AT&T’s FaceTime Blocking Hurts the Deaf

Parmenides said:
While we are at it, self entitled kids are leaches and shouldn't get food unless they scraped it from the earth with their own bare hands
Click to expand...
Your own kids are an investment, they carry your name/genes into the future to continue your bloodline for you and hopefully take care of you in your old age along with providing companionship and the like. :)

What is retarded though is why I have to pay for OTHERS kids. Kids consume a large amount of communal resources so people with more kids should contribute more, right? Yet the more kids you have the less taxes you pay, which makes no sense in a world already suffering the effects of overpopulation with finite resources. So we subsidize breeding, and if I'm responsible and always wear a condom I pay higher taxes and if my neighbor has thirteen kids with four different women I get to pay for them. Thanks lefties! :p
 
Ducman69 said:
Your own kids are an investment, they carry your name/genes into the future to continue your bloodline for you and hopefully take care of you in your old age along with providing companionship and the like. :)

What is retarded though is why I have to pay for OTHERS kids. Kids consume a large amount of communal resources so people with more kids should contribute more, right? Yet the more kids you have the less taxes you pay, which makes no sense in a world already suffering the effects of overpopulation with finite resources. So we subsidize breeding, and if I'm responsible and always wear a condom I pay higher taxes and if my neighbor has thirteen kids with four different women I get to pay for them. Thanks lefties! :p
Click to expand...

well, aren't you just an angry little man...

it blows my mind that you think that providing people with disabilities equal opportunities as people without is such a terrible thing. i really didn't think there were such... bigots left in the world.

even moreso, the fundementals of the ATT/Facetime issue is that, for them to be able to use their DATA as they see fit for facetime, they have to upgrade their TALK plan, which they cannot use, and ATT isn't providing an option to just pay for the facetime usage, which wouldn't benefit JUST deaf people, but people who just want facetime, without the voice. it's all about how ATT is dictating how data is used, and the most vocal group at this minute are deaf people, pardon the pun.

Imagine if you had to upgrade your voice to be able to upload your instagram or facebook photos on 3g/4g, instead of just over wifi.. but you don't need the extra minutes on the voice plan? same idea.
 
OniFactor said:
Imagine if you had to upgrade your voice to be able to upload your instagram or facebook photos on 3g/4g, instead of just over wifi.. but you don't need the extra minutes on the voice plan? same idea.
Click to expand...
Imagine if you had to buy a bunch of channels in spanish that you can't even understand, like Telemundo, in order to get HBO bundled into your plan. Help, I'm being discriminated against.
 
Maybe I'm missing the technical nuance of these systems, but sounded like these systems don't require special effort from the phone company anymore other maybe accommodating another protocol which would seem to me be able to be pushed into an app that uses standard protocols. I can't see where It isn't probably just data now.

If this is about the fact their system uses more data than a base plan provides, they should just enable the service and let the person tap out right away. I can see some people using it lightly enough they don't need the bigger plan, so you're ripping those people off.

I have nothing but basic contempt for phone companies when making a phone call 15 miles across town was 2 to 3x more expensive than making a phone call across the country for AT&T on both. The fact I know their plans are ripoffs is why I don't have a dataplan/smartphone despite being a potentially useful toy for me.
 
Ducman69 said:
Imagine if you had to buy a bunch of channels in spanish that you can't even understand, like Telemundo, in order to get HBO bundled into your plan. Help, I'm being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

who cried discrimination? in fact, the author of the article doesn't even use the word. it's not discrimination, it's about fair service. and yes, i do dislike how cable companies bundle channels, therefore, i don't subscribe to their services.
 
AT&T sells you a chunk of data every month. It doesn't roll over and they restrict what you can use the data for. No sametime, pay extra for tethering. What a load.
 
STrooperTK421 said:
From us disabled (my disability, legally blind) citizens out here I say:

Fuck you asshole. :rolleyes:

I agree with the other poster, if you were disabled you would be singing a different tune, but then that is the problem with cock smokers like you. You don't give a shit about anyone else but yourself and are small minded enough to feel threatened because your precious "perfect person" world is being over taken by us "cripples".

Again, GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Click to expand...


People with a disability really didn't choose to have it. What sane person thinks that lacking one of the five primary senses is great. Sure, you have a few folks that want to take advantage of something, but those people seem to mask themselves instead of making what they feign a reality.

