Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 01-309
WT Docket No. 06-203 (Terminated)
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S 
HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Adopted:  October 5, 2007 Released:  October 5, 2007
By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements ....................................................................................... 3
1. Existing Deployment Benchmarks and Requirements .............................................................. 5
2. Technical Standard .................................................................................................................... 8
3. Commission Orders Resolving Waiver Requests.................................................................... 10
4. Pending Waiver Requests........................................................................................................ 13
B. Commission Staff Report............................................................................................................... 15
III. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................... 19
A. Availability of Compatible Handsets............................................................................................. 19
1. Impact of the Commission’s Rules.......................................................................................... 19
a. Compatible Handset Models............................................................................................. 24
b. Wireless Service Providers’ Offerings.............................................................................. 28
c. Evaluation of Progress To Date ........................................................................................ 32
2. Deployment Benchmarks and Related Requirements from 2008 to 2011............................... 34
B. Consumer Information and In-store Testing.................................................................................. 45
C. Developments Since the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order .......................................................... 56
1. Technological Developments Affecting the Hard of Hearing................................................. 57
a. Enhancements to Existing Technology............................................................................. 60
b. New and Developing Technologies .................................................................................. 67
2. Emerging Regulatory Issues.................................................................................................... 73
a. Expansion of Services to New Frequency Bands and Air Interfaces................................ 73
b. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) via Wireless Local Area Networks 
(WLANs) .......................................................................................................................... 77
c. “Open Platform” Networks............................................................................................... 86
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
2
D. Impact on Cochlear Implant and Middle Ear Implant Users ......................................................... 91
E. Labeling of Hearing Aids with Immunity Rating .......................................................................... 95
F. Further Review of Commission’s Rules ...................................................................................... 100
IV. CONCLUSION & SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 102
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 104
A. Accessible Formats ...................................................................................................................... 104
B. Contact Persons............................................................................................................................ 105
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 106
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Report, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”), in consultation with the 
Office of Engineering and Technology (“OET”) and other Bureaus and Offices of the Commission,
reviews the status of implementation of the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements.  This 
Report fulfills the Commission’s directive for staff to examine, shortly after three years after the effective 
date of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the following three topics:  (1) the impact of the Commission’s 
rules in achieving greater compatibility between hearing aids and digital wireless phones; (2) the 
development of new technologies that could provide greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless 
telecommunications to hearing aid users; and (3) the impact of hearing aid compatibility requirements on 
cochlear implant and middle ear implant users and their ability to use digital wireless phones.1  
Accordingly, this Report reviews the current state of wireless telephone compatibility with hearing aids 
and offers the Commission specific recommendations designed to further facilitate implementation of 
hearing aid compatibility requirements.  
2. Based upon careful consideration of the record before it, the Bureau: (1) assesses the impact 
of the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements in achieving compatibility between digital 
wireless phones and hearing aids; (2) evaluates whether to recommend changes to the hearing aid 
compatibility rules, including potential revised or additional compatible handset deployment benchmarks, 
consistent with a joint proposal that was submitted by representatives from the wireless industry and 
consumer advocacy groups for the deaf and hard of hearing; (3) considers potential measures to improve 
the availability of information to consumers; (4) examines the development of new technologies that 
could provide greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless telecommunications to hearing aid users; 
(5) considers whether changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules may be necessary to address changes 
in technology and regulation; (6) explores the impact of hearing aid compatibility requirements on 
cochlear implant and middle ear implant users, and their ability to use digital wireless phones; and (7) 
discusses developments relating to the labeling of hearing aids with their immunity rating.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements 
3. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order adopted in 2003, the Commission took a number of 
actions to further the ability of persons with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless 
telecommunications.2 Among other measures, the Commission required manufacturers and digital 
wireless service providers collectively to take steps to increase the number of hearing aid-compatible 
handset models available, and established phased-in deployment benchmark dates for the offering of 
  
1 Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-
309, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16782-83 ถ 74 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) (Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Order).  The Commission adopted these requirements for digital wireless telephones under 
authority of a provision of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, codified at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ง 610(b)(2)(C).
2 See generally Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
3
hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handset models.3  In promulgating the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements, the Commission addressed hearing aids that operate in either of two modes -- acoustic 
coupling or inductive coupling.  Hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling mode receive and amplify all 
sounds surrounding the user, including desired sounds, such as a telephone’s audio signal, as well as 
unwanted ambient noise.4 Hearing aids operating in inductive coupling mode avoid amplifying unwanted 
ambient noise by turning off the microphone and using a telecoil to receive only audio signal-based 
magnetic fields generated by telecoil-compatible telephones.5
4. The Commission’s hearing aid compatibility rules apply generally to providers of digital 
commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) “to the extent that they offer real-time, two-way switched 
voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an in-network 
switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of 
subscriber calls,” as well as to manufacturers of wireless phones used in the delivery of such services. 6  
However, because relevant technical standards have been established to date only for Broadband Personal 
Communications Services, Cellular Radio Telephone Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio Services in 
the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands, only those services are currently subject to the specific requirements 
under Section 20.19 of the rules.7  In the 700 MHz Service Report and Order adopted in April 2007, the 
Commission established a timetable for the development of the necessary technical standards for new 
services and frequency bands that have governing service rules in place and for incorporation of 
requirements based on those standards into its rules.8 Specifically, the Commission stated its expectation 
  
3 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ถ 65; 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c). At that time, the 
Commission reported that approximately six million Americans used hearing aids to improve their hearing.  Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16756 ถ 5.  The Commission observed, inter alia, that “as wireless service 
has evolved to become increasingly more important to Americans’ safety and quality of life, the need for persons 
with hearing disabilities to have access to wireless services has become critical.”  Id. at 16757 ถ 7.  
4 Id.  The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described acoustic coupling as follows:
In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds, desired and undesired, and 
converts them into electrical signals.  The electrical signals are amplified as needed and then converted 
back into sound by the hearing aid speaker.  
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763 ถ 22.
5 Id.  In telecoil mode, with the microphone turned off, the telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field 
generated by the voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible telephones, audio loop systems, or 
powered neck loops.  The hearing aid converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as needed, 
and converts them back into sound via the speaker.  Using a telecoil avoids the feedback that often results from 
putting a hearing aid up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent exposure to over amplification, and 
eliminates background noise, providing improved access to the telephone.
6 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(a); see also In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, 
WT Docket 06-150, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8117-18 ถ 
142 (2007) (700 MHz Service Report and Order).  CMRS is defined as mobile service that is provided for profit, 
interconnected, and available to the public.  47 C.F.R. ง 20.3; see 47 U.S.C. ง 332(d)(1).  We note that telephones 
used with public mobile services, as well as those used with private radio services, are exempt from the general 
statutory requirement that all telephones meet hearing aid compatibility standards.  47 U.S.C. ง 610(b)(2)(A); see 
also 47 C.F.R. ง 68.4.  In 1994, Congress amended Section 332 of the Communications Act, replacing the public 
mobile service and private radio service categories with CMRS and private mobile [radio] service (PMRS).  See 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16764-65 ถ 26.  “Public mobile service” is defined to include 
certain services covered under Part 22 of our rules.  47 U.S.C. ง 610(b)(4)(B); 47 C.F.R. ง 68.3.
7 See 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(b); 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8119 ถถ 145-147.  The existence of an 
established, applicable technical standard is a statutory requirement for imposing hearing aid compatibility 
requirements.  See Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (1988), codified at 47 U.S.C. ง 610.
8 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8119-20 ถถ 148-150.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
4
that appropriate technical standards for the wireless communications services bands listed in Section 
27.1(b) will be established within 24 months of the Federal Register publication of the 700 MHz Service 
Report and Order, and committed that, if this occurs, it will initiate a further proceeding at that time to 
establish a specific timetable for deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets based on the adopted 
standards for services in the relevant bands.9
1. Existing Deployment Benchmarks and Requirements
5. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission established a number of 
deployment benchmarks and other related requirements.  These requirements were later modified slightly 
in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order adopted in 2005.10  With respect to acoustic
coupling operation, the Commission generally required each covered manufacturer and service provider 
to offer specific numbers of handset models per air interface in its product line (i.e., CDMA, TDMA, 
GSM, and iDEN)11 that the manufacturer or service provider offers that meet, at a minimum, an M3 rating 
(formerly denominated a U3 rating) for reduction of radio frequency (RF) interference between handsets 
and hearing aids in acoustic coupling mode, as set forth in the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) C63.19 technical standard.12  The Commission also established separate requirements to offer 
handset models that meet at least a T3 rating (formerly denominated a U3T rating) to enable inductive 
coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode.13  If a handset manufacturer or service provider 
offers a multi-band handset in order to comply with these requirements, the handset must be hearing-aid 
compatible in each frequency band.14  The Commission further established that, before a handset can be 
offered in satisfaction of these obligations, the handset manufacturer must first certify that it is compliant 
  
9 Id.  
10 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Order on 
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 11221, 11208-
09 ถถ 26-27 (Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order).  
11 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ถ 65.  The term air interface refers to the system that 
ensures compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as handsets, and the service provider’s base 
stations.  Currently, the leading air interfaces include Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for 
Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated Dispatch Enhanced Network (iDEN), Time Division Multiple Access 
(TDMA) and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA). We note that WCDMA is also known as 
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).  We use WCDMA, rather than UMTS, throughout this 
report for consistency and ease of reference.
12 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ถ 65; 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(b)(1), (c)(1)-(3).  The 2001 
version of ANSI Standard C63.19, which the Commission adopted in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, used a 
“U” nomenclature for RF interference reduction, and this nomenclature is referenced in Section 20.19 of the 
Commission’s rules.  Subsequently, the 2006 version of this standard substituted the “M” nomenclature.  For 
purposes of clarity, we will use the “M” nomenclature throughout this Report when referring to RF interference 
reduction ratings, unless referring to specific text that uses the “U” nomenclature.  
13 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ถ 65; 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(b)(2), (d).  The 2006 version 
of ANSI Standard C63.19 substituted “T” nomenclature for the “UT” terminology that was used in the 2001 version 
of the standard.  For purposes of clarity, we will use the “T” terminology throughout this Report when referring to 
inductive coupling compatibility ratings.
14 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Cingular 
Wireless LLC Petition for Waiver of Section 20.19(c)(3)(i)(A) of the Commission’s Rules, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 15108, 15115 ถ 17 (2005) (Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order)
(Commission permitted handset manufacturers and service providers offering dual-band GSM wireless handsets 
operating in both the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands additional time, until August 1, 2006, for making available 
handsets with a U3 (i.e., M3) or higher rating in both bands).  This order is discussed more fully below.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
5
with the compatibility requirements through the Commission’s equipment authorization process as set 
forth in Section 2.1033(d) of the Commission’s rules.15  
6. In the absence of falling within an exception or waiver,16 the following summarizes the 
deployment benchmarks under the Commission’s current hearing aid compatibility requirements:
Radio Frequency Interference
ท By September 16, 2005, each digital wireless handset manufacturer had to make available to 
digital wireless service providers at least two M3-rated handset models for each air interface it 
offers.17  By this same date, each digital wireless service provider had to make available to 
consumers at least two M3-rated handset models for each air interface it offers and make 
available in its retail stores all of these handset models for testing by consumers.18  
ท By September 16, 2006, each Tier I carrier providing digital wireless services had to make 
available to consumers at least five M3-rated handsets for each air interface it offers or 25% of 
the total number of handset models it offers, and make available in retail stores all of these
handset models for testing by consumers.19
ท By February 18, 2008, at least 50% of all digital wireless handset models offered by 
manufacturers or digital wireless service providers per air interface offered must meet an M3 
rating.20
Inductive Coupling
ท By September 18, 2006, each digital wireless handset manufacturer had to make available to 
wireless service providers, and each digital wireless service provider had to make available to 
consumers, at least two T3-rated handsets for each air interface it offers, and each digital wireless 
service provider had to make available in its retail stores all of these handset models for testing by 
consumers.21
  
15 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16783 ถ 75; 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(b)(3).
16 For example, any service provider using a TDMA air interface that planned to overbuild (i.e., replace) its network 
to employ an alternative air interface was given a temporary reprieve from compliance on its TDMA network, 
provided certain conditions were met.  See 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B).  
17 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(1)-(2).  
18 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(2)(i).
19 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(3)(i)(B).  The four nationwide, terrestrial CMRS carriers, AT&T Services, Inc., Verizon 
Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA, are considered Tier I carriers.  See Revision of the Commission’s Rules 
to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-
Nationwide CMRS Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14843 ถ 7 (2002) (Non-Nationwide Carriers 
Order).  
20 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c).
21 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
6
De Minimis Exception
ท Digital wireless handset manufacturers or digital wireless service providers that offer two or 
fewer digital wireless handsets in the U.S. are exempt from the requirements of the hearing aid 
compatibility rules.22
ท Digital wireless service providers that obtain handsets only from manufacturers that offer two or 
fewer digital wireless handset models in the U.S. likewise are exempt from the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements.23
ท Digital wireless handset manufacturers or digital wireless service providers that offer three digital 
wireless handset models must offer at least one compliant handset model.24  
ท Digital wireless service providers that obtain handsets only from manufacturers that offer three 
digital wireless handset models in the U.S. are required to offer at least one compliant handset 
model.25
7. In addition to establishing the deployment requirements above, the Commission also required 
manufacturers and digital wireless service providers to display the associated M-rating of handsets on the 
packaging material and to include an explanation of the ANSI C63.19 M-rating system in the owner’s 
manual or as an insert in the packaging material for the handset.26 The Commission further required 
manufacturers and wireless service providers to report every six months on efforts toward compliance 
with the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years of implementation (on May 17, 
2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005, November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006, and November 17, 2006), 
and then annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (on November 19, 2007 and 
November 17, 2008).27
2. Technical Standard
8. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted its rules based upon 
the 2001 version of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard in effect at that time.28 Subsequently, the ANSI 
technical standard has been revised on several occasions.  In April 2005, OET in conjunction with the 
Bureau, acting on delegated authority,29 recognized that ANSI had released a draft version of an updated 
hearing aid compatibility standard, ANSI C63.19-2005, and clarified that applicants for certification 
  
22 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(e)(1).
23 Id. 
24 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(e)(2).
25 Id. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, the Commission clarified the de minimis exception 
applies on a per air interface basis, rather than across a manufacturer’s or carrier’s entire product line. Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244-45 ถ 53.
26 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(f).
27 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ถถ 89-91; see also Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, 
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB 2004).
28 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ถ 63.
29 In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission delegated to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
in coordination with OET, the authority to approve future versions of the hearing aid compatibility technical 
standard to the extent that the changes to the standard do not raise major compliance issues.  See Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ถ 63.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
7
could rely on either the 2001 or draft 2005 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard.30 Subsequently, in the 
spring of 2006, ANSI adopted a revised version 3.12 of standard C63.19.  This revision, among other 
things, redesignated the U3 and U3T rating nomenclature as “M3” and “T3,” respectively, adopted a 
revised standard for meeting an M3 rating for wireless devices operating below 960 MHz, and made some 
changes in GSM testing standards in other frequency bands.31  
9. On June 6, 2006, the Bureau and OET released a public notice stating that, effective 
immediately, OET would accept applications for certification of equipment tested and rated under the 
revised standard ANSI C63.19-2006 for all wireless phone hearing aid compatibility testing and rating, as 
specified in Section 20.19 of the rules.32 The 2006 ANSI Standard Public Notice further specified that 
applicants for certification may rely on, and must identify, only one version of the ANSI C63.19 standard, 
either 2001, 2005 or 2006.33 More recently, the ANSI standard was revised in 2007.  On June 25, 2007, 
the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) (ANSI ASC C63) filed a petition requesting that 
the Commission adopt the 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard in place of the 2001, 
2005 draft and 2006 versions of the technical standard.34
3. Commission Orders Resolving Waiver Requests
10. On September 8, 2005, the Commission released the Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order, which 
provided a limited waiver of the September 16, 2005 deadline for offering M3-rated handset models to 
entities that offer dual-band GSM digital wireless handsets operating in both the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz 
bands.35 Pursuant to its waiver authority, the Commission ruled that it would accept, until August 1, 
2006, a dual-band GSM handset’s hearing aid compatibility compliance rating for 1900 MHz operation as 
the overall compliance rating for the handset with regard to the U3 (i.e., M3) rating.36  In adopting this 
order, the Commission emphasized its concern that the relief be limited in time.37 In addition, the 
Commission imposed a number of reporting and consumer outreach conditions on service providers 
seeking to avail themselves of this temporary waiver relief.38  
  
