From david.b.andrews at state.mn.us Thu Aug 1 14:28:47 2013 From: david.b.andrews at state.mn.us (Andrews, David B (DEED)) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:28:47 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] ACLU WLOU-18 Legislative Cousel/Lobbyist Position Message-ID: <2CBA05A7F34B34439FA5DDAC7DF99E4A2E66FA@055-CH1MPN1-002.055d.mgd.msft.net> From: Jobs [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 9:23 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Please post/forward ACLU WLOU-18 Legislative Cousel/Lobbyist Position From: hrintern [mailto:hrintern at aclu.org] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 9:48 AM To: Maurer, Patricia Subject: Please post/forward ACLU WLOU-18 Legislative Cousel/Lobbyist Position July 30, 2013 CAREER OPPORTUNITY Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist [WLOU-18] American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office, Washington, DC For more than 93 years, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) has been at the forefront of virtually every major battle for civil liberties and equal justice in this country. Principled and nonpartisan, the ACLU has offices in all 50 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, and brings together the country's largest team of public interest lawyers, lobbyists, communication strategists, and members and activists in the advancement of equality, fairness, and freedom, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. The Washington Legislative Office (WLO) in the ACLU's National Office in Washington, DC seeks applicants for a full-time Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist. OVERVIEW The Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist will be part of an interdisciplinary team of lobbyists who will integrate and capitalize on the expertise of other national staff focused on litigation, communication, advocacy, and alliance and coalition building. The Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist will work under the supervision of the WLO Chief of Staff. The primary focus of the position will be on a designated portfolio of issues, which may change from time to time depending on organizational priorities. The portfolio may include issues related to racial justice, disability rights, voting rights, and/or human rights. The Counsel will be knowledgeable about a wide range of civil liberties issues, and will also be responsible for responding to emerging priorities as identified by the office. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES * Prepare and deliver testimony on pending legislation before Congressional committees. * Research and draft legislative memoranda on federal bills and proposed administrative rules and regulations affecting civil liberties. * Lobby members of Congress, their staff and administration officials to support ACLU positions on pending legislation and policy initiatives. * Coordinate and conduct in-depth civil liberties briefings for Congressional and Executive Branch staff. * Participate as the ACLU representative in meetings of ad hoc lobbying and policy coalitions. * Work with national and local media to brief them on legislative and executive branch priorities. * Collaborate with other ACLU national and affiliate staff and representatives of coalition allies. * Organize, lead, and work with outside groups to bolster support for ACLU policy goals or to minimize opposition to those goals. * Coordinate efforts across the organization including legal staff, communications staff, state strategists, and affiliates around the country to keep them abreast of and enlist their support for ACLU lobbying work on the relevant portfolio of issues. * Supervise an administrative staff person, ACLU volunteers and interns. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS * J.D. degree, other advanced degree, or equivalent legislative experience is required. * Three (3) or more years of combined experience working on legislative and policy matters. * Experience in racial justice, disability rights, voting rights, and/or human rights is preferred. * Excellent verbal and written communication skills. * Demonstrated ability to analyze legislative and administrative policy. * Ability to work independently, as well as within a team. * An understanding of issues relating to law, public policy and the strategies and tools needed to achieve policy change using federal legislative, administrative, and regulatory processes. * A capacity to organize, lead and work with coalitions to achieve lobbying goals. * Litigation or lobbying experience involving civil liberties or related public interest issues is a plus. * Commitment to the mission of the ACLU. COMPENSATION The ACLU offers a generous and comprehensive compensation and benefits package, commensurate with experience and within the parameters of the ACLU compensation scale. HOW TO APPLY Please send a cover letter (with salary requirements), resume and writing sample that demonstrates legal or policy analysis skills l to: hrjobsWLO at aclu.org. Please reference [WLOU-18/INCL] in the subject line. Please note this is not the general ACLU applicant email address. This email address is specific to Washington Legislative Office postings. In order to ensure your application is received, please make certain it is sent to the correct e-mail address. You can expect to receive an automatic response that acknowledges the submission of application materials. Alternatively, application materials may be sent by mail to: American Civil Liberties Union RE: [WLOU-18/INCL] 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Please indicate in your cover letter where you learned of this career opportunity. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. This job description provides a general but not comprehensive list of the essential responsibilities and qualifications required. It does not represent a contract of employment. The ACLU reserves the right to change the job description and/or posting at any time without advance notice. The ACLU is an equal opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. The ACLU encourages applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, identity and self-expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, and veteran status. We encourage applicants with disabilities who may need accommodations in the application process to contact: hrjobsINCLReq at aclu.org. Correspondence sent to this address that is not related to requests for accommodations will not be reviewed. Applicants should follow the instructions above regarding how to apply. The ACLU is an equal opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. The ACLU encourages applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, and veteran status. We encourage applicants with disabilities who may need accommodations in the application process to contact: HRJobsInclReq at aclu.org. The ACLU comprises two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are national organizations with the same overall mission, and share office space and employees. The ACLU has two separate corporate entities in order to do a broad range of work to protect civil liberties. This job posting refers collectively to the two organizations under the name "ACLU." -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/david.b.andrews%40state.mn.us From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Thu Aug 1 15:05:37 2013 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. LaBarre) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:05:37 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Please post/forward ACLU WLOU-18 Legislative Cousel/Lobbyist Position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c701ce8ec8$95181570$bf484050$@labarrelaw.com> fyi From: hrintern [mailto:hrintern at aclu.org] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 7:48 AM To: slabarre at labarrelaw.com Subject: Please post/forward ACLU WLOU-18 Legislative Cousel/Lobbyist Position July 30, 2013 CAREER OPPORTUNITY Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist [WLOU-18] American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office, Washington, DC For more than 93 years, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) has been at the forefront of virtually every major battle for civil liberties and equal justice in this country. Principled and nonpartisan, the ACLU has offices in all 50 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, and brings together the country's largest team of public interest lawyers, lobbyists, communication strategists, and members and activists in the advancement of equality, fairness, and freedom, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. The Washington Legislative Office (WLO) in the ACLU's National Office in Washington, DC seeks applicants for a full-time Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist. OVERVIEW The Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist will be part of an interdisciplinary team of lobbyists who will integrate and capitalize on the expertise of other national staff focused on litigation, communication, advocacy, and alliance and coalition building. The Legislative Counsel/Lobbyist will work under the supervision of the WLO Chief of Staff. The primary focus of the position will be on a designated portfolio of issues, which may change from time to time depending on organizational priorities. The portfolio may include issues related to racial justice, disability rights, voting rights, and/or human rights. The Counsel will be knowledgeable about a wide range of civil liberties issues, and will also be responsible for responding to emerging priorities as identified by the office. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES . Prepare and deliver testimony on pending legislation before Congressional committees. . Research and draft legislative memoranda on federal bills and proposed administrative rules and regulations affecting civil liberties. . Lobby members of Congress, their staff and administration officials to support ACLU positions on pending legislation and policy initiatives. . Coordinate and conduct in-depth civil liberties briefings for Congressional and Executive Branch staff. . Participate as the ACLU representative in meetings of ad hoc lobbying and policy coalitions. . Work with national and local media to brief them on legislative and executive branch priorities. . Collaborate with other ACLU national and affiliate staff and representatives of coalition allies. . Organize, lead, and work with outside groups to bolster support for ACLU policy goals or to minimize opposition to those goals. . Coordinate efforts across the organization including legal staff, communications staff, state strategists, and affiliates around the country to keep them abreast of and enlist their support for ACLU lobbying work on the relevant portfolio of issues. . Supervise an administrative staff person, ACLU volunteers and interns. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS . J.D. degree, other advanced degree, or equivalent legislative experience is required. . Three (3) or more years of combined experience working on legislative and policy matters. . Experience in racial justice, disability rights, voting rights, and/or human rights is preferred. . Excellent verbal and written communication skills. . Demonstrated ability to analyze legislative and administrative policy. . Ability to work independently, as well as within a team. . An understanding of issues relating to law, public policy and the strategies and tools needed to achieve policy change using federal legislative, administrative, and regulatory processes. . A capacity to organize, lead and work with coalitions to achieve lobbying goals. . Litigation or lobbying experience involving civil liberties or related public interest issues is a plus. . Commitment to the mission of the ACLU. COMPENSATION The ACLU offers a generous and comprehensive compensation and benefits package, commensurate with experience and within the parameters of the ACLU compensation scale. HOW TO APPLY Please send a cover letter (with salary requirements), resume and writing sample that demonstrates legal or policy analysis skills l to: hrjobsWLO at aclu.org. Please reference [WLOU-18/INCL] in the subject line. Please note this is not the general ACLU applicant email address. This email address is specific to Washington Legislative Office postings. In order to ensure your application is received, please make certain it is sent to the correct e-mail address. You can expect to receive an automatic response that acknowledges the submission of application materials. Alternatively, application materials may be sent by mail to: American Civil Liberties Union RE: [WLOU-18/INCL] 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Please indicate in your cover letter where you learned of this career opportunity. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. This job description provides a general but not comprehensive list of the essential responsibilities and qualifications required. It does not represent a contract of employment. The ACLU reserves the right to change the job description and/or posting at any time without advance notice. The ACLU is an equal opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. The ACLU encourages applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, identity and self-expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, and veteran status. We encourage applicants with disabilities who may need accommodations in the application process to contact: hrjobsINCLReq at aclu.org. Correspondence sent to this address that is not related to requests for accommodations will not be reviewed. Applicants should follow the instructions above regarding how to apply. The ACLU is an equal opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. The ACLU encourages applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, and veteran status. We encourage applicants with disabilities who may need accommodations in the application process to contact: HRJobsInclReq at aclu.org. The ACLU comprises two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are national organizations with the same overall mission, and share office space and employees. The ACLU has two separate corporate entities in order to do a broad range of work to protect civil liberties. This job posting refers collectively to the two organizations under the name "ACLU." From sbg at sbgaal.com Fri Aug 2 23:07:34 2013 From: sbg at sbgaal.com (Shannon Geihsler) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 18:07:34 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Kindle 2 Message-ID: <016e01ce8fd5$13836fb0$3a8a4f10$@sbgaal.com> Does anyone know if the Kendle 2 accessible? Thanks!! Shannon Law Office of Shannon Brady Geihsler, PLLC 1001 Main St., Suite 803 Lubbock, TX 79401 Phone: (806) 763-3999 Fax: (806) 749-3752 E-mail: sbg at sbgaal.com This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. From pattichang at att.net Sat Aug 3 14:00:35 2013 From: pattichang at att.net (pattichang at att.net) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:00:35 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Kindle 2 In-Reply-To: <016e01ce8fd5$13836fb0$3a8a4f10$@sbgaal.com> References: <016e01ce8fd5$13836fb0$3a8a4f10$@sbgaal.com> Message-ID: No it is not accessible. The only Kindle product which seems to be reasonably accessible is the application for Apple devices. Patti S. Gregory-Chang NFBI President NFB Scholarship Comm. Chair Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Shannon Geihsler" wrote: > Does anyone know if the Kendle 2 accessible? > Thanks!! > > Shannon > Law Office of Shannon Brady Geihsler, PLLC > 1001 Main St., Suite 803 > Lubbock, TX 79401 > Phone: (806) 763-3999 > Fax: (806) 749-3752 > E-mail: sbg at sbgaal.com > > This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or > attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any > review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express > permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/pattichang%40att.net From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 6 19:28:48 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:28:48 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Message-ID: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth From Bennett.Prows at HHS.GOV Tue Aug 6 19:41:57 2013 From: Bennett.Prows at HHS.GOV (Prows, Bennett (HHS/OCR)) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:41:57 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: I rent an apartment, and have a designated parking spot. I have been told that I can register a vehicle other than my own, since I don't own one. Haven't taken advantage of that solution yet. I have also been assured they won't have a vehicle towed from my spot unless or until I make the effort to have it done myself. This causes some problems once in a great while when someone unauthorized takes my spot for a few hours and my daughter or friend wants to get in there. Now, these are the facts, not the law. Seems to me, that the lease may have something to say about a designated parking spot as part of the rent, hence the lease would be controlling if in fact as part of her rent, she is guaranteed a designated parking spot. Anybody else want to weigh in? /s/ Bennett Prows -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:29 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/bennett.prows%40hhs.gov From rthomas at emplmntattorney.com Tue Aug 6 19:43:21 2013 From: rthomas at emplmntattorney.com (Russell J. Thomas) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:43:21 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <000801ce92dd$35442850$9fcc78f0$@com> Give the handicap sticker to the parents. Regards, RUSSELL J. THOMAS, JR. Principal Attorney Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr. 4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 T: 949-752-0101 F: 949-257-4756 Follow me on Twitter @EmplmntAttorney The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above.  This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:29 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com From Susan.Kelly at pima.gov Tue Aug 6 19:45:27 2013 From: Susan.Kelly at pima.gov (Susan Kelly) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:45:27 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Slightly different situation, since I own / live in a condominium, but.... One covered parking space is allotted to each condominium. The stickers came as part of the purchase, and ONLY one space is available. When I had to sell my car and give up driving, I removed my sticker and placed it on a card which could either be placed in my father's or my boyfriend's cars. I then notified the HOA that I was doing this and that if they had any problem with it, considering the single covered space was a part of my property purchase price and HOA dues, they could simply refund a portion of my monthly dues. They did not challenge me on that - whether it was because I mentioned potential loss of money to the HOA, or that the HOA knows that I am an attorney, who knows? I have had a bit more trouble with enforcing the towing of unauthorized vehicles from my covered space, but I suspect that has happened to our neighbors as well. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:29 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/susan.kelly%40pima.gov From rfarber at jw.com Tue Aug 6 20:26:29 2013 From: rfarber at jw.com (Farber, Randy) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:26:29 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <3E86A9F3DC676742B192213CC4E9D4A20C898CF588@PDC-MAIL02.jwllp.com> Daniel - If the apartment doesn't charge for parking, then I think you are correct, i.e. the rent includes designated parking space located close to the apartment. If management is still not agreeable, then perhaps you can make a discrimination argument. Randy -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:29 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rfarber%40jw.com From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 6 21:14:27 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:14:27 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <000801ce92dd$35442850$9fcc78f0$@com> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> <000801ce92dd$35442850$9fcc78f0$@com> Message-ID: <021d01ce92e9$f0d1f550$d275dff0$@sbcglobal.net> Russell: The problem is not a handicap sticker. The apartment complex itself issues windshield stickers to residents. Without a complex sticker in your window, you are subject to being towed if you park in a resident space. The apartment manager is refusing to issue my client a sticker, or assign her a resident parking space, "because she does not own a car". I am curious if there are any ADA issues in housing. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russell J. Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:43 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Give the handicap sticker to the parents. Regards, RUSSELL J. THOMAS, JR. Principal Attorney Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr. 4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 T: 949-752-0101 F: 949-257-4756 Follow me on Twitter @EmplmntAttorney The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above.  This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:29 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From amatney at hf-law.com Tue Aug 6 21:25:00 2013 From: amatney at hf-law.com (Angela Matney) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 21:25:00 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <021d01ce92e9$f0d1f550$d275dff0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> <000801ce92dd$35442850$9fcc78f0$@com> <021d01ce92e9$f0d1f550$d275dff0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20AA0861082775448814F89F818F64722540E34E@Exch-DB.hirschlerfleischer.com> Maybe a fair housing issue as opposed to ADA. She cannot reasonably enjoy the dwelling. ----------------------------- Hirschler Fleischer, A Professional Corporation Confidentiality Note: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to Treasury Department Circular 230, tax advice contained in this communication and any attachments are not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, nor may any such tax advice be used to promote, market or recommend to any person any transaction or matter that is the subject of this communication and any attachments. ----------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 5:14 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Russell: The problem is not a handicap sticker. The apartment complex itself issues windshield stickers to residents. Without a complex sticker in your window, you are subject to being towed if you park in a resident space. The apartment manager is refusing to issue my client a sticker, or assign her a resident parking space, "because she does not own a car". I am curious if there are any ADA issues in housing. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russell J. Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:43 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Give the handicap sticker to the parents. Regards, RUSSELL J. THOMAS, JR. Principal Attorney Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr. 4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 T: 949-752-0101 F: 949-257-4756 Follow me on Twitter @EmplmntAttorney The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:29 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any time if it (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, blocks or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally required handicap insignia is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) blocks another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current license, registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap placard. She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting her. I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. Daniel McBride, Attorney Fort Worth _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/amatney%40hf-law.com From mikefry79 at gmail.com Wed Aug 7 14:16:56 2013 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 10:16:56 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? In-Reply-To: <20AA0861082775448814F89F818F64722540E34E@Exch-DB.hirschlerfleischer.com> References: <017501ce92db$2d419950$87c4cbf0$@sbcglobal.net> <000801ce92dd$35442850$9fcc78f0$@com> <021d01ce92e9$f0d1f550$d275dff0$@sbcglobal.net> <20AA0861082775448814F89F818F64722540E34E@Exch-DB.hirschlerfleischer.com> Message-ID: Hi Daniel, For what it's worth, to me it sounds like an injustice. She is paying for a spot unless her rent is less than the other tenants with the same type of unit. The landlord is no doubt being obtuse, intransigent, and unreasonable. So, I'd include in your complaint a cause of action for breach of contract. The terms of the contract can be inferred by the deal that everyone else is getting. I'd start things off with a strongly worded demand letter to the landlord. Good luck. Mike On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Angela Matney wrote: > Maybe a fair housing issue as opposed to ADA. She cannot reasonably enjoy > the dwelling. > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > Hirschler Fleischer, A Professional Corporation Confidentiality Note: > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by > legal > privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any > disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is > prohibited. If > you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by > returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank > you for > your cooperation. > > Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant > to Treasury Department Circular 230, tax advice contained in this > communication > and any attachments are not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for > the > purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal > Revenue > Code, nor may any such tax advice be used to promote, market or recommend > to any > person any transaction or matter that is the subject of this communication > and > any attachments. > > ----------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 5:14 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? > > Russell: > > The problem is not a handicap sticker. The apartment complex itself > issues windshield stickers to residents. Without a complex sticker in your > window, you are subject to being towed if you park in a resident space. > > The apartment manager is refusing to issue my client a sticker, or assign > her a resident parking space, "because she does not own a car". > > I am curious if there are any ADA issues in housing. > > Dan McBride > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russell > J. > Thomas > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:43 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? > > Give the handicap sticker to the parents. > > Regards, > RUSSELL J. THOMAS, JR. > Principal Attorney > > Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr. > 4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101 > Newport Beach, California 92660 > T: 949-752-0101 > F: 949-257-4756 > > Follow me on Twitter @EmplmntAttorney > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the > personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This > message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as > such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not > the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this > document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or > copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete > the original message. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:29 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: [blindlaw] parking discrimination? > > Client is leasing an apartment. The only provision in the lease, > regarding parking of vehicles, is in paragraph 21, as follows: > > 21. PARKING. We may regulate the time, manner, and place of parking all > > cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, trailers, and recreational > vehicles. Motorcycles or motorized bikes may not be parked inside an > apartment or on sidewalks, under stairwells, or in handicapped parking > areas. We may have unauthorized or illegally parked vehicles towed or > booted according to slate law at the owner or operator's expense at any > time if it > (1) has a flat tire or is otherwise inoperable (2) is on jacks, > blocks > or has wheel(s) missing (3) takes up more than one parking space (4) > belongs to a resident or occupant who has surrendered or > > abandoned the apartment (5) is in a handicap space without the legally > required handicap insignia > > is in a space marked for office visitors, managers, or staff (7) > blocks > another vehicle from exiting (8) is in a fire lane or designated "no > parking' area (9) is in a space marked far other resident(s)or or > apartment(s) (10) is on the grass, sidewalk, or patio (11) blocks > garbage trucks from access to a dumpster, or (12) has no current > license, > registration or inspection sticker, and we give you at least 10 days > notice that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. > > > > Other residents have their own designated parking space and are issued > windshield stickers for their car(s) to prevent them from being towed. > > > > My client is blind and has no car. Her parents usually transport her to > get groceries, go to doctors, etc. As such, they always have to park in > visitor parking, which is not near her apartment. > > > > She went to the manager and asked about getting a parking sticker for one > of her parents' vehicles, or perhaps, to place on the face of her handicap > placard. > > > > She was denied on the basis that she does not own a car. I do not > understand why she cannot be issued a sticker for a designated vehicle, > regardless of lack of ownership, if that vehicle is regularly transporting > her. > > > > I would appreciate any thoughts you guys, and gals, might have. > > > > Daniel McBride, Attorney > > Fort Worth > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor > ney.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/amatney%40hf-law.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From dandrews at visi.com Thu Aug 8 01:19:38 2013 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:19:38 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Message-ID: > >From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting >That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > > >Craig, > > > >Sharing as information. > > > > > >Begin forwarded message: > > > >Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The >Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > > > >Details > > > >The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and >Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires >companies who make electronic devices to make >them accessible to people with disabilities. At >this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on >the market meet this requirement. Since many >companies feel that this requirement should not >apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony >have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for >a waiver. According to the petition, this is the >definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, >sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >electronic devices that are designed, marketed >and used primarily for the purpose of reading >digital documents, including e-books and >periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily >designed for print reading, the companies are >arguing that the disabled community would not >significantly benefit from these devices >becoming accessible. They also argue that >because the devices are so simple, making the >changes to the devices to make them accessible, >would cause them to be heavier, have poorer >battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. >Finally, these companies argue that since their >apps are accessible on other devices such as the >iPad and other full featured tablets, that they >are already providing access to their content. >We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's >website below. Here is a >link to the original .PDF > >Before the >FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >Washington, D.C. 20554 >In the Matter of ) > ) >Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >Accessibility Act of 2010 ) > ) > ) >Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >COALITION OF E-READER MANUFACTURERS >PETITION FOR WAIVER >Gerard J. Waldron >Daniel H. Kahn >COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >(202) 662-6000 >Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >Manufacturers >May 16, 2013 >TABLE OF CONTENTS >I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >............................................................................... >1 >II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >........................................... >2 >III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >............................................... >3 >A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for >Reading .............................................. >4 >B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for >ACS ............................................... >6 >IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >8 >Before the >FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >Washington, D.C. 20554 >In the Matter of ) > ) >Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >Accessibility Act of 2010 ) > ) > ) >Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >PETITION FOR WAIVER >I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY > Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 > C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the Coalition of E-Reader >Manufacturers >1 > (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully > requests that the Commission waive the >accessibility requirements for equipment used >for advanced communications services >(ACS) for >a single class of equipment: e-readers. This >Petition demonstrates that e-readers >are devices >designed, built, and marketed for a single >primary purpose: to read written material >such as >books, magazines, newspapers, and other text >documents on a mobile electronic device. >The >public interest would be served by granting this >petition because the theoretical >ACS ability of e- >readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming >majority of users actually use the >devices. >Moreover, the features and content available on >e-readers are available on a wide >range of multi- >1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >consists of Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >and Sony Electronics Inc. >purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, >and computers, all of which possess >integrated >audio, speakers, high computing processing >power, and applications that are optimized >for ACS. > As explained below, e-readers are a distinct > class of equipment built for the specific >purpose of reading. They are designed with >special features optimized for the reading >experience and are marketed as devices for >reading. Although they have a similar >shape and size >to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers >lack many of tablets’ features for >general-purpose >computing, including ACS functions. E-readers >simply are not designed, built, or >marketed for >ACS, and the public understands the distinction >between e-readers and general-purpose >tablets. >Granting the petition is in the public interest >because rendering ACS accessible >on e-readers >would require fundamentally altering the devices >to be more like general-purpose >tablets in cost, >form factor, weight, user interface, and reduced >battery life, and yet the necessary >changes, if >they were made, would not yield a meaningful >benefit to individuals with disabilities. >II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT > The Commission requires that a class waiver be > applicable to a “carefully defined” >class >of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >2 > E-readers are such a class. E-readers, >sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >electronic devices that are designed, >marketed and >used primarily for the purpose of reading >digital documents, including e-books and >periodicals. >3 > The noteworthy features of e-readers include > electronic ink screens optimized for >reading >2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of >Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications >Act of 1934, as Enacted by >the Twenty-First Century Communications and >Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket >No. 10-213, WT >Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report >and Order and Further Notice of Proposed >Rulemaking, 26 FCC >Rcd 14557, 14639 (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report >and Order]; Implementation of Sections >716 and 717 of the >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the >Twenty-First Century Communications >and Video Accessibility >Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class >Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 >of the Communications Act >and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >Access to Advanced Communications >Services (ACS) and >Equipment by People with Disabilities, Order, 27 >FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) [hereinafter >Waiver Order]. >3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device >used to view books, magazines, and >newspapers in a digital format.” >What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-E-reader.htm > (last visited May 16, 2013). >(including in direct sunlight) and designed to >minimize eye strain during extended >reading >sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >e-publications and their user interfaces, >both >hardware and software features, are designed >around reading as the primary user function. >As >explained more fully below, another important >aspect of e-readers is the features >they do not >contain, which distinguishes them from general >purpose devices such as tablets. Examples >of e- >readers include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. > In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader > available in the U.S. utilizing electronic >ink, and >since that time the number of manufacturers and >models has expanded substantially. >4 > Seven >years is a long time in the modern digital age, >and the public understands that although >e-readers >may be somewhat similar in shape and size to >general-purpose tablets, e-readers are >aimed at a >specific function. >5 > The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, >Technology Innovation Librarian, >Nebraska Library Commission, >(Oct. 14, 2011), >http://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >. >5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this >distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett, >5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets >; >Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and >Buy an E-book Reader, ConsumerReports.org >(Apr. 22, 2013), >http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html >. >Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and >therefore a useful measure of conventional >understanding, differentiates >e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among >other differences, “[t]ablet computers >. . . are more versatile, allowing >one to consume multiple types of content . . . >.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, >also called an e-book device or e- >reader, is a mobile electronic device that is >designed primarily for the purpose >of reading digital e-books and >periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader > (last visited May 16, 2013). >6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING > E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >6 > Specifically, >they are designed to be used for reading. >Moreover, they are marketed as tools for >reading, and >reading is their predominant use. Conversely, >e-readers are not designed or marketed >as tools for >using ACS. >A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading > In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the > features in e-readers are designed and >built >around reading as the primary function. Features >that e-readers possess for reading >optimization >include: >• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >7 >• Low power consumption and extremely long >battery life to facilitate long reading >sessions and use during extended travel; >8 >• Navigation that place reading features, >including e-publication acquisition, front >and center; >9 > and >• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, >bookmarking, and lookup features. >10 >7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan Clinic, >http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have >improved the level of text/background >contrast, and the matte quality of the screen >can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >J., Jan. 4, 2013, >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.html > (stating that compared to >tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a >different style of display [that] improves >their battery life”). >9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/ > (noting that an advantage of e-readers is > fewer distracting features not focused >on reading). >10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as >a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010), >http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ > (“With an eReader, you >can effortlessly highlight and comment as you >read and either share quotes or musings >real time. . . .”). >11 Falcone, supra note >9 >. >12 See Barrett, supra note >5 >. > Product reviews emphasize the centrality of > reading to the design of e-readers. >For >instance, technology review site CNET explains >that “[i]f you want to stick with >‘just reading’ . . >. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >11 > Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo >explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . . >reading. And that’s a blessing.” >12 > Consistent with these features, e-readers are > marketed to readers with one activity >in >mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon >product listing for the 5th generation >Kindle E- >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/ > (last >visited May 16, 2013). >14 Id. >15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd > (last visited May 16, 2013). >16 Sony Reader, >https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/ > (last visited May 16, 2013). >17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader > (last visited May 16, 2013). >18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf >. > Not surprisingly based on this design and > marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly >for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >communications marketplace in the U.K. states >that >“almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >18 > Indicative of the utility of e-readers >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on >the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie >et al., Pew Internet & >American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >e-reading/ > (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book > reading devices are reading a book, >compared with >45% of the general book-reading public who are >reading a book on a typical day.”); >Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C. >Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.html > (explaining that a study of >1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research >Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople >who buy e-readers tend >to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”). >20 Bensinger, supra note >8 >. >21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help >You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader, >eBook Friendly (Apr. >8, 2013), > >http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ > (“E-paper screens are not meant for >active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >22 Bensinger, supra note >8 > (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper > tablet computers can be used . . >. as Web >browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >13 > (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus >tablet devices). >24 See, e.g., id. >B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS > E-readers are not general-purpose devices and > lack the features and broad capabilities >of >tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >optimized only for reading and obtaining >reading >material. Features common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack include: >• Color screens; >20 >• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and video; >21 >• Cameras; >22 >• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >23 > and >• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated graphics. >24 >Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess >microphones or quality speakers. > Examination of an e-reader establishes that > these devices are not designed with >ACS as >an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >These purposeful hardware limitations >drive e- >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html > (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >multimedia as well. They can upload and play >audio and of course video . . . .”). >26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >21 > (“You can use [tablets] for other > [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social >media, web browsing, video, games.”). >27 Bensinger, supra note >8 > (stating that e-readers have “more-limited > capabilities, which often include monochrome >screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full >Web browsing.”). >28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >13 >; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >15 >; Sony Reader Product >Listing, supra note >17 >. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which >users and their pre-approved contacts >can e-mail >pre-existing document so that the documents can >be read on the Kindle. However, this >is a feature to facilitate >reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink >format; it is not marketed as or useful >as a tool for real-time or near >real-time text-based communication between >individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation >E-Ink, supra note >13 >. > E-readers are not marketed based on their > ability to access ACS. The webpage listings >for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >features such as e-mail, instant >messaging, >calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >28 > That is consistent with the >fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for >reading, not for general-purpose >use. In fact, >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >29 Reynolds, supra note >5 >. >30 Falcone, supra note >9 >. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested >in the tablet e-readers; I want a >dedicated >reading device without the distraction of >Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast >and readability of e Ink. I >want access to the best and most varied content. >I want a battery life the length >of War and Peace (months). I want a >device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura >Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite, >The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite >. >31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, >Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire >(May 23, 2011), >http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >. >IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST >Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would >require fundamentally altering the devices >and it may not be possible to meet that >requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive >mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary >changes, if they were made, would not >yield a >meaningful benefit to individuals with >disabilities. As described above, e-readers >are not >designed to provide ACS features and >applications. Any consumer who uses a browser >on an e- >reader to access ACS would have a very >low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible >for >disabled persons on e-readers would impose >substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware, >and >licensing costs because the devices would first >have to be redesigned and optimized >for ACS. It >would be necessary to add hardware such as >speakers, more powerful processors, and >faster- >refreshing screens. It also would be necessary >to revise the software interface in >e-readers to >build in infrastructure for ACS and then render >that infrastructure accessible. In >short, the >mandate would be to convert e-readers into >something they are not: a general purpose >device. > It is not merely cost but the very nature of a > specialized e-reader device that >is at issue. >Adding a substantial range of hardware and new >software changes the fundamental nature >of e- >reader devices. A requirement to make these >changes would alter the devices’ form >factor, >weight, and battery life and could undercut the >distinctive features, advantages, >price point, and >viability of e-readers. In particular, the >higher power consumption necessary to >support a faster >refresh rate necessary for high-interaction >activities such as email would put e-reader >power >consumption on par with that of a tablet, >whereas today the lower power consumption >and >resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key selling point. > As a result of all of these changes, e-readers > would be far more similar to general-purpose >tablets in design, features, battery life, and >cost, possibly rendering single-purpose >devices >redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own >both a tablet and an e-reader. According >to a >recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of >Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader, >25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet. >32 > Consistent with this purchasing >pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t >assume that because you have [a tablet], >you don’t >32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading >Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines, >Pew Internet & American >Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading- >declines/ >. >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >33 Barrett, supra note >5 >. As explained below, this quote does not apply >to individuals who are blind or have >low >vision, for whom e-readers do not provide >additional functionality that is not available >from a more versatile >smartphone or tablet. >34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent >years include that “[t]he devices >looked sleeker, they were easier to >read, they weighed less, their pages turned >faster, and they held more books. Wireless >capability allowed users to >download novels, magazines and newspapers >wherever they were, whenever they wanted, >and now the devices >allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >8 >. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements >in e-readers, including touch-screen technology >and self-lighting screens.” Id. >35 The Commission has recognized that “if the >inclusion of an accessibility feature >in a product or service results in a >fundamental alteration of that product or >service, then it is per se not achievable >to include that accessibility >function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >14610. The House Report similarly >states that “if the inclusion >of a feature in a product or service results in >a fundamental alteration of that >service or product, it is per se not >achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >Report”). While the >achievability and primary purpose waiver >analyses differ, this demonstrates that >Congress and the Commission >recognize that requiring a fundamental >alteration is not in the public interest or >consistent with the CVAA. >36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). > In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend > to mandate the effective elimination >of a >niche product primarily designed for non-ACS >uses merely because of the presence >of an >ancillary browser purpose-built to support >reading activities on some devices within >the class. >As both the Senate and House Reports explained >in describing the primary purpose >waiver >provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >example, a device designed for a purpose >unrelated >to accessing advanced communications might also >provide, on an incidental basis, >access to such >services. In this case, the Commission may find >that to promote technological innovation >the >accessibility requirements need not apply.” >36 > The example of e-readers is just the “incidental >basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. > Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would > not substantially benefit individuals >with >disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >including individuals who are blind and >wish to access e- >books and other electronic publications, would >have a poor ACS experience even on >accessible >e-reader devices. Because of the inherent >limitations of browsers in e-readers, a >fact that will not >change without a wholesale redesign of >e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices >is >suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. > Further, individuals with disabilities have > accessible options today, and these >options will >soon expand significantly even if the waiver is >granted. For the niche purpose of >reading, high- >quality free alternatives to e-readers are >available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony >Reader, and >Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the >same range of e-publications available >to the >owners of the respective companies’ e-readers >(and in some cases a greater range), >are available >for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs. >37 > Makers of tablets, smartphones, >and computers are working actively to make their >general-purpose audio-enabled devices >accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible >on >these devices, all of which have integrated >audio, speakers, high computing processing >power, >and applications that are optimized for ACS. >Moreover, the accessibility that is >required by the >CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of >these devices will support and provide >accessibility features and capabilities that are >of value beyond the purely ACS context. >38 > Put >simply, individuals with disabilities have >better ACS options on devices other than >e-readers. >37 Falcone, supra note >9 >. Additionally, users can read books via the Web >on all of the services but Sony >Reader. Id. >38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >of devices and explaining >that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use >an advanced communications service, >all of these components may >have to support accessibility features and capabilities”). > A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified > because, in contrast to other classes >of >equipment for which temporary waivers have been >granted, e-readers are a well-established >class >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, >12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility >of convergence in classes of >devices for which waivers were granted). >40 Moreover, it is generally expected that >demand for e-readers will continue well >into the future. One study by the >Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute >projects 23.0 million units of e-reader >sales worldwide in 2016. See >eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012), >http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >on-Rise/1009471 >. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects >worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million >units in >2016. See Barrett, supra note >5 >. Assessing the more pessimistic of these >studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers >are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id. >41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across >multiple generations is justified. See >ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC >Rcd at 14640. >* * * > For the reasons set forth above, and > consistent with Section 716 of the Act and >the >Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that >the Commission grant the e-reader >class waiver, >as is consistent with the public interest. >Respectfully submitted, >Gerard J. Waldron >Daniel H. Kahn >COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >(202) 662-6000 >Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >and Sony Electronics Inc. >May 16, 2013 >Displaying 2 comments. > >jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: > >To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave >accessibility out of these devices. The claim >that incorporating accessibility will make the >e-book readers heavier and have less battery >life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many >examples of accessible mobile devices these days >which work perfectly and for which accessibility >is transparent or not even known to those not >needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish, >but your actions will reflect equally on you. >jcast today 2:25 PM ET: > >You must be logged in to post comments. > > >Share this Post > > > > > >---------- >http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286 > > > >Scott > >Sent from my iPhone From sy.hoekstra at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 01:51:42 2013 From: sy.hoekstra at gmail.com (Sy Hoekstra) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:51:42 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011201ce93d9$d6037460$820a5d20$@gmail.com> Ah yes, we blind people stand nothing to gain from the ability to read printed materials. Everyone, put away your computers, phones, tablets, etc. This e-mail means nothing to you. It is printed on a screen, and therefore it's value is an illusion. Whoever told you you should be reading has pulled the wool over your, um, well, you understand. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:20 PM To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > >From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting >That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > > >Craig, > > > >Sharing as information. > > > > > >Begin forwarded message: > > > >Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The >Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > > > >Details > > > >The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and >Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires >companies who make electronic devices to make >them accessible to people with disabilities. At >this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on >the market meet this requirement. Since many >companies feel that this requirement should not >apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony >have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for >a waiver. According to the petition, this is the >definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, >sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >electronic devices that are designed, marketed >and used primarily for the purpose of reading >digital documents, including e-books and >periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily >designed for print reading, the companies are >arguing that the disabled community would not >significantly benefit from these devices >becoming accessible. They also argue that >because the devices are so simple, making the >changes to the devices to make them accessible, >would cause them to be heavier, have poorer >battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. >Finally, these companies argue that since their >apps are accessible on other devices such as the >iPad and other full featured tablets, that they >are already providing access to their content. >We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's >website below. Here is a >link to the original .PDF > >Before the >FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >Washington, D.C. 20554 >In the Matter of ) > ) >Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >Accessibility Act of 2010 ) > ) > ) >Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >COALITION OF E-READER MANUFACTURERS >PETITION FOR WAIVER >Gerard J. Waldron >Daniel H. Kahn >COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >(202) 662-6000 >Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >Manufacturers >May 16, 2013 >TABLE OF CONTENTS >I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >........................................................................... .... >1 >II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >........................................... >2 >III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >............................................... >3 >A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for >Reading .............................................. >4 >B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for >ACS ............................................... >6 >IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >8 >Before the >FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >Washington, D.C. 20554 >In the Matter of ) > ) >Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >Accessibility Act of 2010 ) > ) > ) >Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >PETITION FOR WAIVER >I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY > Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 > C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the Coalition of E-Reader >Manufacturers >1 > (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully > requests that the Commission waive the >accessibility requirements for equipment used >for advanced communications services >(ACS) for >a single class of equipment: e-readers. This >Petition demonstrates that e-readers >are devices >designed, built, and marketed for a single >primary purpose: to read written material >such as >books, magazines, newspapers, and other text >documents on a mobile electronic device. >The >public interest would be served by granting this >petition because the theoretical >ACS ability of e- >readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming >majority of users actually use the >devices. >Moreover, the features and content available on >e-readers are available on a wide >range of multi- >1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >consists of Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >and Sony Electronics Inc. >purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, >and computers, all of which possess >integrated >audio, speakers, high computing processing >power, and applications that are optimized >for ACS. > As explained below, e-readers are a distinct > class of equipment built for the specific >purpose of reading. They are designed with >special features optimized for the reading >experience and are marketed as devices for >reading. Although they have a similar >shape and size >to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers >lack many of tablets’ features for >general-purpose >computing, including ACS functions. E-readers >simply are not designed, built, or >marketed for >ACS, and the public understands the distinction >between e-readers and general-purpose >tablets. >Granting the petition is in the public interest >because rendering ACS accessible >on e-readers >would require fundamentally altering the devices >to be more like general-purpose >tablets in cost, >form factor, weight, user interface, and reduced >battery life, and yet the necessary >changes, if >they were made, would not yield a meaningful >benefit to individuals with disabilities. >II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT > The Commission requires that a class waiver be > applicable to a “carefully defined” >class >of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >2 > E-readers are such a class. E-readers, >sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >electronic devices that are designed, >marketed and >used primarily for the purpose of reading >digital documents, including e-books and >periodicals. >3 > The noteworthy features of e-readers include > electronic ink screens optimized for >reading >2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of >Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications >Act of 1934, as Enacted by >the Twenty-First Century Communications and >Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket >No. 10-213, WT >Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report >and Order and Further Notice of Proposed >Rulemaking, 26 FCC >Rcd 14557, 14639 (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report >and Order]; Implementation of Sections >716 and 717 of the >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the >Twenty-First Century Communications >and Video Accessibility >Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class >Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 >of the Communications Act >and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >Access to Advanced Communications >Services (ACS) and >Equipment by People with Disabilities, Order, 27 >FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) [hereinafter >Waiver Order]. >3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device >used to view books, magazines, and >newspapers in a digital format.” >What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >http://www.wisegeek.com/wh at-is-an-E-reader.htm > (last visited May 16, 2013). >(including in direct sunlight) and designed to >minimize eye strain during extended >reading >sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >e-publications and their user interfaces, >both >hardware and software features, are designed >around reading as the primary user function. >As >explained more fully below, another important >aspect of e-readers is the features >they do not >contain, which distinguishes them from general >purpose devices such as tablets. Examples >of e- >readers include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. > In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader > available in the U.S. utilizing electronic >ink, and >since that time the number of manufacturers and >models has expanded substantially. >4 > Seven >years is a long time in the modern digital age, >and the public understands that although >e-readers >may be somewhat similar in shape and size to >general-purpose tablets, e-readers are >aimed at a >specific function. >5 > The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, >Technology Innovation Librarian, >Nebraska Library Commission, >(Oct. 14, 2011), >http:/ /www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >. >5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this >distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett, >5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >h ttp://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets >; >Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and >Buy an E-book Reader, ConsumerReports.org >(Apr. 22, 2013), >http://news.consumerreports.org/electroni cs/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html >. >Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and >therefore a useful measure of conventional >understanding, differentiates >e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among >other differences, “[t]ablet computers >. . . are more versatile, allowing >one to consume multiple types of content . . . >.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, >also called an e-book device or e- >reader, is a mobile electronic device that is >designed primarily for the purpose >of reading digital e-books and >periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reade r > (last visited May 16, 2013). >6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING > E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >6 > Specifically, >they are designed to be used for reading. >Moreover, they are marketed as tools for >reading, and >reading is their predominant use. Conversely, >e-readers are not designed or marketed >as tools for >using ACS. >A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading > In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the > features in e-readers are designed and >built >around reading as the primary function. Features >that e-readers possess for reading >optimization >include: >• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >7 >• Low power consumption and extremely long >battery life to facilitate long reading >sessions and use during extended travel; >8 >• Navigation that place reading features, >including e-publication acquisition, front >and center; >9 > and >• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, >bookmarking, and lookup features. >10 >7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan Clinic, >http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have >improved the level of text/background >contrast, and the matte quality of the screen >can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >J., Jan. 4, 2013, >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873238742045782198341605730 10.html > (stating that compared to >tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a >different style of display [that] improves >their battery life”). >9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738 -1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/ > (noting that an advantage of e-readers is > fewer distracting features not focused >on reading). >10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as >a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010), >http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-o r-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ > (“With an eReader, you >can effortlessly highlight and comment as you >read and either share quotes or musings >real time. . . .”). >11 Falcone, supra note >9 >. >12 See Barrett, supra note >5 >. > Product reviews emphasize the centrality of > reading to the design of e-readers. >For >instance, technology review site CNET explains >that “[i]f you want to stick with >‘just reading’ . . >. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >11 > Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo >explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . . >reading. And that’s a blessing.” >12 > Consistent with these features, e-readers are > marketed to readers with one activity >in >mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon >product listing for the 5th generation >Kindle E- >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >http://www.amazon.com/gp/prod uct/B007HCCNJU/ > (last >visited May 16, 2013). >14 Id. >15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd > (last visited May 16, 2013). >16 Sony Reader, >https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/ > (last visited May 16, 2013). >17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet /CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader > (last visited May 16, 2013). >18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012. pdf >. > Not surprisingly based on this design and > marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly >for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >communications marketplace in the U.K. states >that >“almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >18 > Indicative of the utility of e-readers >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on >the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie >et al., Pew Internet & >American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >http://libraries. pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >e-reading/ > (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book > reading devices are reading a book, >compared with >45% of the general book-reading public who are >reading a book on a typical day.”); >Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C. >Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038466045754480931757588 72.html > (explaining that a study of >1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research >Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople >who buy e-readers tend >to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”). >20 Bensinger, supra note >8 >. >21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help >You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader, >eBook Friendly (Apr. >8, 2013), > >http: //ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ > (“E-paper screens are not meant for >active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >22 Bensinger, supra note >8 > (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper > tablet computers can be used . . >. as Web >browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >13 > (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus >tablet devices). >24 See, e.g., id. >B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS > E-readers are not general-purpose devices and > lack the features and broad capabilities >of >tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >optimized only for reading and obtaining >reading >material. Features common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack include: >• Color screens; >20 >• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and video; >21 >• Cameras; >22 >• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >23 > and >• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated graphics. >24 >Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess >microphones or quality speakers. > Examination of an e-reader establishes that > these devices are not designed with >ACS as >an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >These purposeful hardware limitations >drive e- >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >http://www.s taples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html > (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >multimedia as well. They can upload and play >audio and of course video . . . .”). >26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >21 > (“You can use [tablets] for other > [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social >media, web browsing, video, games.”). >27 Bensinger, supra note >8 > (stating that e-readers have “more-limited > capabilities, which often include monochrome >screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full >Web browsing.”). >28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >13 >; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >15 >; Sony Reader Product >Listing, supra note >17 >. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which >users and their pre-approved contacts >can e-mail >pre-existing document so that the documents can >be read on the Kindle. However, this >is a feature to facilitate >reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink >format; it is not marketed as or useful >as a tool for real-time or near >real-time text-based communication between >individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation >E-Ink, supra note >13 >. > E-readers are not marketed based on their > ability to access ACS. The webpage listings >for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >features such as e-mail, instant >messaging, >calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >28 > That is consistent with the >fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for >reading, not for general-purpose >use. In fact, >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >29 Reynolds, supra note >5 >. >30 Falcone, supra note >9 >. