Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Rep. Frank Wolf's Office Responds!

Today Caption Action 2 received a quick response from Rep. Frank Wolf's office. Janet Shaffron wrote:
Thanks for your e-mail about H.R. 3101. We used the Congressional Research Service summary of the bill, which I’ve pasted below, for the short description included in the constituent response letter, and it is helpful to have your insight on the legislation as we continue to review the measure. Thanks again for providing your explanation of the bill.
Below this, Shaffron copied and pasted the content of the CRS summary, with one key sentence bolded. The sentence, which is highlighted in the graphic underneath, is "Requires, unless it would be an undue burden (significant difficulty or expense), that equipment and services for advanced communications be usable by individuals with disabilities."

HOW can that be interpreted to mean that HR 3101 would require the altering of technology as stated in the previous blog post?! Did Wolf's office read that sentence and twist it around to mean that HR 3101 would force technology companies to change their technology??

If this is an example of why we are having difficulty getting Representatives to support HR 3101, no wonder we are having trouble! This is what we need to educate Representatives about. Requiring that technology be accessible does not mean changing the underlying technology! It means adding things on top of the technology, such as video captions or a CC button on a remote control! Indeed, after Caption Action 2 forwarded Shaffron's email to a key HR 3101 advocate, that advocate remarked, "A clear sign of the need for remedial education."

Join Caption Action 2!

Help ensure that the new Facebook Twilight Series has captions, and help get Starz to caption its YouTube channel! Join Caption Action 2 on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/groups/captionaction2!


  1. some of the industries that would be affected by HR3101 are into "catastrophizing" how bad it will be for their companies if they are told by Congress to make it accessible. Like making something accessible will put them out of business! It's never happened before, so why should it now? We need leaders in Congress, not tools.

  2. You need to find out how to change that.. if you contact others.. and try to get them to sign on.. they may cite that as well.

  3. I had trouble understanding your tweet about all this - seems there are ambiguous phrases all about - no one's fault - but we need to be alert and you are doing great job. How about a summary of the "technology" that is needed "on top of" existing technologies? How about that "undue burden" being defined better with numbers (e.g. re ceo's salaries, annual profits, etc.)?
    CCACaptioning is the "other" twitter to talk.