I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix to
the ad hoc distribution.
However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
Palace.
It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not know
enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
affected.
It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have mostly
coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as well? I
guess it depends where they get the feed from.
Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
when the chips are down, they just dump us.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
> Brian
>
I’m sure they are trying to get things working as quickly as possible, and
aren’t just being unnecessarily mean to the blind community.

On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
> will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix to
> the ad hoc distribution.
> However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
> there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
> Palace.
> It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not know
> enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
> affected.
> It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have mostly
> coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as well? I
> guess it depends where they get the feed from.
> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
> Brian
>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380

The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:

For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf
or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because
the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.

"It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
community being allowed to go on for so long.

Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure
that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
long....

A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?

SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
>> will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix to
>> the ad hoc distribution.
>> However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
>> there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
>> Palace.
>> It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not know
>> enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
>> affected.
>> It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have mostly
>> coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as well? I
>> guess it depends where they get the feed from.
>> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
>> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
>> Brian
>>
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
>
> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>
> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf
> or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because
> the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>
> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
> community being allowed to go on for so long.
>
> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
> rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure
> that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
> long....
>
> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
>

So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip down to
Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working system?

Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles, signing,
audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
complaint. But that’s not the case.

On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
>>> will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix to
>>> the ad hoc distribution.
>>> However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
>>> there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
>>> Palace.
>>> It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not know
>>> enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
>>> affected.
>>> It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have mostly
>>> coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as well? I
>>> guess it depends where they get the feed from.
>>> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
>>> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
>>> Brian
>>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
>>
>> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>>
>> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf
>> or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because
>> the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>>
>> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
>> community being allowed to go on for so long.
>>
>> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
>> rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure
>> that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
>> long....
>>
>> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
>>
>
> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip down to
> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working system?
>
> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles, signing,
> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>

Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.

On 19/10/2021 11:02, SH wrote:
>
>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles,
>> signing,
>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>>
>
>
> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.
>
>
Well, they (possibly) didn't,  so we are where we are. I don't see how
Brian constantly starting a new thread every few days and banging on
about  it is going to help.

Replacement equipment needs to be sourced, run up (by specialist
engineering staff) and commissioned. In the real live world at present
there are multiple supply and logistics problems, and ever extending
lead times, (none of this is restricted to broadcasting either)

SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
>>>> will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix to
>>>> the ad hoc distribution.
>>>> However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
>>>> there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
>>>> Palace.
>>>> It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not know
>>>> enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
>>>> affected.
>>>> It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have mostly
>>>> coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as well? I
>>>> guess it depends where they get the feed from.
>>>> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
>>>> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
>>>
>>> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>>>
>>> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf
>>> or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because
>>> the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>>>
>>> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
>>> community being allowed to go on for so long.
>>>
>>> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
>>> rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure
>>> that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
>>> long....
>>>
>>> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
>>>
>>
>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
>> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip down to
>> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
>> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working system?
>>
>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles, signing,
>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>>
>
>
> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.
>
>
They did. It didn’t work.

On 19/10/2021 11:16, Tweed wrote:
> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>>> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
>>>>> will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix to
>>>>> the ad hoc distribution.
>>>>> However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
>>>>> there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
>>>>> Palace.
>>>>> It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not know
>>>>> enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
>>>>> affected.
>>>>> It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have mostly
>>>>> coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as well? I
>>>>> guess it depends where they get the feed from.
>>>>> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to be
>>>>> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
>>>>
>>>> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>>>>
>>>> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf
>>>> or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because
>>>> the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>>>>
>>>> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
>>>> community being allowed to go on for so long.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
>>>> rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure
>>>> that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
>>>> long....
>>>>
>>>> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
>>> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip down to
>>> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
>>> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working system?
>>>
>>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles, signing,
>>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
>> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
>> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.
>>
>>
> They did. It didn’t work.
>

well they should be testing their DR plans as part of BC (business
continuity) annual stress testing, as in to positively confirm tha the
DR is fit for purpose.