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested >in the tablet e-readers; I want a >dedicated >reading device without the distraction of >Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast >and readability of e Ink. I >want access to the best and most varied content. >I want a battery life the length >of War and Peace (months). I want a >device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura >Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite, >The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite >. >31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, >Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire >(May 23, 2011), >http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-read ers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >. >IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST >Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would >require fundamentally altering the devices >and it may not be possible to meet that >requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive >mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary >changes, if they were made, would not >yield a >meaningful benefit to individuals with >disabilities. As described above, e-readers >are not >designed to provide ACS features and >applications. Any consumer who uses a browser >on an e- >reader to access ACS would have a very >low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible >for >disabled persons on e-readers would impose >substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware, >and >licensing costs because the devices would first >have to be redesigned and optimized >for ACS. It >would be necessary to add hardware such as >speakers, more powerful processors, and >faster- >refreshing screens. It also would be necessary >to revise the software interface in >e-readers to >build in infrastructure for ACS and then render >that infrastructure accessible. In >short, the >mandate would be to convert e-readers into >something they are not: a general purpose >device. > It is not merely cost but the very nature of a > specialized e-reader device that >is at issue. >Adding a substantial range of hardware and new >software changes the fundamental nature >of e- >reader devices. A requirement to make these >changes would alter the devices’ form >factor, >weight, and battery life and could undercut the >distinctive features, advantages, >price point, and >viability of e-readers. In particular, the >higher power consumption necessary to >support a faster >refresh rate necessary for high-interaction >activities such as email would put e-reader >power >consumption on par with that of a tablet, >whereas today the lower power consumption >and >resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key selling point. > As a result of all of these changes, e-readers > would be far more similar to general-purpose >tablets in design, features, battery life, and >cost, possibly rendering single-purpose >devices >redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own >both a tablet and an e-reader. According >to a >recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of >Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader, >25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet. >32 > Consistent with this purchasing >pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t >assume that because you have [a tablet], >you don’t >32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading >Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines, >Pew Internet & American >Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps- print-book-reading- >declines/ >. >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >33 Barrett, supra note >5 >. As explained below, this quote does not apply >to individuals who are blind or have >low >vision, for whom e-readers do not provide >additional functionality that is not available >from a more versatile >smartphone or tablet. >34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent >years include that “[t]he devices >looked sleeker, they were easier to >read, they weighed less, their pages turned >faster, and they held more books. Wireless >capability allowed users to >download novels, magazines and newspapers >wherever they were, whenever they wanted, >and now the devices >allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >8 >. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements >in e-readers, including touch-screen technology >and self-lighting screens.” Id. >35 The Commission has recognized that “if the >inclusion of an accessibility feature >in a product or service results in a >fundamental alteration of that product or >service, then it is per se not achievable >to include that accessibility >function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >14610. The House Report similarly >states that “if the inclusion >of a feature in a product or service results in >a fundamental alteration of that >service or product, it is per se not >achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >Report”). While the >achievability and primary purpose waiver >analyses differ, this demonstrates that >Congress and the Commission >recognize that requiring a fundamental >alteration is not in the public interest or >consistent with the CVAA. >36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). > In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend > to mandate the effective elimination >of a >niche product primarily designed for non-ACS >uses merely because of the presence >of an >ancillary browser purpose-built to support >reading activities on some devices within >the class. >As both the Senate and House Reports explained >in describing the primary purpose >waiver >provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >example, a device designed for a purpose >unrelated >to accessing advanced communications might also >provide, on an incidental basis, >access to such >services. In this case, the Commission may find >that to promote technological innovation >the >accessibility requirements need not apply.” >36 > The example of e-readers is just the “incidental >basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. > Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would > not substantially benefit individuals >with >disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >including individuals who are blind and >wish to access e- >books and other electronic publications, would >have a poor ACS experience even on >accessible >e-reader devices. Because of the inherent >limitations of browsers in e-readers, a >fact that will not >change without a wholesale redesign of >e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices >is >suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. > Further, individuals with disabilities have > accessible options today, and these >options will >soon expand significantly even if the waiver is >granted. For the niche purpose of >reading, high- >quality free alternatives to e-readers are >available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony >Reader, and >Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the >same range of e-publications available >to the >owners of the respective companies’ e-readers >(and in some cases a greater range), >are available >for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs. >37 > Makers of tablets, smartphones, >and computers are working actively to make their >general-purpose audio-enabled devices >accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible >on >these devices, all of which have integrated >audio, speakers, high computing processing >power, >and applications that are optimized for ACS. >Moreover, the accessibility that is >required by the >CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of >these devices will support and provide >accessibility features and capabilities that are >of value beyond the purely ACS context. >38 > Put >simply, individuals with disabilities have >better ACS options on devices other than >e-readers. >37 Falcone, supra note >9 >. Additionally, users can read books via the Web >on all of the services but Sony >Reader. Id. >38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >of devices and explaining >that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use >an advanced communications service, >all of these components may >have to support accessibility features and capabilities”). > A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified > because, in contrast to other classes >of >equipment for which temporary waivers have been >granted, e-readers are a well-established >class >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, >12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility >of convergence in classes of >devices for which waivers were granted). >40 Moreover, it is generally expected that >demand for e-readers will continue well >into the future. One study by the >Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute >projects 23.0 million units of e-reader >sales worldwide in 2016. See >eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012), >http://www.emarketer.c om/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >on-Rise/1009471 >. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects >worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million >units in >2016. See Barrett, supra note >5 >. Assessing the more pessimistic of these >studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers >are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id. >41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across >multiple generations is justified. See >ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC >Rcd at 14640. >* * * > For the reasons set forth above, and > consistent with Section 716 of the Act and >the >Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that >the Commission grant the e-reader >class waiver, >as is consistent with the public interest. >Respectfully submitted, >Gerard J. Waldron >Daniel H. Kahn >COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >(202) 662-6000 >Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >and Sony Electronics Inc. >May 16, 2013 >Displaying 2 comments. > >jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: > >To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave >accessibility out of these devices. The claim >that incorporating accessibility will make the >e-book readers heavier and have less battery >life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many >examples of accessible mobile devices these days >which work perfectly and for which accessibility >is transparent or not even known to those not >needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish, >but your actions will reflect equally on you. >jcast today 2:25 PM ET: > >You must be logged in to post comments. > > >Share this Post > > > > > >---------- >http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286 > > > >Scott > >Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sy.hoekstra%40gmail.co m From gerard.sadlier at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 03:52:27 2013 From: gerard.sadlier at gmail.com (Gerard Sadlier) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 04:52:27 +0100 Subject: [blindlaw] Has Freedom Scientific Been Asked to or Done Anything About Summation? Have They Been Asked? Message-ID: Hi all, The subject says it all. Have Freedom Scientific been asked to or ever done anything about Summation? G From rumpole at roadrunner.com Thu Aug 8 12:06:42 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 08:06:42 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] [SPAM] Re: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That TheAccessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <011201ce93d9$d6037460$820a5d20$@gmail.com> References: <011201ce93d9$d6037460$820a5d20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <380A1C67B44D41A3857B1582B5C3B12A@mycomputer> This is surprising, but not surprising at the same time. To agree with one of the comments, there is so much A.T. on portable devices now that the argument set forth is ludicrous. Look at smart phones, Pads, laptops, PDA's - even some of the links having to do with driverless cars in this article: http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/08/05/blind-drivers-ross-doerr#.Uf-O2w3TydM .email Why on earth would they want to preclude an entire segment of the book buying public from buying access to the book market? Sony, Amazon, there are just no words. Who on earth advised you to make such a disasterous business and corporate move as this? Ross A. Doerr - Attorney at Law -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sy Hoekstra Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:52 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [SPAM] Re: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That TheAccessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Ah yes, we blind people stand nothing to gain from the ability to read printed materials. Everyone, put away your computers, phones, tablets, etc. This e-mail means nothing to you. It is printed on a screen, and therefore it's value is an illusion. Whoever told you you should be reading has pulled the wool over your, um, well, you understand. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:20 PM To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > >From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > > >Craig, > > > >Sharing as information. > > > > > >Begin forwarded message: > > > >Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >Waived for E-Book Readers > > > > >Details > > > >The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act >of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make them >accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the Ebook >readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook readers, >Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for >a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition of an Ebook >reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used primarily for >the purpose of reading digital documents, including e-books and >periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed for print >reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled community would >not significantly benefit from these devices becoming accessible. They >also argue that because the devices are so simple, making the changes >to the devices to make them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, >have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. >Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >they are already providing access to their content. >We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >a link to the >original .PDF > >Before the >FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >Washington, D.C. 20554 >In the Matter of ) > ) >Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) > ) > ) >Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications Act >and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) Advanced >Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >Disabilities ) >To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >(202) 662-6000 >Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >Manufacturers >May 16, 2013 >TABLE OF CONTENTS >I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >........................................................................... .... >1 >II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >........................................... >2 >III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >............................................... >3 >A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >.............................................. >4 >B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >............................................... >6 >IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >8 >Before the >FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >Washington, D.C. 20554 >In the Matter of ) > ) >Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) > ) > ) >Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications Act >and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) Advanced >Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >Disabilities ) >To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR WAIVER >I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY > Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >1 > (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the Commission >waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for advanced >communications services >(ACS) for >a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates that >e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >The >public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are available >on a wide range of multi- >1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >Inc. >purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. > As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >public understands the distinction between e-readers and >general-purpose tablets. >Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the necessary >changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful benefit to >individuals with disabilities. >II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT > The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >“carefully defined” >class >of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >2 > E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >e-books and periodicals. >3 > The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >optimized for reading >2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >716 and 717 of the >Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >[hereinafter Waiver Order]. >3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >http://www.wisegeek.co >m/wh at-is-an-E-reader.htm > (last visited May 16, 2013). >(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >As >explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from general >purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers include the >Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. > In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >4 > Seven >years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >function. >5 > The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >ht >tp:/ /www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >. >5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this >distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett, >5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >h ttp://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets >; >Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and >Buy an E-book Reader, ConsumerReports.org >(Apr. 22, 2013), >http://news.consumerreports.org/electroni cs/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html >. >Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and >therefore a useful measure of conventional >understanding, differentiates >e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among >other differences, “[t]ablet computers >. . . are more versatile, allowing >one to consume multiple types of content . . . >.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, >also called an e-book device or e- >reader, is a mobile electronic device that is >designed primarily for the purpose >of reading digital e-books and >periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reade r > (last visited May 16, 2013). >6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING > E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >6 > Specifically, >they are designed to be used for reading. >Moreover, they are marketed as tools for >reading, and >reading is their predominant use. Conversely, >e-readers are not designed or marketed >as tools for >using ACS. >A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading > In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the > features in e-readers are designed and >built >around reading as the primary function. Features >that e-readers possess for reading >optimization >include: >• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >7 >• Low power consumption and extremely long >battery life to facilitate long reading >sessions and use during extended travel; >8 >• Navigation that place reading features, >including e-publication acquisition, front >and center; >9 > and >• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, >bookmarking, and lookup features. >10 >7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan Clinic, >http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have >improved the level of text/background >contrast, and the matte quality of the screen >can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >J., Jan. 4, 2013, >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873238742045782198341605730 10.html > (stating that compared to >tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a >different style of display [that] improves >their battery life”). >9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738 -1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/ > (noting that an advantage of e-readers is > fewer distracting features not focused >on reading). >10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as >a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010), >http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-o r-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ > (“With an eReader, you >can effortlessly highlight and comment as you >read and either share quotes or musings >real time. . . .”). >11 Falcone, supra note >9 >. >12 See Barrett, supra note >5 >. > Product reviews emphasize the centrality of > reading to the design of e-readers. >For >instance, technology review site CNET explains >that “[i]f you want to stick with >‘just reading’ . . >. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >11 > Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo >explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . . >reading. And that’s a blessing.” >12 > Consistent with these features, e-readers are > marketed to readers with one activity >in >mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon >product listing for the 5th generation >Kindle E- >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >describing the device contain phrases >referring to >books or reading, including “lighter than a >paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >like paper,” >“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >“[m]assive book selection,” “books >by best- >selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >http://www.amazon.com/gp/prod uct/B007HCCNJU/ > (last >visited May 16, 2013). >14 Id. >15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd > (last visited May 16, 2013). >16 Sony Reader, >https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/ > (last visited May 16, 2013). >17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet /CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader > (last visited May 16, 2013). >18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012. pdf >. > Not surprisingly based on this design and > marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly >for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >communications marketplace in the U.K. states >that >“almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >18 > Indicative of the utility of e-readers >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >for reading, multiple studies show that reading >electronically on an e-reader increases >the amount >of time individuals spend reading. >19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on >the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie >et al., Pew Internet & >American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >http://libraries. pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >e-reading/ > (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book > reading devices are reading a book, >compared with >45% of the general book-reading public who are >reading a book on a typical day.”); >Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C. >Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038466045754480931757588 72.html > (explaining that a study of >1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research >Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople >who buy e-readers tend >to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”). >20 Bensinger, supra note >8 >. >21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help >You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader, >eBook Friendly (Apr. >8, 2013), > >http: //ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ > (“E-paper screens are not meant for >active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >22 Bensinger, supra note >8 > (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper > tablet computers can be used . . >. as Web >browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >13 > (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus >tablet devices). >24 See, e.g., id. >B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS > E-readers are not general-purpose devices and > lack the features and broad capabilities >of >tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >optimized only for reading and obtaining >reading >material. Features common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack include: >• Color screens; >20 >• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and video; >21 >• Cameras; >22 >• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >23 > and >• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated graphics. >24 >Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess >microphones or quality speakers. > Examination of an e-reader establishes that > these devices are not designed with >ACS as >an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >These purposeful hardware limitations >drive e- >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >e-readers cannot display videos at >an acceptable >quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >http://www.s taples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html > (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >multimedia as well. They can upload and play >audio and of course video . . . .”). >26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >21 > (“You can use [tablets] for other > [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social >media, web browsing, video, games.”). >27 Bensinger, supra note >8 > (stating that e-readers have “more-limited > capabilities, which often include monochrome >screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full >Web browsing.”). >28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >13 >; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >15 >; Sony Reader Product >Listing, supra note >17 >. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which >users and their pre-approved contacts >can e-mail >pre-existing document so that the documents can >be read on the Kindle. However, this >is a feature to facilitate >reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink >format; it is not marketed as or useful >as a tool for real-time or near >real-time text-based communication between >individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation >E-Ink, supra note >13 >. > E-readers are not marketed based on their > ability to access ACS. The webpage listings >for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >features such as e-mail, instant >messaging, >calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >28 > That is consistent with the >fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for >reading, not for general-purpose >use. In fact, >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >many view the absence of robust communication >tools on e-readers as a welcome break >from >distraction rather than as a limitation. For >instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >Reports >explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >I can’t as >easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >news headlines with a tap or two.” >29 Reynolds, supra note >5 >. >30 Falcone, supra note >9 >. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested >in the tablet e-readers; I want a >dedicated >reading device without the distraction of >Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast >and readability of e Ink. I >want access to the best and most varied content. >I want a battery life the length >of War and Peace (months). I want a >device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura >Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite, >The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite >. >31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, >Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire >(May 23, 2011), >http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-read ers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >. >IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST >Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would >require fundamentally altering the devices >and it may not be possible to meet that >requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive >mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary >changes, if they were made, would not >yield a >meaningful benefit to individuals with >disabilities. As described above, e-readers >are not >designed to provide ACS features and >applications. Any consumer who uses a browser >on an e- >reader to access ACS would have a very >low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible >for >disabled persons on e-readers would impose >substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware, >and >licensing costs because the devices would first >have to be redesigned and optimized >for ACS. It >would be necessary to add hardware such as >speakers, more powerful processors, and >faster- >refreshing screens. It also would be necessary >to revise the software interface in >e-readers to >build in infrastructure for ACS and then render >that infrastructure accessible. In >short, the >mandate would be to convert e-readers into >something they are not: a general purpose >device. > It is not merely cost but the very nature of a > specialized e-reader device that >is at issue. >Adding a substantial range of hardware and new >software changes the fundamental nature >of e- >reader devices. A requirement to make these >changes would alter the devices’ form >factor, >weight, and battery life and could undercut the >distinctive features, advantages, >price point, and >viability of e-readers. In particular, the >higher power consumption necessary to >support a faster >refresh rate necessary for high-interaction >activities such as email would put e-reader >power >consumption on par with that of a tablet, >whereas today the lower power consumption >and >resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key selling point. > As a result of all of these changes, e-readers > would be far more similar to general-purpose >tablets in design, features, battery life, and >cost, possibly rendering single-purpose >devices >redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own >both a tablet and an e-reader. According >to a >recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of >Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader, >25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet. >32 > Consistent with this purchasing >pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t >assume that because you have [a tablet], >you don’t >32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading >Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines, >Pew Internet & American >Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps- print-book-reading- >declines/ >. >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >need [an e-reader].” >33 Barrett, supra note >5 >. As explained below, this quote does not apply >to individuals who are blind or have >low >vision, for whom e-readers do not provide >additional functionality that is not available >from a more versatile >smartphone or tablet. >34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent >years include that “[t]he devices >looked sleeker, they were easier to >read, they weighed less, their pages turned >faster, and they held more books. Wireless >capability allowed users to >download novels, magazines and newspapers >wherever they were, whenever they wanted, >and now the devices >allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >8 >. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements >in e-readers, including touch-screen technology >and self-lighting screens.” Id. >35 The Commission has recognized that “if the >inclusion of an accessibility feature >in a product or service results in a >fundamental alteration of that product or >service, then it is per se not achievable >to include that accessibility >function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >14610. The House Report similarly >states that “if the inclusion >of a feature in a product or service results in >a fundamental alteration of that >service or product, it is per se not >achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >Report”). While the >achievability and primary purpose waiver >analyses differ, this demonstrates that >Congress and the Commission >recognize that requiring a fundamental >alteration is not in the public interest or >consistent with the CVAA. >36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). > In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend > to mandate the effective elimination >of a >niche product primarily designed for non-ACS >uses merely because of the presence >of an >ancillary browser purpose-built to support >reading activities on some devices within >the class. >As both the Senate and House Reports explained >in describing the primary purpose >waiver >provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >example, a device designed for a purpose >unrelated >to accessing advanced communications might also >provide, on an incidental basis, >access to such >services. In this case, the Commission may find >that to promote technological innovation >the >accessibility requirements need not apply.” >36 > The example of e-readers is just the “incidental >basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. > Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would > not substantially benefit individuals >with >disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >including individuals who are blind and >wish to access e- >books and other electronic publications, would >have a poor ACS experience even on >accessible >e-reader devices. Because of the inherent >limitations of browsers in e-readers, a >fact that will not >change without a wholesale redesign of >e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices >is >suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. > Further, individuals with disabilities have > accessible options today, and these >options will >soon expand significantly even if the waiver is >granted. For the niche purpose of >reading, high- >quality free alternatives to e-readers are >available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony >Reader, and >Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the >same range of e-publications available >to the >owners of the respective companies’ e-readers >(and in some cases a greater range), >are available >for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs. >37 > Makers of tablets, smartphones, >and computers are working actively to make their >general-purpose audio-enabled devices >accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible >on >these devices, all of which have integrated >audio, speakers, high computing processing >power, >and applications that are optimized for ACS. >Moreover, the accessibility that is >required by the >CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of >these devices will support and provide >accessibility features and capabilities that are >of value beyond the purely ACS context. >38 > Put >simply, individuals with disabilities have >better ACS options on devices other than >e-readers. >37 Falcone, supra note >9 >. Additionally, users can read books via the Web >on all of the services but Sony >Reader. Id. >38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >of devices and explaining >that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use >an advanced communications service, >all of these components may >have to support accessibility features and capabilities”). > A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified > because, in contrast to other classes >of >equipment for which temporary waivers have been >granted, e-readers are a well-established >class >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, >12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility >of convergence in classes of >devices for which waivers were granted). >40 Moreover, it is generally expected that >demand for e-readers will continue well >into the future. One study by the >Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute >projects 23.0 million units of e-reader >sales worldwide in 2016. See >eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012), >http://www.emarketer.c om/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >on-Rise/1009471 >. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects >worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million >units in >2016. See Barrett, supra note >5 >. Assessing the more pessimistic of these >studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers >are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id. >41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across >multiple generations is justified. See >ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC >Rcd at 14640. >* * * > For the reasons set forth above, and > consistent with Section 716 of the Act and >the >Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that >the Commission grant the e-reader >class waiver, >as is consistent with the public interest. >Respectfully submitted, >Gerard J. Waldron >Daniel H. Kahn >COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >(202) 662-6000 >Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >and Sony Electronics Inc. >May 16, 2013 >Displaying 2 comments. > >jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: > >To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave >accessibility out of these devices. The claim >that incorporating accessibility will make the >e-book readers heavier and have less battery >life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many >examples of accessible mobile devices these days >which work perfectly and for which accessibility >is transparent or not even known to those not >needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish, >but your actions will reflect equally on you. >jcast today 2:25 PM ET: > >You must be logged in to post comments. > > >Share this Post > > > > > >---------- >http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286 > > > >Scott > >Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sy.hoekstra%40gmail.co m _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Thu Aug 8 18:23:41 2013 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:23:41 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Microsoft Legal & Corporate Affairs job postings In-Reply-To: <41370810CEBD1C4DA64C9361CE162341DDFF5E11AC@EDUPTCEXMB01.ed.gov> References: <41370810CEBD1C4DA64C9361CE162341DDFF5E11AC@EDUPTCEXMB01.ed.gov> Message-ID: Several legal positions being advertised by Microsoft.... microsoft.com/careers We're Hiring! Microsoft Legal & Corporate Affairs (LCA) Job Postings To learn more about positions with Microsoft in the US and around the world, visit http://careers.microsoft.com. Enter requisition # below as a keyword for more information on a specific opening listed below. Req# Title Description Location 839877 Patent Attorney The Intellectual Property Group's Patent Strategy team is looking for a seasoned patent attorney with great judgment and communication skills to evaluate and advise on freedom-to-operate matters regarding third party patent rights. Redmond, WA 840355 Litigation AGC Microsoft, one of the world's most exciting and dynamic companies, has an immediate opening for an experienced litigation attorney work on cutting edge class action and employment law issues. Redmond, WA 843771 Immigration Attorney Opening for a Global Attorney in our Global Migration group to partner with HR, immigration counsel/vendors, and the Global Team to develop regional immigration strategies, training, and processes that enable the Business and promote legal compliance worldwide. Redmond, WA 840696 Attorney Opening for an attorney to join our U.S. Field Public Sector team. This attorney would primarily support Microsoft's cloud computing and devices business and its more traditional software licensing and consulting services businesses. Washington DC 832556 Attorney Opportunity for an experienced payment attorney to support a growing team focused on everything from payment technologies and systems, to current and next-generation credit and debit card payments, to emerging payment methods and building deep local payment capabilities around the globe. Redmond, WA 836718 Hardware Senior Attorney Opening for an experienced consumer electronics/hardware attorney to provide strategic legal support for Microsoft's Hardware group. Work on a broad range of legal, policy, business, and strategic issues related to the design and development of leading hardware products such as Xbox 360 and Kinect. Redmond, WA 843118 Attorney Opening to support the Media and Entertainment Group within our Interactive Entertainment Business to focus on content acquisition for our Xbox Music, Xbox Video and Xbox application marketplaces. Redmond, WA 838863 Attorney Opening for an experienced attorney to join our Windows legal team to provide strategic legal support for Microsoft's Surface and PC hardware business. Redmond, WA From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Thu Aug 8 19:07:35 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:07:35 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Social Call Invitation Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E13E8EA@pl-emsmb12> On behalf of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum - You are cordially invited to the first in a series of social calls Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 10:30 A.M. sharply The Lyceum will host and Mr. Pilot and his retired mentor Mr. Langer wish to hold these social calls in support and honor of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum, leaders with disabilities, such as their partner Gary C. Norman, and animal related concerns. The social calls are also held as a means of bringing all past or present volunteers, partners, or supporters of the Lyceum together for refreshment from their labors on the Journal and sundry other projects. First Social Call Do enjoy breakfast with board members of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum at the cost of $10 or $20 wherein the proceeds of this larger cost -- $10 -- will be contributed to the Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter. Ø At a breakfast reception, do rejoinder Gary C. Norman and Mr. Pilot in a light breakfast with corresponding toast to leaders with disabilities who are changing the world, such as with respect to supporting the dogs and cats at BARCS. Ø Fine conversation will be a core component of this reception, fitting to what constitutes the dolce vita. Ø A gift certificate to the Alchemy: Modern American Bistro in the amount of $50 will, after the toast, be raffled. Logistics: Location and Alike 1). the breakfast reception will occur at a vegan friendly place, Breathe Books Cafe, 810 West 36 Street, Baltimore City, between Elm and Chestnut Avenues. 2). the goal is to dine either on the first floor or outside should the weather not be unbearable. Food may be purchased at a set price of $10 (recommended combinations will be provided at time of purchase) on the first floor. 3). RSVP notifications are requested. This social call will close at a limit of 20 persons. Up to 5 students currently working on the Journal and 1 past manager of the Journal (i.e. Lacey) will dine for free, as purchased by the Lyceum in gratitude of them thereof. Do provide your RSVP to Gary at (410) 241-6745 or via e-mail at GLNorman15 at hotmail.com. 4). In terms of those who want to donate, cash will be accepted or a separate check should be made to BARCS With fraternal affection and respect, Gary C. Norman, Esq. L.L.M. Misters Pilot and Langer From paul.sullivan416 at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 00:18:21 2013 From: paul.sullivan416 at gmail.com (Paul Sullivan) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:18:21 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Extremely off-topic: Accessible Fantasy Football Message-ID: Hello all, On a very, very un-law-related note: does anyone know which, if any, fantasy football sites are accessible with Jaws? I'd really like to play this year but don't know where to give it a try. Thanks, Paul -- Paul R. Sullivan, Jr. 100 Fifth Avenue Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 456-2200 paul at paulsullivanlegal.com www.paulsullivanlegal.com From mnowicki4 at icloud.com Fri Aug 9 00:30:04 2013 From: mnowicki4 at icloud.com (Michael Nowicki) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:30:04 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Fwd: Accessible e-book readers issues] Message-ID: <001201ce9497$99a84f40$ccf8edc0$@com> -----Original Message----- From: Nowicki, Michal Jerzy [mailto:nowicki4 at uic.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 7:18 PM To: mnowicki4 at icloud.com Subject: [Fwd: Accessible e-book readers issues] ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Accessible e-book readers issues From: "Price, Kevin" Date: Thu, August 8, 2013 4:29 pm To: DRCNETWORK at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Students, Here is some news you may be interested concerning accessible e-book readers. Kevin Amazon, Kobo and Sony are petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to permanently exempt e-readers from certain federal accessibility laws for the disabled, arguing that e-readers are barebones devices designed for a single purpose: reading text. The petition is interesting because it argues that e-readers' value lies in the fact that they are inherently limited devices and that any non-reading functions they include, like experimental web browsers, are "rudimentary" and not very useful. Amazon, Kobo and Sony say that if they were forced to comply with FCC regulations and make e-readers fully accessible to people with disabilities, the essential nature of the devices would change, making them more like tablets, more expensive and, overall, less useful for their express purpose. The FCC is accepting comments on the petition through September 3. http://gigaom.com/2013/08/07/amazon-kobo-and-sony-petition-fcc-to-exempt-e-r eaders-from-accessibility-laws/ DRCNETWORK is an email list providing relevant information and resources to students who have registered with the Disability Resource Center of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Please contact Kevin Price, pricek at uic.edu , if you have any questions, concerns, or content for this email list. From rumpole at roadrunner.com Fri Aug 9 19:06:34 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:06:34 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Federal Unemployment statute question Message-ID: Can any attorney on the list who practices unemployment appeals cases in their state please contact me? My question regards the interaction between our state unemployment law and the federal standars that go along with state unemployment appeals in administrative proceedings. Any assistance would be helpful. rumpole at roadrunner.com Ross - From cannona at fireantproductions.com Fri Aug 9 19:39:42 2013 From: cannona at fireantproductions.com (Aaron Cannon) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:39:42 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. 1. E-readers are different than tablets. 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as they have alternatives. 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they would like the FCC to believe. 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good alternatives exist. It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't discriminate. Just my $0.02. Aaron Cannon On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: > >> >>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting >>That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >>Craig, >> >> >> >>Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The >>Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >>Details >> >> >> >>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and >>Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires >>companies who make electronic devices to make >>them accessible to people with disabilities. At >>this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on >>the market meet this requirement. Since many >>companies feel that this requirement should not >>apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony >>have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for >>a waiver. According to the petition, this is the >>definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, >>sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >>electronic devices that are designed, marketed >>and used primarily for the purpose of reading >>digital documents, including e-books and >>periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily >>designed for print reading, the companies are >>arguing that the disabled community would not >>significantly benefit from these devices >>becoming accessible. They also argue that >>because the devices are so simple, making the >>changes to the devices to make them accessible, >>would cause them to be heavier, have poorer >>battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. >>Finally, these companies argue that since their >>apps are accessible on other devices such as the >>iPad and other full featured tablets, that they >>are already providing access to their content. >>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's >>website below. Here is a >>link to the original >> .PDF >> >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >>Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >>Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >>of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >>Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >>Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >>COALITION OF E-READER MANUFACTURERS >>PETITION FOR WAIVER >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>May 16, 2013 >>TABLE OF CONTENTS >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>............................................................................... >>1 >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>........................................... >>2 >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>............................................... >>3 >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for >>Reading .............................................. >>4 >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for >>ACS ............................................... >>6 >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>8 >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >>Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >>Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >>of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >>Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >>Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >>PETITION FOR WAIVER >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 >> C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully >> requests that the Commission waive the >>accessibility requirements for equipment used >>for advanced communications services >>(ACS) for >>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This >>Petition demonstrates that e-readers >>are devices >>designed, built, and marketed for a single >>primary purpose: to read written material >>such as >>books, magazines, newspapers, and other text >>documents on a mobile electronic device. >>The >>public interest would be served by granting this >>petition because the theoretical >>ACS ability of e- >>readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming >>majority of users actually use the >>devices. >>Moreover, the features and content available on >>e-readers are available on a wide >>range of multi- >>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>consists of Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >>and Sony Electronics Inc. >>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, >>and computers, all of which possess >>integrated >>audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized >>for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct >> class of equipment built for the specific >>purpose of reading. They are designed with >>special features optimized for the reading >>experience and are marketed as devices for >>reading. Although they have a similar >>shape and size >>to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers >>lack many of tablets’ features for >>general-purpose >>computing, including ACS functions. E-readers >>simply are not designed, built, or >>marketed for >>ACS, and the public understands the distinction >>between e-readers and general-purpose >>tablets. >>Granting the petition is in the public interest >>because rendering ACS accessible >>on e-readers >>would require fundamentally altering the devices >>to be more like general-purpose >>tablets in cost, >>form factor, weight, user interface, and reduced >>battery life, and yet the necessary >>changes, if >>they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be >> applicable to a “carefully defined” >>class >>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, >>sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >>electronic devices that are designed, >>marketed and >>used primarily for the purpose of reading >>digital documents, including e-books and >>periodicals. >>3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include >> electronic ink screens optimized for >>reading >>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of >>Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications >>Act of 1934, as Enacted by >>the Twenty-First Century Communications and >>Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket >>No. 10-213, WT >>Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report >>and Order and Further Notice of Proposed >>Rulemaking, 26 FCC >>Rcd 14557, 14639 (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report >>and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the >>Twenty-First Century Communications >>and Video Accessibility >>Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class >>Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 >>of the Communications Act >>and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>Access to Advanced Communications >>Services (ACS) and >>Equipment by People with Disabilities, Order, 27 >>FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) [hereinafter >>Waiver Order]. >>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device >>used to view books, magazines, and >>newspapers in a digital format.” >>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to >>minimize eye strain during extended >>reading >>sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>e-publications and their user interfaces, >>both >>hardware and software features, are designed >>around reading as the primary user function. >>As >>explained more fully below, another important >>aspect of e-readers is the features >>they do not >>contain, which distinguishes them from general >>purpose devices such as tablets. Examples >>of e- >>readers include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo >> Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader >> available in the U.S. utilizing electronic >>ink, and >>since that time the number of manufacturers and >>models has expanded substantially. >>4 >> Seven >>years is a long time in the modern digital age, >>and the public understands that although >>e-readers >>may be somewhat similar in shape and size to >>general-purpose tablets, e-readers are >>aimed at a >>specific function. >>5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, >>Technology Innovation Librarian, >>Nebraska Library Commission, >>(Oct. 14, 2011), >>http://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>. >>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this >>distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett, >>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets >>; >>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and >>Buy an E-book Reader, ConsumerReports.org >>(Apr. 22, 2013), >>http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html >>. >>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and >>therefore a useful measure of conventional >>understanding, differentiates >>e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among >>other differences, “[t]ablet computers >>. . . are more versatile, allowing >>one to consume multiple types of content . . . >>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, >>also called an e-book device or e- >>reader, is a mobile electronic device that is >>designed primarily for the purpose >>of reading digital e-books and >>periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>6 >> Specifically, >>they are designed to be used for reading. >>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for >>reading, and >>reading is their predominant use. Conversely, >>e-readers are not designed or marketed >>as tools for >>using ACS. >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the >> features in e-readers are designed and >>built >>around reading as the primary function. Features >>that e-readers possess for reading >>optimization >>include: >>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>7 >>• Low power consumption and extremely long >>battery life to facilitate long reading >>sessions and use during extended travel; >>8 >>• Navigation that place reading features, >>including e-publication acquisition, front >>and center; >>9 >> and >>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, >>bookmarking, and lookup features. >>10 >>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan Clinic, >>http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have >>improved the level of text/background >>contrast, and the matte quality of the screen >>can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.html >> (stating that compared to >>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a >>different style of display [that] improves >>their battery life”). >>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is >> fewer distracting features not focused >>on reading). >>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as >>a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010), >>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you >>read and either share quotes or musings >>real time. . . .”). >>11 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. >>12 See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of >> reading to the design of e-readers. >>For >>instance, technology review site CNET explains >>that “[i]f you want to stick with >>‘just reading’ . . >>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo >>explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . . >>reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are >> marketed to readers with one activity >>in >>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon >>product listing for the 5th generation >>Kindle E- >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases >>referring to >>books or reading, including “lighter than a >>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >> [l]ibrary.” >>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >>visited May 16, 2013). >>14 Id. >>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>16 Sony Reader, >>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf >>. >> Not surprisingly based on this design and >> marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly >>for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>communications marketplace in the U.K. states >>that >>“almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading >>electronically on an e-reader increases >>the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading >>electronically on an e-reader increases >>the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading >>electronically on an e-reader increases >>the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on >>the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie >>et al., Pew Internet & >>American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book >> reading devices are reading a book, >>compared with >>45% of the general book-reading public who are >>reading a book on a typical day.”); >>Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C. >>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.html >> (explaining that a study of >>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research >>Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople >>who buy e-readers tend >>to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>20 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help >>You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader, >>eBook Friendly (Apr. >>8, 2013), >> >>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>22 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper >> tablet computers can be used . . >>. as Web >>browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus >>tablet devices). >>24 See, e.g., id. >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and >> lack the features and broad capabilities >>of >>tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>optimized only for reading and obtaining >>reading >>material. Features common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >> include: >>• Color screens; >>20 >>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and video; >>21 >>• Cameras; >>22 >>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>23 >> and >>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >> graphics. >>24 >>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess >>microphones or quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that >> these devices are not designed with >>ACS as >>an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>These purposeful hardware limitations >>drive e- >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >>e-readers cannot display videos at >>an acceptable >>quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>multimedia as well. They can upload and play >>audio and of course video . . . .”). >>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social >>media, web browsing, video, games.”). >>27 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited >> capabilities, which often include monochrome >>screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full >>Web browsing.”). >>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>15 >>; Sony Reader Product >>Listing, supra note >>17 >>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which >>users and their pre-approved contacts >>can e-mail >>pre-existing document so that the documents can >>be read on the Kindle. However, this >>is a feature to facilitate >>reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink >>format; it is not marketed as or useful >>as a tool for real-time or near >>real-time text-based communication between >>individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation >>E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>. >> E-readers are not marketed based on their >> ability to access ACS. The webpage listings >>for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>features such as e-mail, instant >>messaging, >>calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>28 >> That is consistent with the >>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for >>reading, not for general-purpose >>use. In fact, >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication >>tools on e-readers as a welcome break >>from >>distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports >>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since >>I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >>news headlines with a tap or two.” >>29 Reynolds, supra note >>5 >>. >>30 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested >>in the tablet e-readers; I want a >>dedicated >>reading device without the distraction of >>Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast >>and readability of e Ink. I >>want access to the best and most varied content. >>I want a battery life the length >>of War and Peace (months). I want a >>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura >>Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite, >>The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite >>. >>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, >>Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire >>(May 23, 2011), >>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>. >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST >>Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would >>require fundamentally altering the devices >>and it may not be possible to meet that >>requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive >>mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary >>changes, if they were made, would not >>yield a >>meaningful benefit to individuals with >>disabilities. As described above, e-readers >>are not >>designed to provide ACS features and >>applications. Any consumer who uses a browser >>on an e- >>reader to access ACS would have a very >>low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible >>for >>disabled persons on e-readers would impose >>substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware, >>and >>licensing costs because the devices would first >>have to be redesigned and optimized >>for ACS. It >>would be necessary to add hardware such as >>speakers, more powerful processors, and >>faster- >>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary >>to revise the software interface in >>e-readers to >>build in infrastructure for ACS and then render >>that infrastructure accessible. In >>short, the >>mandate would be to convert e-readers into >>something they are not: a general purpose >>device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a >> specialized e-reader device that >>is at issue. >>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new >>software changes the fundamental nature >>of e- >>reader devices. A requirement to make these >>changes would alter the devices’ form >>factor, >>weight, and battery life and could undercut the >>distinctive features, advantages, >>price point, and >>viability of e-readers. In particular, the >>higher power consumption necessary to >>support a faster >>refresh rate necessary for high-interaction >>activities such as email would put e-reader >>power >>consumption on par with that of a tablet, >>whereas today the lower power consumption >>and >>resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers >> would be far more similar to general-purpose >>tablets in design, features, battery life, and >>cost, possibly rendering single-purpose >>devices >>redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own >>both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>to a >>recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of >>Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader, >>25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet. >>32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t >>assume that because you have [a tablet], >>you don’t >>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading >>Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines, >>Pew Internet & American >>Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading- >>declines/ >>. >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>33 Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. As explained below, this quote does not apply >>to individuals who are blind or have >>low >>vision, for whom e-readers do not provide >>additional functionality that is not available >>from a more versatile >>smartphone or tablet. >>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent >>years include that “[t]he devices >>looked sleeker, they were easier to >>read, they weighed less, their pages turned >>faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>capability allowed users to >>download novels, magazines and newspapers >>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, >>and now the devices >>allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements >>in e-readers, including touch-screen technology >>and self-lighting screens.” Id. >>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the >>inclusion of an accessibility feature >>in a product or service results in a >>fundamental alteration of that product or >>service, then it is per se not achievable >>to include that accessibility >>function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14610. The House Report similarly >>states that “if the inclusion >>of a feature in a product or service results in >>a fundamental alteration of that >>service or product, it is per se not >>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>Report”). While the >>achievability and primary purpose waiver >>analyses differ, this demonstrates that >>Congress and the Commission >>recognize that requiring a fundamental >>alteration is not in the public interest or >>consistent with the CVAA. >>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend >> to mandate the effective elimination >>of a >>niche product primarily designed for non-ACS >>uses merely because of the presence >>of an >>ancillary browser purpose-built to support >>reading activities on some devices within >>the class. >>As both the Senate and House Reports explained >>in describing the primary purpose >>waiver >>provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>example, a device designed for a purpose >>unrelated >>to accessing advanced communications might also >>provide, on an incidental basis, >>access to such >>services. In this case, the Commission may find >>that to promote technological innovation >>the >>accessibility requirements need not apply.” >>36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental >>basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would >> not substantially benefit individuals >>with >>disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>including individuals who are blind and >>wish to access e- >>books and other electronic publications, would >>have a poor ACS experience even on >>accessible >>e-reader devices. Because of the inherent >>limitations of browsers in e-readers, a >>fact that will not >>change without a wholesale redesign of >>e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices >>is >>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have >> accessible options today, and these >>options will >>soon expand significantly even if the waiver is >>granted. For the niche purpose of >>reading, high- >>quality free alternatives to e-readers are >>available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony >>Reader, and >>Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the >>same range of e-publications available >>to the >>owners of the respective companies’ e-readers >>(and in some cases a greater range), >>are available >>for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs. >>37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>and computers are working actively to make their >>general-purpose audio-enabled devices >>accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible >>on >>these devices, all of which have integrated >>audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, >>and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>Moreover, the accessibility that is >>required by the >>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of >>these devices will support and provide >>accessibility features and capabilities that are >>of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>38 >> Put >>simply, individuals with disabilities have >>better ACS options on devices other than >>e-readers. >>37 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web >>on all of the services but Sony >>Reader. Id. >>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>of devices and explaining >>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use >>an advanced communications service, >>all of these components may >>have to support accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified >> because, in contrast to other classes >>of >>equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>granted, e-readers are a well-established >>class >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >> device. >>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, >>12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility >>of convergence in classes of >>devices for which waivers were granted). >>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that >>demand for e-readers will continue well >>into the future. One study by the >>Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute >>projects 23.0 million units of e-reader >>sales worldwide in 2016. See >>eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012), >>http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>on-Rise/1009471 >>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects >>worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million >>units in >>2016. See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these >>studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers >>are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id. >>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across >>multiple generations is justified. See >>ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC >>Rcd at 14640. >>* * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and >> consistent with Section 716 of the Act and >>the >>Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that >>the Commission grant the e-reader >>class waiver, >>as is consistent with the public interest. >>Respectfully submitted, >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >>and Sony Electronics Inc. >>May 16, 2013 >>Displaying 2 comments. >> >>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave >>accessibility out of these devices. The claim >>that incorporating accessibility will make the >>e-book readers heavier and have less battery >>life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many >>examples of accessible mobile devices these days >>which work perfectly and for which accessibility >>is transparent or not even known to those not >>needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish, >>but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >>You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >>Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286 >> >> >> >>Scott >> >>Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > nfbcs mailing list > nfbcs at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > nfbcs: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantproductions.com > From mnowicki4 at icloud.com Fri Aug 9 21:38:59 2013 From: mnowicki4 at icloud.com (Michael Nowicki) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:38:59 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> Hi list members, As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB have a plan of action? Michal -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. 1. E-readers are different than tablets. 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as they have alternatives. 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they would like the FCC to believe. 