I don't mind having some accomodations for disabled people, but some of what the government wants (Braille on drive-thrus?) is downright silly.

It is disgusting to operate with the assumption that disabled folks are using it to grab attention and leech off society.

My wife has a friend (who has unfortunately been forced to move due to her hubby's new job) who is blind. The house was somewhat messy, but she could cook for the family and navigate a tri-level home. Yes, she did take her daughters hand to guide herself, but she could use a stick if needed (good, because the girl is due to start school soon). They had Braille strips taped under the words in their children's books so she could read.

She wasn't moping about. Yes, she's had the condition since birth, but she never was using it to take advantage of others. She had an issue, but she worked around it. Somethings she shouldn't do (e.g. driving), but she's not sitting there bumming around in her life.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
LMAO, I believe you made my point for me. ;) I pay for bandwidth, but ATT gets to decide how I use the bandwidth I paid for. If I can use Skype (which as you pointed out I am allowed to) why not FT? I don't have an iPhone and I do use Skype but the fact that I pay for my bandwidth and ATT gets to decide what I am allowed or am not allowed to do with it doesn't bother you?
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong--I think charging iphone users for using a feature integrated into their phone that uses data that they already pay for is absurd--but that's not what the story is about, it's about accusing of discriminating against a sub-population because you're restricting services to them--except they're not restricting services to them, you're restricting services to everyone, and only one specific feature (rather than a class of features). There are many alternative services they can use which are not being assessed "access fees." And technically, while we can all agree that AT&T is doing this to essentially charge you for data twice, they're literally charging you for access to a feature This is analogous to charging users to send/receive SMS messages, which we all know costs the provider virtually nothing and it's turned into a giant cash cow.

Off the record, of course AT&T is doing this for two reasons: Because iphone users have adjusted to being able to use facetime (on wifi, or on cell data if jailbroken) and now they know they can charge users for it, and also because they don't want their already sub-standard 3G infrastructure taxed even further by video-calls, so a fee-for-use will deter enough people.

Does facetime allow for an audio-only option, like other VOIP options (such as Skype)?
 
teh_chem said:
Oh, don't get me wrong--I think charging iphone users for using a feature integrated into their phone that uses data that they already pay for is absurd--but that's not what the story is about, it's about accusing of discriminating against a sub-population because you're restricting services to them--except they're not restricting services to them, you're restricting services to everyone, and only one specific feature (rather than a class of features). There are many alternative services they can use which are not being assessed "access fees." And technically, while we can all agree that AT&T is doing this to essentially charge you for data twice, they're literally charging you for access to a feature This is analogous to charging users to send/receive SMS messages, which we all know costs the provider virtually nothing and it's turned into a giant cash cow.

Off the record, of course AT&T is doing this for two reasons: Because iphone users have adjusted to being able to use facetime (on wifi, or on cell data if jailbroken) and now they know they can charge users for it, and also because they don't want their already sub-standard 3G infrastructure taxed even further by video-calls, so a fee-for-use will deter enough people.

Does facetime allow for an audio-only option, like other VOIP options (such as Skype)?
Click to expand...

They got Al Capone on tax evasion... My point is that if a minority group allows us to break the back of this type of bullshit, more power to them and us.
 
Why anyone is an AT&T customer is beyond my comprehension. One of the few companies that truly hates its customers. And I'm not talking about Facetime and deaf people. AT&T and Apple, a true matrimony made in heaven.
 
I've never had a problem with AT&T, really. I pay a lot for not very much, but it's not as though there are really greener pastures. Verizon has their ridiculous billing issues, and they're comparably expensive. T-Mobile's network is garbage. Sprint's network is even more garbage. The prepaid companies throttle data heavily. AT&T, on the other hand, just tacks on extra fees to keep your data going, with fairly ample warning.

We're all pretty much at the mercy of picking from the lesser of evils in the U.S. for our wireless communications needs. Such as it is.

Also, while I don't agree with Ducman, I don't think he deserves to be told to go fuck himself. Having a disability doesn't grant you the right to abandon all civility.
 
I am on ATT because no matter where I go it "just works". I frequently travel from the US to Europe and I don't need to monkey around with getting a new sim card there, forward my calls w/e, I get out of the plane and my email is there, folks can reach me, and I can make calls instantly.

