**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 01-309         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Section 68.4(a) of the           | ) | WT Docket No. 06-203         |
| Commission's Rules               | * | (Terminated)                 |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible |   |                              |
| Telephones                       | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

REPORT ON THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S

HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Adopted: October 5, 2007 Released: October 5, 2007

By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 3

A. Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements 3

1\. Existing Deployment Benchmarks and Requirements 5

2\. Technical Standard 8

3\. Commission Orders Resolving Waiver Requests 10

4\. Pending Waiver Requests 13

B. Commission Staff Report 15

III\. DISCUSSION 19

A. Availability of Compatible Handsets 19

1\. Impact of the Commission's Rules 19

a\. Compatible Handset Models 24

b\. Wireless Service Providers' Offerings 28

c\. Evaluation of Progress To Date 32

2\. Deployment Benchmarks and Related Requirements from 2008 to 2011 34

B. Consumer Information and In-store Testing 45

C. Developments Since the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* 56

1\. Technological Developments Affecting the Hard of Hearing 57

a\. Enhancements to Existing Technology 60

b\. New and Developing Technologies 67

2\. Emerging Regulatory Issues 73

a\. Expansion of Services to New Frequency Bands and Air Interfaces 73

b\. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) via Wireless Local Area Networks
(WLANs) 77

c\. "Open Platform" Networks 86

D. Impact on Cochlear Implant and Middle Ear Implant Users 91

E. Labeling of Hearing Aids with Immunity Rating 95

F. Further Review of Commission's Rules 100

IV\. Conclusion & SUMMARY OF Recommendations 102

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 104

A. Accessible Formats 104

B. Contact Persons 105

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 106

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Report, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("Bureau"),
    in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology
    ("OET") and other Bureaus and Offices of the Commission, reviews the
    status of implementation of the Commission's hearing aid
    compatibility requirements. This Report fulfills the Commission's
    directive for staff to examine, shortly after three years after the
    effective date of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the following
    three topics: (1) the impact of the Commission's rules in achieving
    greater compatibility between hearing aids and digital wireless
    phones; (2) the development of new technologies that could provide
    greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless
    telecommunications to hearing aid users; and (3) the impact of
    hearing aid compatibility requirements on cochlear implant and
    middle ear implant users and their ability to use digital wireless
    phones.[^1] Accordingly, this Report reviews the current state of
    wireless telephone compatibility with hearing aids and offers the
    Commission specific recommendations designed to further facilitate
    implementation of hearing aid compatibility requirements.

2.  Based upon careful consideration of the record before it, the
    Bureau: (1) assesses the impact of the Commission's hearing aid
    compatibility requirements in achieving compatibility between
    digital wireless phones and hearing aids; (2) evaluates whether to
    recommend changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules, including
    potential revised or additional compatible handset deployment
    benchmarks, consistent with a joint proposal that was submitted by
    representatives from the wireless industry and consumer advocacy
    groups for the deaf and hard of hearing; (3) considers potential
    measures to improve the availability of information to
    consumers; (4) examines the development of new technologies that
    could provide greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless
    telecommunications to hearing aid users; (5) considers whether
    changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules may be necessary to
    address changes in technology and regulation; (6) explores the
    impact of hearing aid compatibility requirements on cochlear implant
    and middle ear implant users, and their ability to use digital
    wireless phones; and (7) discusses developments relating to the
    labeling of hearing aids with their immunity rating.

# BACKGROUND

## Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements 

3.  In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* adopted in 2003, the
    Commission took a number of actions to further the ability of
    persons with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless
    telecommunications.[^2] Among other measures, the Commission
    required manufacturers and digital wireless service providers
    collectively to take steps to increase the number of hearing
    aid-compatible handset models available, and established phased-in
    deployment benchmark dates for the offering of hearing
    aid-compatible digital wireless handset models.[^3] In promulgating
    the hearing aid compatibility requirements, the Commission addressed
    hearing aids that operate in either of two modes \-- acoustic
    coupling or inductive coupling. Hearing aids operating in acoustic
    coupling mode receive and amplify all sounds surrounding the user,
    including desired sounds, such as a telephone's audio signal, as
    well as unwanted ambient noise.[^4] Hearing aids operating in
    inductive coupling mode avoid amplifying unwanted ambient noise by
    turning off the microphone and using a telecoil to receive only
    audio signal-based magnetic fields generated by telecoil-compatible
    telephones.[^5]

4.  The Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules apply generally to
    providers of digital commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) "to the
    extent that they offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data
    service that is interconnected with the public switched network and
    utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
    to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
    calls," as well as to manufacturers of wireless phones used in the
    delivery of such services. [^6] However, because relevant technical
    standards have been established to date only for Broadband Personal
    Communications Services, Cellular Radio Telephone Service, and
    Specialized Mobile Radio Services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands,
    only those services are currently subject to the specific
    requirements under Section 20.19 of the rules.[^7] In the *700 MHz
    Service Report and Order* adopted in April 2007*,* the Commission
    established a timetable for the development of the necessary
    technical standards for new services and frequency bands that have
    governing service rules in place and for incorporation of
    requirements based on those standards into its rules.[^8]
    Specifically, the Commission stated its expectation that appropriate
    technical standards for the wireless communications services bands
    listed in Section 27.1(b) will be established within 24 months of
    the *Federal Register* publication of the *700 MHz Service Report
    and Order*, and committed that, if this occurs, it will initiate a
    further proceeding at that time to establish a specific timetable
    for deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets based on the
    adopted standards for services in the relevant bands.[^9]

### Existing Deployment Benchmarks and Requirements 

5.  In the 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* the Commission
    established a number of deployment benchmarks and other related
    requirements. These requirements were later modified slightly in the
    *Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order* adopted in
    2005*.*[^10] With respect to acoustic coupling operation, the
    Commission generally required each covered manufacturer and service
    provider to offer specific numbers of handset models per air
    interface in its product line (*i.e*., CDMA, TDMA, GSM, and
    iDEN)[^11] that the manufacturer or service provider offers that
    meet, at a minimum, an M3 rating (formerly denominated a U3 rating)
    for reduction of radio frequency (RF) interference between handsets
    and hearing aids in acoustic coupling mode, as set forth in the
    American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.19 technical
    standard.[^12] The Commission also established separate requirements
    to offer handset models that meet at least a T3 rating (formerly
    denominated a U3T rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing
    aids operating in telecoil mode.[^13] If a handset manufacturer or
    service provider offers a multi-band handset in order to comply with
    these requirements, the handset must be hearing-aid compatible in
    each frequency band.[^14] The Commission further established that,
    before a handset can be offered in satisfaction of these
    obligations, the handset manufacturer must first certify that it is
    compliant with the compatibility requirements through the
    Commission's equipment authorization process as set forth in Section
    2.1033(d) of the Commission's rules.[^15]

6.  In the absence of falling within an exception or waiver,[^16] the
    following summarizes the deployment benchmarks under the
    Commission's current hearing aid compatibility requirements:

    *[Radio Frequency Interference]{.underline}*

-   By September 16, 2005, each digital wireless handset manufacturer
    had to make available to digital wireless service providers at least
    two M3-rated handset models for each air interface it offers.[^17]
    By this same date, each digital wireless service provider had to
    make available to consumers at least two M3-rated handset models for
    each air interface it offers and make available in its retail stores
    all of these handset models for testing by consumers.[^18]

-   By September 16, 2006, each Tier I carrier providing digital
    wireless services had to make available to consumers at least five
    M3-rated handsets for each air interface it offers or 25% of the
    total number of handset models it offers, and make available in
    retail stores all of these handset models for testing by
    consumers.[^19]

-   By February 18, 2008, at least 50% of all digital wireless handset
    models offered by manufacturers or digital wireless service
    providers per air interface offered must meet an M3 rating.[^20]

    *[Inductive Coupling]{.underline}*

-   By September 18, 2006, each digital wireless handset manufacturer
    had to make available to wireless service providers, and each
    digital wireless service provider had to make available to
    consumers, at least two T3-rated handsets for each air interface it
    offers, and each digital wireless service provider had to make
    available in its retail stores all of these handset models for
    testing by consumers.[^21]

    *[De Minimis Exception]{.underline}*

-   Digital wireless handset manufacturers or digital wireless service
    providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handsets in the
    U.S. are exempt from the requirements of the hearing aid
    compatibility rules.[^22]

-   Digital wireless service providers that obtain handsets only from
    manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset
    models in the U.S. likewise are exempt from the hearing aid
    compatibility requirements.[^23]

-   Digital wireless handset manufacturers or digital wireless service
    providers that offer three digital wireless handset models must
    offer at least one compliant handset model.[^24]

-   Digital wireless service providers that obtain handsets only from
    manufacturers that offer three digital wireless handset models in
    the U.S. are required to offer at least one compliant handset
    model.[^25]

7.  In addition to establishing the deployment requirements above, the
    Commission also required manufacturers and digital wireless service
    providers to display the associated M-rating of handsets on the
    packaging material and to include an explanation of the ANSI C63.19
    M-rating system in the owner's manual or as an insert in the
    packaging material for the handset.[^26] The Commission further
    required manufacturers and wireless service providers to report
    every six months on efforts toward compliance with the hearing aid
    compatibility requirements for the first three years of
    implementation (on May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005,
    November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006, and November 17, 2006), and then
    annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (on
    November 19, 2007 and November 17, 2008).[^27]

### Technical Standard

8.  In the 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* the Commission
    adopted its rules based upon the 2001 version of the ANSI C63.19
    technical standard in effect at that time.[^28] Subsequently, the
    ANSI technical standard has been revised on several occasions. In
    April 2005, OET in conjunction with the Bureau, acting on delegated
    authority,[^29] recognized that ANSI had released a draft version of
    an updated hearing aid compatibility standard, ANSI C63.19-2005, and
    clarified that applicants for certification could rely on either the
    2001 or draft 2005 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard.[^30]
    Subsequently, in the spring of 2006, ANSI adopted a revised version
    3.12 of standard C63.19. This revision, among other things,
    redesignated the U3 and U3T rating nomenclature as "M3" and "T3,"
    respectively, adopted a revised standard for meeting an M3 rating
    for wireless devices operating below 960 MHz, and made some changes
    in GSM testing standards in other frequency bands.[^31]

9.  On June 6, 2006, the Bureau and OET released a public notice stating
    that, effective immediately, OET would accept applications for
    certification of equipment tested and rated under the revised
    standard ANSI C63.19-2006 for all wireless phone hearing aid
    compatibility testing and rating, as specified in Section 20.19 of
    the rules.[^32] The *2006 ANSI Standard Public Notice* further
    specified that applicants for certification may rely on, and must
    identify, only one version of the ANSI C63.19 standard, either 2001,
    2005 or 2006.[^33] More recently, the ANSI standard was revised
    in 2007. On June 25, 2007, the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee
    C63 (EMC) (ANSI ASC C63) filed a petition requesting that the
    Commission adopt the 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical
    standard in place of the 2001, 2005 draft and 2006 versions of the
    technical standard.[^34]

### Commission Orders Resolving Waiver Requests

10. On September 8, 2005, the Commission released the *Dual-Band GSM
    Waiver Order*, which provided a limited waiver of the September 16,
    2005 deadline for offering M3-rated handset models to entities that
    offer dual-band GSM digital wireless handsets operating in both the
    850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands.[^35] Pursuant to its waiver authority,
    the Commission ruled that it would accept, until August 1, 2006, a
    dual-band GSM handset's hearing aid compatibility compliance rating
    for 1900 MHz operation as the overall compliance rating for the
    handset with regard to the U3 (*i.e.,* M3) rating.[^36] In adopting
    this order, the Commission emphasized its concern that the relief be
    limited in time.[^37] In addition, the Commission imposed a number
    of reporting and consumer outreach conditions on service providers
    seeking to avail themselves of this temporary waiver relief.[^38]

11. On September 16, 2005, the Commission granted a limited temporary
    waiver of the hearing aid compatibility deployment and labeling
    requirements to T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), a Tier I
    carrier.[^39] T-Mobile sought additional time within which to comply
    with the M3-rated handset deployment requirement and the associated
    labeling requirements because of the last-minute inability of its
    vendors to provide requisite handsets. In granting T-Mobile's waiver
    request, the Commission determined that the limited relief sought by
    T-Mobile was consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring the
    expeditious introduction of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless
    handsets and would permit T-Mobile to have the necessary collateral
    marketing materials in place, including informational placards in
    retail handset displays.[^40]

12. In April 2007, the Commission released the *September 2005
    Compatibility Requirements Waiver Order* addressing waiver requests
    filed by 19 Tier II and Tier III carriers seeking relief from the
    Commission's requirement to offer at least two digital wireless
    telephone handset models per air interface that are certified as
    M3-rated by September 16, 2005.[^41] In addition, the petitioners
    generally requested waivers of Section 20.19(f) of the Commission's
    rules, which specifies the labeling requirements for hearing
    aid-compatible handsets.[^42] Taking into account its longstanding
    commitment to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing individuals have
    full access to, and helpful technical information about, digital
    wireless services, the Commission granted limited waivers *nunc pro
    tunc* to several of the petitioners and denied waivers to other
    petitioners, and dismissed the three remaining petitioners' waiver
    requests as unnecessary.[^43] With respect to those waiver requests
    where limited relief was granted, the Commission acknowledged that
    the carriers were unable timely to comply with the applicable
    handset deployment requirement because the requisite hearing
    aid-compatible handsets were unavailable to them as of September 16,
    2005, and that these carriers acted diligently to come into
    compliance with the deployment and labeling requirements within a
    short period after the deadline.[^44] The Commission referred to the
    Enforcement Bureau (EB) those petitioners to which it denied
    waivers, in whole or in part, and EB has subsequently initiated
    action against several of these parties.[^45]

### Pending Waiver Requests

13. There are 12 waiver requests pending from Tier III carriers seeking
    relief from the Commission's RF interference reduction requirements
    for digital wireless telephones.[^46] Specifically, each request
    seeks a partial waiver of Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(A) of the
    Commission's rules, which requires non-nationwide wireless service
    providers to offer, by September 16, 2005, two or more digital
    handset models per air interface that are rated hearing
    aid-compatible under defined standards for RF interference
    reduction.[^47] More particularly, the petitioners seek extension of
    a limited waiver of that provision granted previously by the
    Commission in the *Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order*, which provided that,
    until August 1, 2006, it would accept a GSM dual band handset's
    hearing aid compatibility rating in the 1900 MHz band as the rating
    for the handset overall.[^48] Also pending before the Commission are
    motions from four of the petitioners for leave to withdraw their
    petitions.[^49]

14. Additionally, there are 42 waiver petitions seeking extensions of
    the deadline for handsets to be compliant with hearing aid
    compatibility standards for inductive coupling that remain pending
    before the Commission.[^50] Each of the petitioners requests waiver
    of the handset deployment requirement set forth in Section 20.19(d)
    of the Commission's rules, which provides that, by September 18,
    2006, all handset manufacturers and all providers of public mobile
    radio service (other than those falling within a *de minimis*
    exception) must offer at least two digital wireless telephone
    handset models per digital air interface offered that are certified
    at least T3 under the ANSI C63.19 standard.[^51]

## Commission Staff Report

15. As noted above, the Commission directed in the *Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order* that, "\[s\]hortly after three years after the
    effective date of this Order, FCC staff will deliver to the
    Commission a report" that examines three topics: (1) "the impact of
    our rules in achieving greater compatibility between hearing aids
    and digital wireless phones;" (2) "the development of new
    technologies that could provide greater or more efficient
    accessibility of wireless telecommunications to hearing aid users;"
    and (3) "the impact of this Order's compatibility requirements on
    cochlear implant and middle ear implant users and their ability to
    use digital wireless phones."[^52] The Commission stated that the
    report would "form the basis for the Commission to initiate a
    proceeding to evaluate: (1) whether to increase \[or\] decrease the
    2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that comply
    with a U3 rating; (2) whether to adopt \[hearing aid compatibility\]
    implementation benchmarks beyond 2008; and (3) whether to otherwise
    modify the \[hearing aid compatibility\] requirements."[^53] The
    rules adopted in the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* became
    effective on November 17, 2003.[^54]

16. On November 8, 2006, the Bureau released a public notice seeking
    comment on topics to be addressed in the hearing aid compatibility
    report to be prepared by Commission staff.[^55] The public notice
    originally established that comments were due on December 15, 2006,
    and reply comments were due on January 5, 2007.[^56] On December 5,
    2006, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS),
    Hearing Loss Association of America, CTIA, Gallaudet University,
    Research in Motion, Nokia, Samsung Telecommunications America, and
    T-Mobile filed a motion for extension of time within which to submit
    comments and reply comments.[^57] On December 12, 2006, the Bureau
    issued a public notice granting the motion and extending the comment
    submission deadline to January 12, 2007, and the reply comment
    submission deadline to January 31, 2007.[^58] We received 20
    comments[^59] and 13 reply comments.[^60]

17. *Joint Consensus Plan*. On April 23, 2007, representatives from the
    Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) Incubator
    Solutions Program 4 - Hearing Aid Compatibility[^61] and advocates
    for consumers with hearing loss met with Commission staff to explain
    preliminarily a consensus proposal to revise and update Section
    20.19 of the Commission's rules, including a proposed alternative to
    the Commission's requirement that manufacturers and wireless service
    providers must ensure that at least fifty percent (50%) of their
    handset models meet an M3 or better rating by February 18,
    2008.[^62] ATIS states that "through an open and impartial process,"
    its working group developed a comprehensive plan reflecting the
    joint input of the wireless industry and consumers with hearing loss
    (the "Joint Consensus Plan").[^63] The participants included many
    wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers, as well as
    the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of
    Hearing (AG Bell), the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA),
    Gallaudet University Technology Access Program (TAP), and the
    Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications
    Access (RERC). On June 25, 2007, the ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Working Group filed Supplemental Comments that present in detail
    this comprehensive consensus proposal.[^64]

18. The Joint Consensus Plan incorporates several inter-related
    components that are designed to increase the availability of a
    variety of handset models with advanced features as well as more
    economical models to hard of hearing consumers, as well as to
    recognize the technological and economic constraints that sometimes
    limit production of marketable models that meet compatibility
    thresholds. These proposals include:

-   providing Tier I carriers a numerical alternative to the current
    requirement to offer 50% of handset models per air interface meeting
    at least an M3 rating by February 18, 2008;

-   increasing the number of T3-rated or better handset models that Tier
    I carriers must make available;

-   changing to 33% the percentage of wireless handset models per air
    interface rated M3 or better that manufacturers must offer;

-   increasing manufacturers' required offerings of handset models
    meeting at least a T3 rating;

-   requiring manufacturers to include hearing aid compatibility in some
    of their new models each year ("product refresh" requirement) and in
    handset models with varying form factors;

-   requiring Tier I carriers to offer acoustic coupling-compatible
    handset models from "multiple tiers" of functionality which industry
    will define;

-   implementing a phase-in of the ASC C63.19-2007 technical standard
    for hearing aid compatibility; and

-   requiring that manufacturers and carriers regularly report on the
    availability of compliant handset models.

