[nfbcs] NFB & narrator
Gabe Vega
theblindtech at gmail.com
Sun Aug 11 23:54:40 UTC 2013
so based on your logic, what pushes apple to inprove voice over release after release?
Gabe Vega
CEO
Commtech LLC
Web: http://commtechusa.net
FaceBook: http://facebook.com/commtechllc
Twitter: http://twitter.com/commtechllc
Email: info at commtechusa.net
Phone: (888) 351-5289 ext. 710
Fax: (480) 535-7649
On Aug 11, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> 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/document/view?id=7022314526>link to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .PDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20554
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the Matter of )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-213
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twenty-First Century Communications and Video )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accessibility Act of 2010 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equipment by People with Disabilities )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COALITION OF E-READER MANUFACTURERS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETITION FOR WAIVER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerard J. Waldron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel H. Kahn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (202) 662-6000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manufacturers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 16, 2013
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TABLE OF CONTENTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ............................................................................
>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...........................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...............................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reading ..............................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS ...............................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20554
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the Matter of )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-213
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twenty-First Century Communications and Video )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accessibility Act of 2010 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equipment by People with Disabilities )
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETITION FOR WAIVER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the Coalition of E-Reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manufacturers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests that the Commission waive the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility requirements for equipment used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for advanced communications services
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ACS) for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single class of equipment: e-readers. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petition demonstrates that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed, built, and marketed for a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary purpose: to read written material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books, magazines, newspapers, and other text
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents on a mobile electronic device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interest would be served by granting this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> petition because the theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS ability of e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of users actually use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the features and content available on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers are available on a wide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of multi-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consists of <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Sony Electronics Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose equipment, including tablets, phones,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and computers, all of which possess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio, speakers, high computing processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power, and applications that are optimized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As explained below, e-readers are a distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class of equipment built for the specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of reading. They are designed with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special features optimized for the reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience and are marketed as devices for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading. Although they have a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shape and size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack many of tablets’ features for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing, including ACS functions. E-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply are not designed, built, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS, and the public understands the distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between e-readers and general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Granting the petition is in the public interest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because rendering ACS accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would require fundamentally altering the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be more like general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets in cost,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form factor, weight, user interface, and reduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery life, and yet the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were made, would not yield a meaningful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit to individuals with disabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Commission requires that a class waiver be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable to a “carefully defined”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of devices that “share common defining characteristics.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are such a class. E-readers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronic devices that are designed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketed and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used primarily for the purpose of reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital documents, including e-books and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> periodicals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The noteworthy features of e-readers include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronic ink screens optimized for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Act of 1934, as Enacted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Twenty-First Century Communications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. 10-213, WT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rulemaking, 26 FCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rcd 14557, 14639 (2011) [hereinafter ACS Report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Order]; Implementation of Sections
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 716 and 717 of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twenty-First Century Communications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Video Accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waivers of Sections 716 and 717
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Communications Act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Access to Advanced Communications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Services (ACS) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equipment by People with Disabilities, Order, 27
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) [hereinafter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waiver Order].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to view books, magazines, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newspapers in a digital format.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-E-reader.htm>http://www.wisegeek.com/wha
>>> t-is-an-E-reader.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including in direct sunlight) and designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimize eye strain during extended
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-publications and their user interfaces,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardware and software features, are designed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around reading as the primary user function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained more fully below, another important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of e-readers is the features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain, which distinguishes them from general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose devices such as tablets. Examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers include the Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Kobo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in the U.S. utilizing electronic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that time the number of manufacturers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models has expanded substantially.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years is a long time in the modern digital age,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the public understands that although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be somewhat similar in shape and size to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general-purpose tablets, e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aimed at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technology Innovation Librarian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nebraska Library Commission,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oct. 14, 2011),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders>http://
>>> www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction. See, e.g., Brian Barrett,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets>ht
>>> tp://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tablets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buy an E-book Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://ConsumerReports.org/>ConsumerReports.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apr. 22, 2013),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-t
>>> ide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.org/electronic
>>> s/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore a useful measure of conventional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding, differentiates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers from tablets, explaining that, among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other differences, “[t]ablet computers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . . . are more versatile, allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one to consume multiple types of content . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .” It states that “[a]n e-book reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also called an e-book device or e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader, is a mobile electronic device that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed primarily for the purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of reading digital e-books and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> periodicals.” Wikipedia, E-Book Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using” ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are designed to be used for reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, they are marketed as tools for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading is their predominant use. Conversely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers are not designed or marketed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as tools for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features in e-readers are designed and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around reading as the primary function. Features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that e-readers possess for reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Low power consumption and extremely long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery life to facilitate long reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sessions and use during extended travel;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Navigation that place reading features,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including e-publication acquisition, front
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and center;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Built-in reading tools such as highlighting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bookmarking, and lookup features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Medcan Clinic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.medcan.com/articles/e->http://www.medcan.com/articles/e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers_better_for_your_eyes/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improved the level of text/background
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrast, and the matte quality of the screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J., Jan. 4, 2013,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573010.h