I couldn't care less about video calls, I don't use them and I don't foresee that I ever will. It's a gimmick to me. Deaf people can text and move on. AFAIK ATT doesn't have it out for them.
 
teh_chem said:
Oh, don't get me wrong--I think charging iphone users for using a feature integrated into their phone that uses data that they already pay for is absurd--but that's not what the story is about, it's about accusing of discriminating against a sub-population because you're restricting services to them--except they're not restricting services to them, you're restricting services to everyone, and only one specific feature (rather than a class of features).
Click to expand...
Logic and rationale are distinctly un-American and I must urge you to refrain from using them in support of your argument. Instead please consider bandwagoneering and organizing tempest in a teapot events in support of those who were terribly wronged by evil corporations. Thank you in advance for your continuing support, comrade!
 
Ducman69 said:
What is retarded though is why I have to pay for OTHERS kids. Kids consume a large amount of communal resources so people with more kids should contribute more, right? Yet the more kids you have the less taxes you pay, which makes no sense in a world already suffering the effects of overpopulation with finite resources. So we subsidize breeding, and if I'm responsible and always wear a condom I pay higher taxes and if my neighbor has thirteen kids with four different women I get to pay for them. Thanks lefties! :p
Click to expand...

Lefties are the ones who are against overpopulation.
 
Thuleman said:
Logic and rationale are distinctly un-American and I must urge you to refrain from using them in support of your argument. Instead please consider bandwagoneering and organizing tempest in a teapot events in support of those who were terribly wronged by evil corporations. Thank you in advance for your continuing support, comrade!
Click to expand...
LOL!
 
teh_chem said:
Oh, don't get me wrong--I think charging iphone users for using a feature integrated into their phone that uses data that they already pay for is absurd--but that's not what the story is about, it's about accusing of discriminating against a sub-population because you're restricting services to them--except they're not restricting services to them, you're restricting services to everyone, and only one specific feature (rather than a class of features). There are many alternative services they can use which are not being assessed "access fees." And technically, while we can all agree that AT&T is doing this to essentially charge you for data twice, they're literally charging you for access to a feature This is analogous to charging users to send/receive SMS messages, which we all know costs the provider virtually nothing and it's turned into a giant cash cow.

Off the record, of course AT&T is doing this for two reasons: Because iphone users have adjusted to being able to use facetime (on wifi, or on cell data if jailbroken) and now they know they can charge users for it, and also because they don't want their already sub-standard 3G infrastructure taxed even further by video-calls, so a fee-for-use will deter enough people.

Does facetime allow for an audio-only option, like other VOIP options (such as Skype)?
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, AT&T will allow any user to download a video calling app from the App Store, and use it without additional charge. It's the use of the pre-installed app that's restricted.
 
Parmenides said:
Lefties are the ones who are against overpopulation.
Click to expand...

Riiiight, which was why the lefties passed ACA while the GOP were perfectly content with withholding health care from those who need it most. The lefties are sure killing them off! :rolleyes:

I love how some of you selfish people talk about entitlements when it comes to handicaps and disability but turn a blind eye when they get something they want. Television? Get out there and see events for yourself. Too far? Not my problem. What? We pay taxes on highways because you can't walk fast enough because you prefer stuffing your faces at McDonalds? Too fucking bad. You don't need a car, God gave you two feet. Use them.

I can cite trillions of examples but oh no, lets not go there. Let's focus on getting upset because handicaps and the disabled are given access too.

I don't suppose half of you guys know Steve's mother is blind. Nor care. I bet Steve's sitting in his chair shaking his head at you guys, amazed at how selfish you all are. Don't want to contribute to society? I don't give a fuck, but don't try and stop others who do or tell others that do they're wrong, and don't fucking tell me about entitlement. I work and I make over 80k a year, I pay my fair share, and I've earned the things that ADA has to offer me. Don't like it? Tough shit.
 
Azhar said:
I don't suppose half of you guys know Steve's mother is blind. Nor care.
Click to expand...
Asking genuinely here: are we supposed to? Should we care more for Steve's mother than we should for anyone else's mother?
 
wonderfield said:
Asking genuinely here: are we supposed to? Should we care more for Steve's mother than we should for anyone else's mother?
Click to expand...

Seeing how kiss-ass some people are around here, just knowing that might make them change their mind seeing how Steve's everyone's lord thy God in these parts. Kyle too.
 
wonderfield said:
So is that a...no? A yes?
Click to expand...

