CE Retailers Oppose In-Store Testing Mandate On Hearing-Aid-Compatible Phones

The FCC should not impose an in-store testing requirement as part of its hearing-aid compatibility rules, the CE Retailers Coalition (CERC) said in reply comments on an FCC further notice of proposed rulemaking. CTIA, meanwhile, urged the FCC to base its rules on a collaborative process between carriers and the public. Groups representing the deaf and hard of hearing did not file reply comments.

"The Commission has never been given or claimed direct or ancillary authority to impose an in-store testing requirement on independent retailers,” CERC said. “The legislative history of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 shows clearly that Congress intended the Commission to focus, instead, on the obligations of manufacturers. Of the twelve Comments now submitted in response to this FNPRM, eleven do not endorse any in-store testing requirement, or suggest that there is any new basis for one.” Only the Hearing Industries Association (HIA) proposed this requirement in the initial comment round, the coalition said: “It would be arbitrary and capricious, as well as beyond the Commission’s authority, for the FCC to add any such obligation to its regulations."

CTIA said any changes mandated by the FCC should be consistent with the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 and based on “collaboration and standards adoption, with appropriate consideration of technical feasibility and product marketability.” CTIA took issue with comments by HIA that the FCC needs to enforce its hearing aid compatibility (HAC) rules more broadly with limited exemptions and waivers. “The Commission already proactively enforces its HAC requirements, however, as evidenced by the large number of enforcement actions and Consent Decrees issued in recent years,” CTIA said. “HIA’s comments also imply that wireless handset manufacturers will not proactively work to implement new HAC requirements absent a blanket obligation. In reality, under its limited public mobile services exemption the wireless industry has expended substantial resources to comply with the rules and to educate consumers, industry professionals and hearing health care providers about the ANSI C63.19 standard and compatible wireless handsets.”

TIA said any rules must be carefully constructed and take into account technical feasibility and be consisted with the FCC’s policy statement on HAC rules. “The original provisions of the 1988 Hearing Aid Compatibility Act reflected a careful balancing of important policy considerations: improving the accessibility of telephones for hearing aid users, while also preserving innovation in new technologies by requiring that the Commission consider technical feasibility and product marketability principal factors when expanding the scope of its HAC rules,” TIA said.

T-Mobile also stressed that any rules must be technically feasible, and consistent with the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. “The Accessibility Act and the Commission’s approach to wireless HAC implementation reflect an intent to promote innovation and investment in new technologies that ensures that new technologies will be more widely available to and usable by consumers looking for accessibility options,” T-Mobile said.

Mobile satellite services (MSS) devices shouldn’t be subject to the HAC requirements because they would inhibit MSS handset sales, said Inmarsat. Unlike large terrestrial providers, Inmarsat has only one phone model available to a very specialized market that needs a connection anywhere, it said. The cost of “redesigning and reconfiguring these handsets to meet HAC requirements would be very significant” because the handsets are designed with unique technical requirements tailored to a specific environment and customer base, the company said. If MSS is required to adhere to HAC requirements, the FCC should acknowledge different transition periods for different services, said Inmarsat. While the proposed two-year transition period may be feasible for others, it wouldn’t be for MSS, the company said.

Globalstar’s handset was already in the manufacturing phase when the HAC technical standards were adopted, the company said. As a result, if the HAC standard is adopted for MSS, Globalstar’s handset should be grandfathered in as compliant, it said. The FCC shouldn’t apply HAC requirements to MSS handsets for at least three years, giving MSS companies enough time to design and make new handsets, it said. MSS companies that offer a small number of handset models should be exempt, it said. MSS operators without a ancillary terrestrial component license shouldn’t be required to comply with HAC rules, said Iridium. Individual consumers make up a small portion of non-ATC MSS customers and the burdens of HAC compliance outweigh the benefits, said Iridium.