[Ohio-talk] FW: Emailing: e-reader letter.doc

[Barbara Pierce]

Barb Fohl warned me yesterday that the attachments were not opening, and
clearly the national office is having the same problem. I am sending out the
message that I sent Barb yesterday. My letter is attached, and the pattern
letter in in the body of the message. Between them you should get a good
idea of what is needed. Just remember that the deadline is Monday evening.
Barbara 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Pierce [mailto:bbpierce at pobox.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:30 PM
To: 'Barb Fohl'
Subject: Emailing: e-reader letter.doc

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   
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:

e-reader letter.doc


Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail
security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: e-reader letter.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30720 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130831/161501d5/attachment.doc>