FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                                                            
                                                       
In the Matter of                                       
Implementation of Section 255 of the              
Telecommunications Act of 1996               
 WT Dkt. No. 96-198                                                        

COMMENTS OF
The World Institute on Disability

I.  Introduction

     The World Institute on Disability submits these comments to the Federal 
Communications Commission on its proposed Section 255 rules. The World Institute on 
Disability (WID) is a non-profit research, training and policy development center led by 
persons with disabilities located in Oakland, California. Founded in 1983 by leaders of the 
Independent Living movement for people with disabilities, WID has a reputation for 
leadership, innovation and quality work.
In the area of Technology Policy, WID has played a leading role in advocating Universal 
Design of telecommunications and information technology. WID actively collaborated with a 
coalition of disability organizations which advocated for disability access language in Section 
255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  WID also served on  the Telecommunications 
Access Advisory Committee which advised the Architectural Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board (Access Board) in developing guidelines for implementing Section 255.

        We applaud the FCC for issuing proposed rules to implement Section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Increased access to telecommunications equipment is 
critical to expanding employment, educational, and recreational opportunities for individuals 
across the broad range of disabilities.  We urge the FCC to adopt the suggestions contained 
in these comments so that the needs of people with disabilities are fully considered in the 
design, development, and fabrication of telecommunications products and services.  As a 
cross-disability organization, WID is committed to pursuing policies that result in access for 
people with all types of disabilities. We are particularly concerned about access to 
telecommunications and new communications technologies which are rapidly proliferating. 
We know that many, if not all of these services and products can open up whole new vistas of 
opportunity for people with disabilities.  Yet, all too often, the full potential of these products 
and services is not realized because they are not accessible.  

We have already seen  how digital wireless telephones can create access barriers for many 
people who use hearing aids or those who require enhanced volume amplification.  As 
telecommunications technologies become smaller and more portable, they often become 
more difficult to manipulate and even to see.  The increasing use of LCD panels and other 
visual displays on telephone equipment creates barriers of access for blind and visually 
impaired consumers.  And rapid fire automated voice processing systems create access 
barriers for many people with hearing loss as well as those with cognitive disabilities. These 
are but a few examples of the many barriers confronting people with disabilities as they try to 
reap the benefits of telecommunications technology.

II.  Adoption of Access Board Guidelines

        We strongly urge the Commission to adopt the Section 255 guidelines which were 
issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) on 
February 3, 1998.  Congress had given the Access Board the primary authority to draft these 
guidelines, which should now be enforced by the FCC.  Although the Access Board 
guidelines apply to equipment manufacturers, we recommend that the FCC apply these as 
well to service providers.  

The guidelines are comprehensive, and are the product of the Telecommunications Access 
Advisory Committee, which consisted of representatives from both consumer and industry 
organizations. These guidelines were developed on a consensus basis with input from 
consumers, researchers, industry representatives and disability advocacy organizations.  The 
effort to reach consensus among the TAAC representatives was a  long and difficult  process, 
but ultimately a successful one. The TAAC worked through and resolved many contentious 
issues regarding how to implement Section 255.  WID therefore encourages the FCC to take 
advantage of the work that has already been done by the TAAC and adopt the guidelines that 
it developed.

The Commissions approach to the TAAC guidelines is too vague and, absent greater clarity 
about their scope, may result in confusion and misinterpretation of the Commissions intent 
on the extent to which they should be followed. 

In addition to the guidelines on achieving accessibility, we especially urge the FCC to adopt 
and enforce the following guidelines for both service providers and equipment 
manufacturers:

 Where market research on products or services is performed, individuals with disabilities 
should be included in the populations researched;

 Where product design trials and pilot demonstrations are conducted, individuals with 
disabilities should be included in these activities;

 Reasonable efforts should be made to validate access solutions though testing with 
individuals with disabilities or related organizations;

