SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Federal Communications Commission last week approved one of the most important advances in communications technology for deaf and hard of hearing people in decades, in one of the agency's final acts under the leadership of outgoing FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
In a move that's being hailed by accessibility advocates and leaders in the deaf and hard of hearing community as a historic step forward, the five-member FCC unanimously adopted rules to facilitate the transition from outdated, analog teletype (TTY) devices to a new, internet-based, real-time text messaging standard (RTT) compatible with the latest smart phones.
As a result of the FCC's action, the nation's wireless carriers and device manufacturers will be required to support RTT functionality, which allows real-time text messaging—without the need to hit "send"—in which the recipient can instantly see letters, characters and words as they are being typed.
[...] This innovation will facilitate more natural, conversation-friendly communication for deaf and hard of hearing people—without the need for separate, specialized hardware. It will also allow 911 operators to receive incomplete messages during an emergency, potentially saving lives. RTT technology is expected to be inter-operable across wireless networks and devices, creating the potential for unprecedented ease of communication between deaf and hearing people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @02:42PM
Legislation (or regulation) can only enshrine existing innovation, not create it. Now, a better way won't be tried.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday December 19 2016, @04:06PM
Now, a better way won't be tried.
Why not? I really don't see how legislating a requirement for one system stops anyone developing a better one.
I can't imagine this system would have become widespread without the legislation, anyway. Would you rather the deaf community be forced to stick with the old system?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @04:46PM
The same reason that seat-belt design hasn't improved, or that innovation in house construction has stagnated. Government is setting the bar, and it is guaranteed to be low; government is forcing an organization to put into implementing its own ideas resources that could be instead put into implementing a better idea.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Monday December 19 2016, @04:54PM
The same reason that seat-belt design hasn't improved
What makes you think we'd have better seatbelts, rather than no seatbelts? What makes you think we'd have better houses rather than worse houses, without regulation?
There are better restraint systems than seatbelts available, if you want them. You can buy fancier, better houses than the minimum standard, if you've got the money.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:05PM
You are wrong. The forms of these things are defined by law (regulation); they are not merely a set of standards on provable properties, which could take any effective form.
Who is "we"? I don't know about you, but I put on a safety belt of my own accord, etc., and cars do indeed market their competitive edge in safety tests, etc. There is a strong market for such things, not because the government mandates it, but rather because people do not want to die.
Your problem is that you don't really understand the nature of these things; it's not an intelligent set of abstract standards that serve as a foundation for innovation. They are dictates.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday December 19 2016, @05:46PM
You are wrong.
About what, exactly? About seatbelts? If they must be in that form and no other - which I wasn't aware of and may not be the case in my country, even if it is in yours - then it's an analogy that still doesn't apply. The FCC aren't saying "this is how deaf people must communicate," are they?
How is the FCC telling providers they must support one particular system any worse than letting them support none?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday December 19 2016, @07:42PM
I'm pretty sure that the US doesn't mandate them to be a in a certain form other than that there be a belt across the lap and one across the shoulder. There are at least 2 designs I've seen in cars, but one of which has largely died out because it didn't work.
If somebody comes up with a better solution, I don't believe they'd be barred from using it, as long as it met the specifications.
But, the fact of the matter is that there's no pressing need to improve safety belts. And certainly not one that adds cost or complexity to the system. They're just there to prevent a person from being ejected from a car in the event of a crash. There's other technology, like airbags, ABS and ESC that also apply, not to mention crumple zones and roll cages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:25AM
I'm pretty sure that. . .
In other words, you do not know? Out with it, Francis! Tell us what it is that you actually know! (And, give us some citations, please? Oh, dear god, please? )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:15AM
Hi Aristarchus, still raw from the ass fucking, are we?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday December 19 2016, @07:52PM
This article disagrees with your assumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_safety [wikipedia.org]
Car makers were interested in safety but there was no coherent demand or push. Through the results of studies, the government took interest in making cars safer and making it mandatory. If buyers drove the market for safer vehicles, then we wouldn't need seat belt laws.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:08AM
No, YOU are wrong. There are multiple ways to implement standards, as long as your approach meets the criteria. Lately, some car manufacturers have been using the new IsoFix technology to attach seats to the car chassis. Not required, but a better way. A more effective implementation of the standard.
There is a reason for regulations - it's because the market won't supply things that don't make a short-term profit for them. Case in point, compare a crash test of the least expensive Nissan car sold in Mexico vs the least expensive Nissan car sold in the USA [youtube.com]. The Mexican driver gets effed up (interior camera starts about 0:45) because Mexican law does not require airbags, amongst many other things. Leave it to the market, and a lot more US citizens would end up dead.
On your building technology question, how many office buildings do you think would install wheelchair access ramps if they were not forced to by law? How many houses would have built to a level that would comply with energy rating requirements if those requirements did not exist? Please be honest with your answers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @04:12PM
> Legislation (or regulation) can only enshrine existing innovation, not create it. Now, a better way won't be tried.
Oh shut the fuck up.
In order for something like this to be useful, it needs to be standardized.
A bunch of incompatible implementations randomly spread among different vendors and different phone companies would be demonstrably worse. Want to talk to someone on Verizon and you've got ATT? Tough shit. The number of deaf people is too small to make it worth Verizon and ATT working it out, there's not any profit to be had by catering to such a small number of users.
This doesn't stop anyone from doing their own thing in addition to the baseline standard either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @04:43PM
Standardization only works well when it enshrines existing practice that has been proven to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19 2016, @05:25PM
This has already been proven to work.
So what's your point?
Because it looks like your point is that you done fucked up and are too mentally weak to accept it so you are just going keep randomly moving the goal posts in the futile hope that maybe you'll get lucky. You aren't lucky.