FWIW, its actually not that hard to access an online captioning facility
that uises AI and ML to autogenerate the subtitles and then insert them
into the video feed....

Even automated computer generated subtitles with all its errors and
howlers is still better than no subtitles....

See www.webcaptioner.com as an example, I use this with teh radio
channels that are broadcast on both Freesat and Freeview on my DVB
capture card and DVBviewer.

In article <skm53s$fs$2@dont-email.me>, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
> > SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> >>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio
> >>> description will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get
> >>> a permanent fix to the ad hoc distribution. However only a couple of
> >>> nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if there are some
> >>> transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal Palace. It
> >>> is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not
> >>> know enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they
> >>> are affected. It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters
> >>> seem to have mostly coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and
> >>> online affected as well? I guess it depends where they get the feed
> >>> from. Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are
> >>> considered to be when the chips are down, they just dump us. Brian
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
> >>
> >> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
> >>
> >> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are
> >> deaf or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry,
> >> because the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
> >>
> >> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
> >> community being allowed to go on for so long.
> >>
> >> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
> >> rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a
> >> failure that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go
> >> on for so long....
> >>
> >> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
> >>
> >
> > So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup
> > system and in the event discovered they didn‘t. Given that you can‘t
> > nip down to Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you
> > think they should have done once they discovered they didn‘t have a
> > properly working system?
> >
> > Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles,
> > signing, audio description etc for their backup systems I could see
> > cause for complaint. But that‘s not the case.
> >

> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.

It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
of AD & subtitles.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
> In article <skm53s$fs$2@dont-email.me>, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>>> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio
>>>>> description will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get
>>>>> a permanent fix to the ad hoc distribution. However only a couple of
>>>>> nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if there are some
>>>>> transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal Palace. It
>>>>> is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not
>>>>> know enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they
>>>>> are affected. It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters
>>>>> seem to have mostly coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and
>>>>> online affected as well? I guess it depends where they get the feed
>>>>> from. Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are
>>>>> considered to be when the chips are down, they just dump us. Brian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
>>>>
>>>> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>>>>
>>>> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are
>>>> deaf or have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry,
>>>> because the system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>>>>
>>>> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing
>>>> community being allowed to go on for so long.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and
>>>> rely on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a
>>>> failure that affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go
>>>> on for so long....
>>>>
>>>> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup
>>> system and in the event discovered they didn‘t. Given that you can‘t
>>> nip down to Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you
>>> think they should have done once they discovered they didn‘t have a
>>> properly working system?
>>>
>>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles,
>>> signing, audio description etc for their backup systems I could see
>>> cause for complaint. But that‘s not the case.
>>>
>
>
>> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
>> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
>> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.
>
> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
> of AD & subtitles.
>

That may be so, but any DR plans should be regularly reviewed and
updated to take into any new legislation like the equality act 2010 or
new accessibility technologies like ML and AI.

S.

On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
>>
>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>> of AD & subtitles.
>>
> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late  00s

which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your DR
planning & processes on a regular basis.

Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers and
subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.

On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
> In article <skm53s$fs$2@dont-email.me>, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
>> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
>> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.
>
> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
> of AD & subtitles.

You mean before teletext (for the subtitles)?

--
Max Demian

On 19/10/2021 13:19, SH wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
>>>
>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the
>>> days
>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>
>> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late  00s
>
> which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your DR
> planning & processes on a regular basis.
>
> Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
> would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers and
> subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.
>
>
I'm unclear how you can be so sure when AFAIK we have no details of just
what's gone wrong. It is after all not impossible for 2 improbable
things to happen in succession. (E.g. emergency generators which were
regularly tested have been known to fail - sometimes spectacularly -
when called on for real.) And I'm not aware of the Act demanding 100%
performance. (After all, Ofcom didn't even set a target of 100%
subtitling for Channel 4.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/10/2021 11:31, SH wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2021 11:16, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Simply that the disaster recovery plans should have also had
>>> accessibilty provision included at the design and planning stage for
>>> reaasons of accessibility and inclusion under the equality act 2010.
>>>
>> They did. It didn’t work.

