[nfbcs] NFB & narrator
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Sun Aug 11 21:11:52 UTC 2013
John:
There was a whole group of people, most of whom
were blind, who felt that Microsoft shouldn't
develop a screen reader. I don't believe that
they started on one, then stopped, but I don't
actually know since I don't work there. Eitway
they didn't pursue it at the time.
You seem to want to attribute all of this to the
NFB. As Steve J points out in another message,
there was never an official nfb position at the
time, lots of people felt as we did, many of whom weren't in the NFB.
Dave
At 03:20 PM 8/10/2013, you wrote:
>Hmmm.... Pressure? Mike's message wasn't clear
>on one point -- was Microsoft going to develop a
>screen reader and they stopped at least in part
>because the NFB asked them to? My recollection
>of events is that that is what happened. I think
>the rumors of the lawsuit were about Freedom
>Scientific. At the time, Freedom Scientific
>displayed a marked tendency to sue other
>accessibility companies. I don't know if FS
>actually threatened a lawsuit but I am sure
>that's where the rumors came from. In fact, had
>Microsoft proceeded to develop a screen reader,
>I would have been greatly surprised if FS had
>not sued. These days we're all familiar with the
>term "patent troll". I'm not sure it's fair to
>describe FS as a patent troll but I have often
>felt they claimed patents on things that should not be patentable.
>
>So who knows what would have happened without
>the NFB's actions. I don't have an alternate
>universe machine that I can use to find out.
>
>
>On 08/10/2013 02:39 PM, Buddy Brannan wrote:
>>What you describe, John, and what others have
>>outlined, and what I myself recall, are a far
>>cry from any sort of lawsuit or pressure
>>brought to bear. The thing with which I took
>>issue, and wanted some documentation for (none
>>has been provided) was the contention that
>>there was a lawsuit. It seems fairly clear that
>>there was not. I was around and active and
>>following this stuff back then, too, although
>>in no wy as closely as, say, others who were
>>there and commented on this already. Whether
>>the recommendation that Microsoft not develop a
>>screen reader was right at the time, or
>>whether, as it seems, history bears out the
>>opposite view, isn’t especially issue with me.
>>I’m happy to see that we’re making progress
>>towards universal access and built-in useful
>>things in mainstream products. I’d like to see
>>this trend continue. I’m just looking for some
>>historical accuracy here, and I think we now
>>have that. Shouting that the NFB threatened a
>>lawsuit doesn’t make it so, no matter ho
>w many p
>e
>ople say they heard that it happened.
>>--
>>Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>>Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>>
>>
>>
>>On Aug 10, 2013, at 3:31 PM, John G. Heim <jheim at math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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/what-is-an-E-reader.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>minimize eye strain during extended
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-publications and their user interfaces,
>>>>>>>>>>>>both
>>>>>>>>>>>>hardware and software features, are designed
>>>>>>>>>>>>around reading as the primary user function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>As
>>>>>>>>>>>>explained more fully below, another important
>>>>>>>>>>>>aspect of e-readers is the features
>>>>>>>>>>>>they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>contain, which distinguishes them from general
>>>>>>>>>>>>purpose devices such as tablets. Examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>of e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers include the Amazon Kindle
>>>>>>>>>>>>E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo
>>>>>>>>>>>>Glo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>available in the U.S. utilizing electronic
>>>>>>>>>>>>ink, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>since that time the number of manufacturers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>models has expanded substantially.
>>>>>>>>>>>>4
>>>>>>>>>>>>Seven
>>>>>>>>>>>>years is a long time in the modern digital age,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and the public understands that although
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>may be somewhat similar in shape and size to
>>>>>>>>>>>>general-purpose tablets, e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>aimed at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>specific function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>5
>>>>>>>>>>>>The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Technology Innovation Librarian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Nebraska Library Commission,
>>>>>>>>>>>>(Oct. 14, 2011),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders>http://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this
>>>>>>>>>>>>distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett,
>>>>>>>>>>>>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better
>>>>>>>>>>>>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets
>>>>>>>>>>>>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and
>>>>>>>>>>>>Buy an E-book Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://ConsumerReports.org/>ConsumerReports.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>(Apr. 22, 2013),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore a useful measure of conventional
>>>>>>>>>>>>understanding, differentiates
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among
>>>>>>>>>>>>other differences, “[t]ablet computers
>>>>>>>>>>>>. . . are more versatile, allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>one to consume multiple types of content . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>also called an e-book device or e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>reader, is a mobile electronic device that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>designed primarily for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>of reading digital e-books and
>>>>>>>>>>>>periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii).