    The Joint Consensus Plan also requests swift action in light of the
    approaching February 2008 deadline.[^65] We discuss the Joint
    Consensus Plan in more detail below.

# DISCUSSION

## Availability of Compatible Handsets

### Impact of the Commission's Rules

19. [Background]{.underline}. As discussed earlier, the Commission
    requires manufacturers and digital wireless service providers to
    report every six months on efforts toward compliance with the
    hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years of
    implementation, and then annually thereafter through the fifth year
    of implementation.[^66] On or before November 17, 2006,
    manufacturers and wireless service providers filed their most recent
    compliance reports, detailing, among other things, the hearing
    aid-compatible handset models that they offered.[^67] Bureau staff
    reviewed and verified (to the extent possible) the information in
    the November 2006 compliance reports in order to assess the impact
    of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules.

20. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* Meeting the worthy goal of compatibility
    between hearing aids and wireless devices in order to satisfy the
    critical needs of the deaf and hard of hearing community is
    complicated by several factors, including the technical
    electromagnetic and magnetic interactions of these two classes of
    devices, as well as consumer preferences and how those preferences
    affect acceptance of design choices.[^68] At present, the population
    of the U.S. is comprised of approximately 300 million people.[^69]
    Of those numbers, over 213 million individuals are wireless
    subscribers.[^70] Americans have come to rely increasingly on mobile
    phones in their work and personal lives. According to HLAA, the
    number of individuals today in the U.S. with hearing loss is at an
    all time high of 31 million people \-- with that number expected to
    reach approximately 40 million people at the end of this
    decade.[^71] As a consequence, there is an ever increasing need to
    afford those with hearing loss greater access to compatible wireless
    phones with the full complement of features and the benefit of the
    latest technological advances.

21. We briefly summarize a few of the findings gleaned from information
    collected in the November 2006 compliance reports before presenting
    a more detailed discussion of the data. As demonstrated by the data
    presented below, the Commission's rules have contributed to
    achieving greater compatibility between digital wireless telephones
    and hearing aids. According to the manufacturers' November 2006
    status reports, the data reveals that 113 of their current handset
    models, or 52.1% of their available offerings, met at least an M3
    rating for RF interference reduction. Similarly, the data shows that
    49 out of 103 service providers that filed reports offered five or
    more handset models meeting this standard, and these providers offer
    service to, at least, 193.4 million wireless mobile service
    subscribers. Further, the data for inductive coupling demonstrates
    that 57 of the manufacturers' handset models, or 26.3%, met at least
    a T3 rating (and 14.3% met a T4 rating), and 11 service providers
    offered their subscribers at least five T3-rated or better handset
    models.

22. At the same time, the data reveals that there is a difference in the
    availability of hearing aid-compatible handset models by air
    interface. For example, as of November 2006, 89.8% of the
    manufacturers' CDMA production models met at least an M3 rating, but
    only 20.2% of the GSM handset models reached this threshold (with
    one meeting an M4 rating). Two out of 31 GSM filing carriers that
    were not subject to the *de minimis* exception offered five handset
    models with an M3 rating or better, and three with a T3 rating or
    better, while 18 out of 52 CDMA filing carriers that were not
    subject to the *de minimis* exception offered five handset models
    with an M3 rating or better, and three with a T3 rating or better.
    Information provided by ATIS in the record also supports the greater
    availability of compatible handset models over the CDMA air
    interface.[^72]

23. In the following sections, we review the most recent compliance
    reports filed to date, and summarize the data and our findings
    below.

#### Compatible Handset Models 

24. There are a total of eight handset manufacturers that filed November
    2006 compliance reports.[^73] As of November 2006, all eight of the
    manufacturers were fully compliant with the Commission's hearing aid
    compatibility requirements. The eight manufacturers offered a total
    of 217 handset models.

25. *Number of Handset Models Offered per Air Interface:* Of the total
    of 217 handset models offered by the eight manufacturers, the
    following summarizes the number of handset models available per air
    interface.

    *CDMA:* 88 handset models

    *GSM:* 99 handset models

    *GSM/WCDMA*: 5 handset models

    *iDEN:* 25 handset models

26. *Summary of Ratings of Handset Models per Air Interface:* The
    relevant M-ratings and T-ratings for handset models offered by the
    eight manufacturers are shown in the table below. As the table below
    illustrates, of the 217 handset models available, 113 of the handset
    models were rated M3 or better for RF interference. Additionally, of
    the 217 handset models available, 57 of the handset models were
    rated T3 or better for inductive coupling capability.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in"
height="1.3798611111111112in"}

27. In addition to the 113 compatible handset models reported by the
    manufacturers that are rated M3 or better, there are 82 other
    handset models that were identified as meeting compatibility
    standards for either RF interference or inductive coupling in some
    of the wireless service providers' November 2006 compliance reports,
    but were not identified in the manufacturers' reports.[^74] We
    attribute this discrepancy to the fact that some handset models have
    been discontinued by the manufacturers but are still sold and
    carried in inventory by some wireless service providers. Thus, some
    wireless service providers reported those discontinued handset
    models in their November 2006 compliance reports. The table below
    shows the breakdown by air interface with associated hearing aid
    compatibility ratings of all handset models reported by
    manufacturers and service providers as meeting compatibility
    thresholds in their respective compliance reports.[^75]

    ![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in" height="1.225in"}

#### Wireless Service Providers' Offerings

28. *State of* *Offerings by Wireless Service Provider:* One hundred and
    three wireless service providers filed compliance reports with the
    Commission in November 2006. Of these, 74 offered at least two
    handset models rated M3 or better for RF interference reduction as
    of November 2006, and 50 offered at least two models that met a T3
    or better rating for inductive coupling capability.[^76] Since
    November 2006, at least 19 additional service providers have filed
    information with the Commission in the hearing aid compatibility
    docket (WT 01-309) indicating that they now offer at least two T3 or
    better handset models, for a total of 69. Moreover, many of these
    wireless service providers offer a broad choice of hearing
    aid-compatible handset models, going beyond the minimum requirements
    of the Commission's rules. For example, as the table below
    illustrates, a total of 49 wireless service providers offered five
    or more handset models as of November 2006 that had achieved an M3
    or M4 rating for RF interference.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.997916666666667in" height="0.75in"}

29. *State of* *Offerings per Tier:* Among the 103 wireless service
    providers that filed November 2006 compliance reports, there are
    four Tier I carriers,[^77] seven Tier II carriers,[^78] 88 Tier III
    carriers and four mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).[^79] The
    offerings of each of these classes of service providers break down
    as follows.

    *Tier I:* As of November 2006, the four Tier I carriers offered
    their subscribers between five and 31 handset models meeting at
    least an M3 rating, and between three and 14 handset models meeting
    at least a T3 rating for their GSM, CDMA and iDEN phones.

    *Tier II:* As of November 2006, six filing Tier II carriers offered
    their subscribers between two and 22 handset models meeting at least
    an M3 rating, and five carriers offered between two and 12 handset
    models meeting at least a T3 rating. Two carriers had waiver
    requests pending and subsequently informed the Commission that they
    now offer two handset models meeting at least a T3 rating.

    *Tier III:* As of November 2006, 56 filing Tier III carriers that
    were not subject to the *de minimis* exception offered their
    subscribers between two and 20 handset models meeting at least an M3
    rating, and 34 of those filing Tier III carriers offered between two
    and nine handset models meeting at least a T3 rating.

    *MVNOs:* As of November 2006, three out of the four filing MVNOs
    offered their subscribers two handset models meeting at least an M3
    rating, and two handset models meeting at least a T3 rating. The
    remaining MVNO was exempt from the Commission's hearing aid
    compatibility requirements.

30. According to the *Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*, the top 25
    mobile wireless service providers (by subscribers) had a total of
    over 202.3 million mobile subscribers as of December 2005.[^80] Of
    these 25 providers, those that filed compliance reports in November
    2006 were serving 199.1 million wireless subscribers.[^81] The
    following table shows that the great majority of these 199.1 million
    wireless subscribers, or 193.2 million wireless subscribers, had at
    least five M3-rated or better, and three T3-rated or better, choices
    of hearing aid-compatible handset models.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.990972222222222in" height="1.18125in"}

31. *State of Offerings per Air Interface:* The majority of the wireless
    service providers operate using either a GSM or CDMA air interface.
    A few wireless service providers also reported using iDEN, WCDMA, or
    TDMA air interfaces. A summary of the status of compatible handset
    model offerings by air interface[^82] follows:

    *CDMA:* As of November 2006, 53 CDMA service providers offered at
    least two M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and 37 of
    those offered at least two T3-rated or better compatible handset
    models. 18 of them offered at least five M3-rated or better
    compatible handset models, and three T3-rated or better compatible
    handset models.

    *GSM:* As of November 2006, 18 GSM service providers offered at
    least two M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and ten of
    these offered at least two T3-rated or better compatible handset
    models. Two of them offered at least five M3-rated or better
    compatible handset models, and three T3-rated or better compatible
    handset models.

    *iDEN:* As of November 2006, the only two filing iDEN service
    providers offered at least five M3-rated or better compatible
    handset models, and three T3-rated or better compatible handset
    models.

    *WCDMA:* As of November 2006, one filing WCDMA service provider
    offered three M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and two
    T3-rated or better compatible handset models.

    *TDMA:* As of November 2006, there were three wireless service
    providers that were exempt from compliance under the *de minimis*
    exception.

    *Other:* As of November 2006, there was one wireless service
    provider using an analog air interface that was not subject to the
    hearing aid compatibility rules, two wireless service providers
    using a PAS (personal access system) air interface that were exempt
    from compliance under the *de minimis* exception, and eight wireless
    service providers with unknown air interfaces that were also exempt
    from compliance under the *de minimis* exception.

#### Evaluation of Progress To Date

32. In general, many commenters believe that the Commission's hearing
    aid compatibility requirements have achieved meaningful success to
    date.[^83] However, advocates for the deaf and hard of hearing
    community express some concerns about the state of compliance on a
    going forward basis and urge the Commission to adopt even more
    stringent requirements to further benefit the deaf and hard of
    hearing community.[^84] From their perspective, ATIS and the
    wireless industry argue that some aspects of, and early assumptions
    underlying, the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* need to be
    revisited \-- most notably, the technological feasibility of meeting
    RF interference and inductive coupling rating requirements for
    handset models that employ a GSM air interface.[^85]

33. [Recommendation]{.underline}*.* The Bureau recommends that the
    Commission vigilantly monitor compliance with its hearing aid
    compatibility rules, and take appropriate enforcement action against
    parties that violate the rules. In addition, the Bureau recommends
    that the Commission continue to encourage the wireless industry to
    further its efforts towards achieving more complete compatibility
    between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids, including
    seeking input from all interested parties on ways to encourage and
    promote more complete compatibility with hearing aids.

### Deployment Benchmarks and Related Requirements from 2008 to 2011

34. [Background]{.underline}*.* As discussed above, the Commission's
    rules impose minimum hearing aid-compatible handset deployment
    benchmarks and other related requirements on manufacturers and
    wireless service providers, including a requirement that, by
    February 18, 2008, at least 50% of all digital wireless handset
    models offered by manufacturers or wireless service providers per
    air interface meet an M3 standard.[^86] In the *Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order,* the Commission stated that the staff report
    would "form the basis for the Commission to initiate a proceeding to
    evaluate: (1) whether to increase \[or\] decrease the 2008
    requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that comply with a
    U3 rating; (2) whether to adopt \[hearing aid compatibility\]
    implementation benchmarks beyond 2008; and (3) whether to otherwise
    modify the \[hearing aid compatibility\] requirements."[^87]

35. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* In their comments, some consumer groups
    advocate moving beyond the current criteria for handset
    compatibility, either by increasing the standard for compatibility
    from M3/T3 to M4/T4,[^88] or by moving towards an ultimate goal of
    requiring 100% of wireless phones to be fully compatible with
    hearing aids.[^89] They further express concern about low rates of
    compatibility for GSM handset models, and emphasize that the current
    requirements set a "low bar" that must not be "neglected or
    abandoned."[^90] HLAA urges the Commission to increase the
    requirements to offer handset models that are capable of inductive
    coupling, as future demand for such handsets will increase in the
    coming years.[^91] In contrast, industry commenters describe a
    series of technical challenges that they state make reaching or
    exceeding the upcoming benchmark problematic for GSM handset
    models.[^92] ATIS points out that handsets using a GSM air interface
    are more difficult to make compliant than handsets of the same
    design using a CDMA air interface, because, among other things, GSM
    signals by nature create more interference, and therefore the
    formulae used to calculate compliance ratings under the ANSI C63.19
    technical standard are different for handset models using a GSM air
    interface versus those using a CDMA air interface.[^93]

36. ATIS asserts that, in order to meet the M3 rating requirements (much
    less the M4 rating requirements), certain limiting design choices
    have to be made for GSM handset models.[^94] According to ATIS, some
    of these design choices negatively impact handset
    marketability.[^95] Moreover, TAP notes that the trend towards new
    capabilities in mobile phones, including brighter, larger displays,
    can even further complicate compatibility issues.[^96] If the
    upcoming 50% deployment benchmark is not changed, according to ATIS
    and the wireless industry, wireless service providers using a GSM
    air interface will have to keep large numbers of potentially highly
    marketable handset models out of the commercial market in favor of
    generally less desirable but compliant handset models. [^97]

37. *The Joint Consensus Plan.* On June 25, 2007, the ATIS Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Working Group filed supplemental comments that present
    a comprehensive proposal to modify the deployment benchmarks and
    other provisions in Section 20.19 of the Commission's rules.[^98]
    The ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working Group represents that the
    Joint Consensus Plan reflects the input of not only the wireless
    industry (wireless service providers and manufacturers) but also
    representatives from advocacy groups representing consumers with
    hearing loss, including the Alexander Graham Bell Association for
    the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Hearing Loss Association of
    America, Gallaudet University Technology Access Program, and the
    RERC on Telecommunications Access.[^99] In the Joint Consensus Plan,
    the ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working Group states that the
    proposals promote increased access to certain types of hearing
    aid-compatible devices.[^100] For example, the ATIS Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Working Group states the proposals foster availability
    of inductive coupling-capable devices by imposing additional
    requirements on both carriers and manufacturers, and promote access
    to more advanced devices and newer technology for consumers with
    hearing loss by requiring manufacturers to routinely add new devices
    to their hearing aid-compatible lineups.[^101]

38. The Joint Consensus Plan recommends that the Commission "adjust\[\]
    the minimum number of \[hearing aid-compatible\] devices for all
    consumers with hearing loss and impose\[\] additional requirements
    on both wireless service providers and manufacturers to make
    available certain types of \[hearing aid-compatible\] devices for
    consumers with more severe hearing loss."[^102] The Joint Consensus
    Plan also recommends a transition to the 2007 version of the ANSI
    C63.19 standard, and suggests future reporting requirements.
    Although it does not address recommended benchmarks for Tier II and
    Tier III carriers,[^103] the Joint Consensus Plan specifically
    recommends changing the requirements for Tier I carriers as follows:

