Josh, I am not for creating new laws, just enforcing the ones we have. There is nothing in ADA, for example, that requires computers or iPods to be accessible. The whole idea of websites as places of public accommodation is extended the law and civil rights. That the iPhone should be accessible is less controversial.
Likewise, it is not the ADA that compels products like Macs and iPods to be accessible. It is Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act that does so. Even then, this law applies not to products sold generally, only those sold to the Federal government. However, there is settled law, the Telecommunication Act, that mandates that telephones be accessible. Do you think the cell phone companies all provide hearing aid and tty compatibly out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals have enough organized market clout that the manufactures do so for economic reasons? Section 255 of the Rehabilitation applies to consumer products. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cell_phones.html Unlike 508, which is required unless there is undue burden, the level of effort associated with 255 is much lower, it requires only those things that are readily achievable. The rule (1193.41a) already requires that phones be "Operable without vision. Provide at least one mode that does not require user vision." http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/rule.htm The cell phone manufacturers have gotten away with off-loading speech access to third parties because to do otherwise was not readily achievable. But Apple has OS X and VoiceOver, and the iPhone is so much more powerful than anything else on the market. If put on the spot, Apple could not credibly argue that accessibility is beyond their ability. FCC approval is the stick to make sure Apple does the right thing, noting more, and nothing less, than what the law already requires them to do.
