U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–908 2013

H.R. 3101, TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 

2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Serial No. 111–131 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 4 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 5 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 5 

Hon. Parker Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 95 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 96 

Hon. Zachary T. Space, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, prepared statement .................................................................................... 97 

WITNESSES

Sergeant Major Jesse R. Acosta, United States Army (Retired), American 

Council of the Blind ............................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Lise Hamlin, Director of Public Policy, Hearing Loss Association of America, 

TiVo ....................................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Walter McCormick, President and Chief Executive Officer, United States 

Telecom Association ............................................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Gary Shapiro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Consumer Electronics 

Association ............................................................................................................ 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

James Assey, Executive Vice President, National Cable and Telecommunications Association ............................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Bobby Franklin, Executive Vice President, CTIA—The Wireless Association ... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 3101, TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT 

OF 2009 

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Boucher, Markey, Inslee, Matsui, Castor, Stearns, Waxman [ex officio]; Shimkus, Terry, Blackburn, Griffith, and Latta. 

Staff Present: Amy Levine, Counsel; Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Tim Powderly, Senior Counsel; Greg Guice, Counsel; Shawn 

Chang, Counsel; Bruce Wolpe, Senior Advisor; Sarah Fisher, Special Assistant; Laurance Frierson, Intern; Alex Reicher, Intern; 

Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Neil Fried, Minority Counsel; 

Will Early, Minority Senior Policy Counselor; and Garrett Golding, 

Minority Legislative Assistant. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, everyone. 

Today our subcommittee examines a measure introduced by our 

colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, that seeks to update 

the laws governing access to communications services by individuals with disabilities. 

There are nearly 1 billion Americans who have profound or severe hearing loss and more than 1 million who are legally blind; 

4 percent of our population has great difficulty hearing; and an additional 3 percent are visually impaired. 

Moreover, as some of us might not want to admit, America is 

aging. There are approximately 40 million people over the age of 

65 living in the United States today. That amounts to 13 percent 

of our national population. One estimate shows that by the year 

2050, that number will more than double to 88.5 million, or an estimated one-fifth of our national population. Naturally, this growth 

in our aging population will be accompanied by an increase in the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

number of Americans who are vision- or hearing-impaired and who 

will need accessible communications products and services. 

With the explosion in Internet-delivered content, both the variety 

of information and entertainment offerings and the complexity and 

variety of the devices that receive those services have multiplied. 

The challenge that we as lawmakers have is to assure that all 

Americans can benefit from these advances, including individuals 

with vision or hearing impairments. We will learn this morning 

about the steps that industry is already taking to make services 

and devices accessible by the vision- or hearing-impaired. 

For example, my iPhone can be made accessible to the visually 

impaired, straight out of the box with the touch of an existing button. With the rapid growth of smartphones, an increasing number 

of Americans can download inexpensive third-party applications 

that perform functions like text-to-speech and speech-to-text. 

In the video programming arena, an increasing amount of video 

content is now available on the Internet in a closed-captioned format, including the video programming of Disney, CBS, noncommercial station WGBH, and videos on YouTube. CBS offers video description of its television programming, notwithstanding the absence of any legal requirement that it do so. 

These industry steps clearly mark progress. The question now is 

what requirements government should consider imposing that will 

move beyond encouraging the voluntary actions that industry has 

already taken so as to ensure that an even greater range of services and devices are broadly accessible to people with disabilities. 

This year marks the 20th anniversary of enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act. We have come a long way in the two 

decades since 1990, but we can go further, both in terms of voluntary steps by industry and in terms of targeted regulation to ensure the accessibility of technology for persons with disabilities. 

H.R. 3101, authored by Mr. Markey, provides an outstanding 

starting point for that consideration. 

I appreciate that all of the stakeholders at the witness table 

today, although none are at the witness table at the moment, but 

all who will be at the witness table shortly have been engaging 

with us on a bipartisan basis in order to reach consensus on revisions to H.R. 3101, and I look forward to our continued work together. 

I would also note that, on a bipartisan basis on the subcommittee 

member level and staff level, we are engaged with the interested 

stakeholders in that collaborative process, and I look forward to a 

successful conclusion of our work. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their attendance today. And I 

also want to thank Sergeant Major Acosta for his service and sacrifice to our country. 

That concludes my opening statement, and I am pleased now to 

recognize the ranking Republican member of our subcommittee, the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

I am very pleased that we are having this hearing today. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

As we discuss many times in this subcommittee, the Internet and 

new technologies have transformed the way we all live and we 

work. Geographic boundaries no longer exist. For example, you 

could download a movie from another country—legally, of course— 

sitting on a beach in Florida, while participating in a video conference in Washington, D.C. All of this has been made possible because Congress has let the marketplace flourish by allowing consumers to decide what technologies will work for them. 

However, as the technological revolution speeds along, it is important to ensure that people with disabilities are not left behind. 

All people should be afforded the opportunity to use and enjoy the 

amazing technology that is available. We can all agree on that 

point. 

The question then is, What is the best way to achieve this goal? 

Do we need more government regulation? Or do we need to allow 

the markets to work with as light a regulatory touch as possible? 

These are the questions that we need to explore during today’s 

hearing, and I look forward to hearing answers to these questions. 

Under the Communications Act, manufacturers and carriers are 

already required to make telecommunication devices and services 

accessible to people with disabilities when doing so is readily 

achievable. The statute also requires telephones to be hearing-aid 

compatible, requires telecommunication providers to help pay for 

operators that relay phone conversations between people with hearing or speech disability and people without disability, and requires 

television programming to be closed captioned. 

Nevertheless, we are becoming victims of our own success. Due 

to the success of our deregulatory policies, many new technologies 

have evolved, and they do not fall within the existing statutory language. This hearing will investigate whether H.R. 3101 strikes the 

right balance of extending the benefits of technology to people with 

disabilities without restricting innovation. 

One of the provisions in H.R. 3101 requires closed captioning of 

all digital video, including HD. Sometimes HD is transmitted between a set-top box and a television using an HDMI port. Unfortunately, this port is not configured to allow for closed captioning 

pass-through. There are a variety of ways to accomplish closed captioning; therefore, it is important that the legislation permit some 

ports that do not pass through closed captioning, so long as captioning can be delivered to the TV via an alternative port or rendered in the set-top box. 

It is also important to clarify who is responsible for the set-top 

box display. Manufacturers build the set-top box hardware and carriers build the software. This distinction should be addressed in the 

legislation in order to clarify which entity is responsible for which 

features. 

In many areas, industry is already taking the necessary steps to 

make certain that their products and their applications are accessible to all people. The iPad, for example, has been lauded as revolutionary not just by the general public, but also by accessibility 

advocates, because it includes breakthrough accessibility features. 

This suggests that the broader market could be providing better access to people with disabilities than it does today. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Conversely, Apple and others argue that if the iPad had been 

subject to detailed mandates from Congress such as requirements 

regarding the design of the raised buttons, the flat-screen device 

might not have made it to the market. They argue that the right 

approach is perhaps to establish accessibility goals, but not dictate 

how to accomplish them. We need to allow innovation to continue 

to flourish. 

The goals of H.R. 3101 are certainly laudable, and we can all 

agree on the final destination: Ensure that all people are able to 

take advantage of the remarkable technology that is available. Will 

this legislation take us there? Are there changes we might make 

that would better support accessibility goals and our goals of promoting innovation? 

An earlier discussion draft of this legislation benefited greatly 

from conversations between the wireline phone industry and accessibility groups. Those discussions led to changes supported by all 

sides which are reflected in the current draft. My hope, Mr. Chairman, is that ongoing discussions with other segments of the communications industry will result in similar improvements. So I 

hope this hearing will shed some light on these questions and offer 

up some solutions as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. And I look forward 

to our witnesses. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. 

The author of the legislation before us today, the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, previous chairman of this subcommittee, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

We can’t have a more important hearing. We welcome back to 

the subcommittee Sergeant Major Jesse Acosta, who testified back 

in May of 2008. We thank you, sir, for your service to our country. 

I think many of our brave men and women in uniform, such as 

Sergeant Major Acosta, return from Iraq and Afghanistan with injuries that impair their vision and their hearing, and this gives us 

a great opportunity to help them to be full participants in our great 

American economic and social and cultural heritage. 

This legislation is something that will update laws of the 1990s 

that really did transform the relationship between people with disabilities and these technologies. Increasingly, this digital skill set 

is the passport to full participation in our society. And it is happening. It is happening in the marketplace, just not as rapidly as 

we would like to. The iPad, for example, has the capacity for people 

who need to be able to listen, because they are not able to read, 

as clearly as those who are more blessed. And if we press the dial, 

let’s see here. 

Wouldn’t it be great if, for a very inexpensive, very small amount 

of money that not just the iPad, but every device, made it possible 

for people to read or hear Bob Ryan’s column in the Boston Globe 

today about how Ray Allen is going to shake out of his slump from 

Tuesday night’s game and hit all of his 3s tonight against the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Lakers? Well, that is what the iPad makes possible, but people 

shouldn’t have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to 

access this information. We should make it a generic standard 

technology for all of the devices that we have in our country so that 

everyone is able to be able to participate in this great information 

revolution that we have in our country. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this hearing. This is about 

as great a gift as we are going to be able to give to tens of millions 

of people in our country as this Congress will provide us. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 

2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

hearing. And I want to say welcome to all of our witnesses who are 

here today and to all of our guests. As we are approaching this 

20th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, I am 

pleased that we are taking the issue up and are going to spend 

some time on it. 

I think we all agree that e-commerce is thriving. As our ranking 

member said, we have taken a hands-off approach to the Internet, 

and I think it is going to be important that we strike the proper 

balance of making the Internet and all mediums of communication 

accessible to the disabled without stifling innovation or imposing 

undue technological burdens on the companies who actually are 

doing the innovation and creating the software and the technology 

that we are not only enjoying but that we all come to rely on more 

and more every day. 

And as we move forward at what is appearing to be a very aggressive pace, my hope is that we are going to slow this down 

enough to get it right and get this legislation right. It is unfortunate that time and again we pass bills and then we come back and 

we tweak bills. I hope that we are going to slow down and do this 

right. If we fail to get the proper balance between accessibility and 

encouraging innovation, then we know that we are going to have 

unforeseen and unintended consequences that we will be back dealing with. It is too important an issue to do that. 

I welcome you all. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. 

The chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today marks the first step in the process to ensure that Americans with disabilities can more fully participate in our evolving 

Internet-based society. We will do so by updating the laws conVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:10 Feb 20, 2013 Jkt 077908 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A908.XXX A908

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

cerning access by persons with disabilities to communications services and to video programming. The last update of these laws occurred in 1996 when most phone calls were made over a copper 

line and when TV signals were broadcast in analog. 

As members of this committee, we are acutely aware dramatic 

changes have occurred since 1996. We need to bring, at long last, 

our fellow Americans with disabilities across the digital divide. I 

am pleased that Ranking Member Barton, Subcommittee Chairman 

Boucher, and Ranking Member Stearns share my commitment to 

moving legislation that addresses these issues on a bipartisan consensus basis, and committee staff has been working together to 

achieve that goal. 

Ideally we would have a bipartisan bill on the House floor during 

the week of July 26. That week marks the 20th anniversary of the 

enactment of the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act. I can 

think of no better way to mark that anniversary than by bringing 

to the House floor bipartisan legislation that increases access to 

digital communications and media for those with disabilities. 

With that in mind, today I want this hearing to outline and clarify where agreement exists on the provisions contained in H.R. 

3101 and where some adjustment may be necessary. And in doing 

this, I want to pay tribute to the work of our colleague, Congressman Markey, who introduced legislation and has been the pioneer 

in pushing this issue. 

Our intent is to encourage industry and other stakeholders towards consensus quickly. I am aware that some industry participants and associations have not fully engaged in the discussions to 

date or have been unable to come up with a position on this matter. I urge these companies and associations to engage immediately 

on the pending legislation. 

There are many success stories concerning the development of 

accessible technologies absent a legislative mandate. For example, 

Apple makes many of its products accessible. And when the D.C. 

Circuit threw out the FCC’s first set of video description rules, CBS 

did not stop making that service available—and continues to do so 

today. 

These initiatives are to be applauded, but more can and should 

be done. Just as accessibility is designed into new buildings, the 

same should be true with regard to communications services and 

devices. Ultimately our goal is to find a legislative solution that 

meets the needs of the disabled community and gives industry the 

flexibility and incentives that it needs to move forward successfully. We can take the benefits of laws for disabled Americans, put 

them together with the best initiatives from the private sector, and 

pass legislation that brings 21st century communications and 

media technology to Americans with disabilities. 

I want to thank Mr. Markey for introducing this important legislation, Mr. Boucher for scheduling this timely hearing, and all my 

colleagues for their willingness to work together to pass a law and 

to meet this momentous occasion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Chairman Waxman. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PARKER GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking 

member and chairman for calling this hearing today, and to thank 

all the witnesses that will appear here to testify before this committee. 

Alabama, the home of Helen Keller, but, more importantly, the 

Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, has always been on the 

cutting edge. Dr. Graham and his staff are absolutely wonderful. 

It is over a century-old institution devoted to the subject we are addressing today. 

I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 3101, and I am happy this hearing 

has been called. While I am mindful of the few provisions that need 

to be worked out amongst us, I am hopeful that we can move this 

legislation forward as we near the 20th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

I believe it is imperative that we continue to focus on innovation 

and ingenuity. Over the last decade we have made great strides in 

producing technologies that Americans with disabilities rely on. We 

must remember what brought us here, which was really a free 

market, less regulation. This bill seeks to mandate certain technologies, and I am sure that we will work this out in committee 

so that it will be a satisfactory bill for all. These provisions need 

some work; however, I think the committee in general is very, very 

much excited about this bill and I think we will pass it. 

Nonetheless, the overall goal of this legislation should be commended. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we press 

forward to find solutions that extend the benefits of the Internet 

to people with disabilities. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for 

2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing. And I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. 

As we continue our efforts to expand broadband access to more 

and more Americans, disabled Americans must not be left behind. 

Every American, including those who are challenged, requires access to updated technologies for personal use, to compete for a job, 

and to be able to communicate and work in a sound environment. 

We are seeing a greater need to assist the number of our service 

members who are returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan disabled and are seeking to return to some sense of normalcy. Access to modern technology will help them achieve that. 

Disabled Americans should have access to the same communications products and services that everyone else does. I applaud my 

good friend, Congressman Markey, for his leadership on providing 

greater technological access to disabled individuals. His legislation 

would help ensure that the disabled are able to fully access and 

utilize broadband services and video programming devices, and I 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

plan to add my name today as a cosponsor to this important legislation. 

We must modernize technologies to make certain that disabled 

Americans are able to enjoy the benefits of an increasingly diverse 

and innovative menu of applications and services. It is my hope 

that all stakeholders continue to work together to advance this legislation in an expedited fashion. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this important 

hearing today. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns. 

Thank you very much for holding this subcommittee hearing today 

on H.R. 3101, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. 

It is my understanding that the legislation would expand accessibility for individuals with vision, hearing, and other disabilities to 

Internet-enabled communications services, equipment and software. With the latest technology and innovation in the marketplace, it is important that these individuals with these disabilities 

have access to Internet-related communications and equipment. 

I am very interested to hear from our panelists today regarding 

their ideas and suggestions for helping to reach a consensus on 

how best to move forward on the issues in this legislation. The 

Internet and all the communications services related to it is an important tool for employment opportunities. It is also a gateway for 

individuals to be connected to the greater community. 

While working on this legislation, this subcommittee needs to 

work with all the stakeholders to ensure that all the benefits of the 

Internet are extended to these individuals with disabilities, without 

placing mandates on private industry that curb innovation. 

Technology is constantly changing, and it is difficult for Congress 

to legislate policy for new technological devices that will exist in 

the years ahead. As we move forward on this legislation and other 

bills in this subcommittee, I firmly believe that we must allow industry to continue to be innovative; and by doing this, it will allow 

the marketplace to provide for all these individuals. Through the 

process, we must not mandate such detailed items for certain devices that it prevents technology from moving forward. 

I hope that all stakeholder groups involved in this issue can work 

towards a consensus that better provides access to all individuals 

with vision, hearing, and other disabilities on these Internet-enabled communication devices, equipment and software. I look forward to the hearing and the testimony today, and I look forward 

to continuing to work on this important issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Latta. 

The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized 

for 2 minutes. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I just want to thank everyone who is 

working on this bill because it is important, obviously, not just to 

the individuals who need this access, but to the whole U.S. economy. 

I just want to note that the ability to perfect this technology is 

important to all of us, not just to those who use the technology, but 

those who benefit by the genius of those who use technology and 

their ability to participate in the U.S. economy as employees and 

associates and business leaders. So it is important for all of us to 

get this right. 

I just want to make one note. I think we do have some work to 

do on the bill to try to make sure that the disabled community has 

access to evolving technology. We do not want to limit access to 

just today’s technology, because one thing we know for sure about 

today’s technology is that it will be obsolete and surpassed by new 

technology within 2 or 3 weeks. And I think there are some things 

we need to do to the bill to make sure that we capture that evolving technology so that we have full access to all of those new innovations, and I am confident we can do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslee. 

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting, just over 

our Memorial Week break, I had a couple of meetings. One was 

with the deaf community on video relay services and some of the 

actions that are taken by the FCC to make it unaffordable for video 

relay service providers to continue. Then another group of Alzheimer’s patients that are using a new technology, too, to allow 

special younger onset to use a touch-screen video pad that would 

allow them to be able to better communicate with their families. So 

it is interesting that this hearing is after those two meetings where 

the subjects were the integration of technology to overcome any obstacles by way of a handicap, to neutralize that handicap. 

So I embrace the technology, and I want to make sure that we 

are encouraging the development of technology specifically to aid 

anyone that has a handicap. What I want to make sure is that we 

reach the right balance of making sure that this new technology 

emerges, that it is accessible to all of those who need it without 

creating economic hardships by way of too many mandates placed 

on any one technology or system. 

So I am anxious to hear from our witnesses today to help us 

reach that right balance, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. 

All members have been recognized for their statements. 

And we welcome now our panel of witnesses. And I would ask 

that our witnesses proceed to the witness table. We will be happy 

to have you appear before us and receive the benefit of your testiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:10 Feb 20, 2013 Jkt 077908 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A908.XXX A908

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

mony. And while you are taking your seats, I will offer just a brief 

word of introduction about each of our witnesses this morning. 

Sergeant Major Jesse Acosta of the United States Army (Retired) 

is testifying on behalf of the American Council of the Blind and the 

Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology. And I understand this is the second appearance before our subcommittee for 

Sergeant Major Acosta. 

Ms. Lisa Hamlin is the Director of Policy for the Hearing Loss 

Association of America, and is testifying also on behalf of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology. 

Mr. Walter McCormick is the President and CEO of the United 

States Telecom Association. 

Mr. Gary Shapiro is the President and CEO of the Consumer 

Electronics Association. 

Mr. James Assey is the Executive Vice President of the National 

Cable and Telecommunications Association. 

And, Mr. Bobby Franklin is the Executive Vice President of the 

CTIA, the Wireless Association. 

We welcome each of our witnesses this morning. Without objection, your prepared written statements will be made part of our 

record. We would welcome your oral presentations, and ask that 

you try to keep those presentations to approximately 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SERGEANT MAJOR JESSE R. ACOSTA, UNITED 

STATES ARMY (RETIRED), AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE 

BLIND; JAMES ASSEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION; 

BOBBY FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA—THE 

WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; LISE HAMLIN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, HEARING LOSS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; 

WALTER McCORMICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION; AND 

GARY SHAPIRO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BOUCHER. And Sergeant Major Acosta, you are sitting to the 

far right of the table, and we will be happy to begin with you. I 

would ask that you pull the microphone in front of you as close as 

you can and speak as directly into it as possible, and that way we 

can hear you better. 

STATEMENT OF SERGEANT MAJOR ACOSTA 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, 

Ranking Member Stearns, members of the subcommittee, and you, 

sir, Ed Markey, thank you very much for having me here the second time. This is round number two. 

