[Senate Hearing 111-986]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-986
INNOVATION AND INCLUSION: THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AT 20
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-489 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEOGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican General Counsel
Nick Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada, Ranking
Chairman OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK WARNER, Virginia
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 26, 2010..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Prepared statement of Marlee Matlin, Actress, on Behalf of
The National Association of the Deaf, submitted by Hon.
Mark Pryor................................................. 9
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 40
Witnesses
Hon. Edward Markey, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts,
Seventh District............................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
SSG Brian K. Pearce (Retired Combat-Wounded Veteran)............. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Thomas Wlodkowski, Director of Accessibility, AOL Inc............ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Bobbie Beth Scoggins, on Behalf of the National Association of
the Deaf and the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible
Technology..................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Russell Harvard, on Behalf of the National Association of the
Deaf and the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible
Technology..................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President and CEO, United States
Telecom Association............................................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
INNOVATION AND INCLUSION: THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AT 20
----------
WEDNESDAY, May 26, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the
Internet,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John F.
Kerry, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Hearing will come to order.
Thank you all very much for being here today. I
particularly want to thank my colleague and friend, Congressman
Ed Markey, for being here and for his work in this area.
We're meeting today to discuss two very important matters:
one, promoting innovation and modern communications, and, two,
making sure that people with disabilities are included in the
economic and social revolution that comes with modern
communications.
Twenty years after the passage of ADA, it is time--for
those listening that don't know what that is, it's the
Americans with Disabilities Act. It is time to recommit
ourselves to making sure that all Americans, those with
disabilities, are not left behind, online or off.
Earlier this week, Chairman Rockefeller and I, along with
counterparts in the House, called for initiating a process to
update whatever laws we need to in order to make sure that
they're in synch with the modern communications market today.
So much more information is available, so many
opportunities are available through these modern means of
communication that life itself has changed in our country. We
need to make sure that it has changed for everybody in a
positive way.
How stakeholders approach the debate over increasing access
to modern communications with peoples with disabilities, I
think, will serve as an interesting case study to how they're
going to approach the broader effort to update our laws in this
field.
We still have to see whether or not providing people with
disabilities access to the wires, devices, and the services
that connect us to the Internet--and, over time, the services
on the Internet itself--will bring people of goodwill together
in order to negotiate in good faith in this effort or, as we
often see around here, whether or not folks will resist and
special interests will rear their heads up to somehow shift
responsibility to other people and then even gain the rules and
try to prevent the entry of new competitors into this market
or, as they sometimes do, try to say that any effort by the
Federal Government to set the rules is somehow an overreach.
And I think we're going to make it clear, that it is not.
I want to say how pleased I am that Senator Pryor and his
staff have worked so closely with ours. We have benefitted from
the terrific participation of advocates for the disabled and
various industry players and experts at the FCC in helping to
lead up to this hearing. And I also want to recognize that the
preparation for this has been largely organized around the
introduction of legislation modeled on what Congressman Markey
has achieved over in the House.
And I think we ought to try--and I know the Congressman
feels this way--to get this bill to the President's desk this
year for signature.
The goal is very clear: to ensure that Americans with
disabilities have the opportunity to access and use
communications services and infrastructure just like the rest
of us. And doing so is really critical to making good on our
commitment to an open and inclusive society.
I was privileged when I first came to the United States
Senate to work--back in 1985--with Senator Lowell Weicker, and
I was serving briefly on the Health and Human Services
Committee, and, at that point, he was Chairman of something
that was still then called the Handicapped Subcommittee. That
shows you the distance we've traveled.
But one of the things that we did was put in place major
technology grants that assisted in the development of assistive
technology devices. And, today, there are people with terrible
diseases--usually nervous-system disorders, muscular
disorders--who are able to communicate exclusively because they
can use these assisted devices in a bed or in a chair, as the
case may be. It changed life for people to be able to
communicate, and it came about because we were able to address
this in balance and excite that kind of research and
development.
So, what we need to do now is recognize that too many of
the applications that a lot of us just take for granted, too
many of the applications transmitted over the existing devices
and facilities are inaccessible to people with disabilities.
And that means a huge part of life in America is inaccessible,
and that's unacceptable.
The huge companies that own the pipes coming into homes or
who design and sell the services that make access possible
today don't necessarily have to make those devices or services
available to people with disabilities.
So, working with my friend, Congressman Markey, as well as
Senator Pryor and others in the Senate, we intend to change
that. We need the industry to cooperate with us.
Our bill aims to require several things, that beginning
with the largest firms that control access and entry onto the
Internet, and eventually spreading to all communications
providers over the Internet, they, at minimum, make a good-
faith effort at accessibility, and, also, where technology is
available, make the product or the service available.
Some people may say, What are you talking about, Senator?
What do you mean here?
Well, for instance, it is not right that a deaf actor, who
has all the talent in the world, doesn't have the opportunity
to learn the craft or develop important skills that come from
watching other actors perform simply because he or she can't
access what those actors are saying. That can be cured.
It is wrong that a soldier blinded in combat can come home
and, because of the absence of video devices, not being able to
fully access some of what is on the television, including
emergency information. It's unacceptable that because a child
is born deaf, he or she can't use a video-conferencing service
that would allow that person to sign a conversation with
friends who are not disabled or who have a different
disability.
All of these things are doable, and one of our central
responsibilities as policymakers is to write rules and
regulations to provide access for essential service where the
market won't, by its own volition, automatically do that.
And fulfilling that responsibility is actually what made
electricity and phone service available almost everywhere. It's
that kind of commitment that led us to mandate closed
captioning for television, so that deaf folks could get their
news in a crisis, just like the rest of us.
It's also what led Congress to pass the Americans with
Disabilities Act two decades ago. And we believe that, today,
access to the Internet and the ability to communicate over
smartphones and computers is an essential service of the 21st
Century.
We try to strike a balance in our proposed legislation
between the industry's ability to innovate freely and onerous
regulation, but also making sure that the needs of people with
disabilities are considered and addressed in the delivery of
Internet service.
And we're going to continue to work with everyone who is
interested in this, in order to try to make sure that we do it
in a reasonable and a thoughtful way. But we're not going to
accept a communications structure that refuses, simply out of
stubbornness, to include people with disabilities.
The time to solve the problem, in our judgment, is now. And
I'm very, very happy to welcome a long-time advocate on these
issues, probably one of the most knowledgeable people in
communications in the entire Congress and the Dean of the
Massachusetts delegation, Congressman Ed Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
SEVENTH DISTRICT
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Senator Kerry, very much, and thank
you for inviting me over here this afternoon.
And I want to congratulate you, Senator Pryor, and Senator
Rockefeller, on the leadership which you are showing on this
very important issue of affordable, universal access for all
Americans to the latest technologies of the 21st century.
As you said, on July 26, 2010, we will celebrate the 20th
anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. When President Bush signed the ADA into law, he famously
said, ``Let the shameful walls of exclusion finally come
tumbling down.''
The ADA was an historic victory, but, now, two decades
later, we must take action again to ensure that new walls are
not erected, that new barriers to inclusion may be virtual,
wireless, composed of zeros and ones, a result of devices and
services designed without accessibility in mind.
Regardless of their origin, these 21st century walls are
just as exclusionary as the physical barriers that were the
focus of the ADA 20 years ago or the analog-era communications
hurdles that we had to overcome in the ADA Act and in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, to do away with that old era,
which is why there is no more important hearing that is taking
place in Washington today than this issue. This is the time to
break down the walls of exclusion of the digital era.
The requirement for the FCC to further a National Broadband
Plan, which I successfully included in the Stimulus Bill of
2009 to create the broadband plan for the 21st Century in
America, was designed to produce a roadmap to a broadband
future open to all Americans. The plan was released in March
and contains some sobering data on barriers to broadband
adoption amongst Americans with disabilities. For example, the
broadband plan reported that 39 percent of all non-broadband
adopters have a disability, much higher than the 24 percent of
overall survey respondents who have a disability.
Impediments that people with disabilities face include
devices that are often not designed to be accessible for people
with disabilities; assistive technologies that are expensive--
Braille displays, for example, can cost between $3,500 and
$15,000--services, including emergency services that are not
accessible; web pages and new media applications that cannot be
accessed by a person using a screen reader; and Internet-based
video programming does not have captions or video descriptions
offering an account of what is on the screen.
This is important given the rapid rise of online video
options like Hulu and other new services that will exclude
those that do not have the capacity to be able to participate.
Historically, it has taken years, even decades, for
Americans with disabilities to have something close to equal
access to telecommunications. The FCC reported that it took
over 100 years for telephone systems to become accessible for
people with speech and hearing disabilities, over 50 years for
television to become accessible for deaf people, and 10 years
for people who used hearing aids to be able to use digital
wireless phones.
Now, we were able to pass laws that changed all that over
the last 20 years, but Americans with disabilities should have
access to the new telecommunications technologies of the 21st
Century as well, and delay is unacceptable.
The guiding principles of the 21st Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act that I have introduced in the
House--similar to the legislation that you have introduced over
in the Senate--is to bring existing federal laws requiring
communications and video programming accessibility up to date
to fill in any accessibility gap and to ensure the full
inclusion of Americans with disabilities in all aspects of
daily living through accessible, affordable and useable
communication and video programming technologies.
Since the ADA was signed into law, we have seen a
revolution in the way Americans interact, learn and conduct
business. However, the wizardry of the wires and the
sophistication of the software programs do little for those who
cannot affordably access or effectively use them.
The fact is that the new technologies and services are
neither intrinsically good, nor are they bad. There is a
Dickensian quality to each of these technologies. They are the
best of wires and the worst of wires simultaneously. They can
enable and ennoble, or they can degrade and debase.
These new technologies are only as good as the animation
with human values that we ascribe to them. And as our
population ages, there will be more of us who will inevitably
benefit from these new features.
And, finally, I must note that many of the arguments raised
against elements of our accessibility legislation are eerily
similar to arguments made against hearing-aid compatibility and
closed captioning in 1990.
In that debate, we were told that mandating closed
captioning on all television sets would cost $20 per TV set. It
would crush the industry. It would take a lifetime and a
fortune to caption all of the television shows and movies. It
would just be too expensive for the industry. It would be
overly burdensome. Notwithstanding these objections, we passed
and the President signed into law the closed-captioning
legislation that I had championed.
Now, what is the result? Well, interestingly, when people
turn on their TV set and they go to closed captioning, yes, for
those who need it, they can watch it, but some other
interesting things happened as well. The immigrant community
can now turn on the closed captioning and their children can
actually read along with the words as they sit there in the
living room, learning our language.
In addition, in barrooms all over America now, guys can
actually watch the game at the same time with the closed
captioning. That was impossible before the 1990
Telecommunications Act. So all of this----
Senator Kerry. Is that admissibility?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Markey. It allows guys to multitask in bars. Okay? You
know, that was an unintended consequence of a technology
revolution, where others actually benefit from it as well.
And what else happened? Very funny thing happened. The
whole cost dropped down to $1 per television set from the $20
per television set that had been predicted. And all of these
incredible benefits then began to flow to people.
So the best way for us to increase the productivity of the
American people, to unleash all of the great God-given
abilities that everyone has been given, is to give them access
to the way in which we communicate in the 21st century. And
those 10 million or 20 million people out there, they'll be
able to plug in and make contributions that will help not only
themselves and their families, but help America as well,
because they'll be able to fully contribute according to their
own God-given abilities.
And so I thank you, Senator Pryor. I praise you in
absentia, and I'll do it in person, and you, Chairman Kerry,
for your tremendous leadership on this bill.
I think we can get this done this year. I think it's
important for us to get it done. These people have waited too
long. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward Markey,
U.S. Representative from Massachusetts, Seventh District
Thank you, Chairman Kerry, for holding this important hearing today
and for inviting me to testify this afternoon. You and Senator Pryor
have shown tremendous leadership on the important issue of affordable,
universal access for all Americans to the latest technologies of the
21st century.
On July 26, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the signing
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. When President Bush signed the
ADA into law, he famously said ``Let the shameful walls of exclusion
finally come tumbling down.''
The ADA was an historic victory; but now, two decades later, we
must take action again to ensure that new walls are not erected--the
new barriers to inclusion may be virtual, wireless, composed of zeroes
and ones, or a result of devices and services designed without
accessibility in mind. Regardless of their origin, these 21st century
walls are just as exclusionary as the physical barriers that were the
focus of the ADA 20 years ago or the analog-era communications hurdles
we had to overcome.
Now is the time to break down these walls of exclusion of the
Digital Era.
The requirement for the FCC to develop a National Broadband Plan
that I successfully added to the Recovery Act was designed to produce a
roadmap to a broadband future open to all Americans.
The Plan was released in March and contained some sobering data on
barriers to broadband adoption among Americans with disabilities. For
example, The Plan reported that:
Some 39 percent of all non-broadband adopters have a
disability, much higher than the 24 percent of overall survey
respondents who have a disability.
Impediments that people with disabilities face include:
Devices that often are not designed to be accessible
for people with disabilities.
Assistive technologies that are expensive (Braille
displays, for example, can cost between $3,500 and
$15,000).
Services, including emergency services, that are not
accessible.
Web pages and new media applications that cannot be
accessed by a person using a screen reader.
And Internet-based video programming does not have
captions or video descriptions offering an account of what
is on the screen. This is important given the rapid rise of
online video options such as Hulu.
Historically, it has taken years--even decades--for Americans with
disabilities to have anything close to equal access to communications.
The FCC has reported that it took:
Over 100 years for telephone systems to become accessible
for people with speech and hearing disabilities;
Over 50 years for television to become accessible for deaf
people; and
10 years for people who used hearing aids to be able to use
digital wireless phones.
Americans with disabilities should have access to the
communications technologies of 21st century, and delays are
unacceptable.
The guiding principle of the Twenty-first Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act that I have introduced in the House and the
related legislation we are considering today is to bring existing
Federal laws requiring communications and video programming
accessibility up to date, to fill in any accessibility gaps, and to
ensure the full inclusion of Americans with disabilities in all aspects
of daily living through accessible, affordable and usable communication
and video programming technologies. Since the ADA was signed into law,
we have seen a revolution in the way Americans interact, learn and
conduct business. However, the wizardry of the wires and the
sophistication of software programs do little for those who cannot
affordably access or effectively use them.
The fact is that the new technologies and services are neither
intrinsically good nor bad. They're only good when we animate them with
the human values that reflect the best of what we are as a society. And
as our population ages, there will be more of us who will inevitably
benefit from these features.
Finally, I must note that many of the arguments raised against
elements of our accessibility legislation are eerily similar to
arguments made against hearing aide compatibility and closed captioning
in 1990. In that debate, we were told mandating closed captioning would
add $20 to the cost of a TV. It would crush the industry. It would take
a lifetime and a fortune to caption all the television shows and
movies. It would be overly burdensome. Notwithstanding these
objections, we passed and the president signed into law closed
captioning legislation that I had championed.
Then a funny thing happened--uses emerged for closed captioning
that had not been anticipated--captions now are used in immigrant
households to learn English and watched in sports bars and on
treadmills across our country. Moreover the mandate didn't cost nearly
$20--it cost about $1 per TV set.
Even though technologies may change, the values we seek to instill
in those technologies are immutable--accessibility, affordability,
opportunity.
