In doing some research into this matter I have found two regulations/
laws that may have a bearing on the iPhone. I want to stress that we
DO NOT KNOW if the iPhone is inaccessible or not. So let's assume
that it isn't for now.
First is the Telecommunication Act. This would seem to require Apple
to produce a phone that is accessible. The act give an out if it is
not readily able to do so. However given that the phone run OSX by
Apple's own admission then it would be hard to argue that it is not
readily about to make the phone accessible. The other option the act
provided is that the maker, Apple, could provide another accessible
model. No good in this case as this is the only model offered.
The second and perhaps far more serious issue is one of FCC approval.
The FCC has never approved a screen only phone and there have been
several attempts to get one approved. The reason for not approving
them has nothing to do with accessibility it has to do with safety.
They were rejected because in the case of an accident where the
screen was broken the phone would be unable to dial 911. It will be
interesting to see how Apple deals with this issue.
The last issue would not matter what Apple claims the iPhone to be. I
think it a ridiculous argument that the Telecommunication Act would
not apply because the iPhone isn't in fact a phone. I mean they call
it the iPhone after all.
Greg Kearney
On Jan 15, 2007, at 08:03 , Josh de Lioncourt wrote:
We have lots of laws on the books that some people may disagree
with. I happen to disagree with these, and i think I have
illustrated my views pretty succinctly as to why. There are also
some rather antiquated and silly laws on the books that have never
been taken off, so I can't support a blanket statement that any
laws that exist ought to be enforced, though I feel that is true on
general principle, and could support it if we were better at
cleaning up the old ones. But I digress.
I think the undo burden argument could definitely be applied to the
iPhone, so we disagree on that point. Apple can argue that the
touch screen is unusable by the blind under any circumstances, and
most people would buy into that, including most visually impaired
individuals. If they continue to believe click wheels are
inaccessible, they're never going to try to use a touch screen.
Making the device accessible, Apple may argue, would require the
development of an entirely new device. I wouldn't agree with it,
and Apple would be simply going with popular opinion on that, and
probably truly believe it to be true.
Also, Apple may argue that the iPhone is technically a computer
that happens to be a phone as well, hence making it fall into the
other category you sighted.
I'm a totally blind person. I love accessibility as much as anyone
else, but I cannot support that sort of government interference in
consumer products. As much as I would love to have an iPhone, and
as much as i would love for it to be totally accessible, it's a
slippery slope, and one I don't want to go down. We have very
different opinions on right or wrong in this case, which is so
often the case where law is concerned, hence the differing
political parties. *smile*
I certainly won't begrudge you with your attempt on the FCC, I just
can't be supportive of it.
Access Curmudgeon wrote:
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.
