CEA, Others Clash Again With Consumer Groups Over CVAA UI Rules

The FCC should maintain “flexibility” in how requirements to make devices and user interfaces more accessible to the hearing and vision impaired will be implemented, argued CEA, NCTA, the Entertainment Software Association and other trade associations in their reply comments. The industry groups 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 less-narrow Section 204 -- which requires all “appropriate” user functions to be accessible -- should apply only to devices that receive or play back video.

The Media Bureau initially proposed applying Section 205 only to multichannel video programming distributors but requiring other devices to abide by the broader requirements of Section 204 (CD June 3 p15), an idea seconded by consumer groups like the American Foundation for the Blind. Language in Section 205 specifically exempts smaller MVPDs from the statute, said AFB’s filing. “There would be no reason for Congress to create a mechanism to allow some MVPDs to avoid the accessibility obligations of section 205 if they were not the obvious target of such obligations,” said AFB.

The meaning of what user functions are “appropriate” under Section 204 and thus must be made accessible was also of concern to many trade associations in their filings. Only functions essential to video programming need to be made accessible, said ESA, CTIA and others. CEA urged the commission to limit accessibility requirements for user functions, to the eleven essential ones identified by the VPAAC committee that initially studied the issue. That list included most basic functions of any video device, such as power buttons and volume controls. AFB didn’t disagree but said video accessibility should be a basic requirement “at a minimum."

Trade associations and consumer groups did come into conflict over requirements for how closed captions can be activated on devices. The Media Bureau proposed requiring a “single step” process -- such as a single button on a remote to turn captions on. CEA and other industry groups argued that such a requirement would exceed the commission’s authority. “The Commission should disregard arguments that would require user control activation mechanisms to be physical buttons and should decline to adopt the NPRM’s single-step proposal, which, as some commenters point out, is vague and inconsistent with the CVAA,” said CEA.

Since Section 205 contains language saying accessible devices have to be given to consumers by providers “upon request,” ACA said the commission should set requirements for what documents consumers can use to prove they qualify for accessible devices. ACA’s proposal is “utterly unacceptable” and an “insult,” said AFB. “Neither MVPDs or equipment manufacturers have any competence to judge the validity or the determinations of medical professionals or anyone else with expertise in assessing whether someone does in fact have a visual impairment,” said AFB.

The FCC should use the rulemaking proceeding on programming guides to require MVPDs to carry program descriptions for public, educational and governmental (PEG) channels, said filings by the Alliance for Communications Democracy and several local governments, including the city of Boston. Cable operators aren’t carrying “adequate information about programming on PEG channels” on their guides to inform disabled consumers about programming, said the filings. “Such issues are far beyond the scope of the instant proceeding and should not waylay the Commission’s efforts to timely implement the CVAA,” said NCTA. Citing the Oct. 20 deadline for implementation of the new rules, NCTA said the commission should “avoid being sidetracked from the important task at hand by extraneous issues that have no place in this proceeding.”