<html>
<body>
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.
<br>
<br>
This letter was originally sent to the legislative directors but we are
circulating it to the entire membership for maximum outreach:<br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526">
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526</a>. 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
<a href="mailto:vyingling@nfb.org">vyingling@nfb.org</a> by <b>8pm on
Monday, September 2</b>. 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 3<sup>rd</sup>. 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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Lauren<br>
<b> <br>
Lauren McLarney<br>
</b>Government Affairs Specialist<br>
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND<br>
200 East Wells St.<br>
Baltimore, MD 21230<br>
(410) 659 9314 ext. 2207<br>
<a href="mailto:lmclarney@nfb.org">lmclarney@nfb.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<h2><b>Opposition to Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers’
Petition</b></h2> <br>
<div align="center"><b>Before the<br>
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION<br>
Washington, D.C. 20554<br>
</b></div>
<br>
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 <br>
<br>
To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau<br>
<b> <br>
</b>Submitted by:<br>
<br>
<b>NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND <br>
<br>
</b>September 3, 2013<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><b><u>TABLE OF CONTENTS <br>
</u></b> <br>
</div>
I.
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................
1 <br>
<br>
II. E-READERS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A WAIVER………………………….2<br>
A. E-readers employ ACS as a co-primary purpose.
…………………………………….3<br>
B. ACS features are marketed as desirable uses of an
e-reader.........................................4 <br>
<br>
III. THE WAIVER PETITION IS
INVALID..................................................................................5
<br>
<br>
IV. GRANTING THE WAIVER WOULD HARM THE
PUBLIC.................…………………...7<br>
<br>
V. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………9 <br>
<br>
<b><u> <br>
</u></b> <br>
<br>
<div align="center"><b><u>COMMENTS<br>
<br>
</u></div>
I.
INTRODUCTION <br>
</b> <br>
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. <br>
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.<a name="_ednref1"></a>[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.<a name="_ednref2"></a>[ii]<br>
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.<a name="_ednref3"></a>[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<a name="_ednref4"></a>[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. <br>
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.<a name="_ednref5"></a>[v] The Petition fails to
meaningfully define the class of products for which it seeks a
waiver. These omissions invalidate the entire request. <br>
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. <a name="_ednref6"></a>[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. <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>
II.
E-READERS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A WAIVER.<br>
<br>
</b>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<br>
(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.<a name="_ednref7"></a>[vii] Given the Commission’s waiver
analysis, the Coalition’s petition fails to meet any of the criteria
needed for a waiver. <br>
<br>
A. <b> E-readers employ ACS as a co-primary
purpose. <br>
<br>
</b>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,”<a name="_ednref8"></a>[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.<a name="_ednref9"></a>[ix]<br>
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.”<a name="_ednref10"></a>[x] <br>
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.”<a name="_ednref11"></a>[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. <br>
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.”<a name="_ednref12"></a>[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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<a name="_ednref13"></a>[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.<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
B. <b>ACS features are marketed as desirable uses of an
e-reader<br>
<br>
</b>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…”<a name="_ednref14"></a>[xiv] a brief examination of those
webpages demonstrate that each member of the Coalition advertises the ACS
features of its e-readers. <br>
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.”<a name="_ednref15"></a>[xv] <br>
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.<a name="_ednref16"></a>[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.”<a name="_ednref17"></a>[xvii] <br>
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.”<a name="_ednref18"></a>[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. <br>
Although certain common ACS features including e-mail, instant messaging,
or VoIP, are not generally mentioned in the marketing of
e-readers,<a name="_ednref19"></a>[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. <br>
<br>
<b>III.
THE PETITION FOR WAIVER IS INVALID<br>
</b> <br>
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.”<a name="_ednref20"></a>[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.<a name="_ednref21"></a>[xxi] Waivers are
not indefinite.<br>
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.”
<a name="_ednref22"></a>[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.<a name="_ednref23"></a>[xxiii] <br>
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. <br>
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<a name="_ednref24"></a>[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. <br>
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. <br>
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.<a name="_ednref25"></a>[xxv] To grant the waiver
under these limitations is inconsistent with the goals of the CVAA.
<br>
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. <br>
<b> <br>
<br>
IV.
GRANTING THE WAIVER WOULD HARM THE PUBLIC <br>
<br>
</b>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.”<a name="_ednref26"></a>[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.<br>
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. <br>
E-readers can be made accessible without a fundamental altering of
devices, a fact evident in the fact that certain manufacturers have
actually <i>removed</i> 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. <br>
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.<a name="_ednref27"></a>[xxvii] The Kindle
Touch (which has accessibility features) weighs 7.8 ounces and a single
charge lasts up to eight
weeks.<a name="_ednref28"></a>[xxviii] The Kindle Paperwhite
(which <u>does not</u> have accessibility features) weighs 7.5 ounces and
a single charge also lasts up to eight
weeks.<a name="_ednref29"></a>[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. <br>
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.<a name="_ednref30"></a>[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. <br>
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.”<a name="_ednref31"></a>[xxxi] <br>
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. <br>
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,<a name="_ednref32"></a>[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.<br>
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”<a name="_ednref33"></a>[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. <br>
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.<a name="_ednref34"></a>[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. <br>
<br>
<b>
V.
