[nfbcs] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Sat Aug 10 17:04:16 UTC 2013
How do you know it is true? What is this
documentation. And ... positions eveolve. Would
you say that because we said something at one
point, we have to maintain that position til the
end of time? That is rediculous, things change and sometimes positions do too.
Dave
At 01:16 AM 8/10/2013, you wrote:
> No, my iPhone dictation messed that message.
> But what I do know is that the nfb threatened
> to file a lawsuit against Microsoft if they
> went ahead and put a built-in screen reader
> into windows that would have possibly put out
> of business the other screen widowmakers. And
> this is documented and we all know it's true.
> Now, when it suits the nfb, why is it okay for
> them to just switch sides at whatever Wimbsley
> wish Gabe Vega Sent from my iPhone CEO Commtech
> LLC The leader of computer support, training
> and web development services Web:
> http://commtechusa.net Twitter:
> http://twitter.com/commtechllc Facebook:
> http://facebook.com/commtechllc Email:
> info at commtechusa.net Phone: (888) 351-5289 Ext.
> 710 Fax: (480) 535-7649 > On Aug 9, 2013, at
> 10:09 PM, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
> wrote: > > Hey Gabe, > > Are you suggesting the
> NFB filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in >
> order to protect the business interests of the
> major screen reader > manufacturers? > >
> Jim > >> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:54:59PM
> -0700, Gabe Vega Via Iphone4S wrote: >>
> Microsoft tried this am a late 90s, does anyone
> remember? Why is of the PNFP happens to always
> forget this fact. But it was the NFB (suit, if
> Microsoft made a screen reader, a full
> functioning screenwriter into windows. Triberg
> to protect freedom scientific and other
> screenwriter makers. But now that the design
> the Apple Leeds is all integral, now nfb wants
> to switch sides >> >> Gabe Vega >> Sent from my
> iPhone >> CEO >> Commtech LLC >> The leader of
> computer support, training and web development
> services >> Web: http://commtechusa.net >>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/commtechllc >>
> Facebook: http://facebook.com/commtechllc >>
> Email: info at commtechusa.net >> Phone: (888)
> 351-5289 Ext. 710 >> Fax: (480) 535-7649 >> >>>
> On Aug 9, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin Fjelsted
> <kfjelsted at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Screen
> readers take very little resource if designed
> correctly. >>> >>> In fact if the display was
> eliminated and only audio was provided the cost
> could be lowered for the hardware including the
> processor. >>> >>> Design is key. >>> We have
> gotten used to the huge resources required
> by JAWS as an example because of the outboard
> nonintegrated approach for that screen reader,
> i.e., it isn't integral to windows. >>> >>> If
> Microsoft had prioritized designing screen
> reading into windows from the ground up >>> we
> would have over 90% of apps accessible and
> resources would be much better managed. >>>
> Regarding the eReader, more processing power is
> used trying to keep the visual experience
> smooth,, scrolling the pages, compensating for
> the change in font size either through the user
> expanding the font, or by varied styles in the
> book. >>> >>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Jim
> Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey
> Kevin, >>>> >>>> I take your point, but I don't
> really buy into it. >>>> >>>> We can talk about
> how to limit the device, but the original
> point >>>> remains the same. >>>> >>>> If the
> bandwidth of the wifi, or the capabilities of
> the CPU, or the >>>> amount of memory in the
> original design wouldn't support a screen >>>>
> reader, than Amazon will have two
> choices. Find a way to opt out of >>>>
> accessibility or radically alter (and increase
> the price of) the >>>> device. >>>> >>>> I'd
> argue that the amount of technology needed to
> support larger fonts >>>> is far less than that
> needed to support a screen reader. >>>> >>>>
> Jim >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at
> 06:55:15PM -0500, Kevin Fjelsted wrote: >>>>>
> Requiring speakers or headphone just puts
> limits on the approach. >>>>> Remember when we
> were told that touch screens cannot be used by
> the BLind? >>>>> One way to get around the
> accessibility issue is to send the speech info
> out the same wireless that the books come in on
> i.e., such as via Airplay protocol, which can
> be picked up by many cell phones. >>>>> So much
> of the work is done in software that trying to
> classify a device by speakers
has some import
