PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission
445 12
th
St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
DA 14-1255
Released:  August 28, 2014
CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON ITS 
TENTATIVE FINDINGS ABOUT THE ACCESSIBILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS 
TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE 2014 BIENNIAL REPORT UNDER THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT
Pleading Cycle Established
CG Docket No. 10-213
Comment Date:  September 11, 2014
I. Introduction
1. This Public Notice (Notice) seeks comment on tentative findings for the 2014 Biennial 
Report (Report) to Congress on the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 
of 2010 (CVAA).  Public comment will assist the Commission in assessing the following:  (1) the level of 
compliance with the CVAA’s mandates requiring telecommunications and advanced communications 
services and equipment to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; (2) the effect of 
related recordkeeping and enforcement obligations; and (3) the extent to which accessibility barriers still 
exist with respect to new communications technologies. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau (CGB) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) will submit the final 
Report to Congress by October 8, 2014.
2. The purpose of the CVAA,
1
which amended the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), is 
“to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and 
equipment and better access video programming.”
2
  In enacting the CVAA, Congress concluded that 
people with disabilities often have not shared in the benefits of this rapid technological advancement.
3
  
Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the CVAA’s progress in addressing this inequity in a 
report to Congress every two years.
4
  The Commission delivered the first biennial report to Congress on 
October 5, 2012 (2012 CVAA Biennial Report).
5
                                                     
1
Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of 47 U.S.C.); Pub. L. 111-265, 124 
Stat. 2795 (2010) (making technical corrections to the CVAA).  
2
S. Rep. No. 111-386 at 1 (Senate Report); H.R. Rep. No. 111-563 at 19 (House Report) (2010) (noting that the 
communications marketplace had undergone a “fundamental transformation” since Congress adopted Section 255 of 
the Act in 1996.  See 47 U.S.C. § 255 (requiring access to telecommunications services and equipment).
3
Senate Report at 1-2; House Report at 19.
4
See Section 717(b)(1) of the Act, as added by the CVAA, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(1).  Biennial 
reports must be submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.  Id.  See also Senate Report at 9;
House Report at 27 (the report should “assess[] the level of compliance with the requirements of [the 
23. Following passage of the CVAA on October 8, 2010, the Commission immediately began 
implementing this landmark legislation.  In its 2012 CVAA Biennial Report to Congress, the Commission 
reported that it had met every one of the CVAA’s rigorous rulemaking deadlines, having already released 
five reports and orders adopting rules to implement various provisions of the CVAA.
6
  Since the 
submission of the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, the Commission has continued to work with consumer, 
industry, and government stakeholders to ensure effective and timely implementation of the CVAA.  As a 
result, the Commission has since released five additional reports and orders to implement the CVAA,
7
in 
compliance with all CVAA deadlines, where feasible.
8
  Resources throughout the Commission’s bureaus 
                                                                                                                                                                          
CVAA], as well as other matters related to the effectiveness of the Commission’s complaint resolution 
process”).  
5
See Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. 10-213, Biennial Report to Congress 
as Required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, DA 12-1602, 27 
FCC Rcd 12204 (CGB 2012) (2012 CVAA Biennial Report), available at  
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1602A1.pdf.  
6
2012 CVAA Biennial Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12205-6, ¶ 2.
7
Since the submission of the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, the Commission has released the following reports and 
orders adopting implementing regulations:
Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video 
Description:  Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010,MB Docket Nos. 11-43 and 12-107, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
FCC 13-45,  28 FCC Rcd 4871 (2013), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-
45A1.pdf) (adopting rules requiring that emergency information provided in video programming be made 
accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired and that certain apparatus be capable of 
delivering video description and emergency information).
Implementation of Section 718 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. 10-213, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket 
No. 10-145, Report and Order, FCC 13-57, 28 FCC Rcd 5957 (2013), available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-57A1.pdf (implementing Section 718 and part of Section 
716 of the Act to ensure that people with disabilities have access to emerging and innovative advanced 
communications technologies). 
Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus, MB Docket Nos. 12-108 and 12-107, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13-138, 28 FCC Rcd 17330 (2013), available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-138A1.pdf (adopting rules requiring accessibility of user 
interfaces and video programming guides and menus).
Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming; Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video 
Clips, MB Docket No. 11-154, Second Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 14-97, 29 FCC Rcd ___ (rel. Jul. 14, 2014), available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-97A1.pdf (extending Internet protocol closed captioning 
requirements to certain excerpts of video programming that has been shown on television with closed captioning).
Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next 
Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255, Second Report and Order and Third Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-118, 29 FCC Rcd ___ (rel. Aug. 13, 2014), available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-118A1.pdf (requiring providers of interconnected text 
messaging applications to be capable of supporting text-to-911 service by December 31, 2014, and thereafter to 
implement text-to-911 by June 30, 2015 or within six months from the date of a Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP) request, whichever is later, for that PSAP).
8
The CVAA required the Commission to prescribe regulations to implement Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA by 
October 9, 2013, a deadline that occurred during a shutdown of the Federal government due to a lapse in 
appropriations, when the Commission could not conduct normal business operations.  See Pub. L. No. 111-260, §§ 
3and offices have contributed to this comprehensive effort, reflecting the Commission’s ongoing 
commitment to ensuring communications access for millions of Americans with disabilities.
II. Background and Scope of the Report
4. The Report that will be submitted to Congress must include the following elements:
(A) An assessment of the level of compliance with Sections 255 (accessibility of 
telecommunications services and equipment), 716 (accessibility of advanced 
communications services and equipment), and 718 (accessibility of Internet browsers built 
into mobile phones).
(B) An evaluation of the extent to which any accessibility barriers still exist with respect to new 
communications technologies.  
(C) The number and nature of complaints received pursuant to Section 717(a) (recordkeeping 
and enforcement obligations of service providers and equipment manufacturers that are 
subject to Sections 255, 716, and 718).
(D) A description of the actions taken to resolve such complaints, including forfeiture penalties 
assessed.  
(E) The length of time that was taken by the Commission to resolve each such complaint.  
(F) The number, status, nature, and outcome of any actions for mandamus filed and of any 
appeals filed.
(G) An assessment of the effect of the recordkeeping and enforcement requirements of Section 
717 on the development and deployment of new communications technologies.
9
5. Section 255.  Section 255 of the Act requires providers of telecommunications service 
and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment (CPE) to ensure 
that such services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily 
achievable.
10
  When these requirements are not readily achievable, covered entities must ensure that their 
services and equipment are compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly 
used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.
11
  The Commission’s Section 
255 rules cover, among other things, telephone calls, call waiting, speed dialing, call forwarding, 
computer-provided directory assistance, call monitoring, caller identification, call tracing, and repeat 
dialing.
12
  Equipment covered under Section 255 includes, but is not limited to, telecommunications 
equipment and CPE, such as wireline, cordless, and wireless telephones, fax machines, and answering 
machines.
13
  In addition, the rules implementing Section 255 cover voice mail and interactive voice 
                                                                                                                                                                          
204(b), 205(b).  The Commission adopted a report and order with final rules to implement these sections within two 
weeks after the government re-opened. 
9
See 47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(1). 
10
47 U.S.C. §§ 255(b), (c).  See also 47 C.F.R. Part 6 and Part 7.  “Readily achievable” is defined as “easily 
accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”  42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). 
11
47 U.S.C. § 255(d).
12
See Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) 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, Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, FCC 
99-181, 16 FCC Rcd 6417, 6449, ¶ 77 (1999) (Section 255 Order).  See also 47 C.F.R. Part 6.  
13
The Act defines telecommunications equipment as “equipment, other than customer premises equipment, used by 
a carrier to provide telecommunications services, and includes software integral to such equipment (including 
upgrades).”  47 U.S.C. § 153(52).  It defines “customer premises equipment” as “equipment employed on the 
premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route or terminate telecommunications.”  47 U.S.C. § 
153(16).
4response systems (phone systems that provide callers with menus of choices).
14
  In 2007, the Commission 
adopted rules extending Section 255’s accessibility obligations to interconnected voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) service providers and interconnected VoIP equipment manufacturers.
15
6. Sections 716 and 717.  Section 716 of the Act requires providers of advanced 
communications services and manufacturers of equipment used for advanced communications services to 
ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, 
unless doing so is not achievable (defined as “with reasonable effort or expense”).
16
  “Advanced 
communications services” include:  (1) interconnected VoIP service; (2) non-interconnected VoIP 
service; (3) electronic messaging service; and (4) interoperable video conferencing service.
17
  In contrast 
to interconnected VoIP services, which enable people to make and receive calls to and from the public 
switched telephone network (PSTN), non-interconnected VoIP services include services that enable real-
time voice communications either to or from the PSTN (but not both) or which neither begin nor end on 
the PSTN at all.
18
  Electronic messaging services include services such as e-mail, short message service 
(SMS) text messaging, and instant messaging, which enable real-time or near real-time text messages 
between individuals over communications networks.
19
  Interoperable video conferencing services provide 
real-time video communications, including audio, to enable users to share information.
20
  
7. The accessibility requirements for section 716 may be satisfied by:  (1) building 
accessibility into the service or equipment;
21
or (2) using third-party applications, peripheral devices, 
software, hardware, or CPE that is available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with 
disabilities can access.
22
  When ensuring accessibility through either of those options is not achievable, 
covered entities must ensure that their services and equipment are compatible with existing peripheral 
devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, unless that 
is not achievable.
23
8. On October 7, 2011, the Commission released a report and order adopting rules to 
implement Sections 716 and 717 of the Act.
24
  These rules directed covered manufacturers and service 
                                                     
14
47 C.F.R. Part 7.  See also FCC Section 255 Consumer Guide available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/disabled-
persons-telecommunications-access-section-255.  
15
Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) 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; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, FCC 07-110, 22 FCC Rcd 
11275 (2007) (Section 255 VoIP Order), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-
110A1.pdf.
16
47 U.S.C. §§ 617(a)(1), (b)(1), (g).  
17
47 U.S.C. § 153(1).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.10(c).  Section 716 of the Act does not apply to services or 
equipment, including interconnected VoIP services and equipment, which were subject to Section 255 on October 7, 
2010.  47 U.S.C. § 617(f).  Those services and equipment remain subject to the requirements of Section 255.  Id.  
18
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(25), 153(36); 47 C.F.R. § 9.3.  
19
47 U.S.C. § 153(19).  
20
47 U.S.C. § 153(27).
21
47 U.S.C. §§ 617(a)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A).  
22
47 U.S.C. §§ 617(a)(2)(B), (b)(2)(B).  
23
47 U.S.C. §§ 617(c).  
24
See Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Amendments to the 
Commission’s Rules Implementing Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and In the Matter of Accessible Mobile Phone Options for 
5providers to begin taking accessibility into account in the design of their products and services as of 
January 30, 2012.
25
  Since January 30, 2013, these entities also have had to comply with Section 717’s 
recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the accessibility of their products and services.
26
  Beginning 
October 8, 2013, covered entities have had to fully implement Section 716 by making the products and 
services they introduce in the marketplace (or that are substantially upgraded) accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities, or compatible with assistive technology, unless not achievable, in accordance 
with the Commission’s rules.
27
  Finally, the associated complaint procedures established pursuant to 
Section 717 of the Act became available to consumers on October 8, 2013.
28
9. Section 718.  Section 718 requires mobile phone service providers and manufacturers to 
make Internet browsers built into mobile phones accessible to and usable by people who are blind or have 
a visual impairment, unless doing so is not achievable.
29
  This requirement may be satisfied with or 
without the use of third-party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or CPE that is 
available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access.
30
  On April 26, 
2013, the Commission adopted rules implementing Section 718, which have required mobile phones with 
built-in Internet browsers manufactured on or after October 8, 2013, to comply with the Commission’s 
accessibility requirements.
31
10. Scope of the Report. The evaluation of compliance with Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the 
Act in this Report is, of necessity, circumscribed by the time periods during which each of the rules 
described above were in effect.  For this Report, the Commission provides an assessment of industry 
compliance with the accessibility requirements of Section 255 since the submission of the 2012 CVAA 
Biennial Report and compliance with Sections 716 and 718 with respect to covered equipment and 
services that have been introduced into the marketplace or substantially upgraded on or after October 8, 
2013.
32
  This Report also addresses accessibility barriers that still exist with respect to new 
communications technologies.  Finally, this Report considers the effect of the accessibility-related 
recordkeeping and enforcement requirements under Section 717 of the Act on the development and 
deployment of new communications technologies since these requirements became effective.
11. Pursuant to Section 255 of the Act, since 1999 and 2007, respectively, the Commission 
has had in place complaint procedures to ensure that telecommunications and interconnected VoIP 
                                                                                                                                                                          