>>>>>>>>>>>>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING
>>>>>>>>>>>>E-readers are “designed primarily for
>>>>>>>>>>>>purposes other than using” ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>6
>>>>>>>>>>>>Specifically,
>>>>>>>>>>>>they are designed to be used for reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading is their predominant use. Conversely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers are not designed or marketed
>>>>>>>>>>>>as tools for
>>>>>>>>>>>>using ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>features in e-readers are designed and
>>>>>>>>>>>>built
>>>>>>>>>>>>around reading as the primary function. Features
>>>>>>>>>>>>that e-readers possess for reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>optimization
>>>>>>>>>>>>include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare;
>>>>>>>>>>>>7
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Low power consumption and extremely long
>>>>>>>>>>>>battery life to facilitate long reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>sessions and use during extended travel;
>>>>>>>>>>>>8
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Navigation that place reading features,
>>>>>>>>>>>>including e-publication acquisition, front
>>>>>>>>>>>>and center;
>>>>>>>>>>>>9
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>bookmarking, and lookup features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>10
>>>>>>>>>>>>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan Clinic,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.medcan.com/articles/e->http://www.medcan.com/articles/e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers_better_for_your_eyes/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have
>>>>>>>>>>>>improved the level of text/background
>>>>>>>>>>>>contrast, and the matte quality of the screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St.
>>>>>>>>>>>>J., Jan. 4, 2013,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>(stating that compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a
>>>>>>>>>>>>different style of display [that] improves
>>>>>>>>>>>>their battery life”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(noting that an advantage of e-readers is
>>>>>>>>>>>>fewer distracting features not focused
>>>>>>>>>>>>on reading).
>>>>>>>>>>>>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as
>>>>>>>>>>>>a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(“With an eReader, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>read and either share quotes or musings
>>>>>>>>>>>>real time. . . .”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>11 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>9
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>12 See Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>5
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Product reviews emphasize the centrality of
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading to the design of e-readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, technology review site CNET explains
>>>>>>>>>>>>that “[i]f you want to stick with
>>>>>>>>>>>>‘just reading’ . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>11
>>>>>>>>>>>>Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading. And that’s a blessing.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>12
>>>>>>>>>>>>Consistent with these features, e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>marketed to readers with one activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>>>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon
>>>>>>>>>>>>product listing for the 5th generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>Kindle E-
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last
>>>>>>>>>>>>visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>14 Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>16 Sony Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>><https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>17 Sony Reader Product Listing,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-
>>>>>>>>>>>>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprisingly based on this design and
>>>>>>>>>>>>marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly
>>>>>>>>>>>>for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>communications marketplace in the U.K. states
>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>“almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>18
>>>>>>>>>>>>Indicative of the utility of e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on
>>>>>>>>>>>>the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie
>>>>>>>>>>>>et al., Pew Internet &
>>>>>>>>>>>>American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-reading/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading devices are reading a book,
>>>>>>>>>>>>compared with
>>>>>>>>>>>>45% of the general book-reading public who are
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading a book on a typical day.”);
>>>>>>>>>>>>Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>(explaining that a study of
>>>>>>>>>>>>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research
>>>>>>>>>>>>Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople
>>>>>>>>>>>>who buy e-readers tend
>>>>>>>>>>>>to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>20 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>8
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help
>>>>>>>>>>>>You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>eBook Friendly (Apr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>8, 2013),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/>http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/
>>>>>>>>>>>>(“E-paper screens are not meant for
>>>>>>>>>>>>active usage their refresh rate is too low.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>22 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>8
>>>>>>>>>>>>(stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>tablet computers can be used . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>. as Web
>>>>>>>>>>>>browsers, game consoles and cameras”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>13
>>>>>>>>>>>>(comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>tablet devices).