A class action would sharpen the minds wonderfully for its replacement then.

> well they should be testing their DR plans as part of BC (business
> continuity) annual stress testing, as in to positively confirm tha the
> DR is fit for purpose.

That doesn't always go according to plan, either! I've told this story
before here, but it was several years ago, so in the current discussion
perhaps it bears repeating ...

I used to be IT Support Person in residence for a large business office.
One day, an engineer arrives at reception and I am summoned. He flashes
his credentials, and says he has come to test the UPS.

I take him up to the Equipment Room (you know, where the air is nice and
cool), and he busies himself over the UPS while I do one or two chores
like change the backup tapes. Eventually he says: "Yes! That all seems
to be in order. It just remains to test it!"

"Ok!", says I, expecting him to attach some sort of electrical load.
After a pause pregnant with significance, he adds: "Er, you have to do
that!"

"Right ho!", I say cheerily, unusually slow at sensing danger, "What's
to be done?"

"You throw this switch here!", he says, pointing to the electricity
supply to all the cabinets.

Aghast now, I make frantic phone calls trying to find someone a little
more senior! "Surely this can't be right?", I query, but it was.

So I throws the switch, and there's a collective groan from all the
cabinets as all the disks spin down, eerily echoed within a minute by
the staff out in the office as they realise that the network has gone
down and they're in danger of losing their work.

After restoring the supply, and touring the building to calm the staff
and explain things, the first thing I notice when I return and examine
the UPS for myself is that the casing of the battery is split! I write
a stern email to my superiors about the stupidity of such a test taking
place during office hours, and suggesting that in failing to spot the
split battery, the engineer was incompetent.

I am not popular for a while, but, on the plus side, none of us in any
office are ever asked to repeat such a damn-fool test again!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip down to
> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working system?
>
> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles, signing,
> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
> complaint. But that’s not the case.

From my limited memory of doing QA audits, the first question would be
what backup system they had and then when did they last test it under
real conditions along with the record of it being tested etc etc.

On 19/10/2021 14:39, Robin wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 13:19, SH wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the
>>>> days
>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>
>>> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late  00s
>>
>> which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your DR
>> planning & processes on a regular basis.
>>
>> Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
>> would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers
>> and subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.
>>
>>
> I'm unclear how you can be so sure when AFAIK we have no details of just
> what's gone wrong.  It is after all not impossible for 2 improbable
> things to happen in succession.  (E.g. emergency generators which were
> regularly tested have been known to fail - sometimes spectacularly -
> when called on for real.) And I'm not aware of the Act demanding 100%
> performance.  (After all, Ofcom didn't even set a target of 100%
> subtitling for Channel 4.)

A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only provided
SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for purpose".

--
Max Demian

On 19/10/2021 17:44, Max Demian wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 14:39, Robin wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 13:19, SH wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before
>>>>> the days
>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>>
>>>> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late  00s
>>>
>>> which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your DR
>>> planning & processes on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
>>> would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers
>>> and subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm unclear how you can be so sure when AFAIK we have no details of
>> just what's gone wrong.  It is after all not impossible for 2
>> improbable things to happen in succession.  (E.g. emergency generators
>> which were regularly tested have been known to fail - sometimes
>> spectacularly - when called on for real.) And I'm not aware of the Act
>> demanding 100% performance.  (After all, Ofcom didn't even set a
>> target of 100% subtitling for Channel 4.)
>
> A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
> before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only provided
> SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for purpose".
>

If you say so. But where does the Equality Act or any other legislation
require it of C4? AFAIK that - unlike some people - recognises that the
price of perfection is prohibitive.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/10/2021 17:19, MB wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
>> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip down to
>> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
>> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working
>> system?
>>
>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles, signing,
>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>
> From my limited memory of doing QA audits, the first question would be
> what backup system they had and then when did they last test it under
> real conditions along with the record of it being tested etc etc.
>