-   reducing the requirement from offering at least 50% of handset
    models per air interface with M3/M4 compatibility to the lesser of
    either 50% of handset models offered or, at least, eight compatible
    handset models per air interface by 2008; nine compatible handset
    models per air interface by 2009; and ten compatible handset models
    per air interface by 2010,[^104] and

-   increasing the requirement for telecoil-compatible handset models
    from at least two models per air interface to the lesser of 33% of
    handset models or three models per air interface by 2008; five
    models per air interface by 2009; seven models per air interface by
    2010; and ten models per air interface by 2011.[^105]

39. Under the Joint Consensus Plan*,* the requirements for manufacturers
    would change as well, as follows:

-   from offering at least 50% of handset models per air interface with
    M3/M4 compatibility to 33% of models per air interface (except for
    manufacturers with *de minimis* portfolios);[^106] and

-   increasing the requirement for telecoil-compatible handset models
    from two per air interface to the greater of two handset models per
    air interface or 20% of models per air interface with T3/T4
    capabilities by 2009; 25% of models per air interface with T3/T4
    capabilities by 2010; and 33% of models per air interface with T3/T4
    capabilities by 2011 for manufacturers who offer more than four
    models total per air interface.[^107]

40. The Joint Consensus Plan also recommends the following additional
    modifications to the Commission's requirements relating to the
    manufacture and offering of hearing aid-compatible handset models:

-   Require manufacturers to include acoustic coupling compatibility in
    some of their new models each year, enough so that, for
    manufacturers offering four or more handsets, half of the minimum
    required number of M3 or better handset models must be current-year
    models (referred to as the "refresh" rules in the accompanying
    chart).[^108]

-   Require Tier I carriers to offer acoustic coupling-compatible
    handset models from "multiple tiers" of functionality, which
    industry will define.[^109]

-   Retain the *de minimis* exception and clarify that it applies on a
    per-air-interface basis.[^110]

-   Implement a phase-in of the ANSI C63.19-2007 technical standard for
    hearing aid compatibility testing and certification purposes. In
    this regard, the Joint Consensus Plan suggests that the Commission
    allow use of the 2007 technical standard on a permissive basis
    immediately and make adherence to the 2007 technical standard
    mandatory by 2010. However, during the interim period, the Joint
    Consensus Plan provides a limitation that only one new handset model
    per air interface manufactured during 2009 and rated under the 2006
    version of the technical standard may be counted toward a
    manufacturer's inductive coupling compatibility requirements. The
    Joint Consensus Plan also recommends that handset models rated under
    a pre-2007 version of the technical standard before 2010 will be
    grandfathered as meeting the requirements.[^111]

41. The following table of the Joint Consensus Plan summarizes many of
    the new recommended requirements for Tier I carriers and
    manufacturers that are not subject to the *de minimis*
    exception.[^112]

    ![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in"
    height="3.8097222222222222in"}

42. *Other Wireless Service Providers.* As discussed above, the Joint
    Consensus Plan makes no recommendations with respect to deployment
    obligations for Tier II and Tier III carriers. On this issue,
    Blooston and Dobson note the number of waivers requested by Tier III
    carriers of the September 2005 RF interference reduction requirement
    to offer at least two M3-rated handset models, as well as the more
    recent waiver requests seeking relief from the September 2006
    requirement to offer at least two inductive coupling-capable
    models.[^113] Noting that they have no control over technology
    issues and tend to get new handset models much later and in much
    smaller numbers than do larger wireless service providers, the rural
    Tier III carriers represented by Blooston urge that some relief be
    granted specifically for small, rural wireless service providers
    that would provide some "additional time beyond the deadlines set
    for larger carriers" to secure adequate supplies of compatible
    handset models.[^114] Similarly, Dobson Communications, a Tier II
    carrier, notes that Tier II and Tier III carriers "lack the
    purchasing power to dictate the development of \[hearing
    aid-compatible\] handsets by manufacturers," and argues that the
    problems that Tier I carriers experience in obtaining sufficient
    compatible handset models are "magnified for smaller
    carriers."[^115] In this regard, IWS states that "\[i\]f there are a
    limited number of \[hearing aid-compatible\] compliant handsets
    available, it is unlikely they will be made available to Tier III
    carriers in a sufficient number to meet the Commission's
    deadline."[^116] For these reasons, Dobson suggests a staggered
    deadline, so that carriers have six months beyond the manufacturers'
    deadline "to allow sufficient time for carriers to test, obtain, and
    stock handsets in their stores."[^117]

43. [Recommendation]{.underline}. In light of the extensive negotiations
    between the wireless industry and advocacy groups for the deaf and
    hard of hearing culminating in the Joint Consensus Plan*,* the
    Bureau recommends that the Commission solicit comment from all
    interested parties on the proposed modifications to the Commission's
    future hearing aid compatibility requirements as proposed therein.
    Additionally, the Bureau recommends that the Commission seek input
    as to any appropriate modifications to the Commission's future
    hearing aid compatibility requirements for wireless service
    providers that are not Tier I carriers, including whether the
    Commission should stagger deployment benchmarks to allow additional
    time for such wireless service providers to obtain, test and market
    new compliant handset models.

44. In connection with this recommendation, we also recommend that the
    Commission clarify several matters related to the hearing aid
    compatibility benchmarks. First, as suggested in the Joint Consensus
    Plan, we recommend that the Commission codify in its rules that the
    *de minimis* exception applies on a per-air interface basis.[^118]
    Second, again consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan, we recommend
    specifying that, in order to be counted as satisfying the hearing
    aid compatibility requirements, handsets that have multiple air
    interfaces must meet the hearing aid compatibility requirements for
    all air interfaces over which they operate on U.S. frequency
    bands.[^119] Finally, we recommend clarifying that devices marketed
    by a manufacturer as distinct devices generally are counted as
    different handset models for purposes of the hearing aid
    compatibility rules. However, handset models that have no
    distinguishing variations of form, features, or user capabilities,
    or that only differentiate units sold to a particular service
    provider, should be counted as a single handset model for purposes
    of the hearing aid compatibility rules.

## Consumer Information and In-store Testing

45. [Background]{.underline}*.* Under the Commission's rules, compatible
    wireless handsets are required to be labeled.[^120] Wireless
    handsets are required to have the immunity rating clearly displayed
    on the packaging material of the handset, and an explanation of the
    ANSI standard immunity rating system is required to be included in
    the owner's manual or as an insert in the packaging material.[^121]
    In order to ensure that the immunity rating information is conveyed
    to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, the Commission further
    requires wireless service providers to make the immunity rating
    available, by either: displaying it on the handset's box, providing
    separate literature describing which handset models the provider
    offers that are compatible, posting information on their Internet
    site, or any other means the wireless service provider determines is
    sufficient.[^122] In recognizing that wireless service providers
    offer their products and services through a variety of channels,
    including the Internet, kiosks in shopping malls, agents, and
    stand-alone stores, the Commission affords them flexibility in
    choosing how to adequately inform deaf and hard of hearing consumers
    about their choices.[^123] The Commission noted that it would
    revisit its decision to provide such flexibility if it received a
    large volume of complaints concerning the inability of consumers to
    find the information its rules require to be conveyed.[^124]
    Additionally, the Commission encourages wireless service providers
    to train their personnel and agents so that they can assist
    consumers who may have questions concerning handset models that are
    hearing aid-compatible.[^125] Finally, retail outlets owned or
    operated by wireless service providers are required to make hearing
    aid-compatible phones available for live, in-store testing by
    customers.[^126]

46. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* The record confirms that the
    Commission's rules have fostered improvement in the availability of
    information for deaf and hard of hearing consumers. For example, in
    addressing the impact of the Commission's rules to date, TAP states
    that one key impact has been to help hearing aid wearers identify a
    number of digital wireless handsets that are "less likely than
    others to result in bothersome interference in their hearing
    aids."[^127] Further, TAP points out that, prior to the Commission's
    hearing aid compatibility requirements, consumers had no way to find
    compatible digital wireless handsets among the growing selection of
    handset models available from each digital wireless service
    provider.[^128] Today, in large part due to the Commission's
    labeling, in-store demonstration, and related requirements, hearing
    aid users seeking to purchase a wireless phone have a logical
    starting point for their search, and can try out a number of handset
    devices in wireless service providers' retail stores before making
    their selection.[^129]

47. Nonetheless, the availability of information regarding hearing
    aid-compatible handsets still suffers from serious shortcomings.
    Significantly, there is no single location or website where hearing
    aid wearers may find comprehensive information about hearing
    aid-compatible handset models offered by manufacturers and service
    providers with the corresponding ratings, nor is there a single
    database in which hearing aid compatibility information for
    particular handset models is readily accessible. Although OET's
    equipment authorization database has information about hearing aid
    compatibility ratings associated with manufacturers'
    equipment,[^130] this database was not designed in a manner to make
    hearing aid compatibility information readily accessible either to
    consumers or to service providers. In particular, the database
    maintains such information based upon FCC IDs, not handset model
    numbers,[^131] and it is difficult to search for useful information
    about compliant handset models based solely upon the name of the
    manufacturer. Moreover, the database may retrieve several records
    associated with one FCC ID, so the current rating for hearing aid
    compatibility may not always be clear to a consumer or service
    provider conducting a routine search of the database \--
    particularly one not familiar with the equipment certification and
    application process. Furthermore, because manufacturers are
    permitted to make some changes to equipment without re-applying for
    authorization and certification of the equipment,[^132] there may be
    instances that would be difficult to track where, due to a
    permissive change for the purpose of equipment certification, a
    hearing aid compatibility rating has changed for a manufacturer's
    handset model.

48. Other sources of information regarding hearing aid-compatible
    handset models are also limited. For example, the Disability Rights
    Office (DRO) of the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau (CGB)
    maintains a website that explains the rules requiring
    telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to
    make their products and services accessible to people with
    disabilities pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 255, if readily
    achievable,[^133] and posts Section 255 contact information for
    wireless manufacturers and service providers on that website, which
    is updated annually.[^134] However, we note that the Commission's
    rules do not require that the Commission obtain and make publicly
    available information regarding a corporate contact person for
    hearing aid compatibility information or the hearing aid
    compatibility of particular handset models.[^135] CTIA also has
    established a website that includes general information for hearing
    aid users who would like to purchase a digital wireless phone,
    including detailed answers to frequently asked questions.[^136]
    Although this website does include links to some wireless service
    providers' accessibility websites, it does not currently extend
    beyond the four Tier I carriers.[^137] Some individual manufacturers
    and service providers also post hearing aid compatibility
    information on their websites, but the information is not consistent
    or uniform among these websites, and it is therefore of limited
    value for comparing compatible handset models.[^138] In this regard,
    we note that the Joint Consensus Plan recommends that manufacturers
    voluntarily place hearing aid compatibility ratings of all handset
    models on their websites.[^139]

49. On another related matter, some of the information in the compliance
    reports filed with the Commission may not be as complete or as
    helpful as possible. For example, TAP raises concerns that the
    Commission may not be receiving the most adequate or specific
    information for it to evaluate whether sufficient effort has been
    made by the wireless industry to achieve technical solutions over
    the three and one half years since the hearing aid compatibility
    rules were adopted.[^140] Moreover, TAP believes that, for the
    Commission to fully evaluate the effects of the rule to date, more
    information is needed from both the wireless industry and hearing
    aid manufacturers.[^141] Furthermore, Commission staff encountered
    difficulties when verifying the ratings for certain handset models
    identified in compliance reports because many of the compliance
    reports referenced the handset manufacturer and model number but did
    not include the associated FCC ID.[^142] In this regard, the Joint
    Consensus Plan includes some recommended measures to promote more
    efficient reporting. These recommendations include requiring
    wireless service providers and manufacturers to continue to report
    regularly to the Commission on the status of their compliance with
    the new proposed benchmarks.[^143] Specifically, the Joint Consensus
    Plan recommends that these reports include, among other things: FCC
    ID numbers of compliant models, information on the features of
    compliant models, and information on labeling and consumer outreach
    efforts. Under the Joint Consensus Plan's recommendation, wireless
    service providers would report in May of each year, and
    manufacturers in November of each year. The proposed schedule in the
    Joint Consensus Plan's recommendation provides that Tier I carriers
    would file their first reports in May 2008, and Tier II and III
    carriers thereafter in May 2009.

50. The record further indicates that the labeling on wireless handsets,
    and retailers' in-store practices, have not always provided
    consumers with complete and accurate information. Several commenters
    discuss the lack of information available to assist the deaf and
    hard of hearing consumer and describe how this hampers the
    consumer's attempts to make an informed choice about which digital
    wireless handset would best meet their needs.[^144] Specifically,
    the record includes consumer concerns about, or experiences with,
    poorly or inaccurately labeled phones,[^145] poorly designed
    placards,[^146] untrained store personnel,[^147] and lack of
    in-store testing.[^148] In particular, commenters who address
    in-store testing report widely varying experiences. Both consumer
    groups and individuals report that some stores allow testing, and
    others do not.[^149]

51. In addition to the website and reporting recommendations in the
    Joint Consensus Plan noted above, commenters suggest several
    possible measures to improve the availability of information to
    consumers. For example, in order to facilitate the consumer's
    testing and information-gathering process, HLAA requests that
    wireless service providers allow deaf and hard of hearing consumers
    to make specific appointments with retail personnel so that
    sufficient time is allotted to assist such individuals.[^150] HLAA
    also urges the Commission to remind wireless service providers of
    their obligation to facilitate in-store testing so that consumers
    can quickly identify how a phone works for them, and further
    requests that the Commission enforce the in-store testing
    requirement for all hearing aid-compatible phones.[^151] One
    commenter requests that there be more accountability on carriers to
    inform potential customers who are interested in buying a wireless
    phone.[^152] Furthermore, as permitted in the recent revision of the
    ANSI C63.19 standard in 2007, both industry and consumer groups
    support allowing wireless handsets to be labeled with different RF
    interference reduction and inductive coupling capability ratings as
    a measure that could increase the utility of labeling, and provide
    consumers with more complete information regarding the quality of
    interoperability between the wireless handset and a hearing
    aid.[^153]

52. [Recommendation]{.underline}*.* The Bureau recommends several
    measures that the Commission should consider taking to improve the
    accessibility of hearing aid compatibility information to consumers
    and service providers. First, we recommend that the Commission seek
    comment on the reporting recommendations in the Joint Consensus
    Plan, including the proposed content of reports and the reporting
    schedule. While these periodic reports would not provide continuous
    updates and would not in themselves provide readily accessible
    information to consumers, accurate and informative reports are
    important to the information process.

53. At the same time, Commission staff should work proactively to
    improve the transparency of real-time information both to service
    providers and to consumers. It is important to have a central source
    from which interested parties easily can either find out the
    compatibility rating of a particular handset model or obtain a
    listing of handset models that meet their requirements. To
    accomplish this, Commission staff should explore measures that might
    make the equipment authorization database more accessible for this
    purpose, such as adding a relevant search function. The Commission
    should also consider seeking comment on whether to require
    manufacturers to inform staff of the handset models associated with
    each FCC ID, and to require them to update this information when
    they introduce new models. Furthermore, the Bureau recommends that
    the Commission seek comment on whether it should adopt new Part 2
    rules on permissive changes such that a filing is required that
    includes trade names and model numbers. In addition, the Bureau will
    work with CGB to explore means to include hearing aid compatibility
    contacts and other information in order to expand the utility of and
    subject matter on the DRO's existing website. For example, CGB
    currently maintains a website that provides links to manufacturers'
    websites for information regarding the cellular telephone specific
    absorption rates (SAR) of the handset models for RF emissions
    exposure.[^154] Commission staff will consider whether a similar
    website is feasible for hearing aid compatibility information, and
    if so, the Bureau will work closely with CGB to implement it as
    quickly as possible.

54. In addition to improving the information that is available from the
    Commission, we also recommend that the Commission seek comment on
    ways to improve the availability of information directly from
    manufacturers and service providers. As noted above, the Joint
    Consensus Plan proposes that manufacturers voluntarily post hearing
    aid compatibility ratings of all their handset models on their
    websites. We recommend that the Commission seek comment on this
    recommendation, including on whether such postings should be
    mandatory. We note that complete and accurate manufacturer postings
    are critical to the utility of any CGB website providing links to
    the manufacturers' sites, as suggested above.

55. Finally, we recommend that the Commission seek comment on other ways
    to improve the availability and accessibility of consumer
    information regarding hearing aid-compatible handsets. As discussed
    below in the section on "Open Platform" Networks, this would include
    seeking further comment on expanding in-store testing requirements
    beyond retail outlets owned or operated by service providers.

## Developments Since the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*

56. In its 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* the Commission
    committed to examine the development of new technologies that could
    provide greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless
    communications to hearing aid users.[^155] In this section, the
    Bureau first examines the development of new wireless technologies,
    as well as modification of existing technologies, that are designed
    specifically to facilitate superior communication experiences for
    deaf and hard of hearing users. We then discuss emerging hearing aid
    compatibility regulatory issues that are raised by technological
    developments and by other changes in the Commission's rules.