> ants butt it certainly should not be used as an
> excuse to avoid speech. >>>>> Perhaps we should
> take the reverse and ask that if accessibility
> is permitted to be removed that indeed it
> should be mandated as removed including the
> ability to have large print fonts. >>>>> After
> all, perhaps those with less than 20-20 vision
> don't really need to use these devices if so
> why permit the fonts to be made large enough
> for large print users? >>>>> Perhaps if a
> device is permitted not to be accessible then a
> descriptive label should be mandated
> i.e., >>>>> "Reading tablet " not fore the
> BLind or anyone with less than 20-20 vision"
> Caution, for those with 20-20 vision the font
> is small but readable, make sure to limit your
> use of the device to avoid eyestrain. >>>>>
> -Kevin >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 6:44 PM,
> Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Aaron, I want to thank you
> very much for these talking points. I
> hope >>>>>> you don't mind if I add to
> them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with a lot of your
> commentary. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. E-readers are
> different than tablets. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is
> a real problem with this argument. Amazon is
> trying to say >>>>>> that their e-readers are
> outside the definition of a tablet, but >>>>>>
> aren't defining how. If this stands, it will
> be much easier for >>>>>> other hardware
> providers to say "hey, my thingy is a book
> reader too >>>>>> and not a tablet. Pay no
> attention to those apps, they're just
> icing >>>>>> on the cake." >>>>>> >>>>>> I
> would actually be okay with the FCC saying that
> if it doesn't have >>>>>> speakers, headphone
> jack, and enough CPU/memory to support text to
> speech; >>>>>> then it's not a tablet. That
> would include the paper white. >>>>>> >>>>>>>
> 2. E-readers are marketed and used for reading,
> and are not designed for accessibility, even on
> a secondary basis. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree, this
> is not relevant to their case. >>>>>> >>>>>>>
> 3. Adding accessibility features would
> fundamentally alter the devices. >>>>>> >>>>>>
> I agree this isn't talked about in their
> submission. If the device >>>>>> must be given
> speakers, a headphone jack, a larger CPU, and
> more RAM to >>>>>> support a screen reader and
> onboard text to speech, then it does
> alter >>>>>> the device. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 4.
> Adding such features would not help the blind
> or visually impaired, as they have
> alternatives. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I don't think
> Amazon and Sony have standing to make this
> argument, >>>>>> but it is one that we should
> pay attention to. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we can read
> Kindle material using their tablet app, then we
> need >>>>>> to be very clear about why we're
> also asking for their hardware >>>>>> solutions
> to be made accessible. >>>>>> >>>>>> The
> reasons I'm aware of are... >>>>>> >>>>>> *
> Cost (paper white is significantly cheaper than
> an iPod touch) >>>>>> * Availability (blind
> students should be able to use the same
> hardware as their sighted
> counterparts) >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there other
> arguments to the point that we shuuld have
> access to >>>>>> hardware, as well as software,
> solutions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> On 8/7/13, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>
> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From:
> Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050) >>>>>>>>> Sent:
> Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM >>>>>>>>>
> To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43) >>>>>>>>>
> Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are
> Requesting >>>>>>>>> That The Accessibility
> Requirement Be Waived for E-Book
> Readers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> Craig, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> Sharing as
> information. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded
> message: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That
> The >>>>>>>>> Accessibility Requirement Be
> Waived for E-Book
> Readers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> Details >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> The ) Twenty-First Century Communications
> and >>>>>>>>> Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010
> requires >>>>>>>>> companies who make
> electronic devices to make >>>>>>>>> them
> accessible to people with disabilities.
