[nfbmi-talk] Fw: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY

Sat Aug 31 15:44:57 UTC 2013

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Yingling, Valerie (by way of David Andrews<dandrews at visi.com>) 
To: nfbnet-members-list at nfbnet.org 
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 20:41
Subject: [Nfbnet-members-list] URGENT: WE NEED LETTERS TO MAKE E-READERS ACCESSIBLE BY LABOR DAY

We understand that some members may have had difficulty opening the previously attached documents.  If so, please reference the documents' text, per the link included below, the attached Word documents, and the embedded text after the message of this e-mail.  

This letter was originally sent to the legislative directors but we are circulating it to the entire membership for maximum outreach:

We need your help!  The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers has submitted a Petition for Waiver to the FCC asking that e-readers be exempt from the Twenty First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) accessibility requirements.  Please view the petition at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526.  NFB has written an opposition to the request, and we are asking other groups to sign on.  The text of this opposition is included, below and attached.  But the FCC needs to hear from our members - blind people who want access to e-readers - and the more people they hear from, the better.  We are asking all Legislative Directors to find people in their respective affiliates to edit the skeleton letter (included below and attached) and return it to us.  The letter is already formatted and has an outline, but it is up to each person to make it personal and select which talking points they want to use.  Finished letters should be sent to Valerie Yingling at vyingling at nfb.org by 8pm on Monday, September 2.  Valerie will proofread each document to make sure there are no typos and the customized points are still on message, and then we will submit the letters all at once when they are due on September 3rd.  We are short on time but I trust that this issue is pressing to our membership and we will get a good amount of letters.  

For some background:  The CVAA requires that all mobile devices with advanced communications services (ACS) be accessible to blind people, but the law allows manufacturers to request a waiver for equipment that is not intended for ACS.  The Coalition (comprised of Amazon, Sony and Kobo) claims that the primary purpose of e-readers is reading, and that the ACS found in e-readers is so incidental and ancillary that it is not an intended purpose of the device.  We know this is not true - e-readers are outfitted with built-in web browsers and designed for social media.  The Coalition also claims that to make e-readers accessible would require a fundamental overhaul that would render e-readers obsolete, harm the public interest, and not provide substantial benefit to blind people.  We know that this offensive claim is also not true.  It is critical that the FCC hear from all of us - it is the only thing that can defeat the petition.  Regulation is legislation's sister, so I know we can count on all of you to get a good amount of feedback to the FCC.  If you have any questions, don't hesitate to email me or Valerie.   Looking forward to seeing everyone's letters.  

Cheers,
Lauren

Lauren McLarney
Government Affairs Specialist
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
200 East Wells St.
Baltimore, MD 21230
(410) 659 9314 ext. 2207
lmclarney at nfb.org

Opposition to Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers' Petition

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of 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 Opposition to Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers' 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

Submitted by:

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

September 3, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 

II. E-READERS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A WAIVER...........2
A.    E-readers employ ACS as a co-primary purpose. ...............3
B.    ACS features are marketed as desirable uses of an e-reader.........................................4 

