In her Jan. 15 “Viewpoint” column, Tracy Anderson Ford presented her views regarding the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association’s new certification requirements for personal communications services handsets, which are designed to prevent interference to hearing aids. Ms. Ford discussed her interpretation of my position on this issue, and I’d like to clarify matters.
I am not opposed to CTIA certification requirements which mandate that PCS handsets not interfere with hearing aids that are designed and tested to meet the requirements contained in the European Commission electromagnetic compatibility product standard for hearing aids.
While I don’t believe the requirements are sufficiently stringent to permit an individual wearing a hearing aid to use a Global System for Mobile communications telephone, that’s a subject for another day.
I am opposed to CTIA’s plan to require all PCS handset manufacturers to include ports for external hearing aid devices as a condition of certification. This ill-conceived blanket “solution” has two problems. First, it will not solve the underlying problem of GSM/PCS 1900 interference. In fact, CTIA’s approach allows GSM manufacturers-who have shown little, if any, progress in redesigning GSM equipment to prevent interference-to avoid any additional research into hearing aid compatibility.
Second, CTIA’s plan unfairly burdens Code Division Multiple Access handset manufacturers. CTIA’s plan requires all handset manufacturers to add ports, even if interference-free access for individuals who wear hearing aids is ensured in an alternative manner. CDMA manufacturers, who have designed equipment that does not render hearing aids inoperable, will be forced to spend money to meet requirements designed to help a competing technology. This can only provide an unfair economic advantage to GSM proponents.
As for the supplemental external access devices which CTIA and GSM proponents are championing, it’s ironic that the wireless industry is promoting the use of wires to permit the use of wireless phones. These devices do not permit individuals who wear hearing aids equal access to telecommunications technology. Furthermore, devices such as HATIS only work if a person’s hearing aid is equipped with a telecoil setting-and 70 percent of hearing aids do not have this setting.
Of course, supplemental access devices would not be necessary if GSM equipment manufacturers solved their interference problems.
It’s time for CTIA to recognize that there are technological differences among transmission systems, and that a blanket set of rules won’t solve interference problems. In my view, that’s a rational, cool-headed position.
James I. Valentine
RCR Publications welcomes letters to the editor responding to articles and commentary presented in the newspaper or stating opinions on other topics relevant to the wireless communications industry.
Letters must be signed by the author. RCR reserves the right to edit letters for style and space. Letters can be mailed to the company at 777 E. Speer Blvd., Denver, Colo., 80203, sent by fax at (303)-733-9941, or sent by e-mail to rcr@usa.net.