People who are Blind, Deaf-Blind, or Have Low Vision, CG Docket Nos. 10-213 and 10-145, WT Docket 
No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-151, 26 FCC Rcd 
14557 (2011) (ACS Report and Order and ACS FNPRM).  The rules adopted in the ACS Report and Order
are codified in 47 C.F.R. Part 14.
25
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14602, ¶ 108.  The rules became effective 30 days after their publication 
in the Federal Register on December 30, 2011.  Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 14696, ¶ 328.  See also 76 Fed. Reg. 82240 
(Dec. 30, 2011). 
26
Specifically, covered entities must keep records of their efforts to implement Sections 255, 716, and 718, 
including information about their efforts to consult with people with disabilities, descriptions of the accessibility 
features of their products and services, and information about the compatibility of these products and services with 
peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by people with disabilities to achieve access.  47 U.S.C. § 
618(a)(5)(A). 
27
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14602-3, ¶ 110.
28
47 C.F.R. §§ 14.30(c), 14.32-14.37.
29
47 U.S.C. § 619(a).  
30
47 U.S.C. § 619(b).
31
CVAA, § 104(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 14.60-61.
32
47 U.S.C. §§ 255, 617, 619; 47 C.F.R. Part 6, Part 7, Part 14. 
6services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
33
  Pursuant to Section 
717 of the Act, the Commission established new procedures for complaints alleging violations of Sections 
255, 716, or 718 of the Act.
34
  The new complaint procedures became effective October 8, 2013.
35
  As a 
result, for this Report, CGB will provide information about complaints alleging violations of Section 255 
filed under the prior procedures for the period of January 1, 2012, through October 7, 2013, and about 
complaints alleging violations of Sections 255, 716, and 718 filed under the new procedures for the period 
of October 8, 2013, through December 31, 2013.
36
III. Comment Sought on Tentative Findings
12. Section 717(b)(2) of the Act requires the Commission to seek public comment on its 
tentative findings prior to submission of each biennial report to Congress.
37
  To help inform the 
Commission’s tentative findings, the Commission issued a public notice on June 17, 2014, inviting 
comments related to the development of this Report.
38
13. We now seek comment on whether the Commission’s tentative findings contained in the 
Attachment to this Notice accurately represent the current state of communications technologies 
accessibility.  To the extent commenters believe the tentative findings do not provide an accurate 
representation, we seek comment on why they do not and how they should be revised to do so.  We also 
seek comment on the extent to which the actions taken by industry, as described in the Attachment, have 
resulted in increased accessibility and, where relevant, usability and compatibility, of telecommunications 
and advanced communications services and equipment since delivery of the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report
to Congress.  Do these products and services offer the same range of low-end and high-end features, 
functions, and prices that are available to the general public?  What other kinds of information would help 
the Commission to conduct these assessments, as required by the CVAA, for the next biennial report to 
Congress to be submitted by October 8, 2016?  In order to facilitate review of all comments, we request 
that commenters identify the specific findings on which they are providing comment. 
IV. Procedural Matters 
14. Ex Parte Rules.  The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-
disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
39
  Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
                                                     
33
47 U.S.C. § 255; 47 C.F.R. Part 6 and Part 7.  See also Section 255 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6466-6487, ¶¶ 109-166; 
Section 255 VoIP Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 11289, ¶ 25.
34
47 C.F.R. §§ 14.32-14.37.
35
47 C.F.R. § 14.30(c).
36
47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(2).  As noted in the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, we believe it is most appropriate for these 
periodic reports to review complaints for the time period 1/1/20XX - 12/31/20XX+1. We generally find that this 
approach allows the Commission adequate time to solicit public comment on the issues that it must address in such 
reports, consistent with Section 717(b)(2), and best achieves the CVAA’s objectives.  See 2012 CVAA Biennial 
Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 12212, ¶ 16.  Limiting the review in this Report to complaints received as of December 31, 
2013, allowed the Commission to compile the relevant information and to seek comment on our tentative findings.  
37
47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(2).  
38
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on the Accessibility of Communications 
Technologies for the 2014 Biennial Report Required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act, CG Docket No. 10-213, Public Notice, DA 14-828, 29 FCC Rcd __ (CGB rel. Jun. 17, 2014) 
(2014 CVAA Assessment PN) available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-828A1.pdf.
39
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq.
7Sunshine period applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting 
at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made 
during the presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or 
arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or 
arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given 
to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
40
  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through 
the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native 
format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
41
  Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
15. Filing Requirements.  Interested parties may file comments on or before the date 
indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
42
  All comments should refer to CG Docket No. 10-213.  Please title 
comments responsive to this Notice as “PN Comments – CVAA Report Tentative Findings.”  Further, we 
strongly encourage parties to develop responses to this Notice that adhere to the organization and 
structure of the questions in this Notice.
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.  
? Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number.
o Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
o All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
Street, SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC  20554.  The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.  
o Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
o U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
                                                     
40
47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).
41
47 C.F.R. § 1.49(f).
42
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).  
816. People with Disabilities.  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), 202-418-0432 (TTY).  
Individuals with disabilities may request assistance from the Disability Rights Office to file comments in 
the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System by sending an e-mail to dro@fcc.gov. 
17. Additional Information.  For further information about this Public Notice, please contact 
Rosaline Crawford at 202-418-2075 or by e-mail to Rosaline.Crawford@fcc.gov, Disability Rights 
Office, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.
-  FCC -
ATTACHMENT
TENTATIVE FINDINGS FOR
2014 BIENNIAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
AS REQUIRED BY THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS
AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2010 (CVAA)
I. Compliance with Sections 255, 716, and 718
1. Section 717(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Commission to provide an assessment of the 
level of compliance with Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act in this Report.
1
  To achieve this, in the 
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, the Commission sought comment on the following matters with respect to 
products and services made available to the public since the release of the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report on 
October 5, 2012:
? The level of compliance with the Commission’s accessibility rules predating the CVAA, 
requiring telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services and equipment to be 
accessible to people with disabilities;  
? The extent to which obligations under Section 716 have impacted the accessibility of 
advanced communications services (e.g., non-interconnected VoIP and electronic 
messaging services) and the devices used to access these services;  
? The extent to which obligations under Section 718 have impacted the accessibility of 
Internet browsers built into mobile phones for individuals who are blind or visually 
impaired;  
? Information related to the efforts of manufacturers and service providers to consult with 
individuals with disabilities in their market research, product design, testing, pilot 
demonstrations, and product trials;
? The extent to which service providers and equipment manufacturers have complied with 
their obligations to ensure access by people with disabilities to information and 
documentation related to their products and services;
? The extent to which covered entities that have direct contact with the public have 
conducted training of their personnel on the accessibility of their products and services; 
and  
? Any other issues relevant to assessing the level of compliance with Sections 255, 716, 
and 718.
2
  
A. Comments Received
2. Accessibility.  In response to the 2014 CVAA Assessment PN, the Commission received 
comments from a wide range of stakeholders about the accessibility of telecommunications and advanced 
communications services, as well as the equipment used for these services.  Consumer Groups 
representing individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing generally acknowledge “improvement in 
accessibility under Section 255,” but add their belief that they “have a long way to go before deaf and 
hard of hearing customers can easily and affordably purchase accessible phones.”
3
  Additionally, while 
                                                     
1
47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(1)(A). 
2
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at ___, ¶¶ 7- 11.
3
Comments of the National Association of the Deaf; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.; 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc.; Hearing Loss 
2Consumer Groups express enthusiasm about some new smartphone features, such as Apple’s iPhone that 
connects directly with some brands of hearing aids, they raise concerns that “those types of proprietary 
solutions offer limited and expensive options that do not suit everyone’s needs.”
4
  Consumer Groups also 
raise concerns about accessing captioned telephone services (CTS)
5
over wireless systems and ask the 
Commission to resolve such problems prior to transitioning consumers away from the wireline 
infrastructure.
6
  Consumer Groups do, however, emphasize their support for high definition (HD) voice-
enabled phones and better noise-cancelling technology, noting that “more natural sounding calls go a long 
way in making it possible . . . to make calls with or without assistive technology.”
7
3. Consumer Groups also reiterate concerns they expressed in 2012 regarding the lack of 
interoperable video conferencing services.  Specifically, they report that mainstream video conferencing 
services remain incompatible with TRS, making employment-related video conference calls inaccessible 
to deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
8
  They explain further that off-the-shelf video conferencing 
systems are not interoperable among themselves or with videophones available through video relay 
service (VRS) providers.
9
  Consumer Groups also recommend enhancing video conferencing systems so 
that, under poor network conditions, a deaf or hard of hearing person can optimize picture quality, or 
                                                                                                                                                                          
Association of America; California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; Cerebral Palsy and 
Deaf Organization; and Telecommunication-RERC (Technology Access Program at Gallaudet University and Trace 
Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison)  (collectively referred to herein as Consumer Groups) at 3.
4
Consumer Groups Comments at 2.  Consumer Groups point to a new feature for Apple’s iPhone, which offers a 
direct connection to some brands of hearing aids, and the fact that some hearing aid compatible handsets work better 
with some hearing aid brands than with others, as examples of the problems inherent in this type of proprietary 
solution.  Id.
5
CTS is a type of telecommunications relay service (TRS) that permits people who can speak, but who have a 
hearing loss and have difficulty hearing over the telephone, to speak directly to another party on a telephone call and 
to use a “captioned telephone” or computer software to simultaneously listen to the other party and read captions of 
what that party is saying.  Generally, TRS enables an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has 
a speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with one or more individuals in a manner that is 
functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate 
using voice communication services by wire or radio.  47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).  For more information about TRS, see 
the FCC consumer guide available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
6
Consumer Groups Comments at 9.  In particular, Consumer Groups note that CTS often cannot operate without a 
wireline infrastructure, and that service personnel do not appear to be trained in strategies that permit CTS to 
function on a purely wireless infrastructure.  Id.  In comments submitted in response to the Commission’s 
proceeding on the Open Internet, Consumer Groups allege that “standalone analog and IP captioned telephones do 
not work reliably on telephone services that are provided via wireless base stations.”  See Comments of 
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), National Association of the Deaf (NAD), 
Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network 
(DHHCAN), Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access (RERC-TA), Clayton H. 
Lewis, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 (Jul. 18, 2014) at 12, available at 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521707584.
7
Consumer Groups Comments at 3.
8
Id. at 4-5. See also 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12206, ¶ 29. 
9
Consumer Groups Comments at 4-5.  Issues related to the interoperability of video conferencing services and 
equipment are the subject of a pending Commission proceeding.  See ACS FNPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 14684-87, ¶¶ 
301-305.  VRS is defined in the Commission’s rules as “a telecommunications relay service that allows people with 
hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users through video 
equipment.  The video link allows the [communication assistant] to view and interpret the party’s signed 
conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with a voice caller.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(a)(40).
3frames-per-second, over audio quality.
10
  Consumer Groups further note the need for accessible alerting 
systems, such as flashing lights or vibration, for advanced communications services, to prevent
consumers from missing incoming video calls or other messages.
11
  In addition, Consumer Groups allege 
a general lack of access to advanced communications service components in video games and gaming 
systems.
12
  In particular, they cite the inability of deaf and hard of hearing participants to communicate in 
multi-player gaming systems.
13
4. The American Council of the Blind (ACB) similarly acknowledges that some mobile 
device platforms have made strides in accessibility, but notes that accessibility gaps continue to exist for 
individuals who are blind or visually impaired.  For example, ACB acknowledges that the Samsung 
Galaxy S5 on the Android platform is more accessible than its predecessors, but insists that earlier 
versions of these devices, which are still available on the market, as well as other devices on the Android 
operating system, remain inaccessible.
14
  ACB also notes that Microsoft’s Windows Phone, while now 
offering a built-in screen reader, lacks “many features which would enable it to be usable on a daily 
basis” for people who are blind or visually impaired; in this regard, they emphasize the need for 
accessibility to “span the entire device.”
15
  On a positive note, ACB applauds certain advances for 
individuals who are blind, such as accessible communication applications that provide two-way, push-to-
talk, walkie-talkie voice communication, thereby simulating instant messaging in an accessible format for 
the blind user.
16
  In addition, ACB notes, in general, that “[w]eb accessibility has improved over the last 
few years.”
17
5. The American Association of the Deaf-Blind (AADB) states that “the majority of 
smartphones, tablets and other similar devices are not accessible to the Deaf-Blind.”
18
  AADB notes that, 
when using tablets to connect to the Internet or make calls, there is no alert to notify users when the call is 
                                                     