There is no better way to honor the 20th anniversary of the ADA
than to move this bill forward. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to
partnering with you and Senator Pryor and our colleagues in the House
and Senate in this vitally important effort.
Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Well, thank you, Congressman. Very, very
helpful testimony, and I agree with you. I think we can get it
done this year.
Senator Pryor, do you want to make any statement at this
point before I ask questions?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. I don't, Mr. Chairman, other than I want to
thank Congressman Markey for being here and thank you for your
leadership on this, as well as you, Mr. Chairman. You guys are
the dynamic duo when it comes to this, and we just really
appreciate you. And I have a statement for the record I'll just
introduce. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Without objection, the full statement will
be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Pryor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator from Arkansas
Thank you, Senator Kerry, for holding this important hearing today
on innovation and inclusion in light of the upcoming 20th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The focus of today's hearing is to evaluate whether the current
marketplace and legal framework have ensured that people with hearing
and vision disabilities have equal access to 21st century
communications.
In 1990, Congress passed the ADA, in part, so that individuals who
used wheelchairs could attend schools, pursue jobs, enjoy access to
businesses like banks or restaurants. In 1996, Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act, recognizing that Americans with disabilities
have a right to expect equal access to communications.
However, these laws do not apply to one of our greatest
technological innovations--the Internet. As we all know, the Internet
is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity to learn, interact, and
conduct business.
That is why I, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Conrad, and
Dorgan introduced S. 3304, the Equal Access to 21st Century
Communications Act.
Our goal is to ensure that the wonders of today's (and tomorrow's)
innovations are available to all Americans, regardless of their
geographic location or their personal circumstances.
Expanding access to the Internet has been one of my top priorities
here in the Senate. I've worked to promote rural broadband and connect
new areas to the wonders of the World Wide Web. In the land of
opportunity, we need to be sure that everyone can fully participate and
compete in the 21st century marketplace.
However, I also understand the need to balance reasonable
accommodations with the fast changing world of new media
communications.
I value the input of the technology community. That is why I am
committed to working with all interested parties moving forward on this
legislation. I would particularly like to thank the Coalition of
Organizations for Accessible Technology, the U.S. Telecom Association,
CTIA--the Wireless Association, the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association, the Consumer Electronics Association,
the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Telecommunications
Industry Association for working with me and my staff on these issues.
I thank the witnesses here today for their testimony and having the
opportunity to ask questions.
Senator Kerry. Congressman, I know you've got to get back
over to the House and we really appreciate you coming over
very, very much.
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you. Thanks for your leadership.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Thank you for your great leadership.
Thank you all so much.
Senator Kerry. We have a very distinguished and capable
second panel.
I'd like to ask Sergeant Brian Pearce--he's a retired Iraq
War veteran who suffered traumatic brain injury and lost his
sight in an IED blast--if he would come to the table; Thomas
Wlodkowski, the Accessibility Director at AOL; Bobbie Beth
Scoggins, the President of the National Association of the
Deaf; Russell Harvard, an acclaimed film actor, who performed
in the Oscar-winning film, There Will Be Blood, and the TV
show, CSI: New York; and Walter McCormick, the President and
CEO of the U.S. Telecom Association. If you could all take your
spots there.
I think each of you will have a five-minute time period to
summarize, if you would. Your full statements will be placed in
the record as if read in full. And there'll be a little red
light there that will also be accompanied by a beep sound that
you'll hear that'll give you a sense of when you're at the five
minutes. And we won't cut you off immediately, but try to
adhere to it.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kerry. Yes.
Senator Pryor. As they're getting situated, Marlee Matlin,
a well-known advocate for the deaf community and Oscar-winning
actress, was unable to be here today, but she did send some
testimony and I would ask that it be included in the record.
Senator Kerry. Absolutely.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. We'd be delighted to put that in the record
and we welcome her testimony. I've had a chance to meet her a
few times and she's a wonderful person and great advocate.
[The prepared statement of Marlee Matlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marlee Matlin, Actress,
on Behalf of The National Association of the Deaf
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and members of the Senate
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, my name
is Marlee Matlin. Let me first say I am honored to have the opportunity
to submit this testimony for you today as a spokesperson for accessible
broadband services and Internet media for the National Association of
the Deaf. If I could have delivered this personally, I would have.
Access to advanced communication and video programming--regardless of
their mode or method of distribution, but particularly over the
Internet--is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of millions of
Americans.
Though many of you may know me by the many acting roles I have
played--from ``Children of a Lesser God'' to my various TV appearances
on shows like ``Desperate Housewives,'' ``Law and Order SVU,'' the
``West Wing,'' and most recently as the crazy lady who asked America to
``read my hips'' on ABC's ``Dancing with the Stars,'' I am also a
consumer and member of a very vibrant and rich cultural community. I am
deaf and one of 36 million Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
When I was 7 years old, my mother took me to the International
Center on Deafness and the Arts in suburban Chicago to help unlock my
inner actress. Despite becoming deaf at 18 months old, my parents were
determined to treat me as any child should be treated: with love and
respect. And despite what doctors had predicted for me, in my parents'
minds nothing would ever be denied me. So when it became evident that
their little girl wanted to be an actress (I was born a ham) they took
me to the Center where I found my true love--acting. On the day of my
first visit, I discovered they were putting on a production of the
``Wizard of Oz.'' No sooner had I walked in that I insisted there was
only one role for me: ``I'm Dorothy,'' I declared. That's how much
confidence and freedom my parents encouraged in me. Needless to say, I
got the lead role!
By the time I was 13, I had been acting in plays in sign and song
throughout the Midwest. One day at the Center, I was told that the most
famous person in America--no, not President Carter--but the actor Henry
Winkler, known worldwide as the Fonz on ``Happy Days,'' was paying a
visit. With that Matlin determination and independence in me, I went
right up to him and I said, ``Hi, I'm Marlee and I want to be an actor
just like you in Hollywood.'' With equal determination, cultivated by
Henry's own experience with barriers growing up with dyslexia, Henry
looked me straight in the eye and said in his coolest, most Fonzie-like
voice, ``Marlee, sweetheart, you can be whatever you want to be. Just
follow your heart and your dreams will come true.''
Eight years later, I was standing on a stage in Hollywood accepting
an Academy Award for Best Actress for my very first film. But the
moment that should have been victorious was actually bittersweet. The
morning after I had won the Oscar, a very famous film critic proclaimed
that my victory the night before was the result of a pity vote. And he
went on to say, because I was a deaf person in a deaf role, lent doubts
to whether I was really acting. In other words, I didn't deserve the
Oscar. Never in my life did I feel so limited, so ``handicapped.''
Fortunately, it was Henry Winkler who helped me get back on the
right path encouraging me with the same words he told me when I was
13--no one or nothing should ever stand in the way of my dreams. But
this time he also said I had an Academy Award in my hand to prove it.
Two years later, with that determination to stand equally with my
peers in the entertainment field in my heart, I lobbied and succeeded
in getting the film which inspired me to become an actress, the
``Wizard of Oz,'' closed captioned for the first time. The following
year, in 1990, I took it one step further and I worked with the
National Center for Law and the Deaf to come to Capitol Hill to lobby
on behalf of legislation that required all televisions with screens 13"
or larger to be equipped with closed captioning technology. Like the
critics who doubted my ability as an actor who was deaf, placing me on
a level below my hearing peers, the TV manufacturers and programmers
resisted providing equal access for millions of Americans who were deaf
and hard-of-hearing. But with hard work and determination, we were
successful in getting the caption decoder bill passed. Six years later,
legislation was passed to require broadcast television be fully closed
captioned. For 36 million Americans, who for so long were left out of
the mainstream when it came to broadcast TV, we were finally able to
get the words hearing people all take for granted for our world.
Last year, the ``Wizard of Oz'' celebrated a magnificent
milestone--its 70th anniversary. For the first time in broadcast
history, the film was being streamed live by Netflix to every single
American who had access to a computer--for free. I was eager to share
the film with my children, particularly my five-year-old daughter in
whose eyes I saw the same wonderment and excitement as I had when I was
seven, watching the story of the young girl from Kansas who had dreams
that took her over the rainbow. But when I opened up my laptop and hit
the play button, I was horrified to find that the film I had
successfully lobbied to get closed captioned 20 years ago was being
shown without captions. I was told the technology was ``coming'' and
that I had to be ``patient and wait.''
Well as you've heard from my brief history, I don't take things
lying down and I did some investigating. First, I made noise on Twitter
to the nearly 28,000 followers I had and then I made sure my friends,
like Ashton Kutcher, who has over three million followers on Twitter,
did as well. Eventually I found out that there was actually no problem
in the technology. In fact, the technology exists to stream content
with closed captions. What it came down to was the same issue I
encountered 20 years ago--a lack of understanding and a lack of will
and desire by broadcasters, content providers and equipment
manufacturers to provide full access by passing through closed captions
for programming already captioned.
Today, if I open any computer and go to websites like Hulu, iTunes,
or anyone that broadcasts content that has previously been broadcast on
television with closed captions, I and millions of Americans like me
would find that the captions are most often not there. I couldn't even
watch myself on ``Dancing with the Stars'' being rebroadcast on ABC.com
until very recently! The same would be true for Emmy award winning
shows like ``30 Rock'' and ``Mad Men.'' Even more distressing is not
being able to get captions on emergency and live events that are shown
on TV with captions but streamed on the Internet without captions.
Nowhere was this more glaring than during the unveiling ceremony of the
Helen Keller statue in the Capitol rotunda, which was streamed live on
CNN. For that event, there was not one closed caption to be found. The
fact that it was an event to honor Helen Keller made it all the more
painful for me. Here was a woman who fought for equality and access
nearly 100 years ago and whom I looked up to as a role model, and yet I
was unable to share in the celebration of her life. It was simply
unacceptable.
So what can we do--together--to change this? Just as I did 20 years
ago, I am here again on Capitol Hill, as a spokesperson for accessible
broadband services and Internet media for the National Association of
the Deaf. The ``Equal Access to 21st Century Communications (S. 3304)
will help to ensure that the legislation we won for access to
telecommunications two decades ago is maintained. It is simply a matter
of making sure that access reflects the changing landscape, which today
includes broadband, the Internet, and wireless telephones and devices,
like iPhones, iPads, Blackberries, and other smart phones. This is
imperative because these technologies did not exist back then when we
won our hard earned victory.
In the end, it's not really rocket science. It's simply about
making sure that millions upon millions of Americans who are deaf,
hard-of-hearing, or otherwise differently abled are not shut out
because advanced communications and video programming is not
accessible. As I said earlier, for whatever reason, it seems that all
the hard work that we did 20 years ago has virtually disappeared when
it comes to updating access requirements for new technologies. Imagine
Neal Armstrong watching a re-broadcast 20 years later, in 1989, of his
first steps on the moon, only to find his words which echoed across the
globe, ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,'' were no
longer there--erased, as if he had never been to the moon. That's how
taking closed captions out of broadcast content now being shown on the
Internet feels to millions of people like myself.
I've always maintained that though I may be deaf, silence is the
last thing the world will ever hear from me. I'll be making noise every
day, whether it's on TV, in films or on social media sites like
Twitter.
In the end, I hope you will listen with your hearts. Remember that
the real handicap of deafness does not lie in the ear; it lies in the
mind. Please help us ensure that the minds of those who choose not to
provide closed captions do not handicap us. Please help us ensure that
they listen.
Finally, please help us ensure that the hard fought victory we won
so many years ago can move forward into the 21st century.
Thank you so very much for allowing me to present this testimony
and thank you for your time and interest.
Senator Kerry. So if we could start. Sergeant, we'll begin
with you, and we'll work down the table, each of you in
succession, and we look forward to your testimony. Thanks so
much for being here with us today, Sergeant.
STATEMENT OF SSG BRIAN K. PEARCE
(RETIRED COMBAT-WOUNDED VETERAN)
Sergeant Pearce. Chairman Kerry and Senator Pryor, Ranking
Member Ensign and other members of the Senate Committee, I
thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today
regarding my military service and my war injury in Iraq and
adjustment to blindness and hearing loss and my traumatic brain
injury, TBI, along with my concerns, along with other disabled
Americans, over access to new communications and technology
devices.
Written full testimony has more details on my military
service that occurred to me by an IED blast and my long
recovery, but, briefly, I am a 16-year Army veteran, who
entered service in 1992.
In 2005, I was stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, with
the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team. When we deployed into
Iraq from August 2005 until August 2006, my unit first went to
Mosul, Iraq. When we were extended, we went to the Sunni
Triangle.
On October 20, 2006, I was hit by an IED and I suffered a
severe penetrating head injury, and that caused my blindness,
and it also caused partial hearing loss. And that's where I'll
stop as far as my military history goes. You have my full
testimony and I'll let you read that at your convenience, in
the interest of time.
But, today, I'm here to talk to you and tell you that at
home in Richmond, I've found the evolving world on new
technology devices to be frustrating and sometimes difficult to
use. Something as easy as trying to use cable television and
find channels and make programming decisions is a huge
challenge without having audio feedback.
One big fear when I'm home alone with my children, when I
hear the emergency tones go off, whenever we have tornado
warnings or storm warnings, whenever they show the tiny maps,
whenever they have the storm warnings, it's really hard for me
to see those tiny maps, and whenever they do the scrolling
across for the storm warnings, those are really hard to see.
And I've written some letters and those have yet to be
addressed. But that's one of the things that I hope we can
address here today.
The other thing is cell phones. Cell phone and
communication carriers seem to be at odds with creating
barriers for combined services for the blind and deaf need.
While there are probably 200 different phones on the market,
finding one that is not hugely expensive and offers easy keypad
functions and programs, that is a forever constant search.
If someone is blind and buys a phone and the service
contract but then has problems with its utilization, it is next
to impossible and expensive to get a replacement, let alone to
change a service contract without being caught in a web of
penalties.
Video descriptions are nearly impossible. Video
descriptions, accessible interfaces and devices, emergency
audio information and needs to use program wireless devices and
Internet access information, to the average American today may
not seem that important. For those with sensory loss, these
problems add to frustrations of daily living, from trying to
complete an education or enter the workforce.
I have to wonder today if one of the factors contributing
to unemployment problems for disabled is also some of the
technology communications challenges along with other things.
Today, I want to thank Congressman Markey for his
introduction of H.R. 3101, and especially Senator Pryor and
Chairman Kerry for holding this hearing and for the
introduction of Senate Bill 3304.
Technology must incorporate adaptive changes for the
disabled, and federal agencies need to develop the new
regulations or policies to guide the industry along towards
these changes.
I am today a proud veteran who served his country and would
like to ensure that everyone has a chance to equally be as
independent as possible. I do not pretend to be an expert on
technology or the laws, just someone who wants to be able to do
the things that any family would.
Thank you again and I will answer any of your questions
now.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Pearce follows:]
Prepared Statement of SSG Brian K. Pearce (Retired Combat-Wounded
Veteran) and Angela M. Pearce of Mechanicsville, Virginia
Chairman Senator Kerry, members of the Senate Subcommittee on
Commerce for Communications and Technology, thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today regarding our experiences following
my injuries in Iraq and my own experiences with adjusting to blindness
and trying to use technology today.