### Technological Developments Affecting the Hard of Hearing

57. [Background]{.underline}. Digital wireless telecommunications
    provide convenience and efficiency for the hearing population, but
    for the deaf and hard of hearing, they open a new way of life.
    Today, modern text and wireless video communication technology fills
    a void by providing much needed mobility and freedom for the deaf
    and hard of hearing community.

58. Recent and developing digital wireless technology promises to
    increase the availability of communication networks to the entire
    deaf and hard of hearing population. Development of new technologies
    continues to significantly impact the deaf and hard of hearing
    community \-- affording them access to critical tools which enable
    them to access and utilize wireless communications to a greater and
    greater extent. As TAP observes, many hearing aid users regularly
    supplement their voice communications with existing wireless visual
    communication technologies, such as wireless e-mail, instant
    messaging and short messaging.[^156]

59. In the following sections, the Bureau briefly summarizes existing
    technology that has been modified or enhanced in order to promote
    wireless communication by the hard of hearing community, as well as
    some new and evolving technologies developed expressly for the hard
    of hearing.

#### Enhancements to Existing Technology

60. *Text Messaging*. Wireless service providers and manufacturers have
    recognized the unique appeal of text messaging to the deaf and hard
    of hearing community. Text messaging allows the deaf to communicate
    when in transit or otherwise away from a fixed text telephone (TTY)
    system.[^157] Aside from the mobility advantages, text messaging
    also allows for private communication within the presence of other
    deaf people. For these reasons, the deaf and hard of hearing have
    embraced text messaging as an instant and direct form of
    communication accessible to them and any potential contacts.[^158]

61. The record demonstrates that service providers recognize the
    importance of continuing to increase access to wireless
    telecommunications for the deaf and hard of hearing by enhancing
    text messaging. T-Mobile, while acknowledging that its feature-rich
    smart phone is not hearing aid-compatible, notes the popularity of
    the smart phone among deaf and hard of hearing persons due to its
    texting functionality.[^159] Cingular (now AT&T)[^160] states it has
    developed the Text Accessibility Plan, with input from the deaf and
    hard of hearing community, which is designed to provide more focused
    text service offerings that may be useful for persons with hearing
    loss and speech difficulties.[^161]

62. Other reports confirm the continuing development of advances in text
    messaging that benefit the deaf and hard of hearing. For instance, a
    specialty provider offers phones equipped with text-facilitating
    QWERTY keypads, such as the Blackberry and Danger Sidekick (sold by
    T-Mobile) preloaded with deaf-friendly instant messaging and relay
    software.[^162] More recently, Text4Deaf.Com, a communications-based
    website serving the deaf community and those with whom they
    interact, announced it has launched a website that will enable
    real-time text messaging with a web interface to wireless
    phones.[^163] As the service is described, Text4Deaf allows users to
    send and receive messages to individuals or groups while enabling
    recipients to respond directly to the originating personal computer
    (PC), Apple computer (Macintosh or Mac), Personal Digital Assistant
    (PDA), or mobile phone.[^164] This existing technology, as enhanced,
    has transformed wireless communications for the deaf and hard of
    hearing.

63. *Mobile Internet.* Digital wireless telecommunications expand the
    deaf and hard of hearing community's access to services and
    information by enabling mobile Internet connections. Text and relay
    technology have improved individual communication for the deaf and
    hard of hearing community but the role of wireless technology
    reaches beyond personal communication. Mobile web connections allow
    deaf and hard of hearing customers to access real-time news reports
    and stay informed about their environments.[^165] For example, deaf
    persons in New York reported that their mobile multimedia access
    helped them understand and react appropriately during the September
    11 attacks.[^166] Some fortunate deaf persons have used mobile web
    connections to e-mail 911 emergency services when they could not
    access TTY services.[^167] Day-to-day life is also improved as deaf
    and hard-of-hearing persons enjoy conveniences usually reserved for
    hearing persons, such as ordering pizza for delivery while still in
    transit.[^168] The development and improvement of mobile Internet
    services and devices will continue to bridge the gap between the
    deaf and hard of hearing community and mainstream society.

64. *Relay and TTY Services*. Wireless technology has also expanded
    relay services. Many relay service providers offer video relay
    service (VRS) and Internet Protocol (IP) relay. Both VRS and IP
    relay use the Internet instead of telephone networks. IP Relay
    functions like a TTY-based call except that the Internet
    functionality allows the deaf or hard of hearing caller to use a
    web-enabled mobile device instead of a TTY. VRS allows the deaf or
    hard of hearing caller to communicate in American Sign Language
    (ASL), in some cases a much faster and more natural form of
    communication for the deaf and hard of hearing than written English.
    The deaf and hard of hearing community highly values video
    communication because text messages, while convenient for simple
    messages, can restrict the emotional complexity and efficiency of
    conversations.[^169] In contrast to text messages, ASL places a full
    range of expression at their disposal.[^170] Unfortunately, current
    mobile networks lack the bandwidth required for video of sufficient
    clarity such that the viewer can perceive the fluid movements of
    sign language.[^171] However, as discussed below, researchers are
    currently developing technologies to incorporate video communication
    into the wireless world.

65. *Volume Control.* Advances in computer technology are leading to
    improved sound quality in hearing aids, and hearing aids are
    becoming more complex as a consequence.[^172] Many hearing aids now
    have an "integrated signal processing" feature.[^173] This feature
    replaces the former volume control feature in many hearing
    aids.[^174] In contrast to hearing aids, wireless handsets typically
    do not include volume control features. Some individuals express
    concern in the record regarding the lack of volume controls on
    wireless handsets.[^175] HLAA states that one of the hearing aid
    users' most important concerns regarding wireless devices is the
    lack of adequate volume control on many handsets.[^176] In light of
    consumer complaints about insufficient volume controls, the Joint
    Consensus Plan urges all interested parties to specifically look
    into the question of volume controls on wireless handsets.

66. [Recommendation]{.underline}. The Bureau recommends that the
    Commission continue to monitor the enhancement of existing
    technologies that benefit the deaf or hard of hearing. Additionally,
    the Bureau recommends that the Commission solicit comment with
    respect to the issue of volume controls on wireless handsets.

#### New and Developing Technologies

67. *Video Technology*. Some emerging digital wireless technologies
    presage the beginning of a video telecommunications age for the deaf
    and hard of hearing community. Two research groups, one American and
    one European, have researched wireless video technology with an eye
    towards providing real-time communication for the deaf and hard of
    hearing. University of Washington and Cornell University professors
    have developed MobileASL.[^177] MobileASL employs video compression
    technology to enable deaf users to "video sign" despite the
    bandwidth limitations of current wireless mobile networks.[^178] The
    researchers observed that deaf users require clear resolution of
    certain body parts, particularly the face, in order to interpret
    sign language.[^179] Transmitting full video of sufficient quality
    to observe the subtle, but often meaningful, face movements would
    overburden current mobile networks.[^180] MobileASL reduces the
    amount of data transmitted by looking only for face, hand and arm
    movements.[^181] In this manner, it replicates the actual optical
    practice of people interpreting sign language because they focus
    intently on the face movements while relying on peripheral vision to
    observe the less nuanced hand and arm movements.[^182] Professor
    Ladner (one of the developers from the University of Washington)
    reports that MobileASL can work on networks with 10-20 *kbps* of
    available bandwidth and he reports that he is currently talking to
    wireless providers about deploying the technology.[^183]

68. European government, academic and commercial entities partnered to
    form Wireless Information Services for Deaf People on the Move
    (WISDOM) and apply digital wireless technologies to the specific
    needs of the deaf and hard of hearing.[^184] WISDOM was a European
    Union-funded program coordinating, over a three year period,
    research, development and planning of 3G wireless telecommunications
    services for the benefit of the deaf and hard of hearing
    community.[^185] Completed in 2004, the program produced encouraging
    test results, but current mobile networks are unable to support the
    initiatives utilizing video sign language.[^186] The initiatives are
    summarized below.

69. WISDOM researchers tested a real-time conversation service with
    video call capability supplemented by text capability when required
    for additional clarification.[^187] This feature was tested
    successfully with small computers in Wireless Local Area Networks
    (WLANs) but not on mobile phone networks.[^188] WISDOM also
    successfully tested a wireless VRS service incorporating a distance
    sign language interpreter service capable of relaying audio input
    from small meetings as real-time sign language output for the deaf
    user.[^189] Deafstation.org, a website providing sign language daily
    news, sports, arts, employment notices, and even translations
    between the four European sign languages, was also tested
    successfully.[^190] WISDOM researchers also successfully addressed
    the problem of interworking with fixed network text telephones so
    that deaf persons can access emergency services from their mobile
    phones without TTY equipment.[^191] Most importantly, WISDOM
    researchers from Germany's Aachen University of Technology conducted
    successful tests for automatic sign language recognition which would
    allow deaf users to actually control their mobile handsets with sign
    language.[^192] Automatic sign language recognition faces challenges
    beyond the bandwidth limitations hindering other video
    technologies,[^193] but its continued development reflects the
    integration of the deaf and hard of hearing communities with digital
    wireless telecommunications.

70. *Captioning Technology*. Digital wireless telecommunications can
    expand the availability of captioning. Deaf and hard of hearing
    persons have enjoyed captioning on televisions and in some movie
    theaters for years.[^194] Researchers at the Georgia Tech Research
    Institute have developed a wearable captioning system that will
    allow deaf and hard of hearing users to receive information
    presented audibly to the general public in captioned format over a
    wireless network.[^195] Most public venues such as sports arenas,
    concert halls or movie theaters already have wireless network
    systems installed.[^196] The captioning software developed at
    Georgia Tech can receive captions from any venue provided the
    captions are transmitted via the standard 802.11b wireless
    protocol.[^197] Any PDA with a recent Microsoft Windows operating
    system can display captions using the software.[^198] The software
    was licensed in 2005 to Peacock Communications for finalization and
    deployment.[^199]

71. *New Technologies Not Yet Available.* The record in this proceeding
    also includes a few examples of new technologies that have not yet
    played a significant role in providing access for the deaf and hard
    of hearing. For example, TAP notes that, although Bluetooth
    technology has become widely available in cell phones due to
    reductions in size and improved battery efficiency, Bluetooth is
    currently available only as an accessory to hearing aids which
    either have a direct audio input interface or a telecoil, and
    offerings for such add-ons are only available from two
    companies.[^200] According to TAP, Bluetooth technology has not
    advanced to the degree that would permit it to be implemented as a
    built-in hearing aid feature.[^201] TAP posits that if Bluetooth or
    a similar technology can overcome the current size and efficiency
    problems prohibiting its use within hearing aids, it might likely
    replace the telecoil in the long term.[^202] Similarly, smartphone
    technology has not yet provided the benefits to the deaf and hard of
    hearing that some predicted. Although TAP recognizes that
    smartphones will help hearing aid wearers achieve greater and more
    efficient access to telecommunications, it notes that the
    electromagnetic energy emitted by the display screens often
    interferes with the hearing aids, thereby causing difficulty to
    hearing aid users.[^203] TAP notes that consumers with hearing aids
    are often advised to select a cell phone that allows them to turn
    off their screens, but it states that, since screens are becoming
    ever more important in wireless telephone technology, addressing
    screen displays as a source of interference will become increasingly
    important in the years ahead.[^204]

72. [Recommendation]{.underline}. The Bureau recommends that the
    Commission continue to monitor the development of new technologies
    in this area, and seek comment on ways to address the issue of
    screen displays as a source of interference with hearing aids.

### Emerging Regulatory Issues

#### Expansion of Services to New Frequency Bands and Air Interfaces

73. As the growing demand for wireless services increases the need for
    spectrum, and the Commission issues new licenses and increases
    flexibility for existing licensees, the provision of CMRS will
    continue to expand to new frequency bands. Moreover, we anticipate
    that engineers will continue to develop, and companies will bring to
    market, new air interfaces offering improved or different
    functionalities to wireless telecommunications users. In light of
    these developments, the Joint Consensus Plan recommends that the
    Commission apply its hearing aid compatibility rules to all spectrum
    bands that are used for the provision of CMRS in the United States,
    subject to technical standards development. This proposal is
    consistent with the Commission's recent determination in the *700
    MHz Service Report and Order* that all digital CMRS providers,
    including providers of such services in the 700 MHz Band and the
    Advanced Wireless Services-1 (AWS-1) and Broadband Radio
    Service/Educational Broadband Radio Service (BRS/EBS) bands, should
    be subject to hearing aid compatibility requirements under Section
    20.19 to the extent they offer real-time, two-way switched voice or
    data service that is interconnected with the public switched network
    and utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables the
    provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of
    subscriber calls once technical standards are developed.[^205]

74. At the same time, the Commission has recognized that specific
    hearing aid compatibility requirements cannot apply in the absence
    of an established technical standard governing a particular
    frequency band or air interface. In the *700 MHz Service Report and
    Order,* the Commission strongly encouraged ANSI and various
    stakeholders to work together towards adoption of technical
    standards in a timely manner so that hearing aid users will have the
    same accessibility to interconnected services in new bands as they
    do in the bands already addressed in Section 20.19(a) of the
    Commission's rules.[^206] The Commission further set a timetable for
    the development of the necessary technical standards for new
    services and frequency bands that have governing service rules in
    place, and it amended the rule in Section 20.19 to reflect its
    determinations.[^207] In order to avoid this situation arising in
    the future, the Bureau strongly urges standard-setting bodies to
    develop hearing aid compatibility standards together with technical
    operating specifications, as they are developed for new air
    interfaces and frequency bands.

75. On a related matter, we note that any mobile satellite service
    ("MSS") that involves the provision of commercial mobile radio
    service directly to end users is included in the definition of
    CMRS.[^208] In extending 911 obligations to certain MSS providers,
    the Commission found that these MSS providers offer "real-time,
    two-way, switched voice service that is interconnected with the
    public switched network." [^209] We also note that, under the
    Commission's rules, certain MSS providers, in three frequency bands,
    may seek authority to integrate an ancillary terrestrial component
    (ATC) into their networks for the purpose of enhancing their ability
    to offer high-quality, affordable mobile voice and data services on
    land, in the air, and over oceans.[^210] The Bureau recommends that
    the Commission seek comment on the applicability of hearing aid
    compatibility requirements to MSS providers that offer CMRS and
    whether any revisions to the hearing aid compatibility rules are
    appropriate respecting such providers, in order to promote
    consistent treatment for all CMRS providers that offer functionally
    equivalent services. In this regard, the Bureau also recommends that
    the Commission seek comment on whether it should make a difference
    if an MSS provider offers such service purely through a
    satellite-based network or through a combined network that relies on
    both satellite and ATC facilities.

76. [Recommendation]{.underline}*.* The Bureau recommends that the
    Commission seek comment on measures it could take to encourage
    standard-setting bodies to develop hearing aid compatibility
    standards together with technical operating specifications, as they
    are developed for new air interfaces and frequency bands. The Bureau
    also recommends that the Commission seek comment on the application
    of hearing aid compatibility requirements to MSS providers that
    offer CMRS, including whether it should make a difference if an MSS
    provider offers service purely through a satellite-based network or
    through a combined network that relies on both satellite and ATC
    facilities.

#### Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) via Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs)

77. [Background]{.underline}*.* A new wave of wireless products supports
    the use of WLANs to access a wide range of services provided over a
    broadband Internet access connection.[^211] The most prevalent WLAN
    technology is equipment manufactured in accordance with the IEEE
    802.11 family of standards, commonly known as "Wi-Fi."[^212] Wi-Fi
    technology allows users to connect a Wi-Fi enabled device to
    broadband Internet access services using radio frequencies set aside
    for use by Part 15 unlicensed devices. The proliferation of
    Internet-telephony services and broadband data services makes Wi-Fi
    enabled devices attractive communications options for consumers.

78. VoIP, as implied by the name, allows a user to make voice calls
    using Internet Protocol. VoIP converts the user's voice from the
    user's equipment into a digital signal which can travel over the
    Internet or privately managed data networks. If a broadband
    connection is available, the user needs only a computer equipped
    with software and a microphone, a traditional phone paired with an
    adapter or a specialized phone that can provide VoIP service.[^213]
    We note that VoIP is an application which can be provided over wired
    or wireless connections. In the wireless context, VoIP can be
    provided over various frequency bands using any air interface.

79. Wireless handset manufacturers are increasingly using Wi-Fi to
    expand consumer access to VoIP services. Manufacturers such as
    UTStarcom, Belkin, Linksys and Panasonic all offer wireless handsets
    that feature Wi-Fi voice capability.[^214] However, many of the
    handsets that are available today cannot continue calls beyond the
    short range of the Wi-Fi frequency. Newly released dual-mode Wi-Fi
    handsets can fill this void. Samsung's t409 and Nokia's 6086 handset
    models offer dual-mode operability on T-Mobile's GSM and Wi-Fi
    networks. These phones have both GSM and Wi-Fi radios and can
    seamlessly switch between the GSM and Wi-Fi networks without
    interrupting the user's call.

