Gary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Petraccaro) (04/13/91)
Index Number: 14835
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
Mica,
You left out the important reason why TSI gets away with murder. It
does so, because it's largest customer, the state couldn't care less what
happens once the case is closed. Further, the state doesn't have to
economize the way a person, most persons, would. The state can actually
waste the money on Vert, Optacons, and whatever else TSI puts out. Look, I
do not want to be understood to be saying that No one needs a
Versa-Braille. Obviously some people need it, like Isaac for example. In
this day of sophisticated computer equipment, however, there's no other
reason for that over-priced, hacked together item to sell at all.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!90!Gary.Petraccaro
Internet: Gary.Petraccaro@f90.n129.z1.fidonet.orgMary.Otten@p0.f1055.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Mary Otten) (04/13/91)
Index Number: 14850
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
I couldn't agree more with you on your comments re tsi etc. I have yet
to talk to a s ingle person who thinks the new optacon array is better
than the lold, and I and friends of mine have written, called,
complained, made it clear that we'd rather not buy the damned thing at
all than to put up with it, but the response we get from tsi is always
and everywhere the same. They claim to have tested the thing and
whomever they used to test it, thought it was better. Must have been the
cost accounting department, but not any blind optacon users. I hate that
company, and, when my good old optacon can't be fixed any more, I'll be
without one. HOpe to have an arkenstone or whatever is good by that
time.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1055.0!Mary.Otten
Internet: Mary.Otten@p0.f1055.n261.z1.fidonet.orgEric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15050
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
GP> You left out the important reason why TSI gets away with murder.
GP> It
GP> does so, because it's largest customer, the state couldn't care less
GP> what
GP> happens once the case is closed. Further, the state doesn't have to
Definitely true.
GP> economize the way a person, most persons, would. The state can
GP> actually
GP> waste the money on Vert, Optacons, and whatever else TSI puts out.
Not quite. Most state agencies have rather limited budgets for adaptive
equipment. However, they do (irrationally) prefer spending a certain
amount of money to buy expensive equipment for a few people than spending the
same amount on less expensive equipment for more people.
I think part of the problem is that the state rehab bureaucracy, like most
bureaucracies, attracts the type of person who greatly values predictability
and consistency rather than the type who wants to try new things. Once such a
person establishes a relationship with a vendor like TSI, their main goal is
to avoid rocking the boat rather than looking for something better. Big
vendors know how to exploit this attitude.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.orgDave.Tanner@p0.f210.n273.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Tanner) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15060
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
I have to agree with your comments about the type of people that
seemingly make up the majority of persons working in the state
agencies. At present I am working through a situation where the
counselor is more interested in buying everything at one place
regardless of price than buying individual items from different
places at cheaper prices. I have tried to show how the agency
could save over a thousand dollars or more by splitting up the
purchase and going for the cheapest prices regardless of the fact
that more orders would have to be generated. But it has been of no
use. So, what do you do? I realize that a counselor is busy, but
with the state of finances in state agencies as bad as it is right
now you would think that they would want to save every dollar that
they could.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!273!210.0!Dave.Tanner
Internet: Dave.Tanner@p0.f210.n273.z1.fidonet.orgEric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15070
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
DT> agencies. At present I am working through a situation where the
DT> counselor is more interested in buying everything at one place
DT> regardless of price than buying individual items from different places
DT> at cheaper prices. I have tried to show how the agency could save over
I've seen that one too. Often they want to buy both the software and the
hardware from the same vendor (that is, the better ones do; the worse ones
don't seem to realize that you need to get software as well). Another common
policy is to pay for maintenance contracts at the time of purchase, but not
post-purchase repairs. I can see arguments on both sides of this issue, but
the very least an agency could do would be to keep track of how often
particular items or classes of items need repair and make the decision based
on the item's track record.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.orgGrant.Downey@p0.f9.n381.z1.fidonet.org (Grant Downey) (04/25/91)
Index Number: 15153
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
What you are talking about as far as counselors only wanting to order
equipment with one order is definitely true. However what I find even
worse is when the state unit that deals with technology decides what
the user needs based totally on other users or their own pre conceived
notions with no contact with the client. If the client has some
computer knowhow it seems to make things even worse in some state
agencies because it ends up being a state against the client sort of
thing. It would seem to me profitable to the state agencies to
purchase equipment, if it could be found, that is cheaper, and can do
the same job equally well or better. However sometimes it seems as
though agencies are more in the business of dictating than providing.
Grant
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!381!9.0!Grant.Downey
Internet: Grant.Downey@p0.f9.n381.z1.fidonet.orgWilliam.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (William Wilson) (04/25/91)
Index Number: 15173
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
->> DK> time of it since california is about to lay off hundreds of
->> DK> state workers over this 6 i mean, 30 billion dollar budget
GP> Wow, and I thought we were bad off.
Gary,
Since you pay more attention to these kinds of things than me, and
because I'm curious about how most of the other states have their
blindness and visual services set up, I'd like to hear some opinions
about what is planned here in Pennsylvania.
Currently our Blindness and Visual Services are part of the public
welfare department. There is a proposal, however, to put them under a
commision, the basic makeup of which will be so many blind people, so
many minorities, etc. etc. How this commision will actually be
selected, and how it will affect the end consumer, meaning the client,
is what I am most curious about. Are most the state agencies governed
by a commision, or are they usually under the state's public welfare
department? Are the ACB and the NFB aware of this impending change here
in Pennsylvania, and if so, what is their opinion? I am sure this is
seen as a way of cutting back on the cost of operating of the service in
this state, but exactly how will this accomplish that goal?
Opinions anyone?
Willie
... BlinkTalk, Dr. Deb and Silver in Pittsburgh!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!William.Wilson
Internet: William.Wilson@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgEric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman) (04/25/91)
Index Number: 15192
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
In Illinois, blindness services are part of the Department of Rehabilitation
Services, which is a cabinet-level state agency.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org