III. THE WAIVER PETITION IS INVALID..................................................................................5 

IV. GRANTING THE WAIVER WOULD HARM THE PUBLIC...........................7

V.  CONCLUSION..............................9 

COMMENTS

I.                INTRODUCTION 

On May 16, 2013, the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers ("the Coalition") submitted a Petition for Waiver ("the Petition") requesting an exemption for e-readers from accessibility requirements under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).  The National Federation of the Blind [and whoever else signs on] objects to this request, and strongly urges the Commission to reject the Petition.  
The Coalition argues that it is entitled to a waiver because CVAA accessibility requirements are intended to apply to equipment used for advanced communication services (ACS) and e-readers are in a distinct class of equipment that is only designed, marketed, and used for the primary purpose of reading.  The Coalition also claims that e-readers have limited and rudimentary ACS capability, and to meet the ACS accessibility requirements would require a "fundamental altering" of the devices that would harm public interest and fail to benefit individuals with disabilities.[i]  The Coalition proposes that the waiver apply only to devices that: (1) have no LCD screen; (2) have no camera; (3) are not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications; and (4) are marketed to consumers as reading devices and promotional material does not advertise the capability to access ACS.[ii]
Although we recognize that the CVAA was not intended to cover every wireless device that may have incidental ACS, the Petition should be rejected because the Coalition has failed to demonstrate that e-readers meet the three criteria used by the Commission when deciding to grant a waiver.[iii]  First, e-readers are capable of accessing ACS and have many ACS features that are central to the primary use of the devices.  In fact, one cannot read[iv] any content on the e-reader without using the ACS features.  Without access to an Internet browser, a user cannot purchase a book from the respective manufacturer's store.  ACS functionality directly affects the functionality of the non-ACS feature of reading.   Accordingly, ACS is the co-primary purpose of an e-reader's design and use.  Second, the Coalition falsely claims that e-readers are not marketed for their ACS functions because customers are not looking for those features in an e-reader.  The Coalition cites selective quotes from consumers and review articles but fails to mention that the Coalition members tout the ACS features of their e-readers on all of the web pages devoted to those devices and in their advertising materials.  
The Coalition also fails to limit its waiver request temporally based on the product lifecycle.  Essentially, the Petition requests a blanket, indefinite waiver for all e-readers, contrary to the purpose of the CVAA and the Commission's express requirements for a class waiver petition.[v]  The Petition fails to meaningfully define the class of products for which it seeks a waiver.  These omissions invalidate the entire request.  
In addition to not meeting the Commission's criteria for a waiver, the Coalition puts forth an almost farcical argument that requiring e-readers to comply with CVAA accessibility requirements would harm the public and not benefit individuals with disabilities.  Since the emergence of e-readers, blind people have been lobbying manufacturers to make the devices accessible, which would allow blind people access to books and provide the Coalition with more customers.  Furthermore, the Coalition is already under intense scrutiny from the Department of Justice to make e-readers accessible because of the proliferation of their use in the classroom. [vi]  At its passage, the CVAA complemented the existing legal protections for persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, applying long-standing policies of inclusion to twenty-first century technology.  To grant a waiver from the CVAA requirements would undermine these other statutes and buck national and international trends toward increasing access to books for the blind.  Furthermore, granting a waiver for e-readers would create a disability tax that places added burdens on disabled users, requiring them to purchase more sophisticated and expensive electronic devices that are accessible if they wish to read on a portable electronic device, while non-disabled people have the option to purchase e-readers at a very low cost.    

II.              E-READERS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WAIVER.

The Commission is only authorized to waive the requirements of Section 716 for any class of equipment that (A) is capable of accessing an advanced communications service; and
(B) is designed primarily for purposes other than using advanced communications services.   If the ACS functions are a co-primary purpose of the device or if the equipment is marketed for the ACS features and functions, the Commission may not grant a waiver.[vii]  Given the Commission's waiver analysis, the Coalition's petition fails to meet any of the criteria needed for a waiver. 