A maybe perhaps - a maybe some would change their mind. Whether it matters to you or them is up to them.

If that part of my rant bothers you, ignore it and read the rest of it. Or don't, I don't give two shits. If you're truly Phide, then I already know your stance on the disabled. I was banned once for giving you a piece of my mind.
 
SkribbelKat said:
This thread is just as angry as the Radioactive Waste thread. :(
Click to expand...

Too close to home for me. I'm hearing impaired and it disgusts me how selfish and callous people can be. Let's make everything for them, but not for the disabled because that's entitlement and holds back innovation! It really pisses me off.
 
Azhar said:
Let's make everything for them, but not for the disabled because that's entitlement and holds back innovation! It really pisses me off.
Click to expand...
Make things practical for the overwhelming majority, whatever that may be, yes of course. You can still have separate niche markets for products that cater to rare specialized needs.

To expand on an example already used, every single sign in our office even in the parking garage has brail on it (ironically even the signs that are overhead out of reach). We don't have a single blind person among the hundreds in this office, which is not surprising since according to the National Federation of the Blind over 70% of legally blind individuals are currently unemployed. Now combine that with the fact that the same NFB reports less than 10% of blind individuals can actually read brail. So what would make far more sense? Offering a niche solution to sign reading (perhaps an app for your phone that can be held in front of a sign and read it aloud) or other individualized solution.

Unfortunately, common sense just isn't very common.
 
Ducman69 said:
Make things practical for the overwhelming majority, whatever that may be, yes of course. You can still have separate niche markets for products that cater to rare specialized needs.

To expand on an example already used, every single sign in our office even in the parking garage has brail on it (ironically even the signs that are overhead out of reach). We don't have a single blind person among the hundreds in this office, which is not surprising since according to the National Federation of the Blind over 70% of legally blind individuals are currently unemployed. Now combine that with the fact that the same NFB reports less than 10% of blind individuals can actually read brail. So what would make far more sense? Offering a niche solution to sign reading (perhaps an app for your phone that can be held in front of a sign and read it aloud) or other individualized solution.

Unfortunately, common sense just isn't very common.
Click to expand...

Those steps aren't mandated by law. Your company is just fucking dumb.
 
Yeah, we have no braille signage here. "Not required by law" pretty much means "we aren't doing that".
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Those steps aren't mandated by law. Your company is just fucking dumb.
Click to expand...
Its a product of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Its not cost effective to produce, market, and distribute various brail and non-brail signage, and so commercial signs all have the extra expense and space taken up by brail.

Others are required by law, and some are precautionary measures against lawsuits that the ADA has made possible thanks to this rediculous litigation.

So the law is "fucking dumb", not the multi-national fortune 500 corporation.
 
Azhar said:
Too close to home for me. I'm hearing impaired and it disgusts me how selfish and callous people can be. Let's make everything for them, but not for the disabled because that's entitlement and holds back innovation! It really pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Nevermind me, in that case. This thread is angry for a reason. :) Go get 'em!
 
Ducman69 said:
Its a product of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Its not cost effective to produce, market, and distribute various brail and non-brail signage, and so commercial signs all have the extra expense and space taken up by brail.

Others are required by law, and some are precautionary measures against lawsuits that the ADA has made possible thanks to this rediculous litigation.

So the law is "fucking dumb", not the multi-national fortune 500 corporation.
Click to expand...

Some of what you are describing isn't even close to being included in those laws. Basic accessibility is, but out of reach signs with braille? Come on. Your lawyers went way way oveboard there.

It still boils down to the article in the OP being in no way analogous to taxing you more to subsidize their quality of life. The guy asks why, if he is paying for a data plan already, can't he use an app that only uses data and makes his life much easier.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
The guy asks why, if he is paying for a data plan already, can't he use an app that only uses data and makes his life much easier.
Click to expand...
And if the title were "AT&T's pricing plan sucks" would be fine, but its worded as if its discriminating against the deaf.
 
Ducman69 said:
And if the title were "AT&T's pricing plan sucks" would be fine, but its worded as if its discriminating against the deaf.
Click to expand...

