Roger Technology Manual

[Marva Richardt]

PhonakRoger On iN V2 is the state of the art and newest microphone in the Phonak Roger portfolio. It provides you with the best features of all the Roger product range in one easy-to-use device. It is usable in 5 different modes in all types of environments and is able to stream from multiple audio devices directly into your hearing aids.

The Phonak Roger On iN V2 is a remote microphone device that is particularly useful for enhancing conversations that occur in background noise and over distance. The Phonak Roger On iN V2 has been described as the best noise cancelling hearing aid accessory.

It further features a quick charge option, so you can start using your Phonak Roger On iN V2 after only 1 hour of charging. By using the Phonak Roger On iN V2 docking station, your device will be 80% charged after 1 hour, and 100% after 3 hours.

Supports with a reduction in background noise by using the 360 degrees sound function in its four 6-directional microphones. You can choose exactly which directions are required to prioritise speech from either front, left or all around.

Insert the device into the included docking station and into your TV using the included optical out cable to stream directly into your aids. This function will also not affect the television volume of other viewers in the same room. An alternative way to stream audio through your TV directly into your aids is to simply use the Digital Audio Cable or the Audio 3.5 mm jack cable which are included.

By using the 3.5mm audio cable, you can stream audio and phone calls from multiple audio devices. These modes can be changed manually by using the button interface and choosing the icon to suit your mode. The device also features position technology, which automatically switches modes when you pick it up, lie it flat on the table or insert it into your TV. Intuitive and easy!

Your conversational partner can also choose to wear the Roger On device on their lapel using the clip feature, or around their neck with the lanyard included. This amazing feature is commonly used in classrooms, lecture halls and even at the gym.

If you are looking for additional information about Ignite TV set-top boxes and Internet gateways, you can also check the Shaw support site (search for BlueCurve). The Comcast Xfinity support site is also a useful resource but it can be confusing because it contains information about older X1 gear (that Rogers never deployed) as well as a lot of information about products and services that are specific to Comcast.

How do we escalate this within Rogers. I am a current Shaw with Rogers customer.

I currently have Shaw Arris TV Gateway with 2 TB external drive & 3 terminals for past several years it is excellent but hard drive issues and may have to update to Ignite TV.

I went to the Rogers website to review Ignite TV user manual and found a few random Ignite TV FAQs and a 1 minute video of nothing relevant. I almost gave up and then went back to Shaw website, did a search and found complete online User Manual. Shaw has always been very good at online manuals as well as PDFs.

I am very concerned that as the Shaw Rogers merger proceeds further than Shaw's website info may disappear.

SO HOW DO we escalate that this info is required? Is ther a way to provide Feedback to Rogers executive like there is for us to provide feedback to Shaw Executive. Shaw's feedback link is still on website but does not seem to get same level of response that it did before the Rogers buyout.

I found some of it with a search on the link you provided. If you go to the Shaw website ( -articles/equipment-info-shaw-tv-equipment-user-guides/ta-p/5560?respon...) , you will see more that could be added to make the transition more user friendly. Just suggestions. The Shaw online guides have helped me a lot over the years.

@57 I hear your perspective. Though I may disagree with the percentages, I do agree with your premise.

I use multiple ways to resolve issues/research all the time.

One of which is user manuals in 2 cases at least

1. if all else fails; and

2. if something new of interest.

A merger provides the opportunity for Rogers to benefit from the work of Shaw's people as well as just taking over their customer base.

My comments here are for those employees/executive at Rogers that may perhaps be interested in customer input on some of the benefits of the buyout

such as the Shaw documentation that Rogers currently provides to some of us as their current "Shaw with Rogers" customer base.

Another problem with publishing a comprehensive "user guide" is that you need to pay somebody to write it and keep it up-to-date... and whatever you publish will be too much information for some and never enough information for others.

Comcast puts their documentation online. Customers/technology licensees, such as Rogers and Shaw, use that as boilerplate for documentation that they, in turn, provide to their customers. (In my opinion, Shaw did a better job of this for BlueCurve than Rogers did for Ignite TV.) The challenge with this approach is that Comcast now offers a broader, more diverse suite of products under their Xfinity brand than Rogers or Shaw did, and as their products become more tightly-integrated, it becomes more cumbersome for Rogers to customize. You can't just use their docs as a template and simply apply/substitute Rogers branding.

