[nfbcs] NFB & narrator
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Sun Aug 11 23:53:30 UTC 2013
Jim et al:
I will through one more word in here, we did not
make a decision -- we made a recommendation and the decision was Microsoft's.
Dave
At 06:20 PM 8/11/2013, you wrote:
>John, you seem to have a hard time absorbing
>what people are saying about this. The NFB
>didn't make a decision. Several NFB members
>happened to agree on a decision, that is not at
>all the same thing. I can't speak for Dave,
>Mike, Brian, or other NFB members; but I will
>say I absolutely think it was the right
>decision, even today. Of course, no one can
>predict alternate futures, so like many things
>we'll each have to go with the theory we trust
>most. I think if Microsoft had created a fully
>functional screen reader, there would have been
>a very good chance that Microsoft would have
>closed off access to features in the windows OS
>application stack that Henter Joyce was using to
>allow JAWS to manage its off-screen model. With
>the release of Windows 7, Microsoft has started
>closing off access to these features for
>security reasons. However, since there were
>outside dependencies on these features, they had
>to provide and publish workarounds. If I'm
>right, this would have had two very bad
>consequences... First, it would have removed all
>competition from the screen reader market. JAWS
>and Window Eyes would likely have gone out of
>business, since they could not continue
>development. It would have been Microsoft or
>nothing. A lot of what pushed JAWS innovation
>forward was the need to compete with window
>eyes. There would have been little to push
>Microsoft forward to innovate a better screen
>reader. Second, it would have stopped any
>attempts at an open source screen
>reader. Again, if a screen reader developer
>couldn't gain access to the events, indicators,
>and data structures necessary to track how
>applications and users communicate with each
>other, they could not build a screen reader such
>as NVDA. As for pointing at VoiceOver as an
>exemplar of a successful OS Vendor developed
>screen reader, then you really ought to make a
>fair comparison between JAWS and VoiceOver. If
>your needs are modest, then VoiceOver will meet
>them. If your needs are more constrained, then
>you'll find that VoiceOver won't meet them. I
>say this as a very competent voiceover user,
>both on my mac and my iPHone. I very much
>appreciate the work Apple has done, and really
>applaud their efforts. I personally don't
>think the NFB should be going after Apple the
>way we have been with several resolutions over
>the last few years. Since I haven't closed every
>argument or made every point, You and I could
>argue this back and forth for a while. Rest
>assured I won't participate in a back and forth
>for long. You asked Mike a reasonable question
>and I decided to provide you with my own answer.
>Take Care, Jim Barbour On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at
>03:00:03PM -0500, John G. Heim wrote: > Mike,
>I'm not sanctimonious. It's just that facts are
>facts. I can > understand that you don't want to
>acknowledge the truth but there is no > reason
>to insult me. Let me ask you something, Mike. Do
>you still think the > NFB made the right
>decision? I don't mean did it seem right at the
>time. > With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, do
>you think that decision was right? > Because I
>think it is pretty obvious that it was not
>right. > > Voiceover has been a huge boon to the
>visually impaired. Perhaps you can say >
>Microsoft would have screwed it up and an
>improved narrator wouldn't have > been as good
>as Apple's voiceover. But the fact is that I was
>upset with > NFB's position for pretty much all
>the reasons so many people love Voiceover >
>today. I'd love to give myself credit for also
>have anticipated that there > would be free
>screen readers available anyway no matter what
>Microsoft did. > That's another reason the NFB
>decision looks wrong. But I didn't argue that >
>at the time. I only said that the benefits of
>having a free screen reader, > written by
>Microsoft outweighed the risk to Freedom
>Scientific. > > > > On 08/10/2013 04:20 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/documen
>t/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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>Communicat
>ions Act of 1934, as Enacted by the
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Twenty-First Century
>Communications and Video
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Accessibility Act of 2010
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>P
>etition 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>Communicat
>ions Act of 1934, as Enacted by the
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Twenty-First Century
>Communications and Video
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Accessibility Act of 2010
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>P
>etition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>of the Communications Act and
>Part 14 of the ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Commission’s
>Rules Requiring Access to
>) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Advanced Communications Services
>(ACS) and ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>Equipment by People
>with Disabilities ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: Chief,
>Consumer and Governmental Affairs
>Bureau > >>>>>>>>>>>>PETITION FOR
>WAIVER > >>>>>>>>>>>>I. INTRODUCTION AND
>SUMMARY > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
>617(h)(1) and 47 > >>>>>>>>>>>>C.F.R. §§ 1.3,
>14.5, the Coalition of
>E-Reader > >>>>>>>>>>>>Manufacturers > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>(hereinafter,
>“Coalitionâ€)
>respectfully > >>>>>>>>>>>>requests that the
>Commission waive the > >>>>>>>>>>>>accessibility
>requirements for equipment
>used > >>>>>>>>>>>>for advanced communications
>services > >>>>>>>>>>>>(ACS) for > >>>>>>>>>>>>a
>single class of equipment: e-readers.
