Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!yale.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
From: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Nls database
Message-ID: <16118@handicap.news>
Date: 17 Jun 91 20:31:34 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:115/778.1 - COPH-2 (BGMS), Chicago IL
Lines: 23
Approved: wtm@bunker.hcap.fidonet.org

Index Number: 16118

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

 DK> says... wonder he meant in that letter to my congress  man about the
 DK> database being made available for the "professional blind?"

Presumably "blind people with money to burn."  The BRS rates aren't at all
high for someone using their services "professionally" in the sense of making
money off of the use of the services (i.e. doing research that one gets payed
for, and passing along the BRS cost (along with markup) to the client).  Most
of what BRS normally deals with isn't consumer-type information, which means
that the NLS database is out of place there.  In the sense that they used it,
they mean "blind people with high ("professional") incomes."  I wouldn't have
as many problems with that if similar library access for sighted people were
also restricted to those with "professional" incomes, but that simply isn't
the case.  It shouldn't cost a blind person more to do the EXACT SAME THING a
sighted person can do.  It would be similar to charging a blind person more
for a restaurant meal and making no sorts of accomodations.

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org