30 See Public Notice, “OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard 
Measurement Procedures and Rating Nomenclature,” 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (2005).
31 See American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications 
Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2006, at 1, 52-53, 65-66.
32 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Clarify Use of Revised 
Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (2006) (2006 ANSI Standard 
Public Notice).  
33 Id.
34 See Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) - ANSI ASC 
C63 filed on June 25, 2007 in WT Docket 01-309 (ANSI ASC C63 Petition).  See also ANSI Comments.  ANSI ASC 
C63 states that further improvements have been made to the technical standard to reflect changes in technology, and 
efficiencies and improvements in testing procedures, resulting in the 2007 version of the technical standard. ANSI 
ASC C63 Petition at 2.  Additionally, ANSI ASC C63 states that a strong consensus was achieved with the 2007 
edition of the technical standard as evinced by a one hundred percent (100%) affirmative vote in its final 
recirculation ballot.  As discussed further infra, the Hearing Loss Association of America and Gallaudet University 
Technology Access Program support this petition.  See HLAA Comments at 10, HLAA Reply Comments at 7, and 
TAP Reply Comments at 8.
35 See generally Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order, 20 FCC Rcd 15108, 15115 ถ 17.
36 Id.
37 Id. 
38 Id. at 15117-18 ถ 23.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
8
11. On September 16, 2005, the Commission granted a limited temporary waiver of the hearing 
aid compatibility deployment and labeling requirements to T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), a Tier I 
carrier.39 T-Mobile sought additional time within which to comply with the M3-rated handset deployment 
requirement and the associated labeling requirements because of the last-minute inability of its vendors to 
provide requisite handsets. In granting T-Mobile’s waiver request, the Commission determined that the 
limited relief sought by T-Mobile was consistent with the Commission’s goal of ensuring the expeditious 
introduction of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets and would permit T-Mobile to have the 
necessary collateral marketing materials in place, including informational placards in retail handset 
displays.40  
12. In April 2007, the Commission released the September 2005 Compatibility Requirements 
Waiver Order addressing waiver requests filed by 19 Tier II and Tier III carriers seeking relief from the 
Commission’s requirement to offer at least two digital wireless telephone handset models per air interface 
that are certified as M3-rated by September 16, 2005.41 In addition, the petitioners generally requested
waivers of Section 20.19(f) of the Commission’s rules, which specifies the labeling requirements for 
hearing aid-compatible handsets.42 Taking into account its longstanding commitment to ensure that deaf 
and hard of hearing individuals have full access to, and helpful technical information about, digital 
wireless services, the Commission granted limited waivers nunc pro tunc to several of the petitioners and
denied waivers to other petitioners, and dismissed the three remaining petitioners’ waiver requests as 
unnecessary.43  With respect to those waiver requests where limited relief was granted, the Commission 
acknowledged that the carriers were unable timely to comply with the applicable handset deployment 
requirement because the requisite hearing aid-compatible handsets were unavailable to them as of 
September 16, 2005, and that these carriers acted diligently to come into compliance with the deployment 
and labeling requirements within a short period after the deadline.44  The Commission referred to the 
Enforcement Bureau (EB) those petitioners to which it denied waivers, in whole or in part, and EB has 
subsequently initiated action against several of these parties.45
  
39 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, T-Mobile USA, 
Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 20.19(c)(3) of the Commission’s Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT 
Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 15147, 15150 ถ 7 (2005) (T-Mobile Waiver Order).  In granting limited relief, the 
Commission required T-Mobile to make available to consumers one hearing aid-compatible handset model meeting 
an M3 rating no later than September 16, 2005; two hearing aid-compatible handset models meeting an M3 rating no 
later than October 16, 2005; and four hearing aid-compatible handset models meeting an M3 rating no later than 
November 16, 2005.  Id. at 15148 ถ 1. 
40 See id. at 15151 ถถ 8-10.
41 Section 68.4 (a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Petitions for Waiver 
of Section 20.19 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket 01-309, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 
7171 (2007) (September 2005 Compatibility Requirements Waiver Order).  See also 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(2)(i).  Tier 
II carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with more than 500,000 subscribers.  Tier III carriers 
are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers.  See Non-Nationwide 
Carriers Order,17 FCC Rcd at 14847 ถถ 22-24.
42 September 2005 Compatibility Requirements Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7172 ถ 1.  
43 Id. at 7200-03 ถถ 72-91.
44 The Commission has previously acknowledged that, “[i]n contrast to large carriers, smaller wireless carriers may 
be disadvantaged when they seek to acquire … specialized handsets” because vendors treat the largest carriers, who 
place the largest orders for equipment, as priority customers.  See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11233 ถ 22.  
45 See, e.g., IT&E Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 7660 (EB 2007) and Pine 
Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9205 (EB 2007).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
9
4. Pending Waiver Requests
13. There are 12 waiver requests pending from Tier III carriers seeking relief from the 
Commission’s RF interference reduction requirements for digital wireless telephones.46 Specifically, each 
request seeks a partial waiver of Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(A) of the Commission’s rules, which requires non-
nationwide wireless service providers to offer, by September 16, 2005, two or more digital handset 
models per air interface that are rated hearing aid-compatible under defined standards for RF interference 
reduction.47 More particularly, the petitioners seek extension of a limited waiver of that provision granted 
previously by the Commission in the Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order, which provided that, until August 
1, 2006, it would accept a GSM dual band handset’s hearing aid compatibility rating in the 1900 MHz 
band as the rating for the handset overall.48 Also pending before the Commission are motions from four 
of the petitioners for leave to withdraw their petitions.49
14. Additionally, there are 42 waiver petitions seeking extensions of the deadline for handsets to 
be compliant with hearing aid compatibility standards for inductive coupling that remain pending before 
the Commission.50 Each of the petitioners requests waiver of the handset deployment requirement set 
forth in Section 20.19(d) of the Commission’s rules, which provides that, by September 18, 2006, all 
handset manufacturers and all providers of public mobile radio service (other than those falling within a 
de minimis exception) must offer at least two digital wireless telephone handset models per digital air 
interface offered that are certified at least T3 under the ANSI C63.19 standard.51
B. Commission Staff Report
15. As noted above, the Commission directed in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order that, 
“[s]hortly after three years after the effective date of this Order, FCC staff will deliver to the Commission 
a report” that examines three topics: (1) “the impact of our rules in achieving greater compatibility 
between hearing aids and digital wireless phones;” (2) “the development of new technologies that could 
provide greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless telecommunications to hearing aid users;” and 
(3) “the impact of this Order’s compatibility requirements on cochlear implant and middle ear implant 
users and their ability to use digital wireless phones.”52 The Commission stated that the report would 
“form the basis for the Commission to initiate a proceeding to evaluate: (1) whether to increase [or] 
decrease the 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that comply with a U3 rating; (2) 
whether to adopt [hearing aid compatibility] implementation benchmarks beyond 2008; and (3) whether 
  
46 Copies of petitions for waiver are available in WT Docket No. 01-309.  We note that, since the filing of their 
waiver petitions, many of the petitioners have notified the Commission that they have come into compliance with 
the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements for RF interference reduction. 
47 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(2)(i)(A).
48 See Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order, 20 FCC Rcd 15115 ถ 17.  
49 Copies of the motions for leave to withdraw are available in WT Docket No. 01-309.
50 Copies of petitions for waiver are available in WT Docket No. 01-309.  We note that, since the filing of their 
waiver petitions, many of the petitioners have notified the Commission that they have come into compliance with 
the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements for inductive coupling.
51 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(d)(2).  HLAA and Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inc. jointly have 
opposed these petitions for waiver, arguing, among other things, they are not in the public interest or, in the 
alternative, that, if the Commission determines that some of the petitions have merit, it should restrict any relief 
granted to a limited period of time.  See Consolidated Opposition of Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing Inc. and Hearing Loss Association of America to Requests for Waiver of Commission Rule 20.19(d)(2), 
filed on November 6, 2006 in WT Docket 01-309, and HLAA Reply Comments at 6.
52 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ถ 74.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
10
to otherwise modify the [hearing aid compatibility] requirements.”53 The rules adopted in the Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Order became effective on November 17, 2003.54
16. On November 8, 2006, the Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on topics to be 
addressed in the hearing aid compatibility report to be prepared by Commission staff.55 The public notice 
originally established that comments were due on December 15, 2006, and reply comments were due on 
January 5, 2007.56 On December 5, 2006, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
(ATIS), Hearing Loss Association of America, CTIA, Gallaudet University, Research in Motion, Nokia, 
Samsung Telecommunications America, and T-Mobile filed a motion for extension of time within which 
to submit comments and reply comments.57 On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a public notice 
granting the motion and extending the comment submission deadline to January 12, 2007, and the reply 
comment submission deadline to January 31, 2007.58 We received 20 comments59 and 13 reply 
comments.60
17. Joint Consensus Plan.  On April 23, 2007, representatives from the Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) Incubator Solutions Program 4 - Hearing Aid 
Compatibility61 and advocates for consumers with hearing loss met with Commission staff to explain 
preliminarily a consensus proposal to revise and update Section 20.19 of the Commission’s rules, 
including a proposed alternative to the Commission’s requirement that manufacturers and wireless service 
providers must ensure that at least fifty percent (50%) of their handset models meet an M3 or better rating 
by February 18, 2008.62  ATIS states that “through an open and impartial process,” its working group 
developed a comprehensive plan reflecting the joint input of the wireless industry and consumers with 
hearing loss (the “Joint Consensus Plan”).63 The participants included many wireless service providers
and equipment manufacturers, as well as the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard 
of Hearing (AG Bell), the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), Gallaudet University 
Technology Access Program (TAP), and the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on 
  
53 Id.
54 See Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones, 68 Fed. Reg. 54173, 54175 ถ 17 (2003).
55 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Report, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (WTB 2006) (Staff Report Public Notice).
56 Id.
57 In the Matter of Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT 
Docket 06-203, Motion for Extension of Time, filed on December 5, 2006 (extension motion).
58Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Motion for Extension of Time to File Comments and Reply 
Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 14399 
(WTB 2006).
59 We note that some of the 20 comments were joint comments filed by several parties.
60 Parties filing comments and reply comments and the abbreviated references by which they are cited in this report 
are listed in the Appendix.
61 ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working Group.
62 See Ex Parte Presentation filed by Thomas Goode, General Counsel, ATIS in WT Docket No. 06-203 (April 24, 
2007).
63 ATIS Supplemental Comments filed in WT Docket No. 06-203 (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Consensus 
Plan) at 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
11
Telecommunications Access (RERC).  On June 25, 2007, the ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working 
Group filed Supplemental Comments that present in detail this comprehensive consensus proposal.64  
18. The Joint Consensus Plan incorporates several inter-related components that are designed to 
increase the availability of a variety of handset models with advanced features as well as more 
economical models to hard of hearing consumers, as well as to recognize the technological and economic 
constraints that sometimes limit production of marketable models that meet compatibility thresholds.  
These proposals include:
ท providing Tier I carriers a numerical alternative to the current requirement to offer 50% of 
handset models per air interface meeting at least an M3 rating by February 18, 2008; 
ท increasing the number of T3-rated or better handset models that Tier I carriers must make 
available; 
ท changing to 33% the percentage of wireless handset models per air interface rated M3 or 
better that manufacturers must offer; 
ท increasing manufacturers’ required offerings of handset models meeting at least a T3 rating; 
ท requiring manufacturers to include hearing aid compatibility in some of their new models 
each year (“product refresh” requirement) and in handset models with varying form factors; 
ท requiring Tier I carriers to offer acoustic coupling-compatible handset models from “multiple 
tiers” of functionality which industry will define; 
ท implementing a phase-in of the ASC C63.19-2007 technical standard for hearing aid 
compatibility; and 
ท requiring that manufacturers and carriers regularly report on the availability of compliant 
handset models.  
The Joint Consensus Plan also requests swift action in light of the approaching February 2008 deadline.65  
We discuss the Joint Consensus Plan in more detail below.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Availability of Compatible Handsets
1. Impact of the Commission’s Rules
19. Background.  As discussed earlier, the Commission requires manufacturers and digital 
wireless service providers to report every six months on efforts toward compliance with the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements for the first three years of implementation, and then annually thereafter 
through the fifth year of implementation.66  On or before November 17, 2006, manufacturers and wireless 
service providers filed their most recent compliance reports, detailing, among other things, the hearing 
aid-compatible handset models that they offered.67  Bureau staff reviewed and verified (to the extent 
possible) the information in the November 2006 compliance reports in order to assess the impact of the 
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility rules. 
  
64 Joint Consensus Plan at 1-5.
65 Id. at 14-15.
66 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ถถ 89-91; see also Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, 
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB 2004).
67 Copies of manufacturers’ and wireless service providers’ compliance reports are available in WT Docket No. 01-
309.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
12
20. Discussion.  Meeting the worthy goal of compatibility between hearing aids and wireless 
devices in order to satisfy the critical needs of the deaf and hard of hearing community is complicated by 
several factors, including the technical electromagnetic and magnetic interactions of these two classes of 
devices, as well as consumer preferences and how those preferences affect acceptance of design choices.68  
At present, the population of the U.S. is comprised of approximately 300 million people.69 Of those 
numbers, over 213 million individuals are wireless subscribers.70  Americans have come to rely 
increasingly on mobile phones in their work and personal lives.  According to HLAA, the number of 
individuals today in the U.S. with hearing loss is at an all time high of 31 million people -- with that 
number expected to reach approximately 40 million people at the end of this decade.71 As a consequence, 
there is an ever increasing need to afford those with hearing loss greater access to compatible wireless 
phones with the full complement of features and the benefit of the latest technological advances.
21. We briefly summarize a few of the findings gleaned from information collected in the 
November 2006 compliance reports before presenting a more detailed discussion of the data.  As 
demonstrated by the data presented below, the Commission’s rules have contributed to achieving greater 
compatibility between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids.  According to the manufacturers’ 
November 2006 status reports, the data reveals that 113 of their current handset models, or 52.1% of their 
available offerings, met at least an M3 rating for RF interference reduction.  Similarly, the data shows that 
49 out of 103 service providers that filed reports offered five or more handset models meeting this 
standard, and these providers offer service to, at least, 193.4 million wireless mobile service subscribers.  
Further, the data for inductive coupling demonstrates that 57 of the manufacturers’ handset models, or 
26.3%, met at least a T3 rating (and 14.3% met a T4 rating), and 11 service providers offered their 
subscribers at least five T3-rated or better handset models.  
22. At the same time, the data reveals that there is a difference in the availability of hearing aid-
compatible handset models by air interface.  For example, as of November 2006, 89.8% of the 
manufacturers’ CDMA production models met at least an M3 rating, but only 20.2% of the GSM handset 
models reached this threshold (with one meeting an M4 rating).  Two out of 31 GSM filing carriers that 
were not subject to the de minimis exception offered five handset models with an M3 rating or better, and 
three with a T3 rating or better, while 18 out of 52 CDMA filing carriers that were not subject to the de 
minimis exception offered five handset models with an M3 rating or better, and three with a T3 rating or 
better.  Information provided by ATIS in the record also supports the greater availability of compatible 
handset models over the CDMA air interface.72  
23.  In the following sections, we review the most recent compliance reports filed to date, and 
summarize the data and our findings below.  
a. Compatible Handset Models 
24. There are a total of eight handset manufacturers that filed November 2006 compliance 
reports.73  As of November 2006, all eight of the manufacturers were fully compliant with the 
  
