More than two years ago the FCC proposed to fine T-Mobile a whopping $819,000 for violations of hearing aid compatibility (HAC) requirements. Under those requirements both manufacturers and mobile carriers must offer a broad range of handsets that (a) don’t cause interference to hearing aids and (b) do work with the telecoil add-ons that many hearing aid wearers use. The Commission has now finalized the fine.
While fines for HAC violations have increased dramatically since the requirements were imposed in 2008, T-Mobile’s whammy was still a record amount for this time of violation. T-Mobile knew that it was violating the rules but figured that the likely penalty would be small enough that the company’s bottom line could tolerate it. Everybody agrees what the requirements are; the only significant difference here is in the amount of the fine. And the Commission believes that it is plainly permitted to issue stiffer sentences if it wants, with or without warning, particularly it does so as part of a “dynamic enforcement approach”. Given that T-Mobile is obviously a large company, the FCC wanted to be sure that any fine it issued would not be so low as to be treated as a mere cost of doing business.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Techwolf on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:09PM
While I am in favor of the ADA and similar acts, but I have to wonder is there is another reason besides of just too expensive to make the handsets. I'me wondering if the hearing aides need to be updated instead forcing the phone to support outdated tech. I have played with one of those pickups when I was young and I don't think a phone has been made that is compatible with those old style picks for over several decades now.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday September 14 2014, @03:39PM
Basically if you are disabled in any way, tech companies couldn't care. Their target demographic is 10-25 anyway, and disabilities are rare in that demographic.
The reality is, sight is our primary sense, followed by hearing. Accessibility follows the inherent weighting.
Hence, OLED screens for the bling phones. 1960's hearing aids for the deaf.
If you are blind, good luck. screen reading is highly non-linear experience.
The irony is, if accessible tech was widespread and refined, it would make tech usable in a number of scenarios.
Tried talking to your computer recently...? Not quite Stark Trek...!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nr_9 on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:17PM
" ... fine T-Mobile a whopping $819,000 for violations of hearing aid compatibility (HAC) requirements."
T-Mobile USA Revenue was $24.42 billion in 2013. (Source: Wikipedia)
The definition of "whopping" must have changed lately...
"T-Mobile knew that it was violating the rules but figured that the likely penalty would be small enough that the company’s bottom line could tolerate it."
And now they can't?
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:47PM
Revenue is not profit. Despite a revenue of $24.42 billion in 2013, T-Mobile had net income of $35 million for all of 2013. [bloomberg.com]
The fine equates to roughly 1/43rd of their 2013 profit, and 1/30,000th of their revenue.
The question is, how much would it cost them, per year, to be compliant with the regulations? If it would cost them more than $819,000 then paying the fine is the right "capitalist" thing to do...
I do find it odd that hearing aids still have major interoperability problems in this day and age; I hope they get this sorted out before I need one. There is a hearing aid shop near my house; they have all sorts of fancy digital ones in their window. Do they not work with modern tech? What do audiophiles do when their hearing goes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:59PM
T-Mobile's CEO earned $29.2 million in 2013 [fiercewireless.com]. Assuming that he's making similar this year, if he agreed to set aside about 3 percent of a year's salary they could cover the $819K fine just from that. Problem solved.
It's quite amazing what CEOs of large corporations make these days; and most of them were not even around when the company was founded, so it's not like they're being rewarded for taking a gigantic risk.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday September 14 2014, @03:05PM
Amazing; I would have said absurd. I wonder what such people do all day; must be pretty impressive to see them in action...
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:50PM
sociopathic narcissists don't work cheap.
(Score: 2) by Nr_9 on Sunday September 14 2014, @03:23PM
Your first point on the posted profits is silly, so I will not bother to reply to it.
Your second point on this being the "capitalist" thing to do is already implied both by the article writer and by me. The disagreement is on whether the "whopping" new fine changes that equation. The article writer implies that it does, I clearly feel it does not.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:45PM
What would it actually cost T-Mobile to comply with the HAC requirements?
Without knowing that number, the rest is just hand waving.
Is the cost more than $819K p.a., or less?
What do they actually have to do to be compliant?
If they have to develop their own "broad range of handsets that (a) don’t cause interference to hearing aids and (b) do work with the telecoil add-ons that many hearing aid wearers use" because nobody is really making them, then $819K is chump change.
BTW, I don't know why you think differentiating between revenue and profit is silly...it is fairly relevant to how profitable a company is, and how painful a fine would be. From what I can see T-Mobile is struggling to be profitable since it listed as a public company; the only people making money from it are the CEO and the banks who lent them money (they had to pay $234 million in interest on loans in 2013).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @08:41PM
T-Mobile already complies, the have a large percentage of their phones that are compliant: http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phones.html [t-mobile.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Monday September 15 2014, @04:41AM
The fine was big enough then! :-)
Glad to hear they're now compliant. Would have been nice for TFS to mention this...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @03:33PM
A speeding ticket takes a significantly larger chunk out of an average individual income.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:00PM
But usually the speeding ticket is handed to the person who actually performed the infraction.
Hearing aids are supposed to be high tech too. Why aren't they required to support industry standards like bluetooth?
And why single out a carrier and a small carrier at that?
Carriers don't make phones. Carriers don't certify phones. Why not go after the device manufacturer or the FCC for certifying phones that don't work according to the regulations?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:21PM
According to the courts, a corporation is a 'person' And this particular 'person' willfully ignored the law.
Even very basic hearing aids are very expensive and often quite limited. Do we really need to piss upon the people who need one from a great height?
