Internet Disabilities Bill Would Hurt Innovators, Shapiro Says

Internet disabilities legislation in the House “is well-intentioned but would create enormous burdens on innovators seeking to introduce new products and features,” CEA President Gary Shapiro said after the House Communications Subcommittee approved an amended HR-3101 on Wednesday. Shapiro and HR-3101 sponsor Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., clashed over the bill at a hearing last month (CED June 11 p4).

"Almost every Subcommittee member who spoke on the legislation … acknowledged the bill is flawed and expressed a desire to improve the bill prior to full Committee consideration,” Shapiro said. “We take the Members at their word and look forward to working with them so we can meet the need to provide hearing and visually-impaired Americans with access to technology without requiring innovators to meet unknowable government-mandated design standards."

The subcommittee approved the legislation in a voice vote Wednesday afternoon, with a manager’s amendment by Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va. Boucher said he hoped to offer another manager’s amendment later to address “remaining points of difference,” including those related to video description rules. Meanwhile, disabilities rights advocates were upset after learning the amendment cut out a provision that would subsidize broadband services and equipment for people with disabilities.

The amended HR-3101 requires accessibility to be built into all equipment and services used for VoIP, electronic messaging and video conferencing, unless the requirement is “not achievable.” The amended bill defines “achievable” as “with reasonable effort or expense,” as determined and enforced by the FCC. The original bill exempted companies that showed there would be “undue burden.” Among other changes, the new version would direct the FCC to reinstate video description rules that were struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And the amendment struck language allowing up to $10 million a year from the Universal Service Fund’s Lifeline and Link-up programs to be spent on broadband services and equipment for the deaf or blind.

Markey, the bill’s sponsor, raised concerns about the video description language. He praised the provision’s intent, but complained that the amendment sets up an “unnecessarily lengthy” two-year process to reinstate the description rule. And the rules should apply to more than just the top 25 media markets, he said. Blind people living in Nashville, for example, won’t be protected under the current bill, he said. Bringing video description to a broader audience is one of “a few areas” that still need improvement, agreed House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., discussed but didn’t offer an amendment to address the problem. He noted that his Pittsburgh district is currently No. 25, and could easily fall to No. 26 and be excluded. Boucher promised to address the issue before the full committee markup. But Ranking Member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., voiced concerns about increasing the number of required hours of video description from that required under the rule that was struck down by the court.

The USF language was struck in part due to CBO scoring issues, a House aide said. Jenifer Simpson, a senior director for the American Association of People with Disabilities, told us in an e-mail she is “outraged that deaf-blind people have been cut out in the substitute bill. The authority that would be given to the FCC to use USF funds to help deaf-blind people get the equipment they need to make phone calls is not there. We hope there is more than one Congressperson who cares about deaf-blind people and can get this back in!” Simpson added that she’s concerned the bill imposes “ridiculous limitations” on the FCC’s authority to reinstate video description for blind people “beyond a modest 4 hours a week."

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said he wanted to offer and withdraw five amendments at the markup. The first would require a study of emergency communications technologies for the disabled that looks beyond real-time text. The second would require closed captioning on screens of 5 inches or more, down from 13 inches in the bill. The third would define video relay as an interstate service under federal jurisdiction. The fourth would set up a TRS policy advisory group to help the FCC on TRS fund-administration rules. The fifth would require the FCC to examine low adoption of video relay services, identifying barriers and making recommendations to address the problem. Boucher promised to work with Inslee on his concerns.

Democrats and Republicans applauded a bipartisan process and said they were optimistic they could pass the bill this summer. Boucher said he hoped to resolve all remaining differences in the next two weeks. Congress must assure all Americans can benefit from new communications technologies, including the deaf and blind, he said. Waxman reaffirmed his desire to get the bill on the House floor July 26, the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., meanwhile is aiming to get his similar bill (S-3304) to Commerce Committee markup soon after the July recess.

"No one wants” people with disabilities to be “left behind,” but a light touch has been key to encouraging industry technological innovation, said Stearns. The best approach is to establish accessibility goals but “not to dictate how to accomplish them,” he said. Stearns also raised concerns about provisions that would make telecom carriers and other companies liable if they didn’t make all devices and services accessible to people with any disability. The amendment will improve the bill, but “more work needs to be done” to give more flexibility to industry, he said. “I hope we can continue to work together to strike the right balance to make changes that would better support our shared accessibility goals and our goals of promoting innovation,” Stearns said. “We are not yet there.”