10
Consumer Groups Comments at 6.
11
Id.  
12
Id.  Consumer Groups raised this issue as well in 2012.  See 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12221-
22, ¶¶ 44-45 (advocating for inclusion of relay services to make online gaming voice communication accessible to 
deaf and hard of hearing gamers).  Note, however, that the Commission granted class waivers of the advanced 
communications services accessibility rules until October 8, 2015, for gaming consoles, services and software.  See 
Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 
of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to Advanced Communications 
Services (ACS) and Equipment by People with Disabilities, CG Docket 10-213, Order, DA 12-1645, 27 FCC Rcd 
12970, 12982-92, ¶¶ 23-41 (CGB 2012) (ACS Waiver Order), available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1645A1.pdf.
13
Consumer Groups Comments at 6.
14
ACB Comments at 2.  ACB advocates for all devices to be accessible, not just a select few.  Id.  ACB reports that 
it believes that the relationship between the carrier and the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) “is often the 
reason why accessibility is either obscured or broken on various handsets,” and suggests that accessibility can be 
achieved through “greater communication of expectations from the carrier to the OEM.”  Id.
15
Id.
16
ACB points to HeyTell and Zello as examples of these types of applications.  Id.
17
Id. at 3.  
18
Comments of the American Association of the Deaf-Blind (AADB Comments) at 2.  
4received.
19
  Further, AADB reports that “most mobile phones and tablets have limited accessibility 
features or none at all for screen readers using Braille.”
20
  Even when a device is accessible, AADB 
claims that “the software and apps made for these devices are not always accessible,” either because they 
are only accessible visually or only accessible audibly.
21
  For example, according to AADB, “[i]nstant 
messaging (IM) on mobile phones is not accessible to screen readers.”
22
  A further concern is that, when 
there are upgrades or updates to a mobile device’s core software or apps, it sometimes causes the device 
or app to become less accessible or totally inaccessible for the user who is deaf-blind.
23
  For example, 
AADB notes that sometimes such updates cause the equipment or software to stop working with the 
assistive technology, such as a Braille display or screen reader, that is used by people who are deaf-
blind.
24
  This is particularly frustrating, they say, because an update cannot be rolled back, so the product 
becomes completely useless until fixes are available, “which again require sighted assistance and 
significant time delays.”
25
6. In addition to the above feedback received from disability organizations, 29 individuals –
all of whom are either blind or have low-vision, or work with this community – submitted comments in 
response to the 2014 CVAA Assessment PN. Many of these commenters emphasize the progress that has 
been made over the past several years on the accessibility of mobile devices, particularly the Apple 
iPhone, for people with vision loss.
26
  Two individuals spoke favorably of the iPhone’s compliance with 
Section 718 of the Act, requiring Internet browsers built into mobile phones to be accessible to 
individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
27
  However, while commenters generally express 
appreciation for the iPhone’s accessibility, some offer suggestions for areas in which accessibility on 
these devices can be improved.
28
  In addition, several commenters express concerns that wireless phones 
                                                     
19
AADB Comments at 5.  ACB agrees and notes that individuals who are deaf-blind are unable to receive 
notifications that they have received a text or notification on a device, without constantly checking the device itself.  
Id. at 1.
20
Id. at 5.  AADB also notes that it can be quite challenging to connect assistive technology, such as Braille displays 
and notetakers, through Bluetooth to mobile devices.  Id. at 4.
21
Id. at 2.  
22
Id. at 5.
23
Id. at 3.
24
Id.
25
Id. AADB suggests that its members would benefit from requirements mandating mobile phones to be fully 
accessible to deaf-blind individuals.  Id. at 4.  Sections 255 and 716 do, in fact, require the telecommunications and 
advanced communications services functions on mobile phones to be accessible to all persons with disabilities, 
though flexibility is provided in the manner in which this can be achieved, as noted above. See Notice at ¶¶ 6-8, 
supra.  Similarly, Section 718 requires Internet browsers built into mobile phones to be accessible to individuals 
who are blind or visually impaired, also as noted above.  See Notice at ¶ 9, supra
26
See, e.g., Comments of Fred M. Scott; Comments of  Jake Joehl; Comments of Tristen and Turlock Breitenfeldt; 
Comments of Jeanette Schmoyer; Comments of Karen Palau; Comments of Anne Jarry; Comments of Sandy 
Spalletta.  
27
See Comments of Ronald Flormata at 2 (“Needless to say, I can easily use my iPhone to . . . browse the web. . ..”); 
Comments of Katie Frederick (“When it comes to accessing the Internet/web, I find this process straightforward 
when using any of my technologies,” which include an Apple iPhone.).
28
See, e.g., Comments of Al Posner (allow user to set a default magnification level); Comments of Russ Zochowski 
(provide ability to use Siri to add or edit contacts or delete messages); Comments of Sandy Spalletta (provide ability 
to locate answer button, phone and keyboard buttons); Comments of Kevin Lee (offer ability to decrease speed of 
Siri voice).
5available to low-income consumers made available by providers who participate in the Commission’s 
Lifeline program are not very accessible,
29
and that some providers still offer no accessible phones at 
all.
30
  
7. For the most part, industry stakeholders submitted comments that emphasize their 
significant efforts to incorporate access into their products and services, along with the consequent results 
of such efforts.  For example, CTIA – the Wireless Association (CTIA) points to wireless providers’ wide 
range of devices with “low-end and high-end features, functions, and prices that include accessible 
features for people with disabilities.”
31
  It stresses that wireless equipment manufacturers are continuing 
to improve smartphone accessibility features and create solutions to meet the needs of “people with 
varying abilities.”
32
CTIA identifies several feature phones that provide accessibility solutions, 
particularly for users who are blind or visually impaired.
33
  CTIA goes on to explain that the move to a 
platform-based approach by manufacturers is enabling accessibility features to be more consistently 
available, because accessibility features in the operating system can be used by low- and high-end 
devices, and new features can be distributed through software updates.
34
  For example, CTIA discusses 
features offered on smartphone platforms for users who are blind or have low vision,
35
who are deaf or 
                                                     
29
As discussed below, see Attachment at ¶ 39, infra, approximately 15% of all informal complaints and RDAs 
received during the reporting period involved complaints about inaccessible wireless handsets received in 
conjunction with subscriptions for telephone services under the Commission’s Lifeline program.  Since 1985, the 
Lifeline program, which is supported by the Universal Service Fund, has provided a discount on phone service for 
qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity and security that telephone 
service brings.  In 2005, Lifeline discounts were made available to qualifying low-income consumers on pre-paid 
wireless service plans, in addition to traditional landline service.  See “Lifeline Program for Low-Income 
Consumers” at http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline (last viewed on Aug. 7, 2014).  
30
See, e.g., Comments of Andrea Roth (“Assurance Wireless phones that are provided for low-income individuals, 
are not very accessible.  It would be better if they at least had voice-dialing capability.”); Comments of Percy 
Chavez (telephones from prepaid wireless provider “are not accessible at all”).  A number of the commenters noted 
concerns that are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.  For example, some commenters expressed concern 
regarding the inaccessibility of websites (see, e.g., Comments of Al Posner; Comments of Larry McMillan; 
Comments of Kevin Lee; Comments of Ronald Kaplan); inaccessibility of software applications (see, e.g.,
Comments of Rhonda Staats; Comments of Karen Palau); and, generally, the overutilization of touch screen and 
touch pad input devices on household appliances and other devices (see, e.g., Comments of Al Posner; Comments of 
Ron Kolesar).
31
CTIA Comments at 8.
32
Id. at 9.
33
Id. at 15-17.  CTIA mentions Pantech’s Breeze flip phones that utilize universal design principles, and Sprint’s 
Kyocera Kona, Verve, and Duraplus phones that offer a variety of accessibility features.  Id. at 15-16.  In addition, 
CTIA notes that new offerings that focus specifically on the delivery of wireless services to people with disabilities, 
such as GreatCall, which specializes in products and services designed for seniors, as well as Odin Mobile and 
Project RAY, which market services and offer accessible phones to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.  
Id. at 16-17.
34
Id. at 9-10.
35
Id. at 10-12.  CTIA cites, as examples, Apple’s VoiceOver screen reader and platform support for more than 40 
refreshable Braille displays; Google’s Android operating system with a built-in TalkBack screen reader that also 
offers Explore by Touch  (audible output activated by touching the screen) and BrailleBack (to help make supported 
refreshable Braille displays via Bluetooth); Blackberry 10’s operating system that includes screen reader software, 
BlackBerry Magnify, and voice control; Microsoft’s Windows Phone 8.1 that offers the Narrator screen reader and 
hands-free operation by voice control.  Id. at 10-11.  CTIA also reports that manufacturers, such as Nokia, include 
built-in accessibility features in their products, including voice controls, adjustable fonts, text-to-speech, Nuance 
Talks, screen readers, and message readers.  Id. at 11.  CTIA also mentions HTC’s adjustable font sizes for e-mail 
6hard of hearing,
36
who have dexterity impairments,
37
and who have cognitive disabilities.
38
  In addition, 
CTIA mentions personal assistant programs that facilitate mobile device operations for people of varying 
abilities.
39
  
8. CTIA also describes the development of services by providers and applications by third 
parties that can enhance accessibility.
40
  It notes that service providers’ mobile accessibility applications 
and services provide a variety of means to ensure that consumers can find and use innovative accessibility 
solutions.
41
  It also cites manufacturers’ increased willingness to provide resources to enable third-party 
application developers to ensure compatibility with built-in accessibility features.
42
  Finally, CTIA notes 
that third-party developers have taken the initiative to release imaginative applications to enhance 
accessibility for people with disabilities.
43
  
9. Both CTIA and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) describe the efforts 
of some of their member companies to make text-to-911 available.
44
  TIA goes on to opine that the 
CVAA has resulted and will continue to result in increased accessibility across information and 
communications technology products and services, though it might be difficult to quantify at this time.
45
  