>This > >>>>>>>>>>>>Petition demonstrates that
>e-readers > >>>>>>>>>>>>are
>devices > >>>>>>>>>>>>designed, built, and
>marketed for a single > >>>>>>>>>>>>primary
>purpose: to read written
>material > >>>>>>>>>>>>such
>as > >>>>>>>>>>>>books, magazines, newspapers,
>and other text > >>>>>>>>>>>>documents on a
>mobile electronic
>device. > >>>>>>>>>>>>The > >>>>>>>>>>>>public
>interest would be served by granting
>this > >>>>>>>>>>>>petition because the
>theoretical > >>>>>>>>>>>>ACS ability of
>e- > >>>>>>>>>>>>readers is irrelevant to how
>the overwhelming > >>>>>>>>>>>>majority of users
>actually use
>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>devices. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Moreover
>, the features and content available
>on > >>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers are available on a
>wide > >>>>>>>>>>>>range of
>multi- > >>>>>>>>>>>>1 The Coalition of E-Reader
>Manufacturers > >>>>>>>>>>>>consists of
><http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo
>Inc.; > >>>>>>>>>>>>and Sony Electronics
>Inc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>purpose equipment, including
>tablets, phones, > >>>>>>>>>>>>and computers,
>all of which
>possess > >>>>>>>>>>>>integrated > >>>>>>>>>>>>au
>dio, 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>c
>omputing, 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>sess
>ions. They also facilitate acquisition
>of > >>>>>>>>>>>>e-publications and their user
>interfaces, > >>>>>>>>>>>>both > >>>>>>>>>>>>hard
>ware and software features, are
>designed > >>>>>>>>>>>>around reading as the
>primary user
>function. > >>>>>>>>>>>>As > >>>>>>>>>>>>explaine
>d 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>Seve
>n > >>>>>>>>>>>>years is a long time in the
>modern digital age, > >>>>>>>>>>>>and the public
>understands that
>although > >>>>>>>>>>>>e-readers > >>>>>>>>>>>>ma
>y 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.n
>et/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/5970
>460/5-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.consumerrep
>orts.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-re
>asons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Wik
>ipedia, 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.or
>g/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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>usingâ€
>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
>poweer 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_you
>r_eyes/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>(last visited May 16,
>2013) (“E-readers have > >>>>>>>>>>>>improved
>the level of
>text/background > >>>>>>>>>>>>contrast, and the
>matte quality of the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>can
>reduce glare even in bright
>sunlight.â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>8 See Greg
>Bensinger, The E-Reader
>Revolution: > >>>>>>>>>>>>Over Just as It Has
>Begun?, Wall St. > >>>>>>>>>>>>J., Jan. 4,
>2013, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><http://online.wsj.com/ar
>ticle/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.h
> > >tml>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241
>2788732387420457821983416057301 > >0.html > >>>>>
> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>(stating that compared
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>tablets, “dedicated e-readers
>have . . . a > >>>>>>>>>>>>different style of
>display [that] improves > >>>>>>>>>>>>their
>battery lifeâ€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>9 See John P.
>Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs.
>iPad: > >>>>>>>>>>>>Which E-book Reader Should
>You Buy?, > >>>>>>>>>>>>CNET (Dec. 17,
>2012), > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><http://news.cnet.com/83
>01-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which
> > >-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cn
>et.com/8301-17938_105-20009738- > >1/kindle-vs-no
>ok-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.itsworthnoti
>ng.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/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>(â€
>œWith an eReader, you > >>>>>>>>>>>>can
>effortlessly highlight and comment as
>you > >>>>>>>>>>>>read and either share quotes
>or musings > >>>>>>>>>>>>real time. . .