Well, as you have heard, it is extremely important that this 

measure, H.R. 3101, passes, primarily for those of us who find ourselves completely blind, visually impaired, and in other situations 

with hearing impairment. 

I was here a couple of years ago testifying in front of Congress, 

or this subcommittee, on this issue. Fast forward. Well, some of the 

measures as far as 21st century has moved forward. We went from 

analog to digital. But wait. We forgot about the blind and those 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

who have hearing problems. What did that do for us? Absolutely 

nothing. 

The reason why I bring this up immediately is because I just recently bought two giant flat-screen TVs, and not one of them will 

show a scroll, so that way I can see what is going on in case of an 

emergency. Remember, I come from the State of California where 

we shake and bake. And so here I am, testifying again on these 

measures. 

Well, here is the story that we all don’t like to hear, but it has 

to be said. As I was discussing with a gentleman early this morning, I got hit by a bomb. I had my eyesight all my life. I was a 

happy camper. I come home, losing my eyes. I had no idea what 

it was like, living in the blind community. I have been educated 

tremendously for the past 4 years, now 41⁄2 years, and I have embraced it. I have adapted. But here is one thing I have not been 

able to embrace. Being that I live in the United States of America, 

one of the wealthiest, most powerful countries in the world, I laid 

my life on the line. And I come home in this situation and find myself—what is out there for me? 

Well, it is sad to say not a whole lot is out there for us with the 

exception, of course, of Apple. Thank you, Apple. Maybe they ought 

to get into TV production or mass production. But there, again, 

what does it take for us to serve our blind community or those with 

disabilities? 

It is sad to say that whatever is out there for us, it is going to 

cost those individuals who—let’s say the blind community, 80 percent are unemployed—cannot afford to purchase these items. But 

Apple has made it accessible to us. You pull it out of the package, 

and there it is. It is all there. 

I testified also on the use of the cell phone, the accessibility. That 

is why I am going back and forth. 

And before I do forget, prior to me getting on board that plane, 

when I testified 2 years ago, there was a company out there, one 

of the wireless companies that was going after me, wanting to introduce to me one of the hottest products they had on the market. 

Well, they met me when I got home after hearing my testimony 

about how my experiences were with Sprint. Has anything 

changed? Absolutely not. They introduced to me—and I have that 

phone here with me. For some reason or another, I don’t know 

why, I kept it. It is completely flat. It is absolutely no use to me. 

But I keep it as a backup, so that way I can ask someone to help 

me, guide me through this phone. 

Well, I am sorry to say 34 years of service didn’t prepare me for 

this. Yes, we know all that. I was used to pulling the trigger, pulling the pin and throwing a grenade, digging a foxhole or parapet, 

crawling, doing what I had to do to defend this country. So do I 

have feelings in my hands or my fingers? Absolutely not. I carry 

with me a phone that is 4 years old, an LG 8300 that is more pronounced. Old, but at least I can feel the buttons and I can dial out. 

I couldn’t do that with this phone introduced to me. And they were 

doing me a favor? 

Well, let me put it in perspective here. By all means, whatever 

you can do to protect your eyes, whatever you can do to protect 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

your hearing, do so. Because if you fall in the category I have, don’t 

be surprised, there is nothing out there for you. 

We go to the VA system. And I have to bring this up because 

they are supposed to be able to provide me with devices in order 

to make my living a little more easier, accessible, and, in some 

cases, get back to the workforce. What an absolute disaster that 

has been. I just recently retired from the United States Army, 34 

years of service as a Sergeant Major, the highest enlisted in rank. 

If it wasn’t for Southern California Gas Company creating a position for me as a customer service data analyst in management and 

being able to work with a Webmaster, showing them where they 

are going wrong in order to improve on the Web site, which they 

have. What would it take? All it took was a little bit of open arms 

to greet us. 

Listen to us, and let’s make a difference together. Let’s not make 

that mistake. Let’s pass this initiative, H.R. 3101. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major Acosta. 

And thanks again for your long service and outstanding service to 

the United States. 

[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Acosta follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 77908A.001

Testimony of Jesse Aeosta 

(retired combat wounded veteran) 

ou behalf of the 

American Council of the Blind 

and the 

Coalitiou of Organizations for Accessible Technology 

submitted to the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

regardiug the 

Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 

June 10,2010 

Writteu Statement of Jesse Acosta 

Chairman Boucher. Ranking Member Stearns, and Members of the House Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology, and the Internet. I want to thank you for the invitation to discuss the 

very important topic of accessibility to communications for people with disabilities. I am honored 

to once again have this opportunity to testify on an issue that affects millions of people with 

disabilities. My name is Jesse Acosta, and J am a recently retired Sergeant Major in the United 

States Army, proudly serving our country since 1976. In June 2003, I joined the Individual Ready 

Reserve program and remained there until I was called to active duty in Iraq in June 2005. My unit 

was the 376th AG BN DET. 4 and we were mobilized in SUppOit of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 

August 20, 2005, where we were assigned to logistical support missions at Anaconda in Balad, 

which is the largest support base in Iraq. In January 2006, I received promotion to Sergeant Major. 

On January 16, 2006, I was wounded in a mortar attack. Among my several injuries are the loss of 

my right eye and loss ofvisioll in my left eye. 
14 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 77908A.002

As the result of my loss of sight, my journey to re-establish a normal lifestyle at times has 

been an odyssey. Nevertheless, I'm moving forward with all the challenges that I have had to face 

and will continue to do so from this point on. With today's modern technology, our lives can be 

made a little bit easier if our government chooses to make changes to some of our existing laws that 

at this point in time do very little to meet the technological needs within the blind community. 

Unfortunately, very little has changed concerning accessibility breakthroughs in the arenas of 

telecommunications and video programming since I last testified before this subcommittee in May 

2008. 

I am pleased to offer my testimony today on behalf of the American Council of the Blind 

(ACB). which is the largest consumer-based organization of blind and visually impaired Americans 

advocating for the rights of blind Americans. Comprised of more than 70 affiliates across the entire 

United States, the organization is dedicated to making it possible for blind and visually impaired 

Americans to participate fully in every aspect of American society. 

As an active member of ACB, which is a founding member and steering committee member 

of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT). I offer my statement. 

Introduction and Background 

There are roughly 25 million individuals who are blind or who experience vision loss, plus 

about 100,000 persons who are both deaf and blind, and millions of individuals with other 

disabilities who benefit greatly from accessible communications. In particular, I offer this 

testimony today in support ofthe thousands of veterans with vision loss, including those who are 

returning from Iraq with injuries to their eyes. 

ACB affiliate members are excited by the promises of new Internet Protocol (IP) and digital 

technologies. Like most consumers, we look forward to the benefits of technological advances. 

2 
15 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 77908A.003

Unfortunately, history has shown that all too often, people with disabilities have been left out or left 

behind as these advances have taken place. 

We are in the 21 st century with all this innovative technology and yet we in the blind 

community have to rely on assistance from others, especially when it has to do with accessing 

information through the use of consumer electronics. I own a late model Chrysler Le Baron that 

comes with a chip that allows you to be informed through voice output when various systems for 

the vehicle are in need of maintenance. If your oil is low, it will tell you so; the same applies for all 

other fluids. It talks to you. Why is it that a vehicle that was made almost 30 years ago has the 

technology that we are seeking at the present time for products like cell phones, DVR's, and cable 

boxes? This is beyond me. 

H.R.31 01, the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, being 

discussed today, would be a big step forward. It would amend the Communications Act - the 

primary statute that addresses telephone and television products and services - to add new 

consumer protections for persons with disabilities. I will address several critical communications 

provisions in this legislation concerning people who are blind or visually impaired. 

Access to Wireless Devices 

H.R.31 0 I would provide a level of access to wireless devices in commercial products the 

likes of which my community has never seen before. It would require that mobile and other 

internet-based telecommunications devices have accessible user interfaces and offer people who are 

blind or visually impaired access to a full range oftext messaging and other heavily utilized 

services that are currently largely inaccessible to us. 

One of my biggest frustrations in adjusting to blindness has been in identifYing a cell phone 

that meets my needs from a usability perspective. I don't think I should have to buy an expensive 

3 
16 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 77908A.004

$30 data plan and an expensive gizmo-laden phone in order to have functions like "Who's 

Calling,:" "Last Caller", "Phone Contacts" and "Battery Dead" with text-to-speech so I know 

where I am and what I'm doing. Why should I have to ask the people around me to tell me what the 

phone number is on the screen? Why can't they get it to speak out the phone number using the 

speakerphone that is already on the cell phone? 

I haven't been able to find a phone that suits my needs and is accessible. The blind 

community was very excited to see that Apple built in full accessibility to the release of the iPhone 

3GS. In doing this, Apple has proven that a cutting-edge piece of technology can be made 

accessible off the shelfto a blind or visually impaired consumer. While the iPhone's accessibility is 

proof that industry can be innovative with accessibility when it wants to be, not every person who 

is blind or visually impaired needs or wants to own a smart phone. Blind Americans like me want 

to have options as consumers so that we can identifY the most appropriate phone for our needs. 

Having accessible PDA's is important for a host of different reasons but also ensuring full 

accessibility to a wide spectrum of different phones is also vital. 

Ensuring Accessible Television for People with Vision Loss 

Today we are simply asking that television be made more accessible tor persons who are 

blind or visually impaired. Television is a primary source of inJormation, entertainment and news, 

including local emergency information such as school closings, bad weather and other disasters. 

While I enjoy television greatly my favorite TV shows are CSI: New York and CSI: Miamipicture yourself sitting in rront of your television watching your favorite program and having to 

guess what's happening in between the lines when it gets quiet. Is there movement on the screen, or 

are they displaying something of interest that you can't see that could be an integral part of the 

plot? Now let's say it was a crawl being displayed because of an emergency that would be 

4 
17 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 77908A.005

something of vital interest to US all. Unless we have someone there to read to us, we will not have a 

clue as to what was displayed on screen. Living in Southern California can present any number of 

weather-related challenges. We live with fires, mudslides, and earthquakes on a fairly regular basis. 

So you can see what it means to all who may need this assistance. Selt:preservation is critical in 

emergencies. 

We are asking you also to reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) 

regulations for video description that were struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2002. And 

we are asking you to expand those rules in two ways. First, to ensure that video description services 

are transmitted and provided over digital TV technologies, since the previous set of regulations was 

for analog television only. Those of us who are blind or visually impaired want to be sure we can 

hear the video description when we watch our favorite TV shows. Tn fact, we are also asking you to 

give some authority to the FCC to require video description for more than the simple four hours per 

week of programming that the old analog rules required. People who are blind or visually impaired 

watch more than four hours oftelevision a week! 

Second, and even more importantly, we are asking you to require that non-visual access to 

on-screen emergency warnings and similar televised information is also video described so that we 

too can know where to go in emergencies, what phone numbers to call and what websites to visit. 

Primarily, what we are asking is to make sure we can use the television like people without 

vision loss. Right now, I have to ask my wife Connie to operate various teatures of our television 

for me. We want a requirement for accessible user interfaces on television equipment and controls. 

For instance, we want accessible on/off and volume controls and program selection for TVs and 

other devices that receive or display video programming, including Internet-based video 

programming. This could mean, for example, providing audio output for on-screen text menus that 

5 
18 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 77908A.006

are used to control video programming functions, as well as a conspicuous means of accessing 

video description, such as a button on remote controls and first-level access to these accessibility 

features when available in on-screen menus, We would also like to have the TV programming and 

navigational guides accessible to people who cannot read the visual display, so that these 

individuals can make program selections, 

Technical and Economic Feasibility 

During the period in which the FCC's video description rules were in effect, I national 

broadcasters routinely demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of description by adding 

this feature to their programs, With the advent of digital television, it will soon be easier than ever 

for broadcasters to build into the digital structure ways to pass video description along to viewers. 

In fact, it is imperative to immediately require that the digital television standard include video 

description while digital television is nascent, because the failure to do so now may lead to greater 

technical and economic obstacles to providing video description in the future. 

Conclusion 

It is imperative that Congress ensure that people who are blind or visually impairedincluding the rapidly growing population of senior citizens who are losing their vision are not left 

behind as television technologies move more to digital and Internet-based technologies. 

On behalf of the American Council of the Blind and the Coalition of Organizations for 

Accessible Technology, [thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share our concerns and 

I Rules were in effect April I, 2002 to November 8, 2002. The Communications Act of 1996 authorized the FCC to 

conduct an inquiry to assess the appropriate means of phasing video description into the television marketplace. 

Although the FCC's response to this grant of authority was a modest requirement that broadcasters and other 

multimedia video programming providers in the top 25 major national markets provide video description on only four 

primetime programming hours per week, the broadcast and cable television industries successfully pursued litigation to 

overturn this mandate. As a consequence, currently there are no federal requirements to make television programming 

accessible through video description, nor is similar access to on-Screen emergency information required. 

6 
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 77908A.007

urge you to introduce and pass legislation that will safeguard the consumer needs of millions of 

Americans with disabilities. 

7 
20 

Mr. BOUCHER. Ms. Hamlin, we will be happy to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF LISE HAMLIN 

Ms. HAMLIN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Stearns, and members of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. I am Lise Hamlin. I am 

the director of public policy for Hearing Loss Association of America. I am privileged to provide this testimony on behalf of HLAA 

and the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology. 

The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

2009 is a consensus bill supported by COAT and key communications and video program providers, AT&T, Verizon, U.S. Telecom 

and Windstream. But first, I want to thank you for making this 

hearing accessible by providing ASL interpreters; the captioning on 

the screens; and, for me, an assisted listening device, because I use 

both a hearing and a cochlear implant. 

One morning when I was 28 years old, I woke up with a severe 

to profound hearing loss. The first two devices that I purchased 

was a volume control phone and a closed captioned—one of those 

big old closed-captioned decoders for my television. Those two devices allowed me to feel like I was no longer shut off from the world 

I once knew. This type of technology helps millions of people, including those baby boomers who are aging into hearing loss. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress took major steps to improve telecommunications access for people with disabilities; however, many advanced communication technologies are not covered 

by these existing Federal laws. Today, nearly 20 years after the 

Americans With Disabilities Act became law, it is important to ensure access to communication. Communication allows us equal opportunity to education, employment, and full participation in American civic life and society. 

So why don’t companies make their products and services accessible? Well, it is possible there are a few reasons. Lack of awareness. They just don’t know. An unwillingness to invest in resources 

or a desire to make the best possible price and reach the broadest 

market appeal to maximize their competitive edge. However, accessibility should not be subject to a popularity contest. 

That is why I am here today. When you tell all companies to 

make advanced communication services and accessible equipment, 

all companies are affected equally. Accessibility requires and then 

spurs innovation and makes products and services more useful to 

people with and without disabilities. Designing accessibility into 

new products is more effective and more cost efficient than retrofitting. These are the principles of universal design contained in 

section 255 of the Communications Act, and they are the principles 

behind H.R. 3101. 

Now, people with disabilities cannot afford to be relegated to obsolete technologies, to only high-end, high-tech, high-cost equipment or to specialized equipment that is hard to find and expensive. We want an equal opportunity to benefit from the full range 

of advanced communications products and services. And we believe 

H.R. 3101 will achieve the greatest possible increase in communication access. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

We support H.R. 3101’s definition of advanced communications to 

include non-interconnected as well as interconnected VOIP, video 

conferencing, and electronic messaging. And we support the adoption of the well-established and appropriate undue burden compliance standards for prospective obligations. We also support the requirement of captioning decoder and display capability in all video 

programming devices, the extension of closed-captioning obligations 

to video programming distributed over the Internet, and that requires easy access to closed captions via remote-controlled and onscreen menu. 

For people who are blind or low vision, H.R. 3101 does require 

easy access to television controls and on-screen menus, and restores video description rules and requires access to televised emergency information. 

Now, it took us decades to achieve hearing-aid compatibility for 

telephones, both wireless and wireline; 3101 will ensure telephones 

that are connected to the Internet will be hearing-aid compatible. 

And when nationwide relay services were established 20 years ago, 

the only service available was a TTY, which connected TTY users 

to other telephone users. Today I use relay services with a captioned telephone, but I am unable to connect to friends who communicate in American Sign Language, who use video relay conferencing equipment, because we use two different kinds of relay services. H.R. 3101 will allow us to call each other. 

H.R. 3101 will also establish uniform and reliable real-time text 

standards for communicating in real time over the Internet, which 

is hugely important in emergency situations. 

And, finally, H.R. 3101 will enable income-qualified people with 

disabilities to use Lifeline or Linkup subsidies for broadband services, and it will authorize $10 million annually from the Universal 

Service Fund for specialized telecommunications devices needed by 

people who are both deaf and blind. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify here, 

and I hope it has given you a little insight into why we support 

this important bill. 

Mr. BOUCHER. It has indeed. Thank you very much, Ms. Hamlin. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamlin follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 77908A.008

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF LISE HAMLIN 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

HEARING LOSS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

AND THE 

COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on H.R. 3101, 

The Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2009 

June 10,2010 

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns. and members of the 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. My name is Lise Hamlin and 

r am honored to have this opportunity to speak to you about the Twenty-first Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2009 (H.R. 3101). 

I am the Director of Public Policy for the Hearing Loss Association of American 

(HLAA). HLAA is the nation's leading organization representing people with hearing loss. Our 

advocacy efforts impact communication access, public policy, research, public awareness, and 

service delivery related to hearing loss. We also raise public awareness about hearing loss 

prevention, and provide assistance to individuals and their families to learn how to adjust to 

living with hearing loss. Our national support network includes an otJice in the Washington 

D.C. area, 14 state organizations, and 200 local chapters. 

I am privileged to present this testimony on behalf of the HLAA and the Coalition of 

Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT). which was founded in 2007. COAT is a 
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 77908A.009

coalition of over 300 national, state, and community-based organizations dedicated to making 

sure that as our nation migrates from legacy telecommunications to more versatile and 

innovative digital communication technologies, people with disabilities will not be left behind. I 

This coalition's rapid growth and attraction to organizations across the country demonstrates the 

urgency of the issues being discussed at this hearing. COAT works on behalf of over 36 million 

individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, more than 25 million individuals who are blind or 

who have vision loss, over 70,000 persons who are both deaf and blind, and millions of 

individuals with other disabilities who need accessible communications. HLAA and many 

HLAA chapters are COAT affiliates. 

I would like to thank the Committee for providing communication access at this hearing 

in the form of CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation), ASL interpreters and 

assistive listening devices. These accommodations allow me, and others who are deaf or hard of 

hearing have full access to this hearing. 

People who are deaf or hard of hearing cannot be approached with a "one size fits all" 

even when it comes to technology. People who age into hearing loss rely heavily on technology. 

As an individual's hearing changes and as technology changes, they need different 

accommodations. A person with a milder loss may make do with a simple volume control on 

their phones. As her hearing loss becomes worse, she may need a telecoil added to directly 

couple to the phone. When she is unable to hear well enough to make out most of what is said, 

she may rely on captioned telephones. At each stage, the person who has grown up using her 

hearing and her voice will seek to use what technology is available to augment her residual 

hearing. Providing these different kinds of access has proved time and again that it keeps people 

I Information about COAT and a list of COAT affiliates is available at 

http://www.coataccess.org. 

2 
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 77908A.010

fully engaged in the life of their community at work and at home. Ifpeople no longer have 

access to technology as it pushes forward into the Internet age, we will clearly be left behind. 

I rely on CART because I have a significant hearing loss. When I was 28 years old, I 

literally woke up one morning with a severe hearing loss. The first thing I purchased was a 

volume control handset for my phone. The second device I purchased was a closed captioned 

decoder. I still remember how I felt when I was able to use the phone again. and when I plugged 

that decoder in and could enjoy television with my family again. These two devices allowed me 

to feel that I was no longer shut off from the world I once new. 

As wonderful as those devices were, that closed captioned decoder and even the clunky 

phone with the telecoil and volume control would not work at all with technology we use today. 

H.R. 3101 will ensure that anyone who is hard of hearing or deafwill have access to the Internet 

we have all come to depend upon. 