 Manufacturers and service providers should be required to provide access to product and 
service information and documentation on products and services and their accessibility 
features, including information contained in user and installation guides. To the extent that 
such information is made available to the general public, it should be made available in 
accessible formats or modes upon request, at no extra charge.  Manufacturers should 
also include the name and contact means for obtaining information about (1) accessibility 
features and (2) how to obtain documents in alternate formats, in general product 
information.  Additionally, customer and technical support provided at call and service 
centers should be accessible by people with disabilities.  For people who are deaf or hard 
of hearing, captioning on video cassettes containing product instructions, direct TTY 
access to customer service lines, text transcriptions for audio output on Internet postings, 
and automated TTY response systems that detect whether a caller is using voice or TTY 
and which enable the caller to complete the call in an accessible format, should be used 
to comply with these access requirements.  For people who are blind or who have low-
vision audio description on video cassettes containing product instructions; product 
literature, and in particular operating instructions should be available in Braille, large 
print, on audiocassette and electronically. Likewise, marketing conducted on the World 
Wide Web should be presented in accessibly so it can be read by assistive devices and 
with captioned audio and described visual content;

 The Access Board guidelines make clear that in addition to covering new products, 
Section 255 covers existing products that "undergo substantial change or upgrade, or for 
which new releases are distributed."  The changes to which this statement refers are 
those that affect the functionality of the product, rather than cosmetic changes.  It is critical 
for both manufacturers and service providers to consider disability access as they make 
substantial changes or upgrades to their products;

 The Access Board's guidelines do not permit manufacturers to make changes that reduce 
access to products.  This is intended to ensure that individuals with disabilities are not 
forgotten, as improvements and upgrades to products and services are performed.  It is 
critical for the FCC to adopt this guideline so that individuals with disabilities are not 
treated as second class consumers.  Although we do not want to stifle innovation, we want 
to ensure that where improvements are made to products and services, the access 
function will be maintained.  While we understand that the form of achieving access may 
need to change, there must be some assurance that some means of effective access 
continues to be available;

 The Access Board's guidelines set forth certain technical standards for compatibility with 
specialized customer premises equipment, including compatibility with TTYs and hearing 
aid compatible telephones.  These, too, should be adopted in the FCC's final rules.

 The FCC's proposed rules say that software will be covered only if the software is 
included with a telecommunications product.  If it is marketed separately, the FCC has 
proposed that it not be covered by Section 255.  We oppose this interpretation of Section 
255.  Rather, so long as software has functions that are integral to the provision of 
telecommunications, it should be covered under the FCC's new rules.  This would be 
consistent with the Access Board guidelines which cover software, hardware, or firmware 
that are integral to telecommunications and CPE equipment, as well as functions and 
features built into the product and those provided from a remote server over a network.

III.  Individual Product Assessment

We support the FCC's decision to require an assessment of accessibility and compatibility for 
each product.  This is what Section 255 requires, and as stated in the Access Board 
guidelines, the assessment as to whether access can be achieved "cannot be bypassed 
simply because another product is already accessible."  Rather, the goal of Section 255 is to 
achieve, where readily achievable, universal design for as many disabilities as possible.  
Only if that is not achievable, then is it reasonable to view the overall accessibility of the 
provider's products or services to determine how other functionally similar products and 
services can be made accessible.

IV.  Enhanced Services

WID is deeply concerned that enhanced services may not be covered under the FCC's new 
rules.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 emphasized the need to bring all the citizens of 
our country the benefits of advanced telecommunications technologies.  The purpose of 
Section 255 was to ensure that this objective would be achieved for individuals with 
disabilities.  This objective will be defeated if we are only provided with access to little more 
than basic telephone service.  Voice mail, interactive telephone prompt systems, and Internet 
telephony have already become mainstream services and are critical to successfully 
participating and competing in our society.  These services must be made accessible if the 
true intent of Section 255 - to achieve  universal telecommunications access - is to be 
realized.

We understand that the proposed rule in the NPRM is consistent with FCC policy generally 
on the definition of telecommunications service.  However, it is important for the FCC to 
respond to the fact that these regulations are also part of the federal governments disability 
policy.  From this broad perspective, it makes little sense for these regulations, which interpret 
a new section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to reiterate existing policy as it is found 
in Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA already applies to basic 
telecommunications services. If Congress had wanted to modify existing law that applies to 
access to basic services for people with disabilities, it would have amended Title IV of the 
ADA. Section 255 defines new policy, and the only reasonable way for it to do so is to cover 
enhanced services.

