[nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers
Ryan Stevens
Rysteve at comcast.net
Thu Aug 8 15:52:15 UTC 2013
Okay, let's review. Amazon's CEO just paid $250 million -- a mere 1% of his
net worth -- in cash to buy the Washington Post, yet making the Kindle
accessible is an unreasonable burden?
Also, while I usually reject "slippery slope" arguments, if Amazon and Sony
get eReaders exempted, what will be the next platform we will not get full
use of because of corporate whining?
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:20 PM
To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbcs] 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 <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.co
>m/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>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),
><http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-table
>ts>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tab
>lets
>;
>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-r
>eader
> (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/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573
>010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873238742045782198
>34160573010.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-a
>s-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?catalo
>gId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/store
>s/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_20
>12.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://librar
>ies.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/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758
>872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038466045754480
>93175758872.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/>h
>ttp://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://w
>ww.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-paperw
>hite>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-pa
>perwhite
>.
>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-introduce
>s-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electr
>onic-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-readi
>ng-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.emarket
>er.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/928
>6
>
>
>
>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/rysteve%40comcast.net
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list