Background 

During the 19805 and 1990s, Congress took major steps to improve telecommunications 

access for people with disabilities. In faet, as you know, this Subcommittee was responsible for 

helping to pass several pieces oflegislation requiring hearing aid compatibility. closed 

captioning, and access to telecommunications services and equipment. Nowadays. advanced 

communications technologies are changing even more the way our society stays in touch and 

does business. Now there are all kinds of new opportunities to eommunicate with anyone, 

anywhere. at any time. But many ofthese technologies and opportunities are not accessible to 

people with disabilities. 

Today nearly 20 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law - it 

is important to ensure that millions of Americans who are deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened, 

3 
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 77908A.011

deaf-blind, blind, or who have low vision have access to communication. Communication access 

enables equal opportunity to education, employment, and participation in the fullness of 

American civic life and society. 

Technological advancements from hearing aid compatible telephones, to text-based 

communications and relay services, and now video-based and captioned relay services and 

equipment - have enabled greater independence and greater freedom than we have ever known. 

Wireless pagers, e-mail, and text messaging have also enabled us to be more independent and 

self-reliant. 

But many newer technologies, especially advanced communications technologies that use 

the Internet, are no longer covered by the federal accessibility laws. What this means is that 

millions of Americans who, like me, are hard of hearing, or who are deaf, may not be able to use 

these new technologies. That is why I am here today: to ask you to enact the Twenty-first 

Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (H.R. 3 \01). 

H.R. 3101 is a consensus bill- supported by COAT and key communications and video 

programming providers: AT&T, Verizon, US Telecom, and Windstream. H.R. 3\01 will ensure 

that all Americans have access to advanced communications to maintain and increase their 

independence and productivity. 

We all know that techno logy companies design their products and services for certain 

markets generally young and able-bodied Americans with disposable income and a willingness 

to try and adopt new technologies. But often these products or services are not built for people 

who have difficulty hearing or seeing or both. Why don't companies include access when they 

develop services and products for the general public? I believe there are several reasons. Some 

may simply be unaware of the needs of people with disabilities. Other companies don't want to 

4 
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 77908A.012

use their resources to create accessible products if their competitors aren't doing the same thing. 

It is obvious from the dearth of accessible products and services that market pressures are 

insufficient to influence companies to design accessible products - especially when companies 

believe their money is better spent on trendy electronic features that appeal to a wider market. 

Accessibility, however, should not be subjected to a popularity contest. 

This is why we are here today. When Congress directs all companies to make new 

Internet-based and digital innovations used for communication accessible, all companies will be 

affected equally and no one company will have an advantage over another. Even more 

importantly, accessibility requires and spurs innovation and makes products and services more 

useful to' people without disabilities. When companies ensure that accessibility features are built 

into products, while they are being developed. the costs of including these features is a small 

fraction of the overall costs of producing these products. When these companies wait until later, 

after their products are already on the market, retrofitting costs a lot more and the resulting 

access is not as effective. These are the principles of universal design contained in Section 255 

of the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act. They are the principles behind H.R. 3101. 

People with disabilities do not want to and cannot afford to be relegated to obsolete 

technologies; to only high-end, high-tech, high-cost equipment; or to specialized equipment that 

is often hard to find and more expensive. They want and need an equal opportunity to benefit 

from the full range of advanced communication products and services available to and used by 

their family. friends, and colleagues at home, at work, or on the road. H.R. 3101 will help to 

accomplish these goals. 

Not only will H.R. 310 I direct accessibility for Internet-enabled and digital 

communication technologies, it will also require the creation of a clearinghouse of information 

5 
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 77908A.013

on accessible advanced communication products and services. This clearinghouse, along with 

greater outreach and education by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will help 

educate consumers about accessibility and how to find products and services that they can use. 

We believe that H.R. 3101 will achieve the greatest possible increase in communications 

access. We SUppOlt its definition of covered advanced communications to include noninterconnected as well as interconnected VolP, video conferencing, and electronic messaging (to 

ensure access to SMS text messaging, electronic mail, and instant messaging); adoption of the 

well-established and appropriate undue burden compliance standard for prospective obligations; 

extending relay service obligations to non-interconnected VolP providers; and timely action by 

the delegated authority. These provisions will benefit the deaf and hard of hearing community 

and our friends who are blind or have low vision for whom these provisions are so vital to ensure 

truly equal access. 

We are also pleased that H.R. 3101 includes provisions that require caption decoder 

circuitry or display capability in all video programming devices; extends closed captioning 

obligations to video programming distributed over the Internet; and requires easy access to 

closed captions via remote control and on-screen menus. H.R. 3101 will also require easy access 

to television controls and on-screen menus by people who are blind; restore video description 

rules; and require access to televised emergency information for people who are blind or have 

low vision. 

Hearing Aid Compatibility 

It took decades for us to achieve hearing aid compatibility for telephones. The Hearing 

Aid Compatibility Act (HAC) of 1988 required all wire line telephones to be HAC after August 

1989. Cell phones were excluded from the HAC requirements. As far back as 1994, people with 

6 
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 77908A.014

hearing loss understood that being part of the future meant having access to those cell phones. It 

took many more years of consumers working with the FCC and industry. Finally, in 2001, an 

agreement was reached though intense consumer-industry negotiation that was adopted by the 

FCC. However, unlike all wireline phones, only a percentage of cell phones are required to be 

HAC. In addition, some new smart phones entering the marketplace are not HAC, and their 

coverage under this law has come under question. This highlights the need for a comprehensive 

legislation that includes a clearinghouse of accessibility information for consumers. 

Now that phone use also means connecting to the Internet, an important provision in the 

bill will ensure that millions of people who use hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other 

assistive hearing devices, will be able to use these devices with telephones that connect via the 

Internet. With Baby Boomers starting to have hearing difficulties, we simply cannot go forward 

without ensuring that Internet-enabled phones are also hearing aid compatible. 

Relay Services 

When nationwide relay services were established 20 years ago, the only service available 

connected TTY users to telephone users. Today, I use a captioned telephone at home and at 

work. I do have friends and colleagues who communicate in American Sign Language and use 

video conferencing equipment. To call these people, we need to use both a captioned telephone 

relay service and a video relay service. An important provision to mc in H.R. 310 I is that it will 

allow users of one type of relay service, such as a captioned telephone service, to call a user of 

another form of relay service, such as a video relay service. The FCC has been interpreting the 

Communications Act to mean that relay services can only be used to provide telephone services 

between a person with a hearing or speech disability and a person without a disability. The result 

has been that people with speech and hearing disabilities who use different techno logies, 

7 
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 77908A.015

equipment, and relay services have not been able to call each other. This surely could not have 

been Congress's intent in 1990 when it directed the creation of a nationwide system of 

telecommunications relay services to integrate people with hearing and speech disabilities into 

the public telecommunications network! 

Real-Time Text 

One of the most important things that H.R. 3101 does is that it guarantees deaf and hard 

of hearing people who rely on text to communicate (rather than or in addition to voice) the 

ability to continue having conversations in real-time as communications move to digital and 

Internet-based technologies. In 1990, when the ADA was passed, deaf and hard of hearing 

people were limited to using TTY s to communicate over the telephone network. TTY s use very 

old ("Baudot") technology. These devices are also very slow (transmitting a maximum of60 

words per minute), work only in one direction at a time (you have to wait until one party finishes 

typing before you can respond), and generally are not reliable over Internet networks. Their 

many drawbacks led many people who are deaf or hard of hearing to use text messaging and 

instant messaging as their principal means of text communication. These newer methods of text 

communication, however, do not transmit letters as they are typed (as TTYs did). Instead, 

individuals type and then send text in bursts of phrases, lines, or sentence-by-sentence, rather 

than sending each character as it is typed. 

For millions of people who are deaf or hard of hearing, particularly people who do not 

communicate in American Sign Language, communicating by text is functionally equivalent to 

communicating by voice. Just like there are times when hearing people need to have a 

conversation in real-time (as compared to sending text messages on cell phones or instant 

messages over a computer), there are times that people who cannot hear need to have their 

8 
30 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 77908A.016

message received as it is being sent. For example, in emergencies it is very important to be able 

to convey and receive every piece of information as quickly as possible and at the exact time that 

it is happening.2 To illustrate this point, receiving every character of a message as it is typed 

(such as Ca-m_h-a-v-i-n-g_aJl-e-a-r-t_a-t-t-) can provide critical information if the sender 

becomes unable to complete or send the full message. H.R. 3101 will ensure that there is a 

uniform and reliable real-time text standard so that people who are deaf, hard of hearing or who 

have a speech disability can communicate in a manner that is more fimctionally equivalent to 

communication between people who can use their voices. 

Universal Service 

In addition to using text-messaging through hand-held devices, a great number of deaf 

and hard of hearing people now use Internet-based forms of relay services, and in particular 

Internet Protocol text and captioned telephone services, and video relay services. The reason is 

simple: these forms of relay service offer far more effective ways to communicate than 

traditional TTY relay services. Internet-based text and captioned telephone relay services allow 

the transmission of text at much faster speeds than TTYs, and enables conversations to travel 

simultaneously in both directions. Video relay service enables individuals who use American 

Sign Language to have conversations that flow more naturally and quickly between the parties. 

These relay services achieve a telephone experience that more closely parallels the experience of 

people without hearing disabilities. Approximately one million deaf individuals who sign can 

2 AOL began offering real time text communication in 2008. Their press release explained: "The 

new real-time 1M feature within AIM enhances instant message conversations by enabling users 

to see each letter that a buddy types rather than waiting for a friend to press the send button to 

view and read a message. This enables deaf users to respond and react to words as they are typed 

just as hearing people would do as words are spoken in a voice conversation." AOL Press 

Release, "AOL Launches Real-Time Instant Messaging Targeted to Deafand Hard of Hearing 

Users" (January 15, 2008) 

9 
31 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 77908A.017

benefit from video relay service as well as from being able to have video conversations with 

other people who sign. In addition, millions more people who are hard of hearing will be able to 

benefit from Internet based video conference connections when such conferencing is captioned, 

so that people can use their residual hearing to get what they can from the audio, rely on the 

captioning for words they missed. and see all that is captured on the video. Likewise, more than 

2.5 million people whose speech is difficult to understand may benefit from video communication because their gestures and facial expressions can be seen by the parties to the call. 

Unfortunately, many of these individuals cannot afford to pay for the high speed 

broadband Internet service that is needed to support Internet-based text, captioned, or video 

communication. Some of these individuals meet the income criteria to be eligible for 

Lifeline/Link-Up phone service subsidies, but they cannot use these discounts toward the cost of 

broadband services. Because the Lifeline and Link-Up programs are tied to telephone networkbased services, these programs offer no financial assistance for low income individuals with 

disabilities who want to replace their TTYs with improved, Internet-based forms of 

communication. Under H.R. 3101, individuals with disabilities who need the Internet to 

communicate over distances would be able to choose whether to use their Lifeline or Link-Up 

subsidies for telephone network-based services or high speed broadband services. 

A second universal service provision addressed by H.R. 3101 will greatly impact people 

who are both deaf and blind. Although the universal service provisions enacted by Congress in 

1996 were designed to make sure that everyone in America has access to telephone services, one 

group of Americans - deaf-blind Americans continue to be denied this promise. Although a 

few states have programs that distribute specialized customer premises telephone equipment, the 

vast majority of these programs do not provide telecommunications equipment that is accessible 

10 
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 77908A.018

to deaf-blind people. One reason is that typically this equipment (such as communication 

devices with refteshable Braillc key pads) costs thousands of dollars per unit. The result is that 

of all people with disabilities, deaf-blind individuals are the least able to access current 

telecommunications systems. 

It is for this reason that we are asking for a very small portion of the Universal Service 

Fund (USF) - $10 million annually - to be set aside each year to fund the distribution of 

specialized telecommunications devices needed by approximately 100,000 Americans who are 

deaf-blind. The small size of this targeted amount will not be overly burdensome for the USF, 

but will make a huge difference in the lives of people who are deaf-blind, the most underserved 

population in telecommunications history. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We call upon Congress to ensure that 

people with disabilities - including the rapidly growing population of senior citizens who 

experience hearing loss with increasing frequency and our returning veterans with hearing lossare not left behind as communication technologies move to new digital and Internet technologies. 

Thank you for this opportunity today. I hope my testimony has given you more insight into why 

H.R. 3101 is important for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. 

11 
33 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. McCormick. 

STATEMENT OF WALTER MCCORMICK 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Mr. Chairman, our industry has a long history of supporting 

communications access for persons with disabilities. Indeed, our 

founding father, Alexander Graham Bell, was a teacher of the deaf; 

and his invention of the telephone in 1876 grew out of efforts to 

devise a hearing assistance device. 

Our industry led the way in developing the first hearing aids and 

artificial larynxes. And as we approach the 20th anniversary of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act this July, I would note that Title 

IV, mandating the creation of a nationwide telecommunications 

relay service, was one of the first completed and least controversial 

sections of that landmark legislation. 

Likewise, during the mid-1990s, we worked closely with the disabilities community to develop what is now section 255 of the Communications Act, which requires that telecommunications services 

and equipment be made accessible and useable by the disabled. 

Mr. Chairman, in 2008, 2 years ago, at the urging of Representative Markey, we commenced discussions with COAT aimed at updating the law to reflect the Nation’s shift to IP-based communications. Those discussions were comprehensive and productive. Over 

the course of more than 15 months we learned a lot. Working together, we more precisely identified the needs of the disabled. We 

also gained an appreciation for the frustrations that the disabled 

community has with procedures of the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Today, apart from technical fixes to address minor inadvertent 

omissions, our joint work with COAT is fully reflected in H.R. 

3101. It will extend disability access provisions to IP-enabled services and equipment and to new video programming technologies. 

Among the bill’s most helpful additions to current law are enforcement procedures that will put remedies for noncompliance on the 

fast track, Lifeline and Linkup support for those who meet eligibility requirements, and the establishment of an advisory committee on emergency access and real-time text to provide recommendations to the FCC and Congress. 

And much as we appreciate the introduction earlier this month 

of S. 3304, Senate legislation, we prefer the House bill because it 

more appropriately reflects the need for technological parity and a 

level playing field for all advanced communications service providers and manufacturers. 

Mr. Chairman, prior to the passage of the ADA, Americans with 

disabilities grew justifiably impatient with claims that making public accommodations, public transportation, and communications 

services and equipment accessible just couldn’t be done at reasonable cost. What our industry has found in the course of the last 25 

years is that both we and the disability community benefit from 

the certainty and focus that a sound and sensible legal road map 

for achieving accessibility provides. We believe that with such a 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

road map, talented engineers and business people across the Internet landscape will respond in good faith. 

Again, we thank you very much for the opportunity to appear 

today. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCormick follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 77908A.019

Testimony of 

Waiter B. McCormick, Jr. 

President and CEO, United States Telecom Association 

before the 

Honse Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet 

"The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2009" 

June 10,2010 

Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss modernizing the 

laws providing accessibility to communications for disabled Americans by covering new and 

developing Internet Protocol-based and video programming technologies. 

I am Walter McCormick, President and CEO of the USTelecom Association. 

USTelecom represents innovative companies ranging from some of the smallest rural telecoms 

in the nation to some of the largest companies in the U.S. economy. Our members offer a wide 

range of services across the communications landscape, including voice. video. and data over 

local exchange. long distance. Internet, and cable networks. What unites our diverse 

membership is our shared determination to deliver those services to all Americans a 

commitment we know this Subcommittee shares. 

Our industry has a long history of supporting communications access for people with 

disabilities. In fact, it reaches back to the very foundations of our business. People often forget 

that Dr. Alexander Graham Bell was himself a teacher of the deaf and that Bell's invention ofthe 

telephone in 1876 grew out of his efforts to devise a hearing assistance device, The primary 

financial backers of Bell's electrical experiments were the grateful parents of some of his 

students. 

But our industry's commitment to the disabilities community did not stop there. Bell 

Labs and Western Electric were pioneers in the development of the first hearing aids and 

artificial larynxes. We later participated in the establishment and deployment of 

telecommunications relay services. Both AT&T and Verizon offer mobile devices that not only 

provide text-to-speech access to phone features, but to web pages as well. Many of our members 

provide specialized offerings, such as free directory assistance, or text- and data-only plans, so 

that people who are deaf or have hearing loss will not pay for voice communications services 

they are unable to use. 

Our commitment to bringing the benefits of telecommunications to all Americans, 

including those with disabilities, is also mirrored by our work in the legislative arena. As we 

approach the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act this July, I would note that 

one of the first completed, and least controversial, sections of that landmark legislation was Title 
36 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 77908A.020

IV, which mandated the establishment of a nationwide telecommunications relay service by 

1993. In 1994 and 1995 we continued our efforts in this area, working with the disabilities 

community to develop and support what is now section 255 of the Communications Act. That 

section requires providers to ensure that telecommunications services and equipment are 

accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. 

In 2008, Mr. Chairman, your colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Ed Markey, 

raised the question of whether it was time to update section 255 of the Communications Act to 

reflect the reality of our industry's shift to IP-based communications and the advent of new 

video programming technologies. Representative Markey encouraged us to work with the 

disabilities community and taking a page from the history of section 255's development, we 

entered into a series of discussions with the disabilities community, represented by the Coalition 

of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT). 

Our discussions with COAT would take over 15 months and more than 40 legislative 

drafts to complete. While time consuming, these discussions were also illuminating. We were 

able to identifY more precisely the needs of the disabilities community and to target the bill to 

address those needs. We also gained an understanding of their frustrations with how the current 

processes and procedures at the Federal Communications Commission work to delay and inhibit 

their ability to bridge the communications gap for their members. Apart from technical fixes to 

address minor inadvertent omissions from the introduced bill, our joint work with COATis fully 

reflected in H.R. 3101, the 21 st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which 

Representative Markey introduced in June of2009. 

In general, H.R. 3101 is designed to extend disability access provisions applicable to 

legacy telecommunications and video services to IP-enabled services and equipment and to new 

video programming technologies. The legislation also acknowledges that section 255 of the Act, 

with its limitation to telecommunications services and equipment, does not encompass many of 

the services that people routinely use today. Thus, the bill appropriately places the treatment of 

advanced communications for these purposes under Title VII of the Communications Act. 

Among the bill's most helpful additions to current law are enforcement procedures that 

will put remedies for noncompliance on a fast track, something sorely lacking today; Lifeline 

and Linkup support for Internet access services and advanced communications for those who 

meet those programs' eligibility requirements; and the establishment of an Advisory Committee 

on Emergency Access and Real Time Text to provide recommendations to the FCC and to the 

House and Senate Commerce Committees regarding the actions necessary to ensure 

interoperable real time text communications as part of the migration to a national IP-enabled 

network, a critical public safety need for disabled Americans in the 21 5t century. 

The legislation would also achieve what the FCC was unable to do in 2000: ensure that 

video description capability is made widely available, not just for television broadcasts, but also 

for certain video programming distributed over the Internet, the place where more and more 

Americans are watching video today. Methods to improve the conveyance of emergency 

2 
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 77908A.021

infonnation by means of video will also be required under H.R. 3101, and closed captioning will 

be similarly advanced to include Internet distribution. Equipment that receives and plays back 

video programming will be required to have closed captioning, video description, and accessible 

emergency information capability. 

The FCC's consideration and development of the National Broadband Plan in late 2009 

and early 2010 gave us yet another opportunity to work with the disabilities community to 

ensure recognition of their needs as we enter an era in which lP-based technologies will provide 

the basis for most ifnot all electronic communication. We were particularly delighted by the 

inclusion of Recommendation 9.10 in the National Broadband Plan, which states that "Congress, 

the FCC and the Department of Justice should modernize accessibility laws, rules and related 

subsidy programs." The Commission adopted H.R. 3101' s definition of "advanced 

communications," which was developed as a result of the joint USTelecom/COA T discussions. 

We are also pleased the Commission has already begun to implement Recommendation 9.9 to 

establish an Accessibility and Innovation Forum, the first meeting of which is scheduled in July. 