The rapid pace of technological change in the telecommunication industries means that what 
is enhanced service today may become basic service tomorrow. If, under Section 255, the 
line dividing Basic from Advanced services is tightly drawn and only the most basic Plain 
Old Telephone Service is deemed to be covered under Section 255, then most of the new 
developments in telecommunications services could conceivably be designed, developed 
and fabricated in such a way that they do not provide disability access.  If that is the case, 
then there is the clear possibility that as these advanced products and services migrate to the 
realm of basic services, it will be far less easy and far more costly to make them accessible to 
and usable by people with disabilities. The end result of this scenario would be a situation 
where, years down the road, as the definition of basic services evolves, many of these 
services will not be accessible to people with disabilities, in contravention of the intent of 
Section 255.

V.  Readily Achievable Determinations

Under Section 255, manufacturers must make their products accessible or compatible if it is 
readily achievable to do so.  The "readily achievable" language is from the ADA and involves 
a balancing of the nature and costs of including an access feature with the overall financial 
resources of the covered entity (and the resources of its parent corporation, where 
applicable).  We accept the FCC's suggestion that technical feasibility also may be 
considered in determining whether access to a product or service can be achieved.  

However, we oppose considering the extent to which an accessible product can be marketed 
(when compared to inaccessible products), and the extent to which the costs of providing 
access will be recovered, in readily achievable determinations.   These are not permissible 
factors under the ADA, and should not be included in a readily achievable analysis under 
Section 255.  Furthermore, developing a workable cost model for this proposal would be 
extremely difficult to do, since it often occurs that features developed initially to provide 
disability access become standard features on the basic unit.  One such example is vibrating 
ringers on pagers and wireless phones which were initially developed to provide access for 
deaf users, but have now become a standard feature on many wireless technologies. 
Keeping separate accounts on accessibility features to calculate a cost-benefit analysis 
would be unduly burdensome to manufacturers and may be difficult if not impossible to 
calculate with any degree of accuracy. 

It is simply not acceptable, nor should the FCC attempt, to introduce the concept of cost 
recovery under Section 255.  This goes far beyond the  interpretation of readily achievable 
as defined in the ADA. Indeed the need for Section 255 grew from the recognition that a 
reliance on free market incentives alone is not sufficient to result in accessibility of 
telecommunications.

VI.  Complaint Process

We are confused by the FCC's proposed complaint process, and in particular are uncertain 
as to when an individual has the right to move from the "fast track" to the "informal" or "formal" 
complaint processes, or when a complaint would be moved to an alternative dispute 
resolution process.  We request clarification of these points in the final rules, so that 
consumers may fully understand the means available to seek redress under Section 255.  
Additionally, we adamantly oppose a rule that would require consumers to first receive 
approval from the FCC before being permitted to bring a formal FCC complaint.  This is not a 
requirement for other formal complaints brought before the Commission and appears to be 
discriminatory against individuals with disabilities.

We do support the following FCC proposals concerning consumer complaints:

 There should be no filing fees for informal or formal complaints, and fees that currently 
exist for filing complaints against common carriers should be waived for complaints 
brought under Section 255.  Waiving these fees would be in the public interest.
 
 There should not be any time limit for filing complaints, because one never knows when 
he or she will discover that a product or service is inaccessible.  
 
 Consumers with disabilities should be able to submit complaints by any accessible 
means available.
 
 Manufacturers and service providers should be required to establish contact points in 
their companies that are accessible to consumers with disabilities.

Conclusion

        WID thanks the FCC for the opportunity to submit these comments, and urges the FCC to 
act promptly in issuing rules that will fully ensure telecommunications access by individuals 
with disabilities.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                Betsy Bayha
                    Director, Technology Policy
                    World Institute on Disability
                    510 Sixteenth St., Suite 100
                    Oakland, CA  94612