Military History
I joined the U.S. Army in June 1992 and served until March of 2000,
joining the WVARNG. After a 3 year service break I returned to Active
Duty in January of 2004. My new duty station was the 172nd Stryker
Brigade Combat Team out of Ft. Wainwright, Alaska. There I was assigned
to 4-11th FA as the Brigades Survey/Targeting Acquisition Chief. After
an intense training period, we deployed in July of 2005. My SBCT spent
August 2005 through August 2006, the first year of our deployment,
operating in the Mosul area. As the Brigade prepared to re-deploy home
to Ft. Wainwright in July, we were extended for 120 days and assigned
to area of responsibility in the Sunni Triangle.
Injury Iraq
On October 20, 2006, I was severely injured by an IED blast that
caused shrapnel to penetrate the right occipital lobe of the skull.
Once the blast zone had been secured I was air evacuated to the field
hospital in Ballad, Iraq. There, I underwent an emergency craniotomy of
the right occipital and posterior fossa with duraplasty retaining
foreign body, and a ventriculostomy. This blast, in turn, caused me to
suffer from a sever TBI and cortical blindness. Later, we learned it
was the cause for more complex visual impairments, PTSD, hearing loss,
pulmonary embolism, seizure and REM sleep disorders.
During this time my wife was contacted in Alaska and was told that
I had been involved in an IED blast and was in stable condition
complaining only of neck injury. Roughly 3 hours later she was
contacted by my commander who was with me in Iraq. He then told her
that I had come through the brain surgery fine and was listed as very
critical and once they could get me stable enough I would be air-lifted
to Landstuhl, Germany. Once she was able to talk to my doctor at Ballad
one of the first questions she asked him about was vision loss. My wife
was told then my diagnosis was cordial blindness and a very severe TBI.
Some time on the 21 October, I was air-evacuated to Landstuhl, Germany.
There I underwent a re-exploration surgery before being transported on
to the U.S. mainland then on 24 October I was admitted to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. Late on the evening of 25 October I was transferred to
WRAMC's ICU. There I remained in a coma-like state for 47 days.
Rehabilitation from Traumatic Brain Injury
I was then sent to Poly Trauma VA Center in Richmond, VA, for
rehabilitation for over a year. In January of 2007, I was discharged
from inpatient care at Richmond where I had spent approximately one
month. My inpatient care consisted of extensive and long program with
variety of specialists KT, PT, RT, OT, mental health, speech, and
vision sessions. After my discharge I began constant out patient
therapies in February consisting of KT, PT, RT, OT, speech, vision and
mental health.
I went to the VA Blind Center in West Haven, CT, for 8 weeks in
October 2007, and received training for blindness with the VA providing
me with adaptive technology computer devices and training. The VA
Eastern Blind Rehabilitative Center was excellent helping me go through
extensive and thorough training in living skills, manual skills,
orientation and mobility training, and computer training. I spent
approximately 8 weeks going through extensive care and therapy to help
me cope with everyday living with visual impairments and my TBI
complications. I also found out how complex my visual impairments are
and how to deal with them. What is difficult for most people to include
my general doctors, and other providers is they don't understand the
fact that my vision damage actually has nothing to do with my eyes
themselves but stems from the damage to visual pathways impacting the
parts of the brain that process my vision. My eyes are actually very
healthy and were not directly damaged from the blast and it is my brain
that will not allow my eyes to function appropriately. I have been left
with no peripheral vision and about 8 degrees central core vision. The
VA Blind Center was great help for me and my wife in the training they
provided.
Technology and Communications Today for Disabled
But today I come before the Senate Committee because over the past
2 years it has become clear that there are big problems for disabled
who suffer from blindness, deafness, or other problems in accessing the
world in which we all live and work in now. Communication technology is
advancing at rapid pace for all aspects of daily living, but those
technologies are generally frustrating for many of us trying to use
them.
While I was not a telecommunications technology expert before my
injury, the frustrating thing about recovery has been the things
everyone else takes for granted or depend upon for every day use are
giant challenge to use for the sensory disabled. I would quote what the
National Council on Disability (NCD) Chairman in early 2009 wrote as
further evidence that should help explain the problems before us today.
21st Century Access to Technology Issues
``The claim by some today has been made in recent times that
emerging technology has made access to employment and independent
living for the disabled easier than ever before.'' According to NCD
Chairperson John R. Vaughn, ``The United States already has in place a
string of Federal laws and regulations designed to guarantee various
levels of access to telecommunications products and services.'' He
states further ``That such service nevertheless leaves gaps in coverage
and are rapidly becoming outdated as the analog technologies upon which
they were premised are being substituted with technologies that are
digitally and Internet-based.'' As Congress, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and other Federal or state agencies take on the
daunting task of defining regulatory measures that will govern the
deployment of these next generation communication technologies. Further
he states ``The problems include inaccessible user interfaces on
consumer equipment, lack of interoperable and reliable text
transmissions, and obstacles to video and web programming all threaten
the ability of individuals with functional limitations to gain equal
access to these products and services. We stress that new
communications technology that some take for granted as improving our
lives can add more frustration and new barriers for those with sensory
disability impairments.''
Since my injury, using the television in my home has become an
adventure at times. None of the on-screen menus are accessible to
people like me, who are blind or visually impaired. I can't access the
electronic program guide in order to see what shows are currently on or
will be shown later in the evening. I am paying for this service and
want to have access to it.
Likewise and a big fear for the blind is I have to rely on my wife
to tell me what the emergency crawls are saying when it flashes on TV
screen. This is a very basic but vitally important information service
that I should also have access to through a text to speech platform
because in natural disasters a blind person at home may have no other
warning system to avoid danger from storm or hurricane.
Finally, the most difficult challenge that I have faced with
technology has been identifying a cell phone that is accessible. I
haven't been able to find a phone that suits my needs and is
accessible. Not every person who is blind or visually impaired needs or
wants to own a PDA. Blind Americans, like me, want to have options as
consumers so that we can identify the most appropriate phone for our
needs. Having accessible PDA's is important but also ensuring full
accessibility to a wide spectrum of different phones is also vital.
I want to sincerely thank both Representative Ed Markey (D-MA-7)
who introduced H.R. 3101 and especially today Senator Pryor and Senator
Kerry today for trying to help individuals with sensory disabilities
deal with the problems of access to new technology with the hearing
today on Senate bill S. 3304. Technology must be accessible for those
who are disabled and Federal agencies must be able to develop policy or
regulations to ensure that these changes are included in new technology
development before we are left even further behind.
I sincerely appreciate the chance to testify before your committee
today and hope that I have helped put this into the perspective of just
one blinded veteran and like thousands of other Americans with sensory
impairments who want to be as fully independent as possible and I will
take any questions you might have now.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, sergeant. Thank you for
your service and thank you for your statement today, which is
very important and very helpful. We'll come back to you
afterwards.
Mr. Wlodkowski.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS WLODKOWSKI,
DIRECTOR OF ACCESSIBILITY, AOL INC.
Mr. Wlodkowski. Senator Kerry, Senator Pryor, Ranking
Member Ensign and members of the Committee, thank you so much
for taking the time to focus on this important topic of
innovation and inclusion.
My name is Tom Wlodkowski, and I am the Director of
Accessibility at AOL.
AOL is a leading global web-services company with an
extensive suite of brands and a substantial worldwide audience.
Our business spans online content, products and services
targeted to consumers, content publishers and advertisers.
Today, I will share some observations on the state of
accessible technology, including the progress being made
through collaboration between industry, government and
consumers with disabilities. I will offer some thoughts on the
importance of interoperability between information technology
and assistance technology and how that can help us get products
to market quickly.
And, finally, I'll have some thoughts on how I believe
government can help immediately to encourage innovation and
drive down costs, which we all understand cost of assistive
technology today is prohibitive, in many cases.
I approach today's topic from a fairly unique perspective,
or at least I like to think I do. As a blind citizen and avid
user of information technology and assistive technology, I
fully appreciate the impact that accessible, mainstream
technology has on the lives of people with disabilities. I
benefit from it every day.
I also experience the frustration that was mentioned
earlier when I try to use the Internet and technology that is
not accessible.
On the other hand, in my role at AOL, I experience the
challenges facing industry to produce accessible products, and
I understand the importance of flexibility to deliver an
inclusive user experience. If we don't take anything else away
from my testimony, I think the biggest piece would be ensuring
flexibility in how accessibility is delivered I believe is a
critical factor. There's a delicate balance between developing
accessible products and bringing products to market quickly.
And, finally, my perspective is also shaped from being in
the WGBH Media Access Group up in Boston where I managed
federal grants, largely from the U.S. Department of Education
and National Science Foundation, to research solutions to
advance accessibility of digital media technologies.
I'd like to begin by speaking about the industry progress.
Putting accessible technology into the hands of consumers
requires navigation of a complex technical ecosystem with many
interdependencies.
For example, in order for AOL to produce a web page and
make it accessible to someone who's blind, we rely on several
layers of technology to work.
First, the user's screen reader, regardless of whether it's
built into a device or installed third-party software on a
desktop computer, has to interoperate with a commonly-used web
browser like Internet Explorer or Safari, and these
technologies communicate back and forth, the screen reader and
the web browser, through accessibility frameworks in the
operating system.
So to ensure greater interoperability, we formed the
Accessibility Interoperability Alliance, which is a coalition
of industry, information technology, and assistive technology,
working together to ensure those frameworks are in place and
continue to develop.
Another example of collaboration through industry is
ongoing work in the Society of Motion Picture and Television
Engineers, SMPTE, to develop an industry standard to enable
captioned video distributed over broadband Internet networks.
Now, this work came out of a voluntary effort where AOL,
Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft came together to fund the Internet
Caption Forum. And once we realized we needed a broader group
of stakeholders, we realized that the SMPTE group were content
producers and broadcasters would be available to us was the
best place to take up this work.
Version 1.0 will be available later this year.
Government helps. I encourage the Committee to take a look
at the TEITAC Report--Telecommunications, Electronic and
Information Technology Advisory Committee. That is a group from
the Access Board--industry, international policymakers, state,
local governments, Federal Government--coming together to
figure out how to develop standards for Section 508 and
guidelines associated with the Telecommunications Act.
And, in closing, I believe that the best way we can move
forward here is to forge stronger partnerships between
corporations, industry, researchers and consumers with
disabilities.
And I thank you for your time, and I look forward to
further questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wlodkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Wlodkowski,
Director of Accessibility, AOL Inc.
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet, thank you for taking the
time to focus on this important topic of innovation and inclusion. My
name is Thomas Wlodkowski, and I am the Director of Accessibility for
AOL Inc. AOL is a leading global Web services company with an extensive
suite of brands and offerings and a substantial worldwide audience.
AOL's business spans online content, products and services that the
company offers to consumers, publishers and advertisers. In addition,
AOL operates one of the largest Internet subscription access services
in the United States. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
this Subcommittee on the importance of innovation and accessible
technologies to people with disabilities.
Today I will share observations on the state of accessible
technology, including the important progress being made through
collaboration between industry, consumers and government. I will also
offer some thoughts on the importance of interoperability between
information technology (``IT'') and assistive technology (``AT''). I
will highlight a critical barrier to access, specifically, the cost of
assistive technology today. Finally, I will point out areas where I
believe government can have an immediate impact, such as heightening
awareness of solutions that exist today, preserving consumer choice and
encouraging innovation.
I approach today's subject matter from a unique perspective. As a
blind citizen and avid user of both information technology and
assistive technology, I fully appreciate the positive impact accessible
mainstream technology has on the lives of people with disabilities. As
an avid user of the Internet using mobile devices and desktop computers
running a variety of software, I have experienced the frustration when
these technologies are not accessible. In my role at AOL, I experience
the challenges facing industry to produce accessible products and
understand the importance of flexibility in enabling technology
companies to deliver an inclusive user experience. I am well-versed in
the delicate balance between developing accessible technologies and
bringing products to market quickly. Last, my perspective is also
shaped by my experience prior to joining AOL in 2002 when I was
employed by the WGBH Media Access Group and I managed Federal grant
projects to advance accessibility of digital media technologies. So,
when tackling the important issue of innovation and inclusion through
accessible technologies, I come at it from all angles.
Industry Progress
I would like to speak first about the progress industry has made in
the area of accessible technology. On July 26 of this year, America
will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. While significant progress has been made in terms of providing
access to employment, transportation, parks and public buildings, I
think we can all agree there is still more work to do. The same holds
true in the technology arena. When I joined AOL, very few technology
companies had personnel dedicated to disability access and the practice
of web accessibility was fairly young. Today, most major Internet
companies employ people who focus on accessibility and design
techniques for building accessible products continue to evolve. This
increased focus is evident in the list of companies--representing a
cross-section of the information and communications technology
(``ICT'') industry--that attended the California State University
(``CSUN'') International Technology and Persons with Disabilities
conference in March of this year. For reference, CSUN is to the
disability community what the annual Consumer Electronics show is to
the mass market. AOL, Adobe, Apple, AT&T, Google, IBM, Microsoft,
Research in Motion and Verizon, all participated alongside assistive
technology vendors and accessibility researchers and demonstrated new
and innovative technologies.
Putting a broad array of accessible products and services into the
hands of consumers with disabilities requires navigation of a complex
technical ecosystem. There are many interdependencies. For example, for
AOL to deliver an accessible web page to a blind consumer, we have to
rely on several layers of technology. First, the user's screen reader
technology, regardless of whether it is built into a device or is
administered through software provided by a third party, must
interoperate with a web browser such as Firefox, Internet Explorer,
Opera or Safari. The web browser and the screen reader must be able to
pass information back and forth. This information transfer is most
effectively achieved by leveraging an accessibility framework supported
by the operating system on which the web browser and screen reader
software run. Second, AOL needs to add specific tags into our web
content that the web browser and screen reader can utilize to enable
efficient interaction by the blind consumer. Similar scenarios can be
found across all segments of the ICT industry.
To improve interoperability models, information technology
companies and assistive technology manufacturers have formed an
industry-funded, voluntary collaborative effort to address this
important goal. The Accessibility Interoperability Alliance (``AIA'')
is a coalition of IT and AT companies working to enable developers to
more easily create accessible software, hardware, and web products. At
the same time, a working group of the International Organization of
Standards, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC35/WG6, is seeking to promote broader
awareness of open accessibility application programming interfaces
(``APIs'') provided by computer operating systems that allow AT vendors
to build hardware and software products that interoperate with
mainstream products. Improving interoperability, making it easier to
create accessible products and promoting use of APIs should bring down
the cost of accessible and assistive technologies and provide faster
access to mainstream technology products for people with disabilities.
Often, to address longstanding accessibility shortcomings, key
stakeholders will gather to form a standards organization. A good
example of this collaboration is ongoing work by the Society of Motion
Picture and Television Engineers (``SMPTE'') to develop an industry
standard for captioning video content distributed over broadband
Internet networks. Version 1 of this standard is expected to be
released later this year. In this case, a broad group of private sector
stakeholders including content providers, broadcasters, caption and
subtitling solution providers, professional equipment manufacturers and
consumer electronics manufacturers have come together to define the
best way forward. This SMPTE activity is a direct result of AOL,
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! voluntarily joining together with the WGBH
Media Access Group to form the Internet Caption Forum (ICF) in 2007.
Once it became clear that a broader group of stakeholders was required
to achieve meaningful progress, the work of the ICF was picked up by
SMPTE.
