CTIA Urges Collaborative Process in Developing New HAC Rules
CTIA urged the FCC to rely on a collaborative process for developing requirements for hearing-aid compatible (HAC) handsets based on new technologies that go beyond CMRS. But two groups representing the hearing impaired said the FCC should adopt strong requirements that are of maximum benefit for those with hearing loss. Comments were due this week on a rulemaking approved by the commission at its Aug. 5 meeting.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The FCC’s current rules have been a success story, CTIA said. As of June 30, 300 handsets with an M3 or M4 rating, and more than 230 with a T3 or T4 rating, were offered by carriers, up from over 200 M3/M4-rated devices and over 150 T3/T4-rated handsets the previous year, the group said. The designations are used to rate phones for use by the hearing-impaired. “There is clearly a positive trend for consumers who use hearing aids to find a wide-range of accessible wireless handsets,” CTIA said.
CTIA reminded the commission that the recently enacted Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 required that new HAC standards be “established through collaborative processes.” CTIA said “to date, HAC concerns have not been identified for air interfaces beyond current Commercial Mobile Radio Services, including emerging unlicensed and licensed air interfaces, and the Commission should ensure it does not prematurely impose new regulatory obligations.” The group also said the commission should impose additional mandates on CMRS phones.
The Hearing Industries Association said the FCC should follow the law, including the recently enacted Act. “That means not exempting categories of equipment, not delaying hearing aid compatibility compliance, and construing any feasibility or achievability exemption narrowly.” The “explicit language” of Section 710 of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 is clear, the group said. “The Commission is simply not at liberty to exempt additional service categories as technology develops and then consider whether or not to revoke such exemption using the CMRS (or any other) criteria,” said the filing.
Even if FCC exemption of new services were allowed by law, it wouldn’t make sense and it would undermine congressional intent, HIA said. “An automatic exemption of new technologies until they reached some nebulous stage of market maturity would seriously threaten the effectiveness of HAC requirements,” the group said. “The later that HAC is introduced into the design process, the more effort and expense are likely to be required to comply.” Responding to other questions in the NPRM, HIA said the FCC has ample authority to require that retailers allow for in-store testing of handsets and that HAC handsets are available for both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP service.
Hearing aid compatibility rules “should apply to all emerging wireless voice communications technologies,” the Hearing Loss Association of America said, agreeing with HIA. “Consumers with hearing loss who use hearing aids, cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices should not be left without access as new technologies and networks become available to the public,” the group said, saying 36 million Americans suffer from hearing loss. “People with hearing loss … need access to mobile phone services for work, for school, in the community, at home, and in emergency situations, just like every other American.”
AT&T said that as a matter of fairness rules requiring availability of HAC handsets should also apply Mobile Satellite Service operators. “The terrestrial capability of MSS devices and the public use of those devices will only increase in the future,” the carrier said. Failure to include MSS would “leave a substantial gap in the Commission’s efforts to insure that deaf and hard-of-hearing persons have access to basic communications capabilities.” But AT&T said the rules should not apply to third-party software that enables new or additional voice capabilities on a device acquired after the point of purchase.
The Rural Telecommunications Group said additional HAC requirements should be phased in for small and rural carriers, since they have “at best, second-hand access to handsets and devices.” New handset models often become available for rural carriers six months or longer after they're available for sale by tier 1 carriers, the group said. “Rural carriers, which lack significant numbers of subscribers, have no influence over handset manufacturers. FCC policy must take into account rural carriers’ lack of market clout and lack of handset options.”
MetroPCS also urged the FCC to proceed with caution. “MetroPCS believes that the Commission is overreaching its statutory authority by applying hearing aid compatibility requirements to devices not interconnected with the PSTN,” the carrier said. “To interpret the term ’telephone’ to apply to any voice communication device, even those which never access the public switched telephone network, would extend the reach of the HAC Act beyond congressional intent.”