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good alternatives exist. It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't discriminate. Just my $0.02. Aaron Cannon On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: > >> >>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >>Craig, >> >> >> >>Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >>Details >> >> >> >>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>the devices. >>Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>they are already providing access to their content. >>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>a link to the >>original .PDF >> >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>May 16, 2013 >>TABLE OF CONTENTS >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>.......................................................................... ..... >>1 >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>........................................... >>2 >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>............................................... >>3 >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>.............................................. >>4 >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>............................................... >>6 >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>8 >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>advanced communications services >>(ACS) for >>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>The >>public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>available on a wide range of multi- >>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>Inc. >>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>general-purpose tablets. >>Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>“carefully defined” >>class >>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals. >>3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>optimized for reading >>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>[hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>http://www.wisegeek.c >>om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>As >>explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo >>Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>4 >> Seven >>years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>function. >>5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>h >>ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>. >>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>Brian Barrett, >>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>>ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>ablets >>; >>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>ConsumerReports.org >>(Apr. 22, 2013), >>>-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>der.html >>. >>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>. . . >>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>6 >> Specifically, >>they are designed to be used for reading. >>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>tools for using ACS. >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>include: >>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>7 >>• Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>8 >>• Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>acquisition, front and center; >>9 >> and >>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>features. >>10 >>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan >>Clinic, >>http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of >>text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can >>reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>>3010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821 >>9834160573010.html >> (stating that compared to >>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display >>[that] improves their battery life”). >>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>>-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_1 >>05-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-bu >>y/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is fewer distracting >>features not focused on reading). >>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool >>(Sept. 13, 2010), >>>as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using >>-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share >>quotes or musings real time. . . .”). >>11 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. >>12 See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of reading to the design >>of e-readers. >>For >>instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to >>stick with ‘just reading’ . . >>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers >>“do one thing well . . . >>reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are marketed to readers >>with one activity in >>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th >>generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, >>including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>http://www.amazon.com/gp >>/product/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >>visited May 16, 2013). >>14 Id. >>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>16 Sony Reader, >>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reade >>r/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>>ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto >>res/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>>012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/C >>MR_UK_2012.pdf >>. >> Not surprisingly based on this design and marketing, e-readers are >>used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all >>consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies >>show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people >>read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The >>Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>http://libra >>ries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book reading devices are >>reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public >>who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie >>C. >>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>>8872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544 >>8093175758872.html >> (explaining that a study of >>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. >>concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time >>than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>20 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between >>Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr. >>8, 2013), >> >> >>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>22 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper tablet computers can >>be used . . >>. as Web >>browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet >>devices). >>24 See, e.g., id. >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and lack the features and >>broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features >>common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >> include: >>• Color screens; >>20 >>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and >>video; >>21 >>• Cameras; >>22 >>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>23 >> and >>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >>graphics. >>24 >>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or >>quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that these devices are not >>designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>These purposeful hardware limitations >>drive e- >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>http:// >>www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video >>. . . .”). >>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, >>video, games.”). >>27 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited capabilities, which >>often include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”). >>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>15 >>; Sony Reader Product >>Listing, supra note >>17 >>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their >>pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the >>documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to >>facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is >>not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time >>text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th >>Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>. >> E-readers are not marketed based on their ability to access ACS. >>The webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or >>interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>28 >> That is consistent with the >>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for >>general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust >>communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction >>rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more >>rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by >>checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>29 Reynolds, supra note >>5 >>. >>30 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet >>e-readers; I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction >>of Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e >>Ink. I want access to the best and most varied content. >>I want a battery life the length >>of War and Peace (months). I want a >>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: >>Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>>white>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle- >>paperwhite >>. >>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To >>E-reader, Geekwire (May 23, 2011), >>>es-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-elec >>tronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>. >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering >>ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and >>maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, >>e-readers are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. >>Any consumer who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would >>have a very low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for >>disabled persons on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing >>engineering, hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would >>first have to be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be >>necessary to add hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, >>and >>faster- >>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software >>interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then >>render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be >>to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose >>device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a specialized e-reader >>device that is at issue. >>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the >>fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these >>changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life >>and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, >>and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power >>consumption necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for >>high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power >>consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower >>power consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers >>is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers would be far more >>similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, >>and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, >>many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 >>and older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an >>e-reader and a tablet. >>32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you >>have [a tablet], you don’t >>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading >>Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>>t-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-rea >>ding-jumps-print-book-reading- >>declines/ >>. >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>33 Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are >>blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional >>functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone >>or tablet. >>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that >>“[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed >>less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers >>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow >>for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in >>e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting >>screens.” Id. >>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an >>accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental >>alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not >>achievable to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and >>Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if >>the inclusion of a feature in a product or service results in a >>fundamental alteration of that service or product, it is per se not >>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>Report”). While the >>achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this >>demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring >>a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent >>with the CVAA. >>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend to mandate the >>effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for >>non-ACS uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser >>purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the >>class. >>As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the >>primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing >>advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, >>access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to >>promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need >>not apply.” >>36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that >>Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would not substantially >>benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and >>other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even >>on accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of >>browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale >>redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is >>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have accessible options >>today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the >>waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality >>free alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, >>Sony Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same >>range of e-publications available to the owners of the respective >>companies’ e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are >>available for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and >>Macs. >>37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose >>audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of >>which have integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>Moreover, the accessibility that is >>required by the >>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will >>support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are >>of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>38 >> Put >>simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on >>devices other than e-readers. >>37 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the >>services but Sony Reader. Id. >>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>of devices and explaining >>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced >>communications service, all of these components may have to support >>accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast >>to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not >>experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 >>(describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which >>waivers were granted). >>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will >>continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & >>Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales >>worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. >>8, 2012), >>http://www.emarke >>ter.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>on-Rise/1009471 >>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of >>e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes >>that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going >>anywhere.” Id. >>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is >>justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640. >>* * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with Section 716 of >>the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the >>Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the >>public interest. >>Respectfully submitted, >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>Electronics Inc. >>May 16, 2013 >>Displaying 2 comments. >> >>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of >>these devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make >>the e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly >>ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices >>these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is >>transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and >>Sony, do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >>You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >>Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/92 >>86 >> >> >> >>Scott >> >>Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > nfbcs mailing list > nfbcs at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > nfbcs: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantpr > oductions.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com From rob.tabor at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 9 21:51:35 2013 From: rob.tabor at sbcglobal.net (Rob Tabor) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:51:35 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> Message-ID: <001801ce954a$9ea97fb0$dbfc7f10$@sbcglobal.net> Good afternoon, I don't know if the NFB legislative staff has or intends to respond to the petition for waiver from the accessibility requirements of the act. However, as legislative liaison for the Kansas affiliate I will contact one of the three legislative afairs staf members about the matter. Best regards, Rob Tabor JD -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Nowicki Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 4:39 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Hi list members, As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB have a plan of action? Michal -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. 1. E-readers are different than tablets. 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as they have alternatives. 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they would like the FCC to believe. 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good alternatives exist. It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't discriminate. Just my $0.02. Aaron Cannon On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: > >> >>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >>Craig, >> >> >> >>Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >>Details >> >> >> >>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>the devices. >>Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>they are already providing access to their content. >>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>a link to the >>original .PDF >> >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>May 16, 2013 >>TABLE OF CONTENTS >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>.......................................................................... ..... >>1 >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>........................................... >>2 >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>............................................... >>3 >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>.............................................. >>4 >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>............................................... >>6 >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>8 >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>advanced communications services >>(ACS) for >>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>The >>public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>available on a wide range of multi- >>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>Inc. >>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>general-purpose tablets. >>Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>“carefully defined” >>class >>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals. >>3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>optimized for reading >>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>[hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>http://www.wisegeek.c >>om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>As >>explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>4 >> Seven >>years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>function. >>5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>h >>ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>. >>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>Brian Barrett, >>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>>ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>ablets >>; >>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>ConsumerReports.org >>(Apr. 22, 2013), >>>-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>der.html >>. >>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>. . . >>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>6 >> Specifically, >>they are designed to be used for reading. >>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>tools for using ACS. >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>include: >>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>7 >>• Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>8 >>• Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>acquisition, front and center; >>9 >> and >>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>features. >>10 >>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan >>Clinic, >>http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of >>text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can >>reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>>3010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821 >>9834160573010.html >> (stating that compared to >>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display >>[that] improves their battery life”). >>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>>-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_1 >>05-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-bu >>y/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is fewer distracting >>features not focused on reading). >>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool >>(Sept. 13, 2010), >>>as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using >>-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share >>quotes or musings real time. . . .”). >>11 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. >>12 See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of reading to the design >>of e-readers. >>For >>instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to >>stick with ‘just reading’ . . >>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers >>“do one thing well . . . >>reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are marketed to readers >>with one activity in >>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th >>generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, >>including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>http://www.amazon.com/gp >>/product/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >>visited May 16, 2013). >>14 Id. >>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>16 Sony Reader, >>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reade >>r/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>>ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto >>res/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>>012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/C >>MR_UK_2012.pdf >>. >> Not surprisingly based on this design and marketing, e-readers are >>used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all >>consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies >>show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people >>read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The >>Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>http://libra >>ries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book reading devices are >>reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public >>who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie >>C. >>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>>8872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544 >>8093175758872.html >> (explaining that a study of >>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. >>concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time >>than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>20 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between >>Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr. >>8, 2013), >> >> >>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>22 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper tablet computers can >>be used . . >>. as Web >>browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet >>devices). >>24 See, e.g., id. >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and lack the features and >>broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features >>common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >> include: >>• Color screens; >>20 >>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and >>video; >>21 >>• Cameras; >>22 >>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>23 >> and >>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >>graphics. >>24 >>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or >>quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that these devices are not >>designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>These purposeful hardware limitations >>drive e- >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>http:// >>www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video >>. . . .”). >>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, >>video, games.”). >>27 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited capabilities, which >>often include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”). >>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>15 >>; Sony Reader Product >>Listing, supra note >>17 >>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their >>pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the >>documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to >>facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is >>not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time >>text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th >>Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>. >> E-readers are not marketed based on their ability to access ACS. >>The webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or >>interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>28 >> That is consistent with the >>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for >>general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust >>communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction >>rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more >>rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by >>checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>29 Reynolds, supra note >>5 >>. >>30 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet >>e-readers; I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction >>of Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e >>Ink. I want access to the best and most varied content. >>I want a battery life the length >>of War and Peace (months). I want a >>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: >>Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>>white>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle- >>paperwhite >>. >>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To >>E-reader, Geekwire (May 23, 2011), >>>es-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-elec >>tronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>. >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering >>ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and >>maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, >>e-readers are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. >>Any consumer who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would >>have a very low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for >>disabled persons on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing >>engineering, hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would >>first have to be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be >>necessary to add hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, >>and >>faster- >>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software >>interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then >>render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be >>to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose >>device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a specialized e-reader >>device that is at issue. >>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the >>fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these >>changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life >>and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, >>and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power >>consumption necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for >>high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power >>consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower >>power consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers >>is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers would be far more >>similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, >>and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, >>many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 >>and older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an >>e-reader and a tablet. >>32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you >>have [a tablet], you don’t >>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading >>Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>>t-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-rea >>ding-jumps-print-book-reading- >>declines/ >>. >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>33 Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are >>blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional >>functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone >>or tablet. >>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that >>“[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed >>less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers >>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow >>for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in >>e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting >>screens.” Id. >>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an >>accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental >>alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not >>achievable to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and >>Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if >>the inclusion of a feature in a product or service results in a >>fundamental alteration of that service or product, it is per se not >>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>Report”). While the >>achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this >>demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring >>a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent >>with the CVAA. >>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend to mandate the >>effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for >>non-ACS uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser >>purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the >>class. >>As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the >>primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing >>advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, >>access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to >>promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need >>not apply.” >>36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that >>Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would not substantially >>benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and >>other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even >>on accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of >>browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale >>redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is >>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have accessible options >>today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the >>waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality >>free alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, >>Sony Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same >>range of e-publications available to the owners of the respective >>companies’ e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are >>available for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and >>Macs. >>37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose >>audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of >>which have integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>Moreover, the accessibility that is >>required by the >>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will >>support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are >>of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>38 >> Put >>simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on >>devices other than e-readers. >>37 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the >>services but Sony Reader. Id. >>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>of devices and explaining >>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced >>communications service, all of these components may have to support >>accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast >>to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not >>experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 >>(describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which >>waivers were granted). >>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will >>continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & >>Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales >>worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. >>8, 2012), >>http://www.emarke >>ter.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>on-Rise/1009471 >>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of >>e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes >>that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going >>anywhere.” Id. >>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is >>justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640. >>* * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with Section 716 of >>the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the >>Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the >>public interest. >>Respectfully submitted, >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>Electronics Inc. >>May 16, 2013 >>Displaying 2 comments. >> >>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of >>these devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make >>the e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly >>ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices >>these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is >>transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and >>Sony, do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >>You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >>Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/92 >>86 >> >> >> >>Scott >> >>Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > nfbcs mailing list > nfbcs at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > nfbcs: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantpr > oductions.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rob.tabor%40sbcglobal. net From mnowicki4 at icloud.com Fri Aug 9 22:07:32 2013 From: mnowicki4 at icloud.com (Michael Nowicki) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:07:32 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <001801ce954a$9ea97fb0$dbfc7f10$@sbcglobal.net> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> <001801ce954a$9ea97fb0$dbfc7f10$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <000001ce954c$d9b05c30$8d111490$@com> Thank you, Mr. Tabor. We appreciate your help. Michal -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Rob Tabor Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 4:52 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Good afternoon, I don't know if the NFB legislative staff has or intends to respond to the petition for waiver from the accessibility requirements of the act. However, as legislative liaison for the Kansas affiliate I will contact one of the three legislative afairs staf members about the matter. Best regards, Rob Tabor JD -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Nowicki Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 4:39 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Hi list members, As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB have a plan of action? Michal -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. 1. E-readers are different than tablets. 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as they have alternatives. 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they would like the FCC to believe. 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good alternatives exist. It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't discriminate. Just my $0.02. Aaron Cannon On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: > >> >>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >>Craig, >> >> >> >>Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >>Details >> >> >> >>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>the devices. >>Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>they are already providing access to their content. >>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>a link to the >>original .PDF >> >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>May 16, 2013 >>TABLE OF CONTENTS >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>.......................................................................... ..... >>1 >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>........................................... >>2 >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>............................................... >>3 >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>.............................................. >>4 >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>............................................... >>6 >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>8 >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>advanced communications services >>(ACS) for >>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>The >>public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>available on a wide range of multi- >>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>Inc. >>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>general-purpose tablets. >>Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>“carefully defined” >>class >>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals. >>3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>optimized for reading >>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>[hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>http://www.wisegeek.c >>om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>As >>explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>4 >> Seven >>years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>function. >>5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>h >>ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>. >>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>Brian Barrett, >>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>>ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>ablets >>; >>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>ConsumerReports.org >>(Apr. 22, 2013), >>>-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>der.html >>. >>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>. . . >>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>6 >> Specifically, >>they are designed to be used for reading. >>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>tools for using ACS. >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>include: >>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>7 >>• Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>8 >>• Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>acquisition, front and center; >>9 >> and >>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>features. >>10 >>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan >>Clinic, >>http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of >>text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can >>reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>>3010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821 >>9834160573010.html >> (stating that compared to >>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display >>[that] improves their battery life”). >>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>>-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_1 >>05-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-bu >>y/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is fewer distracting >>features not focused on reading). >>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool >>(Sept. 13, 2010), >>>as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using >>-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share >>quotes or musings real time. . . .”). >>11 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. >>12 See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of reading to the design >>of e-readers. >>For >>instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to >>stick with ‘just reading’ . . >>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers >>“do one thing well . . . >>reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are marketed to readers >>with one activity in >>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th >>generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, >>including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>http://www.amazon.com/gp >>/product/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >>visited May 16, 2013). >>14 Id. >>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>16 Sony Reader, >>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reade >>r/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>>ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto >>res/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>>012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/C >>MR_UK_2012.pdf >>. >> Not surprisingly based on this design and marketing, e-readers are >>used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all >>consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies >>show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people >>read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The >>Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>http://libra >>ries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book reading devices are >>reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public >>who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie >>C. >>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>>8872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544 >>8093175758872.html >> (explaining that a study of >>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. >>concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time >>than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>20 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between >>Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr. >>8, 2013), >> >> >>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>22 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper tablet computers can >>be used . . >>. as Web >>browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet >>devices). >>24 See, e.g., id. >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and lack the features and >>broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features >>common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >> include: >>• Color screens; >>20 >>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and >>video; >>21 >>• Cameras; >>22 >>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>23 >> and >>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >>graphics. >>24 >>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or >>quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that these devices are not >>designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>These purposeful hardware limitations >>drive e- >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>http:// >>www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video >>. . . .”). >>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, >>video, games.”). >>27 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited capabilities, which >>often include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”). >>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>15 >>; Sony Reader Product >>Listing, supra note >>17 >>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their >>pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the >>documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to >>facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is >>not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time >>text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th >>Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>. >> E-readers are not marketed based on their ability to access ACS. >>The webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or >>interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>28 >> That is consistent with the >>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for >>general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust >>communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction >>rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more >>rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by >>checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>29 Reynolds, supra note >>5 >>. >>30 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet >>e-readers; I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction >>of Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e >>Ink. I want access to the best and most varied content. >>I want a battery life the length >>of War and Peace (months). I want a >>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: >>Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>>white>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle- >>paperwhite >>. >>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To >>E-reader, Geekwire (May 23, 2011), >>>es-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-elec >>tronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>. >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering >>ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and >>maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, >>e-readers are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. >>Any consumer who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would >>have a very low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for >>disabled persons on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing >>engineering, hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would >>first have to be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be >>necessary to add hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, >>and >>faster- >>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software >>interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then >>render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be >>to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose >>device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a specialized e-reader >>device that is at issue. >>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the >>fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these >>changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life >>and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, >>and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power >>consumption necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for >>high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power >>consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower >>power consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers >>is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers would be far more >>similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, >>and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, >>many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 >>and older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an >>e-reader and a tablet. >>32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you >>have [a tablet], you don’t >>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading >>Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>>t-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-rea >>ding-jumps-print-book-reading- >>declines/ >>. >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>33 Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are >>blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional >>functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone >>or tablet. >>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that >>“[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed >>less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers >>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow >>for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in >>e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting >>screens.” Id. >>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an >>accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental >>alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not >>achievable to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and >>Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if >>the inclusion of a feature in a product or service results in a >>fundamental alteration of that service or product, it is per se not >>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>Report”). While the >>achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this >>demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring >>a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent >>with the CVAA. >>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend to mandate the >>effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for >>non-ACS uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser >>purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the >>class. >>As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the >>primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing >>advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, >>access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to >>promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need >>not apply.” >>36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that >>Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would not substantially >>benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and >>other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even >>on accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of >>browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale >>redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is >>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have accessible options >>today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the >>waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality >>free alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, >>Sony Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same >>range of e-publications available to the owners of the respective >>companies’ e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are >>available for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and >>Macs. >>37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose >>audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of >>which have integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>Moreover, the accessibility that is >>required by the >>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will >>support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are >>of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>38 >> Put >>simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on >>devices other than e-readers. >>37 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the >>services but Sony Reader. Id. >>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>of devices and explaining >>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced >>communications service, all of these components may have to support >>accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast >>to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not >>experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 >>(describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which >>waivers were granted). >>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will >>continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & >>Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales >>worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. >>8, 2012), >>http://www.emarke >>ter.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>on-Rise/1009471 >>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of >>e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes >>that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going >>anywhere.” Id. >>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is >>justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640. >>* * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with Section 716 of >>the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the >>Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the >>public interest. >>Respectfully submitted, >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>Electronics Inc. >>May 16, 2013 >>Displaying 2 comments. >> >>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of >>these devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make >>the e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly >>ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices >>these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is >>transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and >>Sony, do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >>You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >>Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/92 >>86 >> >> >> >>Scott >> >>Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > nfbcs mailing list > nfbcs at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > nfbcs: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantpr > oductions.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rob.tabor%40sbcglobal. net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com From rumpole at roadrunner.com Fri Aug 9 22:25:38 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:25:38 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> Message-ID: Speaking my own mind here, I have seen too many things similar to this that should never have seen the light of day, end up being granted by the authority. If NFB does not have a plan of action, perhaps we should, at the very least rattle some swords. Lets face it, this is, after all, a lawsuit waiting to be filed. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Nowicki Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:39 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Hi list members, As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB have a plan of action? Michal -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. 1. E-readers are different than tablets. 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as they have alternatives. 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they would like the FCC to believe. 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good alternatives exist. It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't discriminate. Just my $0.02. Aaron Cannon On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: > >> >>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >>Craig, >> >> >> >>Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >>Details >> >> >> >>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>the devices. >>Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>they are already providing access to their content. >>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>a link to the >>original .PDF >> >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>May 16, 2013 >>TABLE OF CONTENTS >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>.......................................................................... ..... >>1 >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>........................................... >>2 >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>............................................... >>3 >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>.............................................. >>4 >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>............................................... >>6 >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>8 >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>advanced communications services >>(ACS) for >>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>The >>public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>available on a wide range of multi- >>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>Inc. >>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>general-purpose tablets. >>Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>“carefully defined” >>class >>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals. >>3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>optimized for reading >>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>[hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>http://www.wisegeek.c >>om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>As >>explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>4 >> Seven >>years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>function. >>5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>h >>ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>. >>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>Brian Barrett, >>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>>ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>ablets >>; >>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>ConsumerReports.org >>(Apr. 22, 2013), >>>-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>der.html >>. >>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>. . . >>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>6 >> Specifically, >>they are designed to be used for reading. >>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>tools for using ACS. >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>include: >>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>7 >>• Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>8 >>• Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>acquisition, front and center; >>9 >> and >>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>features. >>10 >>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan >>Clinic, >>http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of >>text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can >>reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>>3010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821 >>9834160573010.html >> (stating that compared to >>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display >>[that] improves their battery life”). >>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>>-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_1 >>05-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-bu >>y/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is fewer distracting >>features not focused on reading). >>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool >>(Sept. 13, 2010), >>>as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using >>-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share >>quotes or musings real time. . . .”). >>11 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. >>12 See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of reading to the design >>of e-readers. >>For >>instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to >>stick with ‘just reading’ . . >>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers >>“do one thing well . . . >>reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are marketed to readers >>with one activity in >>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th >>generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, >>including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>http://www.amazon.com/gp >>/product/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >>visited May 16, 2013). >>14 Id. >>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>16 Sony Reader, >>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reade >>r/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>>ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto >>res/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>>012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/C >>MR_UK_2012.pdf >>. >> Not surprisingly based on this design and marketing, e-readers are >>used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all >>consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies >>show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people >>read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The >>Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>http://libra >>ries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book reading devices are >>reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public >>who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie >>C. >>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>>8872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544 >>8093175758872.html >> (explaining that a study of >>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. >>concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time >>than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>20 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between >>Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr. >>8, 2013), >> >> >>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>22 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper tablet computers can >>be used . . >>. as Web >>browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet >>devices). >>24 See, e.g., id. >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and lack the features and >>broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features >>common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >> include: >>• Color screens; >>20 >>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and >>video; >>21 >>• Cameras; >>22 >>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>23 >> and >>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >>graphics. >>24 >>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or >>quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that these devices are not >>designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>These purposeful hardware limitations >>drive e- >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>http:// >>www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video >>. . . .”). >>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, >>video, games.”). >>27 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited capabilities, which >>often include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”). >>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>15 >>; Sony Reader Product >>Listing, supra note >>17 >>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their >>pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the >>documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to >>facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is >>not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time >>text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th >>Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>. >> E-readers are not marketed based on their ability to access ACS. >>The webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or >>interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>28 >> That is consistent with the >>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for >>general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust >>communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction >>rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more >>rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by >>checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>29 Reynolds, supra note >>5 >>. >>30 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet >>e-readers; I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction >>of Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e >>Ink. I want access to the best and most varied content. >>I want a battery life the length >>of War and Peace (months). I want a >>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: >>Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>>white>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle- >>paperwhite >>. >>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To >>E-reader, Geekwire (May 23, 2011), >>>es-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-elec >>tronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>. >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering >>ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and >>maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, >>e-readers are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. >>Any consumer who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would >>have a very low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for >>disabled persons on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing >>engineering, hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would >>first have to be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be >>necessary to add hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, >>and >>faster- >>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software >>interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then >>render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be >>to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose >>device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a specialized e-reader >>device that is at issue. >>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the >>fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these >>changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life >>and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, >>and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power >>consumption necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for >>high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power >>consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower >>power consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers >>is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers would be far more >>similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, >>and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, >>many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 >>and older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an >>e-reader and a tablet. >>32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you >>have [a tablet], you don’t >>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading >>Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>>t-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-rea >>ding-jumps-print-book-reading- >>declines/ >>. >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>33 Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are >>blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional >>functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone >>or tablet. >>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that >>“[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed >>less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers >>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow >>for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in >>e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting >>screens.” Id. >>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an >>accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental >>alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not >>achievable to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and >>Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if >>the inclusion of a feature in a product or service results in a >>fundamental alteration of that service or product, it is per se not >>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>Report”). While the >>achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this >>demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring >>a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent >>with the CVAA. >>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend to mandate the >>effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for >>non-ACS uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser >>purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the >>class. >>As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the >>primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing >>advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, >>access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to >>promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need >>not apply.” >>36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that >>Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would not substantially >>benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and >>other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even >>on accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of >>browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale >>redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is >>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have accessible options >>today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the >>waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality >>free alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, >>Sony Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same >>range of e-publications available to the owners of the respective >>companies’ e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are >>available for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and >>Macs. >>37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose >>audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of >>which have integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>Moreover, the accessibility that is >>required by the >>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will >>support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are >>of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>38 >> Put >>simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on >>devices other than e-readers. >>37 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the >>services but Sony Reader. Id. >>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>of devices and explaining >>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced >>communications service, all of these components may have to support >>accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast >>to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not >>experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 >>(describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which >>waivers were granted). >>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will >>continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & >>Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales >>worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. >>8, 2012), >>http://www.emarke >>ter.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>on-Rise/1009471 >>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of >>e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes >>that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going >>anywhere.” Id. >>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is >>justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640. >>* * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with Section 716 of >>the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the >>Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the >>public interest. >>Respectfully submitted, >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>Electronics Inc. >>May 16, 2013 >>Displaying 2 comments. >> >>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of >>these devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make >>the e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly >>ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices >>these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is >>transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and >>Sony, do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >>You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >>Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/92 >>86 >> >> >> >>Scott >> >>Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > nfbcs mailing list > nfbcs at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > nfbcs: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantpr > oductions.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From wmodnl at hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 00:30:38 2013 From: wmodnl at hotmail.com (wmodnl wmodnl) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:30:38 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <011201ce93d9$d6037460$820a5d20$@gmail.com> References: <011201ce93d9$d6037460$820a5d20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is my question: What is lacking from the apps that you would need to do on something like a Kindle, Nook, etc? Personally, if the apps had all features, wouldn't we want that so we would not need to cary around another peace of technology? Wouldn't this be a direct violation of the communications act of 2010, assuming the app limited usability for the user without a Kindle? Sent from my iPad On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:47 PM, "Sy Hoekstra" wrote: > Ah yes, we blind people stand nothing to gain from the ability to read > printed materials. > > Everyone, put away your computers, phones, tablets, etc. This e-mail means > nothing to you. It is printed on a screen, and therefore it's value is an > illusion. Whoever told you you should be reading has pulled the wool over > your, um, well, you understand. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David > Andrews > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:20 PM > To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility > Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > >> >> From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >> To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >> Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting >> That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> Craig, >> >> >> >> Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The >> Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >> Details >> >> >> >> The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and >> Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires >> companies who make electronic devices to make >> them accessible to people with disabilities. At >> this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on >> the market meet this requirement. Since many >> companies feel that this requirement should not >> apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony >> have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for >> a waiver. According to the petition, this is the >> definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, >> sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >> electronic devices that are designed, marketed >> and used primarily for the purpose of reading >> digital documents, including e-books and >> periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily >> designed for print reading, the companies are >> arguing that the disabled community would not >> significantly benefit from these devices >> becoming accessible. They also argue that >> because the devices are so simple, making the >> changes to the devices to make them accessible, >> would cause them to be heavier, have poorer >> battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. >> Finally, these companies argue that since their >> apps are accessible on other devices such as the >> iPad and other full featured tablets, that they >> are already providing access to their content. >> We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's >> website below. Here is a >> link to the original > .PDF >> >> Before the >> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >> Washington, D.C. 20554 >> In the Matter of ) >> ) >> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >> Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >> Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >> of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >> Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >> Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >> COALITION OF E-READER MANUFACTURERS >> PETITION FOR WAIVER >> Gerard J. Waldron >> Daniel H. Kahn >> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >> (202) 662-6000 >> Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >> Manufacturers >> May 16, 2013 >> TABLE OF CONTENTS >> I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> ........................................................................... > .... >> 1 >> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> ........................................... >> 2 >> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> ............................................... >> 3 >> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for >> Reading .............................................. >> 4 >> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for >> ACS ............................................... >> 6 >> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >> 8 >> Before the >> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >> Washington, D.C. 20554 >> In the Matter of ) >> ) >> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) >> Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) >> Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) >> of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the ) >> Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) >> Equipment by People with Disabilities ) >> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau >> PETITION FOR WAIVER >> I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 >> C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the Coalition of E-Reader >> Manufacturers >> 1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully >> requests that the Commission waive the >> accessibility requirements for equipment used >> for advanced communications services >> (ACS) for >> a single class of equipment: e-readers. This >> Petition demonstrates that e-readers >> are devices >> designed, built, and marketed for a single >> primary purpose: to read written material >> such as >> books, magazines, newspapers, and other text >> documents on a mobile electronic device. >> The >> public interest would be served by granting this >> petition because the theoretical >> ACS ability of e- >> readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming >> majority of users actually use the >> devices. >> Moreover, the features and content available on >> e-readers are available on a wide >> range of multi- >> 1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >> consists of Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >> and Sony Electronics Inc. >> purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, >> and computers, all of which possess >> integrated >> audio, speakers, high computing processing >> power, and applications that are optimized >> for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct >> class of equipment built for the specific >> purpose of reading. They are designed with >> special features optimized for the reading >> experience and are marketed as devices for >> reading. Although they have a similar >> shape and size >> to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers >> lack many of tablets’ features for >> general-purpose >> computing, including ACS functions. E-readers >> simply are not designed, built, or >> marketed for >> ACS, and the public understands the distinction >> between e-readers and general-purpose >> tablets. >> Granting the petition is in the public interest >> because rendering ACS accessible >> on e-readers >> would require fundamentally altering the devices >> to be more like general-purpose >> tablets in cost, >> form factor, weight, user interface, and reduced >> battery life, and yet the necessary >> changes, if >> they were made, would not yield a meaningful >> benefit to individuals with disabilities. >> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be >> applicable to a “carefully defined” >> class >> of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >> 2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, >> sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile >> electronic devices that are designed, >> marketed and >> used primarily for the purpose of reading >> digital documents, including e-books and >> periodicals. >> 3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include >> electronic ink screens optimized for >> reading >> 2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of >> Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications >> Act of 1934, as Enacted by >> the Twenty-First Century Communications and >> Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket >> No. 10-213, WT >> Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report >> and Order and Further Notice of Proposed >> Rulemaking, 26 FCC >> Rcd 14557, 14639 (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report >> and Order]; Implementation of Sections >> 716 and 717 of the >> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the >> Twenty-First Century Communications >> and Video Accessibility >> Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class >> Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 >> of the Communications Act >> and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >> Access to Advanced Communications >> Services (ACS) and >> Equipment by People with Disabilities, Order, 27 >> FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) [hereinafter >> Waiver Order]. >> 3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device >> used to view books, magazines, and >> newspapers in a digital format.” >> What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >> http://www.wisegeek.com/wh > at-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >> (including in direct sunlight) and designed to >> minimize eye strain during extended >> reading >> sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >> e-publications and their user interfaces, >> both >> hardware and software features, are designed >> around reading as the primary user function. >> As >> explained more fully below, another important >> aspect of e-readers is the features >> they do not >> contain, which distinguishes them from general >> purpose devices such as tablets. Examples >> of e- >> readers include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo > Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader >> available in the U.S. utilizing electronic >> ink, and >> since that time the number of manufacturers and >> models has expanded substantially. >> 4 >> Seven >> years is a long time in the modern digital age, >> and the public understands that although >> e-readers >> may be somewhat similar in shape and size to >> general-purpose tablets, e-readers are >> aimed at a >> specific function. >> 5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >> 4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, >> Technology Innovation Librarian, >> Nebraska Library Commission, >> (Oct. 14, 2011), >> http:/ > /www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >> . >> 5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this >> distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett, >> 5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >> Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >> h > ttp://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets >> ; >> Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and >> Buy an E-book Reader, ConsumerReports.org >> (Apr. 22, 2013), >> tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.org/electroni > cs/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html >> . >> Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and >> therefore a useful measure of conventional >> understanding, differentiates >> e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among >> other differences, “[t]ablet computers >> . . . are more versatile, allowing >> one to consume multiple types of content . . . >> .” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, >> also called an e-book device or e- >> reader, is a mobile electronic device that is >> designed primarily for the purpose >> of reading digital e-books and >> periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reade > r >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >> 6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >> 6 >> Specifically, >> they are designed to be used for reading. >> Moreover, they are marketed as tools for >> reading, and >> reading is their predominant use. Conversely, >> e-readers are not designed or marketed >> as tools for >> using ACS. >> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the >> features in e-readers are designed and >> built >> around reading as the primary function. Features >> that e-readers possess for reading >> optimization >> include: >> • Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >> 7 >> • Low power consumption and extremely long >> battery life to facilitate long reading >> sessions and use during extended travel; >> 8 >> • Navigation that place reading features, >> including e-publication acquisition, front >> and center; >> 9 >> and >> • Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, >> bookmarking, and lookup features. >> 10 >> 7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan Clinic, >> http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >> readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have >> improved the level of text/background >> contrast, and the matte quality of the screen >> can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >> 8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >> Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >> J., Jan. 4, 2013, >> html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873238742045782198341605730 > 10.html >> (stating that compared to >> tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a >> different style of display [that] improves >> their battery life”). >> 9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >> Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >> CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >> h-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738 > -1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is >> fewer distracting features not focused >> on reading). >> 10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as >> a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010), >> leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-o > r-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >> can effortlessly highlight and comment as you >> read and either share quotes or musings >> real time. . . .”). >> 11 Falcone, supra note >> 9 >> . >> 12 See Barrett, supra note >> 5 >> . >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of >> reading to the design of e-readers. >> For >> instance, technology review site CNET explains >> that “[i]f you want to stick with >> ‘just reading’ . . >> . an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >> 11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo >> explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . . >> reading. And that’s a blessing.” >> 12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are >> marketed to readers with one activity >> in >> mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon >> product listing for the 5th generation >> Kindle E- >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >> describing the device contain phrases >> referring to >> books or reading, including “lighter than a >> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >> like paper,” >> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >> by best- >> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.” >> 13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/prod > uct/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >> visited May 16, 2013). >> 14 Id. >> 15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >> http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >> 16 Sony Reader, >> https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >> 17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >> 10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet > /CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >> 1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >> 18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >> df>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012. > pdf >> . >> Not surprisingly based on this design and >> marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly >> for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >> communications marketplace in the U.K. states >> that >> “almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >> 18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers >> for reading, multiple studies show that reading >> electronically on an e-reader increases >> the amount >> of time individuals spend reading. >> for reading, multiple studies show that reading >> electronically on an e-reader increases >> the amount >> of time individuals spend reading. >> for reading, multiple studies show that reading >> electronically on an e-reader increases >> the amount >> of time individuals spend reading. >> 19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on >> the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie >> et al., Pew Internet & >> American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >> http://libraries. > pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >> e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book >> reading devices are reading a book, >> compared with >> 45% of the general book-reading public who are >> reading a book on a typical day.”); >> Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C. >> Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >> html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038466045754480931757588 > 72.html >> (explaining that a study of >> 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research >> Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople >> who buy e-readers tend >> to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”). >> 20 Bensinger, supra note >> 8 >> . >> 21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help >> You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader, >> eBook Friendly (Apr. >> 8, 2013), >> >> http: > //ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >> active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >> 22 Bensinger, supra note >> 8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper >> tablet computers can be used . . >> . as Web >> browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >> 23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >> 13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus >> tablet devices). >> 24 See, e.g., id. >> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and >> lack the features and broad capabilities >> of >> tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >> optimized only for reading and obtaining >> reading >> material. Features common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack > include: >> • Color screens; >> 20 >> • Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and video; >> 21 >> • Cameras; >> 22 >> • High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >> 23 >> and >> • Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated > graphics. >> 24 >> Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess >> microphones or quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that >> these devices are not designed with >> ACS as >> an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >> These purposeful hardware limitations >> drive e- >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, >> e-readers cannot display videos at >> an acceptable >> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record audio input. >> 25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >> http://www.s > taples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >> centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >> multimedia as well. They can upload and play >> audio and of course video . . . .”). >> 26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >> 21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social >> media, web browsing, video, games.”). >> 27 Bensinger, supra note >> 8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited >> capabilities, which often include monochrome >> screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >> “[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full >> Web browsing.”). >> 28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >> 13 >> ; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >> 15 >> ; Sony Reader Product >> Listing, supra note >> 17 >> . Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which >> users and their pre-approved contacts >> can e-mail >> pre-existing document so that the documents can >> be read on the Kindle. However, this >> is a feature to facilitate >> reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink >> format; it is not marketed as or useful >> as a tool for real-time or near >> real-time text-based communication between >> individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation >> E-Ink, supra note >> 13 >> . >> E-readers are not marketed based on their >> ability to access ACS. The webpage listings >> for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >> features such as e-mail, instant >> messaging, >> calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >> 28 >> That is consistent with the >> fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for >> reading, not for general-purpose >> use. In fact, >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> many view the absence of robust communication >> tools on e-readers as a welcome break >> from >> distraction rather than as a limitation. For >> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >> Reports >> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions >> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since >> I can’t as >> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or >> news headlines with a tap or two.” >> 29 Reynolds, supra note >> 5 >> . >> 30 Falcone, supra note >> 9 >> . Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested >> in the tablet e-readers; I want a >> dedicated >> reading device without the distraction of >> Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast >> and readability of e Ink. I >> want access to the best and most varied content. >> I want a battery life the length >> of War and Peace (months). I want a >> device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura >> Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite, >> The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >> > http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite >> . >> 31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, >> Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire >> (May 23, 2011), >> uch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-read > ers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >> . >> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST >> Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would >> require fundamentally altering the devices >> and it may not be possible to meet that >> requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive >> mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary >> changes, if they were made, would not >> yield a >> meaningful benefit to individuals with >> disabilities. As described above, e-readers >> are not >> designed to provide ACS features and >> applications. Any consumer who uses a browser >> on an e- >> reader to access ACS would have a very >> low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible >> for >> disabled persons on e-readers would impose >> substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware, >> and >> licensing costs because the devices would first >> have to be redesigned and optimized >> for ACS. It >> would be necessary to add hardware such as >> speakers, more powerful processors, and >> faster- >> refreshing screens. It also would be necessary >> to revise the software interface in >> e-readers to >> build in infrastructure for ACS and then render >> that infrastructure accessible. In >> short, the >> mandate would be to convert e-readers into >> something they are not: a general purpose >> device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a >> specialized e-reader device that >> is at issue. >> Adding a substantial range of hardware and new >> software changes the fundamental nature >> of e- >> reader devices. A requirement to make these >> changes would alter the devices’ form >> factor, >> weight, and battery life and could undercut the >> distinctive features, advantages, >> price point, and >> viability of e-readers. In particular, the >> higher power consumption necessary to >> support a faster >> refresh rate necessary for high-interaction >> activities such as email would put e-reader >> power >> consumption on par with that of a tablet, >> whereas today the lower power consumption >> and >> resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers >> would be far more similar to general-purpose >> tablets in design, features, battery life, and >> cost, possibly rendering single-purpose >> devices >> redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own >> both a tablet and an e-reader. According >> to a >> recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of >> Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader, >> 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet. >> 32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >> pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t >> assume that because you have [a tablet], >> you don’t >> 32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading >> Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines, >> Pew Internet & American >> Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >> k-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps- > print-book-reading- >> declines/ >> . >> need [an e-reader].” >> need [an e-reader].” >> need [an e-reader].” >> need [an e-reader].” >> need [an e-reader].” >> need [an e-reader].” >> need [an e-reader].” >> 33 Barrett, supra note >> 5 >> . As explained below, this quote does not apply >> to individuals who are blind or have >> low >> vision, for whom e-readers do not provide >> additional functionality that is not available >> from a more versatile >> smartphone or tablet. >> 34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent >> years include that “[t]he devices >> looked sleeker, they were easier to >> read, they weighed less, their pages turned >> faster, and they held more books. Wireless >> capability allowed users to >> download novels, magazines and newspapers >> wherever they were, whenever they wanted, >> and now the devices >> allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >> 8 >> . More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements >> in e-readers, including touch-screen technology >> and self-lighting screens.” Id. >> 35 The Commission has recognized that “if the >> inclusion of an accessibility feature >> in a product or service results in a >> fundamental alteration of that product or >> service, then it is per se not achievable >> to include that accessibility >> function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >> 14610. The House Report similarly >> states that “if the inclusion >> of a feature in a product or service results in >> a fundamental alteration of that >> service or product, it is per se not >> achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >> No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >> Report”). While the >> achievability and primary purpose waiver >> analyses differ, this demonstrates that >> Congress and the Commission >> recognize that requiring a fundamental >> alteration is not in the public interest or >> consistent with the CVAA. >> 36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend >> to mandate the effective elimination >> of a >> niche product primarily designed for non-ACS >> uses merely because of the presence >> of an >> ancillary browser purpose-built to support >> reading activities on some devices within >> the class. >> As both the Senate and House Reports explained >> in describing the primary purpose >> waiver >> provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >> example, a device designed for a purpose >> unrelated >> to accessing advanced communications might also >> provide, on an incidental basis, >> access to such >> services. In this case, the Commission may find >> that to promote technological innovation >> the >> accessibility requirements need not apply.” >> 36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental >> basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would >> not substantially benefit individuals >> with >> disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >> including individuals who are blind and >> wish to access e- >> books and other electronic publications, would >> have a poor ACS experience even on >> accessible >> e-reader devices. Because of the inherent >> limitations of browsers in e-readers, a >> fact that will not >> change without a wholesale redesign of >> e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices >> is >> suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have >> accessible options today, and these >> options will >> soon expand significantly even if the waiver is >> granted. For the niche purpose of >> reading, high- >> quality free alternatives to e-readers are >> available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony >> Reader, and >> Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the >> same range of e-publications available >> to the >> owners of the respective companies’ e-readers >> (and in some cases a greater range), >> are available >> for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs. >> 37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >> and computers are working actively to make their >> general-purpose audio-enabled devices >> accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >> required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible >> on >> these devices, all of which have integrated >> audio, speakers, high computing processing >> power, >> and applications that are optimized for ACS. >> Moreover, the accessibility that is >> required by the >> CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of >> these devices will support and provide >> accessibility features and capabilities that are >> of value beyond the purely ACS context. >> 38 >> Put >> simply, individuals with disabilities have >> better ACS options on devices other than >> e-readers. >> 37 Falcone, supra note >> 9 >> . Additionally, users can read books via the Web >> on all of the services but Sony >> Reader. Id. >> 38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >> 14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >> of devices and explaining >> that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use >> an advanced communications service, >> all of these components may >> have to support accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified >> because, in contrast to other classes >> of >> equipment for which temporary waivers have been >> granted, e-readers are a well-established >> class >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose > device. >> 39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, >> 12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility >> of convergence in classes of >> devices for which waivers were granted). >> 40 Moreover, it is generally expected that >> demand for e-readers will continue well >> into the future. One study by the >> Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute >> projects 23.0 million units of e-reader >> sales worldwide in 2016. See >> eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012), >> http://www.emarketer.c > om/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >> on-Rise/1009471 >> . A different study by IHS iSuppli projects >> worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million >> units in >> 2016. See Barrett, supra note >> 5 >> . Assessing the more pessimistic of these >> studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers >> are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id. >> 41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across >> multiple generations is justified. See >> ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC >> Rcd at 14640. >> * * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and >> consistent with Section 716 of the Act and >> the >> Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that >> the Commission grant the e-reader >> class waiver, >> as is consistent with the public interest. >> Respectfully submitted, >> Gerard J. Waldron >> Daniel H. Kahn >> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >> (202) 662-6000 >> Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; >> and Sony Electronics Inc. >> May 16, 2013 >> Displaying 2 comments. >> >> jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >> To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave >> accessibility out of these devices. The claim >> that incorporating accessibility will make the >> e-book readers heavier and have less battery >> life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many >> examples of accessible mobile devices these days >> which work perfectly and for which accessibility >> is transparent or not even known to those not >> needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish, >> but your actions will reflect equally on you. >> jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >> You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >> Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- >> http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286 >> >> >> >> Scott >> >> Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sy.hoekstra%40gmail.co > m > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/wmodnl%40hotmail.com From wmodnl at hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 00:41:02 2013 From: wmodnl at hotmail.com (wmodnl wmodnl) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:41:02 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> Message-ID: I think the main issue, is not whether or not the FCC will find merits in the argument. Rather, two big corporations yealding power financially can do what they do in order to make the government whim to there desires. We all know, that companies often use power for agendas and in many cases, political representation. Have a good evening. Sent from my iPad On Aug 9, 2013, at 5:40 PM, "Michael Nowicki" wrote: > Hi list members, > > As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned > about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, > and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB > have a plan of action? > > Michal > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron > Cannon > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM > To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List > Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The > Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be > their main points, followed by my responses below to each. > > 1. E-readers are different than tablets. > 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for > accessibility, even on a secondary basis. > 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. > 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as > they have alternatives. > > 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they > would like the FCC to believe. > > 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and > almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for > accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep > them from being accessible in many cases. > > 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their > submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. > Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not > mean that it can't be used for another purpose. > However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the > hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. > > 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers > opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. > > It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which > are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a > Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime > subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot > borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and > the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I > can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. > This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good > alternatives exist. > > It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are > contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are > available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding > accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a > restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument > that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't > discriminate. > > Just my $0.02. > > Aaron Cannon > > On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: >> >>> >>> From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>> To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>> Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>> Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >>> >>> >>> >>> Craig, >>> >>> >>> >>> Sharing as information. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>> Waived for E-Book Readers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Details >>> >>> >>> >>> The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>> Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>> them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>> Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>> companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>> readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>> asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>> of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>> mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>> primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>> e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>> for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>> community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>> accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>> making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>> them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>> the devices. >>> Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>> other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>> they are already providing access to their content. >>> We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>> a link to the >>> original .PDF >>> >>> Before the >>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>> Washington, D.C. 20554 >>> In the Matter of ) >>> ) >>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >>> ) >>> ) >>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>> Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>> Disabilities ) >>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>> E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>> Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>> (202) 662-6000 >>> Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>> Manufacturers >>> May 16, 2013 >>> TABLE OF CONTENTS >>> I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>> .......................................................................... > ..... >>> 1 >>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>> ........................................... >>> 2 >>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>> ............................................... >>> 3 >>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>> .............................................. >>> 4 >>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>> ............................................... >>> 6 >>> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>> 8 >>> Before the >>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>> Washington, D.C. 20554 >>> In the Matter of ) >>> ) >>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >>> ) >>> ) >>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>> Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>> Disabilities ) >>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>> WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>> Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>> 1 >>> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>> Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>> advanced communications services >>> (ACS) for >>> a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>> that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>> primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>> newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>> The >>> public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>> theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>> overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>> Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>> available on a wide range of multi- >>> 1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>> Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>> Inc. >>> purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>> which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>> power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>> built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>> special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>> as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>> general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>> features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>> E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>> public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>> general-purpose tablets. >>> Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>> accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>> devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>> weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>> necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>> benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>> “carefully defined” >>> class >>> of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>> 2 >>> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>> readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>> used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>> e-books and periodicals. >>> 3 >>> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>> optimized for reading >>> 2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>> 10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>> and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>> (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>> 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>> Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>> Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>> People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>> [hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>> 3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>> magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>> What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>> http://www.wisegeek.c >>> om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> (including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>> during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>> e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>> features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>> As >>> explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>> the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>> general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>> include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo >>> Glo. >>> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>> utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>> manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>> 4 >>> Seven >>> years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>> understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>> and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>> function. >>> 5 >>> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>> 4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>> Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>> h >>> ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>> . >>> 5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>> Brian Barrett, >>> 5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>> Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>> >> ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>> ablets >>> ; >>> Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>> ConsumerReports.org >>> (Apr. 22, 2013), >>> >> -the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>> g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>> der.html >>> . >>> Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>> of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>> explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>> are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>> . . . >>> .” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>> e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>> for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>> Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>> reader >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> 6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>> 6 >>> Specifically, >>> they are designed to be used for reading. >>> Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>> predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>> tools for using ACS. >>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>> are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>> Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>> include: >>> • Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>> 7 >>> • Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>> long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>> 8 >>> • Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>> acquisition, front and center; >>> 9 >>> and >>> • Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>> features. >>> 10 >>> 7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan >>> Clinic, >>> http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>> readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of >>> text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can >>> reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>> 8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>> Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>> J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>> >> 3010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821 >>> 9834160573010.html >>> (stating that compared to >>> tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display >>> [that] improves their battery life”). >>> 9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>> Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>> CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>> >> -which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_1 >>> 05-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-bu >>> y/ >>> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is fewer distracting >>> features not focused on reading). >>> 10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool >>> (Sept. 13, 2010), >>> >> as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using >>> -a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >>> (“With an eReader, you >>> can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share >>> quotes or musings real time. . . .”). >>> 11 Falcone, supra note >>> 9 >>> . >>> 12 See Barrett, supra note >>> 5 >>> . >>> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of reading to the design >>> of e-readers. >>> For >>> instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to >>> stick with ‘just reading’ . . >>> . an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>> 11 >>> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers >>> “do one thing well . . . >>> reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>> 12 >>> Consistent with these features, e-readers are marketed to readers >>> with one activity in >>> mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th >>> generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>> describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, >>> including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>> like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>> contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>> a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books >>> by best- >>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>> [l]ibrary.” >>> 13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>> http://www.amazon.com/gp >>> /product/B007HCCNJU/ >>> (last >>> visited May 16, 2013). >>> 14 Id. >>> 15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>> http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> 16 Sony Reader, >>> https://ebookstore.sony.com/reade >>> r/ >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> 17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>> >> ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto >>> res/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>> 1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> 18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>> >> 012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/C >>> MR_UK_2012.pdf >>> . >>> Not surprisingly based on this design and marketing, e-readers are >>> used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>> communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all >>> consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>> 18 >>> Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies >>> show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount >>> of time individuals spend reading. >>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>> e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>> e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>> 19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people >>> read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The >>> Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>> http://libra >>> ries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>> e-reading/ >>> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book reading devices are >>> reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public >>> who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie >>> C. >>> Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>> >> 8872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544 >>> 8093175758872.html >>> (explaining that a study of >>> 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. >>> concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time >>> than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>> 20 Bensinger, supra note >>> 8 >>> . >>> 21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between >>> Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr. >>> 8, 2013), >>> >>> >>> http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >>> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>> active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>> 22 Bensinger, supra note >>> 8 >>> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper tablet computers can >>> be used . . >>> . as Web >>> browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>> 23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>> 13 >>> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet >>> devices). >>> 24 See, e.g., id. >>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and lack the features and >>> broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>> optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features >>> common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >>> include: >>> • Color screens; >>> 20 >>> • Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and >>> video; >>> 21 >>> • Cameras; >>> 22 >>> • High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>> 23 >>> and >>> • Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >>> graphics. >>> 24 >>> Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or >>> quality speakers. >>> Examination of an e-reader establishes that these devices are not >>> designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>> These purposeful hardware limitations >>> drive e- >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>> display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>> audio output or record audio input. >>> 25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>> http:// >>> www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>> centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >>> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>> multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video >>> . . . .”). >>> 26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>> 21 >>> (“You can use [tablets] for other >>> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, >>> video, games.”). >>> 27 Bensinger, supra note >>> 8 >>> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited capabilities, which >>> often include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>> “[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”). >>> 28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>> 13 >>> ; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>> 15 >>> ; Sony Reader Product >>> Listing, supra note >>> 17 >>> . Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their >>> pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the >>> documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to >>> facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is >>> not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time >>> text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th >>> Generation E-Ink, supra note >>> 13 >>> . >>> E-readers are not marketed based on their ability to access ACS. >>> The webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>> features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or >>> interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>> 28 >>> That is consistent with the >>> fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for >>> general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust >>> communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction >>> rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>> Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more >>> rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by >>> checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.” >>> many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>> welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>> fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>> or two.” >>> many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>> welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>> fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>> or two.” >>> many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>> welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>> fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>> or two.” >>> many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>> welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>> fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>> or two.” >>> many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>> welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>> fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>> or two.” >>> many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>> welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>> fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>> or two.” >>> 29 Reynolds, supra note >>> 5 >>> . >>> 30 Falcone, supra note >>> 9 >>> . Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet >>> e-readers; I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction >>> of Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e >>> Ink. I want access to the best and most varied content. >>> I want a battery life the length >>> of War and Peace (months). I want a >>> device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: >>> Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>> >> white>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle- >>> paperwhite >>> . >>> 31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To >>> E-reader, Geekwire (May 23, 2011), >>> >> es-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-elec >>> tronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>> . >>> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering >>> ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>> devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and >>> maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the >>> necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>> benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, >>> e-readers are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. >>> Any consumer who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would >>> have a very low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for >>> disabled persons on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing >>> engineering, hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would >>> first have to be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be >>> necessary to add hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, >>> and >>> faster- >>> refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software >>> interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then >>> render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be >>> to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose >>> device. >>> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a specialized e-reader >>> device that is at issue. >>> Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the >>> fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these >>> changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life >>> and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, >>> and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power >>> consumption necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for >>> high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power >>> consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower >>> power consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers >>> is a key selling point. >>> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers would be far more >>> similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, >>> and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, >>> many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>> to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 >>> and older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an >>> e-reader and a tablet. >>> 32 >>> Consistent with this purchasing >>> pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you >>> have [a tablet], you don’t >>> 32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading >>> Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>> >> t-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-rea >>> ding-jumps-print-book-reading- >>> declines/ >>> . >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> need [an e-reader].” >>> 33 Barrett, supra note >>> 5 >>> . As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are >>> blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional >>> functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone >>> or tablet. >>> 34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that >>> “[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed >>> less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>> capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers >>> wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow >>> for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>> 8 >>> . More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in >>> e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting >>> screens.” Id. >>> 35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an >>> accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental >>> alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not >>> achievable to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and >>> Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if >>> the inclusion of a feature in a product or service results in a >>> fundamental alteration of that service or product, it is per se not >>> achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>> No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>> Report”). While the >>> achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this >>> demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring >>> a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent >>> with the CVAA. >>> 36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >>> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend to mandate the >>> effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for >>> non-ACS uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser >>> purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the >>> class. >>> As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the >>> primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>> example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing >>> advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, >>> access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to >>> promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need >>> not apply.” >>> 36 >>> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that >>> Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >>> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would not substantially >>> benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>> including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and >>> other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even >>> on accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of >>> browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale >>> redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is >>> suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >>> Further, individuals with disabilities have accessible options >>> today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the >>> waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality >>> free alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, >>> Sony Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same >>> range of e-publications available to the owners of the respective >>> companies’ e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are >>> available for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and >>> Macs. >>> 37 >>> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>> and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose >>> audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>> required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of >>> which have integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>> power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>> Moreover, the accessibility that is >>> required by the >>> CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will >>> support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are >>> of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>> 38 >>> Put >>> simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on >>> devices other than e-readers. >>> 37 Falcone, supra note >>> 9 >>> . Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the >>> services but Sony Reader. Id. >>> 38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>> 14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>> of devices and explaining >>> that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced >>> communications service, all of these components may have to support >>> accessibility features and capabilities”). >>> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast >>> to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>> granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not >>> experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>> device. >>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>> device. >>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>> device. >>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>> device. >>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>> device. >>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>> device. >>> 39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 >>> (describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which >>> waivers were granted). >>> 40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will >>> continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & >>> Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales >>> worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. >>> 8, 2012), >>> http://www.emarke >>> ter.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>> on-Rise/1009471 >>> . A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of >>> e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note >>> 5 >>> . Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes >>> that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going >>> anywhere.” Id. >>> 41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is >>> justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640. >>> * * * >>> For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with Section 716 of >>> the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the >>> Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the >>> public interest. >>> Respectfully submitted, >>> Gerard J. Waldron >>> Daniel H. Kahn >>> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>> (202) 662-6000 >>> Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>> Electronics Inc. >>> May 16, 2013 >>> Displaying 2 comments. >>> >>> jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >>> >>> To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of >>> these devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make >>> the e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly >>> ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices >>> these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is >>> transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and >>> Sony, do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>> jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >>> >>> You must be logged in to post comments. >>> >>> >>> Share this Post >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- >>> http://www.blindbargains.com/b/92 >>> 86 >>> >>> >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> _______________________________________________ >> nfbcs mailing list >> nfbcs at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> nfbcs: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantpr >> oductions.com > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/wmodnl%40hotmail.com From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 10 00:49:11 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 19:49:11 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> Message-ID: <006b01ce9563$6e9df670$4bd9e350$@sbcglobal.net> Mike: Why would you be surprised should the FCC believe Amazon and Sony? Pfizer, Roche and other pharmaceutical giants wield unwarranted influence over the FDA. Monsanto, Conagra and other agricultural giants wield unwarranted influence over the USDA. So, why would it surprise you that media giants, such as Amazon and Sony, wield unwarranted influence over the FCC? Dan McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Nowicki Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 4:39 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Hi list members, As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB have a plan of action? Michal -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. 1. E-readers are different than tablets. 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as they have alternatives. 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they would like the FCC to believe. 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good alternatives exist. It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't discriminate. Just my $0.02. Aaron Cannon On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: > >> >>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >>Craig, >> >> >> >>Sharing as information. >> >> >> >> >> >>Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>Waived for E-Book Readers >> >> >> >> >>Details >> >> >> >>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>the devices. >>Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>they are already providing access to their content. >>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>a link to the >>original .PDF >> >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>Manufacturers >>May 16, 2013 >>TABLE OF CONTENTS >>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>.......................................................................... ..... >>1 >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>........................................... >>2 >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>............................................... >>3 >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>.............................................. >>4 >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>............................................... >>6 >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>8 >>Before the >>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>Washington, D.C. 20554 >>In the Matter of ) >> ) >>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >> ) >> ) >>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>Disabilities ) >>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>1 >> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>advanced communications services >>(ACS) for >>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>The >>public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>available on a wide range of multi- >>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>Inc. >>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>general-purpose tablets. >>Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>“carefully defined” >>class >>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>2 >> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>e-books and periodicals. >>3 >> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>optimized for reading >>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>[hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>http://www.wisegeek.c >>om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>As >>explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. >> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>4 >> Seven >>years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>function. >>5 >> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>h >>ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>. >>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>Brian Barrett, >>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>>ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>ablets >>; >>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>ConsumerReports.org >>(Apr. 22, 2013), >>>-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>der.html >>. >>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>. . . >>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>6 >> Specifically, >>they are designed to be used for reading. >>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>tools for using ACS. >>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>include: >>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>7 >>• Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>8 >>• Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>acquisition, front and center; >>9 >> and >>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>features. >>10 >>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan >>Clinic, >>http://www.medcan.com/articles/e- >>readers_better_for_your_eyes/ >>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of >>text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can >>reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”). >>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: >>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St. >>J., Jan. 4, 2013, >>>3010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821 >>9834160573010.html >> (stating that compared to >>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display >>[that] improves their battery life”). >>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: >>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?, >>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012), >>>-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_1 >>05-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-bu >>y/ >> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is fewer distracting >>features not focused on reading). >>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool >>(Sept. 13, 2010), >>>as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using >>-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/ >> (“With an eReader, you >>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share >>quotes or musings real time. . . .”). >>11 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. >>12 See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. >> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of reading to the design >>of e-readers. >>For >>instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to >>stick with ‘just reading’ . . >>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.” >>11 >> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers >>“do one thing well . . . >>reading. And that’s a blessing.” >>12 >> Consistent with these features, e-readers are marketed to readers >>with one activity in >>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th >>generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page >>describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, >>including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads >>like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device >>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than >>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,” >>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” >>“[m]assive book selection,” “books >>by best- >>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending >>[l]ibrary.” >>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, >>http://www.amazon.com/gp >>/product/B007HCCNJU/ >> (last >>visited May 16, 2013). >>14 Id. >>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview, >>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>16 Sony Reader, >>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reade >>r/ >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>17 Sony Reader Product Listing, >>>ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto >>res/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- >>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader >> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), >>>012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/C >>MR_UK_2012.pdf >>. >> Not surprisingly based on this design and marketing, e-readers are >>used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the >>communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all >>consumers use their e-reader to read books.” >>18 >> Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies >>show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount >>of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an >>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading. >>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people >>read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The >>Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012, >>http://libra >>ries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of- >>e-reading/ >> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book reading devices are >>reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public >>who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie >>C. >>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, >>>8872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544 >>8093175758872.html >> (explaining that a study of >>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. >>concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time >>than ever with their nose in a book.”). >>20 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between >>Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr. >>8, 2013), >> >> >>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/ >> (“E-paper screens are not meant for >>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”). >>22 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper tablet computers can >>be used . . >>. as Web >>browsers, game consoles and cameras”). >>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet >>devices). >>24 See, e.g., id. >>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and lack the features and >>broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are >>optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features >>common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack >> include: >>• Color screens; >>20 >>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and >>video; >>21 >>• Cameras; >>22 >>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files; >>23 >> and >>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated >>graphics. >>24 >>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or >>quality speakers. >> Examination of an e-reader establishes that these devices are not >>designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis. >>These purposeful hardware limitations >>drive e- >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot >>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate >>audio output or record audio input. >>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader, >>http:// >>www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research- >>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html >> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for >>multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video >>. . . .”). >>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note >>21 >> (“You can use [tablets] for other >> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, >>video, games.”). >>27 Bensinger, supra note >>8 >> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited capabilities, which >>often include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while >>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”). >>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note >>15 >>; Sony Reader Product >>Listing, supra note >>17 >>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their >>pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the >>documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to >>facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is >>not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time >>text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th >>Generation E-Ink, supra note >>13 >>. >> E-readers are not marketed based on their ability to access ACS. >>The webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS >>features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or >>interoperable video conferencing (or video at all). >>28 >> That is consistent with the >>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for >>general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust >>communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction >>rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer >>Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more >>rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by >>checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a >>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For >>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with >>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as >>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap >>or two.” >>29 Reynolds, supra note >>5 >>. >>30 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet >>e-readers; I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction >>of Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e >>Ink. I want access to the best and most varied content. >>I want a battery life the length >>of War and Peace (months). I want a >>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: >>Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), >>>white>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle- >>paperwhite >>. >>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To >>E-reader, Geekwire (May 23, 2011), >>>es-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-elec >>tronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/ >>. >>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering >>ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and >>maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the >>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, >>e-readers are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. >>Any consumer who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would >>have a very low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for >>disabled persons on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing >>engineering, hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would >>first have to be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be >>necessary to add hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, >>and >>faster- >>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software >>interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then >>render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be >>to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose >>device. >> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a specialized e-reader >>device that is at issue. >>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the >>fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these >>changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life >>and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, >>and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power >>consumption necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for >>high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power >>consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower >>power consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers >>is a key selling point. >> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers would be far more >>similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, >>and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, >>many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According >>to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 >>and older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an >>e-reader and a tablet. >>32 >> Consistent with this purchasing >>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you >>have [a tablet], you don’t >>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading >>Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012, >>>t-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-rea >>ding-jumps-print-book-reading- >>declines/ >>. >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>need [an e-reader].” >>33 Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are >>blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional >>functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone >>or tablet. >>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that >>“[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed >>less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless >>capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers >>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow >>for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note >>8 >>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in >>e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting >>screens.” Id. >>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an >>accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental >>alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not >>achievable to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and >>Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if >>the inclusion of a feature in a product or service results in a >>fundamental alteration of that service or product, it is per se not >>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep. >>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House >>Report”). While the >>achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this >>demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring >>a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent >>with the CVAA. >>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). >> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend to mandate the >>effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for >>non-ACS uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser >>purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the >>class. >>As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the >>primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or >>example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing >>advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, >>access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to >>promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need >>not apply.” >>36 >> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that >>Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass. >> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would not substantially >>benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, >>including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and >>other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even >>on accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of >>browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale >>redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is >>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not. >> Further, individuals with disabilities have accessible options >>today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the >>waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality >>free alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, >>Sony Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same >>range of e-publications available to the owners of the respective >>companies’ e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are >>available for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and >>Macs. >>37 >> Makers of tablets, smartphones, >>and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose >>audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As >>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of >>which have integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>Moreover, the accessibility that is >>required by the >>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will >>support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are >>of value beyond the purely ACS context. >>38 >> Put >>simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on >>devices other than e-readers. >>37 Falcone, supra note >>9 >>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the >>services but Sony Reader. Id. >>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at >>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers” >>of devices and explaining >>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced >>communications service, all of these components may have to support >>accessibility features and capabilities”). >> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast >>to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been >>granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not >>experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose >>device. >>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 >>(describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which >>waivers were granted). >>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will >>continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & >>Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales >>worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. >>8, 2012), >>http://www.emarke >>ter.