We believe our experience working closely with COAT, replicated on a broader scale and on a 

more systematic basis, will hasten the advancement of broadband accessibility. 

We also appreciate Senator Pryor's introduction earlier this month of S. 3304, the "Equal 

Access to 21 st Century Communications Act," and its co-sponsorship by Senators Kerry, Dorgan 

and Conrad. It is the next important step in the process of updating the nation's laws governing 

access to advanced communications technology for people with disabilities. In our recent 

testimony before the Senate, we highlighted the many aspects of the bill that similarly reflect our 

discussions with COAT. We also highlighted two issues that give us some concern -- its 

achievability standard and the technological disparities the bill would create. I have attached a 

chart to my testimony illustrating the technological disparity issue, and how specific services 

would be treated under the House and Senate measures. Accessibility requirements, standards, 

and criteria must be applied uniformly to all advanced communications service providers and 

manufacturers. Moving forward, we would like to continue working with the Senate to clarifY 

those provisions. 

Prior to passage of the ADA, Americans with disabilities grew justifiably impatient with 

claims that making public accommodations, public transportation, and communications services 

and equipment accessible '1ust couldn't be done," or couldn't be done at reasonable cost. Over 

and over again, many of those claims were proven wrong. When an industry starts out with the 

attitude that providing accessibility is too hard, it's not surprising that not much gets done. What 

our industry has found in the course of the last 25 years is that both we and the disabled 

community benefit from the certainty and focus that a sound and sensible legal roadmap for 

achieving accessibility provides. We believe that with such a roadmap, talented engineers and 

business people across the Internet landscape will respond in good faith to the challenge. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me reiterate our commitment to this effort. Americans are 

more reliant than ever on communications devices and networks in their daily lives, but 

Americans with disabilities can derive particular benefits from these technologies. As these 

3 
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 77908A.022

exciting new technologies evolve, that population could become increasingly disadvantaged if 

they are denied access to them. 

We thank you for your invitation to appear today. USTelecom and its member 

companies look forward to working with the Subcommittee and this Congress to achieve our 

shared objective of making the use of broadband as ubiquitous today as electricity, water, and 

telephone service. Broadband is an essential building block of every modem American 

community. We pledge our support for making its many opportunities accessible to all 

Americans. Thank you. 

4 
39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 77908A.023

COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS 

SERVU:;E O~ APPLICATION .....• H.R .. 3101 ..... S;3304 . .....•... 

Advanced Communications The term "advanced The term "advanced communications" 

communications" means means devices and services that 

interconnected VolP service; transmit a bundle of IP enabled voice, 

non-interconnected VolP video conferencing and text 

service; electronic messaging; communications and any application or 

and video conferencing. service accessed over the Internet that 

provides voice, video conferencing or 

text communications as determined 

necessary by the FCC. 

User Interface for Internet Yes Yes 

Access Service 

Interconnected VolP (e.g., Yes Yes 

Vonage) 

Video Conferencing Yes Only if bundled with IP voice and IP 

based text communications; otherwise, 

only if FCC finds "necessary" (e.g., Skype 

video conferencingj 

I P Based Text Messaging Yes Only if bundled with IP based video 

conferencing and IP voice; otherwise, 

only if FCC finds "necessary" (e.g., 

instant messaging by MSN, Yahoo, or 

AOL, or IP-based text messaging such os 

SkypeSMS) 

E-mail Yes Only if bundled with IP based video 

conferencing and IP voice; otherwise 

only if FCC finds "necessary" (e.g., I Gmail, Yahoo Mail, HotMailj 

Unbundled Non-IP Based Yes No 

SMS text messaging (e.g., 

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) 

Other Unbundled Voice No If the FCC determines necessary 

Applications (e.g., Google 

Voice) 
40 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Shapiro. 

STATEMENT OF GARY SHAPIRO 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify on the laudable goal, which I think we all share here, of ensuring access to new technologies by persons with disabilities. 

I am very proud to represent some 2,000 technology companies 

who in a short period of time, both individually and collectively, 

have changed how all Americans have accessed entertainment and 

education. 

Now, our industry has a very long and proven commitment to 

providing products and services to the disabled community without 

government intervention. From advances in screen readers, closed 

captioning on mobile devices, to GPS applications for the blind, we 

have radically transformed how most disabled Americans can stay 

informed and connected. 

We have had several meetings with COAT to understand the 

issues they are trying to address in this legislation, and we agree 

that there is definitely a need for better communication of the accessible products and services that are available today in the marketplace. With this in mind, we applaud the bill’s establishment of 

a clearinghouse of information of the availability of accessible products and services. 

The consumer electronics industry invented closed captioning, 

and is a good example of a narrow government intervention with 

a very positive result. During the process, Congressman Markey 

changed the proposal to give manufacturers flexibility in implementing the requirement. The result is that captioning comes in 

various ways through industry-agreed upon standards. And indeed, 

we are now working on voluntary solutions for closed captioning of 

video content distributed over broadband networks. 

While we share the goal of providing access to technology to all 

persons, our experience has taught us that voluntary, multi-stakeholder, open due process, and approved standard-setting efforts are 

a better way to go than simply mandating that every function of 

every product be accessible to people with every type of disability. 

To put it simply, mandating universal design is an innovation 

killer. Innovation leads to accessibility, not the other way around. 

The V-chip represents a consumer electronics innovation that 

turned into a failure after it was rushed through Congress as a 

mandate and one patent owner imposed huge costs on all involved, 

as it believed Congress had mandated the use of its technology. 

The result still today is a cumbersome and complicated system 

which few parents use. Innovation and parental control technology 

has happened through market forces entirely outside the congressionally mandated V-chip solution. 

So we have to learn from these past mistakes. We understand 

and we share the desire and compelling case for expanding the access of technology to Americans with disabilities. However, H.R. 

3101 is extremely broad in its scope, chilling innovation and entry 

of new products. Moreover, it ignores the great number of products 

in the market which are increasing every day and serve the needs 

of many in the disability community. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

According to C–NET, 190 wireless phones are hearing-aid compatible, over 400 are TTY-compatible, over 1,200 have vibrating 

alert capability, 5 allow audible battery alert, and over 300 have 

voice control capability. And you can do this with a simple Web 

search which allows comparisons by accessible features. 

Now, certainly we strive to ensure that no American is left behind, but innovators do need flexibility to introduce new products. 

Given the multiple and sometimes conflicting needs of persons with 

different levels of ability, manufacturers can address these needs 

with freedom to invent and sell a great number and variety of 

products. From a technical and financial perspective, manufacturers simply cannot incorporate every accessibility feature into each 

and every device. 

Now, our written statement is very specific about the concerns 

we have with this legislation. The definitions are broad. They will 

likely capture almost every electronic product. Indeed, with the 

move to Internet protocol V–6, IPV–6, almost every product using 

electricity will be connected to the Internet. Video games, lighting 

and security systems, home control systems, and even automobiles 

will all be subject to the overwhelming universal design mandates 

in this bill. 

If our objective is to both encourage innovation and provide accessible products and services, this legislation must recognize that 

we are edging up against the bounds of physics and engineering. 

For example, hand-held can only have screens so large or so many 

function keys or buttons before they are rendered unusable. 

Another problematic provision in the bill is that it retains the 

outdated accessibility followed by compatibility regime of section 

255, and then makes it worse by saying with this new heightened 

undue burden standards, today’s software-based telecom and media 

devices are compatible or interoperable with software-based assistive technologies. 

Today in America we obviously face a very difficult, challenging 

economic situation, and it is going to get worse and worse. But we 

have some secret source, and that is our innovation. We are home 

to every significant Internet company. We are home to the greatest 

microchip companies and technology companies like Apple and others. But remember, every one of these big companies started as a 

small company, and we have to be careful that we don’t change 

how a company can enter the market, and also even how a big company can market a new innovation. 

At CEA, we believe we have to remain the most innovative Nation on Earth, and we urge you as policymakers to recognize our 

strength and innovation, and examine these policies through the 

lens of whether it is good or bad for innovation, and thus our economic future. 

In closing, we will continue our efforts to ensure that all Americans can reap the benefits of new and emerging technologies. However, due to layers of complexity in this and limitations it would 

place on the advancement of new technologies, we do not believe 

as drafted it is the right approach. We have submitted alternative 

language that improves accessibility to Internet-based communication and video technologies while balancing the need to promote innovation, and we look forward to working with all the interested 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

stakeholders on a legislative approach that reflects the rapid innovation of our market with the desire to ensure that these products 

and services are accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shapiro. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 77908A.024

Before the 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology and the Internet 

Hearing on H.R. 3101 

The 21 st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009 

June 10,2010 

Written Testimony of 

Gary Shapiro 

President and CEO, Consumer Electronics Association 

Chainnan Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on the important issue of access to new technologies by 

persons with disabilities. [am proud to represent over 2,000 American technology companies, 

who in a short period of time both individually and collectively, have changed how all 

Americans access infonnation. entertainment and education. 

The technology innovations which have brought us wireless, the Internet, PCs, digital 

radio, MP3, HDTV, broadband and naITOW band have quickly transfonned society. Moreover, 

technology innovation has been the one American bright spot in what otherwise is a challenging 

economy. As I travel around the world and meet with industry and government, they look to the 

United States with envy as the leader in technology and innovation. Indeed, our nation has 

produced more innovation connected to communication and the Internet than all the other 

nations in the world combined. Today, America is the home to every significant Internet 

company and most of the world's great microchip and technology companies. But every big 

company started as a little company and we must be careful of doing anything which makes it 

more difficult for a new company to enter the market. 

1 
44 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 77908A.025

Our American dream is based on the power of new ideas, new inventions and a better 

way of doing things. Simply put, we need to protect the special sauce that is American 

innovation and leadership. 

At CEA, we believe our national future is tied to our ability to remain the most 

innovative nation on earth. We urge you as policymakers to recognize our national strength in 

innovation and examine policies through the lens of whether it is good or bad for innovation and 

thus for our economic future. Indeed, the Innovation Movement we launched less than one year 

ago has attracted over 60,000 Americans and its singular focus is advocating for policies 

conducive to innovation. 

Among these policies is the ability of manufacturers to have t1exibility in designing 

products. We continue to applaud the 1985 Supreme Court decision in the Sony Betamax case 

which found that products are legal if they have significant legal uses. Without this finding. 

many of the technologies we experience today would not have been developed or sold, as they 

were opposed by one group seeking to design products a specific way: so they could not record. 

When government has stepped in narrowly to meet a specific purpose, we have had a 

good result. One successful example is the closed captioning requirement. Although my 

predecessor opposed it over 20 years ago when Congressman Markey first proposed it, I was 

pleased to work with Congressman Markey who then changed the proposal to give 

manufacturers flexibility in implementing the requirement. The result is that captioning comes in 

various ways through industry agreed-upon standards. The trick here was a narrowly defined 

purpose, flexibility and options which allowed manufacturers to distinguish their products from 

each other. The initial costs were high but they became unnoticeable to the consumer as intense 

2 
45 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 77908A.026

competition, the shift to digital and the use of standards without patent complications allowed the 

cost increase to be absorbed in the deflationary spiral of consumer electronics. 

Another excellent example of a strategic government industry partnership is the shift to 

digital television. By all accounts, the United States has the best standard and the smoothest 

transition to digital. Almost all Americans now enjoy the sounds and beauty of digital television. 

In both of these examples of success, the FCC allowed all interested stakeholders to arrive at the 

best technical solution through a deliberate, open standards process with appropriate obligations 

on both the content source and the receiver. 

An example of a less successful governmental technology requirement is the v-chip. This 

well-meaning effort to help parents keep children from viewing inappropriate content was based 

on a CEA voluntary proposal. Rushed through Congress as a mandate, it used proprietary 

technology, resulting in expensive and time-consuming litigation, as well as an unclear purpose. 

Without competition among manufacturers -as it was a mandate - along with an overly complex 

ratings system, the result is a system which few parents use. Innovation in parental control 

technology has happened through market forces entirely outside the congressionally mandated vchip solution. 

Today, we understand the desire and compelling case for expanding the access of 

technology to Americans with disabilities. However, the legislation before us - H.R. 3101- is 

extremely broad in its scope; chilling innovation and the entry of new products. More, it ignores 

the great number of products on the market which serve the needs of many in the disability 

community. 

3 
46 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 77908A.027

According to CNET, which allows product searches by accessible features, 190 wireless 

phones are hearing aid compatible, 401 are TTY compatible, 1,244 have vibrating alert 

capability, five allow audible battery alert and 304 have voice control capability. CNET product 

reviews also provide device comparison charts for caption-enabled mobile media devices 

ranging from Blackberries to iPhones and the Sling Player Mobile. as well as wireless carrier 

guidance for accessible products and services and GPS software and devices for the visually 

impaired. 

I will be specific about our concerns and how we suggest the bill be changed to meet the 

laudatory goal of encouraging a marketplace where all Americans have access to the miracles of 

modem communication. But America must also have a goal of encouraging innovation and not 

creating new barriers to entrepreneurs. Therefore, our objective is to meet the needs of disabled 

Americans and meet our national focus on the free market as the greatest innovation creator. We 

are also edging up against the bounds of physics and engineering, and the reality that the 

increasingly common handheld devices can only have screens so large or so many special 

function keys or buttons. We strongly believe it is not an appropriate government role to 

mandate any of these functions, keys, buttons or designs. 

As currently drafted. H.R. 3 101 does not take into account the ever-changing dynamic of 

Internet-based services and devices. We are no longer living in a world of single function 

devices. Internet-based voice, video and data services and equipment involve a diverse and 

symbiotic ecosystem of content providers, service providers, software applications and network 

edge devices. Each part of the distribution chain must cooperate to provide the end user with an 

acceptable result. The legislation's attempt to adapt old regulations established to apply to 

primary function services and devices, such as Section 255 and FCC's closed captioning rules, to 

4 
47 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 77908A.028

new multi-function devices will not produce the desired results, and will only impede the 

advancement of new technologies and accessible features. 

Bringing new products to market involves numerous variables and requires balancing 

technical limitations with trade-off~, flexibility and creativity. The development of new products 

is highly time-driven, but it also is an iterative process, with new features being added or 

removed constantly in a series of small development and testing cycles determining what 

capabilities, dimensions, and other factors can realistically be put into a product that is capable of 

competing successfully in a highly competitive market. 

If developments in each of these cycles were viewed against a set of difficult-to-meet 

standards as required by H.R. 3101, and the cost - from detai led record-keeping at all stages of 

product design and implementation to justiJY business decisions, to administrative and legal 

proceedings - of potentially huge liability, the innovation of new products and services would 

slow to a halt. The impact on small business entrepreneurs many whom are CEA memberwould be especially challenging. 

As introduced, Title I of H.R. 3101 would require many current and future Internet-based 

voice, video and data services and devices to be accessible to all people with disabilities. 

Coupled with a heightened undue burden standard, one can only imagine if the iPhone or the 

Internet itself would have ever been brought to market ifH.R. 3101 was current law. 

We strive to ensure no American is left behind, but we also need the flexibility to develop 

new products that address the needs of all consumers. Given the multiple, sometimes 

conflicting, needs of persons with different levels of ability, it is important that manufacturers 

have flexibility which will ultimately lead to a greater number and variety of products to meet 

5 
48 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 77908A.029

different user needs. Manufacturers are simply unable to incorporate all accessibility features 

into all products without compromising the function and affordability of products. 

The approach set forth in I-I.R. 310 I, requiring all service and devices to be accessible 

with the FCC developing and mandating technical standards for such accessible features would 

not result in more products being accessible or more innovative designs. Rather, it would result 

in overly burdensome compliance costs, less variety of products and would hinder United States 

competitiveness in the global market. 

As an alternative, we have suggested amendatory language expanding the scope of voice 

and messaging communications services and applications, beyond what is required under current 

law. These proposed amendments would provide certainty to service providers and 

manufacturers as to the extent of their obligations. This language would help to ensure that there 

are choices in the marketplace for devices with certain accessible functions, but not require all 

devices to incorporate all functions. 

Further, it is a core CEA belief that the development of technical standards must be left to 

consensus-based industry standards bodies, rather than government agencies or Congress alone. 

Such groups are open to participation by non-industry members, and constitute the best and most 

efficient way to approach industry-wide issues, while at the same time protecting innovation. 

Another problematic provision ofthe bill is that it retains the outdated "accessibilityfollowed-by-compatibility" regime of Section 255 coupled with the heightened undue burdeu 

standard. Today's software-based telecom and media devices continue to progress in the area 

of compatibility or interoperability with software-based assistive technologies. However, Section 

6 
49 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 77908A.030

255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not recognize these applications as a legitimate 

means to comply with its accessibility requirements. 

Currently, whenever it is not readily achievahle to incorporate accessibility features into a 

product or service, the manufacturer or provider is required to ensure that the equipment or 

service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises 

equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, ifreadily 

achievable. 

When Section 255 was written, the only types of assistive technologies available for 

mobile and wireline phones were items such as TTYs and handset amplifiers. Mainstream 

accessories and software for mobile devices, such as a Bluetooth keyboard or Code Factory 

Mobile Speak are now extending the boundaries of software and hardware peripherals that 

provide benefits as assistive technology. As an alternative, CEA proposes a cleaner "either-or" 

option that would allow industry to address consumers' needs in a more effective and flexible 

manner. 

We are also concerned about the scope and intrusiveness of the reporting obligations and 

believe that the industry and the FCC must be afforded flexibility with respect to the content and 

format of any reports. Alternatively, CEA proposed an annual officer certification that would 

help to ensure that accessibility issues are a high level corporate policy and provide for 

protection of proprietary inforn1ation. 

The complaint resolution requirements in H.R. 3101 would effectively require the FCC to 

give accessibility complaints priority over all other complaints, regardless of merit, in order to 

meet the ISO-day statutory deadline. The legislation would also give accessibility complainants 

mandamus rights unavailable in any other context, and empower the FCC to issue cease and 

7 
50 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 77908A.031

desist orders. CEA has proposed a more administratively realistic one-year period for resolving 

complaints that also provides the FCC sufficient remedial authority short of imposing a 

particular technical solution or standard. 

The monetary forfeiture provisions of § I 04(b) impose forfeiture amounts that are 

excessive and represent a substantial departure from current law. which for due process reasons 

imposes lesser amounts for businesses who are not ordinarily subject to FCC jurisdiction. 

Further, the absence ofa third party liability limitation is of particular' concern given the 

market prevalence of third party applications that mayor may not meet the accessibility needs of 

an individual user. The broad scope ofthe legislation, as well as the restrictions on impeding 

"content" transmitted via advanced communications, creates uncertainty regarding providers' 

and manufacturers' obligations to provide accessible products and applications. CEA proposes 

that the legislation clarify that advanced communications manufacturers and providers are liable 

only for the products and services they design and control. 

Under Title II of the bill, the FCC is directed to develop regulations through a Notice of 

Inquiry and subsequent rulemaking that would require all devices to render closed captioning, 

video description and emergency alert information. Mandating the incorporation of technical 

standards and features to render closed captioning and video description without any 

consideration of the impact it would have on the other functions of or costs of a mUltipurpose 

device would undoubtedly stifle innovation. 

As an alternative, CEA has proposed the development of an advisory committee 

consisting of all affected stakeholders working together to develop industry-led technical 

solutions for IP-based video programming services and devices. After the advisory committee 

8 
51 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 77908A.032

completes its work and develops suggested solutions, the advisory committee would then 

determine whether to recommend that the FCC promulgate rules to accomplish the 

recommended solutions. For any such requirements, the FCC would also be afforded flexibility 

to exempt certain Internet-based video programming services and devices. 

It is also important to note that we are working on solutions for closed captioning of 

video content distributed over broadband networks. Last November, an Ad Hoc Group was 

formed by a Technical Committee of the Society of Motion Picture and Television (SMPTE) to 

continue the efforts of the Internet Captioning Forum and develop a voluntary industry standard. 

Group participants include content providers, broadcasters, captioning and subtitling solution 

providers, professional equipment manufacturers and consumer electronics manufacturers. 