68 ATIS Comments at 1.
69 HLAA Comments at 19.  
70 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and 
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, Eleventh Report, 21 FCC 
Rcd 10947, 10950-51 ถ 5 (2006) (Eleventh CMRS Competition Report).
71 HLAA Comments at 19.
72 ATIS Comments at 15-29.
73 The eight manufacturers are:  Kyocera, LG Electronics, Motorola, Nokia, Research in Motion, Ltd., Samsung, 
Sanyo, and Sony Ericsson.  We note that additional manufacturers, as well as wireless service providers, may have 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
13
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements.  The eight manufacturers offered a total of 217 
handset models.
25. Number of Handset Models Offered per Air Interface: Of the total of 217 handset models 
offered by the eight manufacturers, the following summarizes the number of handset models available per
air interface.
CDMA: 88 handset models
GSM:  99 handset models
GSM/WCDMA:  5 handset models
iDEN: 25 handset models
26. Summary of Ratings of Handset Models per Air Interface: The relevant M-ratings and T-
ratings for handset models offered by the eight manufacturers are shown in the table below. As the table 
below illustrates, of the 217 handset models available, 113 of the handset models were rated M3 or better 
for RF interference.  Additionally, of the 217 handset models available, 57 of the handset models were 
rated T3 or better for inductive coupling capability.  
Air Interface
Total Handsets Offered 
by Manufacturers M3 M4 %M3&M4 T3 T4 %T3&T4
CDMA 88 42 37 89.8% 4 29 37.5%
GSM 99 19 1 20.2% 12 0 12.1%
GSM/WCDMA 5 3 0 60.0% 2 0 40.0%
iDEN 25 9 2 44.0% 8 2 40.0%
Total 217 73 40 52.1% 26 31 26.3%
Handset Manufacturer Filings Only
27. In addition to the 113 compatible handset models reported by the manufacturers that are rated 
M3 or better, there are 82 other handset models that were identified as meeting compatibility standards 
for either RF interference or inductive coupling in some of the wireless service providers’ November 
2006 compliance reports, but were not identified in the manufacturers’ reports.74 We attribute this
discrepancy to the fact that some handset models have been discontinued by the manufacturers but are 
still sold and carried in inventory by some wireless service providers.  Thus, some wireless service 
providers reported those discontinued handset models in their November 2006 compliance reports.  The 
table below shows the breakdown by air interface with associated hearing aid compatibility ratings of all
handset models reported by manufacturers and service providers as meeting compatibility thresholds in 
their respective compliance reports.75  
(Continued from previous page)    
been required to file reports but failed to do so.  Staff recommends that EB consider appropriate action against such 
parties.
74 We note that certain other models in addition to those 82 were identified in some service providers’ reports as 
compatible, but we have not been able to verify that they in fact meet compatibility standards based on the 
Commission’s records and follow-up contacts with the service providers and manufacturers.
75 This table does not include percentage figures because most service providers did not include information 
regarding their total number of handsets offered.  Hence, we do not have sufficient information to derive a 
meaningful denominator.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
14
Air Interface M3 M4 T3 T4
CDMA 94 54 7 37
GSM 29 1 15 0
GSM/WCDMA 3 0 2 0
iDEN 12 2 9 2
Total 138 57 33 39
Compatible Handset Models Filed by Manufacturers and Service Providers
b. Wireless Service Providers’ Offerings
28. State of Offerings by Wireless Service Provider:  One hundred and three wireless service 
providers filed compliance reports with the Commission in November 2006. Of these, 74 offered at least 
two handset models rated M3 or better for RF interference reduction as of November 2006, and 50
offered at least two models that met a T3 or better rating for inductive coupling capability.76 Since 
November 2006, at least 19 additional service providers have filed information with the Commission in 
the hearing aid compatibility docket (WT 01-309) indicating that they now offer at least two T3 or better 
handset models, for a total of 69. Moreover, many of these wireless service providers offer a broad 
choice of hearing aid-compatible handset models, going beyond the minimum requirements of the 
Commission’s rules. For example, as the table below illustrates, a total of 49 wireless service providers 
offered five or more handset models as of November 2006 that had achieved an M3 or M4 rating for RF
interference. 
Analysis of Service Providers Offering Compatible Handset Models M3 & M4 Rating T3 & T4 Rating
Number of Service Providers Offering Two Compatible Handset Models 16 28
Number of Service Providers Offering Three Compatible Handset Models 2 9
Number of Service Providers Offering Four Compatible Handset Models 7 2
Number of Service Providers Offering Five or More Compatible Handset Models 49 11
29. State of Offerings per Tier: Among the 103 wireless service providers that filed November 
2006 compliance reports, there are four Tier I carriers,77 seven Tier II carriers,78 88 Tier III carriers and 
four mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).79  The offerings of each of these classes of service 
providers break down as follows.
Tier I:  As of November 2006, the four Tier I carriers offered their subscribers 
between five and 31 handset models meeting at least an M3 rating, and between 
three and 14 handset models meeting at least a T3 rating for their GSM, CDMA 
and iDEN phones.
Tier II:  As of November 2006, six filing Tier II carriers offered their subscribers 
between two and 22 handset models meeting at least an M3 rating, and five
carriers offered between two and 12 handset models meeting at least a T3 rating.
  
76 Many of those service providers that did not offer at least two compatible models in each category are exempt 
from compliance under the de minimis exception, and others have pending requests for waiver of the Commission’s 
rules.  See ถถ 13-14 supra. Some service providers, however, appear neither to be exempt from the inductive 
coupling compatibility requirement nor to have requested waivers.  We recommended that EB consider appropriate 
enforcement action against these service providers. 
77 Cingular Wireless (now AT&T), Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless.
78 Tier II carriers that filed compliance reports include: Alltel, Centennial Communications, Dobson, Leap Wireless, 
Rural Cellular, SunCom Wireless, and US Cellular.
79 The four MVNOs that filed compliance reports are:  Disney Mobile, Hawaiian Telecom Services Co. (HTSC), 
Qwest, and Zefcom d/b/a Telispire PCS.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
15
Two carriers had waiver requests pending and subsequently informed the 
Commission that they now offer two handset models meeting at least a T3 rating.
Tier III:  As of November 2006, 56 filing Tier III carriers that were not subject to 
the de minimis exception offered their subscribers between two and 20 handset 
models meeting at least an M3 rating, and 34 of those filing Tier III carriers 
offered between two and nine handset models meeting at least a T3 rating.
MVNOs:  As of November 2006, three out of the four filing MVNOs offered 
their subscribers two handset models meeting at least an M3 rating, and two 
handset models meeting at least a T3 rating. The remaining MVNO was exempt 
from the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements.
30. According to the Eleventh CMRS Competition Report, the top 25 mobile wireless service 
providers (by subscribers) had a total of over 202.3 million mobile subscribers as of December 2005.80  
Of these 25 providers, those that filed compliance reports in November 2006 were serving 199.1 million 
wireless subscribers.81 The following table shows that the great majority of these 199.1 million wireless 
subscribers, or 193.2 million wireless subscribers, had at least five M3-rated or better, and three T3-rated 
or better, choices of hearing aid-compatible handset models. 
GSM CDMA & iDEN Total
Wireless Subscribers Served by the Top 25 Service Providers Having At Least Five M-
Rated and Three T-Rated Choices of Compatible Handset Models 75,834,000 117,323,000 193,157,000
Total Wireless Subscribers Served by the Top 25 Service Providers that Filed Compliance 
Reports in November 2006 79,545,000 119,561,000 199,106,000
Percentage of Wireless Subscribers Served by the Top 25 Service Providers Having At 
Leaset Five M-Rated and Three T-Rated Choices of Compatible Handset Models 95.33% 98.13% 97.01%
Analysis of Wireless Subscribers Served by the Top 25 Service Providers Having At Least Five M-Rated and 
Three T-Rated Choices of Compatible Handset Models
31. State of Offerings per Air Interface:  The majority of the wireless service providers operate 
using either a GSM or CDMA air interface. A few wireless service providers also reported using iDEN, 
WCDMA, or TDMA air interfaces.  A summary of the status of compatible handset model offerings by 
air interface82 follows:
CDMA:  As of November 2006, 53 CDMA service providers offered at least two 
M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and 37 of those offered at least 
two T3-rated or better compatible handset models. 18 of them offered at least 
five M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and three T3-rated or better 
compatible handset models.
GSM:  As of November 2006, 18 GSM service providers offered at least two 
M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and ten of these offered at least 
two T3-rated or better compatible handset models.  Two of them offered at least 
five M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and three T3-rated or better 
compatible handset models.
  
80 See Eleventh CMRS Competition Report, 21 FCC Rcd 10947, 11039, Table 4 (2006). We note that the Eleventh 
CMRS Competition Report only reports estimated subscriber information for the top 25 mobile wireless service 
providers.
81 Wireless service providers covering about 3.2 million subscribers, or approximately 1.6% of the total subscribers, 
did not file compliance reports.  Those wireless service providers that have been identified as not filing a November 
2006 compliance report have been referred to EB for further investigation.
82 Operators with multiple air interfaces are counted multiple times. For example, if an operator has both GSM and 
CDMA networks, it is counted twice -- once as a GSM operator and separately as a CDMA operator. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
16
iDEN:  As of November 2006, the only two filing iDEN service providers 
offered at least five M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and three T3-
rated or better compatible handset models.
WCDMA:  As of November 2006, one filing WCDMA service provider offered 
three M3-rated or better compatible handset models, and two T3-rated or better 
compatible handset models.
TDMA:  As of November 2006, there were three wireless service providers that 
were exempt from compliance under the de minimis exception.
Other:  As of November 2006, there was one wireless service provider using an 
analog air interface that was not subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules, 
two wireless service providers using a PAS (personal access system) air interface 
that were exempt from compliance under the de minimis exception, and eight
wireless service providers with unknown air interfaces that were also exempt 
from compliance under the de minimis exception.
c. Evaluation of Progress To Date
32. In general, many commenters believe that the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility
requirements have achieved meaningful success to date.83 However, advocates for the deaf and hard of 
hearing community express some concerns about the state of compliance on a going forward basis and 
urge the Commission to adopt even more stringent requirements to further benefit the deaf and hard of 
hearing community.84  From their perspective, ATIS and the wireless industry argue that some aspects of, 
and early assumptions underlying, the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order need to be revisited -- most 
notably, the technological feasibility of meeting RF interference and inductive coupling rating 
requirements for handset models that employ a GSM air interface.85  
33. Recommendation. The Bureau recommends that the Commission vigilantly monitor 
compliance with its hearing aid compatibility rules, and take appropriate enforcement action against 
parties that violate the rules.  In addition, the Bureau recommends that the Commission continue to 
encourage the wireless industry to further its efforts towards achieving more complete compatibility 
between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids, including seeking input from all interested parties 
on ways to encourage and promote more complete compatibility with hearing aids.  
2. Deployment Benchmarks and Related Requirements from 2008 to 2011
34. Background.  As discussed above, the Commission’s rules impose minimum hearing aid-
compatible handset deployment benchmarks and other related requirements on manufacturers and 
wireless service providers, including a requirement that, by February 18, 2008, at least 50% of all digital 
wireless handset models offered by manufacturers or wireless service providers per air interface meet an 
M3 standard.86 In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission stated that the staff report 
would “form the basis for the Commission to initiate a proceeding to evaluate: (1) whether to increase 
[or] decrease the 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that comply with a U3 rating; 
  
83 See, e.g., ATIS Comments at 4, Cingular Comments at 5, and HLAA Comments at i.
84 See, e.g., HAP Comments at 1, 4, HLAA Comments at 18-20 (stating that the FCC’s hearing aid compatibility 
requirements set a low bar), NRVC Comments at 1-2, David Branfield Comments, and TAP Comments at 5-6 
(urging the Commission to provide motivation for industry to achieve 100% hearing aid compatibility).
85 See, e.g., ATIS Comments at 15-29 (including the extensively detailed discussion of the technological constraints 
facing the industry at 17-29), ATIS Reply Comments at 3-6, Sony Ericsson Comments at 2, T-Mobile Reply 
Comments at 3-5, Cingular Comments at 7-9, and ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 4-5.
86 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
17
(2) whether to adopt [hearing aid compatibility] implementation benchmarks beyond 2008; and (3) 
whether to otherwise modify the [hearing aid compatibility] requirements.”87
35. Discussion.  In their comments, some consumer groups advocate moving beyond the current 
criteria for handset compatibility, either by increasing the standard for compatibility from M3/T3 to 
M4/T4,88 or by moving towards an ultimate goal of requiring 100% of wireless phones to be fully 
compatible with hearing aids.89 They further express concern about low rates of compatibility for GSM 
handset models, and emphasize that the current requirements set a “low bar” that must not be “neglected 
or abandoned.”90  HLAA urges the Commission to increase the requirements to offer handset models that 
are capable of inductive coupling, as future demand for such handsets will increase in the coming years.91  
In contrast, industry commenters describe a series of technical challenges that they state make reaching or 
exceeding the upcoming benchmark problematic for GSM handset models.92 ATIS points out that 
handsets using a GSM air interface are more difficult to make compliant than handsets of the same design 
using a CDMA air interface, because, among other things, GSM signals by nature create more 
interference, and therefore the formulae used to calculate compliance ratings under the ANSI C63.19 
technical standard are different for handset models using a GSM air interface versus those using a CDMA 
air interface.93  
36. ATIS asserts that, in order to meet the M3 rating requirements (much less the M4 rating 
requirements), certain limiting design choices have to be made for GSM handset models.94 According to 
ATIS, some of these design choices negatively impact handset marketability.95  Moreover, TAP notes that 
the trend towards new capabilities in mobile phones, including brighter, larger displays, can even further 
complicate compatibility issues.96  If the upcoming 50% deployment benchmark is not changed, 
according to ATIS and the wireless industry, wireless service providers using a GSM air interface will 
  
87 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ถ 74.
88 HAP Comments at 1-2, HLAA Comments at 13.
89 See, e.g., NVRC Comments at 1, HLAA Comments at 14, and HAP Comments at 4.
90 See, e.g., HIA Comments at 2-3 (stating that the Commission should ask whether handset makers are “still 
committed” to the hearing aid compatibility regime, and why so many small wireless service providers have asked 
for waivers), HLAA Comments at 18, and TAP Comments at 3.
91 HLAA Comments at 14.  HLAA notes that, in response to a recent survey of its membership, as much as 81% of 
its membership reported using telecoils in 2005, in contrast to 61% in 1994.  Id. See also HIA Comments at 3 
(stating that the Commission should continue to pursue inductive coupling capability), HLAA Comments at 13 
(raising concerns that there are no additional benchmarks in place after the September 18, 2006 requirements for 
inductive coupling capability), and TAP Comments at 6-7 (stating that telecoil coupling remains the industry 
standard for wireless non-acoustic coupling to a hearing aid).
92 ATIS Comments at 15-29, ATIS Reply Comments at 3.  We note that ATIS provides an exceptionally thorough 
and comprehensive report describing in great detail a variety of technological constraints impacting the wireless 
industry’s further progress towards compatibility with hearing aids, particularly with respect to GSM.
93 See ATIS Comments at 15-19 (including charts at 15-17 of emissions from GSM and CDMA versions of same 
handset model); see also RIM Reply Comments at 6-7 and Cingular Comments at 3-4 (Cingular notes that, although 
it has “worked diligently with its handset manufacturer vendors [sic],” it has had to “overcome significant 
technology challenges” to achieve the current number of compatible handset models.)
94 See, e.g., ATIS Comments at 21-29.
95 Id. at 21-27.
96 TAP Comments at 6.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
18
have to keep large numbers of potentially highly marketable handset models out of the commercial 
market in favor of generally less desirable but compliant handset models. 97  
37. The Joint Consensus Plan. On June 25, 2007, the ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working 
Group filed supplemental comments that present a comprehensive proposal to modify the deployment 
benchmarks and other provisions in Section 20.19 of the Commission’s rules.98 The ATIS Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Working Group represents that the Joint Consensus Plan reflects the input of not only the 
wireless industry (wireless service providers and manufacturers) but also representatives from advocacy 
groups representing consumers with hearing loss, including the Alexander Graham Bell Association for 
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Hearing Loss Association of America, Gallaudet University 
Technology Access Program, and the RERC on Telecommunications Access.99  In the Joint Consensus 
Plan, the ATIS Hearing Aid Compatibility Working Group states that the proposals promote increased 
access to certain types of hearing aid-compatible devices.100 For example, the ATIS Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Working Group states the proposals foster availability of inductive coupling-capable 
devices by imposing additional requirements on both carriers and manufacturers, and promote access to 
more advanced devices and newer technology for consumers with hearing loss by requiring 
manufacturers to routinely add new devices to their hearing aid-compatible lineups.101
38. The Joint Consensus Plan recommends that the Commission “adjust[] the minimum number 
of [hearing aid-compatible] devices for all consumers with hearing loss and impose[] additional 
requirements on both wireless service providers and manufacturers to make available certain types of 
[hearing aid-compatible] devices for consumers with more severe hearing loss.”102 The Joint Consensus 
Plan also recommends a transition to the 2007 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard, and suggests future 
reporting requirements.  Although it does not address recommended benchmarks for Tier II and Tier III 
carriers,103 the Joint Consensus Plan specifically recommends changing the requirements for Tier I 
carriers as follows: 
ท reducing the requirement from offering at least 50% of handset models per air 
interface with M3/M4 compatibility to the lesser of either 50% of handset models 
offered or, at least, eight compatible handset models per air interface by 2008; nine 
compatible handset models per air interface by 2009; and ten compatible handset 
models per air interface by 2010,104 and 
ท increasing the requirement for telecoil-compatible handset models from at least two 
models per air interface to the lesser of 33% of handset models or three models per 
  
