All Mobile Phones Must Be Hearing Aid Compatible Under New FCC Rules (techcrunch.com) 15
In a press release today, the FCC said it is requiring all mobile phones sold in the U.S. to be compatible with hearing aids. TechCrunch reports: The FCC has not yet issued a specific timeline for compliance, only noting that the rules will be fully in effect "after a transition period." The rules discourage handset makers from instituting proprietary Bluetooth coupling, which could limit device compatibility with over-the-counter hearing aids. Under the new rules, companies will be required to note on their website if a given handset is compatible with hearing aids. Two years ago, the FDA announced that hearing aids would no longer require a prescription. The agency also recently approved Apple AirPods as hearing aids.
Reverse it (Score:2)
Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around and require hearing aids to be bluetooth compatible? This has already been figured out for a host of add-on devices.
Re:Reverse it (Score:4, Informative)
That's not really what hearing aid compatibility means. It means that the phone can work with the hearing aid in acoustic coupling or telecoil mode, and if it does support bluetooth, that it supports a non-proprietary pairing process.
Apple's documented the support level for each of their phones, basically all the phones they've made since the iPhone 6 are good to go: https://support.apple.com/en-c... [apple.com]
The FCC's actual announcement: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/at... [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around and require hearing aids to be bluetooth compatible? This has already been figured out for a host of add-on devices.
This. Hearing aids don't necessarily even have any sort of receiver to integrate with.
I mean, I guess you could mandate an 1/8" mini jack.... :-D
Re: (Score:3)
Hearing aids don't necessarily even have any sort of receiver to integrate with.
Telecoils. Compatible with standard telephones as well as loop type hearing assistive systems in some movie theaters and other locations.
Re:Reverse it (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around and require hearing aids to be bluetooth compatible? This has already been figured out for a host of add-on devices.
The rule establishes a universal/standard Bluetooth coupling requirement, rather than proprietary, and increased volume ability w/o distortion to accommodate people with other types of hearing loss who don't use hearing aids or use other devices, like cochlear implants. From the press release:
The Commission also established a Bluetooth coupling requirement that will benefit consumers by ensuring more universal connectivity between mobile handsets and hearing aids, including over-the-counter hearing aids, by encouraging handset manufacturers to move away from proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards.
The Report and Order also requires that all new mobile handsets available in the U.S. must meet volume control benchmarks that ensure clear audio for the listener by allowing them to increase a mobile handset’s audio volume without introducing distortion. Such requirements accommodate consumers with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids as well as those that rely on hearing aids or cochlear implants.
You thought the phones were loud now . . . . (Score:2)
The new ones will come with a " hearing impaired " mode that will blast a call across that speaker at 130db . . . . . . :P
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of the original SNL bit, "News for the Hard of Hearing".
https://youtu.be/GwSh0dAaqIA?s... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
The new ones will come with a " hearing impaired " mode that will blast a call across that speaker at 130db . . . . . . :P
Reminds me of the douche in the Costco today who was blaring their domestic crap in the refrigerator section at full blast. I half expected someone to start gesturing wildly in American sign language. You know, kind of like every other political event or press conference that is televised these days because, as we all know, apparently deaf people can't read closed captions.
Re: (Score:3)
as we all know, apparently deaf people can't read closed captions.
If you had ever watched closed captions during a live broadcast, you would understand the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
as we all know, apparently deaf people can't read closed captions.
If you had ever watched closed captions during a live broadcast, you would understand the issue.
I have. Point taken.
are thise like the hearing aid scam? (Score:1)
for decades hearing aids were supposedly "custom made" and over $1,000 all total with payments over four years or such.
the truth is you can buy BETTER hearing aids for about $30 a set that have nice silicone plugs (various size included) that comfortably fit any ear, extra size 10 batteries (which are 30 cents apiece when you buy big box of say 60 for $20). My father and his friends used those.
There are already wireless headphones for the hearing impaired for under $100, why did the FCC need to step in and
Re: (Score:2)
Bets? I have lumps in both of my ear canals that make it very difficult for earbuds to fit in either ear, and if I do manage to get them to stay in, it's very uncomfortable. I do wear hearing aids, but it's the type that sits on top of the ear with a compressible speaker that fits into the ear and adjusts to the needed shape. And if it weren't for the fact that my hearing loss is Service Connected and I'm not charged for them there's no way I could afford them.
What? (Score:1)
Twisted logic (Score:4, Insightful)
"The HAC Task Force's Final Report found that, as of August 2022, about 93% of wireless handset models offered by manufacturers were already hearing aid compatible, which exceeds the benchmarks in the Commission's current rules. "
"The Commission does not anticipate large costs for those with or without hearing loss if non-compliant models are discontinued, considering the overwhelming share of wireless handset models are already hearing aid compatible. "
Here they are essentially arguing they've already gone to 93% so therefore it can't cost much more to go to 100%.
The legislation they are relying on reads in part "In any rulemaking to implement the provisions of this section, the Commission shall specifically consider the costs and benefits to all telephone users, including persons with and without hearing loss. "
So they should be considering both the relative cost AND benefit of the remaining 7% into compliance. Anyone who cares has options and so there is relatively little *benefit* in demanding 100% compliance. I can see for example someone with a cellular handset in the form factor of a watch or a decorative earring being unreasonably impacted by this.
Of course the real cost center won't be the hardware itself but the administrative bullshit, inserts, package labels, user manuals, compliance testing...etc.
Scope creep associated with piling on of Bluetooth by playing with definitions seems like a perilous position especially after Chevron was overturned. This is all moot in the real world as the market already decided on the obvious WRT bluetooth.
It is after all the federal government that imposed medical device red tape that has been responsible for absurd pricing and resulting harms to society it has caused. FCC flexing its muscles for what is by their own admission mostly a non-issue is in my opinion more important for the precedent (especially Bluetooth scope creep) than the merits of the underlying issue.