[nfbcs] NFB & narrator

Sat Aug 10 21:36:36 UTC 2013

Just because you have ears to hear Jesus's banterings doesn't mean 
they're true. There's a difference between understanding and knowing 
something is true.
On 8/10/2013 5:20 PM, Mike Freeman wrote:
> Frankly, John, your sanctimony is wearing thin on me. NFB didn't decide any
> such thing. But I'm coming to the conclusion that this whole thing is sort
> of like Jesus' parables -- only those with ears to hear will understand.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John G. Heim
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 1:30 PM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] NFB & narrator
>
> Hmmm... I'm not so sure that the NFB should be let entirely off the hook
> though. I know some of us were very upset about it at the time. Jaws is
> great for people who have someone else to pay for it. But what about my
> mom? What about the millions of other blind people in this country who
> don't have the money to buy a full featured screen reader? The NFB
> decided that those people were less important than this speculative
> concept that an improved narrator would  be good enough to drive Freedom
> Scientific out of business but not good enough to help them keep their
> jobs.  Obviously, I feel that subsequent events have validated my point
> of view.
>
>
> On 08/10/2013 02:58 PM, David Andrews wrote:
>> John:
>>
>> I was there and I can tell you that the NFB and others told Microsoft
>> they felt that it, MS shouldn't put its efforts into developing a full
>> featured screen reader because we did not consider this the best way to
>> provide blind people with the utility and choice we need.  We felt that
>> competition had a better chance of getting us what we needed and
>> wanted.  There was no talk of lawsuit.
>>
>> There are those who would put all this in a negative light to make the
>> NFB look bad, but there was no colusion or evil going on back then.  In
>> light of all the variables that existed, the NFB, the ACB, and others
>> felt this was the best plan.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This list is older than the events you're talking about. Some of us,
>>> myself included, were on this list at the time.  You can trust our
>>> recollections or not, that is up to you. Would you feel better if I
>>> created a web page with my recollections that I could give you a link
>>> to? I don't know what other kind of documentation you expect.
>>>
>>> The NFB was part of a group, committee, whatever, that was making
>>> accessibility recommendations to Microsoft. There were people on this
>>> listat the time  in that group. The issue itself was a matter of some
>>> debate but it was after the fact. I  want to be as fair to the NFB as
>>> possible here. I thik it is fair to say that the NFB asked Microsoft
>>> to stop improving narrator because they were afraid it would drive
>>> Freedom Scientific and other screen reader manufacturers out of
>>> business. But I am about as sure as I can be that there was no
>>> lawsuit.  The NFB  said that they'd prefer  Microsoft stopped
>>> improving narrator and Microsoft said okay.
>>>
>>> At the time, I argued that the NFB's logic was flawed. Who knows?
>>> Although, I think the advent of free, open source screen readers like
>>> nvda and orca bolster my point of view a great deal. If nvda didn't
>>> drive FS out of business, narrator wouldn't have. Not unless it really
>>> was as good as jaws, in which case we'd all win. None of us foresaw
>>> voiceover. Apple and Microsoft could be in a screen reader competition
>>> right now. That would have been nice. As it is, it's Apple and Freedom
>>> Scientific. That's not nearly as much fun.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I’ve seen a ton of people reference some supposed lawsuit, or
>>>> pressure, that the NFB brought to bear on Microsoft to discourage
>>>> them from including a screen reader in Windows, but no one’s been
>>>> able to actually dig up any information or documentation on said
>>>> lawsuit. Was there really such an animal? I do recall that Microsoft
>>>> purchased, or licensed, or thus somehow acquired the off-screen model
>>>> from Freedom Scientific in the late ’90’s, 1996 or 1997 as I recall,
>>>> and I also recall nothing ever came of it, but I’ve never seen
>>>> anything to indicate that this wasn’t anything more than a business
>>>> decision to shelve it.