SMPTE has reached out to the disability community and established formal liaison with COAT 

to exchange information, solicit feedback and ensure the needs of disabled individuals are taken 

into account during the development of this standard. The Ad Hoc Group expects to complete 

work on its first set of standards in 2010. 

Finally, the bill requires a prescriptive list of user interfaces on devices, such as closed 

captioning buttons on remote controls and audio output of on-screen menus. The industry is 

working on solutions to make user interfaces more easily accessible. CEA recently established a 

new group to develop a recommended practice to make remote controls more usable by the 

visually impaired. We strongly believe it is not appropriate for the government to be in the 

product design business down to the level of individual buttons and functions. 

Over the past year, we have met regularly with members of COAT to gain a better 

understanding of the problems they are attempting to solve with this legislation. Through these 

9 
52 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 77908A.033

meetings, in addition to gaining a better understanding of their concerns that has helped us craft 

suggested amendments to H.R. 3101, it became clear that there is need for better communication 

of the accessible products and services that are available in the marketplace. With this in mind, 

we applaud the provision establishing a clearinghouse of information on the availability of 

accessible products and services. The development and promotion of a clearinghouse would 

provide great value to the disabled community, who may not know what solutions are available. 

Additionally, it would provide an inventory of accessible technology available in the 

marketplace, enabling us to determine where we are meeting the needs of the disabled 

community and where we need to do better. 

We are encouraged by the recent establishment of the FCC's Accessibility and 

Innovation Forum that will provide an ongoing collaborative discussion between diverse 

stakeholders to promote innovative solutions to access broadband communication technologies. 

The FCC also recently announced that they plan to launch an online clearinghouse to serve as an 

information source for accessible technologies, services and resources. Further, CEA has been 

an active participant in the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee and the FCC Digital Closed 

Captioning and Video Description Technical Working Group. 

In closing, we have and will continue our efforts to ensure that all Americans are able to 

reap the benefits of new and emerging communications technologies. However, due to the layers 

of complexity inherent in the legislation and the limitations it would place on the advancement of 

all new technologies, we do not believe, as currently drafted, it is the right approach. We have 

submitted suggested alternative language that improves accessibility to Internet-based 

communication and video technologies while balancing the need to allow innovation to flourish. 

10 
53 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 77908A.034

We look forward to working with all interested stakeholders on a legislative approach that 

reflects the rapid innovation of our market with the desire to ensure that these products and 

services are accessible to persons with disabilities. 

11 
54 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Assey. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES ASSEY 

Mr. ASSEY. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman 

Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to testify before you today on 

H.R. 3101, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. 

As you know, NCTA represents cable operators that serve over 

90 percent of the Nation’s cable households, providing voice, video, 

and data services, as well as over 200 cable networks that create 

and produce high-value video programming. And as leading providers of innovative communications and video services, we share 

the goals and objectives of H.R. 3101 to ensure that IP-based video, 

voice, and data services are accessible to those with visual and 

hearing disabilities. 

Over the past several months, we too have had productive discussions with many of the advocacy groups to identify issues, to exchange information, and generally to learn about developments in 

assistive technology. In addition, NCTA is actively engaged in organizations and standard setting bodies that focus on disability access issues. Accordingly, we applaud the provisions in this legislation and in the national broadband plan that seek to promote similar kinds of dialogue in exchange through industry forms and information clearinghouses. 

Having made that broad point, let me focus the rest of my comments on three areas in Title 2 of the legislation where we believe 

progress can be made if modifications are similarly made to improve the bill, and more importantly, to better support, the collaborative efforts that are necessary to design, develop and bring to 

market new assistive technologies. 

The first area focuses on closed captioning for persons that are 

hearing impaired. For some time, cable companies have complied 

with existing FCC rules that require closed captioning on television 

programming. But clearly as technology has evolved and as investment has fueled the development of broadband networks, cable programming is increasingly available over the Internet. And to their 

credit, cable programmers have stepped up to the challenge and 

worked to translate TV captions to Internet formats that can be 

viewed on various Internet players. But today, that translation can 

be a cumbersome process. An additional technology barrier that we 

face is the fact that many of these Internet players are on proprietary formats which require multiple steps in order to have your 

programming accessible online. 

But the good news is that help is on the way. Over the past 2 

years, cable programmers and operators have participated in an ad 

hoc group with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, also known as the SMPTE Group to work towards the development of standards that are designed to make the translation to 

Internet captions more seamless and to eliminate the need to caption programming multiple times. In light of this ongoing work, we 

would propose the provisions expanding captioning requirements to 

the Internet be tailored to recognize and not compete with this 

inner industry standard setting effort. In addition, we believe that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

further revision should be made to limit the scope of new obligations to TV programming that is distributed online and to phase 

in such obligations over time so that certain operational issues 

such as when TV programming has to be edited before it is made 

available on line can be occur. 

The second issue I wish to discuss is that of video description. 

While we continue to have significant concerns about the utility, 

the cost and the operational complexity of distributing video described programming, the cable industry would propose starting 

with reinstatement of the SEC’s prior video description rules with 

certain modifications and with sufficient time afforded to implement such requirements. Such a tailored, pragmatic approach will 

provide needed time to refresh old rules, to secure permissions, adjust budgets to deal with the operational and technical complexities 

of implementation at a greater scale. But given such uncertainty, 

we similarly believe that it would be premature for Congress to expand the FCC’s authority in this area beyond the scope of its prior 

rules until after it has evaluated the impact of such requirements. 

Third, we similarly believe that progress will be made with respect to cable menus and program guides. We can make them accessible through solutions that provide textual information in an 

audible form. But these solutions are in their nascent stage and operators must be given the time and flexibility needed to design and 

develop solutions and moreover, these solutions need to be based 

on functional objectives to avoid locking in any technology specific 

approaches. 

Mr. Chairman, we know as Chairman Waxman said that more 

can and should be done to improve the accessibility of our products 

and services for persons with disabilities. And we have no doubt 

that there are technical and operational complexities that we will 

face along the way. But we also know that now is not the time to 

throw up our hands. Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and we 

stand ready to work with you on achieving pragmatic solutions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Assey. Mr. Franklin. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Assey follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 77908A.035

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. ASSEY 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

on 

H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2009 

before the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

June 10, 2010 
57 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 77908A.036

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. ASSEY 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

ASSOCIATION 

Good morning, Chainnan Boucher. Ranking Member Stearns, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is James Assey and r am the Executive Vice President of the National 

Cable & Telecommunications Association. Thank you for inviting me today to testifY on H.R. 

3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2009. 

NCTA represents cable operators serving more than 90 percent of the nation's cable 

television households and more than 200 cable program networks. The cable industry is the 

nation's largest provider of residential high-speed Internet service, having invested more than 

$160 billion since 1996 to build two-way, interactive networks with fiber optic technology. 

Cable companies also provide state-of-the-art digital telephone service to more than 20 million 

American consumers. NCT A and its members are committed to making their services available 

to all Americans, and we support the objective ofH.R. 3101 to ensure that IP-based voice, 

broadband, and video services are accessible to the visually- and hearing-impaired. 

Cable industry representatives are actively involved in ensuring that the needs of our 

customers with disabilities are addressed. Today, our voice offerings comply with Section 255's 

accessibility requirements, and cable operators contribute to the Telecommunications Relay 

Service Fund. Our video programming is closed captioned in accordance with the FCC's rules. 

Moreover, cable programmers increasingly are providing this programming online with captions, 

and some cable programmers continue to voluntarily provide some video-described 

programming. In addition to these steps, we remain actively engaged in organizations and' 

standards development activities dedicated to working on disability issues. For example, NCTA 

2 
58 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 77908A.037

is pleased to participate in forums focused on accessibility solutions like this year's 25th Annual 

International Technology & Persons with Disabilities Conference that was held in San Diego, 

California, In addition, NCTA and Comcast have been working with the FCC, through its 

Technical Working Group on Closed Captioning and Video Description, to help make sure that 

the transition from analog to digital programming does not disrupt our customers' ability to 

continue to enjoy captioned video programming. 

We agree that more can and should be done. In that regard, discussions surrounding this 

bill have played a positive role in helping the cable industry better understand the needs and 

goals of cable consumers with disabilities. Along with representatives of other industry 

organizations with an interest in this legislation, NCT A has actively participated in discussions 

for several months with the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT) about 

the provisions ofH.R. 3101. Cable operator engineers have met with COAT and its technical 

experts to exchange information and learn about technological developments in assistive 

technology. We hope to continue our positive dialogue with COAT and with the Committee to 

ensure any legislation considered addresses the needs of the disability community, but also takes 

into consideration the impact on industry. We want to continue to be a productive participant in 

these ongoing discussions to identify solutions and to best achieve concrete results. 

Our dialogue with COAT has helped us not only better understand the needs of 

consumers with hearing and visual disabilities, but has also brought to light certain elements of 

H.R. 3101 that we believe can achieve accessibility goals through a more pragmatic approach. 

would like to highlight a few of the areas where we would suggest such changes. 

First, cable operators are committed to working to tind solutions to the accessibility of 

menus and program guides provided for digital multichannel video programming. In light of the 

3 
59 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 77908A.038

nascent stage of development of accessible solutions, NCT A suggests amending the bill to make 

clear that operators should have the needed time and flexibility to design and develop the 

technology required to provide audible versions of their guides and menus for the blind and 

visually impaired. 

Second, we recognize that the Internet is becoming an increasingly significant source for 

viewing video programming, and we are committed to making online video as accessible as 

possible. Cable programmers and operators are participating in an Ad Hoc Group within the 

Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) working to resolve the technical 

barriers that currently prevent captioning from accompanying the video content when it is moved 

from television to online delivery. We believe we can successfully overcome these challenges in 

the near future, so that programming captioned for television viewing can more easily retain the 

captions when distributed over the Internet and does not have to be captioned multiple times to 

accommodate different online formats. When the SMPTE process is complete and a standard is 

finalized, use of that standard can be incorporated into programming going forward. NCTA 

proposes that Internet captioning requirements be timed to reflect the ongoing standard-setting 

process and apply prospectively to programming distributed online. 

We also propose a phase-in ofInternet captioning obligations that reflects the different 

levels of difficulty associated with captioning programming online. For example, if a program is 

edited for Internet distribution (e.g., the commercials are removed, scenes are eliminated or 

added, other elements such as the music are replaced), the captions may need to be reformatted 

or redone, and we have suggested some additional time to ensure edited programming is 

captioned online. While we anticipate that most programming eventually will be able to 

seamlessly move from television to the Internet with captions, it will be more difficult for some 

4 
60 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 77908A.039

types of programming. The bill should thus allow some necessary leeway to address some likely 

technical glitches and other unusual situations that may occur. 

Third, the challenges we face in providing video description, both over television and the 

Internet, are more difficult. There are technical and operational difficulties, as well as significant 

costs (which far exceed those for captioning) and creative issues associated with providing video 

described programming. Despite these challenges, the cable industry would agree to the 

reinstatement of the FCC's earlier video description requirements on television, with certain 

modifications. Much has occurred over the decade since the rules were eliminated, and we ask 

that legislation give the industry sufficient time to provide video-described programming. This 

time is necessary to incorporate the provision of video description into budgets and program 

production plans and to ensure that programmers and operators have the right equipment in place 

to provide video-described programming. Because of the significant questions that remain about 

the utility of, and difficulty of providing, video description, it is premature to provide the FCC 

authority to expand the scope and coverage of the rules. Instead, we believe the FCC should 

study the associated issues and report back to Congress. 

Finally, while we generally support Title I of the bill ("Communications Access"), we 

share some ofthe concerns raised by other industry groups. In particular, we would suggest 

changes that clarity the scope and application of Title I to reflect the difference between the IP 

environment and the old circuit-switched world in which accessibility requirements were first 

imposed. As we move increasing to an IP environment, the service provider and the network 

operator may be two different entities that have no direct contact with one another. This is much 

different than the pre-IP world, where the network operator was the service provider (such as in 

the case of traditional voice telephone service). Consequently, a network operator may have no 

5 
61 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 77908A.040

control over whether the application provider that is actually providing the communications 

service complies with accessibility requirements. Congress needs to clarify the respective 

accessibility responsibilities of IP network operators and applications providers - or expressly 

direct the FCC to do so and ensure that network operators functioning solely as passive 

conduits for third party services providers are not made responsible for compliance by those 

providers. We would be happy to work with you to fashion language to accomplish these goals. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear this morning on this very important matter. 

We look forward to working with you on H.R. 3101. 

6 
62 

STATEMENT OF BOBBY FRANKLIN 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member 

Stearns and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I am Bobby Franklin, and I 

serve as executive vice president for CTIA, the wireless association. 

Your former colleague, Steve Largent, wanted to be here today, but 

he is on his way to Oklahoma where one of his sons will be married 

this weekend. In Steve’s absence, I am here to share CTIA’s 

thoughts on the best way to ensure that emerging wireless 

broadband services and devices meet the needs of every American. 

At the outset, let me say that we are proud of the commitment 

CTIA’s members have displayed to making accessibility a priority. 

From the enactment of Section 255 in 1996 to today, the evolution 

and capability has been significant and it is getting better all the 

time. 

Turning to H.R. 3101. We agree that it makes sense to extend 

the sort of protections incorporated in section 255 of the communications act to emerging services and devices. Over the last several months, CTIA has had extensive discussions with COAT, and 

I am pleased to report that there are a number of areas such as 

hearing aid compatibility requirements and the need for an accessibility clearinghouse where we are in agreement. There are, however, several areas where we have not yet reached agreement and 

it is on those issues where I would like to focus the balance of my 

statement. 

First, we believe the standard under which our members have 

operated since enactment of the 1996 Act, a standard that requires 

equipment and services to be accessible and usable if readily 

achievable continues to be logical and proper standard to apply to 

any new obligations. As a practical matter, when our members introduce new accessibility and functionality features today, even 

though those functions may not be required by Section 255, they 

are doing so under the readily achievable standard. The increasing 

availability of accessibility features and the absence of complaints 

filed with the FCC is strong evidence that the standard is working 

and Congress should stick with it. 

Second, we urge the committee to consider language to clarify 

the limits of any new accessibility obligations. In the walled garden 

that characterized wireless offerings just a few years ago, it made 

sense to assign the responsibility for accessibility to carriers and 

manufacturers, however, the evolution toward open platforms and 

significantly enhanced consumer choice means that carriers and 

manufacturers have less and less control over service, programs 

and applications that may be used by consumers. While our members strive to make the products and services they offer accessible, 

new law in this area should clarify that they are not responsible 

for applications provided by third-parties, which increasingly occurs without any knowledge on the part of the carrier or the 

handset maker. 

Adding limitations on liability for third party actions would be 

consistent with this committee’s approach in areas such as copyright protection, online pharmacy regulation, data security protection and Wall Street reform. The committee made an effort in those 

initiatives to clarify that a service provider is not liable for the acVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:10 Feb 20, 2013 Jkt 077908 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A908.XXX A908

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

tivities of third-parties and that same limiting principle should 

apply in this instance as well. 

Finally, CTIA urges the committee to streamline the bill’s reporting requirements. As proposed, these requirements would be costly, 

raise competitive and confidentiality concerns and do little to provide consumers with useful information about the accessibility features available in wireless products and services. CTIA suggests 

that the committee consider an approach that would require service 

providers and manufacturers to maintain records of efforts they 

have undertaken to implement any accessibility requirements Congress may impose and to produce those records upon receipt of a 

request by the FCC if a complaint is filed. We believe the bill’s proposed accessibility clearinghouse which CTIA and COAT both support will do much more than annual filings to ensure that consumers find the right devices to meet their unique needs. 

We believe these suggestions will improve H.R. 3101 and produce 

a framework that will work for our members and those that need 

enhanced access to emerging wireless broadband services. We will, 

of course, be pleased to provide the committee staff with specific 

legislative proposals that address each of these suggestions. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to be at today’s hearing. I look forward to questions. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 77908A.041

TESTIMONY OF 

BOBBY FRANKLIN 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION@ 

BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY AND 

THE INTERNET 

June 10, 2010 

Good morning. Chairman Boucher. Ranking Member Stearns, Representative Markey 

and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bobby Franklin. and I am the Executive 

Vice President of CTIA - The Wireless Association" C·CTIA'} Thank you for affording me 

this opportunity to share with you the views ofCrIA on H.R. 3101, the Twenty-first Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2009. 

Today, my comments will highlight the significant contributions the wireless industry 

is making to enhance the way we all communicate, including persons with disabilities. eTlA 

believes that access to wireless products and services is being advanced through readily 

achievable and technologically feasible solutions. We are equally committed to continuing 

collaborative initiatives with the accessibility community that help industry to identify, 

prioritize and address accessibility in wireless products and services. 

Throughout the legislative process, CTIA and other industry representatives have 

actively worked with the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technologies ("COA r') 

regarding the need to update current accessibility laws as they apply to communications 

equipment and services. \Vhile CTtA continues to believe the wireless industry is meeting 

the needs of persons with disabilities. we recognize that as the communications industry 

1400 16th street. NW Suite 600 Washington. DC 20036 Main 202 785 0081 Fax 202.785 0721 WNW ctia.org 
65 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 77908A.042

innovates we must continue to ensure the needs of all our consumers are met. CTIA supports 

many of the provisions in H.R. 3101 but has serious reservations about whether the bill's 

accessibility standard, reporting requirements and other provisions are the appropriate ways 

to ensure innovative wireless products and services continue to meet the needs of persons 

with disabilities. 

I. THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY PROVIDES CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITIES 

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES UNDER CURRENT ACCESSIBILTIY 

REQUIREMENTS AND MARKET-DRIVEN INITIATIVES 

Over the last quarter century, wireless devices and services have become central 

communications, information and safety tools for persons with diverse abilities. In the 

National Broadband Plan, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or 

"Commission") recognized the important contribution wireless technologies provide the 

accessibility community and we agree with the Commission that aceessible mobile 

broadband technologies are a "big deal" for all Americans.! Indeed, the FCC noted that 

industry innovation and collaborative efforts offer tremendous potential for persons with 

disabilities." 

Today, as the result of a robust and competitive wireless ecosystem, U.S. consumers 

have the kind of choice and value that consumers around the world strive for. U.S. wireless 

companies serve more than 285 million active subscriber connections and offer consumers 

access to more than 600 unique wireless devices.3 As mobile broadband availability and 

smartphone penetration have grown, so too has the number of applications that are available 

I FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN 181. 

CHAPTER 9 (2010) ("National Broadband Plan"). http://www.hroadband.llov/plan/; see also, Elizabeth Lyle, ,,; 

Giant Leap & A Big Deal: Delivering on the Promise of Equal Access to Broadband for People with 

Disabilities, FCC OBI Working Paper Series, 13 (April 2010) ("FCC Accessibility White Paper"). 

2 FCC Accessibility White Paper at 12. 

l CTIA Wireless Industry Indices Report: Year-End 2009 (reI. Mar. 2010), available at www.ctia.org. 

2 
66 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 77908A.043

for use on the mobile platform. While the first "app" store launched in July 2008, today, 

there are more than 240,000 applications ("apps") available from seven different stores.4 

This innovative and competitive mobile ecosystem has provided benefits to persons 

with disabilities unmatched in other communications industries. In fact, the market for 

accessible wireless products has evolved significantly in just the nvo years since CTIA last 

came before this Subcommittee to describe the wireless industry's accessibility efforts.s As a 

result ofthe wireless industry's collective commitment to key accessibility issues, barriers to 

adoption of wireless such as cost and accessibility - have been reduced and satisfaction 

with the wireless industry has increased. According to a recent survey by the Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies ("Wireless RERC"), more than 86 

percent of individuals with disabilities own or have access to a wireless communications 

device and, after voice communications, text messaging, e-mail, and Internet access are the 

most important uses of a wireless device among people with disabilities.6 

CTIA has continuously demonstrated that innovation and competition throughout the 

wireless ecosystem provides benefits to the accessibility community, as carriers compete to 

offer service plans and accessible software specifically for persons with disabilities.7 

4 Written Ex Parte Communications ofCnA-The Wireless Association. WT Docket No. 09-66, ON Docket No. 

09-157, and ON Docket No. 09-51 at 9-10 (April 29. 2010); Steve Jobs, Chief Executive Officer. Apple. Inc. 