80. Handset manufacturers are also taking advantage of Wi-Fi's speedy
    data transmissions. For example, both T-Mobile and Sprint offer
    handsets with voice and Wi-Fi data service capability.[^215]
    T-Mobile's Dash and Wing handsets are both Wi-Fi-enabled for
    data.[^216] Both phones operate on the GPRS/EDGE network and
    Wi-Fi.[^217] In July 2007, Sprint introduced the Mogul device by
    High Tech Computer Corp., which offers access to both EV-DO and
    Wi-Fi networks.[^218] Apple's iPhone also operates on dual
    frequencies for data transmissions.[^219] Apple's iPhone
    automatically switches from AT&T's EDGE network to certain known
    Wi-Fi networks when it finds them, and pops up a list of new Wi-Fi
    networks it encounters as the user moves.[^220] Research in Motion
    will offer dual-mode operability in August with the release of the
    Blackberry 8820.[^221] The handset will operate on AT&T's
    GSM/GPRS/EDGE network.[^222]

81. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* With the introduction of wireless VoIP
    applications over non-traditional networks, including handset models
    with dual-mode voice operability such as those operating on
    T-Mobile's GSM and Wi-Fi networks, issues begin to arise regarding
    the appropriate scope and application of hearing aid compatibility
    requirements. Under the Commission's current rules, hearing aid
    compatibility obligations only apply to services that are classified
    as CMRS and that "offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data
    service that is interconnected with the public switched network and
    utilize\[\] an in-network switching facility that enables the
    provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of
    subscriber calls."[^223] Furthermore, as discussed above, specific
    hearing aid compatibility requirements apply only to frequency bands
    and air interfaces for which governing technical standards have been
    promulgated.[^224] We note that hearing aid compatibility technical
    standards are not yet available for technologies such as Wi-Fi and
    WiMax that are currently used to provide VoIP.[^225] In addition, by
    statute telephones used with public mobile services and private
    radio services are exempt from the general requirement that all
    newly manufactured telephones meet hearing aid compatibility
    standards, unless that exemption is lifted by the Commission.[^226]

82. Handset models that use WLAN technology only to provide data
    services may also raise potential policy questions for hearing aid
    compatibility, as the data feature may be particularly attractive to
    deaf and hard of hearing consumers who may also need hearing aid
    compatibility for the handset model's voice operation.[^227] In the
    record, HLAA notes that Apple's iPhone has been rolled out, in part,
    on AT&T's EDGE network but is not yet hearing aid-compatible, and
    that Apple is not involved in any discussions regarding hearing aid
    compatibility.[^228] Further, HLAA also raises concerns that
    "manufacturers of handsets used with VoIP services are \[not\] even
    aware of the need to make their handsets compatible with hearing
    aids."[^229]

83. In the *Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory
    Ruling*,[^230] the Commission reiterated its commitment to
    effectuate the accessibility policy embodied in section 255 of the
    Communications Act and stated that it would continue to monitor the
    development of wireless broadband Internet access service and its
    effects on the policy goals of section 255. Moreover, although
    section 255 expressly applies to telecommunications services and not
    information services, the Commission noted in the *Wireless
    Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling* that it has
    used its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I to extend
    accessibility obligations to certain information services in the
    past, including the wireline broadband Internet access
    service.[^231]

84. [Recommendation]{.underline}. In light of the Commission's
    commitment to ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities,
    including those persons with hearing loss, the Bureau recommends
    that the Commission solicit comment as to the hearing aid
    compatibility policy issues that arise due to the emergence of VoIP
    applications provided over wireless networks and associated handset
    models, including the dual-mode handset models described above.
    These issues include, among others, whether measures may be
    appropriate to ensure that manufacturers and service providers are
    committing the necessary efforts and capital to make such devices
    hearing aid-compatible at the earliest opportunity. More
    specifically, they include questions of whether both interconnected
    and non-interconnected VoIP services and equipment should be subject
    to hearing aid compatibility requirements, to the extent the
    Commission's rules do not currently cover these services and to the
    extent such services fall within the Commission's legal authority.
    Other issues may revolve specifically around the treatment of
    dual-mode handset models and services, particularly where hearing
    aid compatibility technical standards have been developed for one
    mode and not another.[^232]

85. The Bureau also recommends that the Commission seek comment as to
    whether any new hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate to
    address handsets that combine CMRS voice operation with data
    services provided over Wi-Fi networks or other WLANs. We note that
    the Joint Consensus Plan includes proposals to adopt product refresh
    and tiering rules that are intended to ensure consumers who use
    hearing aids will have access to wireless handsets with a range of
    functionalities.[^233] The Bureau recommends that the Commission
    seek comment as to whether those proposed rules appropriately
    advance hearing aid compatibility in handsets that include data
    services provided over Wi-Fi or other emerging technologies, or
    whether additional measures are needed.

#### "Open Platform" Networks

86. [Background]{.underline}*.* Under the Commission's current rules,
    manufacturers are required to meet the Commission's hearing aid
    compatibility standards by offering a certain number or percentage
    of hearing aid-compatible handset models to service providers.[^234]
    In addition, service providers similarly are obligated to offer a
    certain number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset
    models to consumers.[^235] Service providers are also expected to
    make information available to consumers regarding the immunity
    ratings of handsets,[^236] and are required to make hearing
    aid-compatible phones available for testing in their owned or
    operated retail outlets.[^237] These rules were designed for the
    current paradigm under which most customers purchase service and
    equipment as a package from their service provider, with the service
    provider having procured the equipment from an equipment
    manufacturer.

87. In the *700 MHz Service Second Report and Order*, the Commission
    required that licensees of the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block provide an
    "open platform" for devices and applications, *i.e.*, allow
    consumers, device manufacturers, application developers, and others
    to use the devices and applications of their choosing in C Block
    networks, subject to certain reasonable network management
    conditions that allow the licensee to protect the network from
    harm.[^238] In considering hearing aid compatibility issues in the
    context of open platforms, the Commission observed that, once a
    technical standard is in place and specific hearing aid
    compatibility obligations are extended to the 700 MHz Band, handset
    manufacturers will have independent requirements to offer a certain
    number of hearing aid-compatible handsets.[^239] The Commission
    further noted that it believed the open platform requirements
    themselves will help ensure that customers may use available hearing
    aid-compatible handsets regardless of whether they are offered by a
    wireless service provider or directly by an equipment manufacturer,
    subject only to the reasonable restrictions described above.[^240]
    Nevertheless, the Commission directed the staff to consider in this
    report whether any additional hearing aid compatibility requirements
    should be imposed as a result of the open platform requirements
    adopted in the order.[^241]

88. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* Currently, Section 20.19 of the
    Commission's rules imposes hearing aid compatibility obligations
    only on manufacturers and providers of the services within its
    scope, including resellers and MVNOs. In particular, the rules
    impose the brunt of the obligations for providing information to,
    and interacting with, consumers on service providers. With the
    growth of open platform networks, however, service providers may no
    longer play a major role in providing handset equipment to
    subscribers, and the roles of other players in addition to
    traditional equipment manufacturers and service providers may become
    increasingly significant. For example, it is possible that a C Block
    licensee in the 700 MHz Band will not offer any handsets at all,
    preferring instead to rely solely on the provision of handsets to
    its customers by manufacturers directly or through other entities
    that are not connected with the licensee.

89. Under this new paradigm, the existing rules may no longer be as
    effective in ensuring that both hearing aid-compatible handsets and
    the information necessary to identify and purchase them are
    available to hard of hearing consumers. For example, if
    manufacturers are required to make handsets available only to
    service providers, and only service providers have obligations to
    consumers, it is unclear whether consumers who obtain their handsets
    from sources other than their service provider will have sufficient
    access to hearing aid-compatible models. Similarly, it may become
    increasingly necessary to involve manufacturers and other parties
    that provide handsets to consumers in the dissemination of hearing
    aid compatibility information. In particular, in-store testing
    requirements currently applicable only to service provider-owned and
    operated outlets may become less meaningful as more consumers obtain
    their handsets from other sources. For example, a consumer that
    purchases a handset from a manufacturer via the Internet may not
    have the opportunity to test the handset prior to placing the order.

90. [Recommendation]{.underline}. Because the landscape is changing and
    open platform requirements may result in many more consumers
    obtaining handsets directly from sources other than service
    providers, including directly from manufacturers, the Commission
    should consider whether modifications to its rules are necessary to
    address hearing aid compatibility requirements in this context.
    These modifications may include imposing additional or modified
    deployment and information requirements on manufacturers as well as
    other parties that may be supplying handsets to consumers. In
    particular, we recommend that the Commission seek renewed comment on
    whether in-store testing requirements should be extended beyond
    service provider-owned and operated retail outlets in the context of
    open platform networks.

## Impact on Cochlear Implant and Middle Ear Implant Users

91. [Background]{.underline}*.* In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Order*, the Commission committed to examine in this staff report
    "the impact of this Order's compatibility requirements on cochlear
    implant and middle ear implant users and their ability to use
    digital wireless phones."[^242] The Commission described the
    technology behind cochlear implants,[^243] and noted at that time
    that consumers who use cochlear implants indicated they have had
    difficulty finding wireless phones they could use without suffering
    from annoying and sometimes painful interference, and without
    resorting to expensive and cumbersome external attachments.[^244] In
    adopting the hearing aid compatibility requirements, the Commission
    stated, "to the extent the modification of the exemption from the
    \[Hearing Aid Compatibility\] Act for wireless phones facilitates
    usage by hearing aid users, we expect that individuals with cochlear
    implants will likewise benefit."[^245] In the *Staff Report Public
    Notice*, the Bureau sought comment on topics to be addressed in the
    hearing aid compatibility report, including the impact of the
    hearing aid compatibility requirements on cochlear implant and
    middle ear implant users, and their ability to use digital wireless
    phones.[^246]

92. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* The record includes only a few
    commenters who addressed the subject of cochlear implants.[^247] TAP
    notes that "\[i\]n terms of interference from wireless devices, we
    are unaware of disproportionate problems among \[cochlear implant\]
    users compared to \[hearing aid\] users in \[wireless device\] use.
    Even so, there may be unknown issues related to cochlear implants
    that RF emissions from \[wireless devices\] may affect. For example,
    it is generally unknown how signal processing strategies might
    impact the perception of interference."[^248] Similarly, Cingular
    expresses a lack of information regarding disparate experiences for
    cochlear implant users, stating it is aware that the number of
    cochlear and middle ear implant users is comparatively small but
    growing, and there is some anecdotal evidence in consumer group and
    hearing industry trade publications regarding their use in wireless
    service.[^249] Cingular states that, since it does not have any
    concrete data on cochlear and middle ear implant users' experiences,
    it will defer to those experts for now.[^250] Cingular is willing to
    participate in testing activities to help the industry and consumer
    groups better understand and improve these users' wireless
    experience.[^251] One individual using a cochlear implant states
    that she found that some of the phones she was able to use with her
    hearing aid were not compatible with her processor,[^252] whereas
    another commenter using a cochlear implant believes she could hear
    better on a cell phone than most people with hearing aids.[^253]
    Furthermore, the Bureau found anecdotal evidence of people with
    cochlear implants who have had success using wireless devices.[^254]

93. Research continues on cochlear implants, with advances in
    microtechnology promising greater results from the implantation of
    greater numbers of smaller electrodes and new means of
    implantation.[^255] Not surprisingly, however, the Bureau has
    discovered that the interface between wireless handsets and cochlear
    implants does not appear to be the focus of the vast majority of the
    cochlear implant research conducted to date. In fact, of over ninety
    papers on issues related to cochlear implants published by the
    engineering society Institute of Electrical and Electronics
    Engineers (IEEE) from 2005 to the present, only one addressed
    cochlear implant use in conjunction with wireless phones.[^256]

94. [Recommendation]{.underline}. The Bureau recommends that the
    Commission continue to monitor developments relating to the
    interaction of wireless phones with cochlear and middle ear
    implants.

## Labeling of Hearing Aids with Immunity Rating 

95. [Background]{.underline}*.* In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Order,* the Commission noted that the ANSI C63.19 standard specifies
    ratings for digital wireless phones, U1 through U4, based on their
    RF emission levels, with U1 being the highest emissions and U4 the
    lowest emissions.[^257] The Commission further noted that the ANSI
    C63.19 standard also specifies ratings for hearing aids from U1 to
    U4 based on their immunity to interference, with U1 being the least
    immune and U4 the most immune.[^258] At that time, the Commission
    acknowledged that HIA had expressed concern regarding the labeling
    of hearing aids, particularly since they are highly customized for
    each person's physiology and individual hearing loss, and it is
    difficult to predict whether a particular hearing aid will provide
    the same level of immunity for every user.[^259] Additionally, HIA
    expressed concerns regarding what claims hearing aid manufacturers
    can make on product packaging with respect to compatibility with
    digital wireless phones.[^260] With respect to HIA's concerns about
    labeling on product packaging, the Commission noted that there were
    no Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement issues that would
    preclude labeling of hearing aids.[^261] Consequently, the
    Commission encouraged hearing aid manufacturers to test and label
    their hearing aid models with their immunity level in accordance
    with ANSI C63.19 in order to facilitate the matching of digital
    wireless handsets with hearing aids, and suggested that such
    labeling should be on models of hearing aids before they are
    customized, either by the manufacturer or audiologist, for the
    user's individual hearing loss and physiology.[^262]

96. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* On July 12, 2007, HIA announced in a
    letter to the FDA that its members would voluntarily include in
    their product user manuals some information about compatibility with
    mobile phones, and stated that the information that the industry
    will include with hearing aids will stress that the hearing aid
    compatibility ratings are \"based upon the best information
    available but cannot guarantee that all users will be
    satisfied.\"[^263] HIA's and its members' decision to provide some
    information about compatibility with hearing aids should assist in
    addressing many of the concerns raised in the record by hard of
    hearing consumers and their advocacy groups.

97. This letter represents a significant change on behalf of HIA and its
    members who are not currently labeling hearing aid models with their
    immunity level in accordance with ANSI C63.19.[^264] In the past,
    HIA and its members hesitated to provide such compatibility or
    labeling information because hearing aids are individually adjusted
    for each user rather than uniformly mass produced; they are provided
    to users by highly trained professional dispensers; and they are
    subject to a set of pervasive FDA regulations.[^265] HIA and its
    members consistently maintained that they were committed to
    providing the maximum possible amount of information to professional
    hearing aid dispensers to enable them to help a hearing aid user
    select a workable combination of hearing aid and wireless handset,
    but they were reluctant to label the hearing aids.[^266]

98. Voluntary provision of compatibility information will address many
    of the concerns raised in the record. For example, TAP expresses
    concerns that the lack of labels on hearing aids creates "a
    situation where hearing aid wearers cannot fully assess,
    independently, the predicted compatibility between the two devices;
    they must try to consult a hearing health professional (who may not
    have access to information about immunity either) for a non-medical
    problem."[^267] HAP provides anecdotal evidence that a
    world-renowned audiologist was not even aware that there are
    immunity ratings for hearing aids, and further states that the
    manufacturers' specifications used by audiologists to select hearing
    aids do not list immunity ratings for hearing aids.[^268] With
    respect to the hearing aid industry's nonparticipation in labeling,
    Cingular states it has been particularly difficult to quantify the
    extent to which the M3/M4 rating significantly improves a hearing
    aid user's experience without knowledge of the immunity ratings (or
    even testing information) for hearing aids, and further states that
    the wireless industry has had to be over inclusive in testing and
    designing wireless devices in order to account for all hearing aid
    products \-- regardless of whether a hearing aid has sufficient
    immunity to be intended for use with wireless devices or not.[^269]
    Indeed, as ATIS states, one of the fundamental assumptions of the
    Commission in adopting its hearing aid compatibility rules was that
    consumers would be better informed of the compatibility of wireless
    phones and hearing aids, but the absence of public information on
    radio frequency immunity of hearing aids greatly diminishes the
    ability of the public to make an informed purchasing decision.[^270]

99. [Recommendation]{.underline}. In light of HIA's recent announcement
    about voluntary provision of compatibility information with hearing
    aids, the Bureau recommends that the Commission monitor hearing aid
    labeling and related issues, including the extent to which the
    hearing aid industry's voluntary measures are effective.

## Further Review of Commission's Rules

100. The Joint Consensus Plan recommends that the Commission conduct a
     further review of the hearing aid compatibility rules in 2010 in
     order to ensure that there is continued progress towards achieving
     complete compatibility between digital wireless handsets and
     hearing aids.

101. [Recommendation]{.underline}. The Bureau recommends that the
     Commission commit to undertaking such a review in the future, and
     seek comment on whether 2010 or some other time is the appropriate
     period for undertaking this review.

# Conclusion & SUMMARY OF Recommendations 

102. In conclusion, the Bureau finds that the wireless industry has made
     tremendous and significant progress in achieving the Commission's
     current requirements for hearing aid compatibility. Notably, the
     Commission's rules have led to a substantial increase in the number
     and availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless
     telephones. Based on information submitted in the most recent
     compliance reports, the Bureau estimates that 193.2 million
     wireless subscribers have at least five M3-rated or better, and
     three T3-rated or better choices of hearing aid-compatible handset
     models.