>.â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>11 Falcone, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>9 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>12 See Barrett, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>5 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>Product reviews emphasize the centrality
>of > >>>>>>>>>>>>reading to the design of
>e-readers. > >>>>>>>>>>>>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instan
>ce, 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>Consi
>stent with these features, e-readers
>are > >>>>>>>>>>>>marketed to readers with one
>activity > >>>>>>>>>>>>in > >>>>>>>>>>>>mind:
>reading. For example, on the
>Amazon > >>>>>>>>>>>>product listing for the 5th
>generation > >>>>>>>>>>>>Kindle
>E- > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the
>top of the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the
>device contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of
>the page > >>>>>>>>>>>>describing the device
>contain phrases > >>>>>>>>>>>>referring
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>books or reading, including
>“lighter than a > >>>>>>>>>>>>paperback,â€
>“for easier reading,â€
>“[r]eads > >>>>>>>>>>>>like
>paper,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[d]ownload books,â€
>“[h]olds over 1,000
>books,†> >>>>>>>>>>>>“[m]assive book
>selection,†“books > >>>>>>>>>>>>by
>best- > >>>>>>>>>>>>selling authors,â€
>“[s]upports children’s books,†and
>“[l]ending > >>>>>>>>>>>>[l]ibrary.†> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink
>Product
>Listing, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><http://www.amazon.com
>/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/>http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ
> > >ct/B007HCCNJU/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>(
>last > >>>>>>>>>>>>visited May 16,
>2013). > >>>>>>>>>>>>14 Id. > >>>>>>>>>>>>15
>Kobo Aura HD
>Overview, > >>>>>>>>>>>><http://www.kobo.com/kobo
>aurahd>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>(last visited May 16,
>2013). > >>>>>>>>>>>>16 Sony
>Reader, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><https://ebookstore.son
>y.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/ > >CategoryDispla
>y?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=- > >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>1&identifier=S_Portable_Rea
>der > >>>>>>>>>>>>(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/r
>esearch/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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>Indicati
>ve of the utility of e-readers > >>>>>>>>>>>>for
>reading, multiple studies show that
>reading > >>>>>>>>>>>>electronically on an
>e-reader increases > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>amount > >>>>>>>>>>>>of time individuals spend
>reading. > >>>>>>>>>>>>for reading, multiple
>studies show that
>reading > >>>>>>>>>>>>electronically on an
>e-reader increases > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>amount > >>>>>>>>>>>>of time individuals spend
>reading. > >>>>>>>>>>>>for reading, multiple
>studies show that
>reading > >>>>>>>>>>>>electronically on an
>e-reader increases > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>amount > >>>>>>>>>>>>of time individuals spend
>reading. > >>>>>>>>>>>>19 See id. (“E-readers
>have a positive impact on > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>amount people read.â€); Lee
>Rainie > >>>>>>>>>>>>et al., Pew Internet
>& > >>>>>>>>>>>>American Life Project, The Rise
>of E-Reading, Apr. 4,
>2012, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><http://libraries.pewinte
>rnet.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.â€); > >>>>>>>>>>>>Geoffrey A. Fowler &
>Marie C. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Baca, The ABCs of
>E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24,
>2010, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><http://online.wsj.com/ar
>ticle/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.h
> > >tml>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240
>5274870384660457544809317575887 > >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.â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>20
>Bensinger, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will
>Help > >>>>>>>>>>>>You Choose Between Tablet and
>E-reader, > >>>>>>>>>>>>eBook Friendly
>(Apr. > >>>>>>>>>>>>8,
>2013), > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ><http://e
>bookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/>http:/
> > >/ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-eread
>er-questionnaire/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>(â
>€œE-paper screens are not meant
>for > >>>>>>>>>>>>active usage  their refresh
>rate is too low.â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>22
>Bensinger, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>(stating
>that, unlike e-readers, “ever
>cheaper > >>>>>>>>>>>>tablet computers can be
>used . . > >>>>>>>>>>>>. as
>Web > >>>>>>>>>>>>browsers, game consoles and
>camerasâ€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>23 See, e.g., Kindle
>5th Generation E-Ink, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>13 > >>>>>>>>>>>>(comparing
>hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader
>versus > >>>>>>>>>>>>tablet
>devices). > >>>>>>>>>>>>24 See, e.g.,
>id. > >>>>>>>>>>>>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed
>or Marketed for ACS > >>>>>>>>>>>>E-readers are
>not general-purpose devices