97 ATIS Comments at 31.  See also Cingular Comments at 4-5, Dobson Reply Comments at 1-4, IWS Reply 
Comments at 1-2, RIM Reply Comments at 5-9, Sony Comments at 2-3, and T-Mobile Reply Comments at 3-5.  See 
also ATIS Ex Parte Supplemental Comments filed in this docket on February 26, 2007, describing technical 
challenges faced by wireless device manufacturers and wireless service providers in meeting the Commission’s 
hearing aid compatibility requirements with respect to handsets employing an iDen air interface.
98 Joint Consensus Plan (styled as ATIS Supplemental Comments) filed in WT Docket No. 06-203.  
99 Id. at 1-5.
100 Id. at 5-6.
101 Id.
102 Id. at 1.  The quotation refers to acoustic coupling and inductive coupling requirements respectively; inductive 
coupling is viewed as used by more profoundly hearing-impaired persons than acoustic coupling.  See, e.g., id. at 5.  
103 See Attachment C at C-4.  
104 Joint Consensus Plan at 7.  Under the Joint Consensus Plan, the deployment deadlines for both manufacturers 
and Tier I carriers fall on February 18 of each corresponding year.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
19
air interface by 2008; five models per air interface by 2009; seven models per air 
interface by 2010; and ten models per air interface by 2011.105
39. Under the Joint Consensus Plan, the requirements for manufacturers would change as well, as 
follows:
ท from offering at least 50% of handset models per air interface with M3/M4 
compatibility to 33% of models per air interface (except for manufacturers with de 
minimis portfolios);106 and 
ท increasing the requirement for telecoil-compatible handset models from two per air 
interface to the greater of two handset models per air interface or 20% of models per 
air interface with T3/T4 capabilities by 2009; 25% of models per air interface with 
T3/T4 capabilities by 2010; and 33% of models per air interface with T3/T4 
capabilities by 2011 for manufacturers who offer more than four models total per air 
interface.107
40. The Joint Consensus Plan also recommends the following additional modifications to the 
Commission’s requirements relating to the manufacture and offering of hearing aid-compatible handset 
models: 
ท Require manufacturers to include acoustic coupling compatibility in some of their new 
models each year, enough so that, for manufacturers offering four or more handsets, half of 
the minimum required number of M3 or better handset models must be current-year models 
(referred to as the “refresh” rules in the accompanying chart).108  
ท Require Tier I carriers to offer acoustic coupling-compatible handset models from “multiple 
tiers” of functionality, which industry will define.109
ท Retain the de minimis exception and clarify that it applies on a per-air-interface 
basis.110  
ท Implement a phase-in of the ANSI C63.19-2007 technical standard for hearing aid 
compatibility testing and certification purposes.  In this regard, the Joint Consensus 
Plan suggests that the Commission allow use of the 2007 technical standard on a 
permissive basis immediately and make adherence to the 2007 technical standard 
mandatory by 2010.  However, during the interim period, the Joint Consensus Plan 
provides a limitation that only one new handset model per air interface manufactured 
during 2009 and rated under the 2006 version of the technical standard may be 
counted toward a manufacturer’s inductive coupling compatibility requirements.  The 
Joint Consensus Plan also recommends that handset models rated under a pre-2007 
version of the technical standard before 2010 will be grandfathered as meeting the 
requirements.111
  
105 Id. at 7.
106 Id. at 8.
107 Id. at 8-9.
108 Id. at 9.
109 Id. at 7.
110 Id. at 10.
111 Id. at 13.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
20
41. The following table of the Joint Consensus Plan summarizes many of the new recommended 
requirements for Tier I carriers and manufacturers that are not subject to the de minimis exception.112
42. Other Wireless Service Providers.  As discussed above, the Joint Consensus Plan makes no 
recommendations with respect to deployment obligations for Tier II and Tier III carriers.  On this issue, 
Blooston and Dobson note the number of waivers requested by Tier III carriers of the September 2005 RF
interference reduction requirement to offer at least two M3-rated handset models, as well as the more 
recent waiver requests seeking relief from the September 2006 requirement to offer at least two inductive
coupling-capable models.113 Noting that they have no control over technology issues and tend to get new 
handset models much later and in much smaller numbers than do larger wireless service providers, the 
rural Tier III carriers represented by Blooston urge that some relief be granted specifically for small, rural 
wireless service providers that would provide some “additional time beyond the deadlines set for larger 
carriers” to secure adequate supplies of compatible handset models.114 Similarly, Dobson 
Communications, a Tier II carrier, notes that Tier II and Tier III carriers “lack the purchasing power to 
dictate the development of [hearing aid-compatible] handsets by manufacturers,” and argues that the 
problems that Tier I carriers experience in obtaining sufficient compatible handset models are “magnified 
for smaller carriers.”115 In this regard, IWS states that “[i]f there are a limited number of [hearing aid-
compatible] compliant handsets available, it is unlikely they will be made available to Tier III carriers in a 
sufficient number to meet the Commission’s deadline.”116 For these reasons, Dobson suggests a 
  
112 See id. at Attachment B.
113 Blooston Reply Comments at 3 and Dobson Reply Comments at 13.
114 Blooston Reply Comments at 3.  See also IWS Reply Comments at 2-3 (stating that the 50% requirement will 
have disproportionate adverse effects on smaller GSM wireless service providers and extremely disadvantage them 
competitively because it is not economically feasible for small wireless service providers to have available a large 
inventory selection of handset models).
115 Dobson Reply Comments at 4.  
116 IWS Reply Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
21
staggered deadline, so that carriers have six months beyond the manufacturers’ deadline “to allow 
sufficient time for carriers to test, obtain, and stock handsets in their stores.”117  
43. Recommendation.  In light of the extensive negotiations between the wireless industry and 
advocacy groups for the deaf and hard of hearing culminating in the Joint Consensus Plan, the Bureau 
recommends that the Commission solicit comment from all interested parties on the proposed 
modifications to the Commission’s future hearing aid compatibility requirements as proposed therein.  
Additionally, the Bureau recommends that the Commission seek input as to any appropriate modifications 
to the Commission’s future hearing aid compatibility requirements for wireless service providers that are 
not Tier I carriers, including whether the Commission should stagger deployment benchmarks to allow 
additional time for such wireless service providers to obtain, test and market new compliant handset 
models.
44. In connection with this recommendation, we also recommend that the Commission clarify 
several matters related to the hearing aid compatibility benchmarks.  First, as suggested in the Joint 
Consensus Plan, we recommend that the Commission codify in its rules that the de minimis exception 
applies on a per-air interface basis.118 Second, again consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan, we 
recommend specifying that, in order to be counted as satisfying the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements, handsets that have multiple air interfaces must meet the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements for all air interfaces over which they operate on U.S. frequency bands.119 Finally, we 
recommend clarifying that devices marketed by a manufacturer as distinct devices generally are counted 
as different handset models for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules.  However, handset models 
that have no distinguishing variations of form, features, or user capabilities, or that only differentiate units 
sold to a particular service provider, should be counted as a single handset model for purposes of the 
hearing aid compatibility rules.
B. Consumer Information and In-store Testing
45. Background.  Under the Commission’s rules, compatible wireless handsets are required to be 
labeled.120 Wireless handsets are required to have the immunity rating clearly displayed on the packaging 
material of the handset, and an explanation of the ANSI standard immunity rating system is required to be 
included in the owner’s manual or as an insert in the packaging material.121  In order to ensure that the 
immunity rating information is conveyed to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, the Commission further 
requires wireless service providers to make the immunity rating available, by either:  displaying it on the 
handset’s box, providing separate literature describing which handset models the provider offers that are 
compatible, posting information on their Internet site, or any other means the wireless service provider 
determines is sufficient.122 In recognizing that wireless service providers offer their products and services 
through a variety of channels, including the Internet, kiosks in shopping malls, agents, and stand-alone 
stores, the Commission affords them flexibility in choosing how to adequately inform deaf and hard of
hearing consumers about their choices.123 The Commission noted that it would revisit its decision to 
provide such flexibility if it received a large volume of complaints concerning the inability of consumers 
  
117 Dobson Communications Reply Comments at 4.
118 See Joint Consensus Plan at 10. As noted above, the Commission has previously clarified that the de minimis 
exception applies per air interface.  See supra n. 25.
119 Id.
120 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(f).
121 Id. 
122 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16786 ถ 87.
123 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
22
to find the information its rules require to be conveyed.124 Additionally, the Commission encourages 
wireless service providers to train their personnel and agents so that they can assist consumers who may 
have questions concerning handset models that are hearing aid-compatible.125 Finally, retail outlets
owned or operated by wireless service providers are required to make hearing aid-compatible phones 
available for live, in-store testing by customers.126  
46. Discussion.  The record confirms that the Commission’s rules have fostered improvement in 
the availability of information for deaf and hard of hearing consumers.  For example, in addressing the 
impact of the Commission’s rules to date, TAP states that one key impact has been to help hearing aid 
wearers identify a number of digital wireless handsets that are “less likely than others to result in 
bothersome interference in their hearing aids.”127 Further, TAP points out that, prior to the Commission’s 
hearing aid compatibility requirements, consumers had no way to find compatible digital wireless 
handsets among the growing selection of handset models available from each digital wireless service 
provider.128 Today, in large part due to the Commission’s labeling, in-store demonstration, and related 
requirements, hearing aid users seeking to purchase a wireless phone have a logical starting point for their 
search, and can try out a number of handset devices in wireless service providers’ retail stores before 
making their selection.129
47. Nonetheless, the availability of information regarding hearing aid-compatible handsets still 
suffers from serious shortcomings.  Significantly, there is no single location or website where hearing aid 
wearers may find comprehensive information about hearing aid-compatible handset models offered by 
manufacturers and service providers with the corresponding ratings, nor is there a single database in 
which hearing aid compatibility information for particular handset models is readily accessible. Although
OET’s equipment authorization database has information about hearing aid compatibility ratings 
associated with manufacturers’ equipment,130 this database was not designed in a manner to make hearing 
aid compatibility information readily accessible either to consumers or to service providers.  In particular, 
the database maintains such information based upon FCC IDs, not handset model numbers,131 and it is 
difficult to search for useful information about compliant handset models based solely upon the name of 
the manufacturer.  Moreover, the database may retrieve several records associated with one FCC ID, so 
the current rating for hearing aid compatibility may not always be clear to a consumer or service provider 
conducting a routine search of the database -- particularly one not familiar with the equipment 
certification and application process.  Furthermore, because manufacturers are permitted to make some 
changes to equipment without re-applying for authorization and certification of the equipment,132 there 
may be instances that would be difficult to track where, due to a permissive change for the purpose of 
  
124 Id.
125 Id.
126 47 C.F.R ง 20.19(c) - (d); Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ถ 65.  See also Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11239 ถ 39 (affirming the requirements for labeling and in-
store consumer testing of digital wireless handsets).
127 TAP Comments at 3.
128 Id.
129 Id.  
130 Under the Commission’s rules, manufacturers certify compliance with the Commission’s hearing aid 
compatibility requirements as part of the equipment authorization process.  See 47 C.F.R. ง 2.1033(d).
131 We note that the Commission’s Part 2 rules do not require manufacturers to submit information on handset 
model numbers.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R ง 2.924.
132 These changes are known as “permissive changes.”  For each FCC ID, the database record contains all the 
permissive changes permitted under Part 2 of the Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. ง 2.1043(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
23
equipment certification, a hearing aid compatibility rating has changed for a manufacturer’s handset 
model.  
48. Other sources of information regarding hearing aid-compatible handset models are also 
limited.  For example, the Disability Rights Office (DRO) of the Consumer and Government Affairs 
Bureau (CGB) maintains a website that explains the rules requiring telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers and service providers to make their products and services accessible to people with 
disabilities pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 255, if readily achievable,133 and posts Section 255 contact 
information for wireless manufacturers and service providers on that website, which is updated 
annually.134  However, we note that the Commission’s rules do not require that the Commission obtain 
and make publicly available information regarding a corporate contact person for hearing aid 
compatibility information or the hearing aid compatibility of particular handset models.135  CTIA also has 
established a website that includes general information for hearing aid users who would like to purchase a 
digital wireless phone, including detailed answers to frequently asked questions.136  Although this website 
does include links to some wireless service providers’ accessibility websites, it does not currently extend 
beyond the four Tier I carriers.137  Some individual manufacturers and service providers also post hearing 
aid compatibility information on their websites, but the information is not consistent or uniform among
these websites, and it is therefore of limited value for comparing compatible handset models.138 In this 
regard, we note that the Joint Consensus Plan recommends that manufacturers voluntarily place hearing 
aid compatibility ratings of all handset models on their websites.139
49. On another related matter, some of the information in the compliance reports filed with the 
Commission may not be as complete or as helpful as possible.  For example, TAP raises concerns that the 
  