103. With regard to suggestions for measures to facilitate further
     implementation of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
     requirements, the Bureau makes the following recommendations:

     **[Availability of Compatible Handsets]{.underline}**

-   The Commission should vigilantly monitor compliance with its hearing
    aid compatibility rules and take appropriate enforcement action
    against parties that violate the rules.

-   The Commission should continue to encourage the wireless industry to
    further its efforts towards achieving more complete compatibility
    between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids, including
    seeking input from all interested parties on ways to encourage and
    promote more complete compatibility with hearing aids.

-   The Commission should solicit comment from all interested parties on
    the proposed modifications to the Commission's future hearing aid
    compatibility requirements as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan.

-   The Commission should seek input as to any appropriate modifications
    to the Commission's future hearing aid compatibility requirements
    for wireless service providers that are not Tier I carriers,
    including whether the Commission should stagger deployment
    benchmarks to allow additional time for such wireless service
    providers to obtain, test and market new compliant handset models.

-   The Commission should codify in its rules that the *de minimis*
    exception applies on a per-air interface basis as suggested in the
    Joint Consensus Plan.

-   The Commission should specify that, in order to be counted as
    satisfying the hearing aid compatibility requirements, handsets that
    have multiple air interfaces must meet the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements for all air interfaces over which they operate on U.S.
    frequency bands as suggested in the Joint Consensus Plan.

-   The Commission should clarify that devices marketed by a
    manufacturer as distinct devices generally are counted as different
    handset models for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules,
    but that handset models that have no distinguishing variations of
    form, features, or user capabilities, or that only differentiate
    units sold to a particular service provider, should be counted as a
    single handset model for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility
    rules.

    **[Consumer Information and In-store Testing]{.underline}**

-   The Commission should seek comment on the reporting recommendations
    in the Joint Consensus Plan, including the proposed content of
    reports and the reporting schedule.

-   The Commission should direct staff to explore measures that might
    make the equipment authorization database more accessible for
    consumers and service providers to determine the hearing aid
    compatibility of handset models, such as adding a relevant search
    function, and should also seek comment on whether to require
    manufacturers to inform staff of the handset models associated with
    each FCC ID. Further, the Commission should seek comment on whether
    it should adopt new Part 2 rules on permissive changes such that a
    filing is required that includes trade names and model numbers.

-   The Commission should also seek comment on ways to improve the
    availability of information to consumers directly from manufacturers
    and service providers, including the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal
    that manufacturers voluntarily post hearing aid compatibility
    ratings of all their handset models on their websites.

-   The Commission should seek comment on other ways to improve the
    availability and accessibility of consumer information regarding
    hearing aid-compatible handsets.

    **[Technological Developments Affecting the Hard of
    Hearing]{.underline}**

-   The Commission should continue to monitor the enhancement of
    existing technologies that benefit the deaf or hard of hearing, and
    should solicit comment with respect to the issue of volume controls
    on wireless handsets.

-   The Commission should also continue to monitor the development of
    new technologies that may benefit the deaf or hard of hearing, and
    seek comment on ways to address the issue of screen displays as a
    source of interference with hearing aids.

    **[Emerging Regulatory Issues]{.underline}**

-   The Commission should seek comment on measures it could take to
    encourage standard-setting bodies to develop hearing aid
    compatibility standards together with technical operating
    specifications, as they are developed for new air interfaces and
    frequency bands.

-   The Commission should also seek comment on the application of
    hearing aid compatibility requirements to MSS providers that offer
    CMRS, including whether it should make a difference if an MSS
    provider offers service purely through a satellite-based network or
    through a combined network that relies on both satellite and ATC
    facilities.

-   The Commission should solicit comment as to whether any new hearing
    aid compatibility rules are appropriate to address handsets that
    combine CMRS voice operation with data services provided over Wi-Fi
    networks or other WLANs.

-   The Commission should consider whether modifications to its rules
    are necessary to address hearing aid compatibility requirements in
    the context of the emergence of open platform networks, including
    whether in-store testing requirements should be extended beyond
    service provider-owned and operated retail outlets in the context of
    open platform networks.

    **[Other Matters]{.underline}**

-   The Commission should continue to monitor developments relating to
    the interaction of wireless phones with cochlear and middle ear
    implants.

-   The Commission should monitor hearing aid labeling and related
    issues, including the extent to which the hearing aid industry's
    voluntary measures are effective.

-   The Commission should commit to undertake a future review of the
    hearing aid compatibility rules, as recommended in the Joint
    Consensus Plan, and seek comment on whether 2010 is an appropriate
    time frame.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Accessible Formats

104. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
     disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
     format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
     Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202)
     418-0432 (TTY).

## Contact Persons 

105. For further information concerning this report, please contact
     Christina Clearwater, Spectrum Competition and Policy Division at
     202-418-1893.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

106. This Report is issued under delegated authority pursuant to
     Sections 0.131 and 331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R § 0.131,
     0.331, and pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 255 and 710 of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151,
     154(i), 157, 255, and 610.

107. It is ORDERED that under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
     0.131 and 331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R § 0.131, 0.331,
     and pursuant to 47 C.F.R Section .331 and Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 255
     and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
     Sections 151, 154(i), 157, 255, and 610, the proceeding in the WT
     Docket 06-203 IS TERMINATED.

     WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU

     Fred B. Campbell, Jr.

     Chief

     **APPENDIX -- PARTIES FILING COMMENTS**

**[Comments]{.underline}**

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions on behalf of the ATIS
Incubator Solutions Program #4 -- Hearing Aid Compatibility
(collectively ATIS)

American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee
(ANSI)

David Branfield

Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)

Antoinette Cipollina

Linda Day

Deanne L. Deurell

Carrie Foster

Mark Foster

Joseph Gordon

The Hearing Access Program (HAP)

The Hearing Industries Association (HIA)

Hearing Loss Association of America, Alexander Graham Bell Association
for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, American Academy of Audiology,
American Association of People with Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, National Association of the Deaf, and
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (collectively
HLAA)

Patrick N. Hinman

David G. Hoffman

Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons
(NVRC)

Gary Palmer

Dana Simon

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. (Sony)

Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University (TAP)

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

AT&T Mobility LLC, f/k/a Cingular Wireless LLC (ATT/Cingular)

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG
Bell)

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions ("ATIS")

Blooston Rural Carriers (Blooston)

CTIA, The Wireless Association (CTIA)

Dobson Communications Corporation (Dobson)

Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University (TAP)

Hearing Industries Association (HIA)

Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA)

Iowa Wireless Services (IWS)

Research In Motion Limited (RIM)

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University (TAP)

[^1]: Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, *Report and Order*,
    18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16782-83 ¶ 74 (2003); *Erratum*, 18 FCC Rcd 18047
    (2003) (*Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*). The Commission adopted
    these requirements for digital wireless telephones under authority
    of a provision of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988,
    codified at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C).

[^2]: *See* *generally* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd
    16753.

[^3]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c). At that time, the Commission reported that
    approximately six million Americans used hearing aids to improve
    their hearing. *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    16756 ¶ 5. The Commission observed, *inter alia*, that "as wireless
    service has evolved to become increasingly more important to
    Americans' safety and quality of life, the need for persons with
    hearing disabilities to have access to wireless services has become
    critical." *Id.* at 16757 ¶ 7.

[^4]: *Id.* The *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* described acoustic
    coupling as follows:

    > In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding
    > sounds, desired and undesired, and converts them into electrical
    > signals. The electrical signals are amplified as needed and then
    > converted back into sound by the hearing aid speaker.

    *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763 ¶ 22.

[^5]: *Id.* In telecoil mode, with the microphone turned off, the
    telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field generated by
    the voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible
    telephones, audio loop systems, or powered neck loops. The hearing
    aid converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies
    them as needed, and converts them back into sound via the speaker.
    Using a telecoil avoids the feedback that often results from putting
    a hearing aid up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent
    exposure to over amplification, and eliminates background noise,
    providing improved access to the telephone.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(a); *see* *also* In the Matter of Service Rules
    for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket 06-150,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC
    Rcd 8064, 8117-18 ¶ 142 (2007) (*700 MHz Service Report and
    Order*)*.* CMRS is defined as mobile service that is provided for
    profit, interconnected, and available to the public. 47 C.F.R. §
    20.3; *see* 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1). We note that telephones used with
    public mobile services, as well as those used with private radio
    services, are exempt from the general statutory requirement that all
    telephones meet hearing aid compatibility standards. 47 U.S.C. §
    610(b)(2)(A); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 68.4. In 1994, Congress amended
    Section 332 of the Communications Act, replacing the public mobile
    service and private radio service categories with CMRS and private
    mobile \[radio\] service (PMRS). *See Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16764-65 ¶ 26. "Public mobile service" is
    defined to include certain services covered under Part 22 of our
    rules. 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(4)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 68.3.

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b); *700 MHz Service Report and Order*, 22
    FCC Rcd 8119 ¶¶ 145-147. The existence of an established, applicable
    technical standard is a statutory requirement for imposing hearing
    aid compatibility requirements. *See* Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat.
    976 (1988), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 610.

[^8]: *700 MHz Service Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 8119-20 ¶¶ 148-150.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *See* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, *Order on Reconsideration and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd
    11221, 11208-09 ¶¶ 26-27 (*Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration
    Order*).

[^11]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65.
    The term air interface refers to the system that ensures
    compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as
    handsets, and the service provider's base stations. Currently, the
    leading air interfaces include Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA),
    Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated Dispatch
    Enhanced Network (iDEN), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and
    Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA). We note that WCDMA
    is also known as Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).
    We use WCDMA, rather than UMTS, throughout this report for
    consistency and ease of reference.

[^12]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1), (c)(1)-(3). The 2001 version of ANSI
    Standard C63.19, which the Commission adopted in the *Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order*, used a "U" nomenclature for RF interference
    reduction, and this nomenclature is referenced in Section 20.19 of
    the Commission's rules. Subsequently, the 2006 version of this
    standard substituted the "M" nomenclature. For purposes of clarity,
    we will use the "M" nomenclature throughout this Report when
    referring to RF interference reduction ratings, unless referring to
    specific text that uses the "U" nomenclature.

[^13]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(2), (d). The 2006 version of ANSI Standard
    C63.19 substituted "T" nomenclature for the "UT" terminology that
    was used in the 2001 version of the standard. For purposes of
    clarity, we will use the "T" terminology throughout this Report when
    referring to inductive coupling compatibility ratings.

[^14]: *See* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, Cingular Wireless LLC Petition for Waiver
    of Section 20.19(c)(3)(i)(A) of the Commission's Rules, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 15108, 15115 ¶
    17 (2005) (*Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order*) (Commission permitted
    handset manufacturers and service providers offering dual-band GSM
    wireless handsets operating in both the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands
    additional time, until August 1, 2006, for making available handsets
    with a U3 (*i.e.,* M3) or higher rating in both bands). This order
    is discussed more fully below.

[^15]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16783 ¶
    75; 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(3).

[^16]: For example, any service provider using a TDMA air interface that
    planned to overbuild (*i.e.,* replace*)* its network to employ an
    alternative air interface was given a temporary reprieve from
    compliance on its TDMA network, provided certain conditions were
    met. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B).

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(1)-(2).

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(2)(i).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(3)(i)(B). The four nationwide, terrestrial
    CMRS carriers, AT&T Services, Inc., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel,
    and T-Mobile USA, are considered Tier I carriers. *See* Revision of
    the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for
    Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, *Order to Stay*, 17 FCC Rcd 14841,
    14843 ¶ 7 (2002) (*Non-Nationwide Carriers Order*).

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c).

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d).

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(1).

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(2).

[^25]: *Id.* In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order,*
    the Commission clarified the *de minimis* exception applies on a per
    air interface basis, rather than across a manufacturer's or
    carrier's entire product line. *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Reconsideration Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244-45 ¶ 53.

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f).

[^27]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ¶¶
    89-91; *see also* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and
    Handset Manufacturers, *Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB 2004).

[^28]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ¶ 63.

[^29]: In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, the Commission
    delegated to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in coordination
    with OET, the authority to approve future versions of the hearing
    aid compatibility technical standard to the extent that the changes
    to the standard do not raise major compliance issues. *See Hearing
    Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ¶ 63.

[^30]: *See* Public Notice, "OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and Rating
    Nomenclature," 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (2005).

[^31]: *See* American National Standard Methods of Measurement of
    Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing
    Aids, ANSI C63.19-2006, at 1, 52-53, 65-66.

[^32]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and
    Technology Clarify Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Standard, *Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (2006)
    (*2006 ANSI Standard Public Notice)*.

[^33]: *Id.*

[^34]: *See* Petition of American National Standards Institute
    Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) - ANSI ASC C63 filed on
    June 25, 2007 in WT Docket 01-309 (*ANSI ASC C63 Petition*). *See
    also* ANSI Comments. ANSI ASC C63 states that further improvements
    have been made to the technical standard to reflect changes in
    technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing procedures,
    resulting in the 2007 version of the technical standard. *ANSI ASC
    C63 Petition* at 2. Additionally, ANSI ASC C63 states that a strong
    consensus was achieved with the 2007 edition of the technical
    standard as evinced by a one hundred percent (100%) affirmative vote
    in its final recirculation ballot. As discussed further *infra*, the
    Hearing Loss Association of America and Gallaudet University
    Technology Access Program support this petition. *See* HLAA Comments
    at 10, HLAA Reply Comments at 7, and TAP Reply Comments at 8.

[^35]: *See* *generally* *Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 15108,
    15115 ¶ 17.

[^36]: *Id*.

[^37]: *Id.*

[^38]: *Id*. at 15117-18 ¶ 23.

[^39]: *See* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, T-Mobile USA, Inc. Petition for Waiver of
    Section 20.19(c)(3) of the Commission's Rules, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 15147, 15150 ¶ 7 (2005)
    (*T-Mobile Waiver Order*). In granting limited relief, the
    Commission required T-Mobile to make available to consumers one
    hearing aid-compatible handset model meeting an M3 rating no later
    than September 16, 2005; two hearing aid-compatible handset models
    meeting an M3 rating no later than October 16, 2005; and four
    hearing aid-compatible handset models meeting an M3 rating no later
    than November 16, 2005. *Id.* at 15148 ¶ 1.

[^40]: *See id.* at 15151 ¶¶ 8-10.

[^41]: Section 68.4 (a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, Petitions for Waiver of Section 20.19 of
    the Commission's Rules, WT Docket 01-309, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order,* 22 FCC Rcd 7171 (2007) (*September 2005 Compatibility
    Requirements Waiver Order)*. *See* *also* 47 C.F.R. §
    20.19(c)(2)(i). Tier II carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio
    service providers with more than 500,000 subscribers. Tier III
    carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with
    500,000 or fewer subscribers. *See* *Non-Nationwide Carriers
    Order*,17 FCC Rcd at 14847 ¶¶ 22-24.

[^42]: *September 2005 Compatibility Requirements Waiver Order,* 22 FCC
    Rcd at 7172 ¶ 1.

[^43]: *Id.* at 7200-03 ¶¶ 72-91.

[^44]: The Commission has previously acknowledged that, "\[i\]n contrast
    to large carriers, smaller wireless carriers may be disadvantaged
    when they seek to acquire ... specialized handsets" because vendors
    treat the largest carriers, who place the largest orders for
    equipment, as priority customers. *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Reconsideration Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 11233 ¶ 22.

[^45]: *See, e.g.,* IT&E Overseas, Inc., *Notice of Apparent Liability
    for Forfeiture*, 22 FCC Rcd 7660 (EB 2007) and Pine Telephone
    Company, Inc., *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*, 22 FCC
    Rcd 9205 (EB 2007).

[^46]: Copies of petitions for waiver are available in WT Docket No.
    01-309. We note that, since the filing of their waiver petitions,
    many of the petitioners have notified the Commission that they have
    come into compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
    requirements for RF interference reduction.

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(2)(i)(A).

[^48]: *See Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order,* 20 FCC Rcd 15115 ¶ 17.

[^49]: Copies of the motions for leave to withdraw are available in WT
    Docket No. 01-309.

[^50]: Copies of petitions for waiver are available in WT Docket No.
    01-309. We note that, since the filing of their waiver petitions,
    many of the petitioners have notified the Commission that they have
    come into compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
    requirements for inductive coupling.

[^51]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d)(2). HLAA and Telecommunications for the Deaf
    and Hard of Hearing Inc. jointly have opposed these petitions for
    waiver, arguing, among other things, they are not in the public
    interest or, in the alternative, that, if the Commission determines
    that some of the petitions have merit, it should restrict any relief
    granted to a limited period of time. *See* Consolidated Opposition
    of Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inc. and
    Hearing Loss Association of America to Requests for Waiver of
    Commission Rule 20.19(d)(2), filed on November 6, 2006 in WT Docket
    01-309, and HLAA Reply Comments at 6.

[^52]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ¶
    74.

[^53]: *Id.*

[^54]: *See* Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones, 68 Fed. Reg. 54173,
    54175 ¶ 17 (2003).