Government often helps facilitate the dialogue between the IT
industry, academics, consumers, the assistive technology industry and
international stakeholders. Illustrative of this is the U.S. Access
Board's activity with regard to developing technical standards for
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Telecommunications,
Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (``TEITAC'')
brought together representatives from industry, Federal and state
governments, the disability community and international policymakers to
provide recommendations to the Access Board for updating the Section
508 standards, which were developed as a result of 1998 amendments to
the Rehabilitation Act, and the guidelines associated with Section 255
of the Telecommunications Act. AOL was a member of TEITAC. While not
directly affected by Section 508, AOL and other consumer-facing
technology companies directly benefit from its outcome. The resulting
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making, released by the Access Board
in March, covers topics included in legislation introduced by this
subcommittee, such as real-time text, video closed captions and
interoperability. I encourage this Subcommittee to review the findings
of the TEITAC report and the eleven minority reports that were
submitted in April 2008, and to consult with the Access Board as their
rule-making process progresses to avoid potential conflicts. By
leveraging the competitive market place and, where necessary,
establishing clear goals and guidelines without favoring one technology
over another, government can help drive the creativity and innovation
of the technology industry to provide the best and most accessible
technology products that meet consumer needs.
Innovation through Collaboration
Innovation, both by assistive technology vendors and developers of
mainstream information and communications technology, is critical for
disability access. It is important to note that mainstream products
that offer built-in accessibility often adopt techniques originally
developed by assistive technology vendors to differentiate their
offerings from similar products. For example, when I interact with a
web page on my mobile device that has a built-in screen reader, I can
limit my view of a web page to a list of available links, form controls
requiring input and to other page elements. Without these navigation
techniques, reading a web page would be extremely slow because screen
readers read left to right, top to bottom. In order to provide
consumers a high degree of choice in selecting the options that meet
their unique needs, products and services need to be offered in a
manner that is technologically compatible with the greatest number of
devices and applications, not restricted based on one set of standards.
Restrictive standards could result in increased costs, driving up
consumer prices, which could in turn limit the number of people who
actually benefit from the ``innovation.'' Thus, innovation is most
likely to flourish where companies are able to approach the issue with
great flexibility and are incentivized to do so, which in turn is
likely to yield optimal choices for everyone.
By collaborating with industry and disability groups, AOL has been
able to deliver leading-edge features, innovative solutions and best
practices, which bring the power of the Internet to many. For instance,
AOL worked in tandem with Freedom Scientific, developer of the JAWS
screen reader and a vendor that employs people with disabilities for
support with product testing to ensure compatibility of the AOL Instant
Messenger service (``AIM'') with the JAWS screen reader software. As a
result, many people who are blind enjoy easy access to chat with their
friends on AIM and other interoperable services. Relay service
providers leverage the popularity of AIM in the deaf community and its
wide availability on mobile devices, the web and on desktop computers
to enable consumers to place and receive text and video relay calls.
AOL also offers a fully-accessible web mail and calendar user interface
that was lauded by the National Federation of the Blind and other
leading disability organizations. This interface mirrors keyboard
shortcuts used in popular desktop e-mail applications.
Awareness
I would now like to shift gears and talk about an issue that is as
important as building accessible technology--consumer awareness. In its
National Broadband Plan (``NBP''), the Federal Communications
Commission (``FCC'') recognized that one problem that consumers with
disabilities face is that they are unable to find accessible
communications technologies and assistive technologies, even when those
technologies are available. In addition, the FCC found that consumers
often do not have the training and support they need to use these
products. The Commission recently announced that in July, it will
launch a clearinghouse--an online space where consumers can find links
to accessible products and product information provided by companies
and vendors themselves. I agree with the Commission that lack of
awareness of what exists today is one of the key issues to be solved.
In addition to the online clearinghouse, I encourage consideration of
other disability access components included in the plan. For example,
leveraging the Universal Service Fund (``USF'') to subsidize the cost
of assistive technology is a proposal that I believe warrants serious
consideration.
Government Funded Activities
In closing, I want to briefly discuss an area where government
involvement could help drive technology access forward. Stronger
partnerships between accessibility researchers and the ICT industry are
necessary in order to speed the transfer of technology from the
research lab to the marketplace. I would like to encourage this
Subcommittee to examine the feasibility of implementing a grant model
similar to the European Commission's ``FP7'' program. AOL is currently
a corporate participant in the ``Open Accessibility Everywhere:
Groundwork, Infrastructure and Standards'' project (commonly referred
to as ``AEGIS''), which is funded under the ``FP7'' program. This
project is a matching grant program, which brings together industry,
research institutions and the disability community to prioritize,
develop and test a range of open accessibility solutions. AOL's role in
AEGIS is to integrate an accessibility framework into jQuery, an open
source toolkit used by AOL and developers around the world to build
dynamic web applications. When complete, accessible jQuery components
will be available to the developer community at large.
Conclusion
Collaboration, awareness and flexibility drive innovation in a way
that will benefit consumers and allow industry to continue to offer new
and exciting solutions. Collaborative efforts allow businesses to work
directly with assistive technology vendors to include accessibility
solutions at the ground floor, as the products are developed. Awareness
is vital if these new technologies are to be adopted by the communities
that need them most. And flexibility is imperative if industry is to
develop solutions that actually meet consumers' needs.
As the Director of Accessibility for AOL, I look forward to
continuing efforts to bring accessible products to market for people
with disabilities. As a member of industry, I look forward to
continuing the rich set of dialogues, participating in advisory
committees, and working to solve some of the problems that will make
technology more available and affordable for people with disabilities.
And as a consumer, I look forward to using those technologies in my
daily life.
Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to provide
testimony on this important issue.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Mr. Wlodkowski.
Ms. Scoggins. Scoggins or Scoggins?
Ms. Scoggins [through interpreter]. Scoggins.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BOBBIE BETH SCOGGINS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF AND THE COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR
ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Scoggins. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Ensign and members of the Senate Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet.
My name is Bobbie Beth Scoggins. I didn't know how to
pronounce that myself, but my parents did teach me to say
Scoggins on that.
I am currently the President of the National Association of
the Deaf, which co-founded the Coalition of Organizations for
Accessible Technology, along with Communication Service for the
Deaf, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the
American Council of the Blind and the American Foundation for
the Blind.
I am honored to be here today to talk about the innovation
and inclusion 20 years after the Americans with Disabilities
Act became law.
The passage of the ADA has helped us move forward toward a
more level playing field, especially by making communication
accessible. Communication access enables the right to
education, employment and to participate in the fullness of
American civic life. Today, more than ever before,
communication with everyone is the cornerstone of a wide open
world.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress took major steps to
improve telecommunication access for people with disabilities,
requiring relay services, hearing-aid compatibility, closed
captioning and access to telecommunication services and
equipment.
All of this has opened up opportunities for deaf and hard-
of-hearing people to become lawyers, doctors, performing
artists--such as my colleague, Russell, here--and so much more.
But many newer innovations, especially technologies that use
the Internet, are not covered by existing federal accessibility
laws.
Technology companies design their products and services for
certain markets, often young people who are willing and able to
try new things, but these products and services are often not
accessible.
That is why I'm here today to ask you to make the ``Equal
Access to 21st Century Communications Act,'' S. 3304, the
strongest possible legislation that will ensure that Americans
with disabilities have access to the Internet and digital
communication tools that are needed to enable them to maintain
and increase their independence and productivity.
When you tell all companies to make advanced communication
services and equipment accessible, all companies will be
affected equally. More importantly, building accessibility into
new products and services is more cost efficient and effective
than retrofitting.
These are the principles of universal design contained in
Section 255 of the Communications Act, and they are the
principles that should be followed when this new bill is
enacted.
We are particularly pleased that S. 3304 includes
provisions that require caption decoder circuitry or display
capability in all video programming devices, extends closed
captioning obligations to video programming distributed over
the Internet, and requires easy access to closed captions via
remote control and on-screen menus.
S. 3304 will also require easy access to television
controls and on-screen menus by people who are blind, restore
video description rules and require access to televised
emergency programming for people who are blind or have low
vision.
We are committed to continuing to work with you and others
to ensure that S. 3304 achieves the greatest possible increase
in communications access. For example, we advocate for defining
covered advanced communications the same as H.R. 3101, to
ensure that people who are blind have equal access to SMS text
messaging, electronic mail and instant messaging and adoption
of the undue-burden compliance standard for prospective
obligations.
This is vital for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community
and for our friends in the blindness and visual-impairment
community to ensure true equal access.
I want to highlight a few other provisions in S. 3304. When
I was growing up, I communicated with friends and relatives
using TTYs. The TTYs use very old technology that is slow,
outdated and doesn't work well over the Internet. Although we
now have text messaging and instant messaging, these systems
send texts in bursts of phrases or lines. They do not transmit
letters as they are typed.
This bill will establish a uniform and reliable real-time
text standard to make sure that deaf and hard-of-hearing people
can continue communicating in real-time over the Internet,
which is especially important in emergency situations.
In addition, many deaf and hard-of-hearing people regularly
communicate using Internet forms of relay services. These relay
services provide far more effective ways to communicate, but
many cannot afford broadband services. This bill would allow
income-qualified people with disabilities to use their Lifeline
or Link-Up subsidies for broadband services.
The bill also authorizes $10 million annually from the
Universal Service Fund for specialized telecommunications
devices needed by people who are both deaf and blind. The
equipment they need, which often provides communication in
Braille, costs thousands of dollars per unit. Though the bill
asks for only a small amount of money, it will make a huge
difference in the lives of these individuals.
S. 3304 will also require the creation of a clearinghouse
of information on accessible telephone-like products and
services used for communication over the Internet. This
clearinghouse, along with greater outreach and education by the
FCC, will help educate consumers about products and services
they can use.
The bill will also ensure greater access by hearing-aid
users, relay users and others, provisions that are described in
more detail in my written testimony.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I hope this
has given you more insight into why this bill is important for
people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing, including the rapidly-
growing aging population. We must ensure access to
communication, the gateway to the world.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scoggins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bobbie Beth Scoggins, on Behalf of the National
Association of the Deaf and the Coalition of Organizations for
Accessible Technology
Good afternoon, Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and members
of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the
Internet. My name is Bobbie Beth Scoggins and I am honored to have this
opportunity to speak to you about innovation and inclusion 20 years
after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law and the
importance of ensuring communications access to the millions of
Americans who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, late-deafened, deaf-blind,
blind, or who have low vision.
I am the President of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD).
The NAD was established in 1880 by deaf leaders who believed in the
right of the American deaf community to use sign language, to
congregate on issues important to them, and to have its interests
represented at the national level. These beliefs remain true to this
day, with American Sign Language (ASL) as a core value. As a nonprofit
national federation of affiliated organizations and individual members,
the mission of the NAD is to preserve, protect, and promote the civil,
human and linguistic rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in
the United States of America.
I am privileged to present this testimony on behalf of the
Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT), which the
NAD co-founded in 2007. COAT is a coalition of over 300 national,
state, and community-based organizations dedicated to making sure that
as our Nation migrates from legacy telecommunications to more versatile
and innovative digital communication technologies, people with
disabilities will not be left behind.\1\ This coalition's rapid growth
and attraction to organizations across the Nation demonstrates the
urgency of the issues being discussed at this hearing. COAT works on
behalf of over 36 million individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing,
more than 25 million individuals who are blind or who have vision loss,
over 70,000 persons who are both deaf and blind, and millions of
individuals with other disabilities who need accessible communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information about COAT and a list of COAT affiliates is
available at http://www.coataccess.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the advent of 20th anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), it is amazing to have witnessed and
participated in the changes in accessibility for people with
disabilities, and for us, individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
The passage of ADA has helped us move toward a more even playing field.
For people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing, communication access
enables the right to education, employment, and to participate in
fullness of American civic life and society. All of this is possible as
a result of advancements in technology and the implementation of
provisions of the ADA. Today, more than ever before, communication with
everyone is the cornerstone of a wide open world!
The last two decades have revealed the initiation of many changes,
including the passage of the ADA, designed to improve the quality of
life for individuals who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. The passage of
the ADA has created a series of new moral and legal laws with
ramifications for people with disabilities in economic, social,
attitudinal, and cultural aspects.
So what does this mean for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals?
Technological advancements, first through text-based communications and
relay services, then evolving into video-based and captioned relay
services and equipment have enabled greater independence and greater
freedom than we have ever known. Wireless pagers, e-mail, and text
messaging have also enabled us to be more independent and self-reliant.
It was amazing to see how everyone has jumped on the bandwagon, trying
to keep up as technology changed from the TTY, to text pagers, to
iPhones, and to ever-changing products and services. It has become
clear to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers that advancements in
technology and quality of services are bringing us closer to
functionally equivalent communications.
All of this has opened up so many doors and opportunities for deaf
and hard-of-hearing people, moving into areas where they have never
gone before, becoming lawyers, doctors, university professors,
performing artists, and so much more. The sky is the limit with the ADA
as the backbone to protect and promote our civil rights.
Introduction and Background
During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress took major steps to improve
telecommunications access for people with disabilities. In fact, as you
know, this Subcommittee was responsible for helping to pass several
pieces of legislation requiring relay services, hearing aid
compatibility, closed captioning, and access to telecommunications
services and equipment.
Nowadays, new communications technologies are changing even more
the way our society stays in touch and does business. Now there are all
kinds of new opportunities to communicate with anyone, anywhere, at any
time, from any place.
But many newer innovations, especially technologies that use the
Internet, are no longer covered by the Federal accessibility laws that
now exist. What this means is that millions of Americans who, like me,
cannot hear, may not be able to use these new technologies. That is why
I am here today: to ask you to make the Equal Access to 21st Century
Act (S. 3304) the strongest possible legislation that will ensure that
I and other Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have access to
the Internet and digital communications tools that are needed to enable
them to maintain and increase their independence, productivity, and
privacy.
We all know that technology companies design their products and
services for certain markets--most of the time, these are American
markets that are youthful and able-bodied--they have more money, and
they are willing and able to try out new, fancy devices. But often
these products or services are not built for people who have some
difficulty hearing, seeing or speaking. Why don't companies include
access when they develop services and products for the general public?
I believe there are several reasons. Some companies are simply unaware
of the needs of people with disabilities. Other companies don't want to
use their resources to create accessible products if their competitors
aren't doing the same thing. I understand that it is hard for people
with disabilities to create enough market pressure to influence
companies to design accessible products--especially when companies
believe their money is better spent on trendy electronic features that
appeal to a wider public.
This is why we have come to you. If you direct all companies to
make new Internet-based and digital innovations used for communication
accessible, all companies will be affected equally and no one company
will have an advantage over another. Even more importantly, if
companies ensure that accessibility features are built into Internet
services and products now, while they are still being developed, the
costs of including these features will be a small fraction of the
overall costs of producing these products. But if these companies wait
until later, after their products are already on the market,
retrofitting will cost a lot more and the resulting access is not
likely to be as effective. These are the principles of universal design
contained in Section 255 of the 1996 amendments to the Communications
Act, and they are the principles that should be followed when this new
bill is enacted.
People with disabilities do not want to be relegated to obsolete
technologies, or have to buy ``specialized'' equipment that is often
hard to find and more expensive. They want an equal opportunity to
benefit from the full range of mainstream Internet products that they
see being used by their friends, relatives and colleagues. The ``Equal
Access to 21st Century Communications Act'' (S. 3304) will help to
accomplish these goals. Not only will it direct accessibility solutions
for Internet-enabled and digital communication-based technologies, it
will also require the creation of a clearinghouse of information on
accessible telephone-like products and services used for communication
over the Internet. This clearinghouse, along with greater outreach and
education by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will help
educate consumers about accessibility solutions and how to find
products and services that they can use.