>>>> --
>>>> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>>>> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Gabe Vega Via Iphone4S
>>>> <theblindtech at gmail.com> 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 but 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, “Coalition”) respectfully
>>>>>>>>>>>> requests that the Commission waive the
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility requirements for equipment used
>>>>>>>>>>>> for advanced communications services
>>>>>>>>>>>> (ACS) for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a single class of equipment: e-readers. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> Petition demonstrates that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> are devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> designed, built, and marketed for a single
>>>>>>>>>>>> primary purpose: to read written material
>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>> books, magazines, newspapers, and other text
>>>>>>>>>>>> documents on a mobile electronic device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> public interest would be served by granting this
>>>>>>>>>>>> petition because the theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS ability of e-
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of users actually use the
>>>>>>>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the features and content available on
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers are available on a wide
>>>>>>>>>>>> range of multi-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers
>>>>>>>>>>>> consists of <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.;
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Sony Electronics Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose equipment, including tablets, phones,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and computers, all of which possess
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio, speakers, high computing processing
>>>>>>>>>>>> power, and applications that are optimized
>>>>>>>>>>>> for ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>> class of equipment built for the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of reading. They are designed with
>>>>>>>>>>>> special features optimized for the reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> experience and are marketed as devices for
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading. Although they have a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> shape and size
>>>>>>>>>>>> to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> lack many of tablets’ features for
>>>>>>>>>>>> general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> computing, including ACS functions. E-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply are not designed, built, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> marketed for
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS, and the public understands the distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>> between e-readers and general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Granting the petition is in the public interest
>>>>>>>>>>>> because rendering ACS accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>> on e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> would require fundamentally altering the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be more like general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets in cost,
>>>>>>>>>>>> form factor, weight, user interface, and reduced
>>>>>>>>>>>> battery life, and yet the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes, if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they were made, would not yield a meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit to individuals with disabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Commission requires that a class waiver be
>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable to a “carefully defined”
>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>> of devices that “share common defining characteristics.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are such a class. E-readers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>> electronic devices that are designed,
>>>>>>>>>>>> marketed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> used primarily for the purpose of reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> digital documents, including e-books and
>>>>>>>>>>>> periodicals.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> The noteworthy features of e-readers include
>>>>>>>>>>>> electronic ink screens optimized for
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications
>>>>>>>>>>>> Act of 1934, as Enacted by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Twenty-First Century Communications and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. 10-213, WT
>>>>>>>>>>>> Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rulemaking, 26 FCC
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rcd 14557, 14639 (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Order]; Implementation of Sections
>>>>>>>>>>>> 716 and 717 of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Twenty-First Century Communications
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Video Accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class
>>>>>>>>>>>> Waivers of Sections 716 and 717
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Communications Act
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>> Access to Advanced Communications
>>>>>>>>>>>> Services (ACS) and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Equipment by People with Disabilities, Order, 27
>>>>>>>>>>>> FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) [hereinafter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Waiver Order].
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device
>>>>>>>>>>>> used to view books, magazines, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> newspapers in a digital format.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-E-reader.htm>http://www.wisegeek.com/wha
> t-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>ht
> tp://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-t
> ide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.org/electronic
> s/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore a useful measure of conventional
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding, differentiates
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among
>>>>>>>>>>>> other differences, “[t]ablet computers
>>>>>>>>>>>> . . . are more versatile, allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>> one to consume multiple types of content . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>> .” It states that “[a]n e-book reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>> also called an e-book device or e-
>>>>>>>>>>>> reader, is a mobile electronic device that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> designed primarily for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> of reading digital e-books and
>>>>>>>>>>>> periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii).
>>>>>>>>>>>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING
>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than
>>>>>>>>>>>> using” ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are designed to be used for reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, they are marketed as tools for
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading is their predominant use. Conversely,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers are not designed or marketed
>>>>>>>>>>>> as tools for
>>>>>>>>>>>> using ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> features in e-readers are designed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>>>>>> around reading as the primary function. Features
>>>>>>>>>>>> that e-readers possess for reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> optimization
>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Low power consumption and extremely long
>>>>>>>>>>>> battery life to facilitate long reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> sessions and use during extended travel;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Navigation that place reading features,
>>>>>>>>>>>> including e-publication acquisition, front
>>>>>>>>>>>> and center;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Built-in reading tools such as highlighting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bookmarking, and lookup features.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Medcan Clinic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.medcan.com/articles/e->http://www.medcan.com/articles/e-
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers_better_for_your_eyes/
>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have
>>>>>>>>>>>> improved the level of text/background
>>>>>>>>>>>> contrast, and the matte quality of the screen
>>>>>>>>>>>> can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St.
>>>>>>>>>>>> J., Jan. 4, 2013,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.h
> tml>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821983416057301
> 0.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> (stating that compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a
>>>>>>>>>>>> different style of display [that] improves
>>>>>>>>>>>> their battery life”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?,
>>>>>>>>>>>> CNET (Dec. 17, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which
> -e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-
> 1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/
>>>>>>>>>>>> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is
>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer distracting features not focused
>>>>>>>>>>>> on reading).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-l
> eadership-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/produ
> ct/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=1
> 0551&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.pd
> f>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.p
> df
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not surprisingly based on this design and
>>>>>>>>>>>> marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly
>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> communications marketplace in the U.K. states
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> “almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indicative of the utility of e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie
>>>>>>>>>>>> et al., Pew Internet &
>>>>>>>>>>>> American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of->http://libraries.p
> ewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-reading/
>>>>>>>>>>>> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading devices are reading a book,
>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with
>>>>>>>>>>>> 45% of the general book-reading public who are
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading a book on a typical day.”);
>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.h
> tml>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544809317575887
> 2.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> (explaining that a study of
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research
>>>>>>>>>>>> Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople
>>>>>>>>>>>> who buy e-readers tend
>>>>>>>>>>>> to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> 21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help
>>>>>>>>>>>> You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>> eBook Friendly (Apr.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8, 2013),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/>http:/
> /ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/
>>>>>>>>>>>> (“E-paper screens are not meant for
>>>>>>>>>>>> active usage  their refresh rate is too low.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper
>>>>>>>>>>>> tablet computers can be used . .