TIA further believes that the software platform approach for inclusion of accessibility features leverages 
the principle of universal design, allowing new features to be added to existing equipment, to provide a 
more seamless user experience, and greatly simplify upgrades.
46
  With respect to the state of accessibility 
                                                                                                                                                                          
and webpages; Samsung’s Galaxy 5’s Dark Screen option; LG G2’s built-in screen magnifier; and Motorola Moto 
X’s combined screen reader with a Braille display.  Id. at 11-12.  Additional accessibility features for individuals 
who are blind or visually impaired are offered by service providers, such as Sprint’s “Accessible Now” voice 
guidance software to help set up and activate its LG F3, Flex, and G2 phones.  Id. at 12.  
36
Id. at 12-13.  CTIA reports that, in addition to hearing aid compatibility and volume control, many wireless 
devices include visual and vibrating alerts for calls, texts, e-mails, and other notifications.  Id. at 12.  In addition, 
smartphones with front-facing cameras enable video communication by American Sign Language users.  Id. at 13.  
According to CTIA, Motorola devices offer CrystalTalk (a noise-masking algorithm); and Blackberry devices offer 
a Natural Sound feature (to hear nuances and variations in tone).  Id. at 13.
37
Id. at 13-14.  For example, CTIA mentions “dexterity features, such as ‘no slip’ coatings, external stylus support, 
external keyboard support, predictive text (auto-correct), voice commands, and Bluetooth connectivity.”  Id. at 13.  
According to CTIA, HTC offers smartphones with haptic feedback; Apple offers AssistiveTouch to suit an 
individual’s physical needs and to support third-party assistive technology, such as Bluetooth-enabled switch 
hardware; and Google’s Android offers Touch and Hold Delay and TalkBack speech features.  Id. at 13-14.
38
Id. at 14.  Features that are useful for individuals with cognitive disabilities include photo contact lists, voice 
dialing and operations, and options to eliminate screen time-outs.  Id.  CTIA mentions that Pantech’s Breeze phones 
have simplified display options and Samsung offers an “easy” mode on its Android-based smartphones.  Id.
39
Id. at 14.  For example, CTIA points to Apple’s Siri program that responds to voice commands and Microsoft’s 
Windows Phone Cortana application that can be accessed by voice or by text.  Id. at 14-15.
40
Id. at 18-24.
41
Id. at 18-20.
42
Id. at 20-21, 23-24.
43
Id. at 21-23.  In its comments, CTIA mentions applications that improve the accessibility of mobile devices, as 
well as applications that assist with productivity, such as apps that identify currency, colors, and images.  Id.
44
Id. at 24-25 (pointing to efforts by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless to carry text-to-911 
transmissions); TIA Comments at 8-9 (noting its work with standards groups to enable text-to-911).  
45
TIA Comments at 4.
46
Id. at 5-6.
7for “non-mobile” services, TIA urges the Commission to act on TIA’s 2012 petition for a rulemaking to 
reference the TIA conversational gain standard in the Commission’s Part 68 rules that set hearing aid 
compatibility volume control requirements.
47
  TIA also describes its efforts to work on hearing aid 
compatibility standards for the wireless space.
48
10. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) reports that it has been assisting its 
members to comply with the new accessibility rules through alerts, webinars, and compliance manuals.
49
  
CEA states that its members are engaging in “strong efforts to comply” with the CVAA, including 
determining which equipment is subject to the advanced communications services accessibility rules, 
ensuring that their units and teams understand the rules, consulting people with disabilities on 
accessibility solutions, modifying internal processes to perform the tasks needed for compliance, and 
keeping compliant record systems.
50
  Finally, CEA notes with approval the Commission’s advanced 
communications services accessibility rules, which it says, recognize the need to balance accessibility and 
preserve innovation.
51
  
11. Microsoft, Inc. (Microsoft) states that innovation in accessibility solutions has been 
enhanced by the Commission’s avoidance of overly prescriptive regulations, and by a reasonable 
compliance deadline schedule that has provided industry time to research break-through solutions.
52
  
Microsoft points to developments it has advanced, such as hands-free interaction modes, eye-tracking 
technology, and narration of visual environments, as examples of these types of innovations.
53
  Microsoft 
states that it faces unique challenges, in that its portfolio of devices and services spans such a wide range 
of accessibility issues, and runs on multiple combinations of platforms, browsers, apps, and services, but 
that it is able to meet these accessibility challenges through a significant company-wide emphasis on 
accessibility.
54
  With respect to advanced communications services, Microsoft reports that it has been able 
to provide consumers with disabilities a choice of using built-in or third-party accessibility solutions.
55
  
For example, consumers with visual impairments can choose to use Narrator, a built-in screen reader, or 
Window-Eyes, a third-party screen reader that Microsoft makes available at no charge.
56
  Microsoft 
                                                     
47
Id. at 7-8.  See also Telecommunications Industry Association, Access to Telecommunications Equipment and 
Services by Persons with Disabilities, RM-11682, Petition for Rulemaking (filed Oct. 25, 2012) (TIA Petition).  
48
TIA Comments at 8.  
49
Comments of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA Comments) at 4.  
50
CEA Comments at 5.  CEA describes implementation of the accessibility requirements as “resource intensive and 
time-consuming.”  Id. at 4-5.  Asserting, without more, that “smaller entities have encountered challenges in 
achieving compliance,” CEA recommends an exemption for small entities, “which will facilitate the entry and 
continued participation of small entrepreneurial businesses in providing innovative [advanced communications 
services and] equipment.”  Id. at 5.
51
Id. at 3.  CEA also expresses appreciation for the Commission’s grant of limited waivers.  See ACS Waiver Order, 
27 FCC Rcd 12970 (granting class waivers of advanced communications services accessibility rules until October 8, 
2015, for Internet protocol-enabled television sets, Internet-enabled digital video players, cable set-top boxes, and 
gaming consoles, services and software).  See also TIA Comments at 9-10 (expressing appreciation for the 
Commission’s careful consideration of past waiver requests relating to the advanced communications services 
accessibility requirements).  
52
Comments of Microsoft, Inc. (Microsoft Comments) at 1.
53
Microsoft Comments at 2-3.
54
Id. at 5-7.
55
Id. at 4.
56
Id.
8applauds the Commission’s efforts to foster industry innovation and flexibility, encourages the 
Commission to continue its Chairman’s Awards for the Advancement of Accessibility and its 
Accessibility & Innovation Initiative Speaker Series, and urges the Commission to continue to focus on 
outcomes and encourage innovation, relying on technology standards only as a safe harbor “where 
compliance with the standard will be evidence of complying with the CVAA regulations, while still 
allowing other methods of achieving the regulatory goals.”
57
12. Inclusion of people with disabilities in product and service design and development.
58
  
The 2014 CVAA Assessment PN sought comment on the extent to which covered entities have included 
people with disabilities in their efforts to conduct market research, product design, testing, pilot 
demonstrations, and product trials.
59
  In response, Consumer Groups allege that “re-engineering happens 
too often without thought to [the] accessibility needs of people who are deaf or hard of hearing.”
60
  As an 
example, they point to reports that Apple is considering elimination of the headphone jack on future 
models, a feature that enables a connection for neckloops or other accessibility coupling devices that are 
used to enhance an individual’s ability to hear, as illustrative of this problem.
61
  AADB similarly raises 
concerns about consumers with disabilities having insufficient opportunity to provide input into research 
and development of new communications technologies to meet the needs of their community.
62
  In 
particular, AADB calls for a Deaf-Blind Telecommunications Technology Summit to address the 
challenges facing deaf-blind people using telecommunications equipment and services.
63
  
13. Various industry associations report that their members are, in fact, taking steps to 
consult with people with disabilities and the accessibility community.  For example, CTIA reports that,
since 2012, its member companies have gained feedback on wireless accessibility issues from disability-
related organizations,
64
and that its Accessibility Outreach Initiative, which has held seven meetings since 
2013, assists its members to “gain a broader understanding of the accessibility community’s priorities.”
65
  
CTIA adds that service providers “have developed programs to consider accessibility throughout all 
                                                     
57
Id. at 7-8.
58
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.7(b)(3), 7.7(b)(3).  Beginning January 30, 2013, covered entities must keep records about their 
efforts to consult with people with disabilities.  See 47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(5)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 14.31(a)(1). 
59
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at ___, ¶¶ 7, 9, 10.
60
Consumer Groups Comments at 3.
61
Id. at n. 3, citing “Possible Design Change for the iPhone 6 – Eliminating the Headphone Jack – Has Some Apple 
Fans Fuming,” NY Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/iphone-6-require-new-headphones-apple-
fans-fuming-article-1.1826371 (Jun. 12, 2014).  
62
AADB Comments at 4.  Along these lines, AADB raises concerns about the transparency of the National Deaf-
Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), a matter outside the scope of this Report, but nevertheless of 
importance to the Commission.  AADB expresses interest in having greater access to trends, patterns and statistics 
of programs certified under the NDBEDP, to better identify research needed for the development of communications 
devices for the deaf-blind community.  Id.
63
Id. at 5.
64
CTIA Comments at 28.  For example, CTIA member companies have met with the American Foundation for the 
Blind, Hearing Loss Association of America, the Telecommunications Equipment Distribution Program 
Association, the National Association of the Deaf, the World Institute on Disability, and Telecommunications for 
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.  Id. at 28.
65
Id. at 28.
9stages of product and service design and deployment.”
66
  It also points to efforts of its member companies 
to engage consumer representatives in an on-going dialogue about accessibility, including initiatives to 
incorporate accessibility into regular company practices and procedures.
67
  For example, CTIA reports 
that manufacturers have worked to implement the American Foundation for the Blind’s guidelines for 
small screen displays.
68
  CTIA also notes that wireless service providers have undertaken initiatives to 
incorporate accessibility into their regular practices and procedures, such as through advisory panels and 
online resources.
69
14. TIA states that it views the inclusion of people with disabilities to be a crucial part of the 
process of ensuring that accessibility is incorporated into the design during new product cycles, and that 
its members continue to liaise with the disability community to ensure inclusive design.
70
  TIA asserts 
that consultation with individuals with disabilities on research and development is taking place at both the 
company and industry association levels.
71
15. Microsoft reports that it places company-wide emphasis on accessibility and engages
regularly with the community on disability issues.
72
  For example, Microsoft states that it holds an annual 
summit with Microsoft employees and disability rights advocates.
73
  In addition, Microsoft explains that it 
hires individuals with disabilities as usability testers in studies to obtain feedback on the usability of its 
products.
74
  
16. Information, documentation, and training. The 2014 CVAA Assessment PN sought
comment on access by people with disabilities to information and documentation related to covered 
products and services, as well as the extent to which covered entities that have direct contact with the 
public have conducted training of their personnel on the accessibility of their products and services.
75
  
These requirements are designed to ensure that telecommunications and advanced communications 
services, as well as Internet browsers built into mobile phones, are usable by individuals with 
disabilities.
76
  Consumer Groups express concern that gaps remain, both with respect to industry efforts to 
disseminate information about accessible products and services, and with respect to providing staff 
                                                     
66
Id. at 8.  CTIA mentions, specifically, the establishment of a Corporate Accessible Technology Office by AT&T, 
and Verizon’s online training courses for new employees about accessibility requirements.  Id. at 8-9.
67
Id. at 30-32.
68
Id. at 12.
69
Id. at 31-32.
70
TIA Comments at 4-5.
71
Id. at 6.  TIA mentions, for example, that it participated in sessions at the 2014 M-Enabling Summit in Virginia 
and the 2014 conference of the Hearing Loss Association of America.  Id.
72
Microsoft Comments at 7.
73
Id. at 6.
74
Id.
75
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at ___, ¶¶ 8, 11.
76
A product or service is “usable” if individuals with disabilities have access to the full functionality and 
documentation for the product or service, including instructions, product or service information (including 
accessible feature information), documentation and technical support functionally equivalent to that provided to 
individuals without disabilities.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.3(l), 7.3(l), 14.21(c).  See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.11, 7.11, 14.20(d), 
14.60(b)(4) (prescribing usability obligations related to information, documentation, and training for covered 
entities).
10
training on accessibility.  Specifically, Consumer Groups assert that “[t]here continues to be a lack of 
readily available information in retail settings to help customers figure out which phone works best for 
them,” and that retail employees are often unable to assist because they are unfamiliar with accessibility 
features, such as hearing aid compatible phones.
77
  AADB agrees that “[e]ducation and outreach about 
accessibility on all mobile and desktop communications is much needed and critical.”
78
  It also requests 
easy-to-use, step-by-step instructions to enable deaf-blind individuals to navigate communication apps.
79
  