We are particularly pleased that S. 3304 includes provisions that
require caption decoder circuitry or display capability in all video
programming devices; extends closed captioning obligations to video
programming distributed over the Internet; and requires easy access to
closed captions via remote control and on-screen menus. S. 3304 will
also require easy access to television controls and on-screen menus by
people who are blind; restore video description rules; and require
access to televised emergency programming for people who are blind or
have low vision.
We are committed to continuing to work with you and others to
ensure that S. 3304 achieves the greatest possible increase in
communications access. We advocate for defining covered advanced
communications to include non-interconnected as well as interconnected
VoIP, video conferencing, and electronic messaging (to ensure access to
SMS text messaging, electronic mail, and instant messaging); adoption
of the well-established and appropriate undue burden compliance
standard for prospective obligations; extending relay service
obligations to non-interconnected VoIP providers; and timely action by
the delegated authority. Addressing these concerns would benefit the
deaf and hard-of-hearing community and our friends in the blindness and
visual impairment community for whom these provisions are so vital to
ensure truly equal access.
Real-Time Text in an Internet-Based World
One of the most important things that S. 3304 does is that it
guarantees deaf and hard-of-hearing people who rely on text (rather
than voice) the ability to continue having conversations in real-time,
as communications move to digital and Internet-based technologies. When
I was growing up, I communicated with friends and relatives using TTYs.
But TTYs use very old technology (``Baudot''). These devices are also
very slow (transmitting a maximum of 60 words per minute), work only in
one direction at a time (you have to wait until one party finishes
typing before you can respond), and generally are not reliable over
Internet networks. Their many drawbacks have caused me and many other
deaf people to turn to text messaging and instant messaging as our
principal means of text communication. But the problem is that these
newer methods do not transmit letters as they are typed (as TTYs did).
Instead, with these data-based devices, individuals type and then send
text in bursts of phrases, lines, or sentence-by-sentence, rather than
sending each character as it is typed.
For millions of people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing,
particularly people who do not communicate in American Sign Language,
communicating by text is functionally equivalent to communicating by
voice. Just like there are times when hearing people need to have a
conversation in real-time (as compared to sending text messages on cell
phones or instant messages over a computer), there are times that
people who cannot hear need to have their message received as it is
being sent. For example, in emergencies it is very important to be able
to convey and receive every piece of information as quickly as possible
and at the exact time that it is happening.\2\ S. 3304 will ensure that
there is a uniform and reliable real-time text standard so that people
who are deaf, hard-of-hearing or who have a speech disability can
communicate in a manner that is more functionally equivalent to
communication between people who can use their voices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AOL began offering real-time text communication in 2008. Their
press release explained: ``The new real-time IM feature within AIM
enhances instant message conversations by enabling users to see each
letter that a buddy types rather than waiting for a friend to press the
send button to view and read a message. This enables deaf users to
respond and react to words as they are typed just as hearing people
would do as words are spoken in a voice conversation.'' AOL Press
Release, ``AOL Launches Real-Time Instant Messaging Targeted to Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Users'' (January 15, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service
In addition to enjoying text-messaging through hand-held devices, a
great number of deaf people now use Internet-based forms of relay
services, and in particular Internet Protocol text and captioned
telephone services, and video relay services (VRS). The reason is
simple: these forms of relay service offer far more effective ways to
communicate than traditional text-based relay services. Internet-based
text and captioned telephone relay services allow the transmission of
text at much faster speeds than TTYs, and enables conversations to
travel simultaneously in both directions. VRS allows individuals who
use American Sign Language to have conversations that flow more
naturally, quickly, and transparently between the parties, achieving a
telephone experience that more closely parallels the experience of
people without hearing disabilities. Approximately one million deaf
individuals who sign can benefit from VRS as well as from being able to
have direct video conversations with other people who sign. In
addition, millions more people who are hard-of-hearing can benefit from
using Internet-based video connections to see people's faces as they
speak and lip read conversations. Likewise, more than 2.5 million
people whose speech is difficult to understand may benefit from video
communication because their gestures and facial expressions can be seen
by the parties to the call.
Unfortunately, not every person can afford to pay for the high
speed broadband Internet service that is needed to support Internet-
based text, captioned, or video communication. Some of these
individuals meet the income criteria to be eligible for Lifeline/Link-
Up phone service subsidies, but they cannot use these discounts toward
the cost of broadband services. Because the Lifeline and Link-Up
programs are tied to telephone network-based services, these programs
offer no financial assistance for low income individuals with
disabilities who want to replace their TTYs with improved, Internet-
based forms of communication. Under S. 3304, individuals with
disabilities who need the Internet to communicate over distances would
be able to choose whether to use their Lifeline or Link-Up subsidies
for telephone network-based services or high speed broadband services.
A second universal service provision addressed by S. 3304 will
greatly impact people who are both deaf and blind. Although the
universal service provisions enacted by Congress in 1996 were designed
to make sure that everyone in America has access to telephone services,
one group of Americans--deaf-blind Americans--continue to be denied
this promise. Although a few states have programs that distribute
specialized customer premises telephone equipment, the vast majority of
these programs do not provide telecommunications equipment that is
accessible to deaf-blind people. One reason is that typically this
equipment (such as communication devices with refreshable Braille key
pads) costs thousands of dollars per unit. The result is that of all
people with disabilities, deaf-blind individuals are the least able to
access current telecommunications systems.
It is for this reason that we are asking for a very small portion
of the Universal Service Fund (USF)--$10 million annually--to be set
aside each year to fund the distribution of specialized
telecommunications devices needed by approximately 100,000 Americans
who are deaf-blind. The small size of this targeted amount will not be
overly burdensome for the USF, but will make a huge difference in the
lives of people who are deaf-blind, which remains one of the most
underserved populations in telecommunications history. Allocating these
funds will also inform the world that, as the United States moves to
upgrade its telecommunications systems, it is not leaving behind this
previously unserved population of individuals.
Hearing Aid Compatibility and Relay Services
Another important provision in the bill will ensure that millions
of people who use hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other assistive
hearing devices, will be able to use these devices with telephones that
connect via the Internet. Federal law has required wireline, cordless,
and many wireless telephones to be hearing aid compatible since 1988.
However, new smart phones entering the marketplace are not working for
hearing aid users, and their coverage under this law has come under
question. As an aging nation, we simply cannot go forward without
ensuring that these Internet-enabled phones are also hearing aid
compatible.
Also important is a provision in S. 3304 to allow users of one type
of relay service, such as VRS, to call a user of another form of relay
service, for example, a text relay service. The FCC has been
interpreting the Communications Act to mean that relay services can
only be used to provide telephone services between a person with a
hearing or speech disability and a person without a disability. The
result has been that people with speech and hearing disabilities who
use different technologies, equipment, and relay services have not been
able to call each other. This surely could not have been Congress's
intent back in 1990 when it directed the creation of a nationwide
system of telecommunications relay services to integrate people with
hearing and speech disabilities into the public telecommunications
network!
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We call upon Congress to
ensure that people with disabilities--including the rapidly growing
population of senior citizens who experience reduced hearing with
increasing frequency and our veterans returning with hearing loss--are
not left behind as communication technologies move to the Internet and
new digital technologies. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before
you and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications,
Technology, and the Internet. I hope my testimony has given you more
insight into why this bill is important for people who are deaf and
hard-of-hearing. I also hope my testimony has encouraged you to support
making S. 3304 the strongest legislation possible to ensure that people
with disabilities have access to communication--the gateway to the
world.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Ms. Scoggins. It has
indeed given us terrific insight, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Harvard.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL HARVARD, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF AND THE COALITION OF
ORGANIZATIONS FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Harvard [through interpreter]. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member Ensign and members of the Senate
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you
today. I'm honored to have this opportunity to testify, and I'm
here on behalf of the National Association of the Deaf and the
Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology.
Like many consumers, I'm a big fan of technology.
Technology empowers me to access the information I need to be
successful. Unfortunately, all too often, I, and other people
like me, have been left behind as technology has advanced.
Like the Americans with Disabilities Act did 20 years ago,
the ``Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act,'' S.
3304, is a major step forward towards ensuring equal access and
equal opportunity for people with disabilities.
Today, I will address the provisions that concern access to
video programming by people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
For example, back in the 1980s, our family paid $200 for a
caption decoder box. When the decoder box got too hot, the
captions would flicker, making them impossible to read. I
remember my stepmom would not let me watch TV an hour before
All My Children started just so the decoder box would be cool
enough for her favorite program.
[Laughter.]
Finally, Congress passed a law to require all TVs with
screens larger than 13 inches to have decoder chips to display
closed captions. That was a great law.
But times and technology have changed. Now, my friends can
watch their favorite shows on wireless TVs, MP3s and other
devices. Hardly any of these smaller devices display closed
captions. Once again, I and others who are deaf or hard-of-
hearing are left out of this whirlwind of technological change.
So we are coming back to you 17 years after the Decoder Act
was passed. The limitation of the 13-inch screens has worn out
its welcome. Now, all devices that receive or display video
programming should be required to display captions.
We also need to make sure that we can actually figure out
how to turn on the captions. Under the FCC rules, I am supposed
to be able to control the font, size and color of closed
captions, but the new digital TVs and set-top boxes are so
complicated to use that few people have figured out how to
access these features.
S. 3304 will fix this. It will enable viewers to control
captioning features on the top tier of the on-screen menu. It
will also require video devices with remote controls to have a
caption button. Caption control to us is what volume control is
to you.
This brings me to my final concern. We also need to make
sure that the programs received by those devices actually
contain captions. As of now, only a handful of TV shows on the
Internet have captions. This is true even for programs that had
captions when they were shown on TV.
I remember not having access to many regular TV programs.
Like when South Park first came out, everyone said it had
inappropriate language. Naturally, this made me want to see the
show even more. But the show wasn't captioned, and I could not
lip read the itty-bitty mouths of the cartoon characters.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Harvard [through interpreter]. As a young adult,
keeping up with the cultural experiences of my peers was very
important. Whenever access was denied to me, I felt--and was--
left behind.
In 1996, thanks to your work, Congress fixed all this by
passing a new law requiring nearly all TVs to have captions.
This had a huge impact on me. Captions allow me to be in touch
with what is going on in the world.
But now that everything is moving to the Internet, I am
again falling behind, just like generations of my family before
me. Imagine, if you will, hearing the collective groans of
millions of people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing expressing
their frustration as they see history repeating itself all over
again.
In conclusion, on behalf of millions of people who are deaf
and hard-of-hearing, I urge Congress not to leave us behind as
new Internet and digital-video programming technologies become
available to the general public. I ask you to pass legislation
that will continue protecting our ability to access these
emerging video technologies. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harvard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell Harvard, on Behalf of the National
Association of the Deaf and the Coalition of Organizations for
Accessible Technology
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and members of the Senate
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, thank you
for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
innovation and inclusion 20 years after the Americans with Disabilities
Act became law. My name is Russell Harvard and I am an actor, recently
sprouted in the film business and looking forward to growing in my
field. I am proud to say I performed the role of Daniel Day Lewis's son
in the double-Oscar winning film, There Will Be Blood, and had the
privilege of playing the villain in CSI: New York with my friend,
Marlee Matlin. I also perform a strong thread of songs in American Sign
Language. I am deaf, the third generation of deaf individuals in my
family.
I am honored to offer my testimony today on behalf of the National
Association of the Deaf and the Coalition of Organizations for
Accessible Technology (COAT). COAT is a coalition of over 300 national,
state, and community-based organizations dedicated to making sure that
as our Nation migrates from legacy telecommunications to more versatile
and innovative digital communication technologies, people with
disabilities will not be left behind.\1\ This coalition's rapid growth
and attraction to organizations across the Nation demonstrates the
urgency of the issues being discussed at this hearing. COAT works on
behalf of over 36 million individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing,
more than 25 million individuals who are blind or who have vision loss,
over 70,000 persons who are both deaf and blind, and millions of
individuals with other disabilities who need accessible communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information about COAT and a list of COAT affiliates is
available at http://www.coataccess.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I join all COAT affiliates in being excited about the promises of
new Internet Protocol and digital technologies. Like all consumers, we
look forward to the benefits of technological advances. Unfortunately,
history has shown that, all too often, people with disabilities have
been left out or left behind as these advances have taken place.
Typically, it has taken acts of Congress to put us on a level playing
field with our hearing and sighted peers. For example, I can remember
when our family needed a separate decoder box to receive and display
captions on our television sets. Without a requirement for television
sets to decode captions, television set manufacturers did not include
this feature on their own. When our decoder box got too hot, the
captions would flicker, making them hard to read. As a consequence, the
family member who got to use the decoder box first was the only one who
could really enjoy--and understand--his or her television program. What
really sticks out in my mind is not being able to watch any programs
shown just before All My Children. My step-mom kept me from watching
any television for an hour before that show, so the decoder box would
be cool enough to display steady captions for her favorite program!
I'm grateful that in 1990, Congress took care of this problem. In
that year, not only did you enact the Americans with Disabilities Act,
you also enacted the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, which required
all televisions with screens at least 13 inches in size, to receive and
display closed captions. The Decoder Act made video programming
technology more accessible for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Now we need to take another step forward and make it equally
accessible.
At the outset, I want to say that, like the ``Twenty-first Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act'' (H.R. 3101), the ``Equal
Access to 21st Century Communications Act'' (S. 3304) is a major step
forward toward expanding communications protections for people with
disabilities. Today I will address the various provisions that concern
access to video programming by people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
I understand that my colleagues on this panel will address other
provisions.
Ensuring Accessible Television Programming over the Internet
This Subcommittee is all too aware that our television environment
moved recently from analog to digital technology. I know that you went
to great lengths to make sure that all Americans were aware of this
major change in the way we watch television. This move has changed the
viewing experience of many Americans. Not only is the digital picture
clearer and--I am told--its sound crisper, but more and more,
television programming is no longer tethered to what we have come to
know as a ``television set.'' Internet-based video programming services
that offer television programs, movies, and live video streaming are
proliferating at lightning speed. In fact, it seems like every time I
watch a television show on my old fashioned television set, an
announcer at the end of the show tells me that I can watch the show
many more times with enhanced features, such as deleted scenes and
interviews with actors, on the Internet. But for me, these promises of
a wondrous new world of video programming are largely empty.
You see, only a handful of television shows available on the
Internet have closed captioning. This is true, even when these very
same programs were previously shown on television with captions. The
result is that I, along with millions of other people who are deaf or
hard-of-hearing, am denied access to thousands of hours of video
programming.
It was not that long ago that I and others who are deaf or hard-of-
hearing did not have access to many TV programs on regular television
channels. For example, I remember when South Park came out and lots of
talk circulated about the ``inappropriate'' language used in that
program. Of course, this piqued my interest. My curiosity could not be
satisfied, however, because South Park was not captioned and lipreading
the animated characters with their itty-bitty nonsensical mouths was
impossible. The only way I could know what was going on was to ask some
of my hearing friends what the show was about.
Being able to understand South Park cartoon characters may sound
trivial to some people, but, as a young adult, keeping up with the
cultural and social experiences of one's peers is very important.