A.    E-readers employ ACS as a co-primary purpose.  

The Commission's waiver inquiry must consider whether the equipment is capable of accessing ACS.  By the Coalition's own admission, e-readers can access ACS and have multiple ACS functions.  Because "in instances where equipment and services may have multiple primary or co-primary purposes, [that include ACS] waivers may not be warranted,"[viii] the Commission must determine whether the equipment in question is designed primarily for a purpose other than accessing ACS.  The Coalition argues that differences in ACS functions between e-readers and tablets  illustrates that ACS is not integral to the use and functionality of e-readers. To the contrary, ACS is a critical e-reader function that facilitates the primary use of the devicereadingthereby making ACS functionality a co-primary purpose.[ix]
As an initial matter, e-readers are only useful if the user can access books.  On all of the devices covered by the Petition, users access books by accessing the Internet through the devices' browsers.  Under § 718 of the CVAA, browsers themselves must be accessible by October 2013.  The Commission has made clear that browsers are "generally subject to the requirements of § 716."[x]  
In the Petition, the Coalition first states that ".these devices are not designed with ACS as an intended feature," but then contradicts itself by stating that built-in browsers are "designed to facilitate simple browsing activities directly related to reading."[xi]  If reading is the primary purpose of the device, and the ACS features facilitate activities directly related to reading, then the Commission must conclude that the features are not only an "intended" use of the devices, but that they are the intended co-primary purpose.  Every type of ACS found on e-readers, including Wi-Fi access, web browsing/built-in browsing, and social media is intended to enhance the user's experience with the device.  
The Coalition does not dispute that the browsers on its devices are inaccessible - rather, the Coalition claims that the browsers are so incidental to the purpose of an e-reader that the use of the browser does not defeat its Petition.  This is simply inaccurate.  For example, to purchase books or borrow from the public library, the Sony PRST2HBC, the Kobo Glo, and the Kindle Paperwhite use Wi-Fi accessed through a browser.  In addition, the Kindle Paperwhite also has 3G support so that the consumer can lend books to others, play games, and use apps -- all through the browser.  A Kindle Paperwhite user might utilize the built-in web browser or 3G network to quickly purchase a book or sync up to a previous purchase.  That user then connects over social media with friends, and ultimately decides to loan the book to another Kindle user or share a favorite passage with a friend. All of these models have social media features to allow users to send messages and other information, which are clearly ACS functions.  Kobo Glo's online marketing, for example, prominently announces: "Share to your Facebook Timeline. Get social with your reading by connecting your Kobo account to your Facebook Timeline, so it's easy to share your favorite passages with your friends and find out what they're reading. It's the latest in digital book clubs."[xii] Not only do all of these features enhance the experience of reading, they are fundamental to the user's ability to read in the first place.  The ability to buy books with the touch of a button and share information with friends instantaneously is the fundamental difference between reading a print book and reading an electronic book.
Because e-readers clearly have access to ACS, the Coalition attempts to deemphasize the role of ACS by mischaracterizing it as "theoretical," "ancillary," or "rudimentary."  Kobo's boasting of the ease with which a user can post to Facebook or Amazon's crowing over the speed at which a Kindle user can share and receive data over the 3G network could hardly be called "rudimentary," and these features are certainly not theoretical.  Built-in web browsers enhance the experience of buying books and accessing book-related content, and since the Coalition is claiming that the primary purpose of e-readers is reading the very books the manufacturers are encouraging users to purchase, read, discuss, and share, this feature is not "ancillary." In addition, the Coalition falsely claims that "[e]-readers do not contain apps for ACS,"[1] even though the Kindle Paperwhite supports such applications.
Moreover, the development of e-reader ACS functionality over the last several years undermines the Coalition's claim that ACS functions are incidental to e-reader use.  The Coalition claims that the "slow refresh rates on e-readers further discourages interaction" and that these limitations "would not encourage future use for ACS."  Yet, over the last several years, the Coalition members have increased the ACS capabilities in their e-readers.  The 2010 Kindle DX Graphite, the 2010 Kobo Wi-Fi, and the 2010 Sony PRS-350 lack some features that their 2012 counterparts have:  built-in web browsers, supports for games and apps, and/or access to social media.[xiii]  If users were truly demanding a simple, single-purpose reading device, manufacturers would have no need to improve the ACS functionality of their products and add more features each year.  The evolution of ACS capabilities in e-readers shows that the ACS functionality enhances and facilitates the functionality of the non-ACS function of reading, and that the Coalition members intend for users to access these functions as part of their reading experience.
When deciding whether to grant a waiver, the Commission must look at whether the equipment is capable of accessing ACS, not how the equipment fares in comparison to multipurpose or different types of equipment that are also designed for ACS.  E-readers have access to ACS and ACS is critical to the functioning of e-readers.  Accordingly, a waiver is not legally available.   