17. Industry commenters underscore their efforts to disseminate information to consumers 
with disabilities.  For example, CTIA stresses that its member companies provide accessibility 
information through advertisements, product packaging, user guides, and their websites, as well as 
through customer service representatives.
80
  It states that the industry and individual providers have 
increased awareness of accessible services and products to an extent that goes beyond the requirements of 
the CVAA, including regular attendance at conferences and meetings, along with maintenance of the 
AccessWireless.org website, where consumers can search for wireless handsets based on accessibility 
features.
81
  
18. With respect to staff training, Microsoft reports that it has established a “disability 
Answer Desk” that consumers can contact by phone, e-mail, or chat to receive assistance from staff 
“specifically trained in assistive technologies and assisting persons with disabilities.”
82
19. Other issues.  Consumers point to several aspects of service plans offered by providers 
that they claim result in reduced accessibility for users with disabilities.  Consumer Groups, whose 
members rely on data-based rather than voice-based communication, express serious concern about “the 
growing trend among wireless carriers where they are no longer offering unlimited data plans and are 
instead metering, throttling and sometimes capping their data plans.”
83
  Consumer Groups claim that 
because some modes of communication, particularly video conferencing, use significant amounts of data, 
such restrictions limit functional equivalency for deaf and hard of hearing users and result in their paying 
more for expensive overage charges and costly data plans.
84
  Moreover, Consumer Groups point to news 
reports causing growing apprehension that one or more major carriers may begin throttling data speeds 
for customers with unlimited data plans, or may begin capping consumers’ data usage.
85
  Their concerns
are that throttling data speed would render video communication impossible and data caps could result in 
                                                     
77
Consumer Groups Comments at 2.
78
AADB Comments at 5.
79
Id. at 3.
80
CTIA Comments at 17-18.
81
Id. at 26-30.  CTIA partners with the Mobile Manufacturers Forum to make the information collected through the 
Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) available to consumers through AccessWireless.org website.  
CTIA Comments at 27.  See also TIA Comments at 8 (asserting that GARI continues to operate successfully) and 11 
(stating that GARI is being used effectively by wireless manufacturers and is also leveraged effectively by the 
Commission’s Accessibility Clearinghouse).
82
Microsoft Comments at 6.
83
Consumer Groups Comments at 7-8.
84
Id. at 7.
85
Id. at 8, citing “FCC Questions Verizon Plan to Manage Data Speeds for Some Customers,” Wall Street Journal, 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/fcc-questions-verizon-plan-to-manage-data-speeds-for-some-costumers-1406756051
(Jul. 30, 2014).
11
sudden blockages to the network; either action, they say, could render a person who is deaf or hard of 
hearing unable to make calls, including calls for emergency services.
86
20. By contrast, industry comments emphasize the wide selection of service plans tailored to 
fit the needs of users with disabilities.  For example, CTIA points to providers’ service plans that “meet 
the needs of people with disabilities,” and offer “a variety of post- and pre-paid plans to accommodate 
differing abilities to pay.”
87
  It states that wireless service providers continue to “offer and expand their 
array of services that benefit the accessibility community, including by introducing voice, text, data and 
service plans that greatly benefit people with disabilities and seniors.”
88
  
B. Tentative Findings on Compliance with Sections 255, 716, and 718  
21. Section 255.  Based on the record provided in response to the 2014 CVAA Assessment 
PN, the Commission tentatively finds that there is a greater selection of accessible telecommunications 
devices available to people with disabilities now than were available at the time that the Commission 
prepared its 2012 CVAA Biennial Report.  Specifically, the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report stated that 
“feature phones continue to offer only limited accessibility for consumers who are blind or visually 
impaired.”
89
  Information provided to the Commission in preparation for this Report indicates that several 
feature phones now provide accessibility solutions for individuals who are blind or visually impaired and 
that the need for accessibility has given rise to new offerings and models specifically designed to meet 
accessibility needs.
90
  In addition, it appears that a range of accessibility solutions have been included in 
many smartphones to meet the needs of individuals who are blind or have low vision, who are deaf or 
hard of hearing, who have dexterity impairments, and who have cognitive disabilities.
91
  As such, we 
tentatively find that there has been an increase in the availability of telecommunications equipment with 
varying degrees of functionality and features, and offered at differing price points, that are accessible to 
individuals with disabilities during the period covered by this Report.  
22. Section 716.  Although less than a year has passed since implementation of Section 716 
went into full effect, we tentatively find that industry has made efforts to comply with the CVAA’s 
requirements to ensure that advanced communications services and the equipment used for these services 
are accessible to people with disabilities.  We base this tentative finding on the extensive submissions 
                                                     
86
Consumer Groups Comments at 8.
87
CTIA Comments at 8.
88
Id. at 7.  CTIA points to Sprint’s “Relay Data Plan,” AT&T’s “Text Accessibility Plan” and “Senior Plan 200,” 
Verizon’s “Nationwide Messaging Plan” and “Nationwide 65 Plus Plan,” U.S. Cellular’s messaging options and 
messaging-only plans, and providers’ HD Voice services as examples of services that benefit people with disabilities 
and seniors.  Id. at 7-8.
89
2012 CVAA Biennial Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12219, ¶ 39.
90
See Attachment at ¶ 7, n.33, supra (CTIA reporting that Pantech’s Breeze and Sprint’s Kyocera Kona, Verve, and 
Duraplus feature phones have accessibility features, and that GreatCall, Odin Mobile, and Project RAY market 
services and offer accessible phones to seniors and individuals who are blind or visually impaired).
91
See Attachment at ¶ 7 (CTIA stating that wireless providers offer a wide range of devices with “low-end and high-
end features, functions, and prices that include accessible features for people with disabilities”), nn.35-38, supra
(CTIA discussing features that make the telecommunications services functions on smartphones more accessible to 
individuals with disabilities).  See also Attachment at ¶ 2, supra (Consumer Groups noting “improvement in 
accessibility under Section 255” and support for HD voice-enabled phones and better noise-cancelling technology); 
¶ 4, supra (ACB acknowledging that some mobile platforms now provide greater accessibility, including voice 
communication applications, that are accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired).
12
illustrating a range of accessible devices, from feature phones to smartphones, for individuals with 
varying types of disabilities,
92
along with reports by trade associations detailing industry compliance 
efforts.
93
  In addition, we note that, although consumers were able to request assistance and file informal 
complaints with the Commission with respect to alleged violations of Sections 716 from October 8, 
2013,
94
through the close of the reporting period on December 31, 2013, consumers submitted no such 
requests for assistance or informal complaints to the Commission.
95
  The lack of filings during this three-
month period may be due to many reasons, none of which are evidenced in the record.
96
  As such, we 
tentatively find that the lack of such requests for assistance or informal complaints is not conclusive
evidence of compliance, nor can it be used to infer compliance with Section 716. 
23. Section 718. While only a few commenters spoke directly to the accessibility of Internet 
browsers built into mobile phones in response to the 2014 CVAA Assessment PN, based on the record 
before us, we tentatively conclude that industry has made efforts to comply with Section 718’s 
requirements to ensure the accessibility of such web browsers for people who are blind or visually 
impaired.  We base this tentative finding on CTIA’s reports of a wide range of wireless devices and 
smartphone platforms that provide “low-end and high-end features, functions, and prices that include 
accessible features for people with disabilities” generally,
97
and more specifically for users who are blind 
or visually impaired.  In particular, CTIA describes smartphones that support refreshable Braille displays 
and include screen readers, voice control, text-to-speech, adjustable font sizes, and magnification.
98
  
Given that smartphones can be used to access the Internet, it seems logical to conclude that the 
accessibility features provided on these devices not only enable people to make calls, but also enable 
access to the Internet browsers built into these smartphones.  This tentative finding is supported by 
comments that confirm the accessibility of Internet browsers on Apple iPhones,
99
as well as ACB’s 
statement that “[w]eb accessibility has improved over the last few years.”
100
Our tentative conclusion that 
industry is effectively providing access to Internet browsers on mobile phones is further supported by the 
                                                     
92
See, e.g., Attachment at ¶ 7, n. 33, supra (CTIA discussing accessible feature phones and new entities that market 
services and offer accessible phones to seniors and individuals who are blind or visually impaired); ¶ 7, nn.35-38, 
supra (CTIA reporting on features that make the advanced communications services functions on smartphones more 
accessible to individuals with disabilities).
93
See, e.g., Attachment at ¶ 10, supra (CEA reporting that its members are actively engaged in efforts to comply 
with the Commission’s advanced communications services accessibility rules); ¶ 11, supra (Microsoft noting that it 
provides consumers with disabilities a choice of built-in or third-party accessibility solutions).
94
See Attachment at ¶ 35, infra.  
95
See Attachment at ¶ 38, infra.
96
For example, there is no evidence in the record as to what covered services and equipment were deployed during 
that three-month period.  Further, consumers may not be aware of the accessibility requirements mandated by 
Section 716 of the Act and the Commission’s rules, or of possible violations of those requirements, or of their right 
to request assistance from or to file complaints with the Commission with respect to the inaccessibility of advanced 
communications services and equipment.  
97
CTIA Comments at 8.
98
See id. at 10-12.  See, generally, Attachment at ¶ 7, nn.33, 35, supra (CTIA discussing accessible feature phones 
and new entities that market services and offer accessible phones to seniors and individuals who are blind or visually 
impaired; CTIA reporting on features that make the advanced communications services functions on smartphones 
more accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired).
99
See Attachment at ¶ 6, n.27, supra.  Other individuals similarly commented on the accessibility of mobile devices, 
particularly the Apple iPhone, a mobile phone with a built-in Internet browser.  See Attachment at ¶ 6, supra.
100
ACB Comments at 3.  See also Attachment at ¶ 4, supra.
13
absence in this record of comments specifically to the contrary; i.e., no commenter reported that this 
remains a problem for people who are blind or visually impaired.
101
  Additionally, we note that the 
Commission received no requests for dispute assistance or informal complaints concerning potential 
violations of Section 718 since it became effective on October 8, 2013, through the close of the reporting 
period on December 31, 2013.
102
  As noted above, the lack of requests for assistance or complaints filed 
during this three-month period may be due to many reasons, none of which are evidenced in the record.
103
  
As such, we tentatively find that the lack of such requests for assistance or informal complaints is not 
conclusive evidence of compliance, nor can it be used to infer compliance with Section 718.
24. Accessibility gaps.  While the record demonstrates progress with respect to meeting the 
accessibility obligations of Sections 255, 716, and 718, we nevertheless tentatively conclude that some 
accessibility gaps still exist and others have the potential to occur or reoccur.  For example, as discussed 
above, consumers report on the lack of accessible alerting systems for incoming video calls and other 
messages.
104
  They also raise concerns about technology transitions that could threaten accessibility that 
now exists,
105
and urge that more needs to be done to allow their participation early on in the development 
of products and services to ensure that their accessibility needs are met.
106
  Additionally, while we 
tentatively concur with industry that platform-based technology has the advantage of enabling the 
distribution of accessibility features through software updates,
107
we note that where accessibility is not a 
factor designed into software updates, there are concerns that these updates can end up impairing 
accessibility for users with disabilities, a result that often cannot be undone after the update has been 
downloaded.
108
  Of particular note is the apparent lack of accessibility to or compatibility with assistive 
                                                     