Whenever access is denied to me, I feel--and am--left behind. Another
example of inaccessible programming in the past was MTV music videos,
which were very popular during my pre-teen years. These, too, were
rarely captioned. Although my step-sister was nice enough to write down
or sign the lyrics, this did not afford me the independence that
everyone else had, and I surely desired. Just imagine not being able to
watch TV on your own, and having to ask a family member or friend to
tell you what is being said.
But my generation is also lucky. Thanks to the work of this
Subcommittee and others in Congress, in 1996, you passed a law
requiring nearly all television shows to have captioning. That law went
into full effect for new programs in January 2006 and, since January
2008, has required 75 percent of older television shows (shows first
shown or exhibited prior to 1998) to have captions. Closed captioning
has made a huge impact on the lives of every deaf or hard-of-hearing
person, including me. Captions allow me to be in sync with what is
going on in the world. They let me watch television with my family and
friends. They enable me to get the information I need to develop and
share my views on political campaigns. They let me keep pace with
current trends and maintain my independence and my sense of dignity.
But, it seems like just as soon as we finally have access to nearly
all of the news, information, and entertainment on television, we now
find that when we turn to that video programming on the Internet, we
are again left behind, unable to understand what is going on. Because
captioning of television shows on the Internet is not yet required by
law, hardly any of these programs are captioned. Like the deaf
generations of my family that came before me, I am again confronted
with having to guess at what is being said.
Additionally, for me, not having the ability to watch video
programming on the Internet is far more than just an annoyance; it
affects my ability to compete in my profession. As an actor, it is a
significant hardship not to be able to have access to all mediums of
video programming. I am always looking to improve my skills: being able
to re-watch the work of other actors is something that can help me
immensely in my work. Not being able to do so makes technology regress
for me as it progresses for everyone else. I am not alone in my
frustration. When something as popular and important as Internet
programming is not accessible to us, the reaction from the deaf and
hard-of-hearing community is very strong. Imagine, if you will, hearing
the collective groan of millions of people expressing their frustration
as they see history repeating itself all over again.
To ensure equal access, we ask Congress to make clear that the
captioning obligations that were passed in 1996 and apply to video
programming distributors also apply to their programming distributed
over the Internet.\2\ Specifically, we want legislation to make sure
that captions are available for the following types of Internet
programming:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A video programming distributor is defined in the FCC's rules
as ``[a]ny television broadcast station licensed by the Commission and
any multichannel video programming distributor as defined in
76.1000(e) of [Chapter 47], and any other distributor of video
programming for residential reception that delivers such programming
directly to the home and is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission.'' 47 CFR 79.1(a)(2). A ``multichannel video programming
distributor'' is defined as ``an entity engaged in the business of
making available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple
channels of video programming. Such entities include, but are not
limited to, a cable operator, a BRS/EBS provider, a direct broadcast
satellite service, a television receive-only satellite program
distributor, and a satellite master antenna television system operator,
as well as buying groups or agents of all such entities.'' 47 CFR
79.1000(e).
Pre-produced video programming that was previously captioned
for television viewing in compliance with Section 713 of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Act.
Live programming that must be captioned for television
viewing in compliance with Section 713 of the Communications
Act.
New web-based video programming provided by, or generally
considered comparable to programming provided by, a television
broadcast station that is distributed and exhibited over the
Internet for residential use. This category is not intended to
cover user-generated content uploaded by private citizens, but
rather to capture the same type of programming that video
programming distributors would otherwise exhibit on television
channels.
Some of you may have questions about the extent to which captioning
of Internet-based videos is technologically feasible. While I am no
expert on this issue, I know that this is already being done today on a
few Internet sites, such as the NBC/Fox Hulu and ABC.com video
websites, and in a number of movies available from Apple's iTunes. In
addition, I am told that there are a number of ways that content
providers and distributors can convert their traditional television
captions into captions for Internet-based distribution, or create and
display original captions for online media.
Accessible Video Programming Equipment
Expanding the captioning laws to the Internet will solve part of
the problem being confronted by people with disabilities who want
access to video programming, but there is still more work to do. It
used to be that the majority of televisions ranged from 19 to 32
inches. So when Congress enacted the Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990,
requiring all television sets with screens larger than 13 inches to
include decoder chips that could display captions, it was confident
that the overwhelming majority (approximately 96 percent) of all
television sets would be covered by the new law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In 1989, TV Digest reported that 96 percent of new televisions
had screens that were 13 inches or larger, 12 TV Digest (Elec. Indus.
Ass'n, September 11, 1989); See also DuBow, ``The Television Decoder
Circuitry Act--TV For All,'' Temple Law Review 64, No. 2 (1991) and
Strauss, A New Civil Right, Telecommunications Equality for Deaf and
Hard of Hearing American (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet Press, 2006), p.
230, for more on the 13-inch screen size minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But times and technology have changed--dramatically! Now my friends
and colleagues are able to watch their favorite shows on their cell
phones. They can download and playback sporting events on their MP3
players. They can store movies on their compact laptops. And phone
companies and satellite radio services are now in the business of
providing television programming! Once again, I and others who cannot
hear are finding ourselves left out of this whirlwind of technological
change. Although we can watch captioned television shows when we are in
our own homes, when we are on the go, we are typically out of luck.
So we come to you, 17 years after the Television Decoder Circuitry
Act was enacted. Again, we thank you for passing this wonderful law, a
law that truly changed my life, as well as the lives of millions of
deaf and hard-of-hearing people who would otherwise not have had access
to television programming for the last decade and a half. We ask that
you now take this law to its next level. The 13-inch screen limitation
has worn out its welcome. We are now able to display television
programming on screens of all sizes. We urge you to get rid of that 13-
inch restriction and extend the requirement to enable the display of
captions to all video devices that receive or display video
programming, including devices that can receive or display video
programming carried over the Internet. In this modern digital era, we
all know that devices that receive video programming can be as large as
a living room wall or as small as a handheld MP3 player. All of these
devices need to have the capacity to display closed captioning.
Accessible User Interfaces
The last point I want to make has to do with my ability--or should
I say my inability--to figure out how to activate captions on
television sets, even when captions are provided. In this regard, I ask
the members of this Subcommittee to try something out. The next time
you are in a hotel and, after a long day, sit back to watch the news or
enjoy a movie on a brand new digital television, try to turn on the
captions. The first thing you will probably do is look at the remote
control. If you are lucky, there will be a caption control button
there, and that will end your search. More likely, what you will find
are buttons for volume control, buttons for channel selection, and
buttons to perform a host of other functions that may or may not make
any sense to you. Chances are that you will not find a caption control
button.
Your next strategy may be to turn on the television's on-screen
menu and try to find the captions that way. I wish you the best of luck
as you try to navigate the maze of complicated choices. If this attempt
fails as well (which it has for me on many occasions), your third
option will be to call the front desk and have them send up the hotel
engineer. You can then laugh to yourself as you watch him go through
the same steps you did. I cannot begin to tell you how often this scene
is repeated across America. In the past, the problem of not being able
to access closed captions was largely limited to televisions located
outside the home. People generally were able to figure out how to turn
on captions on televisions that they purchased because they had the
manuals to do so. But now, even finding the captioning features on
digital and HDTVs purchased for use inside the home or on the set-top
boxes provided by their TV subscription services has become a
considerable chore, and sometimes a virtual impossibility.
The shame of it is that, in the year 2000, the FCC issued wonderful
rules requiring enhanced captions on all digital televisions. Unlike
captioning on analog television sets, which only appear as white
letters on a black background, digital televisions must provide viewers
with the ability to control caption fonts, sizes, colors and
backgrounds. The FCC created these rules so that people who can not
hear can reap some of the fantastic benefits that digital television
has to offer. But as I have explained, figuring out a way to get access
to these captioning features is not so easy--in fact, it is typically
quite difficult. My guess is that most deaf and hard-of-hearing people
don't even know that these captioning options exist for them.
The proposed legislation will fix this. It will require devices
that display video programming to provide a conspicuous means of
accessing closed captioning (along with video description for people
who are blind or have vision loss). This can be achieved by adding a
button for captioning on the remote controls of video programming
devices and by enabling viewers to control captioning features on the
top tier of the equipment's on-screen menu. Captions enable us to
understand the content of a program, the same way that the sound track
enables people who can hear to follow a program's plot. It should be as
easy for people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to find and control
captions as it is for hearing people to control the volume and other
audio features on a TV set.
Conclusion
In conclusion, on behalf of millions of Americans who are deaf,
hard-of-hearing, late-deafened, deaf-blind, blind, or have low vision,
we call upon Congress not to leave us behind as new Internet and
digital video programming technologies become available to the general
public. I am a big fan of technology: it empowers me to do things I
otherwise could not do and allows me to access the information I need
to be successful--both in my profession and as a citizen who actively
participates in our Nation's civic affairs. On behalf of the National
Association of the Deaf and the Coalition of Organizations for
Accessible Technology, I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
share our concerns and urge you to make this legislation as strong as
it can be to safeguard continued access to emerging communications and
video programming technologies.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Harvard. Terrific testimony.
We appreciate it.
Mr. McCormick.
STATEMENT OF WALTER B. McCORMICK, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO,
UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION
Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, Senator Pryor, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I can say that it
is--it's humbling. It is a great honor for me to have the
opportunity to share in the testimony of this compelling and
poignant and very important hearing.
As you know, I'm Walter McCormick. I'm the President and
CEO of U.S. Telecom, the broadband association. And we're an
organization whose member companies are united by a
determination to deliver advanced communication services to all
Americans, an objective that we know this subcommittee shares.
I'm proud to say that our industry has had a long history
of supporting access for people with disabilities. Indeed, Dr.
Alexander Graham Bell was a teacher of the deaf, and his
invention of the telephone in 1876 grew out of his efforts to
devise a hearing-assistance device.
Our industry pioneered the development of the first hearing
aids and artificial larynxes. And as we approach the 20th
anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I would
note that Title IV, mandating the establishment of a nationwide
telecommunications relay service, was one of the first
completed and least controversial portions of that landmark
legislation.
Similarly, during the 1990s, our industry worked closely
with the disability community to develop what is now Section
255 of the Communications Act, which requires that
telecommunications services and equipment be made accessible by
people with disabilities.
So, Mr. Chairman, two years ago, when your colleague from
Massachusetts, Representative Markey, urged that we commence
discussions with COAT, we went to work.
Those discussions were comprehensive and productive. They
spanned more than 15 months, and, in the end, they were
illuminating. Together, we more precisely identified the needs
of the disabled. We gained an understanding of how current
procedures at the FCC frustrate the disability community.
Our joint effort to address this concern is largely
reflected in H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act, which Mr. Markey introduced last
June.
And, as a result, we really appreciate the Senate's
attention to this important initiative. We are grateful for
Senator Pryor's introduction earlier this month of S. 3304, and
for your co-sponsorship, Mr. Chairman, together with Senators
Dorgan and Conrad. This is an important step in updating the
Nation's communications accessibility laws.
Moving forward, however, we hope the Committee will address
two key provisions in ways that we believe will improve your
bill and better reflect the aspirations of both the disabled
community and our industry.
First, S. 3304 inadvertently, but unjustifiably,
distinguishes between competing technologies that offer the
same or similar services, leaving entirely to the FCC's
discretion the question of whether it is necessary for a wide
variety of applications and services to be made accessible.
So, for example, whereas the e-mail services offered by my
member companies may be automatically covered by the bill,
other identical services, such as Gmail and Hotmail, are only
covered if the FCC determines that it's necessary to do so. We
don't believe the FCC should have the discretion to decide
whether applications or services are necessary for Americans
who are disabled.
We urge you to adopt the clear definition of advanced
communications found in the House bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, we would urge you to instead adopt the
clearer definition of advanced communications that's found in
the House bill, a definition on which the National Broadband
Plan also relied in recommending the Congress modernize
accessibility laws.
Second, S. 3304 instructs the FCC to apply new
accessibility requirements to Internet-based services and
equipment where doing so is achievable. But the bill provides
little insight into what the word ``achievable'' means, and
there's no regulatory precedent to fill the gap.
The inevitable consequence of this ambiguity will be
regulatory jockeying and litigation. Americans with
disabilities should not have to wait for those legal battles to
play out. Prior to the passage of the ADA, Americans with
disabilities justifiably grew impatient with claims that making
public accommodations accessible just couldn't be done at
reasonable cost.
What our industry has found in the course of the last 25
years is that both we and the disabled community benefit from
the certainty that sound and sensible directives provide. We
believe that with such directives, talented engineers and
business people across the Internet landscape will respond in
good faith.
Again, thank you for your invitation to appear today, and
we pledge our support for making the many opportunities
afforded by broadband accessible to all Americans.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCormick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President and CEO,
United States Telecom Association
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
modernizing the laws providing accessibility to communications for
disabled Americans by covering new and developing Internet Protocol-
based and video programming technologies.
I am Walter McCormick, President and CEO of the USTelecom
Association. USTelecom represents innovative companies ranging from
some of the smallest rural telecoms in the Nation to some of the
largest companies in the U.S. economy. Our members offer a wide range
of services across the communications landscape, including voice,
video, and data over local exchange, long distance, Internet, and cable
networks. What unites our diverse membership is our shared
determination to deliver those services to all Americans--a commitment
we know this Subcommittee shares.
Our industry has a long history of supporting communications access
for people with disabilities. In fact, it reaches back to the very
foundations of our business. People often forget that Dr. Alexander
Graham Bell was himself a teacher of the deaf and that Bell's invention
of the telephone in 1876 grew out of his efforts to devise a hearing
assistance device. The primary financial backers of Bell's electrical
experiments were the grateful parents of some of his students.
But our industry's commitment to the disabilities community did not
stop there. Bell Labs and Western Electric were pioneers in the
development of the first hearing aids and artificial larynxes. We later
participated in the establishment and deployment of telecommunications
relay services. Both AT&T and Verizon offer mobile devices that not
only provide text-to-speech access to phone features, but to web pages
as well. Many of our members provide specialized offerings, such as
free directory assistance, or text- and data-only plans, so that people
who are deaf or have hearing loss will not pay for voice communications
services they are unable to use.
Our commitment to bringing the benefits of telecommunications to
all Americans, including those with disabilities, is also mirrored by
our work in the legislative arena. As we approach the 20th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act this July, I would note that one
of the first completed, and least controversial, sections of that
landmark legislation was Title IV, which mandated the establishment of
a nationwide telecommunications relay service by 1993. In 1994 and
1995, we continued our efforts in this area, working with the
disability community to develop and support what is now section 255 of
the Communications Act. That section requires providers to ensure that
telecommunications services and equipment are accessible to and usable
by people with disabilities. I am also pleased to note the bulk of
those provisions were developed in this Committee.
In 2008, Mr. Chairman, your colleague from Massachusetts,
Representative Ed Markey, raised the question of whether it was time to
update section 255 of the Communications Act to reflect the reality of
our industry's shift to IP-based communications and the advent of new
video programming technologies. Representative Markey encouraged us to
work with the disability community and taking a page from the history
of section 255's development, we began a series of discussions with the
disability community, represented by the Coalition of Organizations for
Accessible Technology (COAT).
