I tend to wax philosophical, so bear with me... As a professional, I agree with John Gilmore that rewarding inefficient transmission with lower rates seems counter-intuitive, and I can understand the appeal of Libertarian arguments to put everything on a pure pay-for-yourself basis. But Karl Denninger is correct when he writes that: >However, the issue is not >bandwidth, nor is it the information able to be transmitted per unit >of time. It could be a matter of perceived public service, or any one >of a number of other factors. It's simply impossible to consider technology in isolation; economic, political, and moral considerations all contribute factors that are almost always far more important. I learned this many times over while working on our Deafnet project and participating in the PUC hearings for California's TDD distribution program, and got so depressed and burned-out by this exposure to reality that for several years afterwards I had no interest in bashing my head any further. Technological: High-speed data standards, batched e-mail, VLSI modems and other technological fixes are fine and dandy, but the concepts were not new twelve years ago when we demonstrated all of them. Exercise for the reader: Why do you think they haven't happened? Analogous exercise: why don't we have HDTV yet? Economic: Are the deaf economically disadvantaged? In general, yes. Anecdotal evidence might work for Reagan, but not in this forum, I hope. Regardless of many well-off deaf professionals you know, the data from real surveys is not encouraging. In general, the level of income for deaf people is below that of the hearing population; for the prelingually deaf the differences are more severe. One of these differences is a 6th-grade reading level, which is not exactly a ticket to fortune (once again, movie stars notwithstanding). While my own experiences as a WODP must be considered equally anecdotal, they are consistent with these surveys. And were a rude shock, I might add. Political: Why should some groups be subsidized? A good question, which should be applied to everything else such as local and rural telephone services, hospitals, insurance, mass transit, PBS, and space launchers. Whether we like it or not, the representatives of our society have already decided that subsidization is an acceptable method to promote the greater good, and if you are arguing against this concept, you are taking a radical position indeed. In this particular case, I believe some form of help for deaf telephone users does indeed promote the greater good, but as for most other subsidies it is hard to come up with definite proof of this. We make do with appeals to emotion, reason, and greed. I don't know how the rate discount evolved. I do know that the TDD distribution plan in California was heavily influenced by TDD manufacturers who expected to gain a windfall profit from sales to telcos. The situation of deaf people provided the emotional sugarcoating that made the vendors' motives palatable to the legislature and PUC. Whether the equipment served the needs of the deaf was secondary to whether it served the needs of the vendors, the PUC, and the lobbyists thereof. In retrospect, just normal politics. Moral: Modern western culture appears to have developed a general philosophy that it is a Good Thing for advantaged people to help disadvantaged people. Aside from religious motives, this can be justified both on the selfishly personal grounds that you never know when YOU will become one of the disadvantaged, and the more noble but long-range faith that it will contribute to society as a whole. I use the word "faith" because even when the economic numbers demonstrate the advantages of things like subsidization, it's hard for most people or businesses to think in such long-range terms. Why should your money support my telephone usage? Why should my money support your PhD at Enormous State University? Why am I wandering off the subject? In sum: Personally I think that the additional traffic and business generated by providing telephone access to the deaf will far compensate for the "subsidization". I don't think the rate discount is a particularly well-conceived approach to the problem, but the other aspects (TDD distribution and relay service) are essential. The telephone has become such an enormously important and crucial part of our society today that any group which is prevented from using it, for any reason, is indeed severely disadvantaged. I just wish that it was easier to get technology out of the lab and into the real world. Ken