Keynote Address at the Apple World Wide Developer Conference 2010 (June 7. 2010) available at 

http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.neti I 006ad9g4 h i k/eventiindex.htm I. 

S Testimony of K. Dane Snowden. Hearing on Twenty-lirst Centtrry Communications and Video Accessibility 

Act. HR. 6320. Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet. U.S. House of Representatives. IlOth 

Congress (May 1,2008). 

6 Wireless RERC, Second Report: Findings of the Survey of User Needs (SUN) lor Wireless Technology 2007-

2009, 5 (March 2009) ("Second SUN for Wireless Technology 2007 2009"); see also. Broadband Expanded, 

Disabilities Slals, Data & Observations. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL (June 2010) arailable at 

http://www.broadbandexpanded.comlpolicvl11akerliles/disabiliticslDisabilities Stats&Data.pdf. 

7 See, AT&T. Text Accessibility Plans (TAP), http://www.wirc1css.att.com/lcarn/articles-resources/disabilitvresourcesldisabilitv-rcsources.jsp (last visited June 5. 2010): Sprint Relay Data Only Plan, 

http://sprintrelavstore.col11 (last visited June 5. 2010); T-Mobile Smartphone ® Plans www.sidckick.com (last 

visited June 5, 20 I 0); U,S. Cellular, Deaf and Hard of Hearingn'ext-Only Calling Plans. 
67 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 77908A.044

Moreover, competition is vigorous among manufacturers to increase market share and serve 

persons with disabilities by incorporating "built-in" accessibility features, including text-tospeech and screen readers, Hearing Aid Compatibility ("HAC"), support for TeleTypewriters ("TTY") and Assistive Technology ("A T"), predictive text, word completion, 

voice-activated features and closed-captioning. 8 Persons with disabilities can now find 

innovative, lower-cost mobile devices and services to replace expensive, immobile assistive 

communication devices. 

This era of intense competition, innovation and investment in the mobile 

communications marketplace has occurred under Section 255 of the Communications Act's 

"readily achievable" standard, a regulatory regime that has provided the wireless industry 

flexibility to respond to market demands and regularly incorporate new accessibility features 

into existing equipment based on technologically feasible solutions.9 When Section 255 was 

enacted, the only types of AT available to make mobile and wire line phones accessible were 

http://www.usce1lular.com!uscellulari commonicommon.jsp.ipath=/plans/tcxt-only.html(last visited June 5. 

2010); Verizon Wireless. Nationwide Messaging Plans. http://aboutus.vzw.com/accessibilitY/indcx.html (last 

visited June 5. 2010). 

8 See Apple. Inc., "ww.apple.com/accessibilityl (last visited June 5. 2010); Motorola. Inc .. 

www.motorola.com/accessibility (last visited June 5, 2010), Nokia. Inc. http://www.nokiaaccessibility.com/ 

(last visited June 5. 2010); RIM, Inc.. BlackBerry Accessibility 

http://na.blackbcrrv.com!eng/support/devicesiblackben·v accessibilitvl (last visited June 5, 2010); National 

Center for Accessible Media ("NCAM"). Captioning Solutions tor Handheld Media and Mobile Devices -

Device Comparison Chart http://ncam.j\'Qbtl.org/invenl build/wen multimediaimonilc-devices/devices (Jast 

visited June 5, 2010). 

q Section 255 of the Communications Act requires that a covered product or service must be accessible to the 

extent "readily achievable". and if it is not accessible. must be "compatible witb existing peripheral devices or 

specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access. if 

readily achievable." 47 U.S.C. § 255(b)-(d). "Readily achievable" is defined as "easily accomplishable and able 

to be carried out without much difficulty or expense" and incorporates four factors to be considered in 

determining whether an action is readily achievable. 42 U.S.c. § 12181(9). 

4 
68 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 77908A.045

items such as TTYs, handset amplifiers, and telecoil loops, which required the wireless 

industry to devote significant resources to ensure compatibility. to 

Today, text-based wireless services, such as SMS ("short message service"), e-mail or 

1M ("Instant Messaging"), are more commonly used by persons with disabilities than TTYs, 

and mainstream accessories for mobile devices, such as Bluetooth® keyboards and headsets, 

provide AT benefits without incorporating specific hardware. 1 1 Additionally, as the FCC 

described in its recent White Paper, manufacturers are incorporating accessible features into 

their application requirements which is encouraging increasing numbers of third-party 

applications to utilize built-in accessibility features, often yielding more efficient and 

affordable accessibility solutions than dedicated AT devices. 12 

For example, "LookTel", which CTTA awarded a 1 sl Place Emerging Technology 

Award at CTIA Wireless 2010®, is a downloadable application to help visually impaired or 

blind users identify everyday objects and landmarks by utilizing a device's built-in touchscreen and camera features. 13 There is also "iCommunicate", an Augmentative & Alternative 

Communication ("AAC") application that uses a wireless device'S built-in touch-screen and 

audio output features to make customized storyboards and visual schedules for children with 

developmental delays and autism. 14 In addition to the many other applications dedicated to 

10 The Federal Communications Commission's rules require that wireless devices and services must be capable 

of transmitting 9-1-1 calls from individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through the use of TTY devices. 

47 C.F.R. § 20.18(e). 

11 Wireless RERC. Second SUN for lYireless Technology 2007 - 2009 at 9. 

12 FCC Accessibility White Paper at 13. 

13 http;//www.Jooktcl.com/(iast visited June 5, 2010). 

14 Wheelchair Diffusion Blog. The iPad Disability Connection (April 16. 2010) available at 

www.usatechguide.orglbJog!lhe-ipad-disabilitv-eonnection (last visited June 5. 2010). 
69 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 77908A.046

accessibility, mainstream applications from Twitterific to Slacker Radio to Mashable and 

Facebook are utilizing the built-in accessibility features of mainstream mobile devices. IS 

CTTA believes these "app" solutions are just the beginning of a mobile revolution that 

allows persons with disabilities to access the wireless products and services of their choice. 

The accessibility community also recognizes the substantial efforts the wireless industry has 

taken to address accessibility via designing "built-in" features, compatibility with AT, and 

providing application programming interfaces CAPl") to encourage the development of 

accessible "apps.,,16 

Persons with disabilities are benefiting substantially from wireless services that are 

improving quality of life opportunities in employment, education, health care, and public 

safety.17 A recent article in PCWorid highlighted how Apple's iPad has built-in accessibility 

features and available third party accessibility applications which can help employers 

efficiently comply with requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA,,).IR 

For example, as the FCC recently noted, a dedicated AAC device may cost $8,000 or more, 

15 Maccessibility.net. iPhone - Accessible Apps, http://maccessibility.net/iphone/apps/# (last visited June 5, 

2010). 

16 Darren Burton, Can an Android Make YOllr Mobile Phone Accessible? and A Review ~f Oratio: A Screen 

Reader for BlackBen),. Vol. I I AMERICAN FEDERATION OF THE BLIND ACCESSWORLD No.2 (May 2010) 

htlp://\\'\\'w.alb.org/aJbpress/pub.asp·'DocID=a\\' I 10202 (last visited June 5. 2010); Press Release. National 

Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind Commends Apple for Including VoiceOver on iPad 

(Jan. 28, 2010) available at h!!p://"'v\\'.njb.orl!/ntblNcws1.lS!11lsjl1.M.QDJ~=Y.IE~&JD=5'!i (last visited June 5, 

2010). 

17 Comments of CTIA - The Wireless Association@, NBP Public Notice #4- Broadband Accessibility for 

People wilh Disabilities Workshop II: Barriers. Opportunities, and Policy Recommendations, ON Docket Nos. 

09-47. 09-51, 09-137 (tiled Oct. 6. 2009); see also. Broadband Expanded, Disabilities Stals, Data & 

Obsel"ations, NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL (June 2010) available at http://w\\ ... "broadbandemanded.com/(last 

visited .June 5, 2010). 

18 Tony Bradley. Apple iPad Helps Businesses Meet Needs 'if Disabled Employees, PCWorld (March 29, 2010) 

available at 

jJttp:/iw\\,\\.pcworld.comibusinesscenter/articlell92800iapple ipad helps businesses meet needs of disabled 

emplovees.hlml: see. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336. 104 Stat. 327 (1990) 

(codified at 47 U.S.c. §225) ("ADA Title IV"); see also. Comments of CTlA - The Wireless Association@, 

NBP Public Notice #3-Telel1'ork, FCC ON Docket Nos. 09-47. 09-51, 09-137 (filed Sep!. 22, 20(9). 

6 
70 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 77908A.047

while a $300 smartphone can run $200 text-to-speech software and work more effectively 

than the AAC device.!9 CTfA supports H.R. 3101 's allocation of Universal Service funds to 

promote broadband adoption among persons with disabilities who should be encouraged to 

use fund support to take advantage of increasingly accessible wireless feature phones, 

smartphones, netbooks, tablets and more. CTfA also supports the FCC's recommendation 

that healthcare policies in programs such as Medicare can utilize efficiencies in mainstream 

mobile technologies with built-in accessibility features or available third-party applications.co 

Consumers with disabilities also place significant importance on wireless for 

communications during an emergency. The wireless industry and public safety communities 

has invested substantially in deploying Wireless E-911 ("Enhanced 9-1-1") service and 

designing wireless handsets to be TTY compatible for everyday and emergency 

communications.2

! Today, long-term and significant work is underway to transition our 

nation's 9-1-1 system to an IP-based 9-1-1 system that may have the capability to support 

direct voice, text and data communications access with careful attention to the needs of 

persons with disabilities.22 

In the case of text-based communications to 9-1-1, specifically for the deaf or persons 

with hearing loss, CTfA believes all text-based communication formats should be 

1" FCC Accessibility White Paper at 24. 

20 FCC Accessibility While Paper at 24. 

21 See Comments of CTIA - The Wireless Association(R), Wireless 10911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS 

Docket No. 07-14 (filed July 5, 2007). 

22 Among other duties, the FCC's Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council 

("CSRIC") is required to "develop and recommend best practices to facilitate the communication of emergency 

information to the public, especially people with special needs such as people who do not speak English, 

individuals with disabilities, the elderly and people living in rural areas." Charter of FCC's CSRIC available at 

wllw.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/advisorv/csric/csric-chartcr-final.pdf (last visited June 5, 2010); see also, National 

Emergency Number Association ("NENA"), NG9-1-1 Project, Operations Development - Accessibility 

Committee, http://www.nena.org/opcralions-committee-acccssibilitv (last visited June 5, 2010). 

7 
71 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 77908A.048

considered. Reliance on a single solution, such as the current focus on TTY. may result in 

the solution being outdated as technology evolves, or in stagnation as innovation is impeded 

by a required adherence to an inflexible standard. The wireless industry is an active partner 

with the FCC, public safety representatives and the accessibility community in the necessary 

transition to Next Generation 9-! -1 ("NG9-I-l "). which may open untold accessibility 

features for all citizens, especially those with disabilities. As such, CTTA recommends 

against addressing these issues in the context ofH.R. 3101. 

While these examples highlight the potential of mobile devices for persons with 

disabilities today, the selection of a wireless device continues to be a highly personalized 

choice for every consumer based on a range of unique factors and product awareness, both of 

which are central to finding the right mobile device and service. Wireless carriers and 

manufacturers have taken a number of steps to educate the accessibility community and 

senior citizens about the plethora of available and affordable wireless products, services and 

features through company websites and direct outreach." In addition, CTTA, along with our 

carrier and manufacturer members. provides information about accessible products and 

features at www.AccessWirelessJ)rgand hosts the Wireless RERC's five-part video series to 

help consumers choose a HAC wireless device. 

Today, consumers are bettcr informed because of industry and accessibility 

community collaborative educational efforts, but morc can be done to ensure consumers 

make informed choices when choosing from the variety of accessible wireless products, 

23 See, John P. Krudy, Seniors Tockle Cell Phone Tech. THE WASHINGTON TIMES (June 1.2009) available at 

http://Wlvw.wa.hingtontimes.com/nelvs!2009ijuniOl/seniors-tackle-cell-phoneteeh!?feat-article related stories; see a/so, AT&T, National Center for Customers with Disabilities (NCCD). 

http://w\\.w.wireless.att.com/learn/atticles-rcsources/disabiJitv-resourccs/necd.jsp (last visited Oct. 2, 2009). 
72 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 77908A.049

services, and "apps.,,24 CTIA intends to participate in the FCC's Accessibility & Innovation 

Forum, which is being established to share best practices, hold workshops, and aggregate 

infonnation about accessible products and solutions for consumers.25 Collaborative 

processes have proven effective at addressing the fast-moving, innovative and ever-changing 

aspects of the wireless industry while providing persons with disabilities the infon11ation 

needed to make infonned decisions. CTIA and its members are committed to continuing 

these and future collaborative initiatives in partnership with the accessibility community. 

II. CONGRESS CAN BEST ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY FOR PERSONS WITH 

DISABILTIES BY ESTABLISHING FLEXIBLE ACCESSIBILITY 

STANDARDS WHICH ENCOURAGE MARKET-DRIVEN SOLUTIONS AND 

INDUSTRY AND CONSUMER COLLABORATIONS 

a. Consensus Support ji)r Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) and Accessibility 

Clearinghouse Between Industry and COAT 

Throughout the legislative process, CTiA and other industry representatives have 

collaborated and actively worked with representatives of the accessibility community 

regarding the need to extend protections similar to those in Section 255 to IP-enabled 

services and devices. In addition to the overall goals of this legislation, which CTIA 

supports, the wireless industry and COAT agree on a number of provisions, including 

updating the current HAC requirements and establishing an accessibility clearinghouse. 

Specifically, the HAC language in S.3304 incorporates the COAT-industry consensus 

language which clarifies that HAC requirements apply to equipment that is intended to be 

,. Among all communications industries (wireline, cable, and wireless), the FCC's Consumer & Government 

Affairs Bureau reported receiving a limited number of accessibility complaints (773 total) during the period 

October 1,2008 to September 30, 2009. including 98 (13%) for Section 255 generally. 210 (47%) for relay 

services, 436 (55%) for closed captioning. 24 (3%) for emergency information over video programming; and 

5 (0.6%) which addressed wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC). FCC, Consumer & Government At1airs 

Bureau, Disability Rights Office. htlp:i/lVww.fcc.goy!c~b/dro! (last visited June 5, 2010); FCC, Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Oflice. http://www.fcc.£ov!cgb!dro! (last visited June 5, 2010); 

see also, Wireless RERC, Second SUN jor Wireless Technology 2007 2009 at 7 and 12; Wireless RERC, 

Hearing Aid Compatible Cell phones: Findingsji'om the Annual Survey oj Consumer Experiences. 2006-2008 

(May 2009). 

9 
73 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 77908A.050

functionally equivalent to a telephone, maintains existing HAC requirements, and establishes 

a process for the adoption and utilization of industry-developed technical standards in 

consultation with persons with hearing loss.26 

CTIA also strongly supports the "Clearinghouse" and "Education and Outreach" 

provisions outlined in H.R. 3101. As previously discussed, there is a plethora of wireless 

devices and services that are currently available and under development that incorporate 

accessibility features and functions for persons with disabilities. Although CTIA and our 

members provide information about accessible products and services, CTIA believes that 

more can be done to ensure consumers are better informed about their choices. 

For example, Sgt. Brian Pearce recently testified to the Senate Commerce 

Communications Subcommittee that he was unable to find a wireless device to meet his low 

vision needs, despite discussions with a wireless carrier's customer service representatives.27 

Subsequent to the Senate hearing, the wireless carrier reached out to Sgt. Pearce and 

determined that they will introduce a wireless handset specifically intended for use by seniorcitizens, and persons and veterans with disabilities that may meet his needs. As 

demonstrated in this case, CTIA believes a central resource coupled with education and 

outreach regarding the availability of accessible products, services and solutions will help 

persons with disabilities navigate the diverse advanced communications marketplace. 

b. CTIA Supports an "Achievable" Standard with Factors/or Consideration Based 

on the Specific Product or Service Which Will Provide the Needed Flexibility and 

Certainty to Bring More Accessible Devices and Services to All Consumers 

25 See. FCC. BlogBand, Disabilities Aceess. !illJ:2;.!jblog.broadband.gmPcatcgorvld=13843 (last visited June 5. 

2010); National Broadband Plan at 181; FCC Accessibility White Paper at 28. 

26 Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act. S. 3304.1 J Ith Congress §102 (2010). 

27 Testimony ofSgt. Brian Pearce, U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications "Innovation and 

Inclusion: The Americans with Disabilities Act at 20" (May 28. 2010). 

10 
74 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 77908A.051

Foremost among CTIA's concerns with H.R. 310 1 is the mandate that equipment and 

services shall be "accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities" unless such 

accessibility and usability results in an "undue burden" on a manufacturer or service 

provider. CTIA supports extending the concepts underlying Section 255 of the 

Communications Act to Internet Protocol (IP)-based services and devices, but we believe that 

the standard under which our members have operated since enactment of the 1996 

Telecommunications Act - a standard that requires equipment and services to be accessible 

and usable "if readily achievable" - is the logical and proper standard to apply to any 

obligations on new advanced communications products and services. 

Both the "readily achievable" and "undue burden" standards originated in the ADA, 

but they apply in different contexts.28 Under the ADA, the more flexible "readily 

achievable" standard is the one selected by Congress for determining whether existing 

structures, such as buildings and public accommodations, should have to be modified to be 

accessible, in recognition of the fact that retrofitting such structures is often difficult and 

costly. "Undue burden" carries a heavier obligation it means that accessibility is required 

unless it would impose "significant difficulty or expense" - but it is applied more selectively 

and applies differently to government and private entities. For government entities, the 

"undue burden" standard applies to the accessibility of government "services, programs, or 

activities," which. while pre-existing, can be made accessible without necessarily making 

structural changes to existing facilities, although alterations may be required if there is no 

other way to make services, programs, or activities accessible. With respect to private 

entities, however, the "undue burden" standard applies only to "auxiliary aids" that are not 

28 The term "readily achievable" was introduced in Title III of the ADA and is detined as "easily 

accomplishable and able to be carried out without much dif1iculty or expense." 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). Section 

255 adopts this definition. 47 U.S.c. § 255(a)(2). 

II 
75 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 77908A.052

themselves pre-existing but are rather only add-ons that can be made accessible more easily 

than a physical structure. 

The "undue burden" standard imposes substantial burdens, which is why Congress in 

the ADA limited its private sector applicability to auxiliary aids. Even to the extent the 

standard is applied to require the retrofitting of government buildings, the cost of such 

changes can fairly readily be amortized over the relatively long useful life of a building. By 

contrast, IP-based communication networks and associated consumer devices are changing 

constantly. The continuous introduction of new standards, new equipment,. and new 

capabilities are the norm in this dynamic sector, and networks and devices are an everchanging mix of old and new elements. For this reason, extending the "undue burden" 

standard beyond auxiliary aids to cover IP-enabled communications services and equipment 

would not only represent a departure from the carefully considered structure of the ADA, it 

would also potentially threaten innovation and discourage technological development 

because of the significant costs that would be imposed on providers each time the network or 

a consumer device or operating system were introduced, modified or upgraded. 

By contrast, the "readily achievable" standard is the most appropriate standard for 

advanced communications services and equipment, just as it is for telecommunications 

networks and equipment. Neither networks nor equipment can properly be considered 

auxiliary aids. Rather, networks are pre-existing structures; even when they are upgraded 

they are not rebuilt from scratch but rather modified on an incremental basis. The same is 

true for equipment; "new" devices are often based on pre-existing platforms. In addition, in 

both cases, upgrades and features are added frequently. Requiring accessibility to be built 

into each such change would inhibit all changes. 