>>>>>>>>>>>>24 See, e.g., id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>>E-readers are not general-purpose devices and
>>>>>>>>>>>>lack the features and broad capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>optimized only for reading and obtaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>material. Features common to tablets
>>>>>>>>>>>>that e-readers consistently lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Color screens;
>>>>>>>>>>>>20
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Screens with fast refresh rates
>>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient for interaction and video;
>>>>>>>>>>>>21
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Cameras;
>>>>>>>>>>>>22
>>>>>>>>>>>>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files;
>>>>>>>>>>>>23
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated
>>>>>>>>>>>>graphics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>24
>>>>>>>>>>>>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess
>>>>>>>>>>>>microphones or quality speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Examination of an e-reader establishes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>these devices are not designed with
>>>>>>>>>>>>ACS as
>>>>>>>>>>>>an intended feature, even on a secondary basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>These purposeful hardware limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>drive e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality, and most cannot generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio output or record audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research->http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-
>>>>>>>>>>>>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for
>>>>>>>>>>>>multimedia as well. They can upload and play
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio and of course video . . . .”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>21
>>>>>>>>>>>>(“You can use [tablets] for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>[non-reading] purposes, like emails, social
>>>>>>>>>>>>media, web browsing, video, games.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>27 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>8
>>>>>>>>>>>>(stating that e-readers have “more-limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>capabilities, which often include monochrome
>>>>>>>>>>>>screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while
>>>>>>>>>>>>“[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full
>>>>>>>>>>>>Web browsing.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>13
>>>>>>>>>>>>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>15
>>>>>>>>>>>>; Sony Reader Product
>>>>>>>>>>>>Listing, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>17
>>>>>>>>>>>>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which
>>>>>>>>>>>>users and their pre-approved contacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>can e-mail
>>>>>>>>>>>>pre-existing document so that the documents can
>>>>>>>>>>>>be read on the Kindle. However, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>is a feature to facilitate
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink
>>>>>>>>>>>>format; it is not marketed as or useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>as a tool for real-time or near
>>>>>>>>>>>>real-time text-based communication between
>>>>>>>>>>>>individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>13
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>E-readers are not marketed based on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>ability to access ACS. The webpage listings
>>>>>>>>>>>>for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>>features such as e-mail, instant
>>>>>>>>>>>>messaging,
>>>>>>>>>>>>calling, VoIP, or interoperable video
>>>>>>>>>>>>conferencing (or video at all).
>>>>>>>>>>>>28
>>>>>>>>>>>>That is consistent with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading, not for general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>use. In fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>>>>>>distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>(so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>29 Reynolds, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>5
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>30 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>9
>>>>>>>>>>>>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested
>>>>>>>>>>>>in the tablet e-readers; I want a
>>>>>>>>>>>>dedicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading device without the distraction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast
>>>>>>>>>>>>and readability of e Ink. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>want access to the best and most varied content.