>>>>>>>>>>>> . as Web
>>>>>>>>>>>> browsers, game consoles and cameras”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>>>>>>> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus
>>>>>>>>>>>> tablet devices).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 24 See, e.g., id.
>>>>>>>>>>>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and
>>>>>>>>>>>> lack the features and broad capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> optimized only for reading and obtaining
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> material. Features common to tablets that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Color screens;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 20
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction
>>>>>>>>>>>> and video;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 21
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Cameras;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 22
>>>>>>>>>>>> • High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 23
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> • Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for
>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerated
>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 24
>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess
>>>>>>>>>>>> microphones or quality speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Examination of an e-reader establishes that
>>>>>>>>>>>> these devices are not designed with
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS as
>>>>>>>>>>>> an intended feature, even on a secondary basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> These purposeful hardware limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>> drive e-
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research->http://www.st
> aples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-
>>>>>>>>>>>> centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more
>>>>>>>>>>>> options for
>>>>>>>>>>>> multimedia as well. They can upload and play
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio and of course video . . . .”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 21
>>>>>>>>>>>> (“You can use [tablets] for other
>>>>>>>>>>>> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social
>>>>>>>>>>>> media, web browsing, video, games.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 27 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited
>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities, which often include monochrome
>>>>>>>>>>>> screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while
>>>>>>>>>>>> “[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full
>>>>>>>>>>>> Web browsing.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>>>>>>> ; Kobo Aura HD, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 15
>>>>>>>>>>>> ; Sony Reader Product
>>>>>>>>>>>> Listing, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>>> . Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which
>>>>>>>>>>>> users and their pre-approved contacts
>>>>>>>>>>>> can e-mail
>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-existing document so that the documents can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be read on the Kindle. However, this
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a feature to facilitate
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink
>>>>>>>>>>>> format; it is not marketed as or useful
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a tool for real-time or near
>>>>>>>>>>>> real-time text-based communication between
>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation
>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are not marketed based on their
>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to access ACS. The webpage listings
>>>>>>>>>>>> for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>> features such as e-mail, instant
>>>>>>>>>>>> messaging,
>>>>>>>>>>>> calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video
>>>>>>>>>>>> at all).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 28
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is consistent with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading, not for general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> use. In fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> 29 Reynolds, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> 30 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>> . Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the tablet e-readers; I want a
>>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading device without the distraction of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast
>>>>>>>>>>>> and readability of e Ink. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> want access to the best and most varied content.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I want a battery life the length
>>>>>>>>>>>> of War and Peace (months). I want a
>>>>>>>>>>>> device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite,
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite>
> http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> 31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire
>>>>>>>>>>>> (May 23, 2011),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduces-tou
> ch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-reade
> rs-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-p
> rint-book-reading-
>>>>>>>>>>>> declines/
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>> 33 Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>> . As explained below, this quote does not apply
>>>>>>>>>>>> to individuals who are blind or have
>>>>>>>>>>>> low
>>>>>>>>>>>> vision, for whom e-readers do not provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> additional functionality that is not available
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a more versatile
>>>>>>>>>>>> smartphone or tablet.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent
>>>>>>>>>>>> years include that “[t]he devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> looked sleeker, they were easier to
>>>>>>>>>>>> read, they weighed less, their pages turned
>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, and they held more books. Wireless
>>>>>>>>>>>> capability allowed users to
>>>>>>>>>>>> download novels, magazines and newspapers
>>>>>>>>>>>> wherever they were, whenever they wanted,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and now the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>> . More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>> in e-readers, including touch-screen technology
>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-lighting screens.” Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 35 The Commission has recognized that “if the
>>>>>>>>>>>> inclusion of an accessibility feature
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a product or service results in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental alteration of that product or
>>>>>>>>>>>> service, then it is per se not achievable
>>>>>>>>>>>> to include that accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14610. The House Report similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>> states that “if the inclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a feature in a product or service results in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental alteration of that
>>>>>>>>>>>> service or product, it is per se not
>>>>>>>>>>>> achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House
>>>>>>>>>>>> Report”). While the
>>>>>>>>>>>> achievability and primary purpose waiver
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyses differ, this demonstrates that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress and the Commission
>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize that requiring a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>> alteration is not in the public interest or
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with the CVAA.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010).