101
But see Attachment at ¶ 4, supra.  ACB states that, even with a built-in screen reader, all of the Windows Phone 
features are not accessible.  Id.  ACB does not, however, identify the Internet browser as one of those inaccessible 
features.
102
See Attachment at ¶ 36, infra.
103
For example, there is no evidence in the record as to what mobile phones with built-in Internet browsers were 
deployed during that three-month period.  Further, consumers may not be aware of the accessibility requirements 
mandated by Section 718 of the Act and the Commission’s rules, or of possible violations of those requirements, or 
of their right to request assistance from or to file complaints with the Commission with respect to the inaccessibility 
of Internet browsers built into mobile phones.  
104
See Attachment at ¶ 3, supra (Consumer Groups noting the need for accessible alerting systems for incoming 
video calls or other messages).
105
See, e.g., Attachment at ¶ 2, supra (Consumer Groups reporting concerns about problems with CTS relay 
delivered over wireless systems); ¶ 12, supra (Consumer Groups expressing concerns about the need to maintain 
connections for neckloops or other assistive devices).
106
See Attachment at ¶ 12, supra (Consumer Groups expressing concern that re-engineering happens too often 
without consideration of the needs of people who are deaf or hard of hearing; AADB expressing concern that people 
who are deaf-blind have insufficient opportunity to provide input into research and development of new 
communications technologies). 
107
See Attachment at ¶ 7, supra (CTIA explaining that the move to a platform-based approach by manufacturers 
ensures that accessibility features are more consistently available).  See also Attachment at ¶ 9, supra (TIA noting 
that the software platform approach for inclusion of accessibility features leverages the principle of universal design 
and greatly simplifies upgrades).
108
See Attachment at ¶ 5, supra. (AADB observing that upgrades or updates sometimes cause a device or app to 
become less accessible or totally inaccessible for the user who is deaf-blind).  See also Attachment at ¶ 28, infra
(discussing this further as an accessibility barrier to new communications technologies).
14
technology used by individuals who are deaf-blind,
109
and complaints that many of the wireless phones 
that are being made available to low-income consumers who are blind or visually impaired by providers 
that participate in the Commission’s Lifeline program either lack certain accessibility features, or are not 
accessible at all.
110
  We also note that, while some providers appear to offer service plans that generally 
meet the needs of consumers with disabilities,
111
consumers have concerns about provider practices that 
could, in the future, negatively impact data speeds or cap data usage, either of which may make video 
communication difficult or impossible for consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing.
112
  These concerns 
suggest a need to be mindful about avoiding the creation of new barriers to accessibility as technologies 
and service plans continue to evolve.
25. Industry consultation with individuals with disabilities.  The CVAA requires covered 
entities to keep records of their efforts to consult with individuals with disabilities.
113
  It is apparent that 
industry has taken some steps to include people with disabilities in their design and development of 
products and services.  For example, CTIA, TIA, and Microsoft each report that they or their member 
companies have undertaken efforts to consult with individuals with disabilities through meetings and 
dialogues with consumer stakeholders,
114
internal programs,
115
advisory panels,
116
and usability testing.
117
  
However, we note that consumers remain concerned about the extent to which engineering of products 
and services takes place without consideration of their accessibility needs.  Consumer Groups, for 
example, raise concerns that “re-engineering happens too often without thought to [the] accessibility 
needs of people who are deaf or hard of hearing.”
118
  Similarly, AADB states that its constituency has 
insufficient opportunity to provide input into the research and development of new communications 
technologies to meet its needs.
119
  In light of these competing views, we tentatively find that, while some 
efforts to consult with such individuals for this purpose have occurred over the past two years, more can 
be done to include people with disabilities early on in design and development of advanced 
communications products and services.
                                                     
109
See Attachment at ¶ 5, supra (comments of AADB).  See also Attachment at ¶ 28, infra (discussing this further as 
an accessibility barrier to new communications technologies).
110
See Attachment at ¶ 6, supra.  See also Attachment at ¶ 39, infra (CGB reporting on consumer complaints about 
inaccessible wireless handsets received in conjunction with Lifeline services).
111
See Attachment at ¶ 20, supra (comments of CTIA).
112
See Attachment at ¶ 19, supra (comments of Consumer Groups).
113
See 47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(5)(a)(i).
114
See Attachment at ¶ 13, supra (CTIA reporting that its member companies have met with various disability-
related organizations and consumer representatives), ¶ 14, supra (TIA reporting that its members continue to liaise 
with the disability community to ensure inclusive design, and that consultation with individuals with disabilities on 
research and development is taking place at both the company and industry association levels), ¶ 15, supra (
Microsoft reporting that it holds an annual summit with Microsoft employees and disability rights advocates).
115
See Attachment at ¶ 13, supra (CTIA noting, specifically, the establishment of a Corporate Accessible 
Technology Office by AT&T, and Verizon’s online training courses for new employees about accessibility 
requirements).
116
See Attachment at ¶ 13, supra (CTIA reporting wireless provider initiatives, including advisory panels).
117
See Attachment at ¶ 15, supra (Microsoft reporting that it hires individuals with disabilities as usability testers).
118
See Attachment at ¶ 12, supra, citing Consumer Groups Comments at 3 (raising concerns about the possible 
negative effects of elimination of the headphone jack on future models of smartphones).
119
See Attachment at ¶ 12, supra.  
15
26. Usability of products and services.  With respect to the usability of products and 
services,
120
we tentatively find that industry has engaged in some efforts to ensure the availability of 
information about accessible products and services to people with disabilities, including training
personnel about accessible products and services.
121
  Nevertheless, we also tentatively find that gaps 
remain in the usability of these offerings.  For example, Consumer Groups report that finding information 
about hearing aid compatible phones is still a challenge for consumers,
122
and AADB expresses a need for 
information about accessible products for consumers who are deaf-blind, as well as easy-to-use 
instructions for communication apps.
123
  In addition, we note that complaints brought to the Commission 
over the covered time period revealed a considerable number of problems with inaccessible instructions 
or billing, inaccessible contact information or directory assistance, and inaccessible customer service.
124
II. Accessibility Barriers in New Communications Technologies
27. Section 717(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Commission to provide an evaluation of the 
extent to which any accessibility barriers still exist with respect to new communications technologies.
125
  
The 2012 CVAA Biennial Report predicted that “many accessibility barriers in new communications 
technologies will likely be addressed by industry compliance with the new accessibility requirements 
under Section 716 and Section 718 when those requirements are fully effective.”
126
  In the 2014 CVAA 
Assessment PN, the Commission sought comment on the extent to which this expectation has been met.
127
The Commission also sought comment on the extent to which new communication technologies, 
including new communication services, hardware, software, applications, or plug-ins, both within the 
scope of the Act (e.g., covered under Sections 255, 716, and 718) and outside the scope of the Act, have
been deployed since the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, and what barriers still exist with respect to these 
technologies.
128
A. Comments Received
28. Comments received from consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing show that they 
continue to lack confidence that new communications technologies are being designed to be accessible.  
For example, Consumer Groups fear that the rise of voice-controlled technologies, particularly those that 
incorporate advanced communications services features, may exclude individuals who do not speak or 
who do not speak clearly, and urge the Commission to monitor these new technologies.
129
  Consumer 
                                                     
120
As noted above, a product or service is “usable” if individuals with disabilities have access to the full 
functionality and documentation for the product or service, including instructions, product or service information 
(including accessible feature information), documentation and technical support functionally equivalent to that 
provided to individuals without disabilities. See Attachment at ¶ 16, n.76, supra.
121
See, e.g., Attachment at ¶ 17, supra (CTIA reporting that its members provide information about accessible 
products and services through a variety of means); ¶ 18, supra (Microsoft noting that its customer assistance is 
available from staff specially trained on accessibility issues).
122
See Attachment at ¶ 16, supra.
123
See Attachment at ¶ 16, supra.
124
See Attachment at ¶ 40, infra.
125
47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(1)(B).
126
2012 CVAA Biennial Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12222, ¶ 46.
127
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at ___, ¶ 12.
128
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at ___, ¶ 12.
129
Consumer Groups Comments at 8-9.
16
Groups also express concern that accessibility barriers to new communication technologies continue to 
exist for individuals who are deaf-blind and for deaf individuals who also have mobility disabilities.
130
  In 
particular, they report that IP Relay service,
131
especially when used while mobile, is not accessible to 
deaf-blind consumers who use Braille displays.
132
  Similarly, ACB’s comments allege the failure of 
software system manufacturers, application designers, and smart television manufacturers to make their 
communications technologies fully accessible to the blind community.
133
  For example, ACB mentions 
that upgrades to Skype often make its user interface more difficult to use for users who are blind or 
visually impaired.
134
  In particular, ACB urges that a committee be established to validate the accessibility 
of software applications, so that consumers could know with certainty which apps are accessible.
135
  At 
the same time, however, ACB applauds Comcast for its new set-top box that, despite some problems, 
represents to ACB the sole industry attempt to make this type of navigation device accessible to blind 
users.
136
  
29. Rather than focus on the extent to which new communications technologies have been 
deployed since the 2012 CVAA Biennial Report or the barriers that still exist with respect to these 
technologies in response to the 2014 CVAA Assessment PN, industry commenters propose Commission 
actions that could be taken to increase accessibility.  For example, to better serve all consumers, CTIA 
urges the Commission to adopt policies “that make more spectrum available for commercial use, promote 
infrastructure deployment, and rely on the lightest touch regulatory scheme possible.”
137
  Similarly, TIA 
suggests that the Commission can effectively increase the availability of advanced communications 
                                                     
130
Id. at 8.  To address these issues, Consumer Groups urge the development of a new type of relay service that 
would enable such individuals to benefit from interpreters who are physically present, or to be matched with VRS 
communication assistants who can understand and communicate with them.  Id.  
131
IP Relay service is defined in the Commission’s rules as a form of TRS “that permits an individual with a hearing 
or a speech disability to communicate in text using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the Internet, rather than 
using a text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone network.”  47 C.F.R. § 64.601(17).
132
AADB Comments at 3, 5; ACB Comments at 2.  AADB states that manufacturers, software developers, and 
others often proclaim that products, such as digital talking books or audio only temperature apps, are “fully 
accessible” when they are not accessible to individuals who are deaf-blind.  AADB Comments at 2.  These kinds of 
products, however, do not fall within the scope of this Report to the extent they do not provide advanced 
communication services.  In addition, AADB expresses dissatisfaction with their members’ ability to access captions 
or video descriptions on video or television programs through their assistive devices, matters that are also outside 
the scope of this Report.  Id. at 5.
133
ACB Comments at 2-3.  We note, however, that the Commission has granted a class waiver of the advanced 
communications services accessibility rules until October 8, 2015, for Internet protocol-enabled television sets.  ACS 
Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12973-78, ¶¶ 6-14.
134
ACB Comments at 2.
135
Id.
136
Id. at 2.  A set-top box is a form of navigation device “used by consumers to access multichannel video 
programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming system.”  47 C.F.R. § 76.1200(c).  
Although we note ACB’s praise for the accessibility of these devices here, it is not clear whether any of the 
navigation device features to which ACB alludes enable access to the communications technologies covered by this 
Report.  We also note that the Commission granted a class waiver of the advanced communications accessibility 
rules until October 8, 2015, for set-top boxes that are leased by cable operators to their customers.  ACS Waiver 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12978-82, ¶¶ 15-22.
137
CTIA Comments at 36.  Further, with a goal toward reducing regulation, CTIA suggests that the Commission 
evaluate the continued need for wireless phones to be compatible with TTYs, which CTIA says may be outdated.  
Id. at 39-40. 
17
services and products to people with disabilities by affording manufacturers maximum flexibility in 
meeting the requirements of the CVAA.
138
  CEA notes that modern electronic devices and apps have 
removed many accessibility barriers (which CEA recognizes in its annual Innovation Awards), and 
further suggests that policy makers and advocates should encourage more advanced devices and apps to 
increase accessibility.
139
B. Tentative Findings on Accessibility Barriers in New Communications Technologies
30. Based on comments filed in response to the 2014 CVAA Assessment PN, we tentatively 
find that while strides have been made toward ensuring the accessibility of new communication 
technologies in industry design and development processes, accessibility barriers still exist with respect to 
certain new communications technologies.  We base our tentative conclusion that accessibility gains have 
been made, in part, on reports of industry efforts to incorporate the input of individuals with disabilities 
through product testing, to consider accessibility needs during the research and development stages of 
new products and services,
140
and to modify internal processes as needed to comply with the accessibility 
requirements.
141
Further support is found in the reported breadth of accessibility features offered in 
today’s communications technologies by manufacturers and service providers.
142
31. Our tentative finding that accessibility barriers still exist is supported by AADB’s and
Consumer Groups’ reports that a majority of communications technologies are not accessible to 
individuals who are deaf-blind.
143
  Consumer Groups also report that accessibility barriers exist for deaf 
individuals who also have mobility disabilities.
144
  In addition, Consumer Groups observe that mainstream 
video conferencing services remain incompatible with TRS, and that off-the-shelf video conferencing 
systems, upon which many individuals who use American Sign Language rely for their primary means of 
communication, are not interoperable among themselves or with videophones available through VRS 
                                                     