B.    ACS features are marketed as desirable uses of an e-reader

As part of the second criterion in the waiver analysis, the Commission must examine whether the petitioners market their products as ACS devices.  Although the Coalition states "[t]he webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS features."[xiv] a brief examination of those webpages demonstrate that each member of the Coalition advertises the ACS features of its e-readers.  
The Kindle Paperwhite webpage advertises the product as "designed with readers in mind," allowing users to "[s]hare highlighted sections, notes, and meaningful quotes on Facebook and Twitter directly.without leaving the page, or "[t]ake a break from reading to enjoy a selection of great games and applications specially designed for Kindle."[xv]  
Reviewers considered Kobo's "Reading Life," the company's built-in social networking technology, a major selling point at the 2011 launch of Kobo Touch.[xvi] The webpage for the Kobo Touch says a perk of being a "Kobo Reader" is that "Kobo Reading Life lets you.connect with your Facebook friends," and "every time you reach a reading milestone, you'll earn Reading Life awards that you can share to your Facebook Timeline. You can also share your latest reads with your Facebook friends, and discover their bookshelves and reading stats.  Get to know yourself a little better and connect with friends as you read."[xvii]  
Although the Coalition warns that e-readers have "rudimentary browsers" with slow refresh rates that discourage use for ACS, the Sony e-reader headline touts that "you can also save your favorite web content to enjoy any time with the Evernote® Clearly feature."[xviii]  The only use of the "Evernote® Clearly" feature is to allow users to pull content from the web, from the browser, for reading later.  This does not sound like a feature with limitations but rather a browser designed to be fast and user-friendly and even encourage use of ACS.  
Although certain common ACS features including e-mail, instant messaging, or VoIP, are not generally mentioned in the marketing of e-readers,[xix]  manufacturers clearly market their products' ability to access other ACS features like social networking and use of web browsers as desirable features of the products.  

III.            THE PETITION FOR WAIVER IS INVALID

In addition to failing to meet the substantive waiver requirements, as discussed above, the Coalition fails to comply with the Commission's procedural requirements.  First, the Commission requires that "parties filing class waiver requests must explain in detail the expected lifecycle for the equipment or services that are part of the class.the definition of the class should include the product lifecycle."[xx]  This requirement exists so that the Commission has the opportunity to "examine the justification for the waiver extending through the lifecycle of each discrete generation" of a particular product.[xxi]  Waivers are not indefinite.
The Coalition fails to provide any information about the expected lifecycle of e-readers, other than to say "e-readers are a well-established class of equipment that is not experiencing 'convergence' toward becoming a multipurpose device." [xxii]  Simple research shows that Amazon, Sony, and Kobo have released a new generation of e-readers with increasing ACS upgrades each year since 2010, and by the Coalition's own admission "the number of manufacturers and models [of e-readers] has expanded substantially" since Sony launched the first e-reader in 2006.[xxiii]  
By failing to provide information on the lifecycle of e-readers, the Coalition fails to provide a length of duration for its request.  It appears as though the Coalition seeks a permanent waiver for e-readers in order to avoid all accessibility requirements for future iterations of these devices.  The Commission should not grant a waiver for multiple generations of equipment without requiring a petitioner to provide information on the product's lifecycle.   
The Coalition's characterization of the class of devices for which it seeks a waiver demonstrates the dangers in the Coalition's request for an open-ended waiver. For example, the Coalition requests that the waiver apply only to devices that do not have an LCD screen[xxiv], presumably because LCD screens are more commonly found in tablets and devices designed for ACS while e-readers commonly have e-ink screens.  This limitation, however, is dependent upon the popularity of LCD screens, which given the rate at which technology evolves, is impossible to predict.  LCD could easily become obsolete, and whatever new technology replaces LCD would be exempt from CVAA requirements under this waiver as long as the device meets the other limitations.  
Furthermore, the Coalition's request that the waiver apply only to devices that are not offered or shipped with built-in ACS client apps but that do include browsers and social media applications is equally problematic for the purpose of the CVAA.   This factor initially sounds as if the Coalition wants the waiver for devices that have no ACS capability, which would be consistent with the goals of the CVAA, but the footnote to this factor shows that the Coalition crafted this categorization specifically to exempt the ACS functions that are commonly found in e-readers - browsers and social media applications.  This "pick and choose" approach to policy is completely inconsistent with the CVAA.  It would be the equivalent of a wireless handset manufacturer asking for a waiver for any smartphone that lacks video conferencing or browsing, even if the phone offered text messaging, voicemails, social media, and other types of ACS.  Browsing and social media are clearly ACS functions, and the statute does not recognize particular ACS functions as more critical or fundamental for equal access than others.  
If  the Commission grants a waiver using the categorization the Coalition has provided, it would invite  developers to create low-end devices designed with the technical specifications in the waiver (no LCD screen, no camera, including a browser and social media access, marketed as a hybrid of a tablet/e-reader) to avoid accessibility. Section 718 of the CVAA requires manufacturers and service providers to make mobile Internet browsers accessible to blind people partly because of persistent barriers to accessibility found in new communications technologies.[xxv]  To grant the waiver under these limitations is inconsistent with the goals of the CVAA.  
Finally, the waiver request is invalid, because the Coalition provided no detailed information regarding (1) the lifecycle of the equipment, (2) the time-frame for the waiver, and (3) meaningful limitations that are technology agnostic and consistent with the ACS functions covered under the CVAA.  