>>> tml>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732387420457821983416057301
>>> 0.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stating that compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different style of display [that] improves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their battery life”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CNET (Dec. 17, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which
>>> -e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-
>>> 1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (noting that an advantage of e-readers is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer distracting features not focused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on reading).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Leadership Tool (Sept. 13, 2010),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-l
>>> eadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or
>>> -ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (“With an eReader, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can effortlessly highlight and comment as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read and either share quotes or musings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real time. . . .”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 See Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Product reviews emphasize the centrality of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading to the design of e-readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, technology review site CNET explains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that “[i]f you want to stick with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘just reading’ . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that e-readers “do one thing well . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading. And that’s a blessing.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consistent with these features, e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketed to readers with one activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product listing for the 5th generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindle E-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the device contain phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books or reading, including “lighter than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like paper,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[m]assive book selection,” “books
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by best-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [l]ibrary.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/>http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ
>>> ct/B007HCCNJU/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 Kobo Aura HD Overview,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16 Sony Reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17 Sony Reader Product Listing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=1
>>> 0551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/
>>> CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pd
>>> f>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.p
>>> df
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not surprisingly based on this design and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marketing, e-readers are used overwhelmingly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communications marketplace in the U.K. states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “almost all consumers use their e-reader to read books.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indicative of the utility of e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for reading, multiple studies show that reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronically on an e-reader increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time individuals spend reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount people read.”); Lee Rainie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> et al., Pew Internet &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Life Project, The Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of->http://libraries.p
>>> ewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-reading/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading devices are reading a book,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 45% of the general book-reading public who are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading a book on a typical day.”);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.h
>>> tml>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870384660457544809317575887
>>> 2.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (explaining that a study of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Resources Inc. concludes that “[p]eople
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who buy e-readers tend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spend more time than ever with their nose in a book.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You Choose Between Tablet and E-reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eBook Friendly (Apr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8, 2013),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/>http:/
>>> /ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (“E-paper screens are not meant for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active usage their refresh rate is too low.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablet computers can be used . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . as Web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browsers, game consoles and cameras”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablet devices).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 24 See, e.g., id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are not general-purpose devices and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack the features and broad capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimized only for reading and obtaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material. Features common to tablets that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Color screens;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and video;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Cameras;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 23
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> • Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microphones or quality speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Examination of an e-reader establishes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these devices are not designed with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an intended feature, even on a secondary basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These purposeful hardware limitations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers cannot display videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality, and most cannot generate audio output or record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research->http://www.st
>>> aples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multimedia as well. They can upload and play
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio and of course video . . . .”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (“You can use [tablets] for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> media, web browsing, video, games.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 27 Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stating that e-readers have “more-limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities, which often include monochrome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “[t]ablet computers . . . have . . . full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web browsing.”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ; Kobo Aura HD, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ; Sony Reader Product
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listing, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users and their pre-approved contacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can e-mail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-existing document so that the documents can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be read on the Kindle. However, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a feature to facilitate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format; it is not marketed as or useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a tool for real-time or near
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real-time text-based communication between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Ink, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-readers are not marketed based on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to access ACS. The webpage listings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features such as e-mail, instant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messaging,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling, VoIP, or interoperable video conferencing (or video
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is consistent with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading, not for general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use. In fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many view the absence of robust communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools on e-readers as a welcome break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction rather than as a limitation. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains that “I read with fewer interruptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so more rapidly) on a reader--since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily distract myself by checking e-mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news headlines with a tap or two.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 29 Reynolds, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the tablet e-readers; I want a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading device without the distraction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter or games or email. I want the contrast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and readability of e Ink. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want access to the best and most varied content.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want a battery life the length
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of War and Peace (months). I want a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jane, This is My Next: Kindle Paperwhite,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite>
>>> http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperwhite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, Geekwire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (May 23, 2011),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduces-tou
>>> ch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-reade
>>> rs-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rendering ACS accessible on e-readers would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require fundamentally altering the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it may not be possible to meet that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement and maintain e-readers as inexpensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mobile reading devices, and yet the necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes, if they were made, would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yield a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful benefit to individuals with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disabilities. As described above, e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to provide ACS features and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications. Any consumer who uses a browser
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on an e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader to access ACS would have a very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disabled persons on e-readers would impose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial and ongoing engineering, hardware,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licensing costs because the devices would first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be redesigned and optimized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ACS. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be necessary to add hardware such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers, more powerful processors, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refreshing screens. It also would be necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to revise the software interface in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build in infrastructure for ACS and then render