It simply says, "AT&T’s FaceTime Blocking Hurts the Deaf" which doesn't proclaim that AT&T is being discriminatory. Steve even stated that in his comment:

If you think AT&T discriminates against deaf people, you'd be wrong. Why? Because AT&T doesn't give a crap about anyone so, you see, the deaf are actually being treated equally in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Ducman69 said:
And if the title were "AT&T's pricing plan sucks" would be fine, but its worded as if its discriminating against the deaf.
Click to expand...

That's what I got from it, too.

If it were more targeted towards the "you can't use the data for these data consuming things", then it's definitely not cool. But, AT&T didn't do it to discriminate against deaf people.

Kind of like those that do red and green signs aren't just being dicks to the color deficient (well, my wife and kids do cause they like to be mean). It's just those colors work for some things and not for others.

I'm still fighting for the right to have babies.

I don't think it should be required that private/public people cater to the handicapped. There have been times when I couldn't walk up stairs (cane and bad back) or do other things that I wanted to because of problems. Nothing wrong with it. If you were to accommodate every disability, it'd be a noble cause, but a failure. Couldn't do it. Too many resources required.

Now, on the other side of that coin: those that do go above and beyond to make things easier for everyone are showing that they care (or that your money is just as good as a non-disabled person). Kudos to them.

But, it's not feasible for people to make exceptions or accommodate every group or disability. Cost, resources, technology. In this situation, perhaps AT&T would do an exception if you were to call (or email) and get it added as a nice gesture. Who knows. Depends on the whole reaction from the public, I guess. Whatever can get them the most positive attention.
 
Ducman69 said:
Why does the entirety of society have to adapt to a small minority with disabilities? Sorry to sound harsh but its YOUR disability, not ours, and as such YOUR responsibility to workaround whatever shortcomings you have.

Its bad enough there are far too many handicapped parking spaces and every sign has to have the expense of brail put on it, even my cubicle that has to date NEVER been visited even once by a blind person, to crosswalks and even old historic buildings modified to include ramps and wheelchair restrooms and you name it.

You're deaf and want a phone? LERN 2 TEXT.
Click to expand...

Son, I'm deaf, and deaf people prefer to communicate with each other using American Sign Language, and to do that, it involves actually being able to look at someone, and speaking that way via webcam, videophone, or FaceTime is far more efficient than trying to have a conversation via text message.

You guys get to communicate using your voices and hearing, deaf people do it differently, and it isn't about "catering", it's simply about providing equal access to communication.

You should WANT others to be able to share their ideas, information, and thoughts with each other, it's part of what makes American society function so well, the free exchange of ideas.

I don't know how to help the view that you seem to have, but if you ever happen to become deaf or suffer from profound hearing impairment, you will be glad that those avenues are available for you to communicate with.

Notice my post is nearly flawless and that I communicate pretty well? That's because I DID learn to adapt to my disability, in more ways than you can imagine. It no longer controls or defines me, I am it's master, I use it when it serves me, and I take off my hearing aid when I want complete silence.

Needless to say, I sleep like a baby at night.

Is that good enough for you sir?
 
^-- This x 10

It is a common misconception that deaf people can just take texting for granted like others do. Written word is more like a second language to someone who thinks in ASL.

Ever tried to communicate in a language you didn't learn natively?

I try to communicate in ASL and it's the bodily equivalent of hunt and peck. It's fuckin hard.
 
Azhar said:
Riiiight, which was why the lefties passed ACA while the GOP were perfectly content with withholding health care from those who need it most. The lefties are sure killing them off! :rolleyes:

I love how some of you selfish people talk about entitlements when it comes to handicaps and disability but turn a blind eye when they get something they want. Television? Get out there and see events for yourself. Too far? Not my problem. What? We pay taxes on highways because you can't walk fast enough because you prefer stuffing your faces at McDonalds? Too fucking bad. You don't need a car, God gave you two feet. Use them.

I can cite trillions of examples but oh no, lets not go there. Let's focus on getting upset because handicaps and the disabled are given access too.

I don't suppose half of you guys know Steve's mother is blind. Nor care. I bet Steve's sitting in his chair shaking his head at you guys, amazed at how selfish you all are. Don't want to contribute to society? I don't give a fuck, but don't try and stop others who do or tell others that do they're wrong, and don't fucking tell me about entitlement. I work and I make over 80k a year, I pay my fair share, and I've earned the things that ADA has to offer me. Don't like it? Tough shit.
Click to expand...

"Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972" apropos :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top