IV.            GRANTING THE WAIVER WOULD HARM THE PUBLIC 

The Coalition makes the remarkable assertion that "[r]endering ACS accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering of devices.[and] would not yield a meaningful benefit to individuals with disabilities."[xxvi]  The opposite is true: e-readers can be made accessible without a fundamental altering of the device and a waiver would harm the public by excluding print-disabled people from access to digital books and creating a disability tax for consumers with print disabilities.  The disability community submits these comments to voice its unified opinion that the waiver the Coalition seeks would harm the public interest - the undersigned parties are in a better position to speak to the effects they would experience as a result of the waiver than a coalition of manufacturers who have been consistently hostile to incorporating accessible technology into their products.
The conversion from print to digital books provides a unique opportunity to expand the circle of participation for users with all disabilities.  Print is inherently inaccessible to the blind, but accessible digital content allows a blind person to transform into a mainstream user.  This opportunity eliminates barriers to books, education, and communication for disabled people while increasing the number of eligible consumers in the marketplace.  Sadly, the purveyors of digital books have missed out on this opportunity for market expansion by consistently producing inaccessible products, a trend that started with e-readers.  Now, not only does the Coalition attempt to perpetuate this exclusion, but it claims that to rectify the situation would actually cause more harm than goodapparently equating their profitability with the public interest. 
E-readers can be made accessible without a fundamental altering of devices, a fact evident in the fact that certain manufacturers have actually removed accessibility solutions from their newer generation e-readers.  After repeated urgings from the National Federation of the Blind, the 2009 Kindle 2, the 2010 Kindle Keyboard, and the 2011 Kindle Touch were outfitted with text-to-speech functionality.  However, in 2012, Amazon discontinued its efforts to provide even rudimentary accessibility when it released the Kindle Paperwhite, a device without any audio output.  Neither choice, to include or exclude an accessibility feature, fundamentally altered the nature of a Kindle e-reader.  
The Coalition claims that making ACS accessible on e-readers would drastically alter the weight and battery life, and undercut distinctive features like price points.[xxvii] The Kindle Touch (which has accessibility features) weighs 7.8 ounces and a single charge lasts up to eight weeks.[xxviii]   The Kindle Paperwhite (which does not have accessibility features) weighs 7.5 ounces and a single charge also lasts up to eight weeks.[xxix] Thus, the product specifications themselves demonstrate that there is no meaningful correlation between an increase in accessibility features and an increase in weight or a decrease in battery life.  Removing the external speakers or headset jack and de-programming content so it cannot be read audibly did nothing to change the other desirable features of the device; rather it merely denied blind people access to books.  The Coalition attempts to show that inaccessibility is a necessary evil when in reality it is an unjustifiable business choice.  
The Coalition also claims that the devices would need to be redesigned to be optimized for ACS because the current inaccessible ACS features provide a very low-quality experience.[xxx]  Embracing accessibility would simply give print-disabled users access to this low-quality experience; web content can be made accessible regardless of whether a site is dynamic or boring, or has fast refresh rates or slow processing time.  Accessibility is independent of optimization. 
 Granting the waiver would perpetuate the misconception that accessibility is difficult to accomplish and requires a fundamental overhaul that will render e-readers obsolete.  It would also stand in sharp contrast with other preexisting legal obligations and societal trends towards equal access in the digital world.  The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit the use of inaccessible technology in the classroom as a violation of print-disabled students' rights.  Subsequent guidance issued by the Department of Justice and the Department of Education specifically directs postsecondary institutions to "refrain from requiring the use of any electronic book reader, or other similar technology, in a teaching or classroom environment as long as the device remains inaccessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision. It is unacceptable for universities to use emerging technology without insisting that this technology be accessible to all students."[xxxi]  