Thank you...... :-)

In article <esqdnfs8ZOtKaPP8nZ2dnUU78Q3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 14:39, Robin wrote:
> > On 19/10/2021 13:19, SH wrote:
> >> On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
> >>> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the
> >>>> days
> >>>> of AD & subtitles.
> >>>>
> >>> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late 00s
> >>
> >> which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your DR
> >> planning & processes on a regular basis.
> >>
> >> Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
> >> would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers
> >> and subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.
> >>
> >>
> > I'm unclear how you can be so sure when AFAIK we have no details of just
> > what's gone wrong. It is after all not impossible for 2 improbable
> > things to happen in succession. (E.g. emergency generators which were
> > regularly tested have been known to fail - sometimes spectacularly -
> > when called on for real.) And I'm not aware of the Act demanding 100%
> > performance. (After all, Ofcom didn't even set a target of 100%
> > subtitling for Channel 4.)

> A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
> before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only provided
> SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for purpose".

Accountants rule

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 19/10/2021 17:44, Max Demian wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 14:39, Robin wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 13:19, SH wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before
>>>>> the days
>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>>
>>>> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late  00s
>>>
>>> which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your DR
>>> planning & processes on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
>>> would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers
>>> and subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm unclear how you can be so sure when AFAIK we have no details of
>> just what's gone wrong.  It is after all not impossible for 2
>> improbable things to happen in succession.  (E.g. emergency generators
>> which were regularly tested have been known to fail - sometimes
>> spectacularly - when called on for real.) And I'm not aware of the Act
>> demanding 100% performance.  (After all, Ofcom didn't even set a
>> target of 100% subtitling for Channel 4.)
>
> A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
> before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only provided
> SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for purpose".
>

Thank you.....

so therefore a DR system that provides a lesser service than the
original is NOT fit for purpose, whether this is SD instead of HD,
monochrome instead of colour, mono instead of stereo, no subtitling, No
AD or signing......

Just imagine the outcry if the DR system had bene providing monochrome
SD pictures with mono sound.... but it had subtitles, AD and signing....

The hearing and seeing would be expecing understanding from us hearing
impaired and us visually impaired people!

On 19/10/2021 18:02, Robin wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 17:44, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 14:39, Robin wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 13:19, SH wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/2021 13:03, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>> On 19/10/2021 11:44, charles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before
>>>>>> the days
>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't, it dates from the mid-late  00s
>>>>
>>>> which reinforces my point about regularly reviewing & testing your
>>>> DR planning & processes on a regular basis.
>>>>
>>>> Had Ch 4 done this, They would have realised that that their DR plan
>>>> would not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 as AD and signers
>>>> and subtitling was certainly not as commonplace then as it is now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm unclear how you can be so sure when AFAIK we have no details of
>>> just what's gone wrong.  It is after all not impossible for 2
>>> improbable things to happen in succession.  (E.g. emergency
>>> generators which were regularly tested have been known to fail -
>>> sometimes spectacularly - when called on for real.) And I'm not aware
>>> of the Act demanding 100% performance.  (After all, Ofcom didn't even
>>> set a target of 100% subtitling for Channel 4.)
>>
>> A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
>> before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only
>> provided SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for
>> purpose".
>>
>
> If you say so. But where does the Equality Act or any other legislation
> require it of C4?  AFAIK that - unlike some people - recognises that the
> price of perfection is prohibitive.
>

The key word seems to be Reasonable......

It was clearly considered reasonable to provide subtitles, AD and
signing on teh original system.

So therefore it is reasonable for the DR system to be of the same spec
as the original....

