Posted by Steve Guidry on 01/03/06 18:31

Bill,

You're absolutely right, and that's the real tragedy in this situation. The
station waited until the last minute (December 20th) to say _ANYTHING_ at
all about captioning at all, and then it was a heavy-handed "Do this or
else" approach. Like many medium-to-large churches, this one had started
their budget process for 2006 back in August, and it was adopted in November
or early December. The time for jockeying for more funding was long passed
by December 20, so "survival mode" kicked in, and both sides became
entrenched.

The church contacted one of their members, an attorney, and asked him to get
involved. He did, and completed the formal FCC waiver application. He's
now pretty determined to get the station to allow the church to self-exempt
and withdraw the waiver petition. Meanwhile, I'm tasked with the tech
requirements of getting ready to make it happen should the FCC reject our
waiver and the self-exemption efforts fail.

I'm still making the argument that it's the right thing to do, and basically
the church agrees. They're just still smarting from what they see as a slap
from the station. I believe they will come around, and eventually do it,
but it looks like next year before they can afford it without making another
ministry area suffer.

Steve





"William Davis" <davisbill@mac.com> wrote in message
news:davisbill-BC2916.21023830122005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <HNctf.4214$nu6.1354@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe the station is discriminating. This is the Bible belt.
> > The church is one block from the station. Staff attends the church.
The
> > church has been a pillar of their Sunday morning programming for 25
years.
> > The only preempt us twice a year - - Indy 500 and British Open. They
had a
> > chance to kick us off when we said "no dice" to their fee increase last
> > year. But they kept us at the same rate and time. They value us.
> >
> > They've just got a bunch of ninnies in their corporate counsel's office
who
> > are playing it safe. Our lawyer will be eating their lunch next week.
> >
> >
> > Steve
>
> Since nobody's mentioned it before, has anyone considered that finding
> the most affordable way to CAPTION the program might simply be the right
> thing to do?
>
> After all, the POINT of the Americans with Disabilities Act - which is a
> part of what spawned this new rule change - isn't to hinder people, it's
> to HELP people.
>
> You're client is offering PRECISELY the type of programming that the
> hearing impaired audience (a significant percentage of which I would
> guess are elderly and likely also suffering from other health ailments)
> would find of great benefit.
>
> Change the debate.
>
> Talk to your client about working WITH the station AND the local
> community for finding ways to help serve the needs of those in the
> community. Including the hearing impaired.
>
> Maybe the church can come up with a hall full of volunteer typists
> working in shifts on cheap computers to do a transcription themselves.
>
> And maybe the station can help with the cost of a line encoder.
>
> Bringing a community together in a giving spirit to meet the needs of
> the least fortunate...
>
> Isn't that precisely what churches are SUPPOSED to be all about in the
> first place?
>
> My 2 cents, anyway.

[Back to original message]