138
TIA Comments at 9.  TIA asserts that strict application of the advanced communications services accessibility 
requirements would harm the public interest without meaningfully increasing access to advanced communications 
services for people with disabilities.  Id. at 10.  Microsoft also cites with approval the Commission’s flexible 
regulations.  Microsoft Comments at 3.  While Microsoft uses as an example the Commission’s efforts to focus on 
ease of use rather than specific solutions for its closed captioning requirements, we note that the Commission’s rules 
governing closed captioning fall outside the scope of the communications accessibility discussion in this Report.  Id.
at 3-4.
139
CEA Comments at 5-6.  With respect to accessibility barriers that exist in new technologies, CEA recommends 
that the Commission’s evaluation be limited to services and equipment that are subject to Sections 255, 716, and 718 
of the Act.  Id. at 6.  As noted in its 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, the Commission believes that Congress will be 
better informed about the state of communications that are or are not accessible to individuals with disabilities, the 
impact of the CVAA, and the need for additional legislative action, if any, if the Commission’s report includes an 
account of accessibility barriers with respect to “new communications technologies” that fall within and outside the 
scope of the Act and that can and cannot be eliminated with reasonable effort or expense.  2012 CVAA Biennial 
Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12222, ¶ 45.
140
See, Attachment at ¶¶ 13-15, supra (CTIA, TIA, and Microsoft reporting on efforts to consult with individuals 
with disabilities – from research and development through product testing).
141
See Attachment at ¶ 10, supra (CEA discussing its members’ efforts to comply with advanced communications 
services accessibility requirements).
142
See Attachment at ¶¶ 7-8, supra (comments of CTIA).
143
See Attachment at ¶¶ 5, 28, supra, (Consumer Groups advocating for a new type of relay service for such 
individuals).  
144
See Attachment at ¶ 28, supra.
18
providers.
145
  Statements submitted by the Consumer Groups that accessibility barriers may be created by 
the advent of new technologies also lead us to tentatively conclude that there is a need for industry design 
and development teams to be mindful of the effects that new product and service design features can have 
on accessibility.  For example, Consumer Groups report potential new barriers that may result if voice
controls replace (rather than supplement) interfaces presently accessible to people who are deaf, hard of 
hearing, or have speech disabilities,
146
and if software upgrades reverse accessibility currently available 
on certain devices or apps.
147
III. Complaints Received Pursuant to Section 717
32. Sections 717(b)(1)(C)-(F) of the Act require the Commission to report the following 
information with respect to complaints received pursuant to Section 717(a) of the Act that allege 
violations of Sections 255, 716, or 718 of the Act:
? the number and nature of complaints received during the two years that are the subject of the 
Commission’s Report, i.e., between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013;
? the actions taken to resolve such complaints, including forfeiture penalties assessed;
? the length of time that was taken by the Commission to resolve each such complaint; and
? the number, status, nature, and outcome of any actions for mandamus and any appeals 
filed.
148
  
33. Before addressing each of these matters, this section of the Report provides a brief 
explanation of the complaint procedures used by CGB for the handling of accessibility complaints filed 
under Section 255 before the effective date of the CVAA complaint procedures, and how those 
procedures have been changed, effective October 8, 2013, for accessibility complaints filed under 
Sections 255, 716, and 718.
34. Prior accessibility complaint procedures. In 1997, the Commission adopted procedures 
to address informal complaints filed under Section 255 of the Act.
149
  These procedures remained in effect 
from January 1, 2012 until October 8, 2013, which constitutes part of the period covered by this Report.  
Under these procedures, individuals were permitted to file an informal accessibility complaint with 
CGB’s Disability Rights Office (DRO) by letter, phone call, fax, online form, or other reasonable 
means.
150
  Upon receipt, CGB entered the complaint into a database called the Consumer Complaint 
Management System (CCMS) and then served a Notice of Informal Complaint (NOIC) on the service 
provider and/or equipment manufacturer against whom the complaint was brought.
151
  The provider or 
                                                     
145
See Attachment at ¶ 3, supra (Consumer Groups discussing accessibility barriers with respect to video 
conferencing services and equipment).
146
See Attachment at ¶ 28, supra (comments of Consumer Groups).
147
See, e.g., Attachment at ¶ 28, supra (ACB discussing upgrades to Skype that make its user interface more 
difficult to use); ¶ 5, supra (AADB noting that upgrades or updates sometimes cause a device or app to become less 
accessible or totally inaccessible for the user who is deaf-blind).
148
47 U.S.C. §§ 618(b)(1)(C)-(F).  See also Notice at ¶ 11, supra. 
149
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.16-6.20, 7.16-7.20.  No formal complaints regarding accessibility were filed during the period 
covered by this Report.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.21-6.22, 7.21-7.22 (formal complaint procedures).
150
47 C.F.R. §§ 6.17(a), 7.17(a).  
151
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.18(a), 7.18(a).
19
manufacturer was then given 30 days in which to respond to the NOIC.
152
  If DRO then concluded that all 
issues were satisfied and the consumer’s satisfaction with the resolution was verified, or that no further 
action was required or possible, it considered the matter closed and sent the consumer a close-out 
letter.
153
DRO was not authorized to impose forfeitures or take other enforcement action in response to an 
informal complaint alone.  However, if the consumer was not satisfied with the provider’s or 
manufacturer’s response to the complaint and the DRO decision to terminate action, the consumer could 
file a formal complaint that could go to the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau to determine whether a 
material and substantial question remained with respect to compliance.
154
The Enforcement Bureau could 
then investigate further to determine compliance and whether any remedial actions and/or sanctions were 
warranted.
155
35. New accessibility complaint procedures.  Effective October 8, 2013, the Commission 
revised the complaint process for handling complaints filed under Sections 255, 716 and 718 of the 
CVAA, pursuant to new rules implementing Section 717(a) of the Act.
156
  The new rules require that 
before filing an informal complaint, a consumer must submit a “request for dispute assistance” (RDA) to 
DRO for help in resolving the consumer’s accessibility problem with a telecommunications or advanced 
communications service provider or equipment manufacturer.
157
  If the two parties do not reach a 
settlement within 30 days after the filing of an RDA, the parties may agree to extend the time for 
resolution in 30-day increments, or the requester may file an informal complaint with the Enforcement 
Bureau.
158
  
36. Since October 8, 2013, the Commission’s new complaint rules have established
minimum requirements for information that must be contained in an informal complaint.
159
  These rules 
further specify that upon receipt, the Commission must forward an informal complaint to the service 
provider or equipment manufacturer named in or implicated by the complaint.
160
  The service provider or 
manufacturer then must file with the Commission and serve an answer responsive to the complaint and
any Commission inquiries, and serve the complainant and the Commission with a non-confidential 
summary of that answer within 20 days of service of the complaint.
161
  Within 180 days after receipt of 
the complaint, the Commission must conclude an investigation into the merits of the complaint and issue 
                                                     
152
47 C.F.R. §§ 6.19, 7.19.
153
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.18(a)-(b), 7.18(a)-(b).
154
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.20(b)-(c), 7.20(b)-(c).
155
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.20(c)-(d), 7.20(c)-(d).
156
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 14.32 (consumer dispute assistance), 14.34-14.37 (informal complaints), 14.38-14.52 (formal 
complaints).  See also New Procedures for Telecommunications and Advanced Communications Accessibility 
Complaints, FCC 13-2177, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 15712 (CGB 2013),  available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-2177A1.pdf.
157
Prior to October 8, 2013, consumers were able to file informal complaints with DRO alleging a violation of 
Section 255 of the Act without the prerequisite filing of an RDA.  
158
47 C.F.R. § 14.32(e).  See also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14658, ¶ 237.  Although, previously, 
consumers could file informal complaints alleging a violation of Section 255, 716, or 718 of the Act with DRO, 
these complaints must now be filed with the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau.  47 C.F.R. § 14.34(a).  However, 
since October 8, 2013, consumers are still able to file formal complaints with the Enforcement Bureau without first 
submitting requests for dispute assistance.  47 C.F.R. §§ 14.38-14.52
159
47 C.F.R. § 14.34(b).
160
47 C.F.R. § 14.35(a).  
161
47 C.F.R. §§ 14.36(b)-(c).  The complainant may then file a reply.  47 C.F.R. § 14.36(d).
20
its order determining whether a violation has occurred.
162
  It may, in such order, or in a subsequent order, 
direct the service provider to bring the service or, in the case of a manufacturer, the next generation of the 
equipment, into compliance with the requirements of Section 255, 716, or 718 within a reasonable period 
of time and take other authorized and appropriate enforcement action.
163
37. When the Commission established the RDA process, it anticipated that this process 
would allow for the resolution of consumer accessibility concerns through dialogue and negotiation, 
thereby reducing the need for informal complaints, and consequent enforcement action.
164
We believe 
that the new RDA process has succeeded in this respect, and that the new complaint process has further 
encouraged service providers and equipment manufacturers to comply with the accessibility rules.
A. Number and Nature of Complaints Received
38. From January 1, 2012, to October 7, 2013, consumers filed 85 informal complaints with 
the Commission, alleging violations of Section 255 of the Act or its implementing regulations.
165
  Of 
these complaints, approximately 34% alleged violations by equipment manufacturers and 54% alleged 
violations by service providers, with the remaining 12% alleging both service and equipment violations.  
In addition, between October 8, 2013 and December 31, 2013, consumers filed seven RDAs with DRO
under the new complaint procedures, all of which concerned Section 255 of the Act or its implementing 
regulations.
166
  During that three-month period, no RDAs were filed alleging violations of Sections 716 or 
718 of the Act, and no informal complaints were filed alleging violations of Sections 255, 716, or 718.  
Of the seven RDAs that were filed, approximately 86% alleged violations by service providers and 14% 
alleged violations by both equipment manufacturers and service providers.  For the entire two-year period 
covered by this Report, a total of 92 informal complaints and RDAs were filed, all of which alleged 
accessibility violations under Section 255.  An aggregate of approximately 31.5% alleged violations by 
equipment manufacturers and 56.5% alleged violations by service providers, with the remaining 12% 
alleging both service and equipment violations.
39. Equipment-related complaints and RDAs raised a wide range of accessibility issues by 
consumers with disabilities.  Many consumers complained of handsets that lacked text-to-speech 
functionality, or that had keyboards that were hard to read or buttons that were too small to use.  Others 
complained of handsets that were not compatible with their hearing aids or that had poor sound quality.  
Approximately 15% of all informal complaints and RDAs received during the reporting period involved 
complaints about inaccessible wireless handsets received in conjunction with subscriptions for telephone 
services under the Commission’s Lifeline program.  
                                                     
162
47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(3)(B) and (4).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.37(a). 
163
47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(3)(B)(i).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.37(b).  Any manufacturer or service provider that is the 
subject of such order has a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Commission’s proposed remedial action 
before the Commission issues a final order with respect to that action.  47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(4).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 
14.37(c).
164
See 2012 CVAA Biennial Report, 27 FCC Rcd at 12224, ¶ 49, n.148.
165
From January 1, 2012, until October 8, 2013, consumers filing Section 255 accessibility complaints utilized the 
Commission’s prior informal complaint procedures.  See Attachment at ¶ 34, supra.
166
From October 8, 2013, through December 31, 2013, consumers filing Section 255 accessibility complaints 
utilized the Commission’s new accessibility complaint procedures.  See Attachment at ¶¶ 35-36, supra.  Also during 
this period, and perhaps due to consumer unfamiliarity with the new accessibility complaint procedures, DRO 
received an additional 21 RDAs, but because these did not involve violations of Section 255, 716 or 718, DRO 
converted these to complaints filed under other provisions of the Act.  These 21 RDAs are therefore not included in 
the above statistics.
21
40. Complaints and RDAs involving service providers predominantly focused on their failure 
to provide instructions or billing in an accessible format, accessible contact information or directory 
assistance, and accessible customer service.  More specifically, approximately 12% of all informal 
complaints and RDAs alleged an inability to access billing information.  Most of these were from 
consumers who were blind or visually impaired, who expressed long-standing frustrations with acquiring 
access to their accounts.  Some of the consumers were facing imminent service cut-offs at the time they 
filed their complaint or RDA, due to an inability to access their billing information.  An additional 11% of 
informal complaints and RDAs came from consumers who, because they are blind or visually impaired, 
sought free access to a phone company’s 411 directory assistance services because they could not access 
free text-based telephone directory information.  Another 6% of the informal complaints and RDAs were 
from consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing, who alleged that certain communication service 
providers refused to accept calls made through TRS, a TTY, or to otherwise communicate by text.
167
  