To grant the Coalition's waiver would undermine the efforts of the Department of Justice and the Department of Education to promote the creation and use of accessible e-reader devices.   The Coalition's resistance to embracing accessibility has created a barrier to the increased use of digital technology in K-12 education.  A section of the Kindle Paperwhite's webpage is dedicated to "Kindle for Education and Business," saying, "the same great features that help you lose yourself in a book on Kindle translate seamlessly to the classroom, helping students learn to read or study more effectively," and touting Amazon's online free tool Whispercast.  Amazon is obviously targeting K-12 school districts and postsecondary institutions as large purchasers of the Kindle Paperwhite, and yet those entities cannot take advantage of Amazon's innovations because the products are inaccessible.  It would be beneficial for the company to make the product accessible in order to take full advantage of that market.   It would also allow blind students to access the same mainstream materials as their sighted peers.  The CVAA is in harmony with current law, which prioritizes equal access by mandating accessibility.  A waiver or exemption from the new accessibility requirement would provide a disincentive to comply with preexisting legal requirements.  
Furthermore, a waiver would create a "disability tax." The Coalition's primary argument that its requested waiver would benefit the public interest is based on the market for low-cost e-readers.  Although the manufacturers' evolution away from previously included accessibility features included in equally low-cost earlier e-readers suggests that the Coalition's claim is without factual basis, low-cost e-readers stripped of accessibility features would require people with print disabilities to purchase the Coalition's higher-end products, with many more features than they would want to use, just to be able to read digital books.  The Coalition notes that there are free and accessible reading apps for mobile phones, tablets, PCs and Macs,[xxxii]  while ignoring that these devices are more expensive than e-readers.  If the Coalition got its wish, blind users would be left with two expensive choices: pay a human reader to read a print book or buy a significantly more expensive tablet, computer, or phone to have access to the free reading app.  This situation puts a large burden or tax on disabled readers, while meeting accessibility requirements would put a small burden on the Coalition.
The Coalition endorses a "separate, but equal" standard of access that is inconsistent with the spirit of the CVAA.  The purpose of the CVAA is to "increase the access of persons with disabilities to modern communications"[xxxiii] yet the Coalition's petition purports that it is completely acceptable to deny disabled people access to modern products like e-readers as long as "high quality free alternatives" are available.  Not only are these alternatives not free but, by their very nature these alternatives are inherently different and therefore, unequal.   The scenario described above (the blind users' two options if the waiver is granted) is an example of the digital divide that the CVAA is trying to rectify.  History has shown that having two different standards of access is unacceptable and that a dual system of management fails to provide equality every single time, so we urge the Commission not to perpetuate this failed system by granting the waiver.  
The Coalition's waiver would also buck international trends toward the promotion of accessible digital technology.  Simultaneous to the Department of Justice and the Department of Education's review of this issue and demand for equal access for blind students, the trend of increased access to books has gone global.  International negotiators meeting under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, a treaty permitting the reproduction and distribution of published works in accessible formats across borders to eliminate duplication, increase efficiency, and address the "book famine" plaguing blind people across the World.[xxxiv]  The parties involved in the WIPO treaty are committed to increasing the availability of published works as quickly as possible, while the Coalition appears committed to inaccessibility and exclusion. 

