[Ohio-talk] fyi

[Richard]

I just got this in a email what do you think?


House Accessibility Bill Heads to Full Panel


Would Require Communications Devices, Webcasts Be Accessible to Disabled


By John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 6/30/2010 4:53:03 PM


Washington -- The House Communications Subcommittee Wednesday approved a
bill that would put additional disability access requirements on
broadcasters, cable operators, Web-video outlets and consumer-electronics
companies. 

But that approval came in part because both Republicans and Democrats were
assured more changes would be made to the measure.

The legislation is a work in progress, said subcommittee Chairman Rick
Boucher (D-Va.), who added that more changes will be reflected when the bill
is brought up in full committee in two weeks. Energy & Commerce Committee
chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wants the House to approve the bill by July
26, the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

The 21st
<http://www.multichannel.com/common/jumplink.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov
track.us%2Fcongress%2Fbilltext.xpd%3Fbill%3Dh111-3101>  Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act (HR 3101)  would update
communications accessibility provisions in the 1996 Communications Act as
well as apply them to access to broadband.

During the Wednesday markup at which the bill was favorably referred to the
full committee on a voice vote, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers
made note of the issues they still had with the legislation, which was
itself a new draft of the bill, reflecting changes from a version considered
earlier this month in a hearing at which some sparks flew.

Among the bill's key points are: 1) requiring equipment for small-screen
video devices to convey closed captioning and emergency information; 2)
requiring user interfaces for viewing video on such devices be accessible,
including an accessibility button on remote controls; 3) reinstating FCC
video description requirements for TV programming (they were vacated by a
federal court in 2002); applying closed captioning requirements to the
Internet; and requiring that video programming convey emergency information
to the visually impaired. 

Among the changes to the bill since it was first introduced is one that
would give the FCC more flexibility and power to determine how broadcast and
cable operators would meet a new congressional mandate that disability
access to telecommunications requirements be updated to reflect the rise of
broadband and other technologies.

In the previous version of the bill, the FCC would have to require
accessibility unless it would result in an undue burden on equipment
manufactures. That standard has been changed to "unless it is not
achievable," with achievable defined as "with reasonable effort or expense."

The FCC would have the job of determining whether that standard had been
met, based on the nature and cost, the impact on the manufacturer and
distributor and the deployment of new technologies, the manufacturers
financial resources, and "the type of operations of the manufacturer or
provider." 

Among the changes to the bill that concerned some Republicans was a
provision allowing the FCC to expand the video-description requirement
beyond the 50 hours per quarter the FCC had required before those rules were
struck down. Some Democrats, on the other hand, thought the two years the
FCC was given to implement new video description requirements was too long. 

Some Republicans argued against giving the FCC what they viewed as
open-ended authority over the accessibility updates. Rep John Shimkus
(R-Ill.) said the FCC needed more direction than broad guidelines, and Rep.
Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) alluded to the issue of broadband authority --
which centers on which powers Congress did or did not give the FCC. She said
that any authority should be explicit, with plenty of congressional
oversight, adding that Congress should not just delegate items to the
rulemaking process."

Ranking member Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) said he was concerned that the
bill not stifle innovative technologies like Apple's iPhone. The Consumer
Electronics Association, which has major issues with the bill, has argued
that under such access provisions like mandatory buttons, the buttonless
iPhone might never have made it to market.

He is also concerned that the mandates apply to every feature of every
device, rather than, say, making all those features available on only some
of a product line.

Other issues with the bill include whether the "operator financial
resources" test for achievability is based on total resources, or just those
applied to the device or service, and whether the FCC should have to report
to Congress before deciding how many hours of video-described programming
broadcast and cable outlets have to provide.

An issue that concerned several Democrats, including Waxman and the bill's
chief sponsor, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), was a change to the bill that
applied video-description mandates in only the top 25 markets. 

Markey, who thought the two-year phase-in was unnecessarily lengthy, said it
did not make sense that the mandates would exclude millions of the blind
because they lived in New Orleans rather than Orlando or Nashville rather
than New York.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) pointed to another issue with the top 25 markets
cut-off. Doyle, who represents No. 23 market Pittsburgh, noted that DMA has
only 40,000 more people than the No. 26 market. Should Nielsen shift a
county on next year's map -- or were there population growth elsewhere
combined with decline in Pittsburgh -- Doyle's constituents might lose the
guarantee of video description. He said he was sure broadcasters would
continue to deliver the descriptions if that happened, but the FCC would not
have the power to enforce that.

Doyle also said he was concerned that if the accessibility standard was only
designed for digital delivery, some small cable operators would be forced to
upgrade.

Boucher said he would be happy to resolve Doyle's issues and those of other
affected parties by markup in the full committee.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association agrees with Boucher that
the bill is, and should be, a work in progress. It still has some issues
with the legislation. 

"We appreciate the changes that have been made to the bill and look forward
to working with all members of the committee as this legislation continues
to move," said NCTA spokesman Brian Dietz. "We believe that further
improvements are needed if we are to be successful in developing targeted
legislation that focuses on reasonable, attainable goals in improving the
accessibility of communications services and equipment for persons with
disabilities."