|reply to IowaCowboy |
Re: Reasonable Accomodation
said by IowaCowboy:Yeah, I read that too...and don't buy it.
I wonder if the user could get reasonable accomodation to their policies due to the fact he is blind, especially if the screen reader software is causing the excessive bandwidth or receive the bandwidth warnings via a phone call.
I myself am disabled (Autism and a mild case of Cerebral Palsy) so I know accessibility barriers very well.
C'mon now, after all the guy calls himself "Datanabber"...does that give you at least pause to ponder?...
He claims that they are inaccurate in his data usage, but then of course he claims to have no idea either...okaaay.
My sister in law is blind, and I am the guy who set up and maintains her computer with JAWS, one of the other major screen reader programs for the blind.
Any warning that might be sent by an ISP would be just as accessible to her through JAWS, as it would be to me visually.
Also, screen reader software puts literally no "hit" on copnsumed bandwidth, so that dog won't hunt.
Deeds, not words
There are other screen readers than JAWS. I use a combination of Window Eyes and Zoom Text and never noticed the popups. And the inaccuracy is in the sheer magnitude. On a 40mb connection it would be virtually impossible to download 1tb a day, and when I was notified on the 27th of Feb. I went and purchased my own router with a meter. It says I have used 76gb since then and I have not changed my usage at all. As to my username datanabber it was conferred on me in high school about 25 years ago and isn't relevant other than I use it occasionally as it is easy to remember and unique. I happen to be very good at finding data and facts so it was given to me by someone that called me the datanabber. At the time it had nothing to do with computers. I have since switched providers and find that my usages appears to be well below the cap that centurylink set in place. My major problem is the claim that I downloaded 3072000mb in one month.
Something doesn't add right.
3,072,000Mb(small b) isn't 30Tera Bytes as the article suggests.
Data nabber, are those typos? If not it is more like 307.2GB, with the 8 bit/byte conv. Assuming a typo in the b/B, the number looks 10x short without another zero?
It was a typo... Just got the notation wrong...