>>>>>>>>>>>>I want a battery life the length
>>>>>>>>>>>>of War and Peace (months). I want a
>>>>>>>>>>>>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite,
>>>>>>>>>>>>The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire
>>>>>>>>>>>>(May 23, 2011),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would
>>>>>>>>>>>>require fundamentally altering the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>and it may not be possible to meet that
>>>>>>>>>>>>requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>changes, if they were made, would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>yield a
>>>>>>>>>>>>meaningful benefit to individuals with
>>>>>>>>>>>>disabilities. As described above, e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>designed to provide ACS features and
>>>>>>>>>>>>applications. Any consumer who uses a browser
>>>>>>>>>>>>on an e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>reader to access ACS would have a very
>>>>>>>>>>>>low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>disabled persons on e-readers would impose
>>>>>>>>>>>>substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>licensing costs because the devices would first
>>>>>>>>>>>>have to be redesigned and optimized
>>>>>>>>>>>>for ACS. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>would be necessary to add hardware such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>speakers, more powerful processors, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>faster-
>>>>>>>>>>>>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>to revise the software interface in
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>build in infrastructure for ACS and then render
>>>>>>>>>>>>that infrastructure accessible. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>short, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>mandate would be to convert e-readers into
>>>>>>>>>>>>something they are not: a general purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>It is not merely cost but the very nature of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>specialized e-reader device that
>>>>>>>>>>>>is at issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new
>>>>>>>>>>>>software changes the fundamental nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>of e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>reader devices. A requirement to make these
>>>>>>>>>>>>changes would alter the devices’ form
>>>>>>>>>>>>factor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>weight, and battery life and could undercut the
>>>>>>>>>>>>distinctive features, advantages,
>>>>>>>>>>>>price point, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>viability of e-readers. In particular, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>higher power consumption necessary to
>>>>>>>>>>>>support a faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>refresh rate necessary for high-interaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>activities such as email would put e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>power
>>>>>>>>>>>>consumption on par with that of a tablet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>whereas today the lower power consumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>resulting far-longer battery life of
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers is a key selling point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>As a result of all of these changes, e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>would be far more similar to general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>tablets in design, features, battery life, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>cost, possibly rendering single-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own
>>>>>>>>>>>>both a tablet and an e-reader. According
>>>>>>>>>>>>to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>32
>>>>>>>>>>>>Consistent with this purchasing
>>>>>>>>>>>>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>assume that because you have [a tablet],
>>>>>>>>>>>>you don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Pew Internet & American
>>>>>>>>>>>>Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012,
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading-
>>>>>>>>>>>>declines/
>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>33 Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>5
>>>>>>>>>>>>. As explained below, this quote does not apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>to individuals who are blind or have
>>>>>>>>>>>>low
>>>>>>>>>>>>vision, for whom e-readers do not provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>additional functionality that is not available
>>>>>>>>>>>>from a more versatile
>>>>>>>>>>>>smartphone or tablet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>years include that “[t]he devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>looked sleeker, they were easier to
>>>>>>>>>>>>read, they weighed less, their pages turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>faster, and they held more books. Wireless
>>>>>>>>>>>>capability allowed users to
>>>>>>>>>>>>download novels, magazines and newspapers
>>>>>>>>>>>>wherever they were, whenever they wanted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and now the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>8
>>>>>>>>>>>>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>in e-readers, including touch-screen technology
>>>>>>>>>>>>and self-lighting screens.” Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>inclusion of an accessibility feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>in a product or service results in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>fundamental alteration of that product or
>>>>>>>>>>>>service, then it is per se not achievable
>>>>>>>>>>>>to include that accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>>>>>>>>>>>>14610. The House Report similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>>states that “if the inclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>of a feature in a product or service results in
>>>>>>>>>>>>a fundamental alteration of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>service or product, it is per se not
>>>>>>>>>>>>achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House
>>>>>>>>>>>>Report”). While the
>>>>>>>>>>>>achievability and primary purpose waiver
>>>>>>>>>>>>analyses differ, this demonstrates that
>>>>>>>>>>>>Congress and the Commission
>>>>>>>>>>>>recognize that requiring a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>alteration is not in the public interest or
>>>>>>>>>>>>consistent with the CVAA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010).