12 
76 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 77908A.053

As fast as technological development occurs in the wireless industry, bringing new 

products to market involves numerous variables and requires balancing technical limitations 

with trade-offs, flexibility, and creativity. The development of an information or 

telecommunications product to get it to market in a timely fashion is highly time-driven, but 

is also an iterative process, with new features being added or removed constantly in a series 

of small development and testing cycles determining what capabilities, dimensions, and other 

factors can realistically be put into a product that is capable of competing successfully in a 

highly competitive market. If developments in each of these cycles were viewed against a set 

of difficult-to-meet standards and the cost from detailed record-keeping at all stages of 

product design and implementation to justify business decisions, to administrative and legal 

proceedings - of potentially huge liability, the innovation of new products and services could 

be seriously impeded. 

Given the multiple, sometimes conflicting, needs of persons with different levels of 

ability, it is important that rules allow industry a level of flexibility that will ultimately lead 

to a greater number and variety of products to meet different user needs. Further, 

maintaining the "readily achievable" standard established in Section 255 promotes 

consistency in both the legislation and implementation efforts. Maintaining the same 

standard enables manufacturers and consumers to benefit from the design processes and 

procedures developed to implement Section 255 and now embedded in industry practices. 

Any change to the standard could result in a disruption to the planning and design process 

that could undermine manufacturers' efforts to bring acccssible products to market in a 

timely manner. 

Notwithstanding these reasons, should the Committee choose to depart from the 

template that has guided the industry successfully for almost a decade and a half, we strongly 

13 
77 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 77908A.054

urge you to not adopt the "undue burden" standard. A better approach would be to embrace 

the "achievable" standard incorporated in S. 3304 and add supplementary language to 

provide needed clarity and guidance to industry, the Commission, and consumers. The 

standard used in S.3304 would require manufacturers and service providers to determine 

which accessible solutions are "reasonable" rather than which solutions are "easy" to 

implement. 

Additionally, CTIA urges that the legislation clarify that reasonableness 

determinations should focus on whether a proposed solution will "fundamentally alter" the 

individual product or service from its intended functionality. This guidance would address 

COAT's expressed understanding that not every wireless device or service available must 

consider every recognized disability to meet the goals of the legislation. 

CTIA also recommends that if the "achievable" standard is employed, the standard 

incorporate recognized factors to provide clarity to industry, the Commission and consumers 

as to the process for determining whether accessibility is "achievable" with respect to a 

specific product or service. Consideration factors are recognized by industry and consumers 

as providing guidance for the determination of "reasonable" accessibility features in the 

design processes of specific products and services. It also would be consistent with 

established precedent under current accessibility standards in other contexts (i.e. the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act). The factors 

which CTIA proposes also recognize the increasing availability of accessible wireless 

solutions from third-party sources which offer opportunities for persons with disabilities and 

third-parties serving persons with disabilities previously unmatched in other communications 

industries. 

14 
78 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 77908A.055

c. Provisions Limiting Liability from Third Party Sources Is Consistent with the 

Committee's Approach to Innovative Communications Products and Services 

Beyond the need to clarify the standard, we urge the Committee to incorporate 

provisions which clarify the limits of any new accessibility obligations on manufacturers and 

service providers. In the "walled garden" environment that characterized wireless offerings 

just a few years ago, it was perhaps reasonable to assign the responsibility for accessibility to 

wireless carriers and manufacturers and think that the issue had been fully addressed. Now, 

as the wireless ecosystem continues to evolve toward open platforms, significant operating 

system competition, and greater consumer choice and control, service providers and handset 

manufacturers have limited control over services, programs, and applications which may be 

downloaded by consumers. While CTIA accepts that its members should make the products 

and services they offer accessible, we believe new law in this area should clarify that they are 

not responsible for applications provided by third-parties, often and increasingly without any 

knowledge by the carrier or manufacturers. 

Adding language to the bill which imposes limitations on liability for third-party 

actions would be consistent with the Committee's approach in other legislative contexts, 

including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (P.L. 105-304), the Ryan Haight Online 

Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 110-425), and several pending pieces of 

legislation, including H.R. 2221 (the "Data Accountability and Trust Act") and H.R. 4173 

(the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act"). In each of these Acts or bills, the 

Committee has made an effort to make it clear that a service provider is not liable for all 

electronic communications by a third party which are transmitted, routed, or stored in 

intermediate or transient storage by such service providcr. That same limiting principle 

should apply in this instance as well. 

15 
79 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 77908A.056

d. Reporting Obligations Should Focus on Tools Helpjidfor Consumer Awareness 

of Available Accessible Products and Services Rather Than Developing a Record 

for Eriforcement 

CTIA also urges the Committee to streamline H.R. 3101 's proposed reporting 

requirements. While we understand that there may be instances in which the Commission 

will request access to service provider or equipment provider records, the reporting 

requirements proposed in the current legislation would do little to provide consumers with 

the information they need to make informed choices about available wireless products and 

services. Instead, the proposed reporting requirements, which require every entity offering 

advanced communications products or services to make annual filings, would be 

burdensome, raise competitive and confidentiality concerns, and, given the time lag that is 

often associated with other Commission data collection and reporting practices, fail to 

produce information that is useful to the public in a timely manner. 

A better approach would be to require advanced communications service providers 

and manufacturers to maintain, in the ordinary course of business and for a reasonable time 

period, records of the efforts they have taken to implement the accessibility requirements 

imposed by the bill. These records could be produced upon receipt of a request by the 

Commission. In addition, the clearinghouse and education and outreach provisions of this 

bill would better serve the accessibility community by providing timely, relevant information 

which will help them to navigate the diverse wireless marketplace. 

e. A Real Time Text Advisory Committee is Unnecessary in Light of Current and 

On-Going Government and Industry EjJorts 

CTIA and its member companies strongly support providing persons with disabilities 

equal access to emergency services, whether 9-1-1, mobile alcrts or other critical services. 

While there can be considerable value in delegating complex technical matters to an advisory 

committee, the real-time text advisory committee created by this legislation largely 

16 
80 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 77908A.057

duplicates existing industry, Commission and international efforts. For example, the FCC's 

National Broadband Plan recommends the FCC initiate a Notice of Inquiry on the 

replacement of TTY with real-time text (RTT) and a subcommittee of the FCC's 

Communications, Security. Reliability and Interoperability Council is charged with studying 

the feasibility of text based communications to 9_1_1.29 Furthermore, the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)., the equivalent of the FCC in 

Canada, recently accepted the report of a technical subcommittee which found that "text 

messaging to 9-1-1 (T9-I-l) via SMS, 1M, RTT, and IP Relay technology are not viable 

solutions at this time for people with hearing or speech disabilities to access 9-1-1 call 

centres. ,,30 

CTlA understands that consumers with disabilities place significant importance on 

wireless for communications during an emergency, which is why we support the long-term 

and significant work already underway to transition our nation's 9-1-1 system to an IP-based 

9-1-1 system that may have the capability to support direct voice, text and data 

communications access with careful attention to persons with disabilities. However, we are 

concerned that the Emergency Access and Real-Time Text Advisory Committee proposed in 

H.R. 3101 could potentially impede these ongoing efforts, as well as the unknown variable of 

mandating one particular standard on a technology that is relatively new and will continue to 

09 See. National Broadband Plan. Chapter 16. Recommendation 16.15 (rc':onlm'~nding 

udJiti{Jnal proceeding to 110\\ [Nc\.t (iencration zJ-l-lj tcchnl)jogieS. 

nct\\OrhS and an".'hilcctures he) und trudilionul ,), FCC Accessibility White Paper at 31 

(recommending the FCC "coordinate its work with Next Generation E-91l efforts to implement a real-time. 

interoperable voice. video. and text E-911 system."); see also. Charier of FCC's CSRIC. supra note 22.; see 

also, National Emergency Number Association ("'NENA"), NG9-1-1 Project, Operations Development 

Accessibility Committee. !ill!2:i/\Vw\\.nena.org/opcrations-committec-ac.'.~~Ll;>ililY. (last visited June 5. 2010). 

30 CnD3dian RDJio-Tclcdsion aml Tclccomnnmications Commission - Interconnection Steering Committee 

people H'i!I! heurifl,'J. and Tekcom Decisinn 

(,\pril ill (last 

visited June 7, 2010). 

17 
81 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 77908A.058

evolve. As such, CTIA recommends against addressing these issues in the context of H.R. 

3101. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

In a relatively short period, the wireless industry has evolved from the classic, voiceonly "brick phone" to all-in-one mobile computers that offer voice, text, Internet, video, and 

thousands of applications, with each generation of device and service incorporating more 

accessibility features and functions than the last. We think this is a great story, and we're 

confident it will continue to get better with time. We look forward to working with the 

Committee to craft flexible, forward-looking policies which encourage this advancement 

while providing the accessibility community with assurances that they will not be left behind. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing. 

18 
82 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 77908A.059

ATTACHMENT 

19 
83 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 77908A.060

Wireless Industry Accessibility Initiatives & Features 

.Tune 2010 

Built-In Wireless Accessibility Features Under "Readily Achievable ,,31 

Hearing/Speech Visual/Blind Cognitive Physical 

Push-based, real- Text-to-speech and Clickable touch screen Multiple device fonn 

time messaging screen readers factors (touch, flip, 

(SMS/IM) Predictive text and candy bar, etc.) 

Voice activation and Word completion 

Hearing Aid control features (AutoText) Non-slip side surfaces 

Compatibility 

(HAC) Customizable font Automation spell Clickable touch screen 

style, contrast, and check or hands-free functions 

Closed Captioning "zoom" to magnify one on select devices) screen content Context-sensitive Customizable shortcuts, 

menus hotkeys and icons 

Support for TTYI Customizable 

3rd Party Relay shortcuts, hotkeys and Programmable alanns Voice activation and 

Services icons and reminders control features 

Support for Assisted Devices with physical Customizable fonts, Predictive text and 

Listening Devices keys and nibs themes and icons Word completion 

(AutoText) 

Multimodal Magnifiers using built- Visual voicemail 

notifications, with in camera features Support for 3rd Party 

extended vibration Location based "AT" 

setting Alternate billing services 

formats Alternate billing fonnats 

Visual Displays to 

Indicate Call 

Functions 

Third Party Applications32 

Beyond built-in accessibility features, many wireless devices and smartphones can be customized by 

adding or downloading applications (or "apps"). Third party developers may offer mainstream apps 

with accessibility features to entertain, infonn or meet a consumer's specific accessibility needs 

including text-to-speech, screen readers, automated object recognition and Augmentative and 

Alternative Communication (AAC) functions which may be added to a wireless device at the 

consumer's choice. 

31 Features listed have been generalized to demonstrate the range of accessible features available on various 

wireless devices and handsets from wireless carriers or application providers. 

32 To date, there are more than 240.000 applications available on seven different stores which consumers have 

downloaded more than 4 billion times. See Written Ex Parte Communications of CTlA-The Wireless 

Association, WT Docket No. 09-66, GN Docket No. 09-157, and GN Docket No. 09-51 at 9-10 (April 29, 

2010) available at httr:!ifiles.ctia.oru!pdmilingsIl00429 (,TIA Rebuttal Letter.pdf. 

20 
84 

Mr. BOUCHER. And thanks to each of our witnesses this morning 

for your testimony. Let me also take this opportunity to thank each 

of you again for the collaborative conversations that we have underway. All of you are involved in those along with members and 

staff at the subcommittee level and our goal through those discussions is to achieve consensus and agreement on the legislation that 

our subcommittee should approve. I look forward to continuing our 

work with you on that. I am going to defer my questions momentarily and recognize the author of the legislation, the gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey for his round of questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Sergeant 

Major Acosta, thank you so much for your service in protecting our 

country. Thank you so much for your service today in protecting 

millions of Americans who are sight and hearing impaired. We 

thank you for your continued service. Sergeant Major, you heard 

Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro is calling for a voluntary system, let the 

marketplace respond. You were here 2 years ago giving the same 

kind of compelling testimony. What would you say to Mr. Shapiro? 

He represents a coalition, the CEO of Microsoft, the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, the CEO of Sony are all part of his coalition. What 

would you say to the CEOs of these companies? What is your message to Mr. Shapiro and all of those CEOs that he is representing 

here today who are saying that they want a voluntary system? 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. Well, sir, thank you very much for that 

question. To elaborate a bit more, before we started with the hearing here, Mr. Shapiro introduced himself, said I am Gary Shapiro, 

pleasure to meet you, Sergeant Major Acosta, I am here to testify 

with you. And at that point in time, I had to stop him. Are you 

here with me or are you here against me? Because if I leave it in 

your hands, there is nothing to discuss. We are here to discuss a 

measure, H.R. 3101, which impacts the entire Nation, which will 

assist me and millions. I am not just here to represent myself. I 

represent American Council of the Blind, COAT and millions of 

blind individuals here in the United States of America. As you recall last year, we had approximately—we stated 10 million. I am 

sorry to say, sir, those numbers have doubled and more. They are 

not decreasing. They are increasing. Not just because of the diseases that are out there as you well know. 

In some cases some of us who are coming back from the war zone 

are completely blind. We didn’t expect to come home in this situation, but we have had to embrace it in order to move on with our 

life. So if you are asking me, sir, would I leave this measure in his 

hands or let the course take its only time to deal with these issues 

that we are introducing to you? Absolutely not, sir. It is imperative 

that this measure passes, H.R. 3101 means the world to us. It 

brings some sight back to us. It means a whole lot. It may bring 

back some of the hearing that we have lost and mind you, sir, I 

am a package deal. 

I am almost like Apple. When I got hit, I suffered through traumatic brain injury. I lost my eyes. I lost my smell, my taste in addition to that, I lost some hearing. So I know what this measure 

means. As you can see, Mr. Shapiro hasn’t lost a thing. Thank you, 

sir. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Shapiro, what would you say to Sergeant Major 

Acosta? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, first I thanked him first for his service to our 

country and it is obviously—you can’t be a human being and not 

have an emotional response that I think we all share. What I am 

saying, though, is you cannot require every new product to be responsive to every disability and that is what the legislation you 

have written requires. 

Mr. MARKEY. My bill does not do that, Mr. Shapiro. My bill does 

not require and you had an op ed yesterday which was very deceptive. My bill does not require that, and I wish you would just stop 

repeating that. It is untrue. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. If you go to page 13 of the legislation, the sentence 

is pretty clear. 

Mr. MARKEY. There is an undue burden provision in the legislation that allows for smaller companies, newer technologies to be 

able to escape. But if you can comply, if you can provide this technology, you must comply because Sergeant Major Acosta and millions of other Americans need accessibility to it. But there is an 

undue burden exception, Mr. Shapiro. And I just wish that you 

would keep that as part of your discussion and not have this broad 

brush as your op ed in The Washington Times yesterday suggested, 

‘‘Bill seeks government control on features on every Internet device 

you use,’’ ‘‘Dems want to redesign your iPhone.’’ This man and people like this man—and there are millions of them. They are 90 

years old. They are small children. They all deserve to have access 

to this technology, Mr. Shapiro. This is not helpful. 

If the CEO of Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard and Sony is maintaining that they cannot meet this burden, then I just think they 

are dead wrong. I think they have the capacity to meet this burden 

and they should meet this burden. And they should be sitting here 

as well defending it, saying they can’t do it, can’t serve these people in the same way they served our country. And I am talking 

about the greatest generation all the way down to Major Acosta 

and small children right now across our country it is not just right. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman’s time has expired. And, Mr. Shapiro, you will have an opportunity. I am going to ask you some 

questions. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman 

from Massachusetts is creating an emotional bind here setting up 

a war hero against a person who is trying to legitimately point out 

there are some differences he feels are necessary to be made to the 

bill. And I think it is unfortunate that the gentleman from Massachusetts did that. He did the same type of thing with the V–Chip 

and we all know the V–Chip did not work. It was difficult to implement. It was confusing. I don’t think there is probably one parent 

in this country that figured out how to program their computer. 

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. STEARNS. No, I won’t yield. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is not true. 

Mr. STEARNS. It is true. It is overwhelming. You came out with 

the same emotional arguments on the V–Chip. You did the same 

type of thing. I think it is totally unfair for you to set up a war 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

hero with a CEO of an association and try to play that emotional 

game that you do continually. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should allow Mr. Shapiro to speak. 

He is not saying he wants all voluntary. He is just saying there is 

a difference between readily achievable and undue burden. And he 

is just saying look to, Apple, as the gentleman from Massachusetts 

pointed out, as in their iPad, it is all allowing people who are blind 

to have accessibility on the iPad, there are also people who have 

impaired hearing that have accessibility to the iPad. 

If it is done in industry on a voluntary basis for the iPad, why 

can’t it be done across industry? I think Mr. Shapiro is saying 

write the bill with the goals so that it can be done so that what 

was done with iPad could be done with all the phones so that the 

Sergeant Major hero here does not have a 4-year-old phone, but he 

pulls out a phone like an iPhone which is also like an iPad. I think 

what we are trying to do in this hearing is not create an emotional 

frenzy here; we are trying to understand how to do it. You offered 

this bill, Mr. Markey, 2 years ago, perhaps more. And Mr. McCormick and others have come forward to try to say this is how it 

should be improved, and lo and behold, that improvement was incorporated. 

So I think, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Franklin, when I hear from his 

discussion, he is asking look it, there are things we should be 

doing. We should be very careful not to move on an emotional basis 

on this because this has a huge impact. I think it is a noble goal 

what we are doing here, and I think everybody in this room wants 

to make sure that we have products that provide accessibility for 

the disabled, the blind and the hard of hearing. 

In fact, I have a bill with Eddie Towns that does this for the 

Blind Association that cars that you can’t hear—we suggest that 

the automobile manufacturers ought to make some kind of sound 

so people who step off the curb—if all the cars in America are electric cars, you can’t hear them, they won’t be able to hear them either. I am just like everybody else. I want to solve this problem. 

But I think creating an emotional setup between a CEO and a war 

hero is not the way to do it. Mr. Shapiro, maybe you should be allowed to talk in a logical manner about what your concern is with 

the undue burden, and perhaps most of what you think can be 

readily achievable can be done. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you so much, Mr. Stearns. We have 2,500 

companies that exhibit each year at the International CES in Las 

Vegas. Most of those are small startup companies. They are betting 

their life savings on—— 

Mr. STEARNS. They are not Hewlett-Packards 

Mr. SHAPIRO. We have those as well. And frankly, I am concerned less about them because they have the staff and the ability 

to respond to the things. They would have to disclose all their business plans under this proposal. But take a company like Chumby. 

Chumby is a San Diego company that came up with an idea that 

you could attach a product to the Internet basically and download 

some features and it could serve as an alarm clock. Under this legislation, in the course of designing that product, they would have 

to keep careful records, they would have to talk to all sorts of disVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:10 Feb 20, 2013 Jkt 077908 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A908.XXX A908

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

ability groups, they would have to prove—they have the burden of 

proof, Congressman Markey. 

There is no undue burden. They would have to file all these documents. They would never be funded. And they would also have to 

prove that they are accessible to every type of disability. This isn’t 

only about vision and hearing. The law as you have written it says 

every type of disability, physical, mental, everything. It is impossible to know what that is. I think the role of Congress is to say 

here is what we are asking you to do, Here are the goals we are 

trying to reach and go get it, go work with industry and the disability community and come back with a proposal that will meet 

these very specific goals. 

But to say every product has to have every feature to meet every 

disability, I don’t know where we would be under this legislation 

with all the couple of hundred thousand applications that Apple 

has now. I don’t know where we would be if the Internet was—all 

these other technologies. The legislation basically applies to everything connected to the Internet. Services—it appears to be software 

as well as hardware. This is not only about big companies. This is 

about entrepreneurs. This is about innovation in this country 

where we are leading the world and it is going to get us out of this 

lousy economy. And we can’t afford to start saying you have to do 

everything every little company and every big company for everything. Just be very specific, state the goals, get the facts on the 

table. We have been proposing suggestions for this for a year now 

and we still have the same legislation with this very, very broad 

definition that includes everything and every—I mean, the requirements for a company here—startups would go away. I don’t know 

how a company could be funded with this type of requirement. 

