Kentucky Department for the Blind 
BulldIng Working Relationships

June 24, 1998

Federal Communications Commission 
Office of the Secretary 
1919 M Street, NW, Room 222 
Washington, D. C. 20554 


To Whom tt May Concern: 

Last year, the Access Board issued guidelines, which are both fair and would
go a long way toward achieving access to telecommunications products.
Among other things, the guidelines suggest ways for the manufacturers to
achieve access in the design of their products and require product information
and instructions to be accessible to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, it is
not clear in the FCC's proposed rules whether the FCC intends to adopt the
Access Board guidelines. 

These guidelines are needed to provide clear guidance on the obligations of
companies to make their products and services accessible.
Telecommunications access is important to me in my job as well as providing
access to family members and friends. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires certain buildings to be
accessible if achieving such access is "readily achievable." The term "readily 
achievable" has a long history to it, and for the most part involves a balancing
of the costs of providing access with the overall financial resources of the
company which must provide such access. Congress adopted the "readily
achievable" concept in Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act.
Specifically, Section 255 requires telecommunications providers and
manufacturers to provide access where it is readily achievable to do so. In its
proposed rules, the FCC has proposed to define readily achievable in a
manner that is very different from the way that it was defined in the ADA. 

Among other things, the FCC wants to allow companies to be able to consider
whether they will be able to recover the costs of providing access, and the
extent to which they will be able to market an accessible product. These
factors may allow a company to get out of its access obligations merely
because the market for certain accessible products may be smaller. This goes
against the whole purpose of Section 255. Section 255 was intended to
require access to people with disabilities because market forces alone ware
not enough to ensure that access. Allowing a company to consider whether it
will recover the costs of achieving such access has never been permitted under
other disability laws. 


Indeed, telecommunications have already had a major impact on the ability
and opportunity for people with disabilities to learn, work, and participate in
the community. Moreover, just as telecommuncations is becoming
increasingly important in the lives of Americans ganaraily, so also is its
signikance in the lives of people with disabilities destined to grow. 

If these services are not required to be accessible, people with disabilities will
continue to have fewer employment opportunities, and will not be able to fully 
participate in today's society. I Urge the FCC to cover "enhanced services,"
because coverage of these services is critical. 

I strongly urge the FCC to adopt the telecommunications guidelines
established by the Access Board. 

Sincerely, 

Sharon S. Fields 
Principal Assistant/ 
ADA Coordinator