> At >>>>>>>>> this time, none of the Ebook
> readers that are on >>>>>>>>> the market meet
> this requirement. Since many >>>>>>>>>
> companies feel that this requirement should
> not >>>>>>>>> apply to Ebook readers, Amazon,
> Kobo, and Sony >>>>>>>>> have submitted a
> petition to the FCC asking for >>>>>>>>> a
> waiver. According to the petition, this is
> the >>>>>>>>> definition of an Ebook reader:
> "E-readers, >>>>>>>>> sometimes called e-book
> readers, are mobile >>>>>>>>> electronic
> devices that are designed, marketed >>>>>>>>>
> and used primarily for the purpose of
> reading >>>>>>>>> digital documents, including
> e-books and >>>>>>>>> periodicals." Since Ebook
> readers are primarily >>>>>>>>> designed for
> print reading, the companies are >>>>>>>>>
> arguing that the disabled community would
> not >>>>>>>>> significantly benefit from these
> devices >>>>>>>>> becoming accessible. They
> also argue that >>>>>>>>> because the devices
> are so simple, making the >>>>>>>>> changes to
> the devices to make them accessible, >>>>>>>>>
> would cause them to be heavier, have
> poorer >>>>>>>>> battery life, and raise the
> cost of the devices. >>>>>>>>> Finally, these
> companies argue that since their >>>>>>>>> apps
> are accessible on other devices such as
> the >>>>>>>>> iPad and other full featured
> tablets, that they >>>>>>>>> are already
> providing access to their content. >>>>>>>>>
> We've posted the complete filing from the
> FCC's >>>>>>>>> website below. Here is
> a >>>>>>>>>
> <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, “Coalitionâ€)
> 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 prevennt glare; >>>>>>>>>
> 7 >>>>>>>>> • Low power consumption and
> extremely long >>>>>>>>> battery life to
> facilitate long reading >>>>>>>>> sessions and
> use during extended travel; >>>>>>>>>
> 8 >>>>>>>>> • Navigation that place reaading
> features, >>>>>>>>> including e-publication
> acquisition, front >>>>>>>>> and
> center; >>>>>>>>> 9 >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> •
> Built-in reading tools such as
> highlightiing, >>>>>>>>> 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.â€). >>>>>>>>> 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
> lifeâ€). >>>>>>>>> 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. . .
> .â€). >>>>>>>>> 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,â€
> “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,â€
> “[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,â€
> “[h]olds over 1,000 books,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[m]assive book selection,â€
> “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,â€
> “[r]eads >>>>>>>>> like paper,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[d]ownload books,†“[h]olds over 1,000
> books,†>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book
> selection,†“books >>>>>>>>> by
> best- >>>>>>>>> selling authors,â€
> “[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,â€
> “[h]olds over 1,000 books,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[m]assive book selection,â€
> “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,â€
> “[r]eads >>>>>>>>> like paper,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[d]ownload books,†“[h]olds over 1,000
> books,†>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book
> selection,†“books >>>>>>>>> by
> best- >>>>>>>>> selling authors,â€
> “[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,â€
> “[h]olds over 1,000 books,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[m]assive book selection,â€
> “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,â€
> “[r]eads >>>>>>>>> like paper,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[d]ownload books,†“[h]olds over 1,000
> books,†>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book
> selection,†“books >>>>>>>>> by
> best- >>>>>>>>> selling authors,â€
> “[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,â€
> “[h]olds over 1,000 books,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[m]assive book selection,â€
> “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,â€
> “[r]eads >>>>>>>>> like paper,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[d]ownload books,†“[h]olds over 1,000
> books,†>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book
> selection,†“books >>>>>>>>> by
> best- >>>>>>>>> selling authors,â€
> “[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,â€
> “[h]olds over 1,000 books,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[m]assive book selection,â€
> “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,â€
> “[r]eads >>>>>>>>> like paper,†>>>>>>>>>
> “[d]ownload books,†“[h]olds over 1,000
> books,†>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book
> selection,†“books >>>>>>>>> by
> best- >>>>>>>>> selling authors,â€
> “[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.â€); 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.â€); >>>>>>>>> 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.â€). >>>>>>>>> 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
> ratte is too low.â€). >>>>>>>>> 22 Bensinger,
> supra note >>>>>>>>> 8 >>>>>>>>> (stating that,
> unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper >>>>>>>>>
> tablet computers can be used . . >>>>>>>>> . as
> Web >>>>>>>>> browsers, game consoles and
> camerasâ€). >>>>>>>>> 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 withh fast refresh rates sufficient for
> interaction and video; >>>>>>>>> 21 >>>>>>>>> •
> Cameras; >>>>>>>>> 22 >>>>>>>>>> •
> High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia
> fiiles; >>>>>>>>> 23 >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> •
> Higher-poweered 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 . . .
> .â€). >>>>>>>>> 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.â€). >>>>>>>>> 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.â€). >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> Reportâ€). 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 “layersâ€
> 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
> capabilitiesâ€). >>>>>>>>> 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.â€
> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list