Our discussions with COAT would take over 15 months and more than
40 legislative drafts to complete. While time consuming, these
discussions were also illuminating. We were able to identify more
precisely the needs of the disability community and to target the bill
to address those needs. We also gained an understanding of their
frustrations with how the current processes and procedures at the
Federal Communications Commission work to delay and inhibit their
ability to bridge the communications gap for their members. Our joint
work is largely reflected in Representative Markey's introduction in
June 2009 of H.R. 3101, the 21st Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act.
The FCC's consideration and development of the National Broadband
Plan in late 2009 and early 2010 gave us yet another opportunity to
work with the disabilities community to ensure recognition of their
needs as we enter an era in which IP-based technologies will provide
the basis for most if not all electronic communication. We were
particularly delighted by the inclusion of Recommendation 9.10 in the
National Broadband Plan, which states that ``Congress, the FCC and the
Department of Justice should modernize accessibility laws, rules and
related subsidy programs.'' We are also pleased the Commission has
already begun to implement Recommendation 9.9 to establish an
Accessibility and Innovation Forum, the first meeting of which is
scheduled in July. We believe our experience working closely with COAT,
replicated on a broader scale and on a more systematic basis, will
hasten the advancement of broadband accessibility.
We also appreciate Senator Pryor's introduction earlier this month
of S. 3304, the ``Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act,''
and its co-sponsorship by you, Chairman Kerry, and Senators Dorgan and
Conrad. It is the next important step in the process of updating the
Nation's laws governing access to advanced communications technology
for people with disabilities. In general, S. 3304 is designed to extend
disability access provisions applicable to legacy telecommunications
and video services to IP-enabled services and equipment and to new
video programming technologies. The legislation also acknowledges that
section 255 of the Act, with its limitation to telecommunications
services and equipment, does not encompass many of the services that
people routinely use today. Thus, the bill appropriately places the
treatment of advanced communications for these purposes under Title VII
of the Communications Act.
Among the bill's most helpful additions to current law are
enforcement procedures that will put remedies for noncompliance on a
fast track, something sorely lacking today; Lifeline and Linkup support
for Internet access services and advanced communications for those who
meet those programs' eligibility requirements; and the establishment of
an Advisory Committee on Emergency Access and Real Time Text to provide
recommendations to the FCC and to the Senate and House Commerce
Committees regarding the actions necessary to ensure interoperable
real-time text communications as part of the migration to a national
IP-enabled network, a critical public safety need for disabled
Americans in the 21st century.
The legislation would also achieve what the FCC was unable to do in
2000: ensure that video description capability is made widely
available, not just for television broadcasts but also for certain
video programming distributed over the Internet, the place where more
and more Americans are watching video today. Methods to improve the
conveyance of emergency information by means of video will also be
required under S. 3304, and closed captioning will be similarly
advanced to include Internet distribution. Equipment that receives and
plays back video programming will be required to have closed
captioning, video description, and accessible emergency information
capability.
In all the respects cited above, the legislation reflects our
discussions with COAT. But we do have some concerns about the Senate
version of the legislation, as compared to H.R. 3101, and moving
forward we would like to work with the Committee to amend the bill in
at least two respects.
First, H.R. 3101 defines ``advanced communications'' as an
``interconnected VoIP service, non-interconnected VoIP service,
electronic messaging, and video conferencing.'' The FCC's National
Broadband Plan adopted H.R. 3101's definition of ``advanced
communications,'' in its recommendations related to accessibility for
Americans with disabilities. S. 3304, by contrast, covers a bundled
package that transmits IP based voice, video conferencing and text
communications, but leaves entirely to the FCC the determination of
whether coverage of any other ``application or service accessed over
the Internet that provides for voice, video conferencing or text
communications'' is, in its sole judgment, ``necessary.''
The consequence of that approach is that the bill inadvertently but
unjustifiably distinguishes between technologies that deliver the same
or similar services. So, for example, the e-mail services offered by my
member companies or by cable companies, which also serve as network
providers, may be automatically covered by S. 3304. However, other
identical services such as Gmail and Hotmail are only covered if the
Commission determines it is ``necessary'' to do so. Similarly, Internet
Protocol phones are now commonplace, as are other Internet applications
that substitute for the telecommunications services and corresponding
equipment that were dominant in 1996 when section 255 was enacted. Yet
while the Senate bill would leave in place the mandatory provisions of
section 255 as they apply to traditional telecommunications and
customer premises equipment, and would extend that mandatory treatment
to bundled services provided by my members--appropriately, I hasten to
add--similar coverage for other newer and potentially more common
devices and services would be left to the FCC's discretion. I have
attached a chart to my testimony that highlights other examples of
similar technological disparities that would be created by this
definition.
Such an approach runs counter to the generally acknowledged view
that broadband has created a convergence of services for which the
``stove-piped'' regulatory framework currently found in the
Communications Act is not well-suited. Surely, the ability of disabled
Americans to communicate in the 21st century should not be dependent on
old legal categories that pre-date the development of devices,
services, and applications that may not have even been contemplated
when those categories were first created. We don't believe the
Commission should determine which specific IP applications or services
are ``necessary'' for the purpose of ensuring accessibility to
Americans who are deaf, blind, or deaf-blind. All of them are necessary
to some or all of that disabled community. And that determination
certainly should not be based on factors such as market share or
popularity among the population at large.
Prior to passage of the ADA, Americans with disabilities grew
justifiably impatient with claims that making public accommodations,
public transportation, and communications services and equipment
accessible ``just couldn't be done,'' or couldn't be done at reasonable
cost. Over and over again, many of those claims were proven wrong. When
an industry starts out with the attitude that providing accessibility
is too hard, it's not surprising that not much gets done. What our
industry has found in the course of the last 25 years is that both we
and the disabled community benefit from the certainty and focus that a
sound and sensible legal roadmap for achieving accessibility provides.
We believe that with such a roadmap, talented engineers and business
people across the Internet landscape will respond in good faith to the
challenge.
Second, in contrast to the House bill's reliance on well-
established, defined, and interpreted terms in disability law such as
``readily achievable'' and ``undue burden,'' the Senate bill instructs
the Commission to apply new accessibility requirements to Internet-
based services and equipment where doing so is ``achievable.'' However,
S. 3304 provides scant definition of what ``achievable'' alone is
supposed to mean, and there is no other legal guidance we're aware of
in this area on which we can rely. The inevitable consequence of this
ambiguity will be extended regulatory jockeying and litigation, in
which those who would prefer not to undertake the actions required by
the FCC, or those who are required to undertake them while their
competitors are not, do battle over the meaning of this new and
undefined term. Americans with disabilities should not have to wait for
those legal battles to play out.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me reiterate our commitment to your
effort. We hope the Committee process will produce a final bill that
maximizes disabled consumers' access to advanced services across all
platforms and technologies. Americans are more reliant than ever on
communications devices and networks in their daily lives, but Americans
with disabilities can derive particular benefits from these
technologies. As these exciting new technologies evolve, that
population could become increasingly disadvantaged if they are denied
access to them.
We thank you for your invitation to appear today. USTelecom and its
member companies look forward to working with the Subcommittee and this
Congress to achieve our shared objective of making the use of broadband
as ubiquitous today as electricity, water, and telephone service.
Broadband is an essential building block of every modern American
community. We pledge our support for making its many opportunities
accessible to all Americans. Thank you.
Comparison of House and Senate Bills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service or Application H.R. 3101 S. 3304
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced The term ``advanced The term ``advanced
Communications communications'' communications'' means
means devices and services that
interconnected VoIP transmit a bundle of IP-
service; non- enabled voice, video
interconnected VoIP conferencing and text
service; electronic communications and any
messaging; and application or service
video conferencing. accessed over the
Internet that provides
voice, video conferencing
or text communications as
determined necessary by
the FCC.
User Interface for Yes Yes
Internet Access
Service
Interconnected VoIP Yes Yes
(e.g., Vonage)
Video Conferencing Yes Only if bundled with IP
voice and IP based text
communications;
otherwise, only if FCC
finds ``necessary''
(e.g., Skype video
conferencing)
IP-Based Text Yes Only if bundled with IP-
Messaging based video conferencing
and IP voice; otherwise,
only if FCC finds
``necessary'' (e.g.,
instant messaging by MSN,
Yahoo!, or AOL, or IP-
based text messaging such
as Skype SMS)
E-mail Yes Only if bundled with IP-
based video conferencing
and IP voice; otherwise
only if FCC finds
``necessary'' (e.g.,
Gmail, Yahoo! Mail,
Hotmail)
Unbundled Non-IP-Based Yes No
SMS text messaging
(e.g., AT&T, Verizon,
Sprint)
Other Unbundled Voice No If the FCC determines
Applications (e.g., necessary
Google Voice)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Kerry. Well, thank you very much, Mr. McCormick. I
think we had a pretty stark example of how communication ends
there momentarily where there was no caption, and people can
imagine, therefore, for all those devices on which there is no
caption, there is no communication. So it was not planned, but
helpful.
Mr. McCormick, let me ask you quickly--first of all, we
appreciate your testimony. Thank you, and thank you for being
here and thank you for working with folks.
Can we anticipate that those issues that you raised, which
I think are legitimate. Can we work those through in short
order and try to see if we can't move this legislation--with
unanimous support, hopefully--very quickly?
Mr. McCormick. Well, we would hope so, Mr. Chairman. We
think that the intention there is to cover everyone and to
really move us into the 21st Century. So we'd be happy to work
with the Committee on that.
Senator Kerry. What do you think the key ingredients will
be? Is there a particular sector of the industry that may be
more complicated than another?
Mr. McCormick. I think, Mr. Chairman, that because of the
enormous amount of effort that went into this bill over the
course of the last year-and-a-half that the concerns have been
pretty well laid out. And I think everybody sort of understands
what the scope of the legislation would do. So, I think it
could be worked out in pretty short order.
Senator Kerry. Well, it would be terrific if we could, and
I know there are a lot of advocates here who would be very
excited if you can do that.
Mr. Wlodkowski, can you share with me a little description
of the device that you've been working while you were
testifying?
Mr. Wlodkowski. This is actually called a Braille Light.
It's not the most current technology by any means. In fact,
friends of mine, Senator, who are here from the blind
community, were telling me that I should get up with the times.
But I do work for a leading web-services company.
So this is what we would call a refreshable Braille
display, and it's a 20-character Braille display. It allows me
to navigate and read notes and take notes in meetings, and,
certainly, the more recent state-of-the-art devices even have
much more capability than that.
Senator Kerry. I was fascinated by it, how fast you're
moving your finger across it. And as you're doing that, you're
reading each of the Braille letters and notes to yourself?
Mr. Wlodkowski. Right. So the 20 characters are driven up
by plastic pins and little motors inside each of these little
cells, and they make the different configurations, the Braille
cells, for the letters and contractions that make up Braille.
Senator Kerry. That's very interesting and fascinating the
way it works. I was intrigued. You were the only witness who
was on time. Maybe we should all use them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wlodkowski. If I might, I'd like to just mention the
piece that I cut out when I was looking----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. Well, I saw you did get a little cue from
somebody----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry.--but I admire it nevertheless.
Share with us what technologies or what advances you think
would make the most difference to you and to your friends,
members of your community. How can we make the most difference
here in technology, and what services and/or devices do you
think could be made accessible that aren't that would make the
greatest difference?
Mr. Wlodkowski. Sure. Mr. Chair, I'd be happy.
I think that the biggest thing that we really need to look
at is interoperability, the accessibility frameworks that are
what facilitate the communication between the mainstream
information technology and the assistive technologies like
screen readers and voice-recognition programs, alternative
keyboard devices. Those frameworks really need to be top notch
and continually improved, and that's where the Accessibility
Interoperability Alliance is coming in.
I think the biggest piece here is that we need to realize
that built-in accessibility versus compatibility to achieve
accessibility is an interesting debate that we need to make
sure that we're all clear on as to how we move forward with a
common definition.
So built-in accessibility to say something like a
Smartphone, for me, you could build in a screen reader that
would--and there are Smartphones that have built-in screen
readers and I can use the touch screen, and innovation has
occurred there.
That same approach would not work for someone who's deaf-
blind. They would require the refreshable Braille display and
some communication protocols to allow the communication between
the Smartphone and the Braille display.
So I think those are the types of things, and leveraging
the innovation and the innovation of mainstream IT companies,
and making sure that we don't lose the innovation by
accessibility experts who develop the screen readers and the
refreshable Braille displays to bring them altogether in
stronger partnerships between corporations, researchers and
government.
And I think a unique model that, Mr. Chair, your committee
might want to take a look at is a project that AOL is involved
with in Europe under the European Commission's FP7 Research
Program. It brings together consumers, researchers, and
disability advocates to prioritize and then develop open
accessibility solutions that are available to developers all
over the world.
I'd really like to see if the government here could take
some of the Federal grant dollars that are targeted toward
accessibility research and find ways to facilitate those
stronger private-public partnerships.
Senator Kerry. That's a good idea and we'll certainly take
a look at it.
Sergeant, let me again say how grateful we are for your
service. I know you've been through a hell of a period of time
here. I did read your testimony in full, and I read your long
journey from injury to where you are now, and we certainly
salute your courage and tenacity.
Share with us, if you would, quickly, what kinds of things,
right now, do you think would make the most difference to you,
at this point, in terms of device or service?
Sergeant Pearce. First, let me say there's really--there's
no need to thank me for my service. I did it because I wanted
to. I would do it again. I would do it again in a heartbeat.
Senator Kerry. Well, good for you, but we still need to say
thank you.
Sergeant Pearce. Thank you. I thank you for your service.
And as far as a device, I mean, I really don't know. I've
looked. And I talked with you yesterday, Senator Pryor, about
cell phones----
Senator Kerry. That's tough.
Sergeant Pearce. Yes, it is. It really is. It really is
tough to find a user-friendly cell phone for a blind person or
for a nearly-blind person.
And the VA has been very, very helpful. I've been to the VA
blind center up to West Haven, Connecticut, twice. And they've
given me a couple of computer programs for my computer to allow
me to access my e-mails, and that has helped me immensely, but
I----
Senator Kerry. It shouldn't be that complicated. I would
think, with a little bit of focus, attention and effort, we can
design everything else. We ought to be able to help you meet
your needs.
Sergeant Pearce. Yes.
Senator Kerry. I will pledge to you this: I'm sure Senator
Pryor and I will work with some folks in the industry, and
maybe they ought to sit down with you and some of your friends
and kind of work through what's needed and how to do this. And
I----
Sergeant Pearce. Yes. I'm really looking forward to this
bill, whenever it comes to fruition, to see how it comes to.
Senator Kerry. Yes. Well, we'd love you to be here and
celebrate it when we pass it.
Sergeant Pearce. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. We'd like that.
Sergeant Pearce. And thanks for having me today.
Senator Kerry. Thanks for coming.
Both Ms. Scoggins and Mr. Harvard, I have to tell you, I am
in awe of the speed with which you communicate signing the
amount that you somehow compress into each sign.
And, Mr. Harvard, maybe it's your acting ability, but the
expressions which accompany frustration and anger and--you
know--are worth it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. We appreciate what you've conveyed to us
today. I really mean that. Very, very compelling testimony,
both of you.
Would you both share with us, quickly, the ways in which
you think devices, services or accessibility would make the
most difference?
And, particularly, Mr. Harvard, as an Actor, I assume there
are many things that you feel would be enormously helpful to
you in your trade that aren't accessible that could be, and
perhaps you could share that with us a little bit.
