Before the 
Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 

In the Matter of 
Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommu-
nications Act of 1996 

WT Docket No. 96-198 

Access to Telecommunications Services, Tele-
communications Equipment, and Customer Prem-
ise Equipment by Persons with Disabilities 

REPLY COMMENTS 
OF ARCH COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. 

Arch Communications Group, Inc.(1) (" Arch"), hereby submits the following reply
comments in the above-referenced proceeding(2). Pursuant to the NPRM, these comments are
also being filed electronically. (3)
 
I. INTRODUCTION/ STATEMENT OF POSITION 
Arch recognizes the importance of making paging and other telecommunications 
services accessible to persons with disabilities. To that end, Arch works with its equipment 
vendors to ensure that its equipment is accessible, at a reasonable price, to persons with
disabili-ties. Arch requires its manufacturers to make available equipment models with options
such as: 
(1) vibrate alert; (2) tone adjust; (3) silent alert; (4) large screen for easy reading; (5) clips and 
lanyards; and (6) backlighting. With equipment that meets such specifications, Arch can market 
 its services and provide equipment that accommodates specialized needs to persons with 
disabilities. (4) 
Nevertheless, it is important to note that making paging services accessible to 
persons with disabilities is a question of the particular functionalities available on the equipment 
used to provide customers with paging services. In essence, accessibility must be considered as 
part of the design and production processes of the pagers used by Arch's customers and, thus, is 
primarily a manufacturer's issue. (5) 
Arch supports the numerous commenters in this proceeding who urge the 
Commission to implement Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act to ensure that service 
providers and manufacturers can work cooperatively with consumers and individuals with 
disabilities to provide all Americans with access to telecommunications equipment and services.
(6) The Commission must also ensure, however, that the rules it develops are reasonable, both 
technically and economically. As discussed below, Arch submits that the Commission's "fast 
track" procedures do not meet this goal. 

II. THE PROPOSED "FAST TRACK" COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS ARE 
UNREASONABLE 

As numerous commenters point out, the Commission correctly concluded that "the 
plain language of the statute confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Commission and bars private 
rights of action." (7) While Section 255 does not require special procedures, the Commission 
proposes to adopt new procedures to resolve complaints related to Section 255 (8).
Unfortunately, - the Commission's proposed "fast track" procedures for Section 255 complaints
are unreasonable and will not promote timely and efficient resolution of such complaints. 

Of particular concern is the Commission's proposal to require respondents to a 
complaint to submit a report to the Commission identifying possible accessibility solutions "five 
business days from the time [the Commission] forward[ s] the complaint to the respondent."(9) 
In short, the Commission expects respondents to receive a complaint, gather the relevant
informa-tion,  contact the complainant, develop a solution and report to the Commission all in five
days. 

Most commenters to this proceeding  including representatives of persons with 
disabilities -- recognize that this timetable is totally unrealistic (10). The access issues underlying a 
potential Section 255 complaint can be complex and are not necessarily susceptible to such 
 speedy resolution (11). As the Commission has recognized, the issues will have to be evaluated
and refined on a case-by-case basis and are likely to present practical difficulties due to the
potential presence of multiple elements or providers associated with a given service (12). These
conditions clearly suggest that the proposed five day window is woefully inadequate and will lead
to nothing more than unrealistic expectations on the part of customers. 

Arch submits that rather than introduce new procedures under Section 255, the 
Commission should handle Section 255 complaints under its existing informal complaint rules. 
Nevertheless, should the Commission elect to adopt new procedures, Arch submits that the time 
in which carriers and/ or manufacturers have to resolve a Section 255 complaint should be 
extended to at least 30 days(13) .

CONCLUSION 

Arch supports the Commission's initiative to implement Section 255 in a "practical 
and common sense manner." As discussed above, Arch believes that the Commission's proposed 
"fast track" procedures fail to meet this objective. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ARCH COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. 

By: _________________________ 
Paul H. Kuzia 
Executive Vice President, Technology 
and Regulatory Affairs 

Arch Communications Group, Inc. 
1800 West Park Drive, Suite 250 
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 
(508) 870-6600 

Date: August 14, 1998 


1. Arch is a leading provider of paging services with over 3 million pagers currently in 
service. Arch operates in more than 40 states, and in 80 of the 100 largest markets in the 
United States. 

2. Implementation of Section 255; Access to Telecommunications Services by Persons with 
Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-55 (rel. 
April 20, 1998) (" NPRM"). 

3. See NPRM at  183-85. 

4. Indeed, as the Commission notes, there are approximately 54 million Americans with some
form of disability. Id. at  1. Serving this market makes good business sense. 

5. In this regard, Arch agrees with AirTouch Communications, Inc. that the statutory
definition of "manufacturer" to be the "final assembler," is appropriate provided that the 
distinction between "manufacturer" and "telecommunications carriers" is maintained. See 
AirTouch Comments at 5. Arch often sells pagers as part of a service package and may 
identify the pagers with its own name plate. This should not be construed to mean that 
Arch "manufactured" such equipment. Id. 

6. See, e. g., Comments of AirTouch Communications, Inc. (" AirTouch") at 1-3; Comments 
of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (" CTIA") at 1-3; Comments of 
GTE Service Corporation, etc. at 2-3; Comments of the Personal Communications 
Industry Association (" PCIA") at 4-5. 

7. NPRM at  34.

8. Id. at  124.

9. Id. at  136. 

10. See, e. g., CTIA Comments at 19-24; PCIA Comments at 13-14; Comments of Lucent 
Technologies 10-11; Comments of the Business Software Alliance at 12; Comments of 
June Isaacson Kailes at 5; Comments of Leo A. LaPointe at 2; Comments of the United 
Cerebral Palsy Associations at 12; Comments of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, 
Inc. at 29; Comments of Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. at 25. 

11. NPRM at  122. 

12. Id. at  51, 122.

13. See BellSouth Comments at 11; Bell Atlantic Comments at 9; Lucent Comments at 11.