133 See <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/> (visited July 8, 2007).
134 See <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section255_manu.html> (visited July 8, 2007) and 
<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/service_providers.html> (visited July 8, 2007) respectively.
135 Manufacturers subject to Section 255 are required to file with the FCC the name and contact information of their 
designated agent for receiving complaints.  A consumer wishing to file a Section 255 complaint can locate the name 
and designated agent’s contact information from the FCC website.  See 2006 Biennial Regulatory Review, 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Staff Report, CG Docket No. 06-152, 22 FCC Rcd 2965, 3000, n. 61 
(CGB 2007) (2006 CGB Biennial Review Report).  We note that the Commission extended its Part 68, Subpart E 
rules to allow consumers to file informal complaints under those rules if they find that wireless service providers or 
manufacturers of wireless equipment are not complying with its hearing aid compatibility rules.  See Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16789 ถ 95.  In this regard, comments in the 2006 CGB Biennial Review 
Report proceeding were received from the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), stating that 
rules covering complaints for hearing aid compatibility were not consumer friendly.  AAPD asserted that the 
requirement that consumers identify the manufacturer (against whom they seek to file a complaint) by contacting the 
Administrative Council for Terminal Attachment [as required under Section 68.418(b)] is a barrier to consumers 
filing hearing aid compatibility complaints.  AAPD suggested that the hearing aid compatibility process should be 
more similar to the process for determining the designated agent for filing Section 255 complaints.  AAPD
suggested that the Commission require the same procedures as those applicable to Section 255 complaints to be 
followed by manufacturers subject to the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility rules and complaint procedures,
and to have the Commission publish hearing aid compatibility designated agents’ contact information on the DRO 
website.  See AAPD Comments in CG Docket No. 06-152 (filed Sept. 16, 2006).  
136  See CTIA’s access wireless website at:  <http://www.accesswireless.org/> (visited July 8, 2007).  For frequently 
asked questions and answers, see:  <http://www.accesswireless.org/hearingaid/faq.cfm> (visited July 8, 2007).    
137 For links to some wireless service providers’ accessibility websites, see:  
http://www.accesswireless.org/accessibility/sites.cfm (visited July 8, 2007).
138 See HLAA Comments at 9, 11.
139 Joint Consensus Plan at 14.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
24
Commission may not be receiving the most adequate or specific information for it to evaluate whether 
sufficient effort has been made by the wireless industry to achieve technical solutions over the three and 
one half years since the hearing aid compatibility rules were adopted.140 Moreover, TAP believes that, for 
the Commission to fully evaluate the effects of the rule to date, more information is needed from both the 
wireless industry and hearing aid manufacturers.141  Furthermore, Commission staff encountered 
difficulties when verifying the ratings for certain handset models identified in compliance reports because 
many of the compliance reports referenced the handset manufacturer and model number but did not 
include the associated FCC ID.142  In this regard, the Joint Consensus Plan includes some recommended 
measures to promote more efficient reporting.  These recommendations include requiring wireless service 
providers and manufacturers to continue to report regularly to the Commission on the status of their 
compliance with the new proposed benchmarks.143 Specifically, the Joint Consensus Plan recommends 
that these reports include, among other things:  FCC ID numbers of compliant models, information on the 
features of compliant models, and information on labeling and consumer outreach efforts.  Under the 
Joint Consensus Plan’s recommendation, wireless service providers would report in May of each year, 
and manufacturers in November of each year.  The proposed schedule in the Joint Consensus Plan’s
recommendation provides that Tier I carriers would file their first reports in May 2008, and Tier II and III 
carriers thereafter in May 2009.
50. The record further indicates that the labeling on wireless handsets, and retailers’ in-store 
practices, have not always provided consumers with complete and accurate information.  Several
commenters discuss the lack of information available to assist the deaf and hard of hearing consumer and
describe how this hampers the consumer’s attempts to make an informed choice about which digital 
wireless handset would best meet their needs.144 Specifically, the record includes consumer concerns 
about, or experiences with, poorly or inaccurately labeled phones,145 poorly designed placards,146
untrained store personnel,147 and lack of in-store testing.148 In particular, commenters who address in-
store testing report widely varying experiences.  Both consumer groups and individuals report that some 
stores allow testing, and others do not.149  
  
140 TAP Reply Comments at 4.
141 Id. at 9.
142 As discussed earlier, the Commission tracks equipment authorizations and certifications in its equipment 
authorization database by FCC ID, rather than by model name.  Indeed, manufacturers may produce more than one 
handset model based on a single FCC ID without informing the Commission.  Accordingly, in order to check the 
equipment authorization database records to determine whether a particular handset model meets hearing aid 
compatibility certification requirements, it is generally necessary to know the FCC ID associated with the handset.  
To assist the Commission staff in reviewing the compliance reports, several supplements were filed at staff’s 
request, providing the FCC ID associated with the handset models offered.
143 Joint Consensus Plan at 11-12.
144 See, e.g., David G. Hoffman Comments at 2, Dana Simon Comments, HAP Comments at 3-4.
145 HLAA Comments at 9-10, David G. Hoffman Comments at 2.
146 HAP Comments at 3, Exhibit B (which includes an example of a placard describing a wireless device that lists 
the immunity ratings in tiny type in the lower portion of the placard as opposed to including such information as a 
feature).
147 David G. Hoffman Comments at 2, HAP Comments at 4, HLAA Comments at 11.
148 Dana Simon Comments, HLAA Comments at 7-8.
149 See, e.g., HLAA Comments at 7-8, Joseph Gordon Comments, Dana Simon Comments, and Deanne Deurell 
Comments.  It is unclear to what extent these comments address retail outlets owned or operated by service 
providers that are subject to the in-store demonstration requirement, as opposed to independent retailers that are not.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
25
51. In addition to the website and reporting recommendations in the Joint Consensus Plan noted 
above, commenters suggest several possible measures to improve the availability of information to 
consumers.  For example, in order to facilitate the consumer’s testing and information-gathering process, 
HLAA requests that wireless service providers allow deaf and hard of hearing consumers to make specific 
appointments with retail personnel so that sufficient time is allotted to assist such individuals.150  HLAA 
also urges the Commission to remind wireless service providers of their obligation to facilitate in-store 
testing so that consumers can quickly identify how a phone works for them, and further requests that the 
Commission enforce the in-store testing requirement for all hearing aid-compatible phones.151  One 
commenter requests that there be more accountability on carriers to inform potential customers who are 
interested in buying a wireless phone.152 Furthermore, as permitted in the recent revision of the ANSI 
C63.19 standard in 2007, both industry and consumer groups support allowing wireless handsets to be 
labeled with different RF interference reduction and inductive coupling capability ratings as a measure 
that could increase the utility of labeling, and provide consumers with more complete information 
regarding the quality of interoperability between the wireless handset and a hearing aid.153
52. Recommendation.  The Bureau recommends several measures that the Commission should
consider taking to improve the accessibility of hearing aid compatibility information to consumers and 
service providers.  First, we recommend that the Commission seek comment on the reporting 
recommendations in the Joint Consensus Plan, including the proposed content of reports and the reporting 
schedule.  While these periodic reports would not provide continuous updates and would not in 
themselves provide readily accessible information to consumers, accurate and informative reports are 
important to the information process.
53. At the same time, Commission staff should work proactively to improve the transparency of 
real-time information both to service providers and to consumers.  It is important to have a central source 
from which interested parties easily can either find out the compatibility rating of a particular handset 
model or obtain a listing of handset models that meet their requirements.  To accomplish this, 
Commission staff should explore measures that might make the equipment authorization database more 
accessible for this purpose, such as adding a relevant search function.  The Commission should also
consider seeking comment on whether to require manufacturers to inform staff of the handset models 
associated with each FCC ID, and to require them to update this information when they introduce new 
models.  Furthermore, the Bureau recommends that the Commission seek comment on whether it should 
adopt new Part 2 rules on permissive changes such that a filing is required that includes trade names and 
model numbers.  In addition, the Bureau will work with CGB to explore means to include hearing aid 
compatibility contacts and other information in order to expand the utility of and subject matter on the 
DRO’s existing website.  For example, CGB currently maintains a website that provides links to 
manufacturers’ websites for information regarding the cellular telephone specific absorption rates (SAR) 
of the handset models for RF emissions exposure.154  Commission staff will consider whether a similar 
  
150 HLAA Comments at 12.
151 Id. at 8.  
152 Mark Foster Comments.
153 See, e.g., Cingular Comments at 6, HLAA Comments at 10, ATIS Reply Comments at 6, and TAP Reply 
Comments at 8. 
154 SAR is the measure of the amount of RF energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone.  The 
Commission worked closely with federal health and safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA), to adopt limits for safe exposure to RF energy. CGB maintains a website that provides links to individual 
manufacturers’ websites with SAR information.  See <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/> (visited on September 11, 
2007).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
26
website is feasible for hearing aid compatibility information, and if so, the Bureau will work closely with 
CGB to implement it as quickly as possible.
54. In addition to improving the information that is available from the Commission, we also 
recommend that the Commission seek comment on ways to improve the availability of information 
directly from manufacturers and service providers.  As noted above, the Joint Consensus Plan proposes 
that manufacturers voluntarily post hearing aid compatibility ratings of all their handset models on their 
websites.  We recommend that the Commission seek comment on this recommendation, including on 
whether such postings should be mandatory.  We note that complete and accurate manufacturer postings 
are critical to the utility of any CGB website providing links to the manufacturers’ sites, as suggested 
above. 
55. Finally, we recommend that the Commission seek comment on other ways to improve the 
availability and accessibility of consumer information regarding hearing aid-compatible handsets.  As 
discussed below in the section on “Open Platform” Networks, this would include seeking further 
comment on expanding in-store testing requirements beyond retail outlets owned or operated by service 
providers.
C. Developments Since the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order
56. In its 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission committed to examine the 
development of new technologies that could provide greater or more efficient accessibility of wireless 
communications to hearing aid users.155 In this section, the Bureau first examines the development of 
new wireless technologies, as well as modification of existing technologies, that are designed specifically 
to facilitate superior communication experiences for deaf and hard of hearing users. We then discuss 
emerging hearing aid compatibility regulatory issues that are raised by technological developments and 
by other changes in the Commission’s rules.
1. Technological Developments Affecting the Hard of Hearing
57. Background.  Digital wireless telecommunications provide convenience and efficiency for the 
hearing population, but for the deaf and hard of hearing, they open a new way of life.  Today, modern text 
and wireless video communication technology fills a void by providing much needed mobility and 
freedom for the deaf and hard of hearing community.  
58. Recent and developing digital wireless technology promises to increase the availability of 
communication networks to the entire deaf and hard of hearing population. Development of new 
technologies continues to significantly impact the deaf and hard of hearing community -- affording them 
access to critical tools which enable them to access and utilize wireless communications to a greater and 
greater extent.  As TAP observes, many hearing aid users regularly supplement their voice 
communications with existing wireless visual communication technologies, such as wireless e-mail, 
instant messaging and short messaging.156  
59. In the following sections, the Bureau briefly summarizes existing technology that has been 
modified or enhanced in order to promote wireless communication by the hard of hearing community, as 
well as some new and evolving technologies developed expressly for the hard of hearing.
a. Enhancements to Existing Technology
60. Text Messaging.  Wireless service providers and manufacturers have recognized the unique 
appeal of text messaging to the deaf and hard of hearing community.  Text messaging allows the deaf to 
  
155 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782 ถ 74.
156 See TAP Comments at 6-7.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
27
communicate when in transit or otherwise away from a fixed text telephone (TTY) system.157 Aside 
from the mobility advantages, text messaging also allows for private communication within the presence 
of other deaf people.  For these reasons, the deaf and hard of hearing have embraced text messaging as an 
instant and direct form of communication accessible to them and any potential contacts.158  
61. The record demonstrates that service providers recognize the importance of continuing to 
increase access to wireless telecommunications for the deaf and hard of hearing by enhancing text 
messaging.  T-Mobile, while acknowledging that its feature-rich smart phone is not hearing aid-
compatible, notes the popularity of the smart phone among deaf and hard of hearing persons due to its 
texting functionality.159 Cingular (now AT&T)160 states it has developed the Text Accessibility Plan, with 
input from the deaf and hard of hearing community, which is designed to provide more focused text 
service offerings that may be useful for persons with hearing loss and speech difficulties.161
62. Other reports confirm the continuing development of advances in text messaging that benefit 
the deaf and hard of hearing.  For instance, a specialty provider offers phones equipped with text-
facilitating QWERTY keypads, such as the Blackberry and Danger Sidekick (sold by T-Mobile) 
preloaded with deaf-friendly instant messaging and relay software.162  More recently, Text4Deaf.Com, a 
communications-based website serving the deaf community and those with whom they interact, 
announced it has launched a website that will enable real-time text messaging with a web interface to 
wireless phones.163 As the service is described, Text4Deaf allows users to send and receive messages to 
individuals or groups while enabling recipients to respond directly to the originating personal computer 
(PC), Apple computer (Macintosh or Mac), Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), or mobile phone.164 This 
  
157 See Peter Svensson, Pagers Become Lifeline for the Deaf, Nov. 21, 2003, 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/tech/main584868.shtml>. See Anders Rask, Mobile Phones Enable 
Deaf Community, Dec. 16, 2002,
<http://www.ericsson.com/telecomreport/article.asp?aid=49&tid=247&ma=1&msa=3>.  TTY devices provide 
access to telecommunications relay services which connect the deaf to voice telephone users through an 
intermediary communications assistant.  The communications assistant receives typed messages from the deaf 
caller’s TTY and then verbally relays the message to the voice telephone user designated by the caller and vice 
versa. See <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/ttywireless.html> (visited October 2, 2007).
158 See Transcript of CTIA Accessibility Workshop (“CTIA Transcript”) held on April 5, 2006 at 24-25, 
http://www.accesswireless.org/04052006WorkshopTranscript.txt.  See also TAP Comments at 6-7 (observing that 
many hearing aid users supplement their voice communications with wireless visual communication technologies, 
such as wireless e-mail, instant messaging and short messaging.)
159 See T-Mobile Reply Comments at 2 n.3.
160 Throughout this report, we refer to this entity as Cingular.   We note, however, that after Cingular filed its initial 
comments in this docket, the Commission approved the application of BellSouth and AT&T to transfer to AT&T 
control of licenses and authorizations held directly and indirectly by BellSouth, as well as control of Cingular and its 
various subsidiaries and affiliates.  See AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation Application for Transfer of Control, 
WC Docket No. 06-74, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5662 (2007) (approving applications, 
subject to certain conditions, on December 29, 2006).  Following AT&T’s merger with BellSouth in December 
2006, Cingular Wireless is now solely owned by AT&T and no longer uses the Cingular name.  
<http://www.wireless.att.com/about/cingular-history.jsp> (visited September 25, 2007).
161 Cingular Comments at 9-10.
162GoAmerica Device Selection, http://www.goamerica.com/company/index.php (visited June 26, 2007).
163 “Text4Deaf Launches Text Messaging Site for Deaf Community,” The Hearing Review, July 5, 2007.  See also 
http://app.text4deaf.com/  (visited July 18, 2007).
164 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
28
existing technology, as enhanced, has transformed wireless communications for the deaf and hard of 
hearing.  
63. Mobile Internet.  Digital wireless telecommunications expand the deaf and hard of hearing 
community’s access to services and information by enabling mobile Internet connections.  Text and relay 
technology have improved individual communication for the deaf and hard of hearing community but the 
role of wireless technology reaches beyond personal communication.  Mobile web connections allow deaf 
and hard of hearing customers to access real-time news reports and stay informed about their 
environments.165 For example, deaf persons in New York reported that their mobile multimedia access 
helped them understand and react appropriately during the September 11 attacks.166 Some fortunate deaf 
persons have used mobile web connections to e-mail 911 emergency services when they could not access 
TTY services.167  Day-to-day life is also improved as deaf and hard-of-hearing persons enjoy 
conveniences usually reserved for hearing persons, such as ordering pizza for delivery while still in 
transit.168 The development and improvement of mobile Internet services and devices will continue to 
bridge the gap between the deaf and hard of hearing community and mainstream society.  
64. Relay and TTY Services.  Wireless technology has also expanded relay services.  Many relay 
service providers offer video relay service (VRS) and Internet Protocol (IP) relay.  Both VRS and IP relay 
use the Internet instead of telephone networks.  IP Relay functions like a TTY-based call except that the 
Internet functionality allows the deaf or hard of hearing caller to use a web-enabled mobile device instead 
of a TTY.  VRS allows the deaf or hard of hearing caller to communicate in American Sign Language 
(ASL), in some cases a much faster and more natural form of communication for the deaf and hard of 
hearing than written English.  The deaf and hard of hearing community highly values video 
communication because text messages, while convenient for simple messages, can restrict the emotional 
complexity and efficiency of conversations.169  In contrast to text messages, ASL places a full range of 
expression at their disposal.170 Unfortunately, current mobile networks lack the bandwidth required for 
video of sufficient clarity such that the viewer can perceive the fluid movements of sign language.171  
However, as discussed below, researchers are currently developing technologies to incorporate video 
communication into the wireless world.
65. Volume Control.  Advances in computer technology are leading to improved sound quality in 
hearing aids, and hearing aids are becoming more complex as a consequence.172 Many hearing aids now 
have an “integrated signal processing” feature.173 This feature replaces the former volume control feature 
in many hearing aids.174 In contrast to hearing aids, wireless handsets typically do not include volume 
  