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments- >>on-Rise/1009471 >>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of >>e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note >>5 >>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes >>that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going >>anywhere.” Id. >>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is >>justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640. >>* * * >> For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with Section 716 of >>the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the >>Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the >>public interest. >>Respectfully submitted, >>Gerard J. Waldron >>Daniel H. Kahn >>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>(202) 662-6000 >>Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>Electronics Inc. >>May 16, 2013 >>Displaying 2 comments. >> >>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET: >> >>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of >>these devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make >>the e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly >>ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices >>these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is >>transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and >>Sony, do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you. >>jcast today 2:25 PM ET: >> >>You must be logged in to post comments. >> >> >>Share this Post >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/92 >>86 >> >> >> >>Scott >> >>Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > nfbcs mailing list > nfbcs at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > nfbcs: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantpr > oductions.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mnowicki4%40icloud.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From mnowicki4 at icloud.com Sat Aug 10 02:59:42 2013 From: mnowicki4 at icloud.com (Michael Nowicki) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:59:42 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <006b01ce9563$6e9df670$4bd9e350$@sbcglobal.net> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> <006b01ce9563$6e9df670$4bd9e350$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <35EDBD8C-3EDA-4B40-8496-4ABA1E3EA61C@icloud.com> Because the arguments supporting the petition are so absurd. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Daniel McBride wrote: > Mike: > > Why would you be surprised should the FCC believe Amazon and Sony? > > Pfizer, Roche and other pharmaceutical giants wield unwarranted influence > over the FDA. Monsanto, Conagra and other agricultural giants wield > unwarranted influence over the USDA. So, why would it surprise you that > media giants, such as Amazon and Sony, wield unwarranted influence over the > FCC? > > Dan McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Nowicki > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 4:39 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The > Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > Hi list members, > > As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be concerned > about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC believed Amazon, Kobo, > and Sony, but as we all know, anything is possible. Therefore, does the NFB > have a plan of action? > > Michal > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron > Cannon > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM > To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List > Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The > Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to be > their main points, followed by my responses below to each. > > 1. E-readers are different than tablets. > 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed for > accessibility, even on a secondary basis. > 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. > 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, as > they have alternatives. > > 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great as they > would like the FCC to believe. > > 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, and > almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not designed for > accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, that doesn't keep > them from being accessible in many cases. > > 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in their > submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. > Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose does not > mean that it can't be used for another purpose. > However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify the > hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. > > 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers > opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. > > It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices which > are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users who own a > Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an Amazon Prime > subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime subscription, and I cannot > borrow books under this program, because the Kindle is not accessible, and > the program is not available to people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I > can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. > This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good > alternatives exist. > > It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are > contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are > available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding > accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a > restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the argument > that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the street that doesn't > discriminate. > > Just my $0.02. > > Aaron Cannon > > On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: >> >>> >>> From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>> To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>> Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>> Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >>> >>> >>> >>> Craig, >>> >>> >>> >>> Sharing as information. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>> Waived for E-Book Readers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Details >>> >>> >>> >>> The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>> Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>> them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the >>> Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many >>> companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook >>> readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC >>> asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition >>> of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are >>> mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used >>> primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>> e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed >>> for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled >>> community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming >>> accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, >>> making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause >>> them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of >>> the devices. >>> Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on >>> other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that >>> they are already providing access to their content. >>> We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is >>> a link to the >>> original .PDF >>> >>> Before the >>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>> Washington, D.C. 20554 >>> In the Matter of ) >>> ) >>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >>> ) >>> ) >>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>> Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>> Disabilities ) >>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>> E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>> Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>> (202) 662-6000 >>> Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader >>> Manufacturers >>> May 16, 2013 >>> TABLE OF CONTENTS >>> I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>> .......................................................................... > ..... >>> 1 >>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>> ........................................... >>> 2 >>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>> ............................................... >>> 3 >>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>> .............................................. >>> 4 >>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>> ............................................... >>> 6 >>> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>> 8 >>> Before the >>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>> Washington, D.C. 20554 >>> In the Matter of ) >>> ) >>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >>> ) >>> ) >>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>> Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with >>> Disabilities ) >>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>> WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the >>> Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>> 1 >>> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>> Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for >>> advanced communications services >>> (ACS) for >>> a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>> that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single >>> primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, >>> newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>> The >>> public interest would be served by granting this petition because the >>> theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>> overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>> Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>> available on a wide range of multi- >>> 1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>> Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics >>> Inc. >>> purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>> which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>> power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>> built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>> special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed >>> as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to >>> general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>> features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>> E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the >>> public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>> general-purpose tablets. >>> Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS >>> accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>> devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, >>> weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the >>> necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful >>> benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>> The Commission requires that a class waiver be applicable to a >>> “carefully defined” >>> class >>> of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>> 2 >>> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>> readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and >>> used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including >>> e-books and periodicals. >>> 3 >>> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>> optimized for reading >>> 2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>> 10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>> and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>> (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections >>> 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>> Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>> Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>> People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>> [hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>> 3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>> magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>> What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>> http://www.wisegeek.c >>> om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> (including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>> during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of >>> e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software >>> features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>> As >>> explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>> the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>> general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>> include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. >>> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>> utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>> manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>> 4 >>> Seven >>> years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>> understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>> and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific >>> function. >>> 5 >>> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>> 4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation >>> Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>> h >>> ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>> . >>> 5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., >>> Brian Barrett, >>> 5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>> Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>> >> ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-t >>> ablets >>> ; >>> Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>> ConsumerReports.org >>> (Apr. 22, 2013), >>> >> -the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.or >>> g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-rea >>> der.html >>> . >>> Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>> of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, >>> explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>> are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content >>> . . . >>> .” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device or >>> e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>> for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>> Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E- >>> reader >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> 6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>> 6 >>> Specifically, >>> they are designed to be used for reading. >>> Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their >>> predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as >>> tools for using ACS. >>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers >>> are designed and built around reading as the primary function. >>> Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>> include: >>> • Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>> 7 >>> • Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate >>> long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>> 8 >>> • Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>> acquisition, front and center; >>> 9 >>> and >>> • Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup >>> f From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 10 14:30:02 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:30:02 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <35EDBD8C-3EDA-4B40-8496-4ABA1E3EA61C@icloud.com> References: <000001ce9548$dd30a620$9791f260$@com> <006b01ce9563$6e9df670$4bd9e350$@sbcglobal.net> <35EDBD8C-3EDA-4B40-8496-4ABA1E3EA61C@icloud.com> Message-ID: <00a301ce95d6$1a9ab6d0$4fd02470$@sbcglobal.net> In this world, it isn't necessarily the logic of your argument that prevails. Rather, it is the amount of power and influence that you wield. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Nowicki Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 10:00 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers Because the arguments supporting the petition are so absurd. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Daniel McBride wrote: > Mike: > > Why would you be surprised should the FCC believe Amazon and Sony? > > Pfizer, Roche and other pharmaceutical giants wield unwarranted > influence over the FDA. Monsanto, Conagra and other agricultural > giants wield unwarranted influence over the USDA. So, why would it > surprise you that media giants, such as Amazon and Sony, wield > unwarranted influence over the FCC? > > Dan McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Michael Nowicki > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 4:39 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That > The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > Hi list members, > > As ridiculous as this petition sounds, should we, the blind, be > concerned about it? I would be extremely surprised if the FCC > believed Amazon, Kobo, and Sony, but as we all know, anything is > possible. Therefore, does the NFB have a plan of action? > > Michal > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron > Cannon > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:40 PM > To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List > Cc: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That > The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers > > I reviewed their complete submission, and here are what I believe to > be their main points, followed by my responses below to each. > > 1. E-readers are different than tablets. > 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading, and are not designed > for accessibility, even on a secondary basis. > 3. Adding accessibility features would fundamentally alter the devices. > 4. Adding such features would not help the blind or visually impaired, > as they have alternatives. > > 1. I'll grant this point, though the differences may not be so great > as they would like the FCC to believe. > > 2. This is irrelevant. Computers, tablets, mobile phones, Apple TVs, > and almost all other electronic devices that are accessible are not > designed for accessibility, either primarily or secondarily. However, > that doesn't keep them from being accessible in many cases. > > 3. I can find not one bit of evidence to support this assertion in > their submission. The assertion is made, but isn't backed up in their submission. > Simply stating that a piece of hardware is designed for one purpose > does not mean that it can't be used for another purpose. > However, not only have they not shown that they would need to modify > the hardware, but that doing so would fundamentally alter the devices. > > 4. I believe that this argument is both wrong, and in this non-lawyers > opinion, contrary to how accessibility laws seem to work in general. > > It's wrong because users have access to features on e-reader devices > which are not available via the alternatives. As an example, users > who own a Kindle can borrow books to read for free, if they have an > Amazon Prime subscription. However, I have an Amazon Prime > subscription, and I cannot borrow books under this program, because > the Kindle is not accessible, and the program is not available to > people who don't use a Kindle. In short, I can not borrow ebooks from Amazon because their e-reader is not accessible. > This, to me, completely undermines their argument that perfectly good > alternatives exist. > > It would also appear to be a faulty argument, because the law they are > contesting makes no provision for exceptions if other alternatives are > available. In fact, I can't think of any federal law regarding > accessibility where this is the case. You can't, for example, as a > restaurant owner, discriminate against guide dog users based on the > argument that there is another, much nicer restaurant across the > street that doesn't discriminate. > > Just my $0.02. > > Aaron Cannon > > On 8/7/13, David Andrews wrote: >> >>> >>> From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>> To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>> Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility >>> Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers >>> >>> >>> >>> Craig, >>> >>> >>> >>> Sharing as information. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be >>> Waived for E-Book Readers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Details >>> >>> >>> >>> The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility >>> Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make >>> them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of >>> the Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. >>> Since many companies feel that this requirement should not apply to >>> Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to >>> the FCC asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the >>> definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>> readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed >>> and used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, >>> including e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are >>> primarily designed for print reading, the companies are arguing that >>> the disabled community would not significantly benefit from these >>> devices becoming accessible. They also argue that because the >>> devices are so simple, making the changes to the devices to make >>> them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, have poorer battery >>> life, and raise the cost of the devices. >>> Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible >>> on other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, >>> that they are already providing access to their content. >>> We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here >>> is a link to >>> the original .PDF >>> >>> Before the >>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>> Washington, D.C. 20554 >>> In the Matter of ) >>> ) >>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >>> ) >>> ) >>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>> Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People >>> with Disabilities ) >>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF >>> E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. >>> Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP >>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW >>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 >>> (202) 662-6000 >>> Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers May 16, 2013 >>> TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY >>> .......................................................................... > ..... >>> 1 >>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT >>> ........................................... >>> 2 >>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING >>> ............................................... >>> 3 >>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading >>> .............................................. >>> 4 >>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS >>> ............................................... >>> 6 >>> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................ >>> 8 >>> Before the >>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION >>> Washington, D.C. 20554 >>> In the Matter of ) >>> ) >>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) >>> ) >>> ) >>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications >>> Act and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) >>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People >>> with Disabilities ) >>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR >>> WAIVER I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) >>> and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers >>> 1 >>> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully requests that the >>> Commission waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used >>> for advanced communications services >>> (ACS) for >>> a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates >>> that e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a >>> single primary purpose: to read written material such as books, >>> magazines, newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device. >>> The >>> public interest would be served by granting this petition because >>> the theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the >>> overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices. >>> Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are >>> available on a wide range of multi- >>> 1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of >>> Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony >>> Electronics Inc. >>> purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of >>> which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing >>> power, and applications that are optimized for ACS. >>> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct class of equipment >>> built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with >>> special features optimized for the reading experience and are >>> marketed as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape >>> and size to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ >>> features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. >>> E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and >>> the public understands the distinction between e-readers and >>> general-purpose tablets. >>> Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering >>> ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the >>> devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form >>> factor, weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet >>> the necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a >>> meaningful benefit to individuals with disabilities. >>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT The Commission >>> requires that a class waiver be applicable to a “carefully defined” >>> class >>> of devices that “share common defining characteristics.” >>> 2 >>> E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book >>> readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed >>> and used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, >>> including e-books and periodicals. >>> 3 >>> The noteworthy features of e-readers include electronic ink screens >>> optimized for reading >>> 2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. >>> 10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order >>> and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 >>> (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of >>> Sections >>> 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century >>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, >>> Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the >>> Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring >>> Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by >>> People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) >>> [hereinafter Waiver Order]. >>> 3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, >>> magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.” >>> What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK, >>> http://www.wisegeek >>> .c >>> om/what-is-an-E-reader.htm >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> (including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain >>> during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition >>> of e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and >>> software features, are designed around reading as the primary user function. >>> As >>> explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is >>> the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from >>> general purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers >>> include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo. >>> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. >>> utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of >>> manufacturers and models has expanded substantially. >>> 4 >>> Seven >>> years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public >>> understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape >>> and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a >>> specific function. >>> 5 >>> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next. >>> 4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology >>> Innovation Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), >>> >> >h >>> ttp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders >>> . >>> 5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, >>> e.g., Brian Barrett, >>> 5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better >>> Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012), >>> >> bl >>> ets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than >>> ets>-t >>> ablets >>> ; >>> Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, >>> ConsumerReports.org >>> (Apr. 22, 2013), >>> >> ck >>> -the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports. >>> or >>> g/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-r >>> ea >>> der.html >>> . >>> Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure >>> of conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from >>> tablets, explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . >>> are more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of >>> content . . . >>> .” It states that “[a]n e-book reader, also called an e-book device >>> or >>> e- reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily >>> for the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” >>> Wikipedia, E-Book Reader, >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>> E- >>> reader >>> (last visited May 16, 2013). >>> 6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii). >>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING E-readers are >>> “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS. >>> 6 >>> Specifically, >>> they are designed to be used for reading. >>> Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is >>> their predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or >>> marketed as tools for using ACS. >>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading In contrast to >>> general-purpose tablets, the features in e-readers are designed and >>> built around reading as the primary function. >>> Features that e-readers possess for reading optimization >>> include: >>> • Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare; >>> 7 >>> • Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to >>> facilitate long reading sessions and use during extended travel; >>> 8 >>> • Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication >>> acquisition, front and center; >>> 9 >>> and >>> • Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and >>> lookup f _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From mr.nicholas.parsons at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 05:19:13 2013 From: mr.nicholas.parsons at gmail.com (Nicholas Parsons) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:19:13 +1000 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible cloud-based Calendar/Contacts Management? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you use Apple products I highly recommend its built-in Calendar and Contacts applications which work seamlessly with iCloud. From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Mon Aug 12 15:28:18 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:28:18 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [MACRO Listserv] Fw: Now Accepting Applications! for AmeriCorps Mediation Specialist and AmeriCorps Mediation Coordination Specialist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E13FD41@pl-emsmb12> From: MACRO_LISTSERV at yahoogroups.com [mailto:MACRO_LISTSERV at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of alecia.parker at courts.state.md.us Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 1:33 PM To: MACRO_listserv at yahoogroups.com Subject: [MACRO Listserv] Fw: Now Accepting Applications! for AmeriCorps Mediation Specialist and AmeriCorps Mediation Coordination Specialist Now Accepting Applications! for AmeriCorps Mediation Specialist and AmeriCorps Mediation Coordination Specialist Full Time AmeriCorps Positions at the following Maryland locations: Belair, Baltimore, Frederick, Easton, Bethesda, and Salisbury Term of Service - October 1, 2013 to August 30, 2014 MEMBERS WILL: * Serve at one of the service sites that offer free conflict resolution to Maryland families and neighborhoods * Strengthen partnerships between service sites and social service agencies * Generate and manage community mediation referrals * Coordinate all aspects of mediation case management * Mediate cases FULL TIME BENEFITS INCLUDE: * A profound and fulfilling experience through service! * $12,100 Living Allowance * $5,550 Education Award * Health Coverage * 50 Hour Basic Mediation Training * Partnership Development Training * Advanced Training Available * Student Loan Forbearance on qualified loans * Child Care payments for eligible individuals APPLY NOW: Interested individuals who are self-motivated, committed to grassroots community change, and willing to learn should register and apply online at www.americorps.gov. Once online registration and applications are completed apply to "Community Mediation Corps - Fall 2013" To check the status of your application please contact Hope Braveheart at hopebraveheart at gmail.com Positions are pending grant funding approval EOE - People of all abilities are encouraged to apply -- Hope Braveheart, AmeriCorps Program Director Community Mediation Maryland 310 Tulip Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912 301 - 802 - 9659 (m) 301-270- 9700 (o) 301-270- 9701 (f) __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: * New Members 4 Visit Your Group The information contained in this email is being provided to you by the Maryland Judiciary's Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO) as a public service. Publication to this email group does not constitute an endorsement or a recommendation by MACRO. Messages sent are intended to provide information which may help to advance the practice of dispute resolution in Maryland. If you would like to post something to the group, please send a message to or for consideration. MACRO is responsible for determining what announcements are appropriate for this listserv based on the above-mentioned purposes. [Image removed by sender. Yahoo! Groups] Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest * Unsubscribe * Terms of Use * Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Mon Aug 12 17:18:02 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:18:02 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [MARKETING EMAIL]Health Law Attorney and Internship Positions In-Reply-To: <729049039ab445b8ac118131cd33973370d.20130811181300@mail20.wdc03.rsgsv.net> References: <729049039ab445b8ac118131cd33973370d.20130811181300@mail20.wdc03.rsgsv.net> Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E140169@pl-emsmb12> From: Health Law & Justice Initiative [mailto:healthlaw.american=gmail.com at mail20.wdc03.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of Health Law & Justice Initiative Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 2:13 PM To: Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) Subject: [MARKETING EMAIL]Health Law Attorney and Internship Positions Health Law Job Opportunities! View this email in your browser [Image removed by sender.] New Position: Attorney Salary Range: This position will be filled at the GS-11 to GS-14 levels ($59,987 to $131,343). Location: Atlanta, GA Application Dates: Applications must be received by August 23, 2013 Job Summary: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of the General Counsel is seeking one or more attorneys in its Region IV office in Atlanta. The Atlanta regional office provides legal counsel to many DHHS components, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The work will involve a variety of responsibilities that may include the following: representing HHS in cases before the HHS Departmental Appeals Board, federal district and appellate courts and offering legal advice on Medicare certification and enforcement matters, Medicare overpayment issues, Medicare fraud and abuse matters and Medicaid matters; representing DHHS in litigation involving the Head Start program and state program disallowance cases; giving advice on and serving as agency counsel in employment litigation before the MSPB and EEOC for DHHS components in the regional office and at the CDC; and providing advice to the CDC on contract and procurement matters, including litigation before the GAO and BCA. Some travel is required. This position will be filled at the GS-11 to GS-14 levels ($59,987 to $131,343), depending on experience and qualifications. Relocation expenses will not be covered. All candidates must have graduated from an accredited law school and hold an active license to practice law or, if a 2013 graduate, have taken a summer 2013 bar exam. Candidates must be a U.S. citizen to qualify for this position. Additional details are set forth below. For the GS-11 position: A record of strong academic achievement in law school and excellent research, analytical, and writing skills are essential. Qualifications include graduation in the top one third of the law school graduating class, if students are ranked. Favorable consideration will be given to participation in law review, law journal, moot court or other academic achievement and relevant work experience or judicial clerkship. For the GS-12 position: A record of strong academic achievement in law school as evidenced by superior grades, participation in law review, law journal or moot court. Excellent research, analytical, and writing skills are essential. In addition, one year of recent legal practice as an attorney is required and favorable consideration will be given to candidates with litigation experience, especially in employment and labor law. GS-13 and GS-14 positions include the above requirements and additional years of work experience. Interested candidates should send: (1) a letter summarizing relevant experience; (2) a resume; (3) a list of references; (4) a certificate of good standing from all jurisdictions in which the applicant holds an active license to practice law; (5) law school transcripts (required only if the applicant has graduated within the last three years); and (6) a recent writing sample that demonstrates excellent writing skills, legal analysis and reasoning, presentation of facts, and legal argument. The comprehensive application packet should be sent to Kathleen Duffield, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the General Counsel, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 5M60, Atlanta, GA 30303, or by email to R4ogchiring at hhs.gov. Applications must be received by August 23, 2013. Please feel free to post this announcement on your job board or otherwise circulate this letter to those who might be interested in applying. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FALL EXTERNSHIP: HHS, Office of the Secretary, Departmental Appeals Board, has fall internship opportunities. Practice areas include: health law, public interest, government, litigation, or administrative law. Legal interns in the Medicare Operations Division perform many of the same tasks as our junior staff attorneys. To apply, email a letter of interest, résumé, writing sample (10 pages or fewer), and an unofficial transcript to: Christopher S. Randolph, Esq. Special Assistant to the Chair Departmental Appeals Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Telephone Number: (202) 565-0151 Fax Number: (202) 565-0224 E-mail: Christopher.Randolph at hhs.gov U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Division (Washington, D.C) Organization Type: Government Practice Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Rights & Liberties/Racial Justice Issues, Disability Law/Rights, and Government/Regulatory Affairs. Organization Description The Civil Rights Division (CRD) in the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) seeks legal interns to assist with its enforcement and outreach efforts. OCR promotes and ensures that people have equal access to and opportunity to participate in certain health care and human services programs without facing unlawful discrimination. CRD carries out this mission by enforcing Federal laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in certain circumstances, sex and religion, in programs and activities that receive financial assistance from HHS. CRD also enforces Federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in health care and social service programs of state and local governments. Job Description Interns will gain invaluable exposure to public health issues from the perspective of the Federal government. Specifically, the interns will assist CRD personnel with discrimination complaints, investigations, pre-grants, clearances, and regulatory compliance. Additionally, interns will develop an understanding of Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Act of 1975. Qualifications Applicants should be second or third year law students, students in a Masters of Public Health program or medical students who demonstrate an interest in and commitment to civil rights law. Applicants should have strong backgrounds in research, writing, and creative problem-solving. Veterans and persons with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply. Salary The positions are unpaid, but OCR will cooperate with applications for law school fellowship programs, credit programs, and any other sources of support for interns. We prefer full time interns, but are willing to consider part time interns on a case by case basis. Application Instructions Applications will be considered on a rolling basis for the fall of 2013 and the spring and summer of 2014. Please send a cover letter, resume, and writing sample (5-10 pages) to Peggy.Schmidt at hhs.gov to apply. Copyright © 2013 Health Law & Justice Society, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email as a member of the Washington College of Law. Our mailing address is: Health Law & Justice Society American University Washington College of Law 4801 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20016 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences [Image removed by sender. Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD062.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD062.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9500 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From gerard.sadlier at gmail.com Tue Aug 13 02:04:04 2013 From: gerard.sadlier at gmail.com (Gerard Sadlier) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:04:04 +0100 Subject: [blindlaw] Summation, is There a Mobile App? Message-ID: Hi all, Some of you will remember that I asked about the accessibility of summation, a web based app that facilitates electronic discovery, some time ago. I think the problem is because the app uses microsoft silverlight, which is an inaccessible technology. I've emailed Access Data, who make the programme and they have at least agreed to consider making accessibility improvements (whether anything will come of that is anyone's guess). It was suggested to me on another list that if there was a mobile site, this might be accessible and could probably be used from a pc? So I thought I'd ask if any of you know if tthere is in fact a mobile site? Ger From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Wed Aug 14 12:08:52 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:08:52 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [MARKETING EMAIL]August Extra: Accessible Transportation News and Training Opportunities In-Reply-To: <1114500318098.1104773211184.8618.10.74150005@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1114500318098.1104773211184.8618.10.74150005@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E14068A@pl-emsmb12> From: Easter Seals Project ACTION [mailto:projectaction at easterseals.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:10 PM To: Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) Subject: [MARKETING EMAIL]August Extra: Accessible Transportation News and Training Opportunities Having trouble viewing this email? Click here [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] August 2013 Welcome to Extra, Easter Seals Project ACTION's monthly newsletter. Products, Programs and Outreach This School Year, Take the Bus! [Image removed by sender.]As the summer heat fades and the water parks close, students will be returning to school via yellow buses, on foot, or through other means. ESPA encourages educators, pupil transportation, parents, and students with disabilities to learn more about traveling independently and taking public transportation this year to help students develop an active life within the community and prepare for transitioning to post-school options. For strategies that educators, pupil transportation and human services professionals, and families can use to integrate transportation content into the educational experience, download the new toolkit, Improving Accessible Transportation Access and Choice for Students. Module 3 of the curriculum offers resources for planning a student-family summit on accessible transportation as well as ways that pupil transporters can use yellow school buses to teach students to travel on their own. You can also share your strategies in the online community, Accessible Transportation for Students. More resources on youth transportation, such as Considerations for Hiring and Selecting Travel Trainers, are available on ESPA's Youth Transportation webpage. Share Strategies on Transportation for Students with Disabilities in Higher Education Help ESPA develop resources on improving accessible transportation at higher education institutions! ESPA invites higher education professionals to take a survey on transportation supports currently provided to students with disabilities. In addition, participants can provide their visions of how transportation could be improved for their students, including veterans. Deadline to participate: September 2. Introduction to Travel Training in Denver Applications are now being accepted for ESPA's Introduction to Travel Training course scheduled for October 29-31 in Denver, Colorado. This intensive, three-day course is a free training initiative designed to help increase the skills, knowledge, and abilities of travel training professionals. It includes both classroom and field instruction. For questions, contact Krystian Boreyko by phone at 800-659-6428 or via email at itt at easterseals.com. Application deadline: September 27. Apply by August 15 for the Accessible Transportation Technical Support Project ESPA is now accepting a second round of applications for the 2013 Accessible Transportation Technical Support (ATTS) Project. ATTS can help communities formulate an action plan to address specific local accessible transportation needs. Technical assistance will be delivered remotely, including via teleconference, webinars, community forums, or video conferencing, at no cost to your community. For questions, contact Kristi McLaughlin at 800-659-6428 or via email at atts at easterseals.com. Deadline to apply: August 15. Look Up Disability and Transit Terms on ESPA's Website Not sure what "cueing" means or what a "detectible warning strip" is? Find the definitions for these terms and more on ESPA's new webpage, Glossary of Disability and Transit Terms. Organizations can print out a copy of the glossary to use as a handout during training or orientation sessions. ESPA Celebrates the Life of Disability Rights Advocate Linda Gonzales Linda Gonzales, a founder and the first executive director of the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL), and long-time advocate and champion for the rights of people with disabilities, passed away on July 27. For Gonzales, who spent most of her career focusing on the needs of and services for rural residents with disabilities, two top priorities were helping rural residents find or maintain employment in their rural communities and improving the availability of accessible transportation in those areas. In 2006, she became a member of ESPA's National Steering Committee, on which she served as chair from 2007 to 2008. Her impact on the independent living movement, in general, and the rural independent living movement, in specific, will be felt for years to come. Questions on Accessible Transportation? Call ESPA! As a Federal Transit Administration technical assistance (TA) center, ESPA can provide communities seeking to improve accessible transportation options with guidance, information, resources, and referrals for free. To receive TA, call ESPA at 800-659-6428, (TDD) 202-347-3066, or email projectaction at easterseals.com. Popular questions that ESPA receives include: * Can a paratransit provider limit the number of bags I can bring on board to two? What about grocery shopping? * We have a passenger who has some trouble maneuvering his chair into the securement space. Can we have our operators assist in the steering process? * I have a service animal, and a taxi driver refused to pick me up. Can he do that? * On our system, we have several riders with cognitive disabilities. Sometimes, they miss their stops and become anxious and confused. What should a bus operator do to help in this situation? ESPA & CDC-HAN Resource on Neighborhood Wayfinding Wins APEX Award! The APEX annual awards program recognizes excellence in publications work by professional communicators. Applicants submitted over 2,400 entries for the 2013 awards. This year, ESPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Healthy Aging Network won an Award for Excellence in the One-of-a-Kind - Education and Training category for the resource, Neighborhood Wayfinding Assessment Pocket Guide, which was a collaborative effort between the two organizations. The pocket guide describes things to consider when walking, driving, bicycling, or taking a bus or train to reach stores, community centers, libraries, parks, trails, restaurants, places of worship, or any other destination. Order the pocket guide for free from ESPA's website. August 20th Webinar on Building a Continuum of Accessible Transportation Options for Students with Disabilities Presented by the University on Montana Rural Institute at 2 p.m. EDT/1 p.m. MDT, Getting Here to There: Transportation Planning and Options will feature Judy Shanley, ESPA director of student engagement and mobility management. In the webinar, Shanley will cover information on how pupil transportation and public transportation professionals can work together to build a continuum of accessible transportation options to support students with disabilities in their transition to post-school options. E-Learning Excellence in Service for Paratransit Managers Online Course Date: September 16 - November 22 Registration Deadline: September 13 This free, 10-week virtual training course is designed for ADA complementary paratransit managers who are new to the field. Course content highlights the history of the disability movement and how to engage the disability community in different service areas. Participants will also gain a greater understanding of the Americans with Disabilities Act and how to better serve people with disabilities. Class members will complete five learning modules consisting of readings, videos, audio recordings, activities, forum entries, and quizzes and will participate in in-depth homework activities and one live closing teleconference. For more information, please contact Krystian Boreyko by email at espm at easterseals.com or by phone at 800-659-6428. To register, please email your name, ZIP code, phone number, email address, organization, and job title to registration at easterseals.com with "ESPM" in the subject line. Accessible Transportation and Emergency Preparedness Planning Webinar Date: September 18 Registration Deadline: September 16 Planning accessible transportation for people with disabilities in emergency situations can be complex and challenging. Communities must consider many aspects regarding both how to conduct the planning-including outreach, involving people with disabilities in the process, and data collection-as well as topics to discuss-such as evacuation procedures and accessible shelter locations. In this session, presenters will discuss these challenges and the role of accessible transportation in emergency preparedness planning. Speakers will include Julie Bommelman, transit administrator, City of Fargo, North Dakota; Kevin Shanley, senior emergency management coordinator, City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management & Communications; and Carol Wright, senior director, Easter Seals Accessible Transportation Programs. To ask the presenters questions in advance or for general inquiries about the event, please contact us at webinars at easterseals.com and put "Emergency Preparedness" in the subject line. Forming Partnerships with Transit Online Course Date: October 7 - November 15 Registration Deadline: October 2 This free, six-week virtual training course is designed for transit advocates interested in increasing their role in the design and implementation of transportation services in a community. The course will enable participants to come to the table better informed and better prepared to offer input that will be heard, understood, and incorporated into planning. Transportation planners and others can benefit from a discussion of ways to improve the public input they receive as local transportation plans are developed. Participants are expected to study the course materials, complete the accompanying exercises, join in one class webinar, and participate in an online discussion forum. To inquire about the course, contact the instructor, Kristi McLaughlin, via email at fpwt at easterseals.com or by phone at 800-659-6428. ADA Technical Assistance [Image removed by sender.] Question: My daughter, who has disabilities, is getting ready to transition out of high school. She has indicated that she is interested in using the public bus to travel around town. Will the school provide training to use the bus? View the answer online. For other technical assistance inquiries, call ESPA at 800-659-6428, (TDD) 202-347-3066, or email projectaction at easterseals.com. Accessible Transportation News Comment by September 9 on Proposed Circular: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities The Federal Transit Administration has published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 41824) seeking public comments on a proposed circular chapter, Enhanced Mobility of Senior and Individuals with Disabilities, as well as suggestions for specific issues to cover in future chapters. This circular is a re-issuance of guidance on the administration and preparation of the transit assistance program for seniors and individuals with disabilities under 49 U.S.C 5310. This revision incorporates provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and includes the most current available guidance as of the date of publication. TCRP Synthesis 104: Use of Electronic Passenger Information Signage in Transit This report, released by Transportation Research Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program, documents U.S. and international use of electronic passenger information signage in terms of the underlying technology, sign technology, characteristics of the information, resources required, and decision processes used to determine its use. The report includes an analysis of topics ranging from large outdoor displays, station signage, and touchscreens to the flexibility of large flat-screen displays. A section on accessibility in the report includes considerations for presenting audio information. TCRP Research Results Digest 107: Developing Partnerships between Transportation Agencies and the Disability and Underrepresented Communities Recently released by the Transportation Research Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program, this report includes best practices, outreach strategies, and suggestions that transit personnel can use to develop and maintain partnerships with the disability and underrepresented communities. The guide includes how-to approaches and information in narrative and graphic form on developing these partnerships as well as a handy Accessible Meeting Facilities Checklist. U.S. Senate Report Released on Lack of Inclusion for People with Disabilities Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of the U.S. Senate, has recently released the report Separate and Unequal: States Fail to Fulfill the Community Living Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act. With information submitted by states, this report includes an analysis of the ability of individuals with disabilities to live independently in the community through the use of home and community-based services, a requirement of the Olmstead Act. Only some states reported transportation as a focus to support independence. Information Briefs Focus on Senior Transportation The National Center on Senior Transportation is producing a free information brief series on transportation modes and services that older adults are using across the country. Each installment of the NCST Modes and Services Series includes background information, program examples, an interview, tips on enhancing services, and NCST resources. Current information briefs include ones focused on: biking, CarFit, demand-response transportation, fixed-route bus systems, and travel training. Spotlight on ESPA Activities New Online Toolkits Webpage ESPA is pleased to offer online toolkits that allow users to learn from courses at their own pace. Learners may choose to access all of the modules in each toolkit in order or simply browse and look at a few. All of the toolkits are provided free of charge. Current toolkits available include: * A Curriculum to Build the Knowledge of Educators, Human Services, Families, and Transit Regarding Transportation Education and Travel Instruction * Integrated Self-Advocacy Curriculum for Transportation:Helping Students Develop Skills to Support Choice in Accessible Transportation * Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative Route to Community Engagement Toolkit --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You received this email because you have expressed interest in email communications from Easter Seals Project ACTION. We appreciate that you have chosen to receive email from us so we can keep you informed about the important work we do. If you received this email in error or no longer wish to receive electronic communications from Easter Seals Project ACTION, please unsubscribe below. You can also update your name, email address or other contact information at any time below as well. We respect your desire for privacy and will not make your name or email address available to other organizations. [Image removed by sender. DOT Logo]Easter Seals Project ACTION (ESPA) is funded through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and is administered by Easter Seals, Inc. This document is disseminated by ESPA in the interest of information exchange. Neither Easter Seals nor the U.S. DOT, FTA assumes liability for its contents or use. Easter Seals Project ACTION 1425 K St., NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 800-659-6428 (TDD) 202-347-7385 www.projectaction.org Connect with Easter Seals Project ACTION [Image removed by sender. Follow us on Twitter] [Image removed by sender. Visit our blog] Forward this email [Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] This email was sent to gnorman at cms.hhs.gov by projectaction at easterseals.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(tm) | Privacy Policy. Easter Seals Project ACTION | 1425 K St., NW Suite 200 | Washington | DC | 20005 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD000.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4664 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2690 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2205 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1294 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Wed Aug 14 15:29:59 2013 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. LaBarre) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:29:59 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [DRBA] ACLU's Washington Legislative Office - job posting that includes disability rights work In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017401ce9903$2341f5c0$69c5e140$@labarrelaw.com> Fyi From: Disability Rights Bar Association [mailto:DRBA at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Susan Mizner Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 6:48 PM To: DRBA at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [DRBA] ACLU's Washington Legislative Office - job posting that includes disability rights work Greetings, esteemed DRBA members, I am new to DRBA (what a fabulous listserv this is), and relatively new to this Disability Counsel position at the ACLU. My thanks to those of you who have already been so welcoming and helpful to me in my first year. I am writing to request your help in getting some good candidates for the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office posting below. The lobbyist will handle disability rights issues along with some voting and possibly racial justice and housing issues. I would love to see a person with a disability in the position and/or someone who already has strong ties to the disability community. The position requires at least three years of experience with legislative and policy matters. Please forward the link below to anyone you think might be a good fit. If a good candidate has questions, feel free to give them my contact information below. I'd be happy to have an off the record conversation. (I have no role in the hiring.) http://www.aclu.org/job/legislative-counsellobbyist-aclu-washington-legislat ive-office-washington-dc-0 Many thanks! Susan Mizner Disability Counsel American Civil Liberties Union 39 Drumm St., San Francisco, CA 94111 │ 212.284.7351 (NY) │ 415.343.0781 (SF) │ smizner at aclu.org www.aclu.org Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.gif at 01CCBBF6.7FE56230 Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.gif at 01CCBBF6.7FE56230 Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image004.png at 01CD0394.D5C40950 Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself REMINDER: The DRBA listserv is intended to facilitate open discussion and sharing of ideas. Members need to feel confident that their discussions will not be distributed beyond the group unnecessarily. PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE SENDER(S) BEFORE FORWARDING ANY LISTSERV DISCUSSIONS BEYOND THE DRBA GROUP. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 1115 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 1193 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7397 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Aug 14 16:09:52 2013 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:09:52 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Jobs] FW: Please post/forward ACLU Fall 2013 CLRP Legal Internship Opportunity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Jobs [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:43 PM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Please post/forward ACLU Fall 2013 CLRP Legal Internship Opportunity From: hrintern [mailto:hrintern at aclu.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:38 PM To: Maurer, Patricia Subject: Please post/forward ACLU Fall 2013 CLRP Legal Internship Opportunity August 13, 2013 FALL 2013 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY NOTICE TO LAW STUDENTS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Criminal Law Reform Project, NY For more than 93 years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been at the forefront of virtually every major battle for civil liberties and equal justice in this country. Principled and nonpartisan, the ACLU has offices in all 50 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, and brings together the country's largest team of public interest lawyers, lobbyists, communication strategists, and members and activists in the advancement of equality, fairness, and freedom, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. The Criminal Law Reform Project (CLRP) of the ACLU's National Office in New York City seeks legal interns for the Fall of 2013. OVERVIEW The Criminal Law Reform Project seeks an end to excessively harsh crime policies that result in mass incarceration and stand in the way of a just and equal society. The Project focuses its work at the "front end" of the criminal justice system, from an individual's first contact with law enforcement through to the sentencing phase, with an emphasis on ending drug prohibition, which has failed to achieve public safety while putting unprecedented numbers of people behind bars and eroding constitutional rights. The Project fulfills its mission by litigating and conducting strategic and precedent-setting advocacy that promotes reform of the criminal justice system and drug laws in particular, reduces the number of people entering the system, and protects the constitutional rights of those in the system. INTERNSHIP OVERVIEW The Criminal Law Reform Project is offering Legal Interns the opportunity to work on all aspects of litigation. The internship requires a 10 to 16 week commitment; and is part-time, with weekly hours that are negotiable. Students are highly encouraged to seek support for Public Interest Fellowship stipends. Arrangements can also be made with the student's law school for work/study stipends or course credit. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Interns will have the opportunity to gain valuable experience by working alongside the CLRP team, and gain hands-on experience, by: * Conducting legal and policy research. * Drafting memoranda, affidavits and briefs. * Researching prospects for new litigation, including both factual and legal claims. * Participating in discovery and motion practice. * Work on in the preparation of expert and percipient witnesses for courtroom testimony. * Work on the Project's non-litigation advocacy work. DESIRED EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS The internship is open to first and second year law students who possess the following: * Excellent research, writing, and communication skills. * Proficiency in Microsoft Office, including internet research. * Proficiency in Westlaw or LexisNexis. * The initiative to see projects through to completion. * A strong interest in, and commitment to, criminal law reform, racial justice issues, civil rights, and civil liberties. HOW TO APPLY Applicants should send a cover letter, resume, two references, a current transcript, and a legal writing sample, preferably no more than 10 pages or less in length, by email to hrjobsCLRP at aclu.org reference [CLRP Fall 2013 Legal Internship/INCL] in the subject line. Please note that this is not the general ACLU applicant email address. This email address is specific to Criminal Law Reform Project postings. In order to ensure your application is received please make certain it is sent to the correct e-mail address. You can expect to receive an automatic response that acknowledges the submission of application materials. Alternatively, applications can be mailed to: Law Student Intern Program [RE: Fall 2013 Legal Internship - CLRP/INCL] American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Please indicate in your cover letter where you learned of this internship opportunity. This posting provides a general but not comprehensive list of the essential responsibilities and qualifications required. It does not represent a contract of employment. The ACLU reserves the right to change the posting at any time without advance notice. The ACLU is an equal opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. The ACLU encourages applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, and veteran status. We encourage applicants with disabilities who may need accommodations in the application process to contact: HRJobINCLReq at aclu.org. Correspondence sent to this address that is not related to requests for accommodations will not be reviewed. Applicants should follow the instructions above regarding how to apply. The ACLU comprises two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are national organizations with the same overall mission, and share office space and employees. The ACLU has two separate corporate entities in order to do a broad range of work to protect civil liberties. This job posting refers collectively to the two organizations under the name "ACLU." -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com Thu Aug 15 18:53:05 2013 From: ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com (Olusegun -- Victory Associates LTD, Inc.) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:53:05 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] UNIVERSITY OF ARIZON AT TUCSON LAW SCHOOL References: <003e01ce56e9$d8dddb30$8a999190$@wiennergould.com> <008a01ce571b$20a7bb80$61f73280$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2C06E69E362D45C386B855691C6F16D5@victory2> Hi Everyone: I'd be interested in reading, preferably privately, from anyone on list who attended, or still attends, the aforementioned institution for legal studies. Send comment(s) to me at: ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com Much thanks!! Sincerely, Olusegun Denver, Colorado From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Thu Aug 15 19:09:01 2013 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:09:01 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: DOJ Opportunities In-Reply-To: References: <87EAD4112E1ABA49BCA9055BEA384CBF129FC4@CRT-RDC-MAIL01.JCONMAIL.doj.gov> Message-ID: From: Jobs [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:11 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: DOJ Opportunities From: Petrie, Diane E (CRT) [mailto:Diane.E.Petrie at usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:08 AM To: Petrie, Diane E (CRT) Subject: DOJ Opportunities The Civil Rights Division (Division) would like to thank each of you for participating in our efforts to increase outreach to individuals interested in working for the Division. The Division hopes to attract a broad and diverse pool of qualified applicants, and, to that end, encourages you to forward this information to any qualified applicants, including qualified applicants with disabilities, who may be interested in working for the Division. For your convenience, all current Division job announcements that are open to the public are listed below. Please also remind members of your organization that all job announcements can always be found on the Division's homepage, http://www.justice.gov/crt/employment. In addition, if you know of other organizations that might want to receive our job announcements, please let them know the process is very simple. They just need to send an email to CRT.SpecProgVacancies at usdoj.gov. There are no elaborate forms to fill out - just an email indicating that the organization wishes to receive future job listings and the e-mail address for us to contact them. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have suggestions on how we can improve our outreach efforts. The chart below includes the Civil Rights Division job opportunities currently available to the public. Remarks Position Salary Closing Date NEW Attorney General's Honors Program Entry Level Attorney Voting Section GS-904/905-11/13 ($62,467-$89,033 per year) 9/03/13 Trial Attorney (HCFAC), Educational Opportunities Section GS-905-12/15 ($74,872-$155,500 per year) 8/21/13 Student Volunteers (Division-wide) N/A (Volunteer) See Description Individuals interested in applying for these positions should comply with the application procedures and closing dates in the vacancy announcement. The Division does not accept unsolicited resumes or applications (i.e., those not submitted in response to a particular vacancy announcement). If you need more information about a specific Civil Rights Division vacancy, please call the Human Resources Office, Team 1 on (202) 514-3934. -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Thu Aug 15 20:09:56 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:09:56 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Social Call, 17 Aug. -- RSVP Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E141528@pl-emsmb12> On behalf of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum - You are cordially invited to the first in a series of social calls Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 10:30 A.M. sharply The Lyceum will host and Mr. Pilot and his retired mentor Mr. Langer wish to hold these social calls in support and honor of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum, leaders with disabilities, such as their partner Gary C. Norman, and animal related concerns. The social calls are also held as a means of bringing all past or present volunteers, partners, or supporters of the Lyceum together for refreshment from their labors on the Journal and sundry other projects. First Social Call Do enjoy breakfast with board members of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum at the cost of $10 or $20 wherein the proceeds of this larger cost -- $10 -- will be contributed to the Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter. Ø At a breakfast reception, do rejoinder Gary C. Norman and Mr. Pilot in a light breakfast with corresponding toast to leaders with disabilities who are changing the world, such as with respect to supporting the dogs and cats at BARCS. Ø Fine conversation will be a core component of this reception, fitting to what constitutes the dolce vita. Ø A gift certificate to the Alchemy: Modern American Bistro in the amount of $50 will, after the toast, be raffled. Logistics: Location and Alike 1). the breakfast reception will occur at a vegan friendly place, Breathe Books Cafe, 810 West 36 Street, Baltimore City, between Elm and Chestnut Avenues. 2). the goal is to dine either on the first floor or outside should the weather not be unbearable. Food may be purchased at a set price of $10 (recommended combinations will be provided at time of purchase) on the first floor. 3). RSVP notifications are requested. This social call will close at a limit of 20 persons. Up to 5 students currently working on the Journal and 1 past manager of the Journal (i.e. Lacey) will dine for free, as purchased by the Lyceum in gratitude of them thereof. Do provide your RSVP to Gary at (410) 241-6745 or via e-mail at GLNorman15 at hotmail.com. 4). In terms of those who want to donate, cash will be accepted or a separate check should be made to BARCS With fraternal affection and respect, Gary C. Norman, Esq. L.L.M. Misters Pilot and Langer From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 16 15:02:33 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:02:33 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ In-Reply-To: <5E.C1.04066.F433E025@smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com> References: <5E.C1.04066.F433E025@smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com> Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E1418B7@pl-emsmb12> >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles Crawford [mailto:ccrawford at RCN.com] >Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:12 AM >To: Blind Democracy >Subject: Fwd: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ > > >>Hi Everybody, > > > I am pleased to share with you a message from Guide Dog Users >Incorporated President Laurie Mehta which endorses folks signing on to the >Canine Companions for Independence effort to reduce >the incidents of people using fake service animals. Thanks Laurie >for sharing this and I am happy to say that I signed the petition even before I >saw this message. thanks again. > >-- Charlie Crawford: GDUI Second Vice President and Chair - Advocacy >Committee. > >Original message... > >>Please consider signing the CCI petition available at: >>www.cci.org/stopfraud >> >>The petition is to ask the US Department of Justice to take action to >>stop fraudulent use of service dog ID or gear. >> >>Signers of the petition receive a letter like the one below: >> >>Thank you for asking the Department of Justice to >>investigate and stop the online sale of >>fraudulent service dog products. >> >>Please forward this message and urge your friends >>to add their names at www.cci.org/stopfraud >> >>With your help, we can raise awareness about this >>important issue and demand an end to the sale of >>fake service dog products. >> >>Thank you for all that you do. >> >>Canine Companions for Independence >> >>Guide Dog Users Inc. Supporting Guide Dog Teams Since 1972 >> >>www.gdui.org > From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 16 15:35:15 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:35:15 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Save these Dates for the Maryland ACB cnvention! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E141934@pl-emsmb12> >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles Crawford [mailto:ccrawford at RCN.com] >Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:21 AM >Subject: Save these Dates for the Maryland ACB cnvention! > > > > SAVE THESE DATES! > >If you liked past ACB of Maryland conventions, you're gonna love this one! >This is the first announcement of what will be coming up and more details to >come later, but check out the following! > > With Halloween over and Thanksgiving a few weeks away, what is there >to do? The first weekend in November, from Friday the first through Sunday >morning the third promises to be a weekend you won't soon forget. Let's >just take a peek at what will be happening. > > Friday evening will offer the ability to register and spend some time >getting to know other ACB of Maryland members and our friends from other >places. We guarantee you a hassle free easy evening to enjoy good company >and a bit of some tasty food and liquid refreshments. All capped off with a >good night's sleep at the BWI doubletree where we held last year's >convention. You will need that sleep in order to fully take advantage of >Saturday's events we have in store for you! > > On Saturday morning you'll have the opportunity to register in the event >you were not able to do so the night before, and then we will launch into our >exploration of how we as a blindness and low vision community will be >coping with all that is happening in our Twenty-first century. >Just think about all the changes we have seen over the past 20 years an >more! WE have cassette tapes, Personal Computers, and even network TV >and Cable evolving into a new and interesting form of communications. How >can we keep up with it all and be ready to deal with all the changes of our >current century? Here are just some of the areas we will be addressing at our >convention. > >1. While many have accused Congress of basically doing next to nothing >over the past few years, that is anything but true when it comes to issues >that we must face on a daily basis. You will not want to miss the legislative >presentation that will guide us through the many areas we have dealt with >and those remaining on the Congressional burners. Even with all these >changes, there are a number of new regulatory requirements from audio >description to housing to what is happening for folks who travel and >encounter the Transportation Security Administration screening at airports. > >2. Yes, something is finally happening to get the information on our drug >labels into our awareness so we will know what medicines we are taking, >when we should take them, what dosage they are, and other pertinent >information that currently appears in print on the labels. These are not just >our own drugs, but those of others we care about. > > 3. There was a time when we had little to read and now there is a literal >explosion of materials! How can we read them all and how can we manage >the whole new reading environment? > >4. The whole field of vocational rehabilitation is undergoing much thought >and new models of how that service will be delivered and who will be doing >it are evolving at breathtaking speed. Is our new Commissioner of the >Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) up to the task of managing so >much change? >The whole system we have known may simply disappear, and what would >replace it if anything? How will we as a community address and manage >within this fast paced environment? > > 5. iPhones, Androids, set top boxes, smart devices, New models of >accessible appliances and a host of other technologic changes. >How are we to understand, much less deal with all the changes? >While much of this is to our advantage, how can we know what is good and >how to use it properly in a world that seems to have completely >revolutionized our whole environment! > >6. This year, Obamacare kicks into gear in a way that will impact upon us all. >Not only that, but the changes and requirements within Medicare have some >splaining to do! This is an area of utmost importance to all of us and our >families. >Don't get lost in the maze, but get educated and maximize your good health. > >Now these are only some of the items which you will want to check out, but >there's more! So save those dates from November 1 through November 3 >and you'll be hearing lots more from us as we get nearer to registration time! > >-- Charlie Crawford: President - ACB of Maryland (ACBM.) > From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Fri Aug 16 15:59:34 2013 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. LaBarre) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 09:59:34 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice In-Reply-To: <98A98D365DA17347B0FA3158D79B489408BFEF@DPRC-EXCH-P06.JCONMAIL.doj.gov> References: <98A98D365DA17347B0FA3158D79B489408BFEF@DPRC-EXCH-P06.JCONMAIL.doj.gov> Message-ID: <006b01ce9a99$9a8dc860$cfa95920$@labarrelaw.com> Fyi From: Hunter, Sue (JMD) [mailto:Sue.Hunter at usdoj.gov] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 9:31 AM To: Hunter, Sue (JMD) Subject: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice Below is a list of current attorney vacancies at the United States Department of Justice. We encourage all interested applicants to apply; however, please note that due to temporary funding restrictions we may not be able to fill all of the currently advertised positions. To learn more about Justice and our legal careers, please visit our website: www.justice.gov/careers/legal/. In addition, every year over 1,800 volunteer legal interns serve in DOJ components and U.S. Attorneys' Offices throughout the country. If you know any law students who may be interested in a DOJ volunteer internship, please encourage them to review the many opportunities featured at www.justice.gov/careers/legal/volunteer-intern.html. Finally, please share this email with interested colleagues and peers. If you wish to update the contact information for you or the organization you represent, or no longer wish to receive these periodic email announcements, please respond to this email address and ask to be removed from our mailing list. Thank you. Uncompensated Special Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office District of South Carolina Open August 15, 2013 and Close August 26, 2013 Announcement Number: 13-SC-932812-SAUSA-06 The deadline to apply is August 26, 2013. Date posted: 08-15-2013 Uncompensated Special Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office District of South Carolina Open August 15, 2013 and Close August 26, 2013 Announcement Number: 13-SC-932614-SAUSA-02-Columbia, SC 13-SC-932659-SAUSA-03-Charleston, SC 13-SC-932728-SAUSA-05-Florence, SC The deadline to apply is August 26, 2013. Date posted: 08-15-2013 Uncompensated Special Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office District of South Carolina Open August 15, 2013 and Close August 26, 2013 Announcement Number: 13-SC-931808-SAUSA-01-Columbia, SC The deadline to apply is August 26, 2013. Date posted: 08-15-2013 Uncompensated Special Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of California Vacancy: 13-sdca-sausa-cr-03 Application materials must be postmarked by the deadline date of August 23, 2013. Date posted: 08-15-2013 U.S. Department of Justice Special Assistant United States Attorney (Serves Without Compensation) United States Attorney's Office Western District of Virginia Vacancy Announcement Number: 13-WDVA-SAUSA-04 Applications should be received by close of business, Friday, August 23, 2013.. Date posted: 08-12-2013 Federal Bureau of Prisons Conslidated Legal Center Federal Correctional Complex Yazoo City, Mississipppi Supervisory Attorney Advisor GS-905-14 This position is open until filled but no later than August 22, 2013. Date posted: 08-09-2013 Special Assistant United States Attorneys (Serve Without Compensation) United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Georgia 13-SAUSASDGA-01 Positions are open until filled, but resumes must be received by September 9, 2013. Date posted: 08-09-2013 U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Criminal Enforcement ES-905-00 Applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m., Thursday, August 29, 2013. Date posted: 08-08-2013 Trial Attorney (GS-0905-14/15) Reimbursable Detail Opportunity U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Fraud Section Washington, D.C. Vacancy Announcement Number 13-CRM-FRD-073 Closing Date: August 14, 2013 This announcement will remain open until August 14, 2013. Date posted: 08-07-2013 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Texas Vacancy Announcement # 13-sdtx-14 (AUSA-TERM-BRO-BF) The deadline to apply is August 16, 2013. Date posted: 08-05-2013 United States Department of Justice National Security Division Counterespionage Section Deputy Chief, GS-905-15 Application deadline is August 23, 2013. Date posted: 08-02-2013 United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section Trial Attorney (HCFAC), GS-12/15 Promotion Potential - 15 Announcement Number: 13-ATT-006 Applications are being accepted from Wednesday, July 31, 2013 through 11:59 PM ETZ, Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Date posted: 08-02-2013 From rumpole at roadrunner.com Mon Aug 19 23:29:08 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:29:08 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars Message-ID: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go "along for the ride" as it were. Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft=3&f=2 12683617 Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the list have verbalized. The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its automation being accepted by the general public as well as them waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is not surprising. My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not the decision makers. We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law Augusta, Maine From cannona at fireantproductions.com Mon Aug 19 23:55:26 2013 From: cannona at fireantproductions.com (Aaron Cannon) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:55:26 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ In-Reply-To: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E1418B7@pl-emsmb12> References: <5E.C1.04066.F433E025@smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com> <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E1418B7@pl-emsmb12> Message-ID: Hi. Thanks for forwarding this. I am not willing to sign this petition, and I plan on contacting the DOJ in opposition. I would also encourage others to do likewise. When I first saw this last week, I typed up a long explanation on exactly why I believe that the proposals in the petition were a bad idea. However, my kids pushed the mouse off the desk, clicking a button which ended up deleting the message before I could send it. Perhaps they disagreed with me. :) Anyway, I had intended to rewrite my thoughts, but instead, I'll simply point folks to the excellent summary of the problems written up by the president of the National Association of Guide Dog Users. http://harnessup.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/nagdu-responds-to-petition-to-ban-online-sale-of-service-animal-gear/ Aaron Cannon On 8/16/13, Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Charles Crawford [mailto:ccrawford at RCN.com] >>Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:12 AM >>To: Blind Democracy >>Subject: Fwd: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ >> >> >>>Hi Everybody, >> >> >> I am pleased to share with you a message from Guide Dog Users >>Incorporated President Laurie Mehta which endorses folks signing on to >> the >>Canine Companions for Independence effort to reduce >>the incidents of people using fake service animals. Thanks Laurie >>for sharing this and I am happy to say that I signed the petition even >> before I >>saw this message. thanks again. >> >>-- Charlie Crawford: GDUI Second Vice President and Chair - Advocacy >>Committee. >> >>Original message... >> >>>Please consider signing the CCI petition available at: >>>www.cci.org/stopfraud >>> >>>The petition is to ask the US Department of Justice to take action to >>>stop fraudulent use of service dog ID or gear. >>> >>>Signers of the petition receive a letter like the one below: >>> >>>Thank you for asking the Department of Justice to >>>investigate and stop the online sale of >>>fraudulent service dog products. >>> >>>Please forward this message and urge your friends >>>to add their names at www.cci.org/stopfraud >>> >>>With your help, we can raise awareness about this >>>important issue and demand an end to the sale of >>>fake service dog products. >>> >>>Thank you for all that you do. >>> >>>Canine Companions for Independence >>> >>>Guide Dog Users Inc. Supporting Guide Dog Teams Since 1972 >>> >>>www.gdui.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantproductions.com > From mikefry79 at gmail.com Tue Aug 20 01:53:12 2013 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:53:12 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> Message-ID: I have been so excited about the Google self-driving car and others like it. I have been eagerly anticipating this technology for at least five years. Ross, I could not agree with you more. We, the visually impaired community, should have a loud voice in this debate. This is technology that could literally transform our lives. Our compelling interest in seeing this technology come to the market as quickly and safely as possible gives us a strong and credible voice that should resonate in the debate. I think the NFB should actively start lobbying for blind people to be able to use self-driving cars when they come to market. My strong suspicion is that the technology is safe and effective but hasn't been approved because of entrenched government regulations that are serving to stifle this technology rather than keep us safe. The sad fact is that the regulators in charge of approving this technology have no interest, desire, or benefit in considering our need to be able to use this stuff quickly. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go "along > for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this out > there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft=3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the list > have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them waiting for > the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, when > activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is not > surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars are > now > being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this debate. Debating > those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that policy > can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From sy.hoekstra at gmail.com Tue Aug 20 02:20:29 2013 From: sy.hoekstra at gmail.com (Sy Hoekstra) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:20:29 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> Message-ID: <009f01ce9d4b$d7ec51e0$87c4f5a0$@gmail.com> Agreed. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 9:53 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars I have been so excited about the Google self-driving car and others like it. I have been eagerly anticipating this technology for at least five years. Ross, I could not agree with you more. We, the visually impaired community, should have a loud voice in this debate. This is technology that could literally transform our lives. Our compelling interest in seeing this technology come to the market as quickly and safely as possible gives us a strong and credible voice that should resonate in the debate. I think the NFB should actively start lobbying for blind people to be able to use self-driving cars when they come to market. My strong suspicion is that the technology is safe and effective but hasn't been approved because of entrenched government regulations that are serving to stifle this technology rather than keep us safe. The sad fact is that the regulators in charge of approving this technology have no interest, desire, or benefit in considering our need to be able to use this stuff quickly. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go "along > for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this out > there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft=3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the list > have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them waiting for > the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, when > activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is not > surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars are > now > being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this debate. Debating > those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that policy > can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sy.hoekstra%40gmail.co m From shannonldillon at gmail.com Tue Aug 20 02:50:52 2013 From: shannonldillon at gmail.com (Shannon L. Dillon) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:50:52 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ In-Reply-To: References: <5E.C1.04066.F433E025@smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com> <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E1418B7@pl-emsmb12> Message-ID: <020301ce9d50$168543e0$438fcba0$@gmail.com> Awesome, Aaron, I was just about to do the same thing. The National Association of Guide Dog Users, a Division of the National Federation of the Blind, did an excellent job responding. Here is the text of Marion Gwizdala's email to the NAGDU list. In short, the CCI petition should not be supported. Dear All, A petition has been recently circulated from Canine Companions for Independence (CCI) that seems to have the support of other service animal training programs. This petition is asking the U.S. Department of Justice to ban the online sale of service animal gear in an effort to stem the proliferation of the use of what the writer is calling "fake service animal gear". The National Association of Guide dog Users Inc. (NAGDU), A STRONG AND PROUD DIVISION OF THE National Federation of the Blind, has written an official response to this petition. We would like to encourage those interested in this issue to read our response and make comments on our online blog. You can read our comment by visiting our Wordpress blog at http://harnessup.wordpress.com Fraternally yours, Marion Gwizdala, President National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc. National Federation of the Blind (813) 626-2789 (Office) 888-NAGDU411 (Hotline President at nagdu.org www.nagdu.org _______________________________________________ nagdu mailing list nagdu at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/shannonldillon%40gmail.co m -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 4:55 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] FW: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ Hi. Thanks for forwarding this. I am not willing to sign this petition, and I plan on contacting the DOJ in opposition. I would also encourage others to do likewise. When I first saw this last week, I typed up a long explanation on exactly why I believe that the proposals in the petition were a bad idea. However, my kids pushed the mouse off the desk, clicking a button which ended up deleting the message before I could send it. Perhaps they disagreed with me. :) Anyway, I had intended to rewrite my thoughts, but instead, I'll simply point folks to the excellent summary of the problems written up by the president of the National Association of Guide Dog Users. http://harnessup.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/nagdu-responds-to-petition-to-ban- online-sale-of-service-animal-gear/ Aaron Cannon On 8/16/13, Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Charles Crawford [mailto:ccrawford at RCN.com] >>Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:12 AM >>To: Blind Democracy >>Subject: Fwd: [GDUIBusiness] CCI Petition To DOJ >> >> >>>Hi Everybody, >> >> >> I am pleased to share with you a message from Guide Dog Users >>Incorporated President Laurie Mehta which endorses folks signing on >>to the Canine Companions for Independence effort to reduce >>the incidents of people using fake service animals. Thanks Laurie >>for sharing this and I am happy to say that I signed the petition even >>before I saw this message. thanks again. >> >>-- Charlie Crawford: GDUI Second Vice President and Chair - Advocacy >>Committee. >> >>Original message... >> >>>Please consider signing the CCI petition available at: >>>www.cci.org/stopfraud >>> >>>The petition is to ask the US Department of Justice to take action to >>>stop fraudulent use of service dog ID or gear. >>> >>>Signers of the petition receive a letter like the one below: >>> >>>Thank you for asking the Department of Justice to >>>investigate and stop the online sale of >>>fraudulent service dog products. >>> >>>Please forward this message and urge your friends >>>to add their names at www.cci.org/stopfraud >>> >>>With your help, we can raise awareness about this >>>important issue and demand an end to the sale of >>>fake service dog products. >>> >>>Thank you for all that you do. >>> >>>Canine Companions for Independence >>> >>>Guide Dog Users Inc. Supporting Guide Dog Teams Since 1972 >>> >>>www.gdui.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cannona%40firean > tproductions.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/shannonldillon%40gmail .com From rthomas at emplmntattorney.com Tue Aug 20 12:22:20 2013 From: rthomas at emplmntattorney.com (Russ Thomas) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 05:22:20 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> Message-ID: <003401ce9d9f$eb01fce0$c105f6a0$@com> I thought these cars were available now (if you can afford the price). Two years ago, California passed a law permitting their use so long as a licensed driver was in the front passenger seat. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:53 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars I have been so excited about the Google self-driving car and others like it. I have been eagerly anticipating this technology for at least five years. Ross, I could not agree with you more. We, the visually impaired community, should have a loud voice in this debate. This is technology that could literally transform our lives. Our compelling interest in seeing this technology come to the market as quickly and safely as possible gives us a strong and credible voice that should resonate in the debate. I think the NFB should actively start lobbying for blind people to be able to use self-driving cars when they come to market. My strong suspicion is that the technology is safe and effective but hasn't been approved because of entrenched government regulations that are serving to stifle this technology rather than keep us safe. The sad fact is that the regulators in charge of approving this technology have no interest, desire, or benefit in considering our need to be able to use this stuff quickly. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go > "along for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this > out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft > =3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the > list have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them > waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, > when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is > not surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars > are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this > debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are > not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that > policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmai > l.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com From rumpole at roadrunner.com Tue Aug 20 12:31:04 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:31:04 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <003401ce9d9f$eb01fce0$c105f6a0$@com> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <003401ce9d9f$eb01fce0$c105f6a0$@com> Message-ID: I'm not sure of that. IO thought the law California passed permitted the testing of the cars on California roads. Can anyone on the list admitted to practice law in California check that out? -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russ Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:22 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars I thought these cars were available now (if you can afford the price). Two years ago, California passed a law permitting their use so long as a licensed driver was in the front passenger seat. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:53 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars I have been so excited about the Google self-driving car and others like it. I have been eagerly anticipating this technology for at least five years. Ross, I could not agree with you more. We, the visually impaired community, should have a loud voice in this debate. This is technology that could literally transform our lives. Our compelling interest in seeing this technology come to the market as quickly and safely as possible gives us a strong and credible voice that should resonate in the debate. I think the NFB should actively start lobbying for blind people to be able to use self-driving cars when they come to market. My strong suspicion is that the technology is safe and effective but hasn't been approved because of entrenched government regulations that are serving to stifle this technology rather than keep us safe. The sad fact is that the regulators in charge of approving this technology have no interest, desire, or benefit in considering our need to be able to use this stuff quickly. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go > "along for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this > out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft > =3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the > list have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them > waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up > with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, > when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is > not surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars > are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this > debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are > not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that > policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmai > l.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From mikefry79 at gmail.com Tue Aug 20 13:10:33 2013 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:10:33 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <003401ce9d9f$eb01fce0$c105f6a0$@com> Message-ID: <026AA94A-10B2-4C25-8595-1D565C96370B@gmail.com> The California law allows the cars to be driven on public streets legally for testing purposes. If the cars log something like a million driving hours without an accident then regulators may start issuing licenses to the public. As of right now no state allows a person in the general population to drive these things. Driving permits are only issued to companies for testing purposes. The license plate for a test vehicle is like the color red and the license plate for a non- test vehicle is green. As of now no one has been issued a green plate in any state. Does any body on the list know Steve Mahan? He's the blind driver that demonstrated Google's car last year on YouTube. Self driving cars will have a profound impact on everything from freight trucks to allowing blind people to live comfortably in the suburbs. In think NFB should be very interested in this thech. If blind people are denied access to these cars for fifty years based on irrational fears about the in reliability of the computers, that would be a real shame. Sent from Mike Fry On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:31 AM, "Ross Doerr" wrote: > I'm not sure of that. IO thought the law California passed permitted the > testing of the cars on California roads. > Can anyone on the list admitted to practice law in California check that > out? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russ Thomas > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:22 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars > > I thought these cars were available now (if you can afford the price). Two > years ago, California passed a law permitting their use so long as a > licensed driver was in the front passenger seat. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:53 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars > > I have been so excited about the Google self-driving car and others like it. > I have been eagerly anticipating this technology for at least five years. > Ross, I could not agree with you more. We, the visually impaired community, > should have a loud voice in this debate. This is technology that could > literally transform our lives. Our compelling interest in seeing this > technology come to the market as quickly and safely as possible gives us a > strong and credible voice that should resonate in the debate. > I think the NFB should actively start lobbying for blind people to be able > to use self-driving cars when they come to market. My strong suspicion is > that the technology is safe and effective but hasn't been approved because > of entrenched government regulations that are serving to stifle this > technology rather than keep us safe. The sad fact is that the regulators in > charge of approving this technology have no interest, desire, or benefit in > considering our need to be able to use this stuff quickly. > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > >> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's >> driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go >> "along for the ride" as it were. >> Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this >> out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: >> >> >> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft >> =3&f=2 >> 12683617 >> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the >> list have verbalized. >> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its >> automation being accepted by the general public as well as them >> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up >> with > them. >> This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, >> when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is >> not surprising. >> My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars >> are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this >> debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are >> not the decision makers. >> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that >> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. >> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. >> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law >> Augusta, Maine >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmai >> l.com > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor > ney.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com From Bennett.Prows at HHS.GOV Wed Aug 21 20:30:54 2013 From: Bennett.Prows at HHS.GOV (Prows, Bennett (HHS/OCR)) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:30:54 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Civil Rights Attorney Job In Kansas City Message-ID: I received the following job announcement pertaining to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The Office of the General Counsel is currently conducting a search for a General Attorney (Civil Rights) in the Region VII (Kansas City) office. The vacancy announcement is open through Wednesday, September 4, 2013, and is limited to the first 200 applicants. To view the vacancy announcement (HHS-OGC-DE-13-939986), visit the following link: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/349231000 /s/ Bennett Prows From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Thu Aug 22 12:41:21 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:41:21 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Mid Atlantic Lyceum? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E142836@pl-emsmb12> Do find the attached. Sincerely, Gary On behalf of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum - You are cordially invited to the first in a series of social calls Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 10:30 A.M. sharply The Lyceum will host and Mr. Pilot and his retired mentor Mr. Langer wish to hold these social calls in support and honor of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum, leaders with disabilities, such as their partner Gary C. Norman, and animal related concerns. The social calls are also held as a means of bringing all past or present volunteers, partners, or supporters of the Lyceum together for refreshment from their labors on the Journal and sundry other projects. First Social Call Do enjoy breakfast with board members of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum at the cost of $10 or $20 wherein the proceeds of this larger cost -- $10 -- will be contributed to the Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter. Ø At a breakfast reception, do rejoinder Gary C. Norman and Mr. Pilot in a light breakfast with corresponding toast to leaders with disabilities who are changing the world, such as with respect to supporting the dogs and cats at BARCS. Ø Fine conversation will be a core component of this reception, fitting to what constitutes the dolce vita. Ø A gift certificate to the Alchemy: Modern American Bistro in the amount of $50 will, after the toast, be raffled. Logistics: Location and Alike 1). the breakfast reception will occur at a vegan friendly place, Breathe Books Cafe, 810 West 36 Street, Baltimore City, between Elm and Chestnut Avenues. 2). the goal is to dine either on the first floor or outside should the weather not be unbearable. Food may be purchased at a set price of $10 (recommended combinations will be provided at time of purchase) on the first floor. 3). RSVP notifications are requested. This social call will close at a limit of 20 persons. Up to 5 students currently working on the Journal and 1 past manager of the Journal (i.e. Lacey) will dine for free, as purchased by the Lyceum in gratitude of them thereof. Do provide your RSVP to Gary at (410) 241-6745 or via e-mail at GLNorman15 at hotmail.com. 4). In terms of those who want to donate, cash will be accepted or a separate check should be made to BARCS With fraternal affection and respect, Gary C. Norman, Esq. L.L.M.     Misters Pilot and Langer -- Image removed by sender. Cory S. Wright Worshipful Master 2013- Mount Moriah Masonic Lodge #116 Orator-Scottish Rite 18th Degree Knights of The Rose Croix Account Manager- CallRevu  Cell 410-916-3283 "eve rythin gisgon nabeal right" -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Roger Baccus Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:48 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] Mid Atlantic Lyceum? What is your mission? What services do you provide? Thanks. Bright Moments! Roger Baccus http://www.rogerbaccus.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/gary.norman%40cms.hhs.gov -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Mission Document.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18149 bytes Desc: Final Mission Document.docx URL: From billreif at ameritech.net Thu Aug 22 14:54:02 2013 From: billreif at ameritech.net (Bill Reif) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:54:02 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> Message-ID: <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the driverless car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to challenge the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of the blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. Cordially, Bill On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go "along > for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this out > there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft=3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the list > have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them waiting for > the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, when > activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is not > surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars are now > being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this debate. Debating > those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that policy > can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameritech.net > From rumpole at roadrunner.com Thu Aug 22 14:59:32 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:59:32 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <39CFB42CFAFA413293A56EBEBF9ED2DF@mycomputer> Bill, do you have any suggestions as to who should be contacted to be involved in the automated car issue, whether it is this one or the google car. Where is our "starting point" with them, instead of us. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:54 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the driverless car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to challenge the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of the blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. Cordially, Bill On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go > "along for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this > out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft > =3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the > list have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them > waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, > when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is > not surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars > are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this > debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that > policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri > tech.net > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From mikefry79 at gmail.com Thu Aug 22 16:17:57 2013 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:17:57 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <39CFB42CFAFA413293A56EBEBF9ED2DF@mycomputer> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> <39CFB42CFAFA413293A56EBEBF9ED2DF@mycomputer> Message-ID: Hi Bill and Ross, I just wanted to jump in on this conversation because the topic is so exciting. I predict that self-driving car technology will greatly impact society. One's imagination could stretch very far when considering how this technology could free up a drivers time. I read a Stanford professors' thoughts on the subject. He predicts autonomous vehicles that have an exercise bike or treadmill, shower, desk, and bed. If there is no need to worry about driving or an accident then these are things that a person could use during a long commute to work from the suburbs. The Economist magazine predicted that business men would rent motorhome autonomous vehicles to traverse the country instead of flying because the motorhome would be so much more convenient and cheaper than flying. Along those lines, one could imagine small fully autonomous passenger planes (like a flying motorhome - not like Spaceballs - but like a autonomous passenger leer jet) for longer trips. If there is no need to worry about pilots or air traffic control then the biggest expense in renting such a plane could be the cost of fuel. This is not even to mention, that the number of truck stops and interstate hotels may shrink since truck drivers, there biggest customers, will no longer be needed because they will be replaced by autonomous tractor trailers. This is a prediction of a somewhat distant future. It is built on many iterations of autonomous vehicle technology. Consider that the modern car is the end result of a long path of technological iterations. Currently, autonomous vehicle technology is at a pre-Model T stage. Autonomous vehicle technology needs to start a journey down a path of technological iterations. The first step is an autonomous vehicle that can be sold to the public. Will the first autonomous vehicles sold to the public be absolutely perfect? No. That would be impossible. Compared to a 2013 car is a Model T perfect? No. Nevertheless, it is obviously very good that Model T's were sold despite their deficiencies compared to later model cars. So, why isn't there an autonomous car that can be sold to the public? The answer is government regulators demanding perfection from the first iteration. Regulators are applying the precautionary principal (better safe than sorry). If, a hundred years ago, government regulators applied the precautionary principal to car manufactures, right now our car technology would be in a sorry state compared to where it currently is at. I guess my point is that, the precautionary principal is ruining my life in many ways because I have a disability and I'm counting on some big technological advancements that aren't happening in part because of overly cautious government regulators that have no incentive to consider how these technologies could impact a disabled persons life. Whether it be with the FDA and retinal gene therapy or with the Department of Transportation and autonomous vehicles, things are advancing way slower than they should be and it's because we have government literally standing awkwardly in the way. Oh yea, Bill, in my opinion, if the car is autonomous then there could not be any 'driver' liability because there is no actus reus. Mike On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Ross Doerr wrote: > Bill, do you have any suggestions as to who should be contacted to be > involved in the automated car issue, whether it is this one or the google > car. > Where is our "starting point" with them, instead of us. > Ross > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:54 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars > > This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the > blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the driverless > car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation > demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its > operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to challenge > the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars > continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of the > blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that > happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to > ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. > > In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" > shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. > > Cordially, > Bill > > On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go > > "along for the ride" as it were. > > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this > > out there in testing, read the following article about its competition > at: > > > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft > > =3&f=2 > > 12683617 > > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the > > list have verbalized. > > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them > > waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with > them. > > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, > > when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is > > not surprising. > > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars > > are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this > > debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not > the decision makers. > > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that > > policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the > outset. > > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > > Augusta, Maine > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri > > tech.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From denverqueen1107 at comcast.net Thu Aug 22 16:47:54 2013 From: denverqueen1107 at comcast.net (Beth Taurasi) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:47:54 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns Message-ID: Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal administrative appeal. Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great thing. Thanks, guys. Beth Taurasi ---- Original Message ------ From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" wrote: Dear Richele, I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I understand that you would like for me to take a social skills training whether one on one with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some form of social skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would probably not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it were. Why do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel this is needed over again? Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an intern who does not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no idea what the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her rehab counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has perceptions of blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that most epartments of vocational rehab have. I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such decision made. Sincyerely, Beth Taurasi -- Richele Pennock Rehabilitation Counselor II Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Colorado Department of Human Services 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B Denver, CO 80223 T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us www.dvrcolorado.com DVR: Bridging Business & Ability CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RIGHTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS.SM.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 50179 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joltingjacksandefur at gmail.com Thu Aug 22 17:12:48 2013 From: joltingjacksandefur at gmail.com (RJ Sandefur) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:12:48 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns References: <52164164.6a5f310a.3b87.610bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000e01ce9f5a$d4156cd0$0302a8c0@hometwxakonvzn> Dear Beth, I see several contridictions from this email. The first and most notible is concerning Kris Gram. First, She says that this lady has a masters in rehabilitation then she turns around and says that this woman did her final hours as an inturn. Which is it? I am not a lawyer, but their are several things that do not make since. RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beth Taurasi" To: Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns > Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal > administrative appeal. > Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great > thing. > Thanks, guys. > Beth Taurasi > > ---- Original Message ------ > From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" Subject: Re: social skills training and work concerns > Date sent: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:53:10 -0600 > > Hello there Beth, > Thank you for your email. As your DVR counselor, I have > determined through > observations from a team (Lila Papadaki, Tracy Rushing, Kristy > Penk, Kris > Graham and myself) that you presently do not have the social > skills or > ability to interact with others to the degree necessary to > succeed in an > employment setting. We have recognized this as a barrier to > employment. > DVR counselors are trained to work with people with a wide range > of > disabilities to help them return to work by identifying the > barriers > presented by their disabilities and develop plans to help them > overcome > those barriers. By not addressing barriers we would be setting > the client > up for failure. In your situation, it has been determined that > your social > interactions with others will be perceived as a problem for > employment. I > understand from our meeting yesterday and from this email that > you are not > in agreement with this feedback. I am glad to hear that you have > had some > social skills training in the past and I would see that as > helpful to help > you build upon those skills. I do not discount the training > offered by the > CCB but I do know time has past since then and we are evaluating > your > present social skills and interactions with others and recognize > a need for > additional training. Again, we want to set you up to succeed. > > You asked about Kris Graham. Kris Graham presently has a > master's degree > in rehabilitation. As a DVR intern this summer she was finishing > her final > hours and worked under the supervision of a DVR employee. Again, > as stated > in the meeting, the report she generated was a collaborative > effort of the > team of individuals who participated in your trial work > experience here. > Please be clear about which decision you are appealing: the > requirement > of social skills training, trial work experience at Bayaud's GOST > program > etc. I will attach the appeal rights to this email for your > convenience. > You may contact my supervisor Sam Mankin to discuss your > concerns at > 303-866-3559. > > Take Care, > Richele Pennock > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Beth Taurasi > wrote: > > Dear Richele, > I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I > understand that > you would like for me to take a social skills training whether > one on one > with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some > form of social > skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would > probably > not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it > were. Why > do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel > this is needed > over again? > Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an > intern who does > not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no > idea what > the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her > rehab > counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has > perceptions of > blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that > most > epartments of vocational rehab have. > I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such > decision made. > Sincyerely, > Beth Taurasi > > > > > -- > Richele Pennock > Rehabilitation Counselor II > Division of Vocational Rehabilitation > Colorado Department of Human Services > 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B > Denver, CO 80223 > T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 > Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us > www.dvrcolorado.com > > DVR: Bridging Business & Ability > > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT > This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of > Human > Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential > and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which > it is > addressed. The information contained herein may include > protected or > otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, > forwarding, > printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is > strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this > message in > error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and > by deleting > the email without further disclosure. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joltingjacksandefur%40gmail.com > From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Thu Aug 22 17:32:13 2013 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:32:13 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Jobs] Civil Rights Attorney Job In Kansas City In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Jobs [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:23 PM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] Civil Rights Attorney Job In Kansas City > >I received the following job announcement pertaining to the Office of >the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: > >The Office of the General Counsel is currently conducting a search for >a General Attorney (Civil Rights) in the Region VII (Kansas >City) office. The vacancy announcement is open through Wednesday, >September 4, 2013, and is limited to the first 200 applicants. >To view the vacancy announcement (HHS-OGC-DE-13-939986), visit the >following link: >https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/349231000 > >/s/ > >Bennett Prows _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Thu Aug 22 18:00:37 2013 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:00:37 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Jobs] FW: Please post/forward ACLU Spring 2013 Disability Rights Legal Internship Opportunity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Jobs [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:52 AM To: jobs at nfbnet.org Subject: [Jobs] FW: Please post/forward ACLU Spring 2013 Disability Rights Legal Internship Opportunity From: hrintern [mailto:hrintern at aclu.org] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:50 PM To: Maurer, Patricia Subject: Please post/forward ACLU Spring 2013 Disability Rights Legal Internship Opportunity Please post/forward ACLU Spring 2013 Disability Rights Legal Internship Opportunity August 21, 2013 SPRING 2014 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY NOTICE TO LAW STUDENTS American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Equality Center-Disability Rights, San Francisco, CA For more than 93 years, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLUF) has been at the forefront of virtually every major battle for civil liberties and equal justice in this country. Principled and nonpartisan, the ACLU has offices in all 50 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, and brings together the country's largest team of public interest lawyers, lobbyists, communication strategists, and members and activists in the advancement of equality, fairness, and freedom, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. The Equality Center - Disability Rights Division of the ACLU's National Office in New York City and San Francisco seeks applicants for Spring 2014 Legal Internships. The internships will be located in the San Francisco Office. OVERVIEW The ACLU has a long history of defending the rights of people with disabilities. It played a major role in securing passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ACLU has battled discrimination against persons with HIV/AIDS and stood up for the voting rights of persons with disabilities in the ongoing debate over electoral reform. It has fought to obtain adequate health care and access to services for prisoners with disabilities across the country. The ACLU also established the right to treatment for persons with mental illness who are involuntarily committed. The Spring legal internships require a 10 to 16 week commitment. The internships may be full-time or part-time, with weekly hours that are negotiable. Arrangements can be made with the students' schools for work/study or course credit. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITES The internship is designed to provide legal interns with the opportunity to learn about public interest law, with a disability rights focus. Interns will work closely with the Equality Center - Disability Counsel. Legal interns will be expected to: * Conduct legal research, analysis, and writing. * Conduct internet and other factual research and collaborate with staff in preparing background memoranda on selected policy issues. * Collect and analyze statistical and social science data for use in litigation and policy presentations. * Conduct outreach to disability organizations. * Develop and maintain website content and other public information materials. * Perform special projects and other duties as assigned. DESIRED EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS The internship is open to students, who are currently enrolled in law school, have completed their first year, and who possess the following: * Excellent research, writing and communications skills. * Proficiency in Microsoft Office Suite, including internet research. * Ability to work independently. * Experience with disability rights law, legislative lobbying, and interest in the field of disability rights law preferred. * Demonstrated commitment to civil rights and civil liberties issues. HOW TO APPLY Please send a letter of interest, a resume, a writing sample (less than five pages), and the names and phone numbers of two references to hrjobsCEIntern at aclu.org - reference [2014 Legal Internship - Equality Center- Disability/INCL] in the subject line. Please note that this is not the general ACLU applicant email address. This email address is specific to Equality Center - Disability Rights postings. In order to ensure your application is received please make certain it is sent to the correct e-mail address. You can expect to receive an automatic response that acknowledges the receipt of application materials. Alternatively, applications can be mailed to: American Civil Liberties Union RE: 2014 Legal Internship - Equality Center 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Please indicate in your cover letter where you learned of this internship opportunity. Applications will be accepted until the internship is filled. Applicants are encouraged to submit materials as early as possible. This posting provides a general but not comprehensive list of the essential responsibilities and qualifications required. It does not represent a contract of employment. The ACLU reserves the right to change the posting at any time without advance notice. The ACLU is an equal opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. The ACLU encourages applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, and veteran status. We encourage applicants with disabilities who may need accommodations in the application process to contact: hrjobsinclreq at aclu.org. Correspondence sent to this email address that is not related to requests for accommodations will not be reviewed. Applicants should follow the instructions above regarding how to apply. The ACLU comprises two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are national organizations with the same overall mission, and share office space and employees. The ACLU has two separate corporate entities in order to do a broad range of work to protect civil liberties. This job posting refers collectively to the two organizations under the name "ACLU." -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com Thu Aug 22 18:27:55 2013 From: ukekearuaro at valtdnet.com (Olusegun -- Victory Associates LTD, Inc.) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:27:55 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer><5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net><39CFB42CFAFA413293A56EBEBF9ED2DF@mycomputer> Message-ID: <5595A2A854A5484BA925E16220280815@victory2> Actus reus can and will change in a heartbeat once autonomous cars begin crisscrossing our streets. I do wish to see the self driving car technology succeed in my lifetime because I sure want to drive one to work and everywhere else I need to get to. More than anything else, its the false evidence (FEAR) appearing real that keeps haunting down the politicians, hence the reason why they and their various agencies keep a tight-fitting lid on self driving car technology. However, sooner or later, something will truly have to be done to usher it on; technology won't stop evolving! As such, politicians and their agencies better get busy fast! Or will it take the courts to force their hands? Sincerely, Olusegun Denver, Colorado From Attorney at alcidonislaw.com Thu Aug 22 20:21:35 2013 From: Attorney at alcidonislaw.com (Rod Alcidonis, Esquire) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:21:35 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns Message-ID: <8EB51587B93F465E91925294A148538F@RodTHINK> Beth: This is printed in the bottom of the counselor's e-mail: "CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure." -----Original Message----- From: Beth Taurasi Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal administrative appeal. Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great thing. Thanks, guys. Beth Taurasi ---- Original Message ------ From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" wrote: Dear Richele, I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I understand that you would like for me to take a social skills training whether one on one with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some form of social skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would probably not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it were. Why do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel this is needed over again? Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an intern who does not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no idea what the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her rehab counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has perceptions of blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that most epartments of vocational rehab have. I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such decision made. Sincyerely, Beth Taurasi -- Richele Pennock Rehabilitation Counselor II Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Colorado Department of Human Services 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B Denver, CO 80223 T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us www.dvrcolorado.com DVR: Bridging Business & Ability CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure. _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attorney%40alcidonislaw.com From denverqueen1107 at comcast.net Thu Aug 22 22:12:13 2013 From: denverqueen1107 at comcast.net (Beth Taurasi) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:12:13 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns In-Reply-To: <8EB51587B93F465E91925294A148538F@RodTHINK> References: <8EB51587B93F465E91925294A148538F@RodTHINK> Message-ID: <52168CBD.4080608@comcast.net> On 8/22/2013 2:21 PM, Rod Alcidonis, Esquire wrote: > Beth: > > This is printed in the bottom of the counselor's e-mail: > "CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT > This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human > Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is > addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or > otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, > printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by > deleting the email without further disclosure." > > -----Original Message----- From: Beth Taurasi > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns > > Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal > administrative appeal. > Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great > thing. > Thanks, guys. > Beth Taurasi > > ---- Original Message ------ > From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" Subject: Re: social skills training and work concerns > Date sent: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:53:10 -0600 > > Hello there Beth, > Thank you for your email. As your DVR counselor, I have > determined through > observations from a team (Lila Papadaki, Tracy Rushing, Kristy > Penk, Kris > Graham and myself) that you presently do not have the social > skills or > ability to interact with others to the degree necessary to > succeed in an > employment setting. We have recognized this as a barrier to > employment. > DVR counselors are trained to work with people with a wide range > of > disabilities to help them return to work by identifying the > barriers > presented by their disabilities and develop plans to help them > overcome > those barriers. By not addressing barriers we would be setting > the client > up for failure. In your situation, it has been determined that > your social > interactions with others will be perceived as a problem for > employment. I > understand from our meeting yesterday and from this email that > you are not > in agreement with this feedback. I am glad to hear that you have > had some > social skills training in the past and I would see that as > helpful to help > you build upon those skills. I do not discount the training > offered by the > CCB but I do know time has past since then and we are evaluating > your > present social skills and interactions with others and recognize > a need for > additional training. Again, we want to set you up to succeed. > > You asked about Kris Graham. Kris Graham presently has a > master's degree > in rehabilitation. As a DVR intern this summer she was finishing > her final > hours and worked under the supervision of a DVR employee. Again, > as stated > in the meeting, the report she generated was a collaborative > effort of the > team of individuals who participated in your trial work > experience here. > Please be clear about which decision you are appealing: the > requirement > of social skills training, trial work experience at Bayaud's GOST > program > etc. I will attach the appeal rights to this email for your > convenience. > You may contact my supervisor Sam Mankin to discuss your > concerns at > 303-866-3559. > > Take Care, > Richele Pennock > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Beth Taurasi > wrote: > > Dear Richele, > I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I > understand that > you would like for me to take a social skills training whether > one on one > with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some > form of social > skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would > probably > not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it > were. Why > do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel > this is needed > over again? > Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an > intern who does > not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no > idea what > the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her > rehab > counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has > perceptions of > blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that > most > epartments of vocational rehab have. > I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such > decision made. > Sincyerely, > Beth Taurasi > > > > > -- > Richele Pennock > Rehabilitation Counselor II > Division of Vocational Rehabilitation > Colorado Department of Human Services > 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B > Denver, CO 80223 > T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 > Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us > www.dvrcolorado.com > > DVR: Bridging Business & Ability > > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT > This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of > Human > Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential > and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which > it is > addressed. The information contained herein may include > protected or > otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, > forwarding, > printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is > strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this > message in > error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and > by deleting > the email without further disclosure. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attorney%40alcidonislaw.