>>>>>>>>>>>>In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend
>>>>>>>>>>>>to mandate the effective elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>niche product primarily designed for non-ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>>uses merely because of the presence
>>>>>>>>>>>>of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>ancillary browser purpose-built to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading activities on some devices within
>>>>>>>>>>>>the class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>As both the Senate and House Reports explained
>>>>>>>>>>>>in describing the primary purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>waiver
>>>>>>>>>>>>provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or
>>>>>>>>>>>>example, a device designed for a purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>>to accessing advanced communications might also
>>>>>>>>>>>>provide, on an incidental basis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>access to such
>>>>>>>>>>>>services. In this case, the Commission may find
>>>>>>>>>>>>that to promote technological innovation
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>accessibility requirements need not apply.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>36
>>>>>>>>>>>>The example of e-readers is just the “incidental
>>>>>>>>>>>>basis” ACS that Congress intended for
>>>>>>>>>>>>the waiver provision to encompass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would
>>>>>>>>>>>>not substantially benefit individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>>>>disabilities. Persons with disabilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>>including individuals who are blind and
>>>>>>>>>>>>wish to access e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>books and other electronic publications, would
>>>>>>>>>>>>have a poor ACS experience even on
>>>>>>>>>>>>accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-reader devices. Because of the inherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>limitations of browsers in e-readers, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>fact that will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>change without a wholesale redesign of
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>>suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Further, individuals with disabilities have
>>>>>>>>>>>>accessible options today, and these
>>>>>>>>>>>>options will
>>>>>>>>>>>>soon expand significantly even if the waiver is
>>>>>>>>>>>>granted. For the niche purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>reading, high-
>>>>>>>>>>>>quality free alternatives to e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>same range of e-publications available
>>>>>>>>>>>>to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>owners of the respective companies’ e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>(and in some cases a greater range),
>>>>>>>>>>>>are available
>>>>>>>>>>>>for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>37
>>>>>>>>>>>>Makers of tablets, smartphones,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and computers are working actively to make their
>>>>>>>>>>>>general-purpose audio-enabled devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As
>>>>>>>>>>>>required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>>>these devices, all of which have integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>audio, speakers, high computing processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>power,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and applications that are optimized for ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Moreover, the accessibility that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>required by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of
>>>>>>>>>>>>these devices will support and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>accessibility features and capabilities that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>of value beyond the purely ACS context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>38
>>>>>>>>>>>>Put
>>>>>>>>>>>>simply, individuals with disabilities have
>>>>>>>>>>>>better ACS options on devices other than
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>37 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>9
>>>>>>>>>>>>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web
>>>>>>>>>>>>on all of the services but Sony
>>>>>>>>>>>>Reader. Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>>>>>>>>>>>>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers”
>>>>>>>>>>>>of devices and explaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>an advanced communications service,
>>>>>>>>>>>>all of these components may
>>>>>>>>>>>>have to support accessibility features and capabilities”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified
>>>>>>>>>>>>because, in contrast to other classes
>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>equipment for which temporary waivers have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>granted, e-readers are a well-established
>>>>>>>>>>>>class
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is not experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>“convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78,
>>>>>>>>>>>>12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>of convergence in classes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>devices for which waivers were granted).
>>>>>>>>>>>>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that
>>>>>>>>>>>>demand for e-readers will continue well
>>>>>>>>>>>>into the future. One study by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute
>>>>>>>>>>>>projects 23.0 million units of e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>sales worldwide in 2016. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments->http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments-
>>>>>>>>>>>>on-Rise/1009471
>>>>>>>>>>>>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million
>>>>>>>>>>>>units in
>>>>>>>>>>>>2016. See Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>5
>>>>>>>>>>>>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across
>>>>>>>>>>>>multiple generations is justified. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rcd at 14640.
>>>>>>>>>>>>* * *
>>>>>>>>>>>>For the reasons set forth above, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>consistent with Section 716 of the Act and
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>the Commission grant the e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>class waiver,
>>>>>>>>>>>>as is consistent with the public interest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Respectfully submitted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Gerard J. Waldron
>>>>>>>>>>>>Daniel H. Kahn
>>>>>>>>>>>>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>>>>>>>>>>>>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>>>>>>>>>>>>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
>>>>>>>>>>>>(202) 662-6000
>>>>>>>>>>>>Counsel for <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.;
>>>>>>>>>>>>and Sony Electronics Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>May 16, 2013
>>>>>>>>>>>>Displaying 2 comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast
>>>>>>>>>>>>yesterday 11:53 PM ET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>accessibility out of these devices. The claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>that incorporating accessibility will make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>e-book readers heavier and have less battery
>>>>>>>>>>>>life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many
>>>>>>>>>>>>examples of accessible mobile devices these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>which work perfectly and for which accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>is transparent or not even known to those not
>>>>>>>>>>>>needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>but your actions will reflect equally on you.
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast
>>>>>>>>>>>>today 2:25 PM ET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You must be logged in to post comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Share this Post
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>----------
>>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Scott
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list