165 See Svensson, supra n. 157.
166 Id.
167 Id.
168 See CTIA Transcript at 25.
169 Shefali Anand, Sign of the Times: Video, Email are Boons to the Deaf, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE,
June 9, 2007, http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118134342938629622-
lMyQjAxMDE3ODIxMTMyNDEzWj.html, see CTIA Transcript at 25.
170 Id.
171 Deaf to Sign via Video Handsets, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6366177.stm (“Deaf to Sign”).
172 Laura Johannes, The Sleek, Chic, High Tech Hearing Aid, The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2007 (Johannes 
Wall Street Journal article).  
173 Id.
174 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
29
control features.  Some individuals express concern in the record regarding the lack of volume controls on 
wireless handsets.175 HLAA states that one of the hearing aid users’ most important concerns regarding 
wireless devices is the lack of adequate volume control on many handsets.176  In light of consumer 
complaints about insufficient volume controls, the Joint Consensus Plan urges all interested parties to 
specifically look into the question of volume controls on wireless handsets.
66. Recommendation.  The Bureau recommends that the Commission continue to monitor the 
enhancement of existing technologies that benefit the deaf or hard of hearing. Additionally, the Bureau 
recommends that the Commission solicit comment with respect to the issue of volume controls on 
wireless handsets.
b. New and Developing Technologies
67. Video Technology.  Some emerging digital wireless technologies presage the beginning of a 
video telecommunications age for the deaf and hard of hearing community.  Two research groups, one 
American and one European, have researched wireless video technology with an eye towards providing 
real-time communication for the deaf and hard of hearing.  University of Washington and Cornell 
University professors have developed MobileASL.177 MobileASL employs video compression 
technology to enable deaf users to “video sign” despite the bandwidth limitations of current wireless 
mobile networks.178 The researchers observed that deaf users require clear resolution of certain body 
parts, particularly the face, in order to interpret sign language.179 Transmitting full video of sufficient 
quality to observe the subtle, but often meaningful, face movements would overburden current mobile 
networks.180 MobileASL reduces the amount of data transmitted by looking only for face, hand and arm 
movements.181 In this manner, it replicates the actual optical practice of people interpreting sign language 
because they focus intently on the face movements while relying on peripheral vision to observe the less 
nuanced hand and arm movements.182 Professor Ladner (one of the developers from the University of 
Washington) reports that MobileASL can work on networks with 10-20 kbps of available bandwidth and 
he reports that he is currently talking to wireless providers about deploying the technology.183
68. European government, academic and commercial entities partnered to form Wireless 
Information Services for Deaf People on the Move (WISDOM) and apply digital wireless technologies to 
the specific needs of the deaf and hard of hearing.184 WISDOM was a European Union-funded program 
coordinating, over a three year period, research, development and planning of 3G wireless 
  
175 Antoinette Cippolina Comments and Deanne Deurell Comments.
176 HLAA Comments at 16-17.
177 MobileASL: Making wireless accessible to the deaf community, 4 INGENUITY 2 (Spring 2007), 
http://depts.washington.edu/techtran/aboutus/Newsletter/Spring07.pdf (“MobileASL”).
178 Id.
179 Id. See Deaf to Sign, supra n. 171.
180 See MobileASL, supra n. 177.
181 Id.
182 See Deaf to Sign, supra n. 171.
183Id.
184See IST PROJECT FACT SHEET – WIRELESS INFORMATION SERVICES FOR PEOPLE ON THE MOVE (WISDOM)
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?ACTION=D&CALLER=PROJ_IST&RCN=57773. Partners include, among others, 
Vodafone Limited, Ericsson Espana SA, British Deaf Association, Motion Media Technology Limited and 
Vaestanvik Resource and Development Centre. Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
30
telecommunications services for the benefit of the deaf and hard of hearing community.185 Completed in 
2004, the program produced encouraging test results, but current mobile networks are unable to support 
the initiatives utilizing video sign language.186 The initiatives are summarized below.  
69. WISDOM researchers tested a real-time conversation service with video call capability 
supplemented by text capability when required for additional clarification.187 This feature was tested 
successfully with small computers in Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) but not on mobile phone 
networks.188 WISDOM also successfully tested a wireless VRS service incorporating a distance sign 
language interpreter service capable of relaying audio input from small meetings as real-time sign 
language output for the deaf user.189 Deafstation.org, a website providing sign language daily news, 
sports, arts, employment notices, and even translations between the four European sign languages, was 
also tested successfully.190 WISDOM researchers also successfully addressed the problem of 
interworking with fixed network text telephones so that deaf persons can access emergency services from 
their mobile phones without TTY equipment.191 Most importantly, WISDOM researchers from 
Germany’s Aachen University of Technology conducted successful tests for automatic sign language 
recognition which would allow deaf users to actually control their mobile handsets with sign language.192  
Automatic sign language recognition faces challenges beyond the bandwidth limitations hindering other 
video technologies,193 but its continued development reflects the integration of the deaf and hard of 
hearing communities with digital wireless telecommunications.
70. Captioning Technology.  Digital wireless telecommunications can expand the availability of 
captioning.  Deaf and hard of hearing persons have enjoyed captioning on televisions and in some movie 
theaters for years.194 Researchers at the Georgia Tech Research Institute have developed a wearable 
captioning system that will allow deaf and hard of hearing users to receive information presented audibly 
to the general public in captioned format over a wireless network.195 Most public venues such as sports 
arenas, concert halls or movie theaters already have wireless network systems installed.196 The captioning 
  
185See id.
186See id.
187 University of Bristol, Faculty of Social Science and Law Centre for Deaf Studies Full Research Report –
WISDOM, http://www.bristol.ac.uk/deaf/download/research/full_reports/Wisdom.pdf.
188 Id.
189 Id. at 2.
190 Id. (translating to and from British, Swedish, Spanish and German sign languages).
191 Id.
192 Id., John Sullivan, Interest Growing in Sign Language as a 3G Interface, WIRELESS INSIDER, May 28, 2001.  See 
ICT Results – Serving the Deaf Communities’ Information Needs, 
http://istresults.cordis.lu/index.cfm/section/news/Tpl/article/BrowsingType/Short%20Feature/ID/1664 (reporting 
sign language recognition of 250 signs with a success rate between 70% and 90%).
193 See Sullivan, supra n. 192.
194 See, e.g., Patrick M. Hoffman Comments (noting his reliance on closed captioning to watch television with his 
family).
195 See Jane Sanders, Wearable Captioning System to Make Public Venues Accessible to People with Hearing 
Problems, GEORGIA RESEARCH TECH NEWS, April 12, 2005, 
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/captioning.htm.
196 Video: High-Tech Captions, SCIENCE DAILY, July 1, 2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005-07-06/
(“High-Tech Captions”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
31
software developed at Georgia Tech can receive captions from any venue provided the captions are 
transmitted via the standard 802.11b wireless protocol.197 Any PDA with a recent Microsoft Windows 
operating system can display captions using the software.198 The software was licensed in 2005 to 
Peacock Communications for finalization and deployment.199
71. New Technologies Not Yet Available.  The record in this proceeding also includes a few 
examples of new technologies that have not yet played a significant role in providing access for the deaf 
and hard of hearing.  For example, TAP notes that, although Bluetooth technology has become widely 
available in cell phones due to reductions in size and improved battery efficiency, Bluetooth is currently 
available only as an accessory to hearing aids which either have a direct audio input interface or a telecoil, 
and offerings for such add-ons are only available from two companies.200  According to TAP, Bluetooth 
technology has not advanced to the degree that would permit it to be implemented as a built-in hearing aid 
feature.201 TAP posits that if Bluetooth or a similar technology can overcome the current size and 
efficiency problems prohibiting its use within hearing aids, it might likely replace the telecoil in the long 
term.202 Similarly, smartphone technology has not yet provided the benefits to the deaf and hard of 
hearing that some predicted.  Although TAP recognizes that smartphones will help hearing aid wearers 
achieve greater and more efficient access to telecommunications, it notes that the electromagnetic energy 
emitted by the display screens often interferes with the hearing aids, thereby causing difficulty to hearing 
aid users.203 TAP notes that consumers with hearing aids are often advised to select a cell phone that 
allows them to turn off their screens, but it states that, since screens are becoming ever more important in 
wireless telephone technology, addressing screen displays as a source of interference will become 
increasingly important in the years ahead.204
72. Recommendation.  The Bureau recommends that the Commission continue to monitor the 
development of new technologies in this area, and seek comment on ways to address the issue of screen 
displays as a source of interference with hearing aids.
2. Emerging Regulatory Issues
a. Expansion of Services to New Frequency Bands and Air Interfaces
73. As the growing demand for wireless services increases the need for spectrum, and the 
Commission issues new licenses and increases flexibility for existing licensees, the provision of CMRS 
will continue to expand to new frequency bands.  Moreover, we anticipate that engineers will continue to 
develop, and companies will bring to market, new air interfaces offering improved or different 
functionalities to wireless telecommunications users.  In light of these developments, the Joint Consensus 
Plan recommends that the Commission apply its hearing aid compatibility rules to all spectrum bands that 
are used for the provision of CMRS in the United States, subject to technical standards development.  
This proposal is consistent with the Commission’s recent determination in the 700 MHz Service Report 
  
197 Sanders, supra n. 195.
198 High-Tech Captions, supra n. 196.
199 Id., see also Sanders, supra n. 195.
200 TAP Comments at 6.  There are reported to be devices available, such as a Streamer or Phonak’s SmartLink, that 
allow hearing aid users to listen to their Bluetooth cellphones.  See Johannes Wall Street Journal article, supra n.
170.
201 TAP Comments at 6.
202 Id.
203 Id. at 7.  
204 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
32
and Order that all digital CMRS providers, including providers of such services in the 700 MHz Band 
and the Advanced Wireless Services-1 (AWS-1) and Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband 
Radio Service (BRS/EBS) bands, should be subject to hearing aid compatibility requirements under 
Section 20.19 to the extent they offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that is 
interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables 
the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls once technical 
standards are developed.205  
74. At the same time, the Commission has recognized that specific hearing aid compatibility 
requirements cannot apply in the absence of an established technical standard governing a particular 
frequency band or air interface.  In the 700 MHz Service Report and Order, the Commission strongly 
encouraged ANSI and various stakeholders to work together towards adoption of technical standards in a 
timely manner so that hearing aid users will have the same accessibility to interconnected services in new 
bands as they do in the bands already addressed in Section 20.19(a) of the Commission’s rules.206 The 
Commission further set a timetable for the development of the necessary technical standards for new 
services and frequency bands that have governing service rules in place, and it amended the rule in 
Section 20.19 to reflect its determinations.207 In order to avoid this situation arising in the future, the 
Bureau strongly urges standard-setting bodies to develop hearing aid compatibility standards together 
with technical operating specifications, as they are developed for new air interfaces and frequency bands.  
75. On a related matter, we note that any mobile satellite service (“MSS”) that involves the 
provision of commercial mobile radio service directly to end users is included in the definition of 
CMRS.208  In extending 911 obligations to certain MSS providers, the Commission found that these MSS 
providers offer “real-time, two-way, switched voice service that is interconnected with the public 
switched network.” 209  We also note that, under the Commission’s rules, certain MSS providers, in three 
frequency bands, may seek authority to integrate an ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) into their 
networks for the purpose of enhancing their ability to offer high-quality, affordable mobile voice and data 
services on land, in the air, and over oceans.210  The Bureau recommends that the Commission seek 
  
205 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8117 ถ 142.  In addition, the Commission concluded that 
manufacturers of wireless handsets capable of providing such service also should be made subject to the applicable 
requirements of Section 20.19.  Id.
206 Id. at 8119-21 ถถ 148-150.
207 The Commission stated its expectation that appropriate technical standards for the bands listed in Section 27.1(b) 
will be established within 24 months of the Federal Register publication of the 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 
and committed that, if this occurs, it will initiate a further proceeding at that time to establish a specific timetable for 
deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets based on the adopted standards for services in the relevant bands.  
700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8119-21 ถถ 148-150.
208 47 C.F.R. ง 20.9(a)(10).  This rule section also contains an exception for “mobile satellite licensees and other 
entities that sell or lease space segment capacity, to the extent that it does not provide commercial radio service 
directly to end users.”  The exception permits such entities to provide space segment capacity to commercial mobile 
radio service providers on a non-common carrier basis, if authorized by the Commission.
209 In the Matter of Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency 
Calling Networks and Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by 
Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and Arrangements et al., CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket 
No. 99-67, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 25340, 25347-
25360 ถถ 20-48, 25385  ถถ 111-112 (2003) (adopting, in part, 911 service call center requirements and seeking 
further comment on how to implement E911 requirements for the MSS).
210 Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L 
Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003) 
(permitting flexibility in the delivery of communications by MSS providers that operate in three sets of radio 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
33
comment on the applicability of hearing aid compatibility requirements to MSS providers that offer 
CMRS and whether any revisions to the hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate respecting such 
providers, in order to promote consistent treatment for all CMRS providers that offer functionally 
equivalent services.  In this regard, the Bureau also recommends that the Commission seek comment on 
whether it should make a difference if an MSS provider offers such service purely through a satellite-
based network or through a combined network that relies on both satellite and ATC facilities.
76. Recommendation.  The Bureau recommends that the Commission seek comment on measures 
it could take to encourage standard-setting bodies to develop hearing aid compatibility standards together 
with technical operating specifications, as they are developed for new air interfaces and frequency bands.  
The Bureau also recommends that the Commission seek comment on the application of hearing aid 
compatibility requirements to MSS providers that offer CMRS, including whether it should make a 
difference if an MSS provider offers service purely through a satellite-based network or through a 
combined network that relies on both satellite and ATC facilities.
b. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) via Wireless Local Area
Networks (WLANs)
77. Background.  A new wave of wireless products supports the use of WLANs to access a wide 
range of services provided over a broadband Internet access connection.211 The most prevalent WLAN 
technology is equipment manufactured in accordance with the IEEE 802.11 family of standards, 
commonly known as “Wi-Fi.”212 Wi-Fi technology allows users to connect a Wi-Fi enabled device to 
broadband Internet access services using radio frequencies set aside for use by Part 15 unlicensed devices.  
The proliferation of Internet-telephony services and broadband data services makes Wi-Fi enabled 
devices attractive communications options for consumers.
78. VoIP, as implied by the name, allows a user to make voice calls using Internet Protocol.  
VoIP converts the user’s voice from the user’s equipment into a digital signal which can travel over the 
Internet or privately managed data networks.  If a broadband connection is available, the user needs only 
a computer equipped with software and a microphone, a traditional phone paired with an adapter or a 
specialized phone that can provide VoIP service.213 We note that VoIP is an application which can be 
provided over wired or wireless connections.  In the wireless context, VoIP can be provided over various 
frequency bands using any air interface.
79. Wireless handset manufacturers are increasingly using Wi-Fi to expand consumer access to 
VoIP services.  Manufacturers such as UTStarcom, Belkin, Linksys and Panasonic all offer wireless 
handsets that feature Wi-Fi voice capability.214 However, many of the handsets that are available today 
(Continued from previous page)    
frequency bands: the 2 GHz MSS band (the 1990-2025 MHz uplink and the 2165-2200 MHz downlink), the L-band 
(general designation for frequencies from 1 to 2 GHz) and the Big LEO bands (referring to the 1.6/2.4 GHz bands).
211 In the Matter of Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless 
Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5907-08 ถ 15 (2007) (“Wireless 
Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling”).
212 Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless technology based on the IEEE 802.11 standards.  
213 See <http://www.fcc.gov/voip/> (visited August 9, 2007).  To date, the Commission has not classified VoIP as a 
telecommunications service or an information service, and the discussion in this section is not intended to address 
the classification of VoIP services.  See In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4893-94 ถ 43-44 (2004).
214 Vonage, <http://www.vonage.com/device.php?type=F1000&refer_id=WEBPR0706010001W1> (visited August 
9, 2007, Skype, 
<http://us.accessories.skype.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayCategoryProductListPage&SiteI
D=skype&Locale=en_US&Env=BASE&parentCategoryID=4141800&categoryID=7032700> (visited August 9, 
2007). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
34
cannot continue calls beyond the short range of the Wi-Fi frequency.  Newly released dual-mode Wi-Fi 
handsets can fill this void.  Samsung’s t409 and Nokia’s 6086 handset models offer dual-mode operability 
on T-Mobile’s GSM and Wi-Fi networks.  These phones have both GSM and Wi-Fi radios and can 
seamlessly switch between the GSM and Wi-Fi networks without interrupting the user’s call. 
80. Handset manufacturers are also taking advantage of Wi-Fi’s speedy data transmissions.  For 
example, both T-Mobile and Sprint offer handsets with voice and Wi-Fi data service capability.215 T-
Mobile’s Dash and Wing handsets are both Wi-Fi-enabled for data.216 Both phones operate on the 
GPRS/EDGE network and Wi-Fi.217 In July 2007, Sprint introduced the Mogul device by High Tech 
Computer Corp., which offers access to both EV-DO and Wi-Fi networks.218 Apple’s iPhone also 
operates on dual frequencies for data transmissions.219 Apple’s iPhone automatically switches from 
AT&T’s EDGE network to certain known Wi-Fi networks when it finds them, and pops up a list of new 
Wi-Fi networks it encounters as the user moves.220  Research in Motion will offer dual-mode operability 
in August with the release of the Blackberry 8820.221 The handset will operate on AT&T’s 
GSM/GPRS/EDGE network.222
81. Discussion.  With the introduction of wireless VoIP applications over non-traditional 
networks, including handset models with dual-mode voice operability such as those operating on T-
Mobile’s GSM and Wi-Fi networks, issues begin to arise regarding the appropriate scope and application 
of hearing aid compatibility requirements.  Under the Commission’s current rules, hearing aid 
compatibility obligations only apply to services that are classified as CMRS and that “offer real-time, 
two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched network and 
utilize[] an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish 
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.”223 Furthermore, as discussed above, specific hearing aid 
compatibility requirements apply only to frequency bands and air interfaces for which governing 
technical standards have been promulgated.224  We note that hearing aid compatibility technical standards 
are not yet available for technologies such as Wi-Fi and WiMax that are currently used to provide
  
