[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-908 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
HILDA L. SOLIS, California JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
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
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee Ranking Member
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MARY BONO MACK, California
JAY INSLEE, Washington GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York LEE TERRY, Nebraska
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
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)
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
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 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.
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.
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 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 concerning 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.
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 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.
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 testimony. 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 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 4\1/2\
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.007
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.
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 on-screen 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.018
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.023
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.
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
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.034
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.040
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 activities 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.060
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.
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 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 disability 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.
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.
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.
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, 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 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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7908A.063