V.              CONCLUSION

The creation of accessible e-readers would benefit not only people with disabilities, but the Coalition members themselves.  To grant a waiver for e-readers would not only support the Coalition members in their long-standing resistance to making their products accessible, but undermine preexisting legal obligations and the trends toward accessibility demonstrated by the DOJ, the DOE, and the WIPO treaty.  

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned organizations urge the Commission to reject the waiver request from the Coalition of E-reader Manufacturers.  That action is consistent with the objectives of the CVAA, the criteria for a waiver, and the best interest of the public.  

Respectfully submitted,

Marc Maurer, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
200 East Wells Street
Baltimore, MD 21230
(410) 659-9314

[i] Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers Petition for Waiver ("Petition").  Docket No. CG 10-213, filed May 16, 2013. 
[ii] Coalition Ex Parte Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition ("Supplementing letter"), filed July 17, 2013.  
[iii] 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 at ¶ 16 (2011) ("ACS Report and Order").
[iv] In the Petition, the Coalition repeatedly touts "reading" as the primary purpose of e-readers
[v] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 18.
[vi] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. "Joint 'Dear Colleague' Letter: Electronic Book Readers" 29 June 2010.  Online at: 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html , accessed August 15, 2013.
[vii] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 179.
[viii] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 184. 
[ix] The Commission has recognized that a device with ACS capabilities can have a co-primary purpose with a non-ACS function.  For example "many smartphones appear to be designed for several purposes, including voice communications, text messaging, and e-mail, as well as web browsing.access to applications.The CVAA would have little meaning if [the Commission] were to consider waiving Section 716 with respect to the e-mail and text messaging features of a smartphone on the grounds that the phone was designed in part for voice communications.both could be co-primary purposes of a wireless handset." See ACS Report and Order 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 187.
[x] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 27.
[xi] See Petition at 7. 
[xii] http://www.kobo.com/koboglo/readinglife/, accessed August 19, 2013.
[xiii] The 2010 Sony Reader PRS-305 did come with a built-in browser.  
[xiv] See Petition at 7. 
[xv] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007OZNUCE, accessed August 16, 2013.
[xvi] Owen, Kobo's New E-Reader Aims Turn Reading into a Game, http://paidcontent.org/2011/05/23/419-kobos-new-e-reader-aims-to-turn-reading-into-a-game/ , accessed on August 16, 2013.
[xvii] http://www.kobo.com/kobotouch, accessed August 19, 2013.
[xviii] http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666483313 , accessed August 19, 2013.
[xix] See Petition at 7. 
[xx] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶¶ 18, 194.
[xxi] See ACS Report and Order. 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 18.
[xxii] See Petition at 11-12.
[xxiii] See Petition at 3.
[xxiv] See Supplementing Letter at 1.
[xxv] See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶¶ 6, 7.
[xxvi] See Petition at 8
[xxvii] See Petition at 9
[xxviii] http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Touch-Free-Wi-Fi-Display/dp/B005890FOO, accessed August 26, 2013.
[xxix] http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-Touch-light/dp/B007OZNZG0, accessed August 26, 2013.
[xxx] See Petition at 8. 
[xxxi] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. "Joint 'Dear Colleague' Letter: Electronic Book Readers" 29 June 2010.  Online at: 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html , accessed August 15, 2013.
[xxxii] See Petition at 11. 
[xxxiii] Pub. L. No. 111-260
[xxxiv] http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2013/article_0017.html 

E-Reader Skeleton Letter

First Name Last Name
Title, if any
Address
Email

September 3, 2013

Kris Monteith
Acting Bureau Chief
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Reply to the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers' Petition for Waiver from CVAA Accessibility Requirements, CG Docket No. 10-213

Dear. Mr. Monteith: 

[Introduction paragraph: Explain who you are, your profession, and make note of the fact that you're a blind person.  Explain what access to digital books would mean to you].  