215 See, e.g., Sprint Nextel, Unlimited WiFi HotSpot Plan <http://nextelonline.nextel.com> (visited August 9, 2007).
216 A new line of service is required for both new and existing customers, the phones must be activated with a 
monthly plan, and a two-year service agreement is required. See T-Mobile USA, T-Mobile Dash <http://www.t-
mobile.com> (visited August 9, 2007); T-Mobile USA, T-Mobile Wing <http://www.t-mobile.com> (visited 
August 9, 2007); T-Mobile USA, Services <http://www.t-mobile.com> (visited August. 9, 2007).
217 T-Mobile USA, T-Mobile Dash <http://www.t-mobile.com> (visited August 9, 2007);T-Mobile USA, T-
Mobile Wing < http://www.t-mobile.com > (visited August 9, 2007).
218 Sprint Customers Will Get More Done With The New Mogul By HTC, Press Release, Sprint Nextel, June 18, 
2007.  Customers must enter into a two-year service agreement, with eligible monthly plans starting at $39.99. See
Sprint Nextel, Mogul by HTC <http://nextelonline.nextel.com> (visited August 9, 2007); Sprint Nextel, Sprint 
Power Pack Plans <http://nextelonline.nextel.com> (visited August 9, 2007).  See also Sprint Nextel Announces 4G 
Broadband Wireless Initiative with Intel, Motorola and Samsung, available at 
<http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=12960> (visited September 21, 2007).  
219See <http://www.apple.com/iphone/questionsandanswers.htm> (visited August 10, 2007). 
220 Id.  
221 See Matt Hamblen, RIM Announces Dual-Mode BlackBerry 8820, CIO, July 19, 2007; see also Melissa J. 
Perenson, Money-Saving, Dual-Mode Mobile Phones do Voice Over Wi-Fi, CIO, July 26, 2007.
222 See Perenson, Money-Saving, Dual-Mode Mobile Phones do Voice Over Wi-Fi, CIO, July 26, 2007.
223 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(a).
224 Id. See also 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8119-20 ถถ 148-150.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
35
VoIP.225  In addition, by statute telephones used with public mobile services and private radio services are 
exempt from the general requirement that all newly manufactured telephones meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards, unless that exemption is lifted by the Commission.226  
82. Handset models that use WLAN technology only to provide data services may also raise 
potential policy questions for hearing aid compatibility, as the data feature may be particularly attractive 
to deaf and hard of hearing consumers who may also need hearing aid compatibility for the handset 
model’s voice operation.227 In the record, HLAA notes that Apple’s iPhone has been rolled out, in part, 
on AT&T’s EDGE network but is not yet hearing aid-compatible, and that Apple is not involved in any 
discussions regarding hearing aid compatibility.228 Further, HLAA also raises concerns that 
“manufacturers of handsets used with VoIP services are [not] even aware of the need to make their 
handsets compatible with hearing aids.”229  
83. In the Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling,230 the Commission 
reiterated its commitment to effectuate the accessibility policy embodied in section 255 of the 
Communications Act and stated that it would continue to monitor the development of wireless broadband 
Internet access service and its effects on the policy goals of section 255.  Moreover, although section 255 
expressly applies to telecommunications services and not information services, the Commission noted in 
the Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling that it has used its ancillary 
jurisdiction under Title I to extend accessibility obligations to certain information services in the past, 
including the wireline broadband Internet access service.231  
  
225 Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) is a broadband wireless access technology based 
on the IEEE 802.16 standards that is intended to improve the compatibility and interoperability of broadband 
wireless access equipment.  See Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 23rd Edition, at 1013.
226 47 U.S.C. ง 610(b)(2).  “Public mobile service” is defined to include certain services covered under Part 22 of 
our rules.  47 U.S.C. ง 610(b)(4)(B); 47 C.F.R. ง 68.3.
227 Moreover, even if voice operation over the WLAN is not an inherent part of the equipment or service, users may 
be able to add applications that would permit such use.
228 ATIS Reply Comments at 6 and HLAA Reply Comments at 5.  See also HAP Comments at 3.  We note that 
there does not appear to be any current requirement that the iPhone be compatible under Section 20.19 of the 
Commission’s rules, as Apple would appear to come under the de minimis exception and AT&T meets its 
compatible handset model deployment benchmarks using other models.  See 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(e).
229 HLAA Reply Comments at 5.
230 Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd at 5921-22, ถถ 58-59.
231 Id.  The Commission imposed accessibility obligations on voicemail and interactive menu services.  See
Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and 
Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Inquiry, 16 FCC Rcd 6417, 6455 ถ 93 (1999) (Section 255 Order).  The Commission declined at that time, 
however, to extend accessibility obligations to other information services, such as email, electronic information 
services, and web pages, that did not appear to have the potential to render telecommunications services inaccessible 
to persons with disabilities.  Id. at 6461 ถ 107.  The Commission adopted a Further Notice of Inquiry at the same 
time to obtain additional information about Internet telephony and certain computer-based equipment that replicates 
the current telecommunications functionality.  See also Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 14919 ถ 121-124 (where the Commission uses its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I to extend accessibility 
obligations to the wireline broadband Internet access service.)  The Commission has extended disability access 
requirements to providers of interconnected VoIP services.  The Commission has also extended telecommunications 
relay services requirements to providers of interconnected VoIP services.  See IP-Enabled Services, Implementation 
of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2); Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment, and 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
36
84. Recommendation.  In light of the Commission’s commitment to ensure accessibility by 
persons with disabilities, including those persons with hearing loss, the Bureau recommends that the 
Commission solicit comment as to the hearing aid compatibility policy issues that arise due to the 
emergence of VoIP applications provided over wireless networks and associated handset models,
including the dual-mode handset models described above.  These issues include, among others, whether 
measures may be appropriate to ensure that manufacturers and service providers are committing the 
necessary efforts and capital to make such devices hearing aid-compatible at the earliest opportunity.  
More specifically, they include questions of whether both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP 
services and equipment should be subject to hearing aid compatibility requirements, to the extent the 
Commission’s rules do not currently cover these services and to the extent such services fall within the 
Commission’s legal authority.  Other issues may revolve specifically around the treatment of dual-mode 
handset models and services, particularly where hearing aid compatibility technical standards have been 
developed for one mode and not another.232  
85. The Bureau also recommends that the Commission seek comment as to whether any new 
hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate to address handsets that combine CMRS voice operation 
with data services provided over Wi-Fi networks or other WLANs.  We note that the Joint Consensus 
Plan includes proposals to adopt product refresh and tiering rules that are intended to ensure consumers 
who use hearing aids will have access to wireless handsets with a range of functionalities.233 The Bureau 
recommends that the Commission seek comment as to whether those proposed rules appropriately 
advance hearing aid compatibility in handsets that include data services provided over Wi-Fi or other 
emerging technologies, or whether additional measures are needed.
c. “Open Platform” Networks
86. Background.  Under the Commission’s current rules, manufacturers are required to meet the 
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility standards by offering a certain number or percentage of hearing 
aid-compatible handset models to service providers.234 In addition, service providers similarly are 
obligated to offer a certain number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset models to 
consumers.235  Service providers are also expected to make information available to consumers regarding 
the immunity ratings of handsets,236 and are required to make hearing aid-compatible phones available for 
testing in their owned or operated retail outlets.237  These rules were designed for the current paradigm 
under which most customers purchase service and equipment as a package from their service provider, 
with the service provider having procured the equipment from an equipment manufacturer.  
87. In the 700 MHz Service Second Report and Order, the Commission required that licensees of 
the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block provide an “open platform” for devices and applications, i.e., allow 
consumers, device manufacturers, application developers, and others to use the devices and applications 
of their choosing in C Block networks, subject to certain reasonable network management conditions that 
(Continued from previous page)    
Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG 
Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275 (2007).
232 In this regard, we note that the Joint Consensus Plan includes a proposal that phones with multiple air interfaces 
must satisfy the ANSI C63.19 technical standard with respect to all air interfaces for U.S. frequency bands.  Joint 
Consensus Plan at 10.
233 Id. at 7-10.
234 See 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(1), (d)(1).
235 See 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(2).  
236 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(f).
237 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. ง 20.19(c)(2)(i), (c)(3)(i)(B), and (d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
37
allow the licensee to protect the network from harm.238 In considering hearing aid compatibility issues in 
the context of open platforms, the Commission observed that, once a technical standard is in place and 
specific hearing aid compatibility obligations are extended to the 700 MHz Band, handset manufacturers 
will have independent requirements to offer a certain number of hearing aid-compatible handsets.239 The 
Commission further noted that it believed the open platform requirements themselves will help ensure 
that customers may use available hearing aid-compatible handsets regardless of whether they are offered 
by a wireless service provider or directly by an equipment manufacturer, subject only to the reasonable 
restrictions described above.240 Nevertheless, the Commission directed the staff to consider in this report 
whether any additional hearing aid compatibility requirements should be imposed as a result of the open 
platform requirements adopted in the order.241  
88. Discussion.  Currently, Section 20.19 of the Commission’s rules imposes hearing aid 
compatibility obligations only on manufacturers and providers of the services within its scope, including 
resellers and MVNOs.  In particular, the rules impose the brunt of the obligations for providing 
information to, and interacting with, consumers on service providers.  With the growth of open platform 
networks, however, service providers may no longer play a major role in providing handset equipment to 
subscribers, and the roles of other players in addition to traditional equipment manufacturers and service 
providers may become increasingly significant.  For example, it is possible that a C Block licensee in the 
700 MHz Band will not offer any handsets at all, preferring instead to rely solely on the provision of 
handsets to its customers by manufacturers directly or through other entities that are not connected with 
the licensee.  
89. Under this new paradigm, the existing rules may no longer be as effective in ensuring that 
both hearing aid-compatible handsets and the information necessary to identify and purchase them are 
available to hard of hearing consumers.  For example, if manufacturers are required to make handsets 
available only to service providers, and only service providers have obligations to consumers, it is unclear 
whether consumers who obtain their handsets from sources other than their service provider will have 
sufficient access to hearing aid-compatible models.  Similarly, it may become increasingly necessary to 
involve manufacturers and other parties that provide handsets to consumers in the dissemination of 
hearing aid compatibility information.  In particular, in-store testing requirements currently applicable 
only to service provider-owned and operated outlets may become less meaningful as more consumers 
obtain their handsets from other sources. For example, a consumer that purchases a handset from a 
manufacturer via the Internet may not have the opportunity to test the handset prior to placing the order.
90. Recommendation.  Because the landscape is changing and open platform requirements may 
result in many more consumers obtaining handsets directly from sources other than service providers, 
including directly from manufacturers, the Commission should consider whether modifications to its rules 
are necessary to address hearing aid compatibility requirements in this context.  These modifications may 
include imposing additional or modified deployment and information requirements on manufacturers as
well as other parties that may be supplying handsets to consumers.  In particular, we recommend that the 
Commission seek renewed comment on whether in-store testing requirements should be extended beyond 
service provider-owned and operated retail outlets in the context of open platform networks.
  
238 In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, 
Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15365 ถ 206 (2007) (700 MHz Service Second Report and Order).
239 700 MHz Service Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15373 ถ 228.
240 Id.
241 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
38
D. Impact on Cochlear Implant and Middle Ear Implant Users
91. Background.  In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission committed to 
examine in this staff report “the impact of this Order’s compatibility requirements on cochlear implant 
and middle ear implant users and their ability to use digital wireless phones.”242 The Commission 
described the technology behind cochlear implants,243 and noted at that time that consumers who use 
cochlear implants indicated they have had difficulty finding wireless phones they could use without 
suffering from annoying and sometimes painful interference, and without resorting to expensive and 
cumbersome external attachments.244 In adopting the hearing aid compatibility requirements, the 
Commission stated, “to the extent the modification of the exemption from the [Hearing Aid 
Compatibility] Act for wireless phones facilitates usage by hearing aid users, we expect that individuals 
with cochlear implants will likewise benefit.”245 In the Staff Report Public Notice, the Bureau sought 
comment on topics to be addressed in the hearing aid compatibility report, including the impact of the 
hearing aid compatibility requirements on cochlear implant and middle ear implant users, and their ability 
to use digital wireless phones.246  
92. Discussion.  The record includes only a few commenters who addressed the subject of 
cochlear implants.247  TAP notes that “[i]n terms of interference from wireless devices, we are unaware of 
disproportionate problems among [cochlear implant] users compared to [hearing aid] users in [wireless 
device] use.  Even so, there may be unknown issues related to cochlear implants that RF emissions from 
[wireless devices] may affect.  For example, it is generally unknown how signal processing strategies 
might impact the perception of interference.”248  Similarly, Cingular expresses a lack of information 
regarding disparate experiences for cochlear implant users, stating it is aware that the number of cochlear 
and middle ear implant users is comparatively small but growing, and there is some anecdotal evidence in 
consumer group and hearing industry trade publications regarding their use in wireless service.249  
Cingular states that, since it does not have any concrete data on cochlear and middle ear implant users’ 
experiences, it will defer to those experts for now.250  Cingular is willing to participate in testing activities 
to help the industry and consumer groups better understand and improve these users’ wireless 
  