The law doesn't even require ALL phones to support the feature, just a substantial selection. The FCC approves phones that don't have the feature because they don't all require it.
Carriers DO decide which phones they will offer in their various deals. It's on them to make sure there are reasonable choices that support hearing aids. There are few enough real choices of carrier as it is.
Bluetooth has too many problems to be a good substitute. For example, in-car speakers 'stealing' the audio away from earpieces. The lack of meaningful security is another good reason. The telecoil is a very short range device for a reason.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:04PM
Let's continue the discussion when you actually learn how bluetooth works ok? Stealing? Really?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:49PM
A colloquialism I borrowed from the people that have it happen every single day. Look it up.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:10PM
Sorry, but " in-car speakers 'stealing' the audio away from earpieces" , could you please cite an example?
Surely this is a bug not a policy stopping feature?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:30PM
My friend who now warns whoever she is talking to when she approaches her car that the call may go silent.
I would call it a bug, but it is apparently a won't fix bug and it happens frequently.
It happens to Other people [zdnet.com] as well.
A reasonable person might expect the transition to require user action but apparently if the phone has been paired with the car, it will happen every time.
In most cases it's a minor annoyance, but if you can't hear the car speaker, it becomes a big enough problem that you might prefer to skip bluetooth entirely.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:34PM
that's a car bug. Mine (Toyota camry), is not bluetooth active until ignition is turned, and remains active until the door opened. I hooked up the blackberry module (cheap and very good, if you want bluetooth audio into the 3.5 mm jack) to the 12V internal plug, and the modules also boots when ignition is turned.
I suggest you look at the car forums for the patch that gets rid of this bug...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:41PM
I suggest you look at the car forums for the patch that gets rid of this bug...
Or maybe quote a story that actually pertains to hearing aids?
A person using a bluetooth hearing aid would never pair his phone with the car.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:54PM
Unless his wife uses the phone too sometimes.
But imagine, you pair pretty much anything with your hearing aid or implant. Do you really want random devices suddenly becoming the only thing you can hear everytime one of those frequent bugs pops up?
Bluetooth has way too many infelicities to count on when taking the earpiece out isn't an option if you want to hear.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:01PM
But imagine, you pair pretty much anything with your hearing aid or implant.
Is that how deaf people operate?
Have you looked at all the existing bluetooth hearing aid devices? Have you even look at ONE of them? Ever?
No, of course not.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:22PM
YOU are the one who claimed that's how it should be. *I*'m not the one talking about mandating that hearing aids pair with cellphones through bluetooth. So look in the mirror when you reply.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:37PM
It doesn't happen. He's obviously never used bluetooth in his life.
Someone who relies on a bluetooth capable hearing aid would not pair the device with the car stereo.
http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/Loud-and-Clear.aspx [bluetooth.com]
http://www.starkey.com/blog/2014/03/introducing-halo-the-made-for-iphone-hearing-aid [starkey.com]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/07/02/197639536/to-make-hearing-aids-affordable-firm-turns-on-bluetooth [npr.org]
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/better-hearing-through-bluetooth/ [nytimes.com]
The big name manufacturers of hearing aids who have been charging thousands of dollars are up in arms about these devices because they are so cheap.
Since every phone these days has bluetooth, I'm sure T-Mo could beat this fine with a junior grade lawyer.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:56PM
Furthermore, looking at the phones T-Mobile offers:
http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phones.html [t-mobile.com]
and comparing them to At&T's list of known hearing aid compatible phones:
http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/disability-resources/hearing-aid-compatibility.jsp [att.com]
You can see that a large number of the phones T-Mo offers are on the list.
The whole thing probably boils down to the fact that T-Mobile doesn't have a single page listing all the compatible phones like AT&T does, and the FCC was too lazy to check their facts.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday September 15 2014, @03:15AM
So all they had to do was create a web page but couldn't be bothered?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 15 2014, @04:01AM
No clue.
But clearly at least some of the phones they sell today are compatible.
Were they on the day that the FCC started this process? No clue.
By and large, T-Mo sells essentially the same phones as AT&T.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:03PM
A single speeding ticket is significantly more than 1/43rd the average annual income?
Doesn't seem to be the case where I live, unless you're driving a heavy vehicle or are more than 40km/h over the limit; you'll lose your licence in both those cases anyway.
I am reminded that European countries are moving towards calculating speeding fines based on your income, which seems like a good idea to me.
The FCC need to make their fines significantly larger than the cost of complying with the regulations; T-Mobile will comply very quickly once that happens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:36PM
It's not the ticket fine that hurts, it's the increase in car insurance premiums. And that lasts for years.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:47PM
A single speeding ticket is significantly more than 1/43rd the average annual income?
Your income is not your profit, it is your revenue. So the relevant figure is 1/30,000th. For an individual making 36,000 a year, that would be $1.20
If you want to look at it the other way, compare 1/43 of the discretionary spending for someone making $36,000 a year to compare profit to profit.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday September 14 2014, @06:11PM
Fair points; I stand corrected!
(Score: 1) by lentilla on Sunday September 14 2014, @09:11PM
What do audiophiles do when their hearing goes?
Buy larger diameter Monster Cable.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:35PM
"T-Mobile knew that it was violating the rules but figured that the likely penalty would be small enough that the company’s bottom line could tolerate it."
And they were right. Funny how fines and penalties on the consumer side like say for copyright violation can easily run into hundreds of million and even trillions of dollars if the lawyers had their way, but fines to corporations are almost always easily written off in a single quarter if they are noticed at all.