FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1966 WT Dkt. No 96-198 COMMENTS OF Thomas D. Benziger, Chairperson of Illinois Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission Introduction On behalf of Illinois Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission I am pleased to submit these comments and thoughts to the Federal Communications Commission on its Proposed Section 255 rules. There are 102 counties in our state, Illinois, and our population of approximately 11.4 million people. Out of 11.4 million, there are 155,984 Deaf, 830,664 Hard of Hearing, and 4 12,200 Developmental Disabilities who may have some hearing loss (Information is based on the United States Census -1990 and Illinois Census 1994). Not one county has no Deaf, Hard of Hearing or Developmental Disabilities. There are more Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Developmental Disabilities living in large cities such as Metropolitan Chicago, Rockford., and Springfield. There are good number of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Developmental Disabilities living in rural areas such as smallest County, Pope with a population of 4,343. And out of 4,343, 59 Deaf, 3 16 Hard of Hearing, and 157 Developmental Disabilities. Are they getting equal communication access as the ones from the large cities'? 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, educations, and recreational opportunities for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf-Blind and developmental disabilities.. We urge the FCC to adopt the suggestions contained in these comments to so that our needs are fully considered in the design, development, fabrication of telecommunications products and services Telecommunication access are very important to us because we need to have equal access to telecommunication, the need to expand Pay phone TDDs in public places, public transportation facilities including airports and train stations, also near interstate highways in case of emergencies. Anywhere, we go, we usually see a bank of telephones in public places and absolutely no TYYs anywhere close by. General speaking of the most of the airports/terminals and railroad stations, the only TTY available is often so far away from the public places and often are not in working conditions. Without having the access to public phones in time of crisis or accidents, we are always facing frustrations in terms of getting assistance. Another area, I think it is important to bring your attention to this matter regarding software that requires sound cards, what benefits does this have to offer Deaf and Hard of hearing computer users. Are we required to have sound card installed in our computers just to have this educational software that offers 3-D dimension? 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 on February 3, 1998. Congress had given the Access Board the primary authority to draft these guidelines apply to equipment manufactures, we recommend that the FCC apply these as well to services providers. The guidelines are comprehensive and are the product of the Telecommunication Access Advisory Committee, which consisted of representatives from both consumer and industry organization. In addition to the guidelines on achieving accessibility, we especially urge the FCC to adopt and enforce the following for both service providers and equipment manufacturer: --Where market research on products or services is performed, individual with disabilities should be included in the populations researched; --Where products 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; --Manufactures and services providers should be required to provide access to product and services information and documentation on products and services and their accessibility features, including information contained in user and installation guides. To the extend that such information is made available to the general public use, it should be made available in accessible formats or modes upon request, at no extra charge. Manufactures should also include the name and contact means for obtaining documents about (1) accessability features and (2) how to obtain documents in alternate formats, in general product information. Additionally, customer\ and technical support provided at call and service cents 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 transcription for audio output on Internet postings, and automated TTY response system 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; -- The Access Board guidelines make clear that in addition to covering new product, 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 services providers to consider disability access as they make substantial changes or upgrades to their public offerings; -- 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 guidelines 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 products and those provided from a remote server over a network. Universal Design 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 accessability of the provider's products or services to determine how other functionally similar products and services can be made accessible. Enhanced Services We are 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 achieve for individuals with disabilities. This objective will be defeated if we are only provided with access to little more than basic telephone services. Voice mail, interactive telephone prompt systems, and Internet telephone 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 intend of Section 255 -to achieve universal telecommunications access is to be realized. Readily Achievable Determination Under Section 255, manufactures must make their products accessible or compatible if it is readily achievable to do so. The "readily achievable" language is from the American with Disability Act (ADA) and involves a balancing of the nature and cost 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 services 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 cost 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. 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 consumers complaints: -- There should be no tiling 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 wold 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 services is inaccessible. -- Consumers with disabilities should be able to submit complaints by any accessible means available. -- Manufactures and services providers should be required to establish contact points in their companies that are accessible to consumers with disabilities. Conclusion We thank the FCC for the opportunity to submit these comments and urge the FCC to act promptly in issuing rules that will fully ensure telecommunications access by individuals with disabilities. Respect-fully submitted, Thomas D. Benziger Chairperson, Illinois Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission 1925 Hawthorne Avenue Westchester, IL 60154 Home TTY: 708-562-5870 Home Fax: 708-562-1356 Work Voice: 3 12-226-5900 Ext. 646 Work TTY: 312-226-1687 Work Fax: 312-226-2030 E-Mail Addresses: thomas.d.benziger@ accessliving.org Tdbenziger@ juno. com