The FCC should allow for flexibility in meeting the requirements...

and deaf-blind said the rules must not be so flexible that “accessibility is never achieved,” said joint comments filed by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inc., the National Association of the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America, Association of Late-Deaf Adults, American Association for the Deaf-Blind and the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network. “The Commission must also avoid the situation where accessibility is achieved only in a minority of instances,” they said. “It is the clear intent of Congress … that it should be the rule that accessibility is to be achieved in most cases, and only in exceptional instances in which providers can show that accessibility is not achievable can this requirement be foregone,” they said. The commission should not promote accessibility “only at the cost of innovation,” CEA said in its comments. “Instead, the commission should follow Congress’s flexible, practical roadmap that is based on marketplace realities,” it said. Several trade groups urged the FCC to broadly use its waiver authority. “Indeed, all equipment and services not primarily designed for ACS [advanced communications services] should be granted a waiver,” said TechAmerica. TIA said the FCC should exclude such devices in the first place. Failing that, it should grant categorical waivers for such services and equipment “to ensure industry flexibility.” The cable industry asked the FCC to find that all interconnected VoIP services are subject solely to the accessibility provisions in Section 255 of the Communications Act, even if such services are introduced after the adoption of CVAA rules. “By ensuring that such services are covered by a uniform accessibility regime, this approach will allow covered entities to focus on research and development without the need to juggle the disparate demands of section 255 and section 716” which was amended by the CVAA “for each new product,” it said. Any rules “must promote the careful balance Congress established between increasing the accessibility of products and services for people with disabilities and avoiding burdening industry with overly detailed or restrictive regulation that hampers innovation and investment,” CTIA said. The proposed rules “fail” in “three critical respects,” it said. They “do not delineate the scope of compliance in a manner that ensures covered entities are not held responsible for the compliance or noncompliance of third parties,” the association said. “While purporting to acknowledge that Congress directed that not every product or service must be made accessible for every disability,” the commission nonetheless “seeks to read that language out of the statute and establish a structure requiring that accessibility in every product or service, unless such accessibility is not achievable.” CTIA said that “despite clear language applying the new requirements only to products and services not already covered by section 255 at the time of enactment, the proposed rules suggest there is an open issue as to whether products or services currently subject to section 255 might nonetheless be subject to the new requirements if they offer a capability covered by the new law.” AT&T urged the commission to take a light touch. Given “that the CVAA was intended to extend disability access protections, rather than replace existing protections, the Commission should narrowly construe its statutory definitions and clearly articulate the limits of the new rules,” the telco said. The CVAA’s waiver process “is essential to ensure that the newly adopted rules do not create unreasonable burdens,” it said. The commission should make rules that “do not impose liability on service providers or manufacturers for applications, devices or services provided by third parties, except where the manufacturer or service provider endorses use of the third party solution,” AT&T said. The Voice on the Net Coalition also urged the commission to proceed carefully, arguing that definitions of “advanced communications services,” “electronic messaging between individuals” and “interoperable video conferencing” ought “to be narrowly construed.” The agency should grant waivers “liberally” to products designed “for purposes other than” advanced communications services, the coalition said. Accessibility standards “must ensure that consumers with disabilities can use advanced communications while providing flexibility to manufacturers and services providers,” the coalition said. It urged the commission to “give industry time to incorporate the requirements” of CVAA. “The Commission should allow a two-year phase-in period for products and services designed after the rules go into effect, adjusting as may be necessary for different product cycles,” the group said.