[Electronics-talk] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers

[David Andrews]

>
>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 
><http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526>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 <http://Amazon.com/>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>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>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>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, <http://ConsumerReports.org/>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>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>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->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>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/>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/>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/>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/
>  (last
>visited May 16, 2013).
>14 Id.
>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview,
><http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd
>  (last visited May 16, 2013).
>16 Sony Reader,
><https://ebookstore.sony.com/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=->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>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->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>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/>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->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>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/>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->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->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 <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.;
>and Sony Electronics Inc.
>May 16, 2013
>Displaying 2 comments.
>
><http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>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.
><http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast today 2:25 PM ET:
>
>You must be logged in to post comments.
>
>
>Share this Post
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
><http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286
>
>
>
>Scott
>
>Sent from my iPhone