[^55]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be
    Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, *Public Notice,* 21
    FCC Rcd 13136 (WTB 2006) (*Staff Report Public Notice)*.

[^56]: *Id.*

[^57]: In the Matter of Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules
    Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket 06-203,
    *Motion for Extension of Time,* filed on December 5, 2006 (extension
    motion).

[^58]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Motion for Extension of
    Time to File Comments and Reply Comments on Topics to be Addressed
    in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, *Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd
    14399 (WTB 2006).

[^59]: We note that some of the 20 comments were joint comments filed by
    several parties.

[^60]: Parties filing comments and reply comments and the abbreviated
    references by which they are cited in this report are listed in the
    Appendix.

[^61]: ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working Group.

[^62]: *See Ex Parte Presentation* filed by Thomas Goode, General
    Counsel, ATIS in WT Docket No. 06-203 (April 24, 2007).

[^63]: ATIS Supplemental Comments filed in WT Docket No. 06-203
    (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Consensus Plan) at 3.

[^64]: Joint Consensus Plan at 1-5.

[^65]: *Id.* at 14-15.

[^66]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ¶¶
    89-91; *see also* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and
    Handset Manufacturers, *Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB 2004).

[^67]: Copies of manufacturers' and wireless service providers'
    compliance reports are available in WT Docket No. 01-309.

[^68]: ATIS Comments at 1.

[^69]: HLAA Comments at 19.

[^70]: *See* Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of
    Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile
    Services, *Eleventh Report*, 21 FCC Rcd 10947, 10950-51 ¶ 5 (2006)
    (*Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*).

[^71]: HLAA Comments at 19.

[^72]: ATIS Comments at 15-29.

[^73]: The eight manufacturers are: Kyocera, LG Electronics, Motorola,
    Nokia, Research in Motion, Ltd., Samsung, Sanyo, and Sony Ericsson.
    We note that additional manufacturers, as well as wireless service
    providers, may have been required to file reports but failed to do
    so. Staff recommends that EB consider appropriate action against
    such parties.

[^74]: We note that certain other models in addition to those 82 were
    identified in some service providers' reports as compatible, but we
    have not been able to verify that they in fact meet compatibility
    standards based on the Commission's records and follow-up contacts
    with the service providers and manufacturers.

[^75]: This table does not include percentage figures because most
    service providers did not include information regarding their total
    number of handsets offered. Hence, we do not have sufficient
    information to derive a meaningful denominator.

[^76]: Many of those service providers that did not offer at least two
    compatible models in each category are exempt from compliance under
    the *de minimis* exception, and others have pending requests for
    waiver of the Commission's rules. *See* ¶¶ 13-14 *supra.* Some
    service providers, however, appear neither to be exempt from the
    inductive coupling compatibility requirement nor to have requested
    waivers. We recommended that EB consider appropriate enforcement
    action against these service providers.

[^77]: Cingular Wireless (now AT&T), Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon
    Wireless.

[^78]: Tier II carriers that filed compliance reports include: Alltel,
    Centennial Communications, Dobson, Leap Wireless, Rural Cellular,
    SunCom Wireless, and US Cellular.

[^79]: The four MVNOs that filed compliance reports are: Disney Mobile,
    Hawaiian Telecom Services Co. (HTSC), Qwest, and Zefcom d/b/a
    Telispire PCS.

[^80]: *See* *Eleventh CMRS Competition Report*, 21 FCC Rcd 10947,
    11039, Table 4 (2006). We note that the *Eleventh CMRS Competition
    Report* only reports estimated subscriber information for the top 25
    mobile wireless service providers.

[^81]: Wireless service providers covering about 3.2 million
    subscribers, or approximately 1.6% of the total subscribers, did not
    file compliance reports. Those wireless service providers that have
    been identified as not filing a November 2006 compliance report have
    been referred to EB for further investigation.

[^82]: Operators with multiple air interfaces are counted multiple
    times. For example, if an operator has both GSM and CDMA networks,
    it is counted twice \-- once as a GSM operator and separately as a
    CDMA operator.

[^83]: *See, e.g.,* ATIS Comments at 4, Cingular Comments at 5, and HLAA
    Comments at i.

[^84]: *See, e.g.,* HAP Comments at 1, 4, HLAA Comments at 18-20
    (stating that the FCC's hearing aid compatibility requirements set a
    low bar), NRVC Comments at 1-2, David Branfield Comments, and TAP
    Comments at 5-6 (urging the Commission to provide motivation for
    industry to achieve 100% hearing aid compatibility).

[^85]: *See, e.g.,* ATIS Comments at 15-29 (including the extensively
    detailed discussion of the technological constraints facing the
    industry at 17-29), ATIS Reply Comments at 3-6, Sony Ericsson
    Comments at 2, T-Mobile Reply Comments at 3-5, Cingular Comments at
    7-9, and ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^86]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c).

[^87]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ¶
    74.

[^88]: HAP Comments at 1-2, HLAA Comments at 13.

[^89]: *See, e.g.,* NVRC Comments at 1, HLAA Comments at 14, and HAP
    Comments at 4.

[^90]: *See, e.g.*, HIA Comments at 2-3 (stating that the Commission
    should ask whether handset makers are "still committed" to the
    hearing aid compatibility regime, and why so many small wireless
    service providers have asked for waivers), HLAA Comments at 18, and
    TAP Comments at 3.

[^91]: HLAA Comments at 14. HLAA notes that, in response to a recent
    survey of its membership, as much as 81% of its membership reported
    using telecoils in 2005, in contrast to 61% in 1994. *Id.* *See
    also* HIA Comments at 3 (stating that the Commission should continue
    to pursue inductive coupling capability), HLAA Comments at 13
    (raising concerns that there are no additional benchmarks in place
    after the September 18, 2006 requirements for inductive coupling
    capability), and TAP Comments at 6-7 (stating that telecoil coupling
    remains the industry standard for wireless non-acoustic coupling to
    a hearing aid).

[^92]: ATIS Comments at 15-29, ATIS Reply Comments at 3. We note that
    ATIS provides an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive report
    describing in great detail a variety of technological constraints
    impacting the wireless industry's further progress towards
    compatibility with hearing aids, particularly with respect to GSM.

[^93]: *See* ATIS Comments at 15-19 (including charts at 15-17 of
    emissions from GSM and CDMA versions of same handset model); *see
    also* RIM Reply Comments at 6-7 and Cingular Comments at 3-4
    (Cingular notes that, although it has "worked diligently with its
    handset manufacturer vendors \[sic\]," it has had to "overcome
    significant technology challenges" to achieve the current number of
    compatible handset models.)

[^94]: *See, e.g.,* ATIS Comments at 21-29.

[^95]: *Id*. at 21-27.

[^96]: TAP Comments at 6.

[^97]: ATIS Comments at 31. *See also* Cingular Comments at 4-5, Dobson
    Reply Comments at 1-4, IWS Reply Comments at 1-2, RIM Reply Comments
    at 5-9, Sony Comments at 2-3, and T-Mobile Reply Comments at 3-5.
    *See also* ATIS Ex Parte Supplemental Comments filed in this docket
    on February 26, 2007, describing technical challenges faced by
    wireless device manufacturers and wireless service providers in
    meeting the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements with
    respect to handsets employing an iDen air interface.

[^98]: Joint Consensus Plan (styled as ATIS Supplemental Comments) filed
    in WT Docket No. 06-203.

[^99]: *Id.* at 1-5.

[^100]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^101]: *Id*.

[^102]: *Id.* at 1. The quotation refers to acoustic coupling and
    inductive coupling requirements respectively; inductive coupling is
    viewed as used by more profoundly hearing-impaired persons than
    acoustic coupling. S*ee, e.g., id.* at 5.

[^103]: *See* Attachment C at C-4.

[^104]: Joint Consensus Plan at 7. Under the Joint Consensus Plan, the
    deployment deadlines for both manufacturers and Tier I carriers fall
    on February 18 of each corresponding year.

[^105]: *Id.* at 7.

[^106]: *Id.* at 8.

[^107]: *Id.* at 8-9*.*

[^108]: *Id.* at 9.

[^109]: *Id.* at 7.

[^110]: *Id.* at 10.

[^111]: *Id.* at 13.

[^112]: See *id.* at Attachment B.

[^113]: Blooston Reply Comments at 3 and Dobson Reply Comments at 13.

[^114]: Blooston Reply Comments at 3. *See also* IWS Reply Comments at
    2-3 (stating that the 50% requirement will have disproportionate
    adverse effects on smaller GSM wireless service providers and
    extremely disadvantage them competitively because it is not
    economically feasible for small wireless service providers to have
    available a large inventory selection of handset models).

[^115]: Dobson Reply Comments at 4.

[^116]: IWS Reply Comments at 2.

[^117]: Dobson Communications Reply Comments at 4.

[^118]: *See* Joint Consensus Plan at 10. As noted above, the Commission
    has previously clarified that the *de minimis* exception applies per
    air interface. *See supra* n. 25.

[^119]: *Id.*

[^120]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f).

[^121]: *Id.*

[^122]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 16786 ¶ 87.

[^123]: *Id.*

[^124]: *Id.*

[^125]: *Id.*

[^126]: 47 C.F.R § 20.19(c) - (d); *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* 18
    FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65. *See also* *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Reconsideration Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 11239 ¶ 39 (affirming the
    requirements for labeling and in-store consumer testing of digital
    wireless handsets).

[^127]: TAP Comments at 3.

[^128]: *Id.*

[^129]: *Id.*

[^130]: Under the Commission's rules, manufacturers certify compliance
    with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements as part
    of the equipment authorization process. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1033(d).

[^131]: We note that the Commission's Part 2 rules do not require
    manufacturers to submit information on handset model numbers. *See,
    e.g.*, 47 C.F.R § 2.924.

[^132]: These changes are known as "permissive changes." For each FCC
    ID, the database record contains all the permissive changes
    permitted under Part 2 of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1043(b).

[^133]: *See \<*http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/\> (visited July 8, 2007).

[^134]: *See \<*http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section255_manu.html\>
    (visited July 8, 2007) and
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/service_providers.html\> (visited July
    8, 2007) respectively.

[^135]: Manufacturers subject to Section 255 are required to file with
    the FCC the name and contact information of their designated agent
    for receiving complaints. A consumer wishing to file a Section 255
    complaint can locate the name and designated agent's contact
    information from the FCC website. *See* 2006 Biennial Regulatory
    Review*, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Staff Report*, CG
    Docket No. 06-152, 22 FCC Rcd 2965, 3000, n. 61 (CGB 2007) (*2006
    CGB Biennial Review Report*). We note that the Commission extended
    its Part 68, Subpart E rules to allow consumers to file informal
    complaints under those rules if they find that wireless service
    providers or manufacturers of wireless equipment are not complying
    with its hearing aid compatibility rules. *See* *Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16789 ¶ 95. In this regard,
    comments in the *2006 CGB Biennial Review Report* proceeding were
    received from the American Association of People with Disabilities
    (AAPD), stating that rules covering complaints for hearing aid
    compatibility were not consumer friendly. AAPD asserted that the
    requirement that consumers identify the manufacturer (against whom
    they seek to file a complaint) by contacting the Administrative
    Council for Terminal Attachment \[as required under Section
    68.418(b)\] is a barrier to consumers filing hearing aid
    compatibility complaints. AAPD suggested that the hearing aid
    compatibility process should be more similar to the process for
    determining the designated agent for filing Section 255 complaints.
    AAPD suggested that the Commission require the same procedures as
    those applicable to Section 255 complaints to be followed by
    manufacturers subject to the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
    rules and complaint procedures, and to have the Commission publish
    hearing aid compatibility designated agents' contact information on
    the DRO website. *See* AAPD Comments in CG Docket No. 06-152 (filed
    Sept. 16, 2006).

[^136]: *See* CTIA's access wireless website at:
    \<http://www.accesswireless.org/\> (visited July 8, 2007). For
    frequently asked questions and answers, *see*:
    \<http://www.accesswireless.org/hearingaid/faq.cfm\> (visited July
    8, 2007).

[^137]: For links to some wireless service providers' accessibility
    websites, *see*:
    http://www.accesswireless.org/accessibility/sites.cfm (visited July
    8, 2007).

[^138]: *See* HLAA Comments at 9, 11.

[^139]: Joint Consensus Plan at 14.

[^140]: TAP Reply Comments at 4.

[^141]: *Id.* at 9.

[^142]: As discussed earlier, the Commission tracks equipment
    authorizations and certifications in its equipment authorization
    database by FCC ID, rather than by model name. Indeed, manufacturers
    may produce more than one handset model based on a single FCC ID
    without informing the Commission. Accordingly, in order to check the
    equipment authorization database records to determine whether a
    particular handset model meets hearing aid compatibility
    certification requirements, it is generally necessary to know the
    FCC ID associated with the handset. To assist the Commission staff
    in reviewing the compliance reports, several supplements were filed
    at staff's request, providing the FCC ID associated with the handset
    models offered.

[^143]: Joint Consensus Plan at 11-12.

[^144]: *See, e.g.,* David G. Hoffman Comments at 2, Dana Simon
    Comments, HAP Comments at 3-4.

[^145]: HLAA Comments at 9-10, David G. Hoffman Comments at 2.

[^146]: HAP Comments at 3, Exhibit B (which includes an example of a
    placard describing a wireless device that lists the immunity ratings
    in tiny type in the lower portion of the placard as opposed to
    including such information as a feature).

[^147]: David G. Hoffman Comments at 2, HAP Comments at 4, HLAA Comments
    at 11.

[^148]: Dana Simon Comments, HLAA Comments at 7-8.

[^149]: *See, e.g.,* HLAA Comments at 7-8, Joseph Gordon Comments, Dana
    Simon Comments, and Deanne Deurell Comments. It is unclear to what
    extent these comments address retail outlets owned or operated by
    service providers that are subject to the in-store demonstration
    requirement, as opposed to independent retailers that are not.

[^150]: HLAA Comments at 12.

[^151]: *Id.* at 8.

[^152]: Mark Foster Comments.

[^153]: *See, e.g.*, Cingular Comments at 6, HLAA Comments at 10, ATIS
    Reply Comments at 6, and TAP Reply Comments at 8.

[^154]: SAR is the measure of the amount of RF energy absorbed by the
    body when using a mobile phone. The Commission worked closely with
    federal health and safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA), to adopt limits for safe exposure to RF
    energy. CGB maintains a website that provides links to individual
    manufacturers' websites with SAR information. *See*
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/\> (visited on September 11, 2007).

[^155]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782 ¶ 74.

[^156]: *See* TAP Comments at 6-7.

[^157]: *See* Peter Svensson, Pagers Become Lifeline for the Deaf, Nov.
    21, 2003,
    \<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/tech/main584868.shtml\>.
    *See* Anders Rask, Mobile Phones Enable Deaf Community, Dec. 16,
    2002,
    \<http://www.ericsson.com/telecomreport/article.asp?aid=49&tid=247&ma=1&msa=3\>.
    TTY devices provide access to telecommunications relay services
    which connect the deaf to voice telephone users through an
    intermediary communications assistant. The communications assistant
    receives typed messages from the deaf caller's TTY and then verbally
    relays the message to the voice telephone user designated by the
    caller and vice versa. *See*
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/ttywireless.html\> (visited
    October 2, 2007).

[^158]: *See* Transcript of CTIA Accessibility Workshop ("*CTIA
    Transcript*") held on April 5, 2006 at 24-25,
    http://www.accesswireless.org/04052006WorkshopTranscript.txt. *See
    also* TAP Comments at 6-7 (observing that many hearing aid users
    supplement their voice communications with wireless visual
    communication technologies, such as wireless e-mail, instant
    messaging and short messaging.)

[^159]: *See* T-Mobile Reply Comments at 2 n.3.

[^160]: Throughout this report, we refer to this entity as Cingular. We
    note, however, that after Cingular filed its initial comments in
    this docket, the Commission approved the application of BellSouth
    and AT&T to transfer to AT&T control of licenses and authorizations
    held directly and indirectly by BellSouth, as well as control of
    Cingular and its various subsidiaries and affiliates. *See* AT&T
    Inc. and BellSouth Corporation Application for Transfer of Control,
    WC Docket No. 06-74, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 22 FCC Rcd 5662
    (2007) (approving applications, subject to certain conditions, on
    December 29, 2006). Following AT&T's merger with BellSouth in
    December 2006, Cingular Wireless is now solely owned by AT&T and no
    longer uses the Cingular name.
    \<http://www.wireless.att.com/about/cingular-history.jsp\> (visited
    September 25, 2007).

[^161]: Cingular Comments at 9-10.

[^162]: GoAmerica Device Selection,
    http://www.goamerica.com/company/index.php (visited June 26, 2007).

[^163]: "Text4Deaf Launches Text Messaging Site for Deaf Community," The
    Hearing Review, July 5, 2007. *See also* http://app.text4deaf.com/
    (visited July 18, 2007).

[^164]: *Id.*

[^165]: *See* Svensson, *supra* n. 157.