Mr. STEARNS. I just conclude, Mr. Chairman, what he is trying 

to say is jobs in America are created by small businesses. And if 

we put the burden on these small businesses, we will not create 

jobs. In this economy, we do not need to have mandates that are 

overly burdensome to the small businesses. And I think Mr. Shapiro’s point is basically let us see if we can work it out for this 

noble goal, and ultimately, I hope we can. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. Notwithstanding the intensity of the dialogue, I would underscore once 

again that we are involved in a collaborative process and we are 

working our way toward consensus and we are actually making a 

great deal of progress. And in order to move us even further along 

that path, I have several questions, the answers to which I hope 

will be instructive. Can we get agreement that in terms of assuring 

accessibility, it is not necessary that the device itself have the accessibility feature built in if there are reasonably priced third party 

applications that achieve that functionality? Mr. Franklin. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Mr. Chairman, I think you are highlighting a 

very important point about the evolution in the wireless industry 

and what is happening each and every day. There are a number 

of examples that—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, without going into all of the examples, I 

take it your answer would be yes? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Absolutely yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Assey. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Mr. ASSEY. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The answer from the cable industry is yes. Mr. 

Shapiro? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Another yes. Mr. McCormick. Let the record show 

that Mr. McCormick is nodding his head. I think that was a yes. 

Ms. Hamlin. 

Ms. HAMLIN. I am not an engineer and I am not an attorney. But 

my concern is if you wait for applications—when I have my hearing 

aid compatible phone, I want to make sure it is there. I am not an 

engineer. But I would want to be absolutely certain that it would 

actually work. My consumers, people who talk to me, want to be 

able to open the box and say yes. I found it difficult to get a cell 

phone because no one knew you had to turn on the telecoil. So it 

needs—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. So maybe I could modify the question slightly and 

add an assumption or two. Let us assume that the third-party application is functional, that it is readily available and that it is reasonably priced. And if all of those conditions are met, would you 

agree that the third party application should be acceptable to 

achieve accessibility? 

Ms. HAMLIN. Again, I am not the engineer. I just hope—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Just assuming all of that is accurate. 

Ms. HAMLIN. I am not sure. 

Mr. BOUCHER. We have a not sure. Sergeant Major Acosta, would 

you care to comment? 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. Yes, sir. My answer is no. The reason 

suitcase the cost. Here we go again with the cost. And when we 

talk about the cost—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Sergeant Major, my time is a little bit limited. Let 

me just ask the question in this way. If you require that every device have the functionality embedded, that is going to raise the 

price of every device that everybody has to pay. Let us assume that 

the application is reasonably priced. The device itself would therefore be somewhat cheaper. Would that not be a satisfactory outcome? 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. Well, sir, can I give you an example? 

Mr. BOUCHER. Sure. 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. I am going to go buy me an iPhone and 

I am going to pay one price. I am going to go buy me an iMac or 

the Mac Pro, I am going to pay one price and everything is going 

to be in there. Those items are going to be a lot less expensive than 

if I was to go buy a Microsoft or an IBM compatible laptop or PC. 

And adding the software to it—I will give you one prime example— 

JAWS $1,400. Oops I just went over the price of an Apple. 

Mr. BOUCHER. That would not be reasonably priced software. But 

assuming a reasonable price and one can perhaps differ as to what 

that is. Assuming that you have an affordable price for individuals, 

would you not agree that a third-party application would be satisfactory? 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. I am sorry. What would be reasonable? 

Mr. BOUCHER. A lot of the applications that are purchasable 

today are a dollar or 2. That is fairly common in the app store. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. Well, sir, what would be reasonable to 

us compared to the industry that is putting out the market? 

Mr. BOUCHER. If you require that the device, every device that 

is marketed be embedded with the functionality, that raises the 

price of all of the devices. And so it is a question of whether everyone pays this cost or whether the additional marginal cost, which 

again, would not be that great, would be borne by those that are 

desiring that accessibility. 

Sergeant Major ACOSTA. Well, sir, again, when we went from 

analog to digital, the government handed out coupons to be able to 

afford these items. Aren’t they going to do the same thing? 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Major Acosta. I think we understand 

that you don’t welcome that concept. Let me ask this question: The 

FCC has hearing aid compatibility standards for cell phones. Those 

apply not to every cell phone, but to a percentage of the cell 

phones. And these functionality requirements address things like— 

or assure things like a variety of devices instead of one standard 

device. A variety of functionalities, instead of one standard 

functionality and also a variety of prices based upon the various 

devices that are available and their functionality. 

So my question to you is would a similar kind of approach work 

with regard to accessibility for the hearing impaired on other kinds 

of devices or for Internet accessibility with regard to cell phones 

themselves? The legislation before us, basically, requires the 

functionality for all devices unless it is established that to embed 

that function would constitute an undue burden. So would it be— 

would it be better to adopt the FCC’s approach with regard to cell 

phones that exist today so that it is only a percentage of devices 

for which this accessibility functionality is required? Who would 

like to answer? Ms. Hamlin? 

Ms. HAMLIN. Again, part of the problem is—we went through a 

long, hard negotiations to get to that point. And we wanted to work 

with industry and we were happy that we came to that. But the 

problem is—there are two problems, first of all, that the companies 

must then meet the requirements and then the consumers have to 

know. People like myself who came into hearing loss suddenly and 

people who age into it may not even know. So it has to be incumbent upon people to also let people know. 

So I go to my Web site now to find out which cell phones are 

compatible and then I go to my store and I find out, well, oK, there 

is a list of compatible phones, but they are not available anymore. 

So it would have to not just be a matter of coming up with a way 

to say, oK, we have a percentage. But they would have to really 

meet them, they would have to really meet the percentages and we 

would have to also make sure that people actually understood what 

cell phones—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. What it is they are buying? 

Ms. HAMLIN. What it is they are buying, how are they going to 

get a hold of it. 

Mr. BOUCHER. If the percentages are actually hard requirements 

and if there is clear marketing information available, potentially 

that approach could work. 

Ms. HAMLIN. It might be able to work. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Thank you, Ms. Hamlin. My time has expired. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. And we appreciate this testimony and 

the back and forth is invaluable to us. I would say this, that this 

is a very innovative and creative area of our economy and the ingenuity that has been displayed over the years has just been remarkable. We have gotten as far as hearing is concerned. I think the 

quote from Helen Keller was my loss of sight separates me from 

objects, my loss of hearing separates me from people. We are all 

sensitive to that. 

I will give you an example. If we required every biotech company 

to develop a drug that treated every cancer, there would be no innovation. We would not be here where we are today with the 

breakthroughs in melanoma, et cetera. We are going to see the 

same breakthroughs. We are going to see the same breakthroughs 

for our hearing impaired, our sight impaired and we are making 

great progress. I hope that this bill will be worked out to the satisfaction of all. We have got to move it and realize that these little 

small, small companies with 1 or 2 people that come up with this 

idea in their garage and they work at it after work is over and 

come up with the things that have really made a difference in our 

lives in America. It is the unique culture of America that allows 

that. 

I don’t really have any questions for you because I think every 

one of your hearts are in the right place and I hope that we will 

reach the right conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I want to ask the question about how we 

design the bill to make sure that we capture new innovations, that 

we don’t freeze in time existing standards and don’t take advantage 

of innovations. Let me give you an example. One of the things the 

bill right now requires a button on a remote control, designated for 

activating the closed caption function. 

As new innovations move forward, perhaps we will have voice activated or have other systems other than a button. I guess the 

question I would like to ask the panel, how do we design a system 

to capture new generations of innovation? Let me give you an example. Would it be better to define the user experience that we expect? For instance, we expect something that will activate a particular activity that will only require two actions by the user and 

then let the technology develop as to what those two actions are? 

In other words, we define it based on the user interface rather than 

the particular technology. I just would ask the panelists, is there 

a way to do that and a way to make sure that we capture new generations of technology. Would anyone like to offer a thought in that 

regard? 

Mr. ASSEY. I will try, Congressman. I think what you point out 

is something that I mentioned that is critically important that 

when we address some of these issues, that we address them from 

the standpoint of achieving a functional objective, a button on a remote may work in some cases, it may work and not. In other cases, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

it may not. But what is important is that we have a clear idea of 

the problem that we are trying to solve and then we turn over to 

the engineers the best way to try and achieve that problem. And 

that hopefully will allow for new innovative solutions that may ultimately reach the same functional goal. 

Mr. INSLEE. So I would like to work with any of you that have 

suggestions about how to refine the bill in that direction. I think 

it makes sense to think about this from the user perspective rather 

than the particularly defined technology. The second question I 

want to ask the panelists is about the undue burden in the bill 

right now and I think there is something we ought to at least think 

about what that means. Right now I would understand this if a 

company—let us just take a large manufacturer that is going to 

come out with a relatively niche product—and the bill as written 

would require access—unless it is an undue burden for the entire 

manufacturing company, for the revenue stream the way I would 

look at this, for the whole revenue—compared to the whole revenue 

stream of the whole company. So let us assume you have got a $2 billion-a-year company and 

you have got a product that may only generate a million dollars 

revenue. Right now, as I understand the undue burden requirement, you would compare the cost of doing the access for the new 

product against the revenue stream of the entire company, which 

may, I suppose, could exceed the entire proposed revenue of that 

particular niche product. 

I guess a question I have is, would it make any sense for us to 

define the undue burden as comparing it as the undue burden compared to the revenue stream of the product that we are talking 

about? Would that be a more rational way to define undue burden? 

I guess the reason I suggest this is that if you compare the cost 

of the entire cost of the entire corporation, you may just decide not 

to produce the product at all. And we want to make sure we get 

these products out there. So I guess I would ask for the panelists’ 

comments about that idea. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Congressman, I think you raise an excellent point 

and that is why we think the undue burden standard is inappropriate and we use a reasonably achievable standard. And if you 

think about it—readily achievable. If you think about it, the example you just gave, that company would not produce that product because if it is going to cost them—it is not only the revenue stream, 

if it costs more than the profit, they just don’t produce it. 

Mr. INSLEE. To short circuit your answer a minute. I consider 

undue burden a little higher obligation on the manufacturer than 

readily achievable. What I am suggesting is that you maintain the 

undue burden language but you apply it to the revenue stream of 

the product involved. Do you see what I am suggesting? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I understand what you are suggesting, but still 

what you are saying is unless as a manufacturer, making that decision to invest in the research and development, the design, all the 

things required, talking with different portions of the disabled community, figuring out—and even then you don’t know if you have an 

undue burden unless you get a special exemption from the government saying you have an undue burden. That is why we are so concerned about innovation. Undue burden is the wrong standard here 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

in our view. We believe readily achievable has worked very well. 

Undue burden is for the construction industry for something that 

will last 30 or 40 years. These technologies have a shelf life of 2 

or 3 years at the max and you have to respond quickly. This would 

be a choke collar around innovation. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ms. Hamlin, did you want to add something? 

Ms. HAMLIN. I have to admit and I am very concerned about it, 

we look at innovation and we want innovation. But here is what 

I see this bill does that sort of answers that is that we are not just 

looking at one company. You are not saying only one company has 

this extra added issue that they have to deal with. It is all of them 

across the board. So now the playing field is level. Now you have 

everybody at the same standard. 

So that—oK, everybody now has to look at the same issue and 

design in the same way so the cut throat industry that is so eager 

to get everything out so quickly, if everybody is on the same page, 

I think, it is my feeling, that that will answer that question and 

help us get the products we need and the companies not have to 

feel like they have to kill each other to get to that point. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslee. The gentleman 

from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first compliment you and Mr. Inslee on what I thought were appropriate, 

probing questions which are a part of the process at a hearing like 

this where we really want to figure out how to make this the best 

bill that is possible and achieve the goals of the bill. In that regard, 

let me then take a personal point of privilege here to say that I just 

feel slimed right now, politically slimed by the setup by—question 

by Mr. Markey, and I apologize to everyone of you up there that 

had to be a part of that or were put into that position. That just 

seems to be the tone right now with the leadership that is in 

charge of this place. It is intimidation and how dare anyone have 

an opinion different. 

And if you dare to express it openly, we will come after you. And, 

Mr. Shapiro, you just saw what the new tone in Washington is. We 

have seen it from Mr. Markey before, with cap and trade. We had 

a gentleman that testified from a major electrical generation company and dared to testify in opposition and within hours had a filing to investigate him at the request of Mr. Markey. That is the 

level of intimidation that is occurring here right now. And I—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Terry, let me—— 

Mr. TERRY. You don’t need to suggest that we—I think your 

point has been made. Let us direct questions towards the issue 

that we have before us. Terror, in all due respect, Mr. Chairman, 

you did not ask Mr. Markey to do the same thing. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, Mr. Markey was addressing the subject matter, Mr. Terry. 

Mr. TERRY. No. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect—reclaiming my 

time. In all due respect, Mr. Markey was pitting 2 witnesses 

against each other to create a fight between them and that was demeaning to this subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, your questions were 

completely appropriate. And that is the questions I thought we 

were going to ask here today. So let me help clarify. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

Ms. Hamlin, you seem to have a pretty good grasp and feel, but 

I need to kind of work through this a little bit with—I am confused. 

If there is a Mac that doesn’t provide—I am sorry—a Mac Pro that 

provides applications that you feel are necessary for you with your 

hearing loss but a Microsoft product doesn’t, is this bill supposed 

to make the Microsoft one have exactly the same applications as 

the Mac Pro? Is that the goal? 

Ms. HAMLIN. People with hearing loss—and I believe it is true 

with people with vision loss as well—have a wide range of needs. 

My needs—I have a hearing aid. I have a cochlear implant. My 

needs may be different when I pick up a cell phone than someone 

else. If you design it so that I can use it, somebody with a mild 

hearing loss, somebody who aged into hearing loss or so that 

grandma can use it, as well as somebody who has a significant loss 

can pick it up and read the text and be able to have that as well, 

then you have created a universal design so that the Sergeant 

Major can also use it. So I don’t have to worry about, oK, I go to 

the phone—everybody said how wonderful Apple is. I cannot use an 

Apple phone because it isn’t compatible with my hearing aid. If you 

created an Apple now, I get all the wonderful features that Apple 

has that I cannot get here. But that—— 

Mr. TERRY. That is an interesting point. 

Ms. HAMLIN. What I want is to have everyone have that access. 

And people who age into their hearing loss simply do not know, 

just as the Sergeant Major didn’t know before he learned about vision loss—I didn’t know before I woke up one morning about hearing loss. People don’t know what is available. If it is out there, you 

don’t have to fiddle around and wonder what do I do now. 

Mr. TERRY. I am trying to work my way through this. In regard 

to Mr. Boucher’s questions about some cell phones are capable with 

hearing aids, some are not. So the position would be that all should 

be? 

Ms. HAMLIN. My position would be, yes, I would love to see every 

single cell phone compatible with anyone who wants to—because I 

am not worried about me so much. I am worried about my son and 

my daughter. They need access to the Internet. They can’t work. 

I want them to pay taxes and work. 

Mr. TERRY. That is the question. If there are items out there that 

accomplish that task, is it an undue burden in essence and I think 

we need to discuss what undue burden really means, but my time 

is up. But the question is then if there is products out there that 

are reasonable and accessible, does that mean that every one has 

to adopt it? I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. And we want 

to thank you each of our witnesses for attending here today, sharing your views on this matter with us. Your testimony has informed us. I will, again, thank you all of you for the collaborative 

process we have underway to try to reach census and agreement 

on this measure and we are making great flog that exercise. 

I would encourage you to redouble your efforts in that respect 

and attend all of the meetings and share your good thoughts on 

how we can reach consensus because it is our intent to bring this 

legislation to markup in the not too distant future. We haven’t 

picked a date yet. But it is around the corner and so we need your 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

help to move as rapidly as we possibly can. With the committee’s 

thanks to each of you, to all of our witnesses for your comments 

today, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 77908A.061

Statement of 

Representative John D. Dingell 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

Hearing on "H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2009" 

June 10,2010 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing on H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First 

Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009. Let me welcome all of 

our witnesses and thank them in advance for their testimony and the useful comments I 

hope they will provide in the course ofthis hearing. 

I share Congressman Markey's goal in making new communications technologies 

accessible to Americans with disabilities. Simply by virtue of being disabled, a person 

should not be de facto denied access to the communications technologies the vast 

majority of Americans take for granted. The Congress has done much to advance the 

causes of the disabled, most notably in the Americans with Disabilities Act, but more 

remains to be done. 

This in mind, I commend Congressman Markey for his work, embodied in H.R. 3101, to 

ensure disabled Americans have access to and can use the communications technologies 

of the 21 st century. As my colleagues are aware, I have long insisted on appropriate, 

reasonable, and practicable statute and regulation. As such, I have questions about 

certain of H.R. 3101' s provisions, which I hope our witnesses will answer with great 

candor. In particular, I seek clarification on the following two points: 

• Section 203 of H.R. 3101 reinstates the Federal Communications Commission's 

video description regulations that were struck down in 2000 and further mandates 

the Commission complete a rulemaking to improve such regulations within one 

year's time. Do our witnesses believe such expansion is necessary and could be 

feasibly complied with? Further, why should such rulemaking not be preceded 

by a study to address the issues I have just mentioned? 

• I understand that closed-captioning for television is different from closedcaptioning for online video. What progress is being made to streamline the 

closed-captioning process for both media, and do our witnesses believe H.R. 

3101 adequately takes into account such developments? 

I thank you, Mr. Chairnlan, for your indulgence and look forward to a productive 

discussion today. Again, I re-iterate my support for the end toward which Congressman 

Markey strives and hope we continue to pursue a collaborative means by which to 

achieve it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 
96 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 77908A.062

Statement of Rep. Anna G. Eshoo 

The 21'1 Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009 

H.R3101 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

June 10, 2010 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on legislation aimed at 

ensuring accessibility to all technology and telecommunications devices and 

services to everyone. I commend Representative Ed Markey for his 

continued leadership and his tireless advocacy on behalf of individuals with 

vision, hearing, and other disabilities. 

The technology and telecommunications industries have delivered 

innovations at a blistering pace over the last decade and a half. Cell phones 

are now smart phones that can fit in the palm of your hand. Homes all 

across America are now not only wired, some are totally wireless. 

Televisions have and continue to evolve into devices that bring increased 

access to technology directly into to our living rooms via cable, satellite, and 

fiber optics. 

This innovation has benefitted our economy, our workforce, and our global 

leadership. As Members of Congress, we must ensure that all U.S. citizens 

reap the rewards. 

The 2rl Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 0/2009 

works to address the needs of individuals with vision, hearing, and other 

disabilities by updating communications laws that were last revised in 1996. 

I'm pleased the Subcommittee is addressing these issues and that we have 

full industry participation and their commitment to deliver access to all. For 

any update of communications law, it's critical for industry to work with 

representatives of the disabilities communities to ensure innovations 

continue to be delivered, and no one is left behind. 
97 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 77908A.063

Telecom Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 3101, the Twenty-first Century Communications and 

Video Accessibility Act 

June 30, 2010 

Congressman Zack Space, Opening Statement 

Thank you, Chairman Boucher. 

I applaud your efforts and the efforts of Ranking Member Steams - as well as the efforts of this 

bill's sponsor, Congressman Markey - in working so diligently to hammer out a bill that 

suppolis the pressing needs of the disability coinmunity while simultaneously addressing the 

eoncerns of industry stakeholders. 

One area of the bill that I'd like to continue talking more about is Seetion203, which addresses 

video description and closed captioning. The amendment in the nature of a substitute that we'll 

consider today requires the big four broadcasting networks to provide 50 hours of video 

description a qUalier ... but only in the top 25 Designated Market Areas. What this means is that 

my constituents in Holmes County, for example, who are within the Cleveland-Akron DMA, will 

have access to more video description services than my constituents in Muskingunl County who 

are part of2031'd 1110st populous DMA. 

I am not entirely sure how r will explain this disparity to members of the disability community 

who havc the misfortune ofliving in a county outside ofthe top 25 DMAs. I fear that while 

trying to improve video description services, we al'e perhaps unintentionally creating a divide 

between rural and urban areas. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can continue discussing this issue as the bill before us today moves 

forwal'd. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

o