242 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ถ 74.  
243 As discussed in the order, cochlear implants bypass the external and middle ears by using electrical stimulation 
of electrodes implanted in the cochlea to reintroduce the signals carried by auditory nerve fibers to the brain.  With a 
cochlear implant, a microphone in a headpiece worn at the ear is connected via a thin cable to a processor that is 
worn on the belt, carried in a pocket or, in some models, worn at ear level.  The processor translates the signal from 
the microphone into digital signals that are sent to a transmitter (in some models, the transmitter and microphone are 
in the same piece).  The transmitter, which is held by a magnet on the side of the head behind the ear, sends the 
coded signals via radio waves through the skin to the cochlear implant.  The signals are directed to auditory nerve 
fibers using an array of electrodes implanted in the deaf patient’s cochlea where they elicit patterns of nerve activity 
that the brain interprets as sound.  Some cochlear implants are now being manufactured with built-in telecoils, which 
could enable a user to hear more clearly when using a hearing aid-compatible telephone, wearing a neck loop, or in 
the vicinity of an audio loop.  See Center On Disabilities Technology And Persons With Disabilities, “Conference 
2003 Conference Proceedings” <http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2003/proceedings/133.htm> (visited June 26, 2007).
244 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16766 ถ 30.
245 Id. at 16766 ถ 29.
246 Staff Report Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (WTB 2006).
247 TAP Comments at 8-9.
248 Id.
249 Cingular Comments at 10.
250 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
39
experience.251 One individual using a cochlear implant states that she found that some of the phones she
was able to use with her hearing aid were not compatible with her processor,252 whereas another 
commenter using a cochlear implant believes she could hear better on a cell phone than most people with 
hearing aids.253 Furthermore, the Bureau found anecdotal evidence of people with cochlear implants who 
have had success using wireless devices.254  
93. Research continues on cochlear implants, with advances in microtechnology promising 
greater results from the implantation of greater numbers of smaller electrodes and new means of 
implantation.255  Not surprisingly, however, the Bureau has discovered that the interface between wireless 
handsets and cochlear implants does not appear to be the focus of the vast majority of the cochlear 
implant research conducted to date.  In fact, of over ninety papers on issues related to cochlear implants 
published by the engineering society Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) from 2005 
to the present, only one addressed cochlear implant use in conjunction with wireless phones.256  
94. Recommendation.  The Bureau recommends that the Commission continue to monitor 
developments relating to the interaction of wireless phones with cochlear and middle ear implants. 
E. Labeling of Hearing Aids with Immunity Rating 
95. Background.  In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission noted that the ANSI 
C63.19 standard specifies ratings for digital wireless phones, U1 through U4, based on their RF emission 
levels, with U1 being the highest emissions and U4 the lowest emissions.257 The Commission further 
noted that the ANSI C63.19 standard also specifies ratings for hearing aids from U1 to U4 based on their 
immunity to interference, with U1 being the least immune and U4 the most immune.258 At that time, the 
Commission acknowledged that HIA had expressed concern regarding the labeling of hearing aids, 
particularly since they are highly customized for each person’s physiology and individual hearing loss, 
and it is difficult to predict whether a particular hearing aid will provide the same level of immunity for 
every user.259 Additionally, HIA expressed concerns regarding what claims hearing aid manufacturers 
can make on product packaging with respect to compatibility with digital wireless phones.260 With 
respect to HIA’s concerns about labeling on product packaging, the Commission noted that there were no 
  
251 Id. 
252 Linda Day Comments at 1.
253 Dana Simon Comments.
254 See. e.g., “Confessions of a Cochlear Implantee: Cell Phones and Cochlear Implants” (post dated May 1, 2007, 
<http://bionicgirl.blogspot.com>, visited June 25, 2007).
255 See, e.g., “New type of cochlear implant to improve hearing?” February 9, 2006, <www. 
engadget.com/2006/02/09/new-type-of-cochlear-implant-to-inprove-hearing/> (visited June 25, 2007).
256 Marti J. Sorri et al, “Solutions to Electromagnetic Interference Problems Between Cochlear Implants and GSM 
Phones,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, v.14 no.1 (March 2006).  
257 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16770 ถ 40.  
258 In determining the extent to which a particular digital wireless phone will interfere with a particular hearing aid,
the immunity rating of the hearing aid is added to the emissions rating of the wireless phone.  A sum of 4 would 
indicate that the wireless phone is usable; a sum of 5 would indicate that the wireless phone would provide normal 
use; and a sum of 6 or greater would indicate that the wireless phone would provide excellent performance with that 
hearing aid.  Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16770 ถ 40.
259 Id. at 16777 ถ 57.
260 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
40
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement issues that would preclude labeling of hearing aids.261  
Consequently, the Commission encouraged hearing aid manufacturers to test and label their hearing aid 
models with their immunity level in accordance with ANSI C63.19 in order to facilitate the matching of 
digital wireless handsets with hearing aids, and suggested that such labeling should be on models of 
hearing aids before they are customized, either by the manufacturer or audiologist, for the user’s 
individual hearing loss and physiology.262
96. Discussion.  On July 12, 2007, HIA announced in a letter to the FDA that its members would 
voluntarily include in their product user manuals some information about compatibility with mobile 
phones, and stated that the information that the industry will include with hearing aids will stress that the 
hearing aid compatibility ratings are "based upon the best information available but cannot guarantee that 
all users will be satisfied."263  HIA’s and its members’ decision to provide some information about 
compatibility with hearing aids should assist in addressing many of the concerns raised in the record by 
hard of hearing consumers and their advocacy groups.
97. This letter represents a significant change on behalf of HIA and its members who are not 
currently labeling hearing aid models with their immunity level in accordance with ANSI C63.19.264 In 
the past, HIA and its members hesitated to provide such compatibility or labeling information because 
hearing aids are individually adjusted for each user rather than uniformly mass produced; they are 
provided to users by highly trained professional dispensers; and they are subject to a set of pervasive FDA 
regulations.265 HIA and its members consistently maintained that they were committed to providing the 
maximum possible amount of information to professional hearing aid dispensers to enable them to help a 
hearing aid user select a workable combination of hearing aid and wireless handset, but they were 
reluctant to label the hearing aids.266
98. Voluntary provision of compatibility information will address many of the concerns raised in 
the record.  For example, TAP expresses concerns that the lack of labels on hearing aids creates “a 
situation where hearing aid wearers cannot fully assess, independently, the predicted compatibility 
between the two devices; they must try to consult a hearing health professional (who may not have access 
to information about immunity either) for a non-medical problem.”267  HAP provides anecdotal evidence 
  
261 Id. at 16777 n. 171.
262 Id. at 16786 ถ 88.
263 See letter dated July 12, 2007, from Carole M. Rogin, Executive Director, Hearing Industries Association to 
Linda S. Kahan, Esquire, Deputy Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Department of Health and 
Human Services, Food and Drug Administration in WT Docket No. 06-203.  According to the letter, the information 
that companies will include in their user manuals will state that “the immunity of this hearing aid is at least M2/T2.”  
Id.
264 AG Bell Reply Comments at 1, ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 5-6, Cingular Comments at 9, HAP 
Comments at 3-4, HLAA Reply Comment at 2, RIM Comments at 9-10, TAP Comments at 3-4 (stating that, 
although the Commission urged the hearing aid industry to test and label hearing aids, it has not happened to date), 
and TAP Reply Comments at 7-8.
265 HIA Reply Comments at 3.
266 Id. 
267 Id.  See also ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 6.  Further, HLAA states that, although hearing aid 
manufacturers estimate that approximately 80% of newer hearing aids have an immunity of M2 or better, because 
hearing aids are still not labeled, consumers have no way of knowing that more wireless telephones than those with 
an immunity rating of M3 or M4 may be compatible with their hearing aids.  HLAA Reply Comments at 2.  See also 
Cingular Comments at 9.  In this regard, we note that ATIS acknowledges that hearing aid manufacturers have been 
generally successful in improving the RF immunity of hearing aids.  ATIS Comments at 31.  See also HIA 
Comments at 4, n.6 (stating that virtually all hearing aids perform consistently with an M2 or M3 rating).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
41
that a world-renowned audiologist was not even aware that there are immunity ratings for hearing aids, 
and further states that the manufacturers’ specifications used by audiologists to select hearing aids do not 
list immunity ratings for hearing aids.268  With respect to the hearing aid industry’s nonparticipation in 
labeling, Cingular states it has been particularly difficult to quantify the extent to which the M3/M4 rating 
significantly improves a hearing aid user’s experience without knowledge of the immunity ratings (or 
even testing information) for hearing aids, and further states that the wireless industry has had to be over 
inclusive in testing and designing wireless devices in order to account for all hearing aid products --
regardless of whether a hearing aid has sufficient immunity to be intended for use with wireless devices
or not.269  Indeed, as ATIS states, one of the fundamental assumptions of the Commission in adopting its 
hearing aid compatibility rules was that consumers would be better informed of the compatibility of 
wireless phones and hearing aids, but the absence of public information on radio frequency immunity of 
hearing aids greatly diminishes the ability of the public to make an informed purchasing decision.270  
99. Recommendation.  In light of HIA’s recent announcement about voluntary provision of 
compatibility information with hearing aids, the Bureau recommends that the Commission monitor 
hearing aid labeling and related issues, including the extent to which the hearing aid industry’s voluntary 
measures are effective.
F. Further Review of Commission’s Rules
100.  The Joint Consensus Plan recommends that the Commission conduct a further review of 
the hearing aid compatibility rules in 2010 in order to ensure that there is continued progress towards 
achieving complete compatibility between digital wireless handsets and hearing aids.  
101. Recommendation.  The Bureau recommends that the Commission commit to undertaking 
such a review in the future, and seek comment on whether 2010 or some other time is the appropriate 
period for undertaking this review.
IV. CONCLUSION & SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 
102. In conclusion, the Bureau finds that the wireless industry has made tremendous and 
significant progress in achieving the Commission’s current requirements for hearing aid compatibility.  
Notably, the Commission’s rules have led to a substantial increase in the number and availability of 
hearing aid-compatible digital wireless telephones.  Based on information submitted in the most recent 
compliance reports, the Bureau estimates that 193.2 million wireless subscribers have at least five M3-
rated or better, and three T3-rated or better choices of hearing aid-compatible handset models.
103. With regard to suggestions for measures to facilitate further implementation of the 
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility requirements, the Bureau makes the following recommendations:
Availability of Compatible Handsets
ท The Commission should vigilantly monitor compliance with its hearing aid compatibility 
rules and take appropriate enforcement action against parties that violate the rules.
ท The Commission should continue to encourage the wireless industry to further its efforts 
towards achieving more complete compatibility between digital wireless telephones and 
hearing aids, including seeking input from all interested parties on ways to encourage and 
promote more complete compatibility with hearing aids.
  
268 HAP Comments at 4.
269 Cingular Comments at 9 and ATT/Cingular Reply Comments at 6.  
270 ATIS Comments at 12, 30.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
42
ท The Commission should solicit comment from all interested parties on the proposed 
modifications to the Commission’s future hearing aid compatibility requirements as 
proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan.  
ท The Commission should seek input as to any appropriate modifications to the 
Commission’s future hearing aid compatibility requirements for wireless service 
providers that are not Tier I carriers, including whether the Commission should stagger 
deployment benchmarks to allow additional time for such wireless service providers to 
obtain, test and market new compliant handset models.
ท The Commission should codify in its rules that the de minimis exception applies on a per-
air interface basis as suggested in the Joint Consensus Plan.
ท The Commission should specify that, in order to be counted as satisfying the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements, handsets that have multiple air interfaces must meet the 
hearing aid compatibility requirements for all air interfaces over which they operate on
U.S. frequency bands as suggested in the Joint Consensus Plan.
ท The Commission should clarify that devices marketed by a manufacturer as distinct 
devices generally are counted as different handset models for purposes of the hearing aid 
compatibility rules, but that handset models that have no distinguishing variations of 
form, features, or user capabilities, or that only differentiate units sold to a particular 
service provider, should be counted as a single handset model for purposes of the hearing 
aid compatibility rules.
Consumer Information and In-store Testing
ท The Commission should seek comment on the reporting recommendations in the Joint 
Consensus Plan, including the proposed content of reports and the reporting schedule.
ท The Commission should direct staff to explore measures that might make the equipment 
authorization database more accessible for consumers and service providers to determine 
the hearing aid compatibility of handset models, such as adding a relevant search 
function, and should also seek comment on whether to require manufacturers to inform 
staff of the handset models associated with each FCC ID. Further, the Commission 
should seek comment on whether it should adopt new Part 2 rules on permissive changes 
such that a filing is required that includes trade names and model numbers.
ท The Commission should also seek comment on ways to improve the availability of 
information to consumers directly from manufacturers and service providers, including 
the Joint Consensus Plan’s proposal that manufacturers voluntarily post hearing aid 
compatibility ratings of all their handset models on their websites.
ท The Commission should seek comment on other ways to improve the availability and 
accessibility of consumer information regarding hearing aid-compatible handsets.
Technological Developments Affecting the Hard of Hearing
ท The Commission should continue to monitor the enhancement of existing technologies 
that benefit the deaf or hard of hearing, and should solicit comment with respect to the 
issue of volume controls on wireless handsets.
ท The Commission should also continue to monitor the development of new technologies 
that may benefit the deaf or hard of hearing, and seek comment on ways to address the 
issue of screen displays as a source of interference with hearing aids.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
43
Emerging Regulatory Issues
ท The Commission should seek comment on measures it could take to encourage standard-
setting bodies to develop hearing aid compatibility standards together with technical 
operating specifications, as they are developed for new air interfaces and frequency 
bands.  
ท The Commission should also seek comment on the application of hearing aid 
compatibility requirements to MSS providers that offer CMRS, including whether it 
should make a difference if an MSS provider offers service purely through a satellite-
based network or through a combined network that relies on both satellite and ATC 
facilities.
ท The Commission should solicit comment as to whether any new hearing aid compatibility 
rules are appropriate to address handsets that combine CMRS voice operation with data 
services provided over Wi-Fi networks or other WLANs.
ท The Commission should consider whether modifications to its rules are necessary to 
address hearing aid compatibility requirements in the context of the emergence of open 
platform networks, including whether in-store testing requirements should be extended 
beyond service provider-owned and operated retail outlets in the context of open platform 
networks.
Other Matters 
ท The Commission should continue to monitor developments relating to the interaction of 
wireless phones with cochlear and middle ear implants.
ท The Commission should monitor hearing aid labeling and related issues, including the 
extent to which the hearing aid industry’s voluntary measures are effective.
ท The Commission should commit to undertake a future review of the hearing aid 
compatibility rules, as recommended in the Joint Consensus Plan, and seek comment on 
whether 2010 is an appropriate time frame.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Accessible Formats
104. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).  
B. Contact Persons 
105. For further information concerning this report, please contact Christina Clearwater, 
Spectrum Competition and Policy Division at 202-418-1893.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
106. This Report is issued under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 331 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R ง 0.131, 0.331, and pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 255 and 710 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 157, 255, and 610.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
44
107. It is ORDERED that under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 331 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R ง 0.131, 0.331, and pursuant to 47 C.F.R Section .331 and Sections 1, 4(i), 
7, 255 and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 157, 
255, and 610, the proceeding in the WT Docket 06-203 IS TERMINATED.
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
Fred B. Campbell, Jr.
Chief
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4151
45
APPENDIX – PARTIES FILING COMMENTS
Comments
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions on behalf of the ATIS Incubator Solutions 
Program #4 – Hearing Aid Compatibility (collectively ATIS)
American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee (ANSI)
David Branfield
Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)
Antoinette Cipollina
Linda Day
Deanne L. Deurell
Carrie Foster
Mark Foster
Joseph Gordon
The Hearing Access Program (HAP)
The Hearing Industries Association (HIA)
Hearing Loss Association of America, Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard  
of Hearing, American Academy of Audiology, American Association of People with 
Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, National Association of 
the Deaf, and Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (collectively HLAA)
Patrick N. Hinman
David G. Hoffman
Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons (NVRC)
Gary Palmer
Dana Simon
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. (Sony)
Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University (TAP)
Reply Comments
AT&T Mobility LLC, f/k/a Cingular Wireless LLC (ATT/Cingular)
Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell)
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”)
Blooston Rural Carriers (Blooston)
CTIA, The Wireless Association (CTIA)
Dobson Communications Corporation (Dobson)
Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University (TAP)
Hearing Industries Association (HIA)
Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA)
Iowa Wireless Services (IWS)
Research In Motion Limited (RIM)
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University (TAP)