CONCLUSION<br>
</b> <br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Respectfully submitted,<br>
<div align="right"> <br>
</div>
<br>
Marc Maurer, President<br>
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND<br>
200 East Wells Street<br>
Baltimore, MD 21230<br>
(410) 659-9314<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<a name="_edn1"></a>[i] Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers Petition for
Waiver (“Petition”). Docket No. CG 10-213, filed May 16, 2013.
<br>
<a name="_edn2"></a>[ii] Coalition Ex Parte Letter Supplementing the
Coalition Petition (“Supplementing letter”), filed July 17, 2013.
<br>
<a name="_edn3"></a>[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”).<br>
<a name="_edn4"></a>[iv] In the Petition, the Coalition repeatedly touts
“reading” as the primary purpose of e-readers<br>
<a name="_edn5"></a>[v] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶
18.<br>
<a name="_edn6"></a>[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: <br>
<a href="http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html</a>
, accessed August 15, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn7"></a>[vii] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶
179.<br>
<a name="_edn8"></a>[viii] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶
184. <br>
<a name="_edn9"></a>[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.”
<i>See </i>ACS Report and Order 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶ 187.<br>
<a name="_edn10"></a>[x] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶
27.<br>
<a name="_edn11"></a>[xi] <i>See</i> Petition at 7. <br>
<a name="_edn12"></a>[xii]
<a href="http://www.kobo.com/koboglo/readinglife/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.kobo.com/koboglo/readinglife/</a>, accessed August 19,
2013.<br>
<a name="_edn13"></a>[xiii] The 2010 Sony Reader PRS-305 did come with a
built-in browser. <br>
<a name="_edn14"></a>[xiv] <i>See</i> Petition at 7. <br>
<a name="_edn15"></a>[xv]
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007OZNUCE" eudora="autourl">
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007OZNUCE</a>, accessed August 16,
2013.<br>
<a name="_edn16"></a>[xvi] Owen, <i>Kobo’s New E-Reader Aims Turn Reading
into a Game,
</i>
<a href="http://paidcontent.org/2011/05/23/419-kobos-new-e-reader-aims-to-turn-reading-into-a-game/" eudora="autourl">
http://paidcontent.org/2011/05/23/419-kobos-new-e-reader-aims-to-turn-reading-into-a-game/</a>
, accessed on August 16, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn17"></a>[xvii]
<a href="http://www.kobo.com/kobotouch" eudora="autourl">
http://www.kobo.com/kobotouch</a>, accessed August 19, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn18"></a>[xviii]
<a href="http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666483313" eudora="autourl">
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666483313</a>
, accessed August 19, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn19"></a>[xix] <i>See </i>Petition at 7. <br>
<a name="_edn20"></a>[xx] ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 at ¶¶
18, 194.<br>
<a name="_edn21"></a>[xxi] <i>See</i> ACS Report and Order. 26 FCC Rcd
14557 at ¶ 18.<br>
<a name="_edn22"></a>[xxii] <i>See</i> Petition at 11-12.<br>
<a name="_edn23"></a>[xxiii] <i>See</i> Petition at 3.<br>
<a name="_edn24"></a>[xxiv] <i>See </i>Supplementing Letter at 1.<br>
<a name="_edn25"></a>[xxv] <i>See</i> ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd
14557 at ¶¶ 6, 7.<br>
<a name="_edn26"></a>[xxvi] <i>See</i> Petition at 8<br>
<a name="_edn27"></a>[xxvii] <i>See</i> Petition at 9<br>
<a name="_edn28"></a>[xxviii]
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Touch-Free-Wi-Fi-Display/dp/B005890FOO" eudora="autourl">
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Touch-Free-Wi-Fi-Display/dp/B005890FOO</a>,
accessed August 26, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn29"></a>[xxix]
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-Touch-light/dp/B007OZNZG0" eudora="autourl">
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-Touch-light/dp/B007OZNZG0</a>,
accessed August 26, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn30"></a>[xxx] <i>See</i> Petition at 8. <br>
<a name="_edn31"></a>[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: <br>
<a href="http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html</a>
, accessed August 15, 2013.<br>
<a name="_edn32"></a>[xxxii] <i>See</i> Petition at 11. <br>
<a name="_edn33"></a>[xxxiii] Pub. L. No. 111-260<br>
<a name="_edn34"></a>[xxxiv]
<a href="http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2013/article_0017.html">
http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2013/article_0017.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<h2><b>E-Reader Skeleton Letter</b></h2> <br>
First Name Last Name<br>
Title, if any<br>
Address<br>
Email<br>
<br>
September 3, 2013<br>
<br>
Kris Monteith<br>
Acting Bureau Chief<br>
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau<br>
Federal Communications Commission<br>
445 12th Street SW<br>
Washington, DC 20554<br>
<br>
Re: Reply to the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers’ Petition for Waiver
from CVAA Accessibility Requirements, CG Docket No. 10-213<br>
<br>
Dear. Mr. Monteith: <br>
<br>
[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]. <br>
<br>
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). <br>
<br>
[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:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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.
<br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
<br>
[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].<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Your name <br>
<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>