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that infrastructure accessible. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandate would be to convert e-readers into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something they are not: a general purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not merely cost but the very nature of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialized e-reader device that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is at issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a substantial range of hardware and new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software changes the fundamental nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader devices. A requirement to make these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes would alter the devices’ form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight, and battery life and could undercut the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinctive features, advantages,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> price point, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viability of e-readers. In particular, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher power consumption necessary to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support a faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refresh rate necessary for high-interaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities such as email would put e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumption on par with that of a tablet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas today the lower power consumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result of all of these changes, e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be far more similar to general-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets in design, features, battery life, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost, possibly rendering single-purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redundant. Today, many Americans choose to own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both a tablet and an e-reader. According
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans age 16 and older own an e-reader,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader and a tablet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 32
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consistent with this purchasing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that because you have [a tablet],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pew Internet & American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book
>>> -reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-p
>>> rint-book-reading-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declines/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need [an e-reader].”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 33 Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . As explained below, this quote does not apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to individuals who are blind or have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vision, for whom e-readers do not provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional functionality that is not available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a more versatile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smartphone or tablet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years include that “[t]he devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked sleeker, they were easier to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read, they weighed less, their pages turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, and they held more books. Wireless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability allowed users to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download novels, magazines and newspapers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherever they were, whenever they wanted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and now the devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow for reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in e-readers, including touch-screen technology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-lighting screens.” Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 35 The Commission has recognized that “if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inclusion of an accessibility feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a product or service results in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental alteration of that product or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service, then it is per se not achievable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include that accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14610. The House Report similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that “if the inclusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a feature in a product or service results in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental alteration of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service or product, it is per se not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achievable to include that feature.” H.R. Rep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Report”). While the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achievability and primary purpose waiver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyses differ, this demonstrates that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress and the Commission
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize that requiring a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alteration is not in the public interest or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with the CVAA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mandate the effective elimination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> niche product primarily designed for non-ACS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses merely because of the presence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ancillary browser purpose-built to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading activities on some devices within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As both the Senate and House Reports explained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in describing the primary purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, a device designed for a purpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accessing advanced communications might also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide, on an incidental basis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services. In this case, the Commission may find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to promote technological innovation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility requirements need not apply.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 36
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The example of e-readers is just the “incidental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis” ACS that Congress intended for the waiver provision to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encompass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not substantially benefit individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disabilities. Persons with disabilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including individuals who are blind and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wish to access e-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books and other electronic publications, would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a poor ACS experience even on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-reader devices. Because of the inherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limitations of browsers in e-readers, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change without a wholesale redesign of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suboptimal whether a user has disabilities or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, individuals with disabilities have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible options today, and these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon expand significantly even if the waiver is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granted. For the niche purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading, high-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality free alternatives to e-readers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same range of e-publications available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners of the respective companies’ e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and in some cases a greater range),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for free on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 37
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Makers of tablets, smartphones,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and computers are working actively to make their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general-purpose audio-enabled devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these devices, all of which have integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audio, speakers, high computing processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and applications that are optimized for ACS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the accessibility that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these devices will support and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility features and capabilities that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of value beyond the purely ACS context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 38
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply, individuals with disabilities have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better ACS options on devices other than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 37 Falcone, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Additionally, users can read books via the Web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on all of the services but Sony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reader. Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of devices and explaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an advanced communications service,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of these components may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to support accessibility features and capabilities”).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because, in contrast to other classes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equipment for which temporary waivers have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granted, e-readers are a well-established
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12981, 12990-91 (describing possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of convergence in classes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices for which waivers were granted).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40 Moreover, it is generally expected that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demand for e-readers will continue well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the future. One study by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects 23.0 million units of e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sales worldwide in 2016. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 8, 2012),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments->http://www.emarketer.co
>>> m/Article/Ereader-Shipments-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on-Rise/1009471
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . A different study by IHS iSuppli projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldwide sales of e-readers at 7.1 million
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016. See Barrett, supra note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Assessing the more pessimistic of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> studies, Gizmodo concludes that e-readers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going anywhere.” Id.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple generations is justified. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rcd at 14640.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the reasons set forth above, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with Section 716 of the Act and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Commission grant the e-reader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class waiver,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as is consistent with the public interest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerard J. Waldron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel H. Kahn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (202) 662-6000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Counsel for <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Sony Electronics Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 16, 2013
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Displaying 2 comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast yesterday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:53 PM ET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility out of these devices. The claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that incorporating accessibility will make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-book readers heavier and have less battery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is utterly ridiculous. There are so many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples of accessible mobile devices these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which work perfectly and for which accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is transparent or not even known to those not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needing it. Amazon and Sony, do what you wish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but your actions will reflect equally on you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2:25 PM ET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must be logged in to post comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Share this Post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/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/theblindtech%40gmail.com
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list