>and > >>>>>>>>>>>>lack the features and broad
>capabilities > >>>>>>>>>>>>of > >>>>>>>>>>>>table
>ts. Instead, as discussed above, they
>are > >>>>>>>>>>>>optimized only for reading and
>obtaining > >>>>>>>>>>>>reading > >>>>>>>>>>>>mat
>erial. Features common to tablets that
>e-readers > >>>>>>>>>>>>consistently
>lack > >>>>>>>>>>>>include: > >>>>>>>>>>>>•
>Coolor screens; > >>>>>>>>>>>>20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>•
>Screens wwith fast refresh rates sufficient for
>interaction > >>>>>>>>>>>>and
>video; > >>>>>>>>>>>>21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>•
>Cameeras; > >>>>>>>>>>>>22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>•
>High-capacity stoorage sufficient for multimedia
>files; > >>>>>>>>>>>>23 > >>>>>>>>>>>>and > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>• Higher-powered CPU proccessors and GPU
>processors
>for > >>>>>>>>>>>>accelerated > >>>>>>>>>>>>graph
>ics. > >>>>>>>>>>>>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.co
>m/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research->http://www.st
> > >aples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-resear
>ch- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>centers/tablets/
>tablets-versus-ereaders.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>(last
>visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far
>more > >>>>>>>>>>>>options
>for > >>>>>>>>>>>>multimedia as well. They can
>upload and play > >>>>>>>>>>>>audio and of
>course video . . . .â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>26 See,
>e.g., Kowalczyk, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>21 > >>>>>>>>>>>>(“You can
>use [tablets] for
>other > >>>>>>>>>>>>[non-reading] purposes, like
>emails, social > >>>>>>>>>>>>media, web
>browsing, video, games.â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>27
>Bensinger, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>(stating that
>e-readers have
>“more-limited > >>>>>>>>>>>>capabilities,
>which often include
>monochrome > >>>>>>>>>>>>screens and rudimentary
>Web surfing†while > >>>>>>>>>>>>“[t]ablet
>computers . . . have . . .
>full > >>>>>>>>>>>>Web
>browsing.â€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>28 See, e.g.,
>Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>13 > >>>>>>>>>>>>; Kobo Aura
>HD, supra note > >>>>>>>>>>>>15 > >>>>>>>>>>>>;
>Sony Reader Product > >>>>>>>>>>>>Listing, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>17 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. Kindle
>e-readers offer a feature by
>which > >>>>>>>>>>>>users and their pre-approved
>contacts > >>>>>>>>>>>>can
>e-mail > >>>>>>>>>>>>pre-existing document so
>that the documents can > >>>>>>>>>>>>be read on
>the Kindle. However, this > >>>>>>>>>>>>is a
>feature to facilitate > >>>>>>>>>>>>reading of
>pre-existing documents in an
>E-Ink > >>>>>>>>>>>>format; it is not marketed
>as or useful > >>>>>>>>>>>>as a tool for
>real-time or near > >>>>>>>>>>>>real-time
>text-based communication
>between > >>>>>>>>>>>>individuals. See Kindle
>5th Generation > >>>>>>>>>>>>E-Ink, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>13 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>E-readers are not marketed based on
>their > >>>>>>>>>>>>ability to access ACS. The
>webpage listings > >>>>>>>>>>>>for e-readers do
>not mention or describe any
>ACS > >>>>>>>>>>>>features such as e-mail,
>instant > >>>>>>>>>>>>messaging, > >>>>>>>>>>>>ca
>lling, 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>distractio
>n rather than as a limitation.
>For > >>>>>>>>>>>>instance, Paul Reynolds of
>Consumer > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reports > >>>>>>>>>>>>expl
>ains 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.co
>m/2011/chapter-electronic-reade > >rs-kobo-introd
>uces-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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>disabl
>ed persons on e-readers would
>impose > >>>>>>>>>>>>substantial and ongoing
>engineering,
>hardware, > >>>>>>>>>>>>and > >>>>>>>>>>>>licensi
>ng 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- > >>>>>>>>>>>>refreshin
>g 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>consum
>ption on par with that of a
>tablet, > >>>>>>>>>>>>whereas today the lower
>power
>consumption > >>>>>>>>>>>>and > >>>>>>>>>>>>resul
>ting 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.pewinte
>rnet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book
> > >-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/20
>12/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-p > >rint-book-read
>ing- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>declines/ > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>. > >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>need [an
>e-reader].†> >>>>>>>>>>>>33 Barrett, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>5 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. As
>explained below, this quote does not
>apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>to individuals who are blind
>or have > >>>>>>>>>>>>low > >>>>>>>>>>>>vision,
>for whom e-readers do not
>provide > >>>>>>>>>>>>additional functionality
>that is not available > >>>>>>>>>>>>from a more
>versatile > >>>>>>>>>>>>smartphone or
>tablet. > >>>>>>>>>>>>34 Innovations developed
>for e-readers in recent > >>>>>>>>>>>>years
>include that “[t]he
>devices > >>>>>>>>>>>>looked sleeker, they were
>easier to > >>>>>>>>>>>>read, they weighed less,
>their pages turned > >>>>>>>>>>>>faster, and
>they held more books.