Mr. Harvard. I'd be happy to. I think that all that I've
mentioned in my testimony needs to be focused on. I don't think
that there is a single issue that is of particular concern. I
think they all need to be given equal weight and all need to be
given equal attention.
Most of my frustration with regards to smaller devices is
that I cannot receive closed captioning on. I own three iPods,
and none of them display captions. So, I would say most of my
frustration has to do with those small-screen mobile devices.
Senator Kerry. Can I interrupt you quickly? Would those
devices have to have a larger screen, larger print or would you
be able to read the captions on the screen as it is?
Mr. Harvard. No, I think as long as they can give us a
screen, I should be able to read it. Doesn't matter how small
or how large the screen is, I think that it is possible to read
captions on those devices.
Senator Kerry. Ms. Scoggins, yes.
Ms. Scoggins. Yes, and if I may, I'd like to tailor onto
that as well. I feel very similar to Russell about that. The
products and services that are out there--they unfortunately
don't meet our needs.
So we would like to really strongly encourage the Committee
to think about a broader definition in terms of accessibility
and not limit us to saying a specific product or a specific
service is tailored to our needs.
What we would like to see are products and services out
there that would allow any of us to be able to have all of the
things that we would need, that there isn't just one phone.
And, unfortunately, right now, there isn't even that one
phone or one technology that meets our needs, like we don't
have something that will do voice, video and text all at the
same time, which is what we'd like to have happen. Europe's got
it, but we haven't received that yet here in the states.
And I think I can speak for both of us on that when I say
that video technology with the captions, with the text and with
the voice-to-text or speech-to-text and all of those different
interfaces for communication would provide all of us with the
amount of freedom that we could use in an amazing way.
I mean, it would allow our colleagues across disabilities
to have the same access and services that we would like if we
were able to use the multiple platforms for communication and
transmission of information in one static device, that we have
a webcam, that we have a video phone, that we have whatever
type of device is acceptable that would address that.
Right now, we're all operating with multiple lines,
multiple sources. We have tons of different technologies, and
it doesn't meet our needs.
Senator Kerry. Well, we're certainly going to--I'm
confident that we can get that done. I think that is
achievable. I'm confident Mr. McCormick believes so, and I
appreciate his willingness to work with us. We're going to try
and get this done as rapidly as we can.
And I'm enormously grateful to you for your eloquent
testimonies here today.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you and also really thank the panel for being here today and
helping this subcommittee and, by virtue of helping the
Subcommittee, helping the entire Senate understand the lay of
the land right now.
Ms. Scoggins, let me start with you, if I may, and that is
one time I had a conversation with Marlee Matlin that I'll
probably never forget, because she told me her favorite movie
growing up was the Wizard of Oz, and she noticed on the
Internet that a website was going to be playing the Wizard of
Oz for free.
And she was excited and she got her kids and they popped
the popcorn and they sat down in front of the computer screen
and were just going to have a fun night, and when it came on,
it wasn't closed caption. And my question for you is, have you
had similar experiences to that?
Ms. Scoggins. Oh, yes. Right now, you know, they produce a
lot of Blu-ray technologies, and I thought that was an
excellent thing.
My mother had actually bought me one of the very recent
movies that came out, and I thought it would be great. And I'm
deaf. My mother's deaf. We thought it would be fabulous. We put
the DVD in and it just wouldn't work. It was incompatible.
So we figured we'd go and try it with the Blu-ray. We
thought this is great. We have the technology. We have our
popcorn. It's ready to go. And, lo-and-behold, it wasn't
captioned, again.
It just doesn't seem to matter what the standards are or
what the industry is supposed to be doing. And we have to have
these legal standards in order to make them accept the concept
that each newly-produced movie should have it as a standard
expectation that captions are included.
Marlee Matlin's experience is very similar to what I would
say most of us in the community have experienced.
Senator Pryor. And, Mr. Harvard, have you had those same
types of experiences?
Mr. Harvard. Well, I would be in a spot if I had to tell
you someone who didn't. We've all had that experience. I don't
think you could find a single deaf or hard-of-hearing person
who would be able to tell you that they have never had that
type of frustrating experience.
Senator Pryor. And, Mr. Harvard, let me ask you, one of the
other witnesses talked about emergency information with, say,
storm warnings and things of that nature, what is your
experience in trying to get emergency information about storms
and other things you need to be aware of?
Mr. Harvard. In my personal experience, I haven't had a
problem with that because I can see the text that's scrolling
on the screen when those types of warnings are coming across,
but I am concerned for other folks who are blind that don't
have access to that. So I would encourage you all to focus on
that as well, to make sure that they have equal access.
Ms. Scoggins. And if I may, mostly I would say that the
emergency services, the notifications that come across the
system, it certainly isn't a perfect system. There are many
times and occasions when deaf people don't hear those beeps and
alarms. So some kind of emergency system or a notification
system----
It would really, unfortunately, require us to actually be
able to look at the TV set, which we aren't always doing. So if
it was available on the Internet as well and it did not have
those significant time delays as we often experience, that
would be the best solution.
Because, right now, like if somebody has a heart attack,
for example, the old technology that we used to have to use to
make an emergency phone call--I-A-M-H-A-V-I-N-G--spelling out
each individual letter to get to the point that they're having
a heart attack, and then having to wait for the etiquette rules
to say go ahead for the other person to take their turn makes
it completely inefficient when an emergency occurs.
So if we have the ability to call emergency services. So
it's not so much the notification as it is our ability to
interface with the emergency services and get their attention
in a timely fashion, because it's just not a perfect system
right now.
Senator Pryor. Thank you for that.
And, Sergeant Pearce, you've really been on both sides of
this, because, until you were deployed with your military
service--and, again, we all appreciate that, but until you did
that, you were totally fine in your vision. And, now, I believe
the other day you told me that it's almost like looking through
a straw, that's how much vision you have now.
You've been on both sides of this equation then. So, what
are some of the biggest challenges you've had, when it comes to
technology and modern communication, since you've had your
traumatic brain injury?
Sergeant Pearce. The biggest problem that I've encountered
is really the stubbornness of change.
Like, I go in to a retail store and try to explain my
problems to them and tell them what my problems are, and they
don't understand where I'm coming from as a non-sighted and
partially-hearing-loss person. And they're having a hard time
solving my problems. So----
Senator Pryor. So like, for example, you might, say, buy a
cell phone or something like that and it's not working to your
satisfaction, when you go back to the retail store and try to
explain the situation, you have difficulty there?
Sergeant Pearce. Right.
Senator Pryor. And have you also dealt with retail stores
and the manufacturers and the service providers when it comes
to wireless phones?
Sergeant Pearce. Yes.
Senator Pryor. And how has that been resolved for you?
Sergeant Pearce. I've been through several phones.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pearce. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thanks a lot, Senator Pryor.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Kerry.
Thank you for holding this hearing.
I know that, Sergeant Pearce, you'd be interested in my
cell-phone bill of rights----
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar.--that we want to get passed. I think
everyone feels those frustrations, and you more than others.
And, again, thank you for your service.
As I listened to this, I was thinking about all these
advancements in technologies, and, I'll be honest, until the
Chairman held this hearing, I hadn't thought about how the
potential for good for all of you, but, also, the potential
that you could be left behind if the new technologies that we
develop don't keep up in serving people with disabilities. And
just as technology and software is upgraded, our laws have to
be upgraded as well.
And I was glad to see in the National Broadband Plan that
the FCC addressed modernizing equitability laws, rules and
related subsidy programs, but I think it all has to be done in
a way that we put your needs first, and that that has to be a
major part as we go along.
And I've thought about this, and I'm head of the 911
Caucus, and so, there again, we also see new ways to
communicate emergencies and new great potential of using and
harnessing the technology that we have.
So, first, I wanted to ask you, Mr. Wlodkowski, about the
Internet Caption Forum and Society of Motion Pictures that is
supposed to be developing an industry standard for captioning
online video content. Do you know how far along these standards
are? How close are they to becoming a reality?
Mr. Wlodkowski. Thank you, Senator. The Internet Caption
Forum was a voluntary effort founded by AOL, Google, Yahoo!,
and Microsoft, back in 2007, to try and look at the barriers.
AOL enjoys a very, very loyal audience within the deaf
community, very appreciative of that audience, and that was
developed because of our pioneering of instant messaging, which
really revolutionized one-on-one communication.
We wanted to look at, with the Internet Caption Forum,
getting everybody together--industry in particular--to say how
could we make this happen on a scalable level. We were looking
at how to repurpose television content for distribution over
broadband networks.
Each media player had its own text format, so we realized
that we really needed to bring the content providers and
producers together with the broadcasters and other key
stakeholder groups--consumer electronics and captioning and
subtitling production companies. And we discovered that that
work would be better done in the Society for Motion Picture and
Television Engineers working group.
And Version 1.0 of that standard is expected later this
year. That should help us really move down the path. And I
believe that's the big issue that I see in all of this is that
there's a lot of ongoing activity. There's the TEITAC Report,
which addresses real-time text and closed captioning and
interoperability. That's the report that the access board is
looking at for their rulemaking for Section 508 and Section
255.
There's the SMPTE Working Group that's developing the
captioning standards for online video. There's the
Accessibility Interoperability Alliance and other facilitated
dialogue happening.
And so, as we move forward, it's really important that we
take a look at where all of these activities are and how we
bring them together and make sure that flexibility is at the
top of all of that, so that when we create these standards, as
technology evolves, that we can evolve with it.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. And in your testimony you
talked about all the layers of technology that are required to
make a web page accessible. And could you just briefly tell me
how you do that? Does it cost a lot? And how does a blind
individual access a website?
Mr. Wlodkowski. Sure. So the web page has to have some tags
that we put into our content. So if we're going to put an image
on a page, we put in what they call an Alt Tag, and that is a
piece of text that describes the image. That helps
accessibility and it helps search engines crawl our sites. So
it's an universal benefit to all of the industry and to all
users.
But to really make the page interactive with the blind
consumer, the screen-reader software--which replaces the mouse
by adding additional keyboard commands and also by either
speaking what's on the screen or by sending that information to
a refreshable Braille display--that software, the screen
reader, and the web browser that we all use--whether it be
Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, or Safari--they need to
communicate with each other.
So as the web browser comes to the AOL page, it sees all of
the web tags that we've put in to make accessibility more
efficient. It has to pass that back to the screen reader and
the screen reader has to be able to interact with it. So that's
where you get into the layers.
And it's the same thing with mobile devices and other
products where there's the operating system--which is
essentially the engine, you know, that device that the end-user
has in their hand that they're interacting with--and then the
content or the application that they're trying to use. And it's
a chain and there are many interdependencies along the way.
So, as we look at this, when we look at standards or any of
this, we want to make sure that we're not too prescriptive in
how implementation is done, because there are lots of
components that need to work together.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
You mind if I ask a few more questions, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Kerry. No, please--
Senator Klobuchar. I love that little beep when your time
is up. It's good for our hearing, but maybe others will want to
use it in the future against the Senators. This could be a good
way of ending our speeches. It was----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wlodkowski. Universal design.
Senator Klobuchar.--until today, I didn't know we had.
Ms. Scoggins, moving on from continuing on this discussion
with broadband, as we approach a major plan in the broadband
area, what percentage of deaf individuals would you say are
using broadband as their primary means of communication? And
should broadband be eligible for Lifeline/Link-Up subsidies to
facilitate the access?
Ms. Scoggins. So, first, for the broadband plan that is
currently being promoted, I find it very vital to the deaf and
hard-of-hearing community that they are a part of that process,
because it's the hope that within the next couple of years that
broadband will be all inclusive.
The percentage of how many deaf and hard-of-hearing users
actually have access to that service is--it is significant.
Thirty-nine percent of people who have disabilities responded
as being broadband users. And that is a nationwide-access
level. So there's a definite priority in that particular arena.
But it's just like with hearing users. There are still a
significant number of users who are deaf and hard-of-hearing
who have no access, for a variety of reasons, to broadband in
any way, shape or form.
Of course, on the East and West Coasts, we have the larger
cities, and in those larger cities we have the larger
populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, and we do
see a certain amount of saturation in those markets.
But, unfortunately, the technology itself doesn't always
meet our needs. And the needs themselves are that we need to
have a certain percentage of upload and download speed
capability for the visual images to be rendered appropriately
to show the language.
We do see that a higher level of deaf and hard-of-hearing
people are unemployed, as compared to the population at large,
because there's the simple fact that they cannot financially
afford the services. For those folks that are out there who
have no jobs, they are de facto not going to be able to afford
paying out the extreme costs for broadband services.
You mentioned the link-in, link-out Lifeline systems. A lot
of folks don't have access to those because, unfortunately,
they don't have a great clearinghouse for information to try
and share some of the massive outreach that these actually
occur, because people aren't aware of the services.
This bill is probably going to help us address a lot of
those situations. It's going to provide for more education.
It's going to provide for more awareness for how people who
have lower income levels can gain access to broadband services.
And so I would say there are a whole host of issues that are at
work here related to whether or not people have access to the
services.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
And then one last question, Mr. McCormick--you're down
there quiet at the end--in my role as Co-Chair of the 911
Caucus, I've heard a great deal about the next generation 911
technologies.
We have a bipartisan bill we've put together. And I can
actually imagine a system that can give text-message alerts or
video messages on cell phones announcing an emergency. And how
far away is real-time text for 911 purposes? And what other new
technologies are out there that will be able to distribute
emergency messages quicker and more conveniently?
Mr. McCormick. Senator, I'd be happy to provide that
information for the record, but I will say this: We're here
today in support of these aspirations because our industry has
one core business, which is to use technology to help improve
people's ability to communicate.
And our interest in this bill is in working to get it
passed and working to make sure that it meets the aspirations
of the individuals at this table, so that people with
disabilities, when they need to go to a 911 service, when they
access e-mail, when they go to the Internet that they have the
same reasonable expectations that the abled population has.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Thank you, Mr. McCormick. I want to just try to guarantee
that we can, hopefully in the next few days, get to really tie
up the concerns you had and the loose ends, and then,
hopefully, we can really try to move this thing through the
House and Senate as rapidly as we can. I think it's to
everybody's benefit to try to do that.
Is there anything any of the witnesses would like to say
that they haven't had a chance to say or that you think grows
out of any of the questions that have been asked thus far?
Everything covered?
Yes, Ms. Scoggins.
Ms. Scoggins. I just wanted to make one final point, which
is primarily to thank Mr. McCormick and for those providers out
there who have been working together with us. The work has been
quite laborious, and he has done the yeoman's effort thus far,
and just to emphasize that this bill will really help move
things forward in terms of inclusion, interoperability and all
of those other principles that we strive for in making
technology accessible to us. H.R. 3101 really showed that, and
I'm interested to see how fast this moves.
And I really want to thank you, Chairman Kerry--and Senator
Pryor, as well--for your efforts on this.
Senator Kerry. Well, thank you very much. I want this
hearing to be the departure point which you all remember as
having really kicked it into final gear.
As Mr. McCormick said earlier, there has been a lot of work
done, a lot of groundwork laid over the last year-and-a-half,
et cetera. I think we're poised to move.
I think your testimonies today have all been incredibly
helpful, very, very eloquent, very important. And I hope you'll
be able to look back with pride and say that--when this gets
done--you helped to make these services and devices and all of
these possibilities available to everybody. Thank you all very,
very much.
We stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]