I strongly oppose the Petition for Waiver submitted by the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers', requesting that e-readers be exempt from the Twenty First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA).  

[Select a few of the following talking points and put into a narrative using your own words.  Or you can write your own arguments that are consistent with the NFB's official comments put out by the national office:

1.     The spirit of the CVAA is to increase the accessibility of mobile advanced communications services (ACS) and e-readers have ACS functionality.  Most e-reader users I know post to Facebook and exchange books with friends.  It would not make sense to grant a waiver for a class of products that are clearly intended to be covered by the CVAA.
2.     The Coalition claims that the primary purpose of e-readers is reading, not ACS, and yet I believe that the ACS found in e-readers is part of the intended purpose.  The ability to connect with friends, share content, and access the internet are the very features that set e-readers apart from print books.  ACS facilitates the reading experience and is, therefore, a co-primary purpose of e-readers.
3.     E-readers can easily be made accessible.  All digital content can be made accessible to a blind person if the content is programmed to be read audibly, audio output like speakers or a phone jack are added, and accessibility is considered during the design phase.  The Coalition's claim that to make e-readers accessible would require a fundamental overhaul of the equipment is false.  
4.     I want access to digital books.  Since the first e-reader came out in 2006, I have felt like a second class citizen missing out on all of the innovative benefits of digital books.  If I want to read a Kindle book, I have to buy a very-expensive Apple iPad.  Then I can download the free Kindle app, but that application is not fully accessible.  I want to be a mainstream user and would happily buy an e-reader if one was accessible, but the manufacturers continue to exclude me from their customer pool.  I reject the Coalition's notion that to make their product accessible would not provide me with any substantial benefits.  In reality, it will give me options as a consumer and equal access as my sighted peers.  
5.     The Department of Justice and the Department of Education prohibit K-12 school districts and institutions of higher education from using inaccessible e-readers, yet the Coalition continues to knowingly sell inaccessible equipment to schools.  The CVAA is consistent with preexisting legal requirements, and the FCC should not give the Coalition incentive to continue resisting accessibility. 
6.     The Coalition suggests that the waiver only apply to e-readers that do not have ACS capabilities, but then says that the products may have browsers and social media.  This is not a meaningful limitation.  The CVAA requires that ACS be accessible, and the FCC should not allow some services to be more important and others worthy of a waiver.    
7.     The Coalition fails to provide any details on the lifecycle of its products or a potential time frame for the waiver.  An indefinite, blanket waiver would harm the public, is inconsistent with the CVAA, and should not be granted in the face of these omissions.    

[Provide an anecdote of a time when you wanted to buy an e-reader, or could not use an e-reader, or saw a sighted person using an e-reader for ACS.  If you do not have an anecdote, you can just repeat what access to digital books would mean to you].

I strongly urge the FCC to reject the Coalition's petition and uphold the spirit of the CVAA.  E-readers and the ACS features found in that equipment must be made accessible and granting a waiver would perpetuate the digital divide and discrimination in the marketplace that I face every day.  

Sincerely,

Your name 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Nfbnet-members-list mailing list
Nfbnet-members-list at nfbnet.org
List archives:  <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbnet-members-list_nfbnet.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter for members - e-reader skeleton letter.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130831/05684d81/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments to E-Reader Waiver Petition FINAL 8.28.13.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 80384 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130831/05684d81/attachment-0001.doc>