FCC Should Avoid ‘Prescriptive’ CVAA User Interface Regulations, say Cable Providers and NCTA

The FCC should avoid specific “prescriptive” regulations and focus on flexibility in new rules on accessibility for user interfaces and video programming guides, said several cable providers and the NCTA. They commented on the commission’s rulemaking on implementing Sections 204 and 205 of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (http://bit.ly/19qAKaI). The deadline for comments on the proposed new rules was Monday. “Overly prescriptive regulations could freeze current technologies and solutions in place, hamper investment, and stymie advancement,” said Comcast. Although consumer groups filing comments in docket 12-108 asked for some specific rules, they also urged flexibility in the language of the rules. “We do not believe that the manner of viewing video programming will be limited to ’television sets’ in the future; nor will the manner of obtaining video content be limited,” said the American Council of the Blind. “The FCC must regulate with the proverbial eye toward the future."

Much in the comments focused on what devices would fall under the new rules. Verizon, CEA, Dish Network and EchoStar urged the commission not to limit the applicability of Section 205 -- which requires on-screen text menus to be accessible in video program guides for “navigation devices” -- to multichannel video programming distributor devices. They asked the agency to apply Section 204 -- which requires all “appropriate” user functions to be accessible -- only to devices that receive or play back video. The scope of Section 204 should be “extremely limited,” said CEA.

"We strongly believe that the requirements for interface accessibility should not [be] different whether a device is covered by Section 204 or Section 205” said ACB. The consumer group’s comments echoed statements by Commissioner Ajit Pai, who disagreed with the NPRM’ suggestion that Section 205 -— which references devices “provided” to consumers or “placed in service” -- should apply only to MVPDs. If the NPRM’s proposal became the rule, ACB predicted “that those devices that MVPDs do not directly provide to consumers as a benefit of subscription ... will not be made accessible and, further, that, unless such devices are explicitly covered by Section 204, consumers who are blind or visually impaired will find that such devices are not accessible.” Several consumer groups representing those with disabilities said the wording of the CVAA sections showed that 205 should apply only to MVPD navigation devices. “A broad interpretation of navigation devices under Section 205 would render Section 204 largely meaningless,” said the consumer groups.

ACB and the consumer groups urged the FCC to specifically require that essential functions named in the NPRM be made accessible to those with disabilities, but not stop there. “As technology evolves, we can expect more functions to be added to devices and apparatus, and it is imperative that our access to these new functions must not be restricted,” said the consumer groups including the National Association of the Deaf and the group Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. ACB said the commission should leave room for technological change. “It should be sufficient to provide to the manufacturers the information that all functions, if they happen to have been included on a device or software, must be accessible,” said ACB. “We do not believe that regulations are appropriate places to provide guidance.” Replies are due Aug. 7.