B. Actions Taken to Resolve Accessibility Complaints 
41. Complaints filed under prior accessibility complaint procedures.  For each informal 
complaint filed with the Commission between January 1, 2012, and October 8, 2013, DRO forwarded the 
complaint to, and served an NOIC on, the service provider and/or equipment manufacturer alleged to 
have violated Commission rules.  In most cases, equipment manufacturers and service providers 
attempted to work with consumers to resolve their particular needs.  Accessibility complaints were often 
addressed by providing the requested equipment, identifying equipment that was available as an upgrade, 
or informing consumers of new models with accessibility features that would be issued in the future.  For 
example, DRO was generally successful in securing accessible equipment for complainants seeking 
accessible phones from providers in the Lifeline program because these providers typically could identify 
higher cost handsets with accessible features, which they provided to complainants at no additional cost.  
Service providers also accommodated consumers who needed accessible formats for billing, equipment 
instructions, and directory assistance.  DRO intervention also prevented service disruption for several 
complainants who had been unable to pay their bills due to inaccessible formats. 
42. In a majority of cases, as a result of DRO’s actions, complaints about accessibility and 
usability problems were resolved promptly and to the satisfaction of the consumer.  For all but three of 
the 85 informal complaints filed during the reporting period (i.e., in 96% of these cases), DRO verified 
the consumer’s satisfaction with the resolution or determined that no further action was required or 
possible, and sent the consumer a close-out letter during the reporting period. One of the remaining 
complaints was resolved after the reporting period closed.  DRO is making best efforts to facilitate 
resolution of the two complaints that are still pending
43. New accessibility complaint procedures.  For six of the seven RDAs filed under the new 
complaint procedures, DRO contacted the consumer and the manufacturer or service provider in an 
attempt to resolve the accessibility or usability problem.  DRO dismissed one RDA because it was unable 
to obtain a response from the consumer to obtain additional information about the accessibility problem 
or to facilitate resolution.  DRO was able to facilitate a resolution for each of the remaining six RDAs, 
                                                     
167
For example, a deaf consumer alleged that her major mobile telephone service provider refused to communicate 
with her about her account through TRS, suggesting instead that it communicate with the consumer’s 14-year-old 
daughter or by having the complainant physically appear at one of the provider’s stores.  The consumer’s complaint 
was resolved when DRO informed the provider of its obligation to ensure usable customer service and technical 
support in call centers that support their products.  See 47 C.F.R. § 6.11(a)(3).
22
and none were escalated to an informal complaint for investigation by the Enforcement Bureau.
168
  Based 
on this experience, it appears that there is general consumer satisfaction with the new dispute assistance 
and complaint process.  
44. The Commission did not assess any forfeiture penalties for accessibility-related violations 
during the period covered by this Report.
C. Time Used to Resolve Accessibility Complaints
45. Complaints filed under prior accessibility complaint procedures.  Under the prior 
complaint procedures, there was no prescribed time frame for resolving informal complaints alleging 
violations of Section 255.  Of the 82 informal complaints that were received and closed by DRO during 
the reporting period, 51 complaints, or approximately 62%, were closed within 90 days.  Another 26 
complaints, or approximately 32%, were closed between 90 and180 days.  Five complaints, or about 6%, 
were closed between 180 days and one year.  In other words, all 82 informal complaints that were 
received and closed by DRO during the reporting period were resolved within one year.
46. New accessibility complaint procedures.  Under the new complaint procedures, a 
consumer must submit an RDA and allow DRO 30 days to facilitate resolution of the accessibility 
problem, before the consumer may file an informal complaint with the Enforcement Bureau.  The time 
period for resolution may be extended in 30-day increments.  Of the seven RDAs that were filed during 
the reporting period, one was dismissed at the end of 60 days because DRO was unable to obtain a 
response from the consumer.  DRO facilitated resolution of four of the remaining RDAs within 30 days of 
receipt and one within 60 days of receipt.  DRO resolved the final RDA after the reporting period ended, 
but within 180 days of receipt.  None of the RDAs filed were escalated to an informal complaint for 
investigation by the Enforcement Bureau.
D. Actions for Mandamus and Appeals Filed
47. There were no actions for mandamus or appeals filed with respect to complaints during 
the period covered by this Report.  
IV. Effect of Section 717’s Recordkeeping and Enforcement Requirements on the Development 
and Deployment of New Communications Technologies
48. Section 717(b)(1)(G) of the Act requires the Commission to provide an assessment of the 
effect of the requirements of Section 717 of the Act on the development and deployment of new 
communications technologies.
169
Section 717(a) requires the Commission to establish new recordkeeping 
and enforcement procedures for service providers and equipment manufacturers that are subject to 
Sections 255, 716, and 718.
170
  In the 2014 CVAA Assessment PN, the Commission sought comment on 
                                                     
168
For example, one service provider worked with a consumer who had difficulty in finding an accessible mobile 
handset with sufficiently strong signal reception in his home.  The service provider allowed the consumer to test 
several models until the consumer was able to find an accessible handset that he could use.
169
47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(1)(G).
170
47 U.S.C. § 618(a).  In October 2011, the Commission adopted these procedures, which require service providers 
and equipment manufacturers to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with Sections 255, 716, and 718 when 
a complaint is filed. 47 C.F.R. § 14.36(a).  Entities must certify annually to the Commission that they have kept 
records pertaining to the accessibility of their products beginning January 30, 2013.  See 47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(5)(B); 
47 C.F.R. § 14.31.  In response to an informal complaint, the manufacturer or service provider “must produce 
23
the impact, if any, that the CVAA’s recordkeeping requirements and enforcement measures, including the 
requirement for consumers to request dispute assistance from the Commission as a prerequisite to filing 
an informal complaint, have had on the development and deployment of accessible new communications 
technologies since these requirements became effective.
171
  The Commission also asked whether service 
providers and equipment manufacturers have identified best practices with respect to the recordkeeping 
requirements that can be shared with others.
172
A. Comments Received
49. No consumer organizations commented on the recordkeeping or enforcement 
requirements of Section 717.  Industry, however, generally reports that it finds value in certain aspects of 
Section 717’s recordkeeping and enforcement requirements, and otherwise urges clarification of or 
flexibility in interpretation of other aspects of those requirements.  CTIA states that “the CVAA and good 
faith efforts of the wireless industry and accessibility community has resulted in collaborations that 
encourage the exchange of information about priorities, challenges, and issues.”
173
  In particular, CTIA 
believes that the requirement to provide contact information for a company representative who can 
address accessibility complaints “has been a resounding success,” enabling resolution of accessibility 
concerns before requesting assistance from or filing complaints with the Commission.
174
  CTIA urges that 
this direct engagement continue as the primary method of resolving issues.
175
  
50. CTIA also urges the Commission to recognize the need for flexibility in recordkeeping 
and consultation requirements.
176
  Nonetheless, CTIA opines that Commission actions, such as clarifying 
recordkeeping and consultation requirements, could improve the ability of covered entities to comply 
fully with the CVAA requirements.
177
  For example, CTIA suggests that, in the absence of a Commission 
determination about “the types of records, processes, and efforts to engage the accessibility community” 
that comply with the Commission’s rules, the Commission should “remain flexible with respect to 
imposing any penalties if an entity’s records are ultimately unexpectedly found to be insufficient or non-
compliant.”
178
  Similarly, TIA states that its members have been complying with the recordkeeping 
requirements and certifications required under the CVAA, and stresses that “it is important that the 
Commission continue to recognize the need for flexibility and efficiency in the approaches taken to meet 
                                                                                                                                                                          
documents demonstrating its due diligence in exploring accessibility and achievability . . . throughout the design, 
development, testing, and deployment stages of a product or service.”  47 C.F.R. § 14.36(a).  Since October 8, 2013, 
the Commission also has been required to investigate complaints filed under these sections and to issue orders on 
such investigations within 180 days after an informal complaint is filed, unless the complaint is resolved before that 
time.  47 C.F.R. § 14.37(a).
171
2014 CVAA Assessment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at ___, ¶ 14.
172
Id.
173
CTIA Comments at 34.
174
Id.
175
Id.
176
Id. at 35-36.  CTIA also recommends streamlining hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements.  Id. at 35.  
Hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements are outside the scope of Section 717 of the Act.
177
Id. at 34-36.
178
Id. at 36, citing PN Comments of CTIA-The Wireless Association – Accessibility of Communications 
Technologies, Docket No. 10-213 (filed Jul. 25, 2012) at 19-20 (recognizing that the “development of an effective 
recordkeeping process may require some experience with the rules and their enforcement,” CTIA urged the 
Commission not to “penalize entities that are attempting in good faith to comply with the rules”).
24
the recordkeeping obligations outlined within the CVAA.”
179
  Likewise, CEA applauds the flexibility 
provided with respect to recordkeeping mechanisms, but notes that the process still requires significant 
resources, and urges the Commission to continue to avoid regulations or enforcement practices that lock 
in any given solution that may become obsolete.
180
B. Tentative Findings on the Effect of Section 717’s Recordkeeping and Enforcement 
Requirements on the Development and Deployment of New Communications 
Technologies
51. Based on the record before us, we tentatively find that the recordkeeping obligations 
mandated by Section 717, along with the flexibility provided to entities charged with complying with 
these requirements, have helped to foster collaboration between industry and consumers, and have helped 
to eliminate accessibility barriers encountered by consumers with disabilities. We base this tentative 
conclusion on the increasing array of accessible products and services now available to consumers to 
access advanced communications technologies.
181
At the same time, we tentatively conclude that nothing 
in the record indicates that Section 717’s requirements will hinder the development and deployment of 
new communications technologies.  We base this tentative conclusion on the significant growth in the
number and types of new communications technologies that have emerged over the past two years.
182
                                                     
179
TIA Comments at 10.
180
CEA Comments at 6.
181
See, e.g., Attachment at ¶ 7, n.33, supra (CTIA discussing accessible feature phones and new entities that market 
services and offer accessible phones to seniors and individuals who are blind or visually impaired); ¶ 7, nn.35-38,
supra (CTIA reporting on features that make the advanced communications services functions on smartphones more
accessible to individuals with disabilities); ¶ 10, supra (CEA reporting that its members are actively engaged in 
efforts to comply with the Commission’s advanced communications services accessibility rules); ¶ 11, supra
(Microsoft noting that it provides consumers with disabilities a choice of built-in or third-party accessibility 
solutions).  See also Attachment at ¶ 49, supra (CTIA discussing wireless industry and accessibility community 
collaborations).
182
See, e.g., “Ten Breakthrough Technologies 2013:  Smart Watches,” available at 
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/513376/smart-watches/ (last viewed Aug. 15, 2014) (Pebble smart 
watches “connect wirelessly to an iPhone or Android phone and displays notifications, messages, and other simple 
data of the user’s choosing”); “Google Glass,” available at http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ (last 
viewed Aug. 15, 2014) (Send a Message:  “Whether you ski, snowboard, snowshoe or anything in between, it's 
never easy to keep track of your friends. With Glass, you can keep your mittens on and send messages hands free 
through SMS or Hangouts.”).