Consumer Groups, CEA Face Off Over CVAA Rules for Programming Guides, UI
CEA, cable operators, DBS providers and groups representing disabled consumers are clashing over how proposed accessibility rules for user interfaces and programming guides should be applied to set top boxes and other devices. The squabble played out in a series of ex parte filings in docket 12-108 related to the commission’s attempt to implement section 204 and 205 of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA).
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.
CEA said Section 205 -- which requires on-screen text menus to be accessible in video program guides for “navigation devices” -- should apply to all navigation devices while the broader Section 204 -- which requires all “appropriate” user functions to be accessible -- should apply only to devices that receive or play back video. Consumer groups disagree, and have argued that set top boxes and navigation devices should fall under Section 204. The commission should not “submit” to the “consumer electronics lobby” by allowing the “proposed gutting of one of the most popular and important parts of the CVAA” said the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB).
Language in Section 205 that could require consumers to specifically request a navigation device with accessibility features from their multichannel video program distributors is particularly objectionable, said the National Association of the Deaf and a collection of consumer groups representing the hearing impaired. “People who are deaf or hard of hearing need to access the closed captioning control not only on their own apparatuses, but on those owned by friends or family or located in public places,” said the consumer groups. Congress intended for Section 205 to be limited to devices provided by MVPDs, said AFB. “Section 205 does not deal with, and is wholly incapable as written to either practically or theoretically apply to, commercially available equipment,” AFB said.
Section 204 should apply only to “digital apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming transmitted in digital format simultaneously with sound,” and expressly exclude navigation devices, CEA said. Responding to commission proposals to apply Section 205 only to MVPDs -- leaving most other devices under the broader Section 204 -- CEA said the FCC should in that case apply accessibility requirements solely to functions related to receiving and playing video. “CEA urged the Commission to limit the scope of its rules implementing Section 204 to those built-in functions deemed to be ‘appropriate,'” the ex parte said.
Although AFB has endorsed the commission’s proposal to apply the navigation device rules only to MVPDs, it said it was possible for some devices to fall under both sections, and thus be required to fulfill both accessibility requirements. “It is most certainly not without precedent to interpret and apply two distinct and carefully partitioned provisions of law to the same piece of equipment,” said AFB.
The consumer groups also objected to proposals that accessibility functions should be included in devices as one of several programmable functions that could be configured on a “wildcard button” on a device. All devices should have obvious and immediately usable buttons for closed captioning, just as they do for volume and other basic functions, said the consumer groups. But EchoStar, Dish and CEA said the CVAA doesn’t require a dedicated button for such functions. Providers “should have the flexibility to adopt ‘multi-modal’ accessibility solutions,” said Comcast in an ex parte filing.
Whatever accessibility rules are passed, the FCC should set a later compliance deadline for smaller cable operators, and exempt cable systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers, said ACA. “Generally, the clock only starts for smaller operators to gain access to new technologies after larger operators have already started deploying it,” ACA said. The commission should avoid forcing smaller cable operators “to comply with regulations before compliant products are even feasible for them to purchase,” said the ex parte. But it would be “unfair and inconsistent with the intent of the CVAA to punish viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing, many of whom live in rural or other underserved areas, simply because they do not have access to a larger cable provider,” said the consumer groups. CEA recommended a three-year phase in period for all devices covered under the proposed rules. Reply comments in docket 12-108 are due Wednesday.