[SEC508] FW: Our Follow Up Questions from the 10/20 Accessibility Workshop

["Baquis, David " <baquis@Access-Board.gov>]

Forwarded with permission.

 

You can retrieve an archived video of that Workshop on this page: http://www.broadband.gov/ws_accessibility_disabilities.html.

 

David Baquis

Accessibility Specialist

U.S. Access Board

www.access-board.gov

202-272-0013

 

 

From: Elizabeth Lyle [mailto:Elizabeth.Lyle@fcc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:10 PM
To: Elizabeth Lyle
Subject: Our Follow Up Questions from the 10/20 Accessibility Workshop

 

All,

 

Thank you for participating in the October 20^th workshop.  I wanted to draw your attention to two blog posts – one which recaps the event and another which seeks comment to several follow up questions.  If it at all possible, we would appreciate your responses to the blog post questions (either on the blog itself or via ECFS) by Monday, November 16^th.  Please also e-mail me any filings that you submit through ECFS.

 

Thanks very much for your help.

 

Elizabeth Lyle

Policy Advisor, Broadband Team

 

Follow up Questions:

 

1. There was a lot of discussion at the roundtable about the concept of getting companies, independent software developers, consumers, government, and universities together to share best practices, understand consumer needs, and foster innovation. What are the next steps to establishing an innovation center or focus center program?  Are there some specific ideas on this and more information about models we can follow?

 

2. There were some general concerns expressed that applying regulation to broadband services and equipment might hamper innovation.  Have the processes mandated under Section 255, including as they relate to equipment and devices developed for VoIP services, hampered innovation? Have the FCC’s existing captioning rules or wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility rules hampered innovation? 

 

3. What is the effect of Section 255, HAC, and Section 508 regulations on the telecom and electronic and information technology marketplace?

 

4. The record contains a few examples of companies voluntarily making devices used for Internet access accessible to people with disabilities – in particular, the Apple I-Phone was mentioned several times at the workshop.  What are some other examples of which we should be aware?  What motivates companies to make their products accessible on a voluntary basis?  Will companies consider accessibility issues in the design and development of their broadband products and devices on a widespread basis if there is no mandate to do so?

 

5. What can the government do to attract additional capital investment to make products accessible?  What can the government do to incentivize independent software designers to create innovative assistive and adaptive technologies?

 

6. How is the development and distribution of assistive and adaptive technologies currently funded, including assistive and adaptive technologies used to access the Internet?  What specific recommendations should we make to address concerns expressed in the record about the expense of assistive and adaptive technologies?  Are there specific recommendations regarding how state programs could partner with a federal universal service program?

 

7. Are there specific recommendations about the best way for the FCC to get more involved in International efforts to harmonize standards relating to accessibility?