Comcast tried to design the UI of their TV product to be familiar (if you know how to drive a Ford car, you should also be able to drive a Chevy) and to make other unique features discoverable. e.g. When navigating the Guide, if you press the "right arrow" button repeatedly, a tip will pop up telling you that you can navigate to the next day by pressing the Fast Forward button.

Rogers also used to have a "Tips & Tricks" button accessible from the set-top boxes Help screen. "Tips & Tricks" is still available on the Apps screen (waaay down in the Daily Life apps section). You can also access YouTube tutorials from the Help screen as well.

Even taking the Voice Remote as an example, Comcast offers remotes (e.g. and XR16 and the new XR100 for their streaming service boxes) that Rogers and Shaw do not. Comcast and Shaw also offer the "web remote" to their customers but Rogers does not... at least not net. Hopefully, once Rogers and Shaw customers are integrated onto common systems in the back-end, and the Rogers and (former) Shaw Ignite TV services share a common feature set, the online support pages will become unified and improved as well.

These deadly drugs are often smuggled over our southern border as traffickers look to sell them in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) plays a crucial role in keeping drugs out of our country, and order to aid in their fight, we must equip federal agents and law enforcement personnel with the tools needed to execute their jobs thoroughly and efficiently.

Upon CBP's recommendation for improved drug detection methods, Congress invested $705 million in Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology that allows agents to better screen vehicles crossing from Mexico into the U.S. Since a manual inspection of every vehicle is unrealistic, this state of the art x-ray technology provides law enforcement with the capability to scan every vehicle for even trace amounts of illicit drugs.

To ensure your taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly in this endeavor, I wrote to DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf requesting an update on the implementation and use of NII at the southern border and the amount of remaining funds within DHS specifically for the project. I was pleased to quickly hear back from DHS officials that all funds have been appropriately allocated in their mission to protect Americans, and this critical technology is currently being tested to ensure it is effective and will transform the way we do business at ports of entry along the border.

Technology like NII will make patrolling the border safer for officers and we must continue using every resource possible to assist them. We still have a long way to go in the battle against opioids, but I will keep fighting until the day the epidemic no longer has control over our communities.

N2 - Background: The standard for reading cervical cytology is for a cytoscreener to manually search across an entire slide for abnormal cells using a conventional microscope. Automated technology can select fields of view to assess abnormal cells, which allows targeted reading by cytoscreeners. In the Manual Assessment Versus Automated Reading In Cytology (MAVARIC) trial, we compared the accuracy of these techniques for the detection of underlying disease. Methods: For this randomised controlled trial, women aged 25-64 years undergoing primary cervical screening in Manchester, UK, were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive either manual reading only or paired reading (automation-assisted reading and manual reading), between March 1, 2006, and Feb 28, 2009. In the paired arm, two automated systems were used-the ThinPrep Imaging System and the FocalPoint GS Imaging System. General practices and community clinics were randomised to either ThinPrep or to SurePath (for the FocalPoint system) liquid-based cytology with block randomisation stratified by deprivation index. Samples were then individually randomised to manual reading only or paired reading only. Laboratory staff were unaware of the allocation of each slide and concealment was maintained until the end of the reporting process. The primary outcome was sensitivity of automation-assisted reading relative to manual reading for the detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in the paired arm. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN66377374. Findings: 73 266 liquid-based cytology samples were obtained from women undergoing primary cervical screening; 24 688 allocated to the manual-only arm and 48 578 to the paired-reading arm. Automation-assisted reading was 8% less sensitive than manual reading (relative sensitivity 092, 95% CI 089-095), which was equivalent to an absolute reduction in sensitivity of 63%, assuming the sensitivity of manual reading to be 79%. Specificity of automation-assisted reading relative to manual reading increased by 06% (1006, 95% CI 1005-1007). Interpretation: The inferior sensitivity of automation-assisted reading for the detection of CIN2+, combined with an inconsequential increase in specificity, suggests that automation-assisted reading cannot be recommended for primary cervical screening. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

3a8082e126