>Wireless > >>>>>>>>>>>>capability allowed users
>to > >>>>>>>>>>>>download novels, magazines and
>newspapers > >>>>>>>>>>>>wherever they were,
>whenever they wanted, > >>>>>>>>>>>>and now the
>devices > >>>>>>>>>>>>allow for reading in the
>dark.†Bensinger, supra
>note > >>>>>>>>>>>>8 > >>>>>>>>>>>>. More
>recently, “[t]here have also been major
>improvements > >>>>>>>>>>>>in e-readers,
>including touch-screen
>technology > >>>>>>>>>>>>and self-lighting
>screens.†Id. > >>>>>>>>>>>>35 The Commission
>has recognized that “if
>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>inclusion of an accessibility
>feature > >>>>>>>>>>>>in a product or service
>results in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>fundamental
>alteration of that product
>or > >>>>>>>>>>>>service, then it is per se not
>achievable > >>>>>>>>>>>>to include that
>accessibility > >>>>>>>>>>>>function.†ACS
>Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd
>at > >>>>>>>>>>>>14610. The House Report
>similarly > >>>>>>>>>>>>states that “if the
>inclusion > >>>>>>>>>>>>of a feature in a
>product or service results in > >>>>>>>>>>>>a
>fundamental alteration of
>that > >>>>>>>>>>>>service or product, it is per
>se not > >>>>>>>>>>>>achievable to include that
>feature.†H.R. Rep. > >>>>>>>>>>>>No. 111-563,
>at 24-25 (2010)
>(“House > >>>>>>>>>>>>Reportâ€). While
>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>achievability and primary
>purpose waiver > >>>>>>>>>>>>analyses differ,
>this demonstrates that > >>>>>>>>>>>>Congress
>and the Commission > >>>>>>>>>>>>recognize that
>requiring a fundamental > >>>>>>>>>>>>alteration
>is not in the public interest
>or > >>>>>>>>>>>>consistent with the
>CVAA. > >>>>>>>>>>>>36 House Report at 26; S.
>Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010). > >>>>>>>>>>>>In
>enacting the CVAA, Congress did not
>intend > >>>>>>>>>>>>to mandate the effective
>elimination > >>>>>>>>>>>>of
>a > >>>>>>>>>>>>niche product primarily designed
>for non-ACS > >>>>>>>>>>>>uses merely because of
>the presence > >>>>>>>>>>>>of
>an > >>>>>>>>>>>>ancillary browser purpose-built
>to support > >>>>>>>>>>>>reading activities on
>some devices within > >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>class. > >>>>>>>>>>>>As both the Senate and
>House Reports explained > >>>>>>>>>>>>in
>describing the primary
>purpose > >>>>>>>>>>>>waiver > >>>>>>>>>>>>provis
>ion 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>access
>ibility 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>disa
>bilities. 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-reade
>r 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 capabilitiesâ€). > >>>>>>>>>>>>A
>waiver of the Commission’s rule is
>justified > >>>>>>>>>>>>because, in contrast to
>other
>classes > >>>>>>>>>>>>of > >>>>>>>>>>>>equipment
>for which temporary waivers have
>been > >>>>>>>>>>>>granted, e-readers are a
>well-established > >>>>>>>>>>>>class > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>that is not experiencing “convergenceâ€
>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.co
>m/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://ww
>w.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.blindbargai
>ns.com/b/9286>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Scott > >> > >> > >>_
>______________________________________________ >
> >>nfbcs mailing
>list > >>nfbcs at nfbnet.org > >>http://nfbnet.org/m
>ailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org > >>To
>unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info
>for > >>nfbcs: > >>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/opti
>ons/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.edu > >> >
> > > >__________________________________________
>_____ > >nfbcs mailing
>list > >nfbcs at nfbnet.org > >http://nfbnet.org/mai
>lman/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/mai
>lman/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/jbar%40barcore.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/dandrews%40visi.com
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list