[^166]: *Id.*

[^167]: *Id.*

[^168]: *See* *CTIA Transcript* at 25.

[^169]: Shefali Anand, *Sign of the Times: Video, Email are Boons to the
    Deaf*, [The Wall Street Journal Online,]{.smallcaps} June 9, 2007,
    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118134342938629622-lMyQjAxMDE3ODIxMTMyNDEzWj.html,
    *see CTIA Transcript* at 25.

[^170]: *Id.*

[^171]: Deaf to Sign via Video Handsets,
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6366177.stm ("Deaf to Sign").

[^172]: Laura Johannes, *The Sleek, Chic, High Tech Hearing Aid,* The
    Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2007 (*Johannes Wall Street Journal
    article)*.

[^173]: *Id.*

[^174]: *Id.*

[^175]: Antoinette Cippolina Comments and Deanne Deurell Comments.

[^176]: HLAA Comments at 16-17.

[^177]: MobileASL: *Making wireless accessible to the deaf community*, 4
    [ingenuity]{.smallcaps} 2 (Spring 2007),
    http://depts.washington.edu/techtran/aboutus/Newsletter/Spring07.pdf
    ("MobileASL").

[^178]: *Id.*

[^179]: *Id. See* Deaf to Sign, *supra* n. 171.

[^180]: *See* MobileASL, *supra* n. 177.

[^181]: *Id.*

[^182]: *See* Deaf to Sign, *supra* n. 171.

[^183]: *Id.*

[^184]: *See* [IST Project fact sheet -- Wireless Information Services
    For People On the Move (WISDOM)]{.smallcaps}
    http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?ACTION=D&CALLER=PROJ_IST&RCN=57773.
    Partners include, among others, Vodafone Limited, Ericsson Espana
    SA, British Deaf Association, Motion Media Technology Limited and
    Vaestanvik Resource and Development Centre. *Id.*

[^185]: *See* *id.*

[^186]: *See* *id.*

[^187]: University of Bristol, Faculty of Social Science and Law Centre
    for Deaf Studies Full Research Report -- WISDOM,
    [http://www.bristol.ac.uk/deaf/download/research/full_reports/Wisdom.pdf.]{.underline}

[^188]: *Id.*

[^189]: *Id.* at 2.

[^190]: *Id.* (translating to and from British, Swedish, Spanish and
    German sign languages).

[^191]: *Id.*

[^192]: *Id.,* John Sullivan, *Interest Growing in Sign Language as a 3G
    Interface*, [Wireless Insider]{.smallcaps}, May 28, 2001. *See* ICT
    Results -- Serving the Deaf Communities' Information Needs,
    http://istresults.cordis.lu/index.cfm/section/news/Tpl/article/BrowsingType/Short%20Feature/ID/1664
    (reporting sign language recognition of 250 signs with a success
    rate between 70% and 90%).

[^193]: *See* Sullivan, *supra* n. 192.

[^194]: *See, e.g.,* Patrick M. Hoffman Comments (noting his reliance on
    closed captioning to watch television with his family).

[^195]: *See* Jane Sanders, *Wearable Captioning System to Make Public
    Venues Accessible to People with Hearing Problems,* [georgia
    research tech news,]{.smallcaps} April 12, 2005,
    [http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/captioning.htm.]{.underline}

[^196]: *Video: High-Tech Captions*, [Science Daily]{.smallcaps}, July
    1, 2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005-07-06/ ("*High-Tech
    Captions"*).

[^197]: Sanders, *supra* n. 195.

[^198]: *High-Tech Captions*, *supra* n. 196.

[^199]: *Id.*, *see also* Sanders, *supra* n. 195.

[^200]: TAP Comments at 6. There are reported to be devices available,
    such as a Streamer or Phonak's SmartLink, that allow hearing aid
    users to listen to their Bluetooth cellphones. *See Johannes Wall
    Street Journal article,* *supra* n. 170*.*

[^201]: TAP Comments at 6.

[^202]: *Id.*

[^203]: *Id.* at 7.

[^204]: *Id.*

[^205]: *700 MHz Service Report and Order,* 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8117 ¶ 142.
    In addition, the Commission concluded that manufacturers of wireless
    handsets capable of providing such service also should be made
    subject to the applicable requirements of Section 20.19. *Id.*

[^206]: *Id.* at 8119-21 ¶¶ 148-150.

[^207]: The Commission stated its expectation that appropriate technical
    standards for the bands listed in Section 27.1(b) will be
    established within 24 months of the *Federal Register* publication
    of the *700 MHz Service Report and Order*, and committed that, if
    this occurs, it will initiate a further proceeding at that time to
    establish a specific timetable for deployment of hearing
    aid-compatible handsets based on the adopted standards for services
    in the relevant bands. *700 MHz Service Report and Order,* 22 FCC
    Rcd 8119-21 ¶¶ 148-150.

[^208]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.9(a)(10). This rule section also contains an
    exception for "mobile satellite licensees and other entities that
    sell or lease space segment capacity, to the extent that it does not
    provide commercial radio service directly to end users." The
    exception permits such entities to provide space segment capacity to
    commercial mobile radio service providers on a non-common carrier
    basis, if authorized by the Commission.

[^209]: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Networks and
    Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal
    Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and
    Arrangements et al., CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67,
    *R**eport and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340, 25347-25360 ¶¶ 20-48, 25385 ¶¶
    111-112 (2003) (adopting, in part, 911 service call center
    requirements and seeking further comment on how to implement E911
    requirements for the MSS).

[^210]: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Band, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 18 FCC
    Rcd 1962 (2003) (permitting flexibility in the delivery of
    communications by MSS providers that operate in three sets of radio
    frequency bands: the 2 GHz MSS band (the 1990-2025 MHz uplink and
    the 2165-2200 MHz downlink), the L-band (general designation for
    frequencies from 1 to 2 GHz) and the Big LEO bands (referring to the
    1.6/2.4 GHz bands).

[^211]: In the Matter of Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband
    Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53,
    *Declaratory Ruling*, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5907-08 ¶ 15 (2007)
    ("Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling").

[^212]: Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless technology based on the
    IEEE 802.11 standards*.*

[^213]: *See* \<http://www.fcc.gov/voip/\> (visited August 9, 2007). To
    date, the Commission has not classified VoIP as a telecommunications
    service or an information service, and the discussion in this
    section is not intended to address the classification of VoIP
    services. *See* In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No.
    04-36, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4893-94 ¶
    43-44 (2004).

[^214]: Vonage,
    \<http://www.vonage.com/device.php?type=F1000&refer_id=WEBPR0706010001W1\>
    (visited August 9, 2007, Skype,
    \<http://us.accessories.skype.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayCategoryProductListPage&SiteID=skype&Locale=en_US&Env=BASE&parentCategoryID=4141800&categoryID=7032700\>
    (visited August 9, 2007).

[^215]: *See*, *e.g.,* Sprint Nextel, *Unlimited WiFi HotSpot Plan*
    \<http[://]{.underline}nextelonline.nextel.com\> (visited August 9,
    2007).

[^216]: A new line of service is required for both new and existing
    customers, the phones must be activated with a monthly plan, and a
    two-year service agreement is required. *See* T-Mobile USA,
    *T-Mobile Dash™*
    \<http[://]{.underline}www[.t-]{.underline}mobile[.]{.underline}com\>
    (visited August 9, 2007); T-Mobile USA, *T-Mobile Wing™*
    \<http[://]{.underline}www[.t-]{.underline}mobile[.]{.underline}com\>
    (visited August 9, 2007); T-Mobile USA, *Services*
    \<http[://]{.underline}www[.t-]{.underline}mobile[.]{.underline}com\>
    (visited August. 9, 2007).

[^217]: T-Mobile USA, *T-Mobile Dash™*
    \<http[://]{.underline}www[.t-]{.underline}mobile[.]{.underline}com\>
    (visited August 9, 2007);T-Mobile USA, *T-Mobile Wing™* \<
    http[://]{.underline}www[.t-]{.underline}mobile[.]{.underline}com \>
    (visited August 9, 2007).

[^218]: *Sprint Customers Will Get More Done With The New Mogul™ By
    HTC*, Press Release, Sprint Nextel, June 18, 2007. Customers must
    enter into a two-year service agreement, with eligible monthly plans
    starting at \$39.99. *See* Sprint Nextel, *Mogul™ by HTC*
    \<http://nextelonline.nextel.com\> (visited August 9, 2007); Sprint
    Nextel, *Sprint Power Pack Plans* \<http://nextelonline.nextel.com\>
    (visited August 9, 2007). *See* *also* *Sprint Nextel Announces 4G
    Broadband Wireless Initiative with Intel, Motorola and Samsung*,
    available at \<http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=12960\>
    (visited September 21, 2007).

[^219]: *See* \<http://www.apple.com/iphone/questionsandanswers.htm*\>*
    (visited August 10, 2007)*.*

[^220]: *Id.*

[^221]: *See* Matt Hamblen, *RIM Announces Dual-Mode BlackBerry 8820,*
    CIO*,* July 19, 2007; *see also* Melissa J. Perenson, *Money-Saving,
    Dual-Mode Mobile Phones do Voice Over Wi-Fi,* CIO, July 26, 2007.

[^222]: *See* Perenson, *Money-Saving, Dual-Mode Mobile Phones do Voice
    Over Wi-Fi,* CIO, July 26, 2007.

[^223]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(a).

[^224]: *Id. See also* *700 MHz Service Report and Order,* 22 FCC Rcd
    8119-20 ¶¶ 148-150.

[^225]: Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) is a
    broadband wireless access technology based on the IEEE 802.16
    standards that is intended to improve the compatibility and
    interoperability of broadband wireless access equipment. *See*
    Newton\'s Telecom Dictionary, 23rd Edition, at 1013.

[^226]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2). "Public mobile service" is defined to
    include certain services covered under Part 22 of our rules. 47
    U.S.C. § 610(b)(4)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 68.3.

[^227]: Moreover, even if voice operation over the WLAN is not an
    inherent part of the equipment or service, users may be able to add
    applications that would permit such use.

[^228]: ATIS Reply Comments at 6 and HLAA Reply Comments at 5. *See
    also* HAP Comments at 3. We note that there does not appear to be
    any current requirement that the iPhone be compatible under Section
    20.19 of the Commission's rules, as Apple would appear to come under
    the *de minimis* exception and AT&T meets its compatible handset
    model deployment benchmarks using other models. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    20.19(e).

[^229]: HLAA Reply Comments at 5.

[^230]: *Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling*,
    22 FCC Rcd at 5921-22, ¶¶ 58-59.

[^231]: *Id.* The Commission imposed accessibility obligations on
    voicemail and interactive menu services. *See* Implementation of
    Sections 255 and 251(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Access to
    Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and
    Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket
    No. 96-198, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 6417, 6455 ¶ 93 (1999) (*Section 255 Order*). The Commission
    declined at that time, however, to extend accessibility obligations
    to other information services, such as email, electronic information
    services, and web pages, that did not appear to have the potential
    to render telecommunications services inaccessible to persons with
    disabilities. *Id*. at 6461 ¶ 107. The Commission adopted a *Further
    Notice of Inquiry* at the same time to obtain additional information
    about Internet telephony and certain computer-based equipment that
    replicates the current telecommunications functionality. *See also
    Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at
    14919 ¶ 121-124 (where the Commission uses its ancillary
    jurisdiction under Title I to extend accessibility obligations to
    the wireline broadband Internet access service.) The Commission has
    extended disability access requirements to providers of
    interconnected VoIP services. The Commission has also extended
    telecommunications relay services requirements to providers of
    interconnected VoIP services. *See* IP-Enabled Services,
    Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2); Access to
    Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment, and
    Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WC Docket
    No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123, *Report and
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 11275 (2007).

[^232]: In this regard, we note that the Joint Consensus Plan includes a
    proposal that phones with multiple air interfaces must satisfy the
    ANSI C63.19 technical standard with respect to all air interfaces
    for U.S. frequency bands. Joint Consensus Plan at 10.

[^233]: *Id.* at 7-10.

[^234]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(1), (d)(1).

[^235]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(2).

[^236]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f).

[^237]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(2)(i), (c)(3)(i)(B), and (d).

[^238]: In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and
    777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, *Second Report and Order,*
    22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15365 ¶ 206 (2007) (*700 MHz Service Second Report
    and Order).*

[^239]: *700 MHz Service Second Report and Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 15373 ¶
    228.

[^240]: *Id.*

[^241]: *Id*.

[^242]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ¶ 74.

[^243]: As discussed in the order, cochlear implants bypass the external
    and middle ears by using electrical stimulation of electrodes
    implanted in the cochlea to reintroduce the signals carried by
    auditory nerve fibers to the brain. With a cochlear implant, a
    microphone in a headpiece worn at the ear is connected via a thin
    cable to a processor that is worn on the belt, carried in a pocket
    or, in some models, worn at ear level. The processor translates the
    signal from the microphone into digital signals that are sent to a
    transmitter (in some models, the transmitter and microphone are in
    the same piece). The transmitter, which is held by a magnet on the
    side of the head behind the ear, sends the coded signals via radio
    waves through the skin to the cochlear implant. The signals are
    directed to auditory nerve fibers using an array of electrodes
    implanted in the deaf patient's cochlea where they elicit patterns
    of nerve activity that the brain interprets as sound. Some cochlear
    implants are now being manufactured with built-in telecoils, which
    could enable a user to hear more clearly when using a hearing
    aid-compatible telephone, wearing a neck loop, or in the vicinity of
    an audio loop. *See* Center On Disabilities Technology And Persons
    With Disabilities, "Conference 2003 Conference Proceedings"
    \<[http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2003/proceedings/133.htm]{.underline}\>
    (visited June 26, 2007).

[^244]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 16766 ¶ 30.

[^245]: *Id.* at 16766 ¶ 29.

[^246]: *Staff Report* *Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (WTB 2006).

[^247]: TAP Comments at 8-9.

[^248]: *Id.*

[^249]: Cingular Comments at 10.

[^250]: *Id.*

[^251]: *Id*.

[^252]: Linda Day Comments at 1.

[^253]: Dana Simon Comments.

[^254]: *See. e.g*., "Confessions of a Cochlear Implantee: Cell Phones
    and Cochlear Implants" (post dated May 1, 2007,
    \<http://bionicgirl.blogspot.com\>, visited June 25, 2007).

[^255]: *See, e.g*., "New type of cochlear implant to improve hearing?"
    February 9, 2006, \<www.
    engadget.com/2006/02/09/new-type-of-cochlear-implant-to-inprove-hearing/\>
    (visited June 25, 2007).

[^256]: Marti J. Sorri et al, "Solutions to Electromagnetic Interference
    Problems Between Cochlear Implants and GSM Phones," *IEEE
    Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering*, v.14
    no.1 (March 2006).

[^257]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16770 ¶ 40.

[^258]: In determining the extent to which a particular digital wireless
    phone will interfere with a particular hearing aid, the immunity
    rating of the hearing aid is added to the emissions rating of the
    wireless phone. A sum of 4 would indicate that the wireless phone is
    usable; a sum of 5 would indicate that the wireless phone would
    provide normal use; and a sum of 6 or greater would indicate that
    the wireless phone would provide excellent performance with that
    hearing aid. *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16770
    ¶ 40.

[^259]: *Id.* at 16777 ¶ 57.

[^260]: *Id.*

[^261]: *Id. a*t 16777 n. 171.

[^262]: *Id.* at 16786 ¶ 88.

[^263]: *See* letter dated July 12, 2007, from Carole M. Rogin,
    Executive Director, Hearing Industries Association to Linda S.
    Kahan, Esquire, Deputy Director, Center for Devices and Radiological
    Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
    Administration in WT Docket No. 06-203. According to the letter, the
    information that companies will include in their user manuals will
    state that "the immunity of this hearing aid is at least M2/T2."
    *Id.*

[^264]: AG Bell Reply Comments at 1, ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 5-6,
    Cingular Comments at 9, HAP Comments at 3-4, HLAA Reply Comment at
    2, RIM Comments at 9-10, TAP Comments at 3-4 (stating that, although
    the Commission urged the hearing aid industry to test and label
    hearing aids, it has not happened to date), and TAP Reply Comments
    at 7-8.

[^265]: HIA Reply Comments at 3.

[^266]: *Id.*

[^267]: *Id. See also* ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 6. Further, HLAA
    states that, although hearing aid manufacturers estimate that
    approximately 80% of newer hearing aids have an immunity of M2 or
    better, because hearing aids are still not labeled, consumers have
    no way of knowing that more wireless telephones than those with an
    immunity rating of M3 or M4 may be compatible with their hearing
    aids. HLAA Reply Comments at 2. *See also* Cingular Comments at 9.
    In this regard, we note that ATIS acknowledges that hearing aid
    manufacturers have been generally successful in improving the RF
    immunity of hearing aids. ATIS Comments at 31. *See also* HIA
    Comments at 4, n.6 (stating that virtually all hearing aids perform
    consistently with an M2 or M3 rating).

[^268]: HAP Comments at 4.

[^269]: Cingular Comments at 9 and ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 6.

[^270]: ATIS Comments at 12, 30.