On 19/10/2021 18:17, SH wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 17:19, MB wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
>>> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip
>>> down to
>>> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
>>> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working
>>> system?
>>>
>>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles,
>>> signing,
>>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>>
>>  From my limited memory of doing QA audits, the first question would
>> be what backup system they had and then when did they last test it
>> under real conditions along with the record of it being tested etc etc.
>>
>
>
> Thank you......  :-)

After all, all work places have to do an annual fire drill, do weekly
tests of the fire bells etc, annual testing of the smoke detectors with
fake "smoke"...

Does anyone remember the twice yearly test of the analogue transmitters
where the RBL feeds would be tested?

I seem to recall there were a few designated "master transmitters" so if
a fault developed in the feeds, the main transmitters would switch to
being "relays" of the designated master transmitters.

Tbe BBC & ITV regions would all then switch to a single region of
london, and I seem to recall this was for disaster planning so
government could manage to get key messages out on TV?

I assume something similar was in place for radio.

SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 18:17, SH wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 17:19, MB wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>>>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
>>>> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip
>>>> down to
>>>> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
>>>> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working
>>>> system?
>>>>
>>>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles,
>>>> signing,
>>>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>>>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>>>
>>>  From my limited memory of doing QA audits, the first question would
>>> be what backup system they had and then when did they last test it
>>> under real conditions along with the record of it being tested etc etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you......  :-)
>
>
> After all, all work places have to do an annual fire drill, do weekly
> tests of the fire bells etc, annual testing of the smoke detectors with
> fake "smoke"...
>
> Does anyone remember the twice yearly test of the analogue transmitters
> where the RBL feeds would be tested?
>
> I seem to recall there were a few designated "master transmitters" so if
> a fault developed in the feeds, the main transmitters would switch to
> being "relays" of the designated master transmitters.
>
> Tbe BBC & ITV regions would all then switch to a single region of
> london, and I seem to recall this was for disaster planning so
> government could manage to get key messages out on TV?
>
> I assume something similar was in place for radio.
>

So in this instance you are happy for the DR system to be lesser than the
original? ie no regions.

On 19/10/2021 18:37, Tweed wrote:
> SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 18:17, SH wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 17:19, MB wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/2021 10:55, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> So your proposals are what exactly? Ch4 thought they had a backup system
>>>>> and in the event discovered they didn’t. Given that you can’t nip
>>>>> down to
>>>>> Currys to buy a replacement playout centre what do you think they should
>>>>> have done once they discovered they didn’t have a properly working
>>>>> system?
>>>>>
>>>>> Had they had a pre-existing policy not to bother with subtitles,
>>>>> signing,
>>>>> audio description etc for their backup systems I could see cause for
>>>>> complaint. But that’s not the case.
>>>>
>>>>  From my limited memory of doing QA audits, the first question would
>>>> be what backup system they had and then when did they last test it
>>>> under real conditions along with the record of it being tested etc etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you......  :-)
>>
>>
>> After all, all work places have to do an annual fire drill, do weekly
>> tests of the fire bells etc, annual testing of the smoke detectors with
>> fake "smoke"...
>>
>> Does anyone remember the twice yearly test of the analogue transmitters
>> where the RBL feeds would be tested?
>>
>> I seem to recall there were a few designated "master transmitters" so if
>> a fault developed in the feeds, the main transmitters would switch to
>> being "relays" of the designated master transmitters.
>>
>> Tbe BBC & ITV regions would all then switch to a single region of
>> london, and I seem to recall this was for disaster planning so
>> government could manage to get key messages out on TV?
>>
>> I assume something similar was in place for radio.
>>
>
> So in this instance you are happy for the DR system to be lesser than the
> original? ie no regions.
>

I am talking about back in analogue tv days....

imagine the outcry if the DR system made the whole UK 1 region instead
of losing subtitles. AD and signing.... :-)

On 19/10/2021 17:44, Max Demian wrote:
> A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
> before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only provided
> SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for purpose".

If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
giving them some penalties when it is all fixed. Will hopefullhy get
quite expensive for Channel 4.