Democrat wants to require disability-friendly Internet phones, video
WASHINGTON--At the moment, most TVs and telephones must be outfitted with special features for people with hearing, vision, and speech impairments under U.S. law. Now an influential Democratic congressman wants to expand those requirements to their Internet counterparts.
The bill (PDF) being drafted by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) would require, at least in some cases, dramatic changes in the way Internet phone- and video-related products are designed, while making it more difficult than under existing law for companies to claim exemptions from those requirements.
"The wizardry of the wires and the sophistication of the software programs do little for those who cannot affordably access or effectively use them," Markey said at a hearing here Thursday convened by the House of Representatives telecommunications and Internet panel he leads. "Our job as policymakers is to help ensure such affordable access and utilization, and this is what the draft legislation I have circulated is intended to do."
In some ways, the effort would simply build upon steps already taken by policymakers in recent years. Last summer, for instance, the Federal Communications Commission decided that voice-over Internet protocol providers whose services connect to the public-switched telephone network, such as Vonage, would be required to make their services compatible with hearing aids and telecommunications relay services, just as traditional phone operators do.
The Markey bill would extend those obligations to Skype-like equipment that allows users to swap voice, text, or video communications via Internet protocol technology. It would also go a step further, requiring them to support standard
The bill also contains new rules for manufacturers of any gadget designed to receive or display video programming, be it Internet-based or otherwise. They would generally be required to equip those devices with the ability to decode and display closed captions, to deliver "video description" services (that is, oral narration designed for the blind and visually-impaired), and to present typical ticker-style emergency messages in a way that's accessible to the blind and visually impaired.
Furthermore, the devices would have to be designed so that on-screen menus are accessible in real-time to individuals with disabilities, and all remote controls would have to contain a "conspicuous" buttons for activating closed captioning.
Disabilities community weighs in
A variety of disabilities advocates voiced support for the bill at Thursday's hearing. (Its working title is the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, although it has not yet been formally introduced.)
At the moment, federal rules require all TVs with screens larger than 13 inches to contain chips to display closed captions. But that's no longer sufficiently stringent as the popularity of videos delivered via cell phones, laptops, and MP3 players surges, said Russell Harvard, a deaf actor who played Daniel Day Lewis' adult-age son in the Oscar-nominated film There Will Be Blood.
"I and others who cannot hear are left out of this whirlwind of technological change (because) hardly any of these smaller devices display closed captions," Harvard said, urging Congress to take closed captioning law "to its next level."
Jamaal Anderson, an Atlanta Falcons defensive end, recalled that at draft time last year, his mother was forced to "interpret" video clips of him that appeared on Web sites of National Football League teams and news organizations for the benefit of his father, Glenn, who holds the distinction of being the first PhD recipient to be deaf and black.
U.S. Army Sgt. Major Jesse Acosta, a longtime soldier who lost his right eye and vision in his left eye during a mortar explosion in Iraq two years ago, said it's not acceptable that of his three favorite television shows--CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, and CSI: Las Vegas--only one of them has descriptive audio. The Southern California resident, who spoke on behalf of the American Council of the Blind, said he was also dismayed that crawling alerts on his TV screen about potential emergencies, like earthquakes or mudslides, went by unbeknownst to him unless a family member of friend happened to be there to relay the message.
In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission set rules that required video operators to provide that video description service, but a court overturned those rules, arguing that they were contrary to Congress's intent. Part of Markey's bill attempts to restore those rules, which Acosta, who spoke on behalf of the American Council of the Blind, applauded.
New regulations: Necessary or not?
Democrats on the committee generally seemed to support Markey's plans, voicing concern about excluding people with disabilities from new technologies. Some Republicans, however, said that although they shared Markey's goals, they were skeptical about the need for new legislation.
"New regulations may not be needed because the technology and wireless industries are already taking the necessary steps to make sure their products and applications are indeed accessible to all people," said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the panel's ranking member.
Some Internet video providers, including NBC and Fox's joint Hulu.com venture and Apple's iTunes store, already offer captioned programming. Last fall, AOL, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo formed a coalition called the Internet Captioning Forum, coordinated by public broadcasting station WGBH in Boston, that's designed to standardize captioning practices for Web hosts and content providers.
"I think they have figured it out," Larry Goldberg, WGBH's director of media access, said of that effort at Thursday's hearing. "What they need to figure out is how to make it pervasive," and Markey's legislation should help "light that fire" under those companies.
Wireless companies, for their part, already make phones that use voice recognition, software that will "read out" or magnify screen information, and other features designed to help sensory-impaired users, said Dane Snowden, vice president of external and state affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association. All cell phones are compatible with TTY, also known as Text Telephone Device, which allows deaf or hard-of-hearing people to communicate through text, and about 40 phone models are compatible with hearing aids, he added.