>>>>>>>>>>>> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend
>>>>>>>>>>>> to mandate the effective elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> niche product primarily designed for non-ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>> uses merely because of the presence
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>>>> ancillary browser purpose-built to support
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading activities on some devices within
>>>>>>>>>>>> the class.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As both the Senate and House Reports explained
>>>>>>>>>>>> in describing the primary purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> waiver
>>>>>>>>>>>> provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or
>>>>>>>>>>>> example, a device designed for a purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>> to accessing advanced communications might also
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide, on an incidental basis,
>>>>>>>>>>>> access to such
>>>>>>>>>>>> services. In this case, the Commission may find
>>>>>>>>>>>> that to promote technological innovation
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility requirements need not apply.”
>>>>>>>>>>>> 36
>>>>>>>>>>>> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental
>>>>>>>>>>>> basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to
>>>>>>>>>>>> encompass.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not substantially benefit individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> disabilities. Persons with disabilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>> including individuals who are blind and
>>>>>>>>>>>> wish to access e-
>>>>>>>>>>>> books and other electronic publications, would
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a poor ACS experience even on
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-reader devices. Because of the inherent
>>>>>>>>>>>> limitations of browsers in e-readers, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that will not
>>>>>>>>>>>> change without a wholesale redesign of
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, individuals with disabilities have
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible options today, and these
>>>>>>>>>>>> options will
>>>>>>>>>>>> soon expand significantly even if the waiver is
>>>>>>>>>>>> granted. For the niche purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading, high-
>>>>>>>>>>>> quality free alternatives to e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>> available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same range of e-publications available
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> owners of the respective companies’ e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> (and in some cases a greater range),
>>>>>>>>>>>> are available
>>>>>>>>>>>> for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 37
>>>>>>>>>>>> Makers of tablets, smartphones,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and computers are working actively to make their
>>>>>>>>>>>> general-purpose audio-enabled devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As
>>>>>>>>>>>> required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> these devices, all of which have integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio, speakers, high computing processing
>>>>>>>>>>>> power,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and applications that are optimized for ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the accessibility that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> required by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of
>>>>>>>>>>>> these devices will support and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility features and capabilities that are
>>>>>>>>>>>> of value beyond the purely ACS context.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 38
>>>>>>>>>>>> Put
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply, individuals with disabilities have
>>>>>>>>>>>> better ACS options on devices other than
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 37 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>> . Additionally, users can read books via the Web
>>>>>>>>>>>> on all of the services but Sony
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader. Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers”
>>>>>>>>>>>> of devices and explaining
>>>>>>>>>>>> that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> an advanced communications service,
>>>>>>>>>>>> all of these components may
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to support accessibility features and capabilities”).
>>>>>>>>>>>> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified
>>>>>>>>>>>> because, in contrast to other classes
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> equipment for which temporary waivers have been
>>>>>>>>>>>> granted, e-readers are a well-established
>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> of convergence in classes of
>>>>>>>>>>>> devices for which waivers were granted).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 40 Moreover, it is generally expected that
>>>>>>>>>>>> demand for e-readers will continue well
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the future. One study by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute
>>>>>>>>>>>> projects 23.0 million units of e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>> sales worldwide in 2016. See
>>>>>>>>>>>> eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments->http://www.emarketer.co
> m/Article/Ereader-Shipments-
>>>>>>>>>>>> on-Rise/1009471
>>>>>>>>>>>> . A different study by IHS iSuppli projects
>>>>>>>>>>>> worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million
>>>>>>>>>>>> units in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016. See Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>> . Assessing the more pessimistic of these
>>>>>>>>>>>> studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>> are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across
>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple generations is justified. See
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rcd at 14640.
>>>>>>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the reasons set forth above, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with Section 716 of the Act and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Commission grant the e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>> class waiver,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as is consistent with the public interest.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerard J. Waldron
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel H. Kahn
>>>>>>>>>>>> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
>>>>>>>>>>>> (202) 662-6000
>>>>>>>>>>>> Counsel for <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.;
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Sony Electronics Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> May 16, 2013
>>>>>>>>>>>> Displaying 2 comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast yesterday
>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:53 PM ET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility out of these devices. The claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that incorporating accessibility will make the
>>>>>>>>>>>> e-book readers heavier and have less battery
>>>>>>>>>>>> life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many
>>>>>>>>>>>> examples of accessible mobile devices these days
>>>>>>>>>>>> which work perfectly and for which accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>> is transparent or not even known to those not
>>>>>>>>>>>> needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but your actions will reflect equally on you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast today
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2:25 PM ET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You must be logged in to post comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Share this Post
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/tyler%40tysdomain.com


-- 
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.
Sent from my Toaster (tm).