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/denverqueen1107%40comcast.net > > Holy ... ok, sorry about that. I know the stuff is confidential, but I need help with drafting a letter for the appeal. I went over and over it with RJ and we tweaked the darn thing over and over. But here's the thing: I want to know how I can easily do this in an accessible way, and how I can get this thing over with. Beth From denverqueen1107 at comcast.net Thu Aug 22 22:15:17 2013 From: denverqueen1107 at comcast.net (Beth Taurasi) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:15:17 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] appeals process for Rehab Message-ID: <52168D75.7000801@comcast.net> HEy, guys. Firstly, I want to apologize to Mr. Rod in the back. Sorry I didn't think about the confidentiality statement. It was me and RJ who had this idea that you should see the stuff in the email and how it sounded, to RJ, like a contradictory statement. We don't know what is going to happen. Secondly, if anyone wants to see my letter, please write me privately. I'd love some help from a lawyer's standpoint. Thanks. Beth Taurasi eataurasi at gmail.com (private emails) From rdittman at stmarytx.edu Thu Aug 22 22:24:21 2013 From: rdittman at stmarytx.edu (Dittman, Robert) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:24:21 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns In-Reply-To: <52168CBD.4080608@comcast.net> References: <8EB51587B93F465E91925294A148538F@RodTHINK>, <52168CBD.4080608@comcast.net> Message-ID: <37B00244-CBD0-4C2D-9F0F-AE42A0B5795C@stmarytx.edu> Good evening Beth, why don't you call my office tomorrow at 210-299-7658. I am an attorney, but I cannot and will not represent you regarding this matter first because I am not licensed in Colorado, and second because I am not comfortable in that capacity. That being said, my title is Atty. and Counselor at Law. I believe my fellow attorney colleagues on this list would agree that part of our calling in the profession of law is to attempt to educate persons on their rights, responsibilities, as it relates to the law, and society in general. Although I cannot assist you directly perhaps I can put you in a better place by listening to the rough draft of your letter and offering general suggestions so that you communicatez The clearest message you possibly can before you submit your letter. I hope that this helps, sincerely I would further suggest that although I am willing to make general suggestions on the clarity of your letter, this will not constitute legal advice on how to proceed with your claim. For that type of representation, you must contact an attorney who is licensed in Colorado and that individual would be able to evaluate and decide the best course of action for you to take. Robert D. Dittman, ESQ. Attorney and Counselor at Law Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2013, at 17:13, "Beth Taurasi" wrote: > On 8/22/2013 2:21 PM, Rod Alcidonis, Esquire wrote: >> Beth: >> >> This is printed in the bottom of the counselor's e-mail: >> "CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT >> This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure." >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Beth Taurasi >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM >> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns >> >> Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal >> administrative appeal. >> Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great >> thing. >> Thanks, guys. >> Beth Taurasi >> >> ---- Original Message ------ >> From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" > Subject: Re: social skills training and work concerns >> Date sent: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:53:10 -0600 >> >> Hello there Beth, >> Thank you for your email. As your DVR counselor, I have >> determined through >> observations from a team (Lila Papadaki, Tracy Rushing, Kristy >> Penk, Kris >> Graham and myself) that you presently do not have the social >> skills or >> ability to interact with others to the degree necessary to >> succeed in an >> employment setting. We have recognized this as a barrier to >> employment. >> DVR counselors are trained to work with people with a wide range >> of >> disabilities to help them return to work by identifying the >> barriers >> presented by their disabilities and develop plans to help them >> overcome >> those barriers. By not addressing barriers we would be setting >> the client >> up for failure. In your situation, it has been determined that >> your social >> interactions with others will be perceived as a problem for >> employment. I >> understand from our meeting yesterday and from this email that >> you are not >> in agreement with this feedback. I am glad to hear that you have >> had some >> social skills training in the past and I would see that as >> helpful to help >> you build upon those skills. I do not discount the training >> offered by the >> CCB but I do know time has past since then and we are evaluating >> your >> present social skills and interactions with others and recognize >> a need for >> additional training. Again, we want to set you up to succeed. >> >> You asked about Kris Graham. Kris Graham presently has a >> master's degree >> in rehabilitation. As a DVR intern this summer she was finishing >> her final >> hours and worked under the supervision of a DVR employee. Again, >> as stated >> in the meeting, the report she generated was a collaborative >> effort of the >> team of individuals who participated in your trial work >> experience here. >> Please be clear about which decision you are appealing: the >> requirement >> of social skills training, trial work experience at Bayaud's GOST >> program >> etc. I will attach the appeal rights to this email for your >> convenience. >> You may contact my supervisor Sam Mankin to discuss your >> concerns at >> 303-866-3559. >> >> Take Care, >> Richele Pennock >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Beth Taurasi >> wrote: >> >> Dear Richele, >> I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I >> understand that >> you would like for me to take a social skills training whether >> one on one >> with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some >> form of social >> skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would >> probably >> not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it >> were. Why >> do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel >> this is needed >> over again? >> Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an >> intern who does >> not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no >> idea what >> the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her >> rehab >> counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has >> perceptions of >> blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that >> most >> epartments of vocational rehab have. >> I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such >> decision made. >> Sincyerely, >> Beth Taurasi >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Richele Pennock >> Rehabilitation Counselor II >> Division of Vocational Rehabilitation >> Colorado Department of Human Services >> 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B >> Denver, CO 80223 >> T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 >> Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us >> www.dvrcolorado.com >> >> DVR: Bridging Business & Ability >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT >> This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of >> Human >> Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential >> and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which >> it is >> addressed. The information contained herein may include >> protected or >> otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, >> forwarding, >> printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is >> strictly >> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this >> message in >> error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and >> by deleting >> the email without further disclosure. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attorney%40alcidonislaw.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/denverqueen1107%40comcast.net > Holy ... ok, sorry about that. I know the stuff is confidential, but I need help with drafting a letter for the appeal. I went over and over it with RJ and we tweaked the darn thing over and over. But here's the thing: I want to know how I can easily do this in an accessible way, and how I can get this thing over with. > Beth > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rdittman%40stmarytx.edu From denverqueen1107 at comcast.net Thu Aug 22 22:28:17 2013 From: denverqueen1107 at comcast.net (Beth Taurasi) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:28:17 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns In-Reply-To: <37B00244-CBD0-4C2D-9F0F-AE42A0B5795C@stmarytx.edu> References: <8EB51587B93F465E91925294A148538F@RodTHINK>, <52168CBD.4080608@comcast.net> <37B00244-CBD0-4C2D-9F0F-AE42A0B5795C@stmarytx.edu> Message-ID: <52169081.3060406@comcast.net> On 8/22/2013 4:24 PM, Dittman, Robert wrote: > Good evening Beth, why don't you call my office tomorrow at 210-299-7658. I am an attorney, but I cannot and will not represent you regarding this matter first because I am not licensed in Colorado, and second because I am not comfortable in that capacity. That being said, my title is Atty. and Counselor at Law. I believe my fellow attorney colleagues on this list would agree that part of our calling in the profession of law is to attempt to educate persons on their rights, responsibilities, as it relates to the law, and society in general. Although I cannot assist you directly perhaps I can put you in a better place by listening to the rough draft of your letter and offering general suggestions so that you communicatez The clearest message you possibly can before you submit your letter. I hope that this helps, sincerely I would further suggest that although I am willing to make general suggestions on the clarity of your letter, this will not constitute legal advice on how to proceed with your claim. For that type of representation, you must contact an attorney who is licensed in Colorado and that individual would be able to evaluate and decide the best course of action for you to take. > > Robert D. Dittman, ESQ. > Attorney and Counselor at Law > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 22, 2013, at 17:13, "Beth Taurasi" wrote: > >> On 8/22/2013 2:21 PM, Rod Alcidonis, Esquire wrote: >>> Beth: >>> >>> This is printed in the bottom of the counselor's e-mail: >>> "CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT >>> This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure." >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Beth Taurasi >>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM >>> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns >>> >>> Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal >>> administrative appeal. >>> Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great >>> thing. >>> Thanks, guys. >>> Beth Taurasi >>> >>> ---- Original Message ------ >>> From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" >> Subject: Re: social skills training and work concerns >>> Date sent: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:53:10 -0600 >>> >>> Hello there Beth, >>> Thank you for your email. As your DVR counselor, I have >>> determined through >>> observations from a team (Lila Papadaki, Tracy Rushing, Kristy >>> Penk, Kris >>> Graham and myself) that you presently do not have the social >>> skills or >>> ability to interact with others to the degree necessary to >>> succeed in an >>> employment setting. We have recognized this as a barrier to >>> employment. >>> DVR counselors are trained to work with people with a wide range >>> of >>> disabilities to help them return to work by identifying the >>> barriers >>> presented by their disabilities and develop plans to help them >>> overcome >>> those barriers. By not addressing barriers we would be setting >>> the client >>> up for failure. In your situation, it has been determined that >>> your social >>> interactions with others will be perceived as a problem for >>> employment. I >>> understand from our meeting yesterday and from this email that >>> you are not >>> in agreement with this feedback. I am glad to hear that you have >>> had some >>> social skills training in the past and I would see that as >>> helpful to help >>> you build upon those skills. I do not discount the training >>> offered by the >>> CCB but I do know time has past since then and we are evaluating >>> your >>> present social skills and interactions with others and recognize >>> a need for >>> additional training. Again, we want to set you up to succeed. >>> >>> You asked about Kris Graham. Kris Graham presently has a >>> master's degree >>> in rehabilitation. As a DVR intern this summer she was finishing >>> her final >>> hours and worked under the supervision of a DVR employee. Again, >>> as stated >>> in the meeting, the report she generated was a collaborative >>> effort of the >>> team of individuals who participated in your trial work >>> experience here. >>> Please be clear about which decision you are appealing: the >>> requirement >>> of social skills training, trial work experience at Bayaud's GOST >>> program >>> etc. I will attach the appeal rights to this email for your >>> convenience. >>> You may contact my supervisor Sam Mankin to discuss your >>> concerns at >>> 303-866-3559. >>> >>> Take Care, >>> Richele Pennock >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Beth Taurasi >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Richele, >>> I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I >>> understand that >>> you would like for me to take a social skills training whether >>> one on one >>> with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some >>> form of social >>> skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would >>> probably >>> not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it >>> were. Why >>> do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel >>> this is needed >>> over again? >>> Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an >>> intern who does >>> not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no >>> idea what >>> the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her >>> rehab >>> counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has >>> perceptions of >>> blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that >>> most >>> epartments of vocational rehab have. >>> I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such >>> decision made. >>> Sincyerely, >>> Beth Taurasi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Richele Pennock >>> Rehabilitation Counselor II >>> Division of Vocational Rehabilitation >>> Colorado Department of Human Services >>> 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B >>> Denver, CO 80223 >>> T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 >>> Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us >>> www.dvrcolorado.com >>> >>> DVR: Bridging Business & Ability >>> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT >>> This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of >>> Human >>> Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential >>> and >>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which >>> it is >>> addressed. The information contained herein may include >>> protected or >>> otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, >>> forwarding, >>> printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is >>> strictly >>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this >>> message in >>> error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and >>> by deleting >>> the email without further disclosure. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attorney%40alcidonislaw.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/denverqueen1107%40comcast.net >> Holy ... ok, sorry about that. I know the stuff is confidential, but I need help with drafting a letter for the appeal. I went over and over it with RJ and we tweaked the darn thing over and over. But here's the thing: I want to know how I can easily do this in an accessible way, and how I can get this thing over with. >> Beth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rdittman%40stmarytx.edu > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/denverqueen1107%40comcast.net > Oh no prob, Robert. I would love to hear your advice on the letter. Thanks. Beth From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Fri Aug 23 01:23:15 2013 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. LaBarre) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:23:15 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] appeals process for Rehab In-Reply-To: <52168D75.7000801@comcast.net> References: <52168D75.7000801@comcast.net> Message-ID: <02e601ce9f9f$57e82090$07b861b0$@labarrelaw.com> Beth, this List Serve is not the appropriate place to articulate facts about individual cases. Primarily, it is a venue for lawyers and legal professionals as well as law students to share information about the practice of law as a blind/visuallyimpaired lawer, laws and updates affecting the civil rights of indviiduals with disabilities, and other networking opportunities for blind legal professionals. I am sorry to hear that you are having trouble with Colorado DVR but please direct your request for assistance to the Legal Center for People with Disabilities which serves as the official Client Assistance Program for Colorado, 303 722-0300. Additionally, you may want to circle back wit Julie Deden at the CCB regarding the training and support you received there in order to provide the counselor with relevant information. I wish you the best. Regards, Scott LaBarre President, NABL -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Beth Taurasi Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:15 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: [blindlaw] appeals process for Rehab HEy, guys. Firstly, I want to apologize to Mr. Rod in the back. Sorry I didn't think about the confidentiality statement. It was me and RJ who had this idea that you should see the stuff in the email and how it sounded, to RJ, like a contradictory statement. We don't know what is going to happen. Secondly, if anyone wants to see my letter, please write me privately. I'd love some help from a lawyer's standpoint. Thanks. Beth Taurasi eataurasi at gmail.com (private emails) _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com From cannona at fireantproductions.com Fri Aug 23 01:58:41 2013 From: cannona at fireantproductions.com (Aaron Cannon) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:58:41 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Threatening email signatures, Was: social skills training and work concerns Message-ID: I would certainly be interested to know how enforceable something like that actually is, particularly in this case. Is it really illegal for someone to choose to reveal confidential information about their own case? Whose confidentiality are they violating besides their own? As most of you undoubtedly know, I am by no means an attorney, but I am in the tech field, and see these sorts of disclaimers/threats appended to emails all the time. It is commonly believed that they have little to no legal value, but I have no idea if that is accurate. A quick Google search turns up the following semi-relevant page: http://lifehacker.com/5790930/disclaimers-in-email-signatures-are-not-just-annoying-but-legally-meaningless Aaron On 8/22/13, Rod Alcidonis, Esquire wrote: > Beth: > > This is printed in the bottom of the counselor's e-mail: > "CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT > This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human > Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is > addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or > otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, > printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, > > please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the > email without further disclosure." > > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth Taurasi > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns > > Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal > administrative appeal. > Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great > thing. > Thanks, guys. > Beth Taurasi > > ---- Original Message ------ > From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" Subject: Re: social skills training and work concerns > Date sent: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:53:10 -0600 > > Hello there Beth, > Thank you for your email. As your DVR counselor, I have > determined through > observations from a team (Lila Papadaki, Tracy Rushing, Kristy > Penk, Kris > Graham and myself) that you presently do not have the social > skills or > ability to interact with others to the degree necessary to > succeed in an > employment setting. We have recognized this as a barrier to > employment. > DVR counselors are trained to work with people with a wide range > of > disabilities to help them return to work by identifying the > barriers > presented by their disabilities and develop plans to help them > overcome > those barriers. By not addressing barriers we would be setting > the client > up for failure. In your situation, it has been determined that > your social > interactions with others will be perceived as a problem for > employment. I > understand from our meeting yesterday and from this email that > you are not > in agreement with this feedback. I am glad to hear that you have > had some > social skills training in the past and I would see that as > helpful to help > you build upon those skills. I do not discount the training > offered by the > CCB but I do know time has past since then and we are evaluating > your > present social skills and interactions with others and recognize > a need for > additional training. Again, we want to set you up to succeed. > > You asked about Kris Graham. Kris Graham presently has a > master's degree > in rehabilitation. As a DVR intern this summer she was finishing > her final > hours and worked under the supervision of a DVR employee. Again, > as stated > in the meeting, the report she generated was a collaborative > effort of the > team of individuals who participated in your trial work > experience here. > Please be clear about which decision you are appealing: the > requirement > of social skills training, trial work experience at Bayaud's GOST > program > etc. I will attach the appeal rights to this email for your > convenience. > You may contact my supervisor Sam Mankin to discuss your > concerns at > 303-866-3559. > > Take Care, > Richele Pennock > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Beth Taurasi > wrote: > > Dear Richele, > I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I > understand that > you would like for me to take a social skills training whether > one on one > with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had some > form of social > skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this again? They would > probably > not have let me graduate had I not had real social skills as it > were. Why > do you or anyone who submitted any reports/observations feel > this is needed > over again? > Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an > intern who does > not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no > idea what > the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with her > rehab > counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has > perceptions of > blind people based on the same general state-run attitude that > most > epartments of vocational rehab have. > I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such > decision made. > Sincyerely, > Beth Taurasi > > > > > -- > Richele Pennock > Rehabilitation Counselor II > Division of Vocational Rehabilitation > Colorado Department of Human Services > 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B > Denver, CO 80223 > T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 > Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us > www.dvrcolorado.com > > DVR: Bridging Business & Ability > > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT > This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of > Human > Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential > and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which > it is > addressed. The information contained herein may include > protected or > otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, > forwarding, > printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is > strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this > message in > error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and > by deleting > the email without further disclosure. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attorney%40alcidonislaw.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantproductions.com > From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 23 12:12:49 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:12:49 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] [blind law] social skills training and work concerns Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E14E978@pl-emsmb12> Greetings: I do agree with Robert. Sincerely, Gary C. Norman -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dittman, Robert Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:24 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns Good evening Beth, why don't you call my office tomorrow at 210-299-7658. I am an attorney, but I cannot and will not represent you regarding this matter first because I am not licensed in Colorado, and second because I am not comfortable in that capacity. That being said, my title is Atty. and Counselor at Law. I believe my fellow attorney colleagues on this list would agree that part of our calling in the profession of law is to attempt to educate persons on their rights, responsibilities, as it relates to the law, and society in general. Although I cannot assist you directly perhaps I can put you in a better place by listening to the rough draft of your letter and offering general suggestions so that you communicatez The clearest message you possibly can before you submit your letter. I hope that this helps, sincerely I would further suggest that although I am willing to make general suggestions on the clarity of your letter, this will not constitute legal advice on how to proceed with your claim. For that type of representation, you must contact an attorney who is licensed in Colorado and that individual would be able to evaluate and decide the best course of action for you to take. Robert D. Dittman, ESQ. Attorney and Counselor at Law Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2013, at 17:13, "Beth Taurasi" wrote: > On 8/22/2013 2:21 PM, Rod Alcidonis, Esquire wrote: >> Beth: >> >> This is printed in the bottom of the counselor's e-mail: >> "CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT >> This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure." >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Beth Taurasi >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:47 PM >> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] social skills training and work concerns >> >> Check this out. This is after a meeting and I'm filing a formal >> administrative appeal. >> Any help with a letter I'm drafting would be necessarily a great >> thing. >> Thanks, guys. >> Beth Taurasi >> >> ---- Original Message ------ >> From: "Pennock - CDHS, Richele" > Subject: Re: social skills training and work concerns Date sent: Wed, >> 21 Aug 2013 17:53:10 -0600 >> >> Hello there Beth, >> Thank you for your email. As your DVR counselor, I have determined >> through observations from a team (Lila Papadaki, Tracy Rushing, >> Kristy Penk, Kris Graham and myself) that you presently do not have >> the social skills or ability to interact with others to the degree >> necessary to succeed in an employment setting. We have recognized >> this as a barrier to employment. >> DVR counselors are trained to work with people with a wide range of >> disabilities to help them return to work by identifying the barriers >> presented by their disabilities and develop plans to help them >> overcome those barriers. By not addressing barriers we would be >> setting the client up for failure. In your situation, it has been >> determined that your social interactions with others will be >> perceived as a problem for employment. I understand from our meeting >> yesterday and from this email that you are not in agreement with this >> feedback. I am glad to hear that you have had some social skills >> training in the past and I would see that as helpful to help you >> build upon those skills. I do not discount the training offered by >> the CCB but I do know time has past since then and we are evaluating >> your present social skills and interactions with others and recognize >> a need for additional training. Again, we want to set you up to >> succeed. >> >> You asked about Kris Graham. Kris Graham presently has a master's >> degree in rehabilitation. As a DVR intern this summer she was >> finishing her final hours and worked under the supervision of a DVR >> employee. Again, as stated in the meeting, the report she generated >> was a collaborative effort of the team of individuals who >> participated in your trial work experience here. >> Please be clear about which decision you are appealing: the >> requirement of social skills training, trial work experience at >> Bayaud's GOST program etc. I will attach the appeal rights to this >> email for your convenience. >> You may contact my supervisor Sam Mankin to discuss your concerns at >> 303-866-3559. >> >> Take Care, >> Richele Pennock >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Beth Taurasi >> wrote: >> >> Dear Richele, >> I have concerns about the meeting yesterday. I understand >> that you would like for me to take a social skills training whether >> one on one with Abbie Sjostrom or in a group, but I've already had >> some form of social skills training at CCB. Why am I doing this >> again? They would probably not have let me graduate had I not had >> real social skills as it were. Why do you or anyone who submitted >> any reports/observations feel this is needed over again? >> Also, the report was drafted, written, and submitted by an intern who >> does not have real knowledge of dual disabled individuals. I have no >> idea what the woman's credentials are and what she wants to do with >> her rehab counseling career. She is also sighted, not blind, and has >> perceptions of blind people based on the same general state-run >> attitude that most epartments of vocational rehab have. >> I am unsatisfied therefore I wish to appeal any such decision >> made. >> Sincyerely, >> Beth Taurasi >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Richele Pennock >> Rehabilitation Counselor II >> Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Colorado Department of Human >> Services >> 2211 W. Evans Ave., Bldg B >> Denver, CO 80223 >> T. 303-866-3168 F. 303-866-3491 >> Email: Richele.Pennock at state.co.us >> www.dvrcolorado.com >> >> DVR: Bridging Business & Ability >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT >> This email and any attachments from the Colorado Department of Human >> Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it >> is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected >> or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, >> forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such >> information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have >> received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying >> to this message and by deleting the email without further disclosure. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/attorney%40alci >> donislaw.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/denverqueen1107 >> %40comcast.net > Holy ... ok, sorry about that. I know the stuff is confidential, but I need help with drafting a letter for the appeal. I went over and over it with RJ and we tweaked the darn thing over and over. But here's the thing: I want to know how I can easily do this in an accessible way, and how I can get this thing over with. > Beth > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rdittman%40stmar > ytx.edu _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/gary.norman%40cms.hhs.gov From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 23 13:44:52 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:44:52 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Oct. 8 Dinner Forum of Mid-Atlantic Lyceum Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E14EAAC@pl-emsmb12> [,A DIALOGUE ON ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS Mid-Atlantic Lyceum Fall Repast and Repartee Series] October 8, 2013 6:00 pm - 8:15 pm American University Washington College of Law 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Room 603, Washington, D.C. 20016 Repast and Repartee Series: Access to Cultural Arts and Institutions Like no other point in history, people with disabilities are more visible in civil society, inclusive of our cultural arts as well as our frivolities, such as television. The fall, 2013, line-up on television will include more people with disabilities as characters than ever before. In the District, institutions like the Kennedy Center, the Shakespeare Theatre, and the Smithsonian have more audio description than has ever been a reality for people with sensory disabilities. Whether it is the Americans with Disabilities Act or the convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, there are more legal frameworks than ever before, yet more work is needed to make civil rights of people with disabilities, including, their assistance dogs, a reality. The Lyceum is thusly honored that a reception will occur in the month of October to celebrate disability awareness and to advance the mission of the Lyceum of bringing people together to discuss public policy. This will be a facilitated presentation and community forum on these issues with a transcript to be published possibly in the Mid-Atlantic Journal on Law and Public Policy in its third issue. Featured Speakers and Facilitators Remarks by Master of Ceremony and co-facilitator -- Gary C. Norman, Esq. L.L.M., Co-founder of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum and Co-founder of its Mid-Atlantic Journal on Law and Public Policy Betty Siegel, Esq., Director of VSA and Accessibility at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Beth Ziebarth, Director of the Smithsonian Institution Accessibility Program Adeen Postar, Esq. Deputy Director of the Pence Law Library and Adjunct Professor Discussant and facilitator - Day Al Mohamed, Esq., Screen Writer and Anthology Editor Supporters Program on Law and Government, Washington College of Law Maryland Department of Disabilities Maryland Bar Foundation The Animals and Society Institute Museum of Maritime Pets Maryland Animal Law Center For more information, please do not hesitate to contact the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum at (410) 241-6745 Registration is free but required - please go to www.wcl.american.edu/secle/registration. For assistance, please contact: Office of Special Events & Continuing Legal Education, 202.274.4075 or secle at wcl.american.edu. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.emz Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29694 bytes Desc: image003.emz URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.emz Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1530 bytes Desc: image004.emz URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.emz Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1669 bytes Desc: image005.emz URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.emz Type: application/octet-stream Size: 6554 bytes Desc: image006.emz URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.png Type: image/png Size: 31656 bytes Desc: image007.png URL: From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 23 16:22:13 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:22:13 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Announcing September 12 event at FCC: "Improving Accessibility for the General Public" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E14EC88@pl-emsmb12> From: AccessInfo [mailto:AccessInfo at fcc.gov] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:15 PM To: Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) Subject: Announcing September 12 event at FCC: "Improving Accessibility for the General Public" Event page: www.fcc.gov/events/accessibility-innovation-initiative-speaker-series-presents-yevgen-borodin-improving-accessib On Thursday, September 12, 2013, the FCC's Accessibility & Innovation Initiative will host Dr. Yevgen Borodin as part of an ongoing Speaker Series. His presentation, from 10 AM to 12 noon, is called "Improving Accessibility for the General Public." Additionally, from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, the event will feature demonstrations of accessible technology solutions related to topics of the presentation. The morning presentation and afternoon demos will occur in the Commission Meeting Room and Technology Experience Center, respectively, located at FCC headquarters - 445 12th St. SW in Washington, DC. Presentation Summary Very few technologies have been developed to be universally accessible from the start. While technologies are advancing at a rapid pace, their accessibility is often an afterthought, with the third-party assistive tools always lagging behind the latest innovations. But is there anything we can do about this? In this talk, Dr. Borodin will give a historic overview of how people have been "chasing the moving target," on the example of Web accessibility. He will examine the strategies that could be pursued to keep up with the chase. Finally, he will propose a solution that could help win this race. Speaker Bio Dr. Yevgen Borodin is a Research Assistant Professor in the Computer Science Department at Stony Brook University. He is well known for his research on computational methods and non-visual interfaces for improving Web Accessibility. He is also the President and CEO of Charmtech Labs LLC, a start-up company that he co-founded to develop a universally accessible web browsing assistant called Capti, an early version of which is available in the iTunes App Store. Dr. Borodin is the recipient of almost four million dollars in U.S. federal research grants. He has co-authored over 30 publications on various aspects of web accessibility, receiving several best papers awards. He defended his Ph.D. dissertation on "Bridging the Web Accessibility Divide" at Stony Brook University, where he received the President's Award for Distinguished Doctoral Students (2010). He was the 1st place winner of the 2007 ACM International Graduate Student Research Competition. He has served on program committees for numerous conferences and journals, and he is co-chairing the International Web for All Conference in Seoul, Korea (W4A'14). Public Participation The agenda includes time for questions from the public, either by email with the aiispeaker at fcc.gov address or by Twitter with the #aiispeaker hashtag. Audio/Video coverage of the morning presentation (but not afternoon demos) will be broadcast live with open captions over the Internet from www.fcc.gov/live. The webcast is free to the public and does not require pre-registration. Pre-registration and Accommodations Pre-registration for in-person attendance is not required but highly encouraged. Please RSVP to aiispeaker at fcc.gov. The meeting is open to the public, and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Open captioning and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. To request an accommodation, send an email to fcc504 at fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 23 16:47:36 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:47:36 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net> Bill: Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death cases, products liability issues are going to be a concern of the potential manufacturers. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the driverless car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to challenge the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of the blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. Cordially, Bill On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: > About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's > driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go > "along for the ride" as it were. > Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this > out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: > > http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft > =3&f=2 > 12683617 > Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the > list have verbalized. > The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its > automation being accepted by the general public as well as them > waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with them. > This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, > when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is > not surprising. > My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars > are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this > debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not the decision makers. > We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that > policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. > That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. > Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law > Augusta, Maine > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri > tech.net > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From billreif at ameritech.net Sat Aug 24 00:08:11 2013 From: billreif at ameritech.net (Bill Reif) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:08:11 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> <000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> Hello Dan, I know liability will remain with the vehicle manufacturer, just as is the case now where defects in conventional vehicles are alleged to have contributed to accidents, and didn't intend to assert otherwise. So long as whoever is in the front seat of an autonomous vehicle has some power to intervene, lawyers will allege that their failure to do so creates liability with the operator as well unless that person had no power to influence the car. In the case of the blind, it will be argued that the person should never have put him/herself in that situation. That might be a valid argument if the vehicle includes no technology that would have provided situational awareness information. Cordially, Bill On 8/23/2013 11:47 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: > Bill: > > Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a > driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death cases, > products liability issues are going to be a concern of the potential > manufacturers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars > > This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the > blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the driverless > car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation > demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its > operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to challenge > the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars > continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of the > blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that > happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to > ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. > > In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" > shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. > > Cordially, > Bill > > On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: >> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's >> driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go >> "along for the ride" as it were. >> Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this >> out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: >> >> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft >> =3&f=2 >> 12683617 >> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the >> list have verbalized. >> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its >> automation being accepted by the general public as well as them >> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with > them. >> This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, >> when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is >> not surprising. >> My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars >> are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this >> debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not > the decision makers. >> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that >> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. >> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. >> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law >> Augusta, Maine >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri >> tech.net >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameritech.net > From jty727 at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 00:27:11 2013 From: jty727 at gmail.com (Justin Young) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 20:27:11 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> <000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net> <5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> Message-ID: Hi All, I've not been following this thread that closely, but I'm curious of the progress of the Blind Driver program. I am curious to wonder if the car created for the blind will ever reach the streets? Can it recognize street lights/stop signs? I know if possible I sure would use one if it ever came on the market. Thanks so much Justin On 8/23/13, Bill Reif wrote: > Hello Dan, > > I know liability will remain with the vehicle manufacturer, just as is > the case now where defects in conventional vehicles are alleged to have > contributed to accidents, and didn't intend to assert otherwise. So long > as whoever is in the front seat of an autonomous vehicle has some power > to intervene, lawyers will allege that their failure to do so creates > liability with the operator as well unless that person had no power to > influence the car. In the case of the blind, it will be argued that the > person should never have put him/herself in that situation. That might > be a valid argument if the vehicle includes no technology that would > have provided situational awareness information. > > Cordially, > Bill > > On 8/23/2013 11:47 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: >> Bill: >> >> Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a >> driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death >> cases, >> products liability issues are going to be a concern of the potential >> manufacturers. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill >> Reif >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 AM >> To: Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars >> >> This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the >> blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the >> driverless >> car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation >> demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its >> operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to >> challenge >> the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless >> cars >> continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of >> the >> blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that >> happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to >> ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. >> >> In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" >> shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. >> >> Cordially, >> Bill >> >> On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: >>> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's >>> driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go >>> "along for the ride" as it were. >>> Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this >>> out there in testing, read the following article about its competition >>> at: >>> >>> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft >>> =3&f=2 >>> 12683617 >>> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the >>> list have verbalized. >>> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its >>> automation being accepted by the general public as well as them >>> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with >> them. >>> This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, >>> when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is >>> not surprising. >>> My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars >>> are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this >>> debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not >> the decision makers. >>> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that >>> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the >>> outset. >>> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. >>> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law >>> Augusta, Maine >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri >>> tech.net >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameritech.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jty727%40gmail.com > From b.schulz at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 24 01:38:09 2013 From: b.schulz at sbcglobal.net (Bryan Schulz) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 20:38:09 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer><5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net><000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net><5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> Message-ID: hi, are you sure of that? maybe with good income of a lawyer but how could you/the average person afford it? Bryan Schulz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Young" To: "Blind Law Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars > Hi All, > > I've not been following this thread that closely, but I'm curious of > the progress of the Blind Driver program. I am curious to wonder if > the car created for the blind will ever reach the streets? Can it > recognize street lights/stop signs? I know if possible I sure would > use one if it ever came on the market. Thanks so much > > Justin > > On 8/23/13, Bill Reif wrote: >> Hello Dan, >> >> I know liability will remain with the vehicle manufacturer, just as is >> the case now where defects in conventional vehicles are alleged to have >> contributed to accidents, and didn't intend to assert otherwise. So long >> as whoever is in the front seat of an autonomous vehicle has some power >> to intervene, lawyers will allege that their failure to do so creates >> liability with the operator as well unless that person had no power to >> influence the car. In the case of the blind, it will be argued that the >> person should never have put him/herself in that situation. That might >> be a valid argument if the vehicle includes no technology that would >> have provided situational awareness information. >> >> Cordially, >> Bill >> >> On 8/23/2013 11:47 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: >>> Bill: >>> >>> Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a >>> driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death >>> cases, >>> products liability issues are going to be a concern of the potential >>> manufacturers. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill >>> Reif >>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 AM >>> To: Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars >>> >>> This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the >>> blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the >>> driverless >>> car and never gains significant distribution, its successful operation >>> demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene in its >>> operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to >>> challenge >>> the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As driverless >>> cars >>> continue to evolve, we should work with developers to interface some of >>> the >>> blind-drivable technology in those a blind person may operate. Until >>> that >>> happens or until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want >>> to >>> ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. >>> >>> In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being >>> "driverless" >>> shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. >>> >>> Cordially, >>> Bill >>> >>> On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: >>>> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's >>>> driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go >>>> "along for the ride" as it were. >>>> Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this >>>> out there in testing, read the following article about its competition >>>> at: >>>> >>>> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft >>>> =3&f=2 >>>> 12683617 >>>> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the >>>> list have verbalized. >>>> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its >>>> automation being accepted by the general public as well as them >>>> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up >>>> with >>> them. >>>> This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard which, >>>> when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is >>>> not surprising. >>>> My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars >>>> are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this >>>> debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are not >>> the decision makers. >>>> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that >>>> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the >>>> outset. >>>> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. >>>> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law >>>> Augusta, Maine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blindlaw mailing list >>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri >>>> tech.net >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> blindlaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameritech.net >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jty727%40gmail.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.net From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 24 02:35:43 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:35:43 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <5595A2A854A5484BA925E16220280815@victory2> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer><5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net><39CFB42CFAFA413293A56EBEBF9ED2DF@mycomputer> <5595A2A854A5484BA925E16220280815@victory2> Message-ID: <01a401cea072$a21ae2f0$e650a8d0$@sbcglobal.net> Olusegun: Perhaps the politicians, and the broad range of government agencies the politicians have created, are keeping the tight lid on the driverless car because it is not intended for use by consumers. Be reminded that the driverless car research and development had its roots in DARPA (Defense Agency Research Project Administration), one of the truly "dark side" agencies of America. Any project that has its origins with DARPA is not a project intended for use by the American consumer. Rather, it is intended to benefit the Military Industrial Complex. DARPA started research on remote controlled aircraft in the mid seventies. They can fly a 747 from California to Australia, land it and send it back to California by remote control. However, we hear no talk of "pilotless" planes nor of blind persons obtaining pilots licenses and flying their own pilotless planes. And that is because the development of remotely controlled planes was for the purpose of creating modern unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, for use by the Military Industrial Complex. You can almost bet that the research into driverless vehicles is for the same purpose; use of unmanned assault vehicles on the ground by the Military Industrial Complex. Although it could possibly benefit us in the future, I am betting against it in my lifetime, which would mean within the next eighteen years. Otherwise, actus reus will benefit the common man only if a day should come that our so-called elected officials are actually interested in representing the people and not devoted to promoting, and protecting vigilantly, the interest of the Military Industrial Complex. This has never happened in my 58 years of life, and I will bet the bank that it does not happen within my remaining lifetime. Notwithstanding, I do hope you see the day of owning your driverless car. Regards, Dan McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Olusegun -- Victory Associates LTD, Inc. Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:28 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars Actus reus can and will change in a heartbeat once autonomous cars begin crisscrossing our streets. I do wish to see the self driving car technology succeed in my lifetime because I sure want to drive one to work and everywhere else I need to get to. More than anything else, its the false evidence (FEAR) appearing real that keeps haunting down the politicians, hence the reason why they and their various agencies keep a tight-fitting lid on self driving car technology. However, sooner or later, something will truly have to be done to usher it on; technology won't stop evolving! As such, politicians and their agencies better get busy fast! Or will it take the courts to force their hands? Sincerely, Olusegun Denver, Colorado _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 24 02:58:37 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:58:37 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: <5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> <000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net> <5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <01b301cea075$d4ad0650$7e0712f0$@sbcglobal.net> Bill: Thanks for your clarification. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:08 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars Hello Dan, I know liability will remain with the vehicle manufacturer, just as is the case now where defects in conventional vehicles are alleged to have contributed to accidents, and didn't intend to assert otherwise. So long as whoever is in the front seat of an autonomous vehicle has some power to intervene, lawyers will allege that their failure to do so creates liability with the operator as well unless that person had no power to influence the car. In the case of the blind, it will be argued that the person should never have put him/herself in that situation. That might be a valid argument if the vehicle includes no technology that would have provided situational awareness information. Cordially, Bill On 8/23/2013 11:47 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: > Bill: > > Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a > driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death > cases, products liability issues are going to be a concern of the > potential manufacturers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill > Reif > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars > > This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the > blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the > driverless car and never gains significant distribution, its > successful operation demonstrates that we can monitor and, if > necessary, intervene in its operation. Without that demonstration, we > would find it harder to challenge the belief that we are as powerless > as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars continue to evolve, we should > work with developers to interface some of the blind-drivable > technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that happens or > until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to ride in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. > > In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" > shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. > > Cordially, > Bill > > On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: >> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about >> Google's driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions >> that go "along for the ride" as it were. >> Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like >> this out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at: >> >> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?f >> t >> =3&f=2 >> 12683617 >> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the >> list have verbalized. >> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and >> its automation being accepted by the general public as well as them >> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up >> with > them. >> This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard >> which, when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. >> This is not surprising. >> My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless >> cars are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of >> this debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we >> are not > the decision makers. >> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that >> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset. >> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. >> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law >> Augusta, Maine >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40amer >> i >> tech.net >> > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglob > al.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameri > tech.net > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 24 03:03:00 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:03:00 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars In-Reply-To: References: <2524F6B7B4B149D2B72C820B6F9F5AF8@mycomputer> <5216260A.9050400@ameritech.net> <000101cea020$79250530$6b6f0f90$@sbcglobal.net> <5217F96B.2010001@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <01b401cea076$71977720$54c66560$@sbcglobal.net> Justin: The program of which this thread speaks is not a "blind driver" program. Rather, it is a "driverless vehicle" program that has its roots in DARPA. And DARPA has absolutely no interest in blind persons. Their interests lies solely in the pursuit of weapons of war. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin Young Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 7:27 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars Hi All, I've not been following this thread that closely, but I'm curious of the progress of the Blind Driver program. I am curious to wonder if the car created for the blind will ever reach the streets? Can it recognize street lights/stop signs? I know if possible I sure would use one if it ever came on the market. Thanks so much Justin On 8/23/13, Bill Reif wrote: > Hello Dan, > > I know liability will remain with the vehicle manufacturer, just as is > the case now where defects in conventional vehicles are alleged to > have contributed to accidents, and didn't intend to assert otherwise. > So long as whoever is in the front seat of an autonomous vehicle has > some power to intervene, lawyers will allege that their failure to do > so creates liability with the operator as well unless that person had > no power to influence the car. In the case of the blind, it will be > argued that the person should never have put him/herself in that > situation. That might be a valid argument if the vehicle includes no > technology that would have provided situational awareness information. > > Cordially, > Bill > > On 8/23/2013 11:47 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: >> Bill: >> >> Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a >> driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death >> cases, products liability issues are going to be a concern of the >> potential manufacturers. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill >> Reif >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 AM >> To: Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars >> >> This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the >> blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the >> driverless car and never gains significant distribution, its >> successful operation demonstrates that we can monitor and, if >> necessary, intervene in its operation. Without that demonstration, we >> would find it harder to challenge the belief that we are as powerless >> as inanimate cargo. As driverless cars continue to evolve, we should >> work with developers to interface some of the blind-drivable >> technology in those a blind person may operate. Until that happens or >> until the driverless car is perfected, I would no more want to ride >> in one than a sighted person would sit in a car with no controls. >> >> In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being "driverless" >> shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel. >> >> Cordially, >> Bill >> >> On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr wrote: >>> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about >>> Google's driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions >>> that go "along for the ride" as it were. >>> Lest we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like >>> this out there in testing, read the following article about its >>> competition >>> at: >>> >>> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver? >>> ft >>> =3&f=2 >>> 12683617 >>> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on >>> the list have verbalized. >>> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and >>> its automation being accepted by the general public as well as them >>> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up >>> with >> them. >>> This car has a "big red button" in the middle of the dashboard >>> which, when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. >>> This is not surprising. >>> My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless >>> cars are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of >>> this debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we >>> are not >> the decision makers. >>> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that >>> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the >>> outset. >>> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done. >>> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law >>> Augusta, Maine >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blindlaw mailing list >>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info >>> for >> blindlaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ame >>> ri >>> tech.net >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglo >> bal.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blindlaw mailing list >> blindlaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> blindlaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/billreif%40amer >> itech.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jty727%40gmail.c > om > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From joltingjacksandefur at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 11:31:10 2013 From: joltingjacksandefur at gmail.com (RJ Sandefur) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 07:31:10 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Internet radio: Is it legal? Message-ID: <000f01cea0bd$6f003230$0302a8c0@hometwxakonvzn> I have a question concerning internet radio stations. Is it legal to stream or braudcast music over the internet? Stations such as audio access F.M and ACB radio do this. Are they braking the law? Does the fcc regulate internet radio? RJ From amynick100 at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 12:35:43 2013 From: amynick100 at gmail.com (amy a) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 07:35:43 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case Message-ID: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> Hello, everyone, I am new to this mailing list. As a person exploring the field of law, I have a question about an obstacle blind people run into. How can you be a fair judge, jury member, or similar professional when you cannot see relevant evidence? By evidence, I mean visual indicators, such as a video of a robbery, but I am also referring to cues such as witnesses' facial expressions and body language. I am mainly using examples relating to criminal law here, but only because I know that the best, and it is the first thing I can think of. Feel free to refer to other types of law when answering if it is relevant. I read the thread from September 2012, "Handling paper docs at hearings" written by someone named Paul. (If I am misquoting, I am sorry.) Anyway, the general consensus was that blind people who are doing hearings require visual readers for the documents. However, I am talking about the case of a judge or jury member. >From what I know about law, which is not much, I assume that one can correctly argue that if someone merely describes the evidence for you, and you do not see it for yourself, it is only hearsay, and the fact that you cannot directly see the evidence means that nothing was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Are there people who go to law school to become readers and describers for blind judges and jurors, so that what they describe can count as legally admissible evidence? When answering my question, please keep in mind that I have no official legal training whatsoever. Therefore, please avoid too many technical terms that I might not be familiar with. Furthermore, if this topic has been discussed previously, and it probably has, I am sorry to repeat it, but I was honestly too lazy to figure out how to search the archive. Thank you all so much in advance for your time, consideration, effort, and comments. All the best, Amy From joltingjacksandefur at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 12:18:00 2013 From: joltingjacksandefur at gmail.com (RJ Sandefur) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 08:18:00 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case References: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000601cea0c3$fa5dc800$0302a8c0@hometwxakonvzn> Amy, I myself am not a lawyer, but I'd think that the lawyer would already know the contents of a photograph, video ect from reviewing the discovery. RJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "amy a" To: Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 8:35 AM Subject: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case > Hello, everyone, > > I am new to this mailing list. As a person exploring the field of law, I > have a question about an obstacle blind people run into. > > How can you be a fair judge, jury member, or similar professional when you > cannot see relevant evidence? By evidence, I mean visual indicators, such > as a video of a robbery, but I am also referring to cues such as > witnesses' facial expressions and body language. I am mainly using > examples relating to criminal law here, but only because I know that the > best, and it is the first thing I can think of. Feel free to refer to > other types of law when answering if it is relevant. > > I read the thread from September 2012, "Handling paper docs at hearings" > written by someone named Paul. (If I am misquoting, I am sorry.) Anyway, > the general consensus was that blind people who are doing hearings require > visual readers for the documents. However, I am talking about the case of > a judge or jury member. From what I know about law, which is not much, I > assume that one can correctly argue that if someone merely describes the > evidence for you, and you do not see it for yourself, it is only hearsay, > and the fact that you cannot directly see the evidence means that nothing > was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Are there people who go to law > school to become readers and describers for blind judges and jurors, so > that what they describe can count as legally admissible evidence? > > When answering my question, please keep in mind that I have no official > legal training whatsoever. Therefore, please avoid too many technical > terms that I might not be familiar with. Furthermore, if this topic has > been discussed previously, and it probably has, I am sorry to repeat it, > but I was honestly too lazy to figure out how to search the archive. > > Thank you all so much in advance for your time, consideration, effort, and > comments. > > All the best, > > Amy > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joltingjacksandefur%40gmail.com From cannona at fireantproductions.com Sat Aug 24 16:40:28 2013 From: cannona at fireantproductions.com (Aaron Cannon) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:40:28 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Internet radio: Is it legal? In-Reply-To: <000f01cea0bd$6f003230$0302a8c0@hometwxakonvzn> References: <000f01cea0bd$6f003230$0302a8c0@hometwxakonvzn> Message-ID: Hi. It is not regulated by the FCC as far as I know. You might find the following article of interest. It's a bit outdated, but generally still gives a good overview. http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html Aaron On 8/24/13, RJ Sandefur wrote: > I have a question concerning internet radio stations. Is it legal to stream > or braudcast music over the internet? Stations such as audio access F.M and > ACB radio do this. Are they braking the law? Does the fcc regulate internet > radio? RJ > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantproductions.com > From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 24 18:04:49 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:04:49 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] correction Message-ID: <00ea01cea0f4$6ccfdfb0$466f9f10$@sbcglobal.net> DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dan McBride From rdittman at stmarytx.edu Sun Aug 25 03:32:43 2013 From: rdittman at stmarytx.edu (Dittman, Robert) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:32:43 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case In-Reply-To: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> References: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Amy, I am a new Attorney, I've been practicing for about three months now and I was a student Attorney from May 2011 to December 2012. I practice in the areas of criminal defense, family law, estate planning, and military legal assistance. A case that comes to mind was a driving while intoxicated case where I represented a defendant and there was a DVD shot at the scene of the stop, and the Field sobriety test. In case you have not had this test described, there are basically three main tests. The "walk a straight line", the "stand on one leg", and the "horizontal stagmus" (I know I spelled that wrong. The problem is she sounded pretty sober and in control based on her speech when listen to on the video. if I had to make a judgement called as the judge based on this fact alone, then most likely she would have walked. However, no one practices law in a vacuum, so, a jury, a judge, and an Attorney has others who they will call upon for assistance so that the Judge, juror, and in my case, the attorney, can get as much as the whole picture as is possible. I called upon another attorney to describe for me the result of the field sobriety test so that I could make a complete presentation to my client and so that they could make a decision on whether they wish to proceed with going to trial or try to get a plea deal. Remember that although I could not see the video, it would be up to me to present the case and all of the options to my client in order that they could make a full decision. This is not something that a blind attorney does because they are blind but rather it is something that most attorneys do to practice better law. Other cases include a family law domestic violence case where I needed to have a picture described to me. For that assistance, I called upon a friend who is a homicide detective at the local police department. If you do become an attorney, it will be up to you to do is much networking is possible. The assistant is there, and believe me, it will be offered. That being said, you must be ready to provide your own talents to assist the others who assist you. Trust me, they will call upon you and you will be able to repay the assistance. Again, in the legal profession, never close yourself off in a vacuum. I have had Attorneys who have been practicing for 25 years ask my take on legal matters just to get a "fresh" look at the situation. So, you are never alone unless you either choose to be alone or put yourself there. I do hope this helps and welcome to the list. Robert D. Dittman, ESQ. Attorney and Counselor at Law Law Office of Robert Dittman Riverview towers 111 Soledad st. suite 362 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 299-7658 Office (210) 299-7601 FAX RDITTMAN at ME.COM On Aug 24, 2013, at 7:35 AM, amy a wrote: > Hello, everyone, > > I am new to this mailing list. As a person exploring the field of law, I have a question about an obstacle blind people run into. > > How can you be a fair judge, jury member, or similar professional when you cannot see relevant evidence? By evidence, I mean visual indicators, such as a video of a robbery, but I am also referring to cues such as witnesses' facial expressions and body language. I am mainly using examples relating to criminal law here, but only because I know that the best, and it is the first thing I can think of. Feel free to refer to other types of law when answering if it is relevant. > > I read the thread from September 2012, "Handling paper docs at hearings" written by someone named Paul. (If I am misquoting, I am sorry.) Anyway, the general consensus was that blind people who are doing hearings require visual readers for the documents. However, I am talking about the case of a judge or jury member. From what I know about law, which is not much, I assume that one can correctly argue that if someone merely describes the evidence for you, and you do not see it for yourself, it is only hearsay, and the fact that you cannot directly see the evidence means that nothing was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Are there people who go to law school to become readers and describers for blind judges and jurors, so that what they describe can count as legally admissible evidence? > > When answering my question, please keep in mind that I have no official legal training whatsoever. Therefore, please avoid too many technical terms that I might not be familiar with. Furthermore, if this topic has been discussed previously, and it probably has, I am sorry to repeat it, but I was honestly too lazy to figure out how to search the archive. > > Thank you all so much in advance for your time, consideration, effort, and comments. > > All the best, > > Amy > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rdittman%40stmarytx.edu From paul.sullivan416 at gmail.com Mon Aug 26 12:25:21 2013 From: paul.sullivan416 at gmail.com (Paul Sullivan) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:25:21 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case In-Reply-To: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> References: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi amy, I wrote the original email you referenced in your message. Many people on this list seem to believe that a blind attorney needs a lot of help in terms of sighted assistance with things like documents, etc. I'm not sure I agree, though I've only been practicing four 7 months and in a field (employment law) which is not a high-volume area, meaning I have a fewer number of large cases, rather than a large number of small cases. Regarding your question, having evidence described to you is not a problem. Hearsay applies to evidence and testimony offered by witnesses. So, as the attorney, you are not offering evidence or testimony, whether you describe something or have something described to you by a sighted person. Rather, you are responsible for producing witnesses who will offer testimony or evidence, and the hearsay rule, which is quite complex, will apply to their offered testimony or evidence. The long and short of this is to say that a blind attorney should be fine, provided he/she does an adequate job of preparing the case. I personally chose to stay away from high-volume practice areas like criminal defense and family law. These are practice areas that would have put me in court very frequently, often with little time for prep and little time to review evidence, either with sighted assistance or otherwise. I know this can be done--there's a person from a public defender's office on this list--but it would require a lot more sighted assistance. I'm a pure solo practitioner, so I have only myself to rely on, so I decided to work in an area that would allow me more time to review evidence and build my case. I hope some of that made sense. Best of luck going forward. Paul On 8/24/13, amy a wrote: > Hello, everyone, > > I am new to this mailing list. As a person exploring the field > of law, I have a question about an obstacle blind people run > into. > > How can you be a fair judge, jury member, or similar professional > when you cannot see relevant evidence? By evidence, I mean > visual indicators, such as a video of a robbery, but I am also > referring to cues such as witnesses' facial expressions and body > language. I am mainly using examples relating to criminal law > here, but only because I know that the best, and it is the first > thing I can think of. Feel free to refer to other types of law > when answering if it is relevant. > > I read the thread from September 2012, "Handling paper docs at > hearings" written by someone named Paul. (If I am misquoting, I > am sorry.) Anyway, the general consensus was that blind people > who are doing hearings require visual readers for the documents. > However, I am talking about the case of a judge or jury member. > From what I know about law, which is not much, I assume that one > can correctly argue that if someone merely describes the evidence > for you, and you do not see it for yourself, it is only hearsay, > and the fact that you cannot directly see the evidence means that > nothing was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Are there people > who go to law school to become readers and describers for blind > judges and jurors, so that what they describe can count as > legally admissible evidence? > > When answering my question, please keep in mind that I have no > official legal training whatsoever. Therefore, please avoid too > many technical terms that I might not be familiar with. > Furthermore, if this topic has been discussed previously, and it > probably has, I am sorry to repeat it, but I was honestly too > lazy to figure out how to search the archive. > > Thank you all so much in advance for your time, consideration, > effort, and comments. > > All the best, > > Amy > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/paul.sullivan416%40gmail.com > -- Paul R. Sullivan, Jr. 100 Fifth Avenue Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 456-2200 paul at paulsullivanlegal.com www.paulsullivanlegal.com From rthomas at emplmntattorney.com Mon Aug 26 12:39:03 2013 From: rthomas at emplmntattorney.com (Russ Thomas) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:39:03 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case In-Reply-To: References: <52189a8f.8482e00a.2156.6086@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <001001cea259$3ee50ab0$bcaf2010$@com> One necessary tool for any blind attorney is a scanner. Scan the document and then read it on your screen reader. Admittedly this does not work very easily for pictures or diagrams. Most federal and state courts require the parties to exchange exhibits in advance of trial. With a scanner and screen reader you will have time prior to trial to review these documents. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Paul Sullivan Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 5:25 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case Hi amy, I wrote the original email you referenced in your message. Many people on this list seem to believe that a blind attorney needs a lot of help in terms of sighted assistance with things like documents, etc. I'm not sure I agree, though I've only been practicing four 7 months and in a field (employment law) which is not a high-volume area, meaning I have a fewer number of large cases, rather than a large number of small cases. Regarding your question, having evidence described to you is not a problem. Hearsay applies to evidence and testimony offered by witnesses. So, as the attorney, you are not offering evidence or testimony, whether you describe something or have something described to you by a sighted person. Rather, you are responsible for producing witnesses who will offer testimony or evidence, and the hearsay rule, which is quite complex, will apply to their offered testimony or evidence. The long and short of this is to say that a blind attorney should be fine, provided he/she does an adequate job of preparing the case. I personally chose to stay away from high-volume practice areas like criminal defense and family law. These are practice areas that would have put me in court very frequently, often with little time for prep and little time to review evidence, either with sighted assistance or otherwise. I know this can be done--there's a person from a public defender's office on this list--but it would require a lot more sighted assistance. I'm a pure solo practitioner, so I have only myself to rely on, so I decided to work in an area that would allow me more time to review evidence and build my case. I hope some of that made sense. Best of luck going forward. Paul On 8/24/13, amy a wrote: > Hello, everyone, > > I am new to this mailing list. As a person exploring the field of > law, I have a question about an obstacle blind people run into. > > How can you be a fair judge, jury member, or similar professional when > you cannot see relevant evidence? By evidence, I mean visual > indicators, such as a video of a robbery, but I am also referring to > cues such as witnesses' facial expressions and body language. I am > mainly using examples relating to criminal law here, but only because > I know that the best, and it is the first thing I can think of. Feel > free to refer to other types of law when answering if it is relevant. > > I read the thread from September 2012, "Handling paper docs at > hearings" written by someone named Paul. (If I am misquoting, I am > sorry.) Anyway, the general consensus was that blind people who are > doing hearings require visual readers for the documents. > However, I am talking about the case of a judge or jury member. > From what I know about law, which is not much, I assume that one can > correctly argue that if someone merely describes the evidence for you, > and you do not see it for yourself, it is only hearsay, and the fact > that you cannot directly see the evidence means that nothing was > proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Are there people who go to law > school to become readers and describers for blind judges and jurors, > so that what they describe can count as legally admissible evidence? > > When answering my question, please keep in mind that I have no > official legal training whatsoever. Therefore, please avoid too many > technical terms that I might not be familiar with. > Furthermore, if this topic has been discussed previously, and it > probably has, I am sorry to repeat it, but I was honestly too lazy to > figure out how to search the archive. > > Thank you all so much in advance for your time, consideration, effort, > and comments. > > All the best, > > Amy > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/paul.sullivan416 > %40gmail.com > -- Paul R. Sullivan, Jr. 100 Fifth Avenue Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 456-2200 paul at paulsullivanlegal.com www.paulsullivanlegal.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Tue Aug 27 13:35:44 2013 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. LaBarre) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:35:44 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice In-Reply-To: <98A98D365DA17347B0FA3158D79B489408DE5F@DPRC-EXCH-P06.JCONMAIL.doj.gov> References: <5A114E4DF190414C9DEC8CF5D78729BD0BD88E0574@GSD-MBX-RDC06.gsd.doj.gov> <98A98D365DA17347B0FA3158D79B489408DE5F@DPRC-EXCH-P06.JCONMAIL.doj.gov> Message-ID: <00ac01cea32a$54ab27e0$fe0177a0$@labarrelaw.com> fyi From: Hunter, Sue (JMD) [mailto:Sue.Hunter at usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 6:56 AM To: Hunter, Sue (JMD) Subject: Attorney Vacancies at the U.S. Department of Justice Below is a list of current attorney vacancies at the United States Department of Justice. We encourage all interested applicants to apply; however, please note that due to temporary funding restrictions we may not be able to fill all of the currently advertised positions. To learn more about Justice and our legal careers, please visit our website: www.justice.gov/careers/legal/. In addition, every year over 1,800 volunteer legal interns serve in DOJ components and U.S. Attorneys' Offices throughout the country. If you know any law students who may be interested in a DOJ volunteer internship, please encourage them to review the many opportunities featured at www.justice.gov/careers/legal/volunteer-intern.html. Finally, please share this email with interested colleagues and peers. If you wish to update the contact information for you or the organization you represent, or no longer wish to receive these periodic email announcements, please respond to this email address and ask to be removed from our mailing list. Thank you. Special Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California - San Jose Branch Vacancy Announcement No. 13-NDCA-948054-ES The complete application package must be submitted by 11:59 PM (EST) on Friday, September 6, 2013 to receive consideration. Date posted: 08-26-2013 Trial Attorney, GS-0905-15 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Resident Legal Advisor Bucharest, Romania 13-CRM-OPD-076 Applications for this position should be submitted not later than September 30, 2013. Date posted: 08-23-2013 Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management United States Department of Justice Part-time Experienced Attorney/nte 1 Year The position will remain open until filled, but applications must be submitted no later than the close of business on September 6, 2013. Date posted: 08-22-2013 Trial Attorney, GS-0905-15 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistant and Training Resident Legal Advisor Timor-Leste 13-CRM-OPD-075 Applications for this position should be submitted not later than September 30, 2013. Date posted: 08-21-2013 Special Assistant United States Attorney (Uncompensated) United States Attorney's Office Western District of Missouri Vacancy Announcement Number 2013-3 Application materials must be received by September 4, 2013, to be considered. Date posted: 08-20-2013 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, Fraud Section Experienced Attorneys / GS-905-14/15 13-CRM-FRD-070 The Application Package must be received by 11:59 PM, Eastern Time, on the closing date of this announcement. Date posted: 08-20-2013 United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of California Special Assistant United States Attorney (Uncompensated) Criminal Division, Misdemeanor Unit Sacramento, California August 20, 2013 13-EDCA-22A Applications should be postmarked no later than Friday, September 6, 2013, to be considered. Date posted: 08-20-2013 From philosopher25 at gmail.com Tue Aug 27 13:41:21 2013 From: philosopher25 at gmail.com (philosopher25 at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 06:41:21 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] LSAT using Excel Message-ID: <00a701cea32b$1ebcbd50$5c3637f0$@gmail.com> Hello Lists, I did not learn Braille young. I want to take the LSAT using MS Excel. Anyone who has diagrammed logic games or logic sentences using a computer keyboard might be of help. Has anyone taken the LSAT using MS excel? If so can you answer my questions below? Logic Games: What methods or symbols did you use to diagram? Do you have a list of logic game types? Do you have a list of clue types? For example: blocks or anti blocks or range clues? Do you have a list of computer keyboard symbols used in logic games? Do you have a chart that describes the type of clue with the associated symbol that you could share with me? How did you move game pieces around within excel to find the answers? How did you flip between your diagrams, clues, question and answers to ensure that you did not miss any details? How did you account for speed verses accuracy? What other methods did you use in the Logic Games section? Logical reasoning: How did you do logical reasoning? Could you share the symbols you used to diagram sentences? How did you navigate the questions, answer choices and your diagrams efficiently to ensure speed and accuracy? What other methods did you use for the logical reasoning section? Reading comprehension: How did you mark conclusions and other elements? How did you move between the marked conclusion, question and the answer choices? How did you mark other important parts of passages? Do you have a list of markers you are willing to share with me? How did you navigate the Passage, questions, answer choices and marked portions for speed and accuracy when answering? General questions: Are there any other methods you used to take the LSAT effectively? What study material did you use? Did you have a one-on-one tutor? This might be personal and you do not have to answer, but did rehab pay for you to study for the LSAT? How did you justify that rehab pay? How many times did you take the LSAT? Were you able to get a good score using Excel to study? Can I see a list of accommodations you requested, and perhaps your justification letter? How long did it take to get your accommodations approved? Thank you for any help. Sincerely, Peter Fox Please email me at braillefox at gmail.com or respond to this post. From rumpole at roadrunner.com Wed Aug 28 12:12:52 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:12:52 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? Message-ID: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 28 15:55:54 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:55:54 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? In-Reply-To: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> Message-ID: <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From rthomas at emplmntattorney.com Wed Aug 28 16:03:19 2013 From: rthomas at emplmntattorney.com (Russell J. Thomas) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:03:19 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? In-Reply-To: <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <000801cea408$1d712110$58536330$@com> 7% is a goal not a quota. As someone who has represented government contractors, let me assure that covered employers take these rules seriously to minimize the risk of time consuming audits or the ultimate penalty -- debarment. Regards, RUSSELL J. THOMAS, JR. Principal Attorney Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr. 4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 T: 949-752-0101 F: 949-257-4756 Follow me on Twitter @EmplmntAttorney The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above.  This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 28 16:51:39 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:51:39 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? In-Reply-To: <000801cea408$1d712110$58536330$@com> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <000801cea408$1d712110$58536330$@com> Message-ID: <010d01cea40e$de378140$9aa683c0$@sbcglobal.net> Russell: I am sure that the contractors take these regs seriously. I know a fellow who is a 20 year retired military officer who was discharged with a 100% "disability" rating, and who is now employed, full time, as a police officer. I have yet to grasp this concept. However, the present regs promulgated, as well as previous regs, do not require that an "Individual With a Disability" be blind, or be a wheelchair bound paraplegic. I am sure that a veteran with a 100% disability rating, who is not really disabled, is qualified as an IWD. Just as sure as I am that these contractors take these regs seriously, I am equally as certain that they have access to an endless supply of veterans with "disability" ratings to fill their goals objectives. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russell J. Thomas Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:03 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? 7% is a goal not a quota. As someone who has represented government contractors, let me assure that covered employers take these rules seriously to minimize the risk of time consuming audits or the ultimate penalty -- debarment. Regards, RUSSELL J. THOMAS, JR. Principal Attorney Law Office of Russell J. Thomas, Jr. 4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 T: 949-752-0101 F: 949-257-4756 Follow me on Twitter @EmplmntAttorney The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above.  This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor ney.com _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From rumpole at roadrunner.com Wed Aug 28 17:36:20 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:36:20 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? In-Reply-To: <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran could benefit from it. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From tim at timeldermusic.com Thu Aug 29 13:08:03 2013 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (Tim Elder) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:08:03 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? In-Reply-To: References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran could benefit from it. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From rumpole at roadrunner.com Thu Aug 29 13:12:18 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:12:18 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? In-Reply-To: <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <1D6D5EC96A924DBEA31AE95EA8836668@mycomputer> Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to know? -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran could benefit from it. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 29 14:31:02 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:31:02 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? In-Reply-To: <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <009b01cea4c4$63f6ff80$2be4fe80$@sbcglobal.net> Can you imagine that? It is all form and no substance. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran could benefit from it. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 29 14:41:19 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:41:19 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? In-Reply-To: <1D6D5EC96A924DBEA31AE95EA8836668@mycomputer> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> <1D6D5EC96A924DBEA31AE95EA8836668@mycomputer> Message-ID: <00a001cea4c5$d35245a0$79f6d0e0$@sbcglobal.net> Ross: As this is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, I do not believe there would be a "legislative" history. In the information available from the link you posted, the last legislative action mentioned was the amendment to the American With Disabilities Act of 2008. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM To: tim at timeldermusic.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to know? -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran could benefit from it. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From mikefry79 at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 16:18:28 2013 From: mikefry79 at gmail.com (Michael Fry) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:18:28 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? In-Reply-To: <009b01cea4c4$63f6ff80$2be4fe80$@sbcglobal.net> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> <009b01cea4c4$63f6ff80$2be4fe80$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Dan, I like the way you think. In this thread you pointed to a 100% disabled vet now working as a cop and a hypothetical person missing their pinky toe being consider disabled (which was an LOL moment for me). Classifying more people as disabled dilutes the meaning of the word disability. A person with dyslexia or mild autism is not disabled in the same way as a legally blind person. Even many amputees aren't disabled because when they use their modern prosthetics they can do nearly anything. I don't know whether it is good for the blind community to have so many people self-identifying as disabled. On one hand, if society sets aside resources for disabled people, more claimants means that truly disabled people get less, which isn't fair. On the other hand, perhaps more people identifying as disabled makes society's set aside bigger and brings more attention to issues unique to truly disabled people. As was said, the 7% target is just a goal. The federal government is making a sort of weak effort to hire disabled people. Worse though, is that truly disabled people are competing against people with only nominal disabilities for these limited set aside job opportunities. Education and attitude being held constant, there is no way that a quadriplegic or a blind person could out compete someone without a toe, dyslexic, or who has ADD for a job opening. That concept, goes to the heart of what I think it means to be truly disabled. I think the point of pointing to the working cop who somehow is 100% disabled or the person without a toe is that these people allow the employer to say "look were hiring disabled people" when really the employer hasn't hired a truly disabled person. If that wasn't your point, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Nevertheless, it's a good point albeit somewhat cynical and pessimistic. On that point, I want to make a note to myself. It's important to remember that how a person perceives a situation is actually reality for that person. So, if I choose to perceive this situation pessimistically, it really only hurts me. So, I choose to look on the bright side. And there is a bright side. A 7% goal is better than nothing or complete indifference. And, good things happen after all. Keep faith, hope, and love, and if possible temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence, but most importantly the first three. It'll be okay. Mike On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: > Can you imagine that? It is all form and no substance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old > executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > not > sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > new > rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > From deepa.goraya at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 17:02:54 2013 From: deepa.goraya at gmail.com (Deepa Goraya) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:02:54 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs Message-ID: Hello colleagues, I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we are interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen readers. Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on the site, www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job searches, uploading documents, building a resume, searching for specific job announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs. Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please email me at deepa.goraya at gmail.com. Thank you. Deepa Goraya From rumpole at roadrunner.com Thu Aug 29 17:11:15 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:11:15 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand disabledvets? In-Reply-To: <00a001cea4c5$d35245a0$79f6d0e0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com><1D6D5EC96A924DBEA31AE95EA8836668@mycomputer> <00a001cea4c5$d35245a0$79f6d0e0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <0F29282A303C437987D26C28CCE9809B@mycomputer> So no office similar to Legislative Services where one would normally go to find legislative history or rulemaking history would have any record of who proposed it and who opposed it. Ah, I see, said the blind man. -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:41 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand disabledvets? Ross: As this is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, I do not believe there would be a "legislative" history. In the information available from the link you posted, the last legislative action mentioned was the amendment to the American With Disabilities Act of 2008. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM To: tim at timeldermusic.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to know? -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand disabledvets? There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran could benefit from it. Ross -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McBride Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Ross: My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old executive order. In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports explaining why their goals were not met. Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross Doerr Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled vets? IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the new rules? I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? Ross _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 29 19:57:39 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:39 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? In-Reply-To: References: <2E8D9A0D1B9F4EEA96C2CE7581DCCE47@mycomputer> <00e001cea407$14386690$3ca933b0$@sbcglobal.net> <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> <009b01cea4c4$63f6ff80$2be4fe80$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <01bc01cea4f2$04d4d120$0e7e7360$@sbcglobal.net> Mike: I believe you understood my point correctly, and I thank you for your thoughtful response. Although I agree with your point that something is better than nothing, I still believe the efforts of the government, at all levels, to be a charade. It is all form and no substance. Myself, I see my approach as neither pessimistic nor cynical. I simply believe it is a spade and I call it a spade. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Dan McBride -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:18 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? Dan, I like the way you think. In this thread you pointed to a 100% disabled vet now working as a cop and a hypothetical person missing their pinky toe being consider disabled (which was an LOL moment for me). Classifying more people as disabled dilutes the meaning of the word disability. A person with dyslexia or mild autism is not disabled in the same way as a legally blind person. Even many amputees aren't disabled because when they use their modern prosthetics they can do nearly anything. I don't know whether it is good for the blind community to have so many people self-identifying as disabled. On one hand, if society sets aside resources for disabled people, more claimants means that truly disabled people get less, which isn't fair. On the other hand, perhaps more people identifying as disabled makes society's set aside bigger and brings more attention to issues unique to truly disabled people. As was said, the 7% target is just a goal. The federal government is making a sort of weak effort to hire disabled people. Worse though, is that truly disabled people are competing against people with only nominal disabilities for these limited set aside job opportunities. Education and attitude being held constant, there is no way that a quadriplegic or a blind person could out compete someone without a toe, dyslexic, or who has ADD for a job opening. That concept, goes to the heart of what I think it means to be truly disabled. I think the point of pointing to the working cop who somehow is 100% disabled or the person without a toe is that these people allow the employer to say "look were hiring disabled people" when really the employer hasn't hired a truly disabled person. If that wasn't your point, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Nevertheless, it's a good point albeit somewhat cynical and pessimistic. On that point, I want to make a note to myself. It's important to remember that how a person perceives a situation is actually reality for that person. So, if I choose to perceive this situation pessimistically, it really only hurts me. So, I choose to look on the bright side. And there is a bright side. A 7% goal is better than nothing or complete indifference. And, good things happen after all. Keep faith, hope, and love, and if possible temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence, but most importantly the first three. It'll be okay. Mike On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Daniel McBride wrote: > Can you imagine that? It is all form and no substance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim > Elder > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led > But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone > on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled > nonveteran could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Daniel McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as > opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a > near 50 year old executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that > their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to > file reports explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to > construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney > who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely > no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this > will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe > missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabled vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify > the new rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglob > al.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadru > nner.c > om > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglob > al.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmai > l.com > _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From rothmanjd at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 11:15:02 2013 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (Ronza Othman) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:15:02 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01cea572$2c8a29b0$859e7d10$@gmail.com> Hi Deepa, The only challenge I have with the site is the dynamic dropdown boxes. Jaws doesn't seem to like them, and it takes a long time to navigate them. Specifically, when you have to select a set of job search criteria, such as the agency. Jaws tends to freeze there, and then I can't select a sub-agency. I ended up upgrading my RAM and that resolved the problem somewhat. I wonder if the site would be more accessible if they changed this from a series of dependent dropdown boxes to another method. The other challenge involves searching for positions and the list of job series. There are no headings on the page, and you can't easily skip over all of those checkboxes. Overall, I think USAJobs is a lot better than it used to be. Thanks, Ronza -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Deepa Goraya Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:03 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs Hello colleagues, I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we are interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen readers. Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on the site, www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job searches, uploading documents, building a resume, searching for specific job announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs. Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please email me at deepa.goraya at gmail.com. Thank you. Deepa Goraya _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com From zmayfarth23 at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 12:22:36 2013 From: zmayfarth23 at gmail.com (Zachariah M) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:22:36 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 111, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As a former Department of the Army Contractor, I can tell you all that there are some federal contracts that require a percentage of workers to be workers with disabilities. If you would like more information please free to contact me off list. Sent from a mobile phone, please excuse brevity, spelling and grammar. On Aug 30, 2013 7:02 AM, wrote: > Send blindlaw mailing list submissions to > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of blindlaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > (Tim Elder) > 2. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > (Ross Doerr) > 3. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > (Daniel McBride) > 4. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > (Daniel McBride) > 5. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets? > (Michael Fry) > 6. accessibility of USAJobs (Deepa Goraya) > 7. Re: A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand > disabledvets? > (Ross Doerr) > 8. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > (Daniel McBride) > 9. Re: accessibility of USAJobs (Ronza Othman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:08:03 -0400 > From: "Tim Elder" > To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > Message-ID: <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old > executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > not > sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > new > rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:12:18 -0400 > From: "Ross Doerr" > To: , "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > Message-ID: <1D6D5EC96A924DBEA31AE95EA8836668 at mycomputer> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to > know? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old > executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > not > sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > new > rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:31:02 -0500 > From: "Daniel McBride" > To: , "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > Message-ID: <009b01cea4c4$63f6ff80$2be4fe80$@sbcglobal.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Can you imagine that? It is all form and no substance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old > executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > not > sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > new > rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:41:19 -0500 > From: "Daniel McBride" > To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > Message-ID: <00a001cea4c5$d35245a0$79f6d0e0$@sbcglobal.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Ross: > > As this is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, I do not > believe there would be a "legislative" history. In the information > available from the link you posted, the last legislative action mentioned > was the amendment to the American With Disabilities Act of 2008. > > Dan McBride > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM > To: tim at timeldermusic.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > > Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to > know? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old > executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > not > sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > new > rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:18:28 -0400 > From: Michael Fry > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > Message-ID: > ipLXLxb3iOZS-fYupRdJimWYdvAEFFqXG4uvGN6A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dan, I like the way you think. In this thread you pointed to a 100% > disabled vet now working as a cop and a hypothetical person missing their > pinky toe being consider disabled (which was an LOL moment for > me). Classifying more people as disabled dilutes the meaning of the word > disability. A person with dyslexia or mild autism is not disabled in the > same way as a legally blind person. Even many amputees aren't disabled > because when they use their modern prosthetics they can do nearly > anything. I don't know whether it is good for the blind community to have > so many people self-identifying as disabled. On one hand, if society sets > aside resources for disabled people, more claimants means that truly > disabled people get less, which isn't fair. On the other hand, perhaps > more people identifying as disabled makes society's set aside bigger and > brings more attention to issues unique to truly disabled people. > > As was said, the 7% target is just a goal. The federal government > is making a sort of weak effort to hire disabled people. Worse though, is > that truly disabled people are competing against people with only nominal > disabilities for these limited set aside job opportunities. Education and > attitude being held constant, there is no way that a quadriplegic or a > blind person could out compete someone without a toe, dyslexic, or who has > ADD for a job opening. That concept, goes to the heart of what I think it > means to be truly disabled. > > I think the point of pointing to the working cop who somehow is 100% > disabled or the person without a toe is that these people allow > the employer to say "look were hiring disabled people" when really > the employer hasn't hired a truly disabled person. If that wasn't your > point, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Nevertheless, it's a good > point albeit somewhat cynical and pessimistic. > > On that point, I want to make a note to myself. It's important to remember > that how a person perceives a situation is actually reality for that > person. So, if I choose to perceive this situation pessimistically, > it really only hurts me. So, I choose to look on the bright side. And > there is a bright side. A 7% goal is better than nothing or complete > indifference. And, good things happen after all. Keep faith, hope, and > love, and if possible temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence, but > most importantly the first three. It'll be okay. > > Mike > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Daniel McBride >wrote: > > > Can you imagine that? It is all form and no substance. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim > Elder > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabledvets? > > > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabledvets? > > > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led > But > > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > > could benefit from it. > > Ross > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > > McBride > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabledvets? > > > > Ross: > > > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed > to > > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year > old > > executive order. > > > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that > their > > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > > explaining why their goals were not met. > > > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > > not > > sure how it would benefit any others. > > > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe > missing > > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > > > Daniel McBride > > Fort Worth, Texas > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > > Doerr > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > > vets? > > > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > > new > > rules? > > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > > Ross > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > > om > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:02:54 -0400 > From: Deepa Goraya > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs > Message-ID: > < > CAKs_uDSRsy2fC6eyaXTrTj2e_GrxoObTE0+XpqY4g2_PefWxKg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hello colleagues, > > I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we > are interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen > readers. Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on > the site, www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job > searches, uploading documents, building a resume, searching for > specific job announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs. > Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please > email me at deepa.goraya at gmail.com. > > Thank you. > > Deepa Goraya > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:11:15 -0400 > From: "Ross Doerr" > To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand > disabledvets? > Message-ID: <0F29282A303C437987D26C28CCE9809B at mycomputer> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > So no office similar to Legislative Services where one would normally go to > find legislative history or rulemaking history would have any record of who > proposed it and who opposed it. > Ah, I see, said the blind man. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:41 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > As this is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, I do not > believe there would be a "legislative" history. In the information > available from the link you posted, the last legislative action mentioned > was the amendment to the American With Disabilities Act of 2008. > > Dan McBride > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM > To: tim at timeldermusic.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > > Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to > know? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand > disabledvets? > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led But > wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the > list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran > could benefit from it. > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > McBride > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Ross: > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to > a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old > executive order. > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that their > "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to file reports > explaining why their goals were not met. > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction > contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney who practiced > criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in > building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me. I am > not > sure how it would benefit any others. > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing > and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > Daniel McBride > Fort Worth, Texas > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > Doerr > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled > vets? > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the > new > rules? > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c > om > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:39 -0500 > From: "Daniel McBride" > To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > Message-ID: <01bc01cea4f2$04d4d120$0e7e7360$@sbcglobal.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Mike: > > I believe you understood my point correctly, and I thank you for your > thoughtful response. > > Although I agree with your point that something is better than nothing, I > still believe the efforts of the government, at all levels, to be a > charade. > It is all form and no substance. > > Myself, I see my approach as neither pessimistic nor cynical. I simply > believe it is a spade and I call it a spade. > > Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response. > > Dan McBride > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Fry > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:18 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > disabledvets? > > Dan, I like the way you think. In this thread you pointed to a 100% > disabled vet now working as a cop and a hypothetical person missing their > pinky toe being consider disabled (which was an LOL moment for me). > Classifying more people as disabled dilutes the meaning of the word > disability. A person with dyslexia or mild autism is not disabled in the > same way as a legally blind person. Even many amputees aren't disabled > because when they use their modern prosthetics they can do nearly anything. > I don't know whether it is good for the blind community to have so many > people self-identifying as disabled. On one hand, if society sets aside > resources for disabled people, more claimants means that truly disabled > people get less, which isn't fair. On the other hand, perhaps more people > identifying as disabled makes society's set aside bigger and brings more > attention to issues unique to truly disabled people. > > As was said, the 7% target is just a goal. The federal government is > making > a sort of weak effort to hire disabled people. Worse though, is that truly > disabled people are competing against people with only nominal disabilities > for these limited set aside job opportunities. Education and attitude > being > held constant, there is no way that a quadriplegic or a blind person could > out compete someone without a toe, dyslexic, or who has > ADD for a job opening. That concept, goes to the heart of what I think it > means to be truly disabled. > > I think the point of pointing to the working cop who somehow is 100% > disabled or the person without a toe is that these people allow the > employer > to say "look were hiring disabled people" when really the employer hasn't > hired a truly disabled person. If that wasn't your point, sorry for > putting > words in your mouth. Nevertheless, it's a good point albeit somewhat > cynical and pessimistic. > > On that point, I want to make a note to myself. It's important to remember > that how a person perceives a situation is actually reality for that > person. > So, if I choose to perceive this situation pessimistically, it really only > hurts me. So, I choose to look on the bright side. And there is a bright > side. A 7% goal is better than nothing or complete indifference. And, > good > things happen after all. Keep faith, hope, and love, and if possible > temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence, but most importantly the > first > three. It'll be okay. > > Mike > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Daniel McBride > wrote: > > > Can you imagine that? It is all form and no substance. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim > > Elder > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabledvets? > > > > There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious > > disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabledvets? > > > > Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine any mandate of job s for the disab led > > But wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone > > on the list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled > > nonveteran could benefit from it. > > Ross > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > > Daniel McBride > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabledvets? > > > > Ross: > > > > My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7% > > requirement. The information refers to a "utilization goal", as > > opposed to a utilization mandate. These regs are promulgated under a > > near 50 year old executive order. > > > > In that 50 years little has been done. I would not bet the farm that > > their "goals" will be met now. They will, however, be required to > > file reports explaining why their goals were not met. > > > > Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to > > construction contracts and sub contracts. As a 58 year old attorney > > who practiced criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely > > no experience in building roads and bridges, I do not see how this > > will benefit me. I am not sure how it would benefit any others. > > > > I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe > > missing and experience operating a jackhammer. Just my two cents worth. > > > > Daniel McBride > > Fort Worth, Texas > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross > > Doerr > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM > > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and > > disabled vets? > > > > IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for > > contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability. > > http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm > > Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify > > the new rules? > > I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you? > > Ross > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglob > > al.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadru > > nner.c > > om > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglob > > al.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blindlaw mailing list > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmai > > l.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:15:02 -0400 > From: "Ronza Othman" > To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs > Message-ID: <001e01cea572$2c8a29b0$859e7d10$@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Deepa, > > The only challenge I have with the site is the dynamic dropdown boxes. > Jaws > doesn't seem to like them, and it takes a long time to navigate them. > Specifically, when you have to select a set of job search criteria, such as > the agency. Jaws tends to freeze there, and then I can't select a > sub-agency. I ended up upgrading my RAM and that resolved the problem > somewhat. I wonder if the site would be more accessible if they changed > this from a series of dependent dropdown boxes to another method. > > The other challenge involves searching for positions and the list of job > series. There are no headings on the page, and you can't easily skip over > all of those checkboxes. > > Overall, I think USAJobs is a lot better than it used to be. > > Thanks, > Ronza > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Deepa > Goraya > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:03 PM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs > > Hello colleagues, > > I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we are > interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen readers. > Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on the site, > www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job searches, > uploading documents, building a resume, searching for specific job > announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs. > Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please email me > at deepa.goraya at gmail.com. > > Thank you. > > Deepa Goraya > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of blindlaw Digest, Vol 111, Issue 25 > ***************************************** > From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 30 12:23:14 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:23:14 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] ABA List Service Comment on Bar Assoc. Access Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150ABD@pl-emsmb12> Greetings: I received this interesting missive exchange on the list service of the ABA Commission on Disabilities. The exchange discusses bar association access. There is a need, as Josh and I have proposed in the past, to do various forms of training within the legal profession on disability access, including, the judiciary. Thanks. Sincerely, Gary Without giving legal advice, the short answer to your question is going to be yes either under title II or title III of the ADA. That is, State Bars do have to reasonably accommodate a qualified person with a disability. Bill Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:32 AM To: 3D at MAIL.AMERICANBAR.ORG Subject: [ABA-3D] ADA and State Bar Assns. Recently I faxed communications to a state bar assn. office on official business. I asked per the ADA that future communications be by email and phone, the response I got was a letter sent by regular post. Are state bar assns. required to respect ADA accommodations? James C. "Jake" Billingsley From rumpole at roadrunner.com Fri Aug 30 12:46:02 2013 From: rumpole at roadrunner.com (Ross Doerr) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:46:02 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] ABA List Service Comment on Bar Assoc. Access In-Reply-To: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150ABD@pl-emsmb12> References: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150ABD@pl-emsmb12> Message-ID: <8FA4B068CBD844B5BFEE2297B9BCBB10@mycomputer> How about some training in the legal profession saying that hiring an attorney with a disabilitywon't harm those with hiring authority? -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:23 AM To: ADR Section (msbaadr at lists.msba.org); AnimalLaw Section (msbaanimallaw at lists.msba.org); pyevics at msba.org; Blind Law Mailing List(blindlaw at nfbnet.org); Paul V Carlin(PCarlin at msba.org); Leadership Academy Committee(msbaleadacadcomm at lists.msba.org); JoanSchaffner (jschaf at law.gwu.edu); dduckett at law.howard.edu; 'Arnettia S. Wright, Esq. (awright at wrightlg.com)'; Janine Scott(jscott at mdlab.org); 'Barbara Tyler(barbara.tyler6 at gmail.com)'; rfairfax at law.gwu.edu; Bob Rhudy; 'jason.perry at ssa.gov'; 'JamesMize (jamesmmize at gmail.com)'; 'Elizabeth Harris(eharris at gov.state.md.us)'; 'Barbara K. Howe(bkhowe at verizon.net)'; Wright, Shawn Cc: Joshua Friedman (jterpslaw at gmail.com) Subject: [blindlaw] ABA List Service Comment on Bar Assoc. Access Greetings: I received this interesting missive exchange on the list service of the ABA Commission on Disabilities. The exchange discusses bar association access. There is a need, as Josh and I have proposed in the past, to do various forms of training within the legal profession on disability access, including, the judiciary. Thanks. Sincerely, Gary Without giving legal advice, the short answer to your question is going to be yes either under title II or title III of the ADA. That is, State Bars do have to reasonably accommodate a qualified person with a disability. Bill Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:32 AM To: 3D at MAIL.AMERICANBAR.ORG Subject: [ABA-3D] ADA and State Bar Assns. Recently I faxed communications to a state bar assn. office on official business. I asked per the ADA that future communications be by email and phone, the response I got was a letter sent by regular post. Are state bar assns. required to respect ADA accommodations? James C. "Jake" Billingsley _______________________________________________ blindlaw mailing list blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c om From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 30 13:45:06 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:45:06 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] [blind law] ABA List Service Comment on Bar Assoc. Access Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150B26@pl-emsmb12> Anything would be clearly a good start. From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 30 14:13:08 2013 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:13:08 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USA jobs Message-ID: <00af01cea58b$0e030840$2a0918c0$@sbcglobal.net> Deepa: I cannot help but be curious. What is the Washington Lawyers Committee, and what is a visiting attorney? Dan McBride Fort Worth, Texas From deepa.goraya at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 14:47:35 2013 From: deepa.goraya at gmail.com (Deepa Goraya) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:47:35 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs In-Reply-To: <001e01cea572$2c8a29b0$859e7d10$@gmail.com> References: <001e01cea572$2c8a29b0$859e7d10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Ronza. Yeah the drop boxes seem to be a common issue. On 8/30/13, Ronza Othman wrote: > Hi Deepa, > > The only challenge I have with the site is the dynamic dropdown boxes. > Jaws > doesn't seem to like them, and it takes a long time to navigate them. > Specifically, when you have to select a set of job search criteria, such as > the agency. Jaws tends to freeze there, and then I can't select a > sub-agency. I ended up upgrading my RAM and that resolved the problem > somewhat. I wonder if the site would be more accessible if they changed > this from a series of dependent dropdown boxes to another method. > > The other challenge involves searching for positions and the list of job > series. There are no headings on the page, and you can't easily skip over > all of those checkboxes. > > Overall, I think USAJobs is a lot better than it used to be. > > Thanks, > Ronza > > -----Original Message----- > From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Deepa > Goraya > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:03 PM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs > > Hello colleagues, > > I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we are > interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen readers. > Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on the site, > www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job searches, > uploading documents, building a resume, searching for specific job > announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs. > Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please email me > at deepa.goraya at gmail.com. > > Thank you. > > Deepa Goraya > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/deepa.goraya%40gmail.com > From deepa.goraya at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 14:55:51 2013 From: deepa.goraya at gmail.com (Deepa Goraya) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:55:51 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USA jobs In-Reply-To: <00af01cea58b$0e030840$2a0918c0$@sbcglobal.net> References: <00af01cea58b$0e030840$2a0918c0$@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: A visiting attorney means I'm on loan there for now, unless they can get outside funding to hire me which they are trying to do. I'm volunteering there right now part-time in addition to my part-time job somewhere else. Info About the Washington Lawyers' Committee: The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was established in 1968 to provide pro bono legal services to address discrimination and entrenched poverty in the Washington, DC community. >From its inception in 1968, the mission of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs has been to mobilize the resources of the private bar to address issues of civil rights violations and poverty in our community. Over the past 45 years, the Committee’s efforts and programs have expanded from a small staff focused primarily on issues of racial discrimination into a far larger organization providing pro bono representation in a broad range of civil rights and related poverty issues impacting every group protected by our federal, state and local civil rights laws. The Committee’s active litigation docket of more than 100 matters includes individual cases and class actions, as well as other larger law reform cases. It also includes a significant focus on public policy advocacy. Today, the Committee operates specific projects focused on: •Employment rights •Fair housing and lending •Public accommodations •Immigrant & refugee rights •Disability rights •DC prisoners’ rights •Public education In addition to these project areas, the Committee plays a leadership role in other key urban community initiatives: •General: Pursuing cases involving civil rights violations outside our core areas, including police misconduct and racial profiling. •DC Public School Partnership Program: Facilitating partnerships between law firms and individual DC public schools. •Introduction to Legal Reasoning: Sponsoring intensive 6-week course for minority students preparing to enter DC-area law schools. •Haitian Relief and Recovery Project: Providing legal research and support to nonprofits working on relief and recovery efforts in Haiti. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee executes its mission by leveraging its own broad expertise with the resources of DC’s private bar to effect positive change in the community. www.washlaw.org On 8/30/13, Daniel McBride wrote: > Deepa: > > > > I cannot help but be curious. What is the Washington Lawyers Committee, > and > what is a visiting attorney? > > > > Dan McBride > > Fort Worth, Texas > > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/deepa.goraya%40gmail.com > From Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov Fri Aug 30 16:51:23 2013 From: Gary.Norman at cms.hhs.gov (Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA)) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:51:23 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150C6C@pl-emsmb12> Greetings: I would be appreciative if you will convey letters. The NFB is doing great work. Information is contained below. Thanks. Sincerely, Gary From: Nfbnet-members-list [mailto:nfbnet-members-list-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Yingling, Valerie Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:18 PM To: nfbnet-members-list at nfbnet.org Subject: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY This letter was originally sent to the legislative directors but we are circulating it to the entire membership for maximum outreach: We need your help! The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers has submitted a Petition for Waiver to the FCC asking that e-readers be exempt from the Twenty First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) accessibility requirements. I have attached the Petition. NFB has written comments opposing the request, and we are asking other groups to sign on. I have also attached those comments. But the FCC needs to hear from our members - blind people who want access to e-readers - and the more people they hear from, the better. We are asking all Legislative Directors to find people in their respective affiliates to edit the attached skeleton letter and return it to us. The letter is already formatted and has an outline, but it is up to each person to make it personal and select which talking points they want to use. Finished letters should be sent to Valerie Yingling at vyingling at nfb.org by 8pm on Monday, September 2. Valerie will proofread each document to make sure there are no typos and the customized points are still on message, and then we will submit the letters all at once when they are due on September 3rd. We are short on time but I trust that this issue is pressing to our membership and we will get a good amount of letters. For some background: The CVAA requires that all mobile devices with advanced communications services (ACS) be accessible to blind people, but the law allows manufacturers to request a waiver for equipment that is not intended for ACS. The Coalition (comprised of Amazon, Sony and Kobo) claims that the primary purpose of e-readers is reading, and that the ACS found in e-readers is so incidental and ancillary that it is not an intended purpose of the device. We know this is not true - e-readers are outfitted with built-in web browsers and designed for social media. The Coalition also claims that to make e-readers accessible would require a fundamental overhaul that would render e-readers obsolete, harm the public interest, and not provide substantial benefit to blind people. We know that this offensive claim is also not true. It is critical that the FCC hear from all of us - it is the only thing that can defeat the petition. Regulation is legislation's sister, so I know we can count on all of you to get a good amount of feedback to the FCC. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to email me or Valerie. Looking forward to seeing everyone's letters. Cheers, Lauren Lauren McLarney Government Affairs Specialist NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 200 East Wells St. Baltimore, MD 21230 (410) 659 9314 ext. 2207 lmclarney at nfb.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/applefile Size: 153 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Petition for Waiver Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers5.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 110085 bytes Desc: Petition for Waiver Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers5.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/applefile Size: 153 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter for members - e-reader skeleton letter5.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 16271 bytes Desc: Letter for members - e-reader skeleton letter5.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/applefile Size: 153 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Comments to E-Reader Waiver Petition FINAL 8.28.13.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 48547 bytes Desc: Comments to E-Reader Waiver Petition FINAL 8.28.13.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nfbnet-members-list mailing list Nfbnet-members-list at nfbnet.org List archives: From shannon at bartchroofing.com Fri Aug 30 17:18:52 2013 From: shannon at bartchroofing.com (Shannon) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:18:52 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY In-Reply-To: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150C6C@pl-emsmb12> References: <2DD3498A837A9347A4E5E536B3FF482D3E150C6C@pl-emsmb12> Message-ID: <007401cea5a5$00e270f0$02a752d0$@bartchroofing.com> Hello all, Can any "Joe or Joann" fill out this letter? I am not a lawyer. I joined the list to ask some questions about law and blindness issues. Is it acceptable to send this to the general public? Thanks Shannon -----Original Message----- From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Norman, Gary C. (CMS/OSORA) Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:51 AM To: smizner at aclu.org; Blind Law Mailing List (blindlaw at nfbnet.org); 'Charles Crawford (ccrawford at RCN.com)'; Outside Melanie Brunson (mbrunson1 at verizon.net); Theresa Stern (tstern at guidedogs.com); Melissa Hudson (melissa.v.hudson at gmail.com); Terry Christensen (tchristensen at guidedogs.com); Michelle Bruns Miller (michellermiller88 at gmail.com); George Kerscher (gkerscher at guidedogs.com); Joshua Friedman (jterpslaw at gmail.com); 'E. Anne Benaroya (eabenaroya at gmail.com)'; 'kelly.cooper at ubalt.edu'; 'nanci dosh (clnfinancial at gmail.com)'; Nate Horne; 'psullivan at museumofmaritimepets.org'; Catherine Wolfe; 'mhaineshi at gmail.com'; 'Bernstein, Donna (dbernstein at mdlab.org)'; 'Ken Shapiro (ken.shapiro at animalsandsociety.org)'; 'psullivan at museumofmaritimepets.org'; Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics (depdirector at oxfordanimalethics.com); Outside Melanie Brunson (mbrunson1 at verizon.net); Wood, Nollie P. (Nollie.Wood at baltimorecity.gov); Sahmra April Stevenson (sahmrasslaw at gmail.com); Cecilia B. Paizs, Esquire (lawcbp99 at aol.com); Vanessa Lowery (vlowery at dhr.state.md.us); Vanessa Lowery (vlowery at dhr.state.md.us); 'Charles Crawford (ccrawford at RCN.com)'; elaine at clarityresolutions.com; Rose.Trotter at usa.apachecorp.com; ginandtonic45 at hotmail.com; 'Gina Miller (gina.kristol at gmail.com)'; Ginger Kutsch; 'Theresa Stern (tstern at guidedogs.com)'; 'Bremner, Leanne (Leanne.Bremner at CIBC.com)'; Outside Becky Andrews Subject: [blindlaw] FW: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY Greetings: I would be appreciative if you will convey letters. The NFB is doing great work. Information is contained below. Thanks. Sincerely, Gary From: Nfbnet-members-list [mailto:nfbnet-members-list-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Yingling, Valerie Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:18 PM To: nfbnet-members-list at nfbnet.org Subject: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY This letter was originally sent to the legislative directors but we are circulating it to the entire membership for maximum outreach: We need your help! The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers has submitted a Petition for Waiver to the FCC asking that e-readers be exempt from the Twenty First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) accessibility requirements. I have attached the Petition. NFB has written comments opposing the request, and we are asking other groups to sign on. I have also attached those comments. But the FCC needs to hear from our members - blind people who want access to e-readers - and the more people they hear from, the better. We are asking all Legislative Directors to find people in their respective affiliates to edit the attached skeleton letter and return it to us. The letter is already formatted and has an outline, but it is up to each person to make it personal and select which talking points they want to use. Finished letters should be sent to Valerie Yingling at vyingling at nfb.org by 8pm on Monday, September 2. Valerie will proofread each document to make sure there are no typos and the customized points are still on message, and then we will submit the letters all at once when they are due on September 3rd. We are short on time but I trust that this issue is pressing to our membership and we will get a good amount of letters. For some background: The CVAA requires that all mobile devices with advanced communications services (ACS) be accessible to blind people, but the law allows manufacturers to request a waiver for equipment that is not intended for ACS. The Coalition (comprised of Amazon, Sony and Kobo) claims that the primary purpose of e-readers is reading, and that the ACS found in e-readers is so incidental and ancillary that it is not an intended purpose of the device. We know this is not true - e-readers are outfitted with built-in web browsers and designed for social media. The Coalition also claims that to make e-readers accessible would require a fundamental overhaul that would render e-readers obsolete, harm the public interest, and not provide substantial benefit to blind people. We know that this offensive claim is also not true. It is critical that the FCC hear from all of us - it is the only thing that can defeat the petition. Regulation is legislation's sister, so I know we can count on all of you to get a good amount of feedback to the FCC. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to email me or Valerie. Looking forward to seeing everyone's letters. Cheers, Lauren Lauren McLarney Government Affairs Specialist NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 200 East Wells St. Baltimore, MD 21230 (410) 659 9314 ext. 2207 lmclarney at nfb.org From wmodnl at hotmail.com Sat Aug 31 02:09:02 2013 From: wmodnl at hotmail.com (wmodnl wmodnl) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 22:09:02 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Question about real estate law: Message-ID: Good evening, What is the roll of a real-estate or tort lawyer? Recently, I was discussing the safety of my neighborhood as it pertains to disabled people being able to navigate the local streets. The assistant property manager informed me that for years, both them and there car has been involved in multiple hit-and-run accidents in recent years. As we talked, she concurred with my assertion that the area is unsafe for pedestrians placing a greater risk on a blind person. I know that legally, someone can not discourage or do something implying discrimination by telling a blind applicant that, they should go else-ware; however, to withhold something like this omits the person from making an informed decision on a living choice especially if they do not see what is around them, or, they are not getting proper information as they research where they are going to live. Am I correct; or is there a possibility that she was negligent in this case? Thank you, have a good evening. Sent from my iPad From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 31 04:01:59 2013 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (ckrugman at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 21:01:59 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Question about real estate law: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <356605C0E4C84BA881B32154C9E9D2B3@Spike> as a blind person and also a former property manager I would hope that a manager or landlord would not have any additional duty to notify me of anything as that could be used to potentially discourage my tenancy. That does not fall under reasonable under the ADA or other fair housing legislation and could only result in potential problems for potential tenants. I have lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods and managed property in them but I was aware of what I was getting in to when I moved there and when I took the job. Other tenants don't get such notification other than what is public record readily available on the Internet or from local law enforcement agencies and I for one would not want to be treated any differently. Such advice is not reasonable accommodation and it is not the type of practice that I would think the NFB would encourage. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: "wmodnl wmodnl" To: Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:09 PM Subject: [blindlaw] Question about real estate law: > > Good evening, > What is the roll of a real-estate or tort lawyer? > Recently, I was discussing the safety of my neighborhood as it pertains to > disabled people being able to navigate the local streets. The assistant > property manager informed me that for years, both them and there car has > been involved in multiple hit-and-run accidents in recent years. As we > talked, she concurred with my assertion that the area is unsafe for > pedestrians placing a greater risk on a blind person. > I know that legally, someone can not discourage or do something implying > discrimination by telling a blind applicant that, they should go > else-ware; however, to withhold something like this omits the person from > making an informed decision on a living choice especially if they do not > see what is around them, or, they are not getting proper information as > they research where they are going to live. Am I correct; or is there a > possibility that she was negligent in this case? Thank you, have a good > evening. > > > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > blindlaw mailing list > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > blindlaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net