"If we can sell products that are more accessible, we sell more products," Snowden told the committee. "We have a vested interest in this and a proven track record."
His group, which represents major wireless carriers and manufacturers, supports the concept of Markey's legislation but believes the current draft would "unnecessarily burden the industry with little countervailing benefit to the disability community," Snowden said.
Another potential problem with the bill is that it allows unhappy customers to file private lawsuits alleging violations of the disability requirements, said Ken Nakata, a former U.S. Department of Justice civil rights attorney who now works for the consulting firm BayFirst Solutions in Seattle.
Such a policy could actually undermine the rights of people with disabilities, he argued. It was, after all, private litigation that led to what he called a "disaster for the disability rights movement"--a court opinion in a case involving Southwest Airlines' Web site that essentially found the Americans with Disabilities Act applies only to physical spaces, not businesses on the Web.
Markey indicated he would consider the suggestions as the bill is finalized and said he hoped legislation could be passed by year's end. A committee aide told CNET News.com that he expects the bill to be introduced formally before Congress' Memorial Day recess.
Next he'll want to insist on internet telephony having rotary dial for people who are pushbutton-phobic.
Moron.
(deaf, blind, etc), can be risky, at least someone is standing up
and speaking out, pointing to the glaring omissions in support
for the disabled on the internet. Sure they have standards for
creating web pages that are friendly for blind or partially blind
users, and putting in text to describe any sound clip or podcasts
or video being used on the site, most websites don't do this
anyway.
I myself work in the IT field, and I have severe-to-profound
sensorineural hearing loss. There are many drawbacks for me, I
cannot enjoy 90% of what a lot of people with hearing take for
granted: on-demand video or web radio, et al.
Although I don't agree that EVERYONE should be required to
provide these services, it would certainly be very beneficial to
me to be able to use more than a smattering of services out
there. Even iTunes, which I am happy they're finally STARTING to
close caption movies (and even then, the current list of
captioned movies is only around 40 to 60, depending on various
sources, and the selection usually sucks), they still have yet to
do so on TV shows that are normally captioned on TV.
All I want is just to be able to access some of the more popular
areas that exclusively use video (except for sites like YouTube, I
can understand why videos aren't captioned, they're made by
people like me, the general public, not everyone has the means
or the skills or time to do this), I would call out for news sites
that use video podcasts (hint hint C|NET!) to caption (or at least
have the option of turning on some form of captioning) when
viewing their podcasts.
In the end, I'm not saying that we need this legislation, all I'm
saying is that pointing this out and standing up for it will at
least get corporations to realize they're missing out on a large
section of consumers who would be more than happy to use
their services if they make them a little more disability friendly.
There are actually no devices that provide captioning for every video on the Internet. Most videos on the Internet are not captioned to begin with, and there is no technology available to generate free real-time captioning at a moment's notice for uncaptioned videos on the Internet. (Relay services only relay audio from phone calls, not audio on the Internet.) What was attributed to the deaf actor who was using sign language may not have been correctly interpreted by the interpreter, or may have been a rushed statement that couldn't be explained further due to time limitations.
In actuality, it is correct that deaf and hard of hearing people *have* been left out of this whirlwind of technological changes; for example, most videos of television broadcasts that were captioned when broadcast are not offered with the ability to view those captions. Thus a lot of important information that is only available via video is not accessible merely because the already created captions weren't repurposed for the Internet.
(There are a few movies from iTunes that have been made available with caption, but this is a function of the movie being provided with caption; the devices that can show those movies cannot show captions for other media that hasn't been captioned.)
Participants in these hearings have a very short time to make their comments or replies, so it is difficult to explain the complexity of captioning in a short amount of time when there are many other points to be made and when most of the partipants on the Hill should be familiar with these issues. The witnesses were addressing the informed members of the subcommittee, not the general public (which is not as well informed about captioning issues).
I was also pleased to see some very well thought-out and detailed replies to the story. These comments added additional depth and insight.
Our mission here at the Wireless Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (Wireless RERC) in Atlanta, Georgia, is: To promote equitable access to and use of wireless technologies by people with disabilities and encourage adoption of Universal Design in future generations of wireless devices and applications.
We do not take a position on how necessarily to achieve Universal Design for equitable access to wireless technology. But, we believe it to be essential for including everyone in these increasingly important communications media.
Universal design and access will continue to grow in importance as our population ages and as mobile communications become ever more critical parts of our daily lives.
Visit us on the web at:
http://www.wirelessrerc.org/
Also, feel free to post a comment at our blog site:http://www.mywirelessreview.com/
- by benjaminstraight July 13, 2008 2:36 PM PDT
- benjamin straight writes: Is cell phone tech a right to everyone?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)