[nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Thu Aug 8 18:52:35 UTC 2013
I agree with your sentiments below. However, as long as amazon and Sony
don't try to market to governmental entities such as Federal agencies or
schools, there's no law which says they *must* make everything accessible.
Were there such a law, we'd have to ban all concerts because they couldn't
be made accessible to the deaf, all exhibitions of painting because they
couldn't be made accessible to the blind, etc. Moreover, precisely because
there is no such law, NFB worked to have introduced and passed the
Accessible Technology Bill of Rights. Since it has not become law and, I
fear, is unlikely to become so for the immediate future, the only leverage
we really have is in prohibiting such devices from being purchased by
government and schools.
That's not to say, though, that your reasoning isn't valid. I think the
bottom line is this: e-reader manufacturers just don't think they'll get
enough new sales from making their devices accessible to warrant expenditure
of time, money and human resources on such an effort.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Stevens
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:52 AM
To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility
Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers
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
_______________________________________________
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/k7uij%40panix.com
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list