The Lighthouse Inc. 
June 29, 1998

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

Re: WT Docket No. 96-198

Dear Director:

The following is submitted by The Lighthouse Inc. in reply to your NPRM on
Section 255 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Lighthouse Inc., the
world’s leading resource on vision impairment, enables people who are blind
or partially sighted to lead independent lives. It offers help-- and hope--
to people of all ages through rehabilitation, education, research and
advocacy. The Lighthouse Inc. is a not- for- profit organization, and
depends on support from individuals, foundations and corporations.

People who are blind or partially sighted, like everyone else, want to be
able to go to school, to work, to play, and to be in touch with relatives
and friends. While the proportion of people who are aging is growing larger,
and loss of vision increases dramatically as we age, there have also been
concommitant changes in life styles. We all want to be involved and remain
“in touch.” A narrow and limited approach to Section 255, not allowing for
rapid technological changes, will be counterproductive. Too often the costs
of accessibility are cited by business, but, by denying access to over 20%
of our population who have disabilities, we neglect to count the costs of
inaccessibility.

Overcoming Vision Impairment through Rehabilitation, Education, and Research

COMMENTS

2. Adoption of the Access Board’s Accessibility Guidelines-

The Board’s Accessibility Guidelines to Section 255 were adopted after a
long process which involved industry representatives and the disability
community, as well as opportunity for the public to comment. These are
broad, functional performance standards, not prescriptive. They allow room
for technological development with guidance provided in the appendix. Our
understanding was that these would be adopted by the FCC, similar to the
Department of Justice’s adoption of the Americans with Disabilities
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), to provide a technical standard. Placing
them in an Appendix without a clear adoption of these Guidelines confuses
and weakens their effect. We urge that the FCC adopt the Access Board
Telecommunications Guidelines.

Scope of Coverage of Section 255-- We do not believe that Congress, in
requiring telecommunications accessibility in 1996, meant this to apply to a
very limited set of telephone services. In the June 25, 1998, New York Times
article announcing the proposed merger of AT& T with MCI, it stated that
last year, “for the first time, more messages were sent by Email than
through the post office.” Work routines have changed for everybody. We all
listen to voice mail and read our Email before starting our workday. These
have become essential telecommunications services. As it is likely that
there will be continuing mergers in the telecommunications field, it may be
through an entertainment cable line that integrated telephony services are
provided. Attempting to divide these services no longer makes sense. In
order to provide access, they all must be covered by FCC regulations under
Section 255.

Telecommunications Equipment-- We support the proposed requirement on
telecommunications equipment and the inclusion of software. Both aspects are
critical for people with impaired vision. Accessible software programs
determine usability as much as accessible equipment

Service Accessibility-- Without service accessibility, the user who cannot
read the booklet that accompanies the equipment, or cannot read the monthly
bill, is denied access. Service accessibility is an essential component of
usability.

Peripheral Devices & Specialized Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)-- We
support the requirement of compatibility of telecommunications with
peripheral devices or CPE when accessibility is not readily achievable- 
otherwise the device is useless. However, screen readers, for example, are
not “distributed” in state equipment programs that we are familiar with, and
to establish this as the criterion for “commonly used” and “affordable”
would probably eliminate them from consideration. The Access Board may be in
the best position to develop a list of such products. However, such a list
would have to be updated regularly to keep up with technological changes.

Readily Achievable-- We urge the FCC, in determining “readily achievable,”
to require that the resources of the entity legally responsible for the
equipment or service be subject to Section 255. While we recognize the
complexity of a determination that access to a product or service can be
readily achieved, everyone agrees that access is more easily achieved in the
design stage. Without the strongest support for a strict reading of “readily
achievable,” little incentive will be given to manufacturers and
telecommunications companies to incorporate the concept of “universal
design” into their thinking. In addition, many products which were developed
for what was seen as a “niche market” have become widely used. The optical
scanner technology was originally developed as a sensory aid for the blind,
reading printed text aloud.

7. Complaint Process-- The proposals for a central FCC contact point for all
Section 255 inquiries and complaints, and the ability to submit complaints
by a variety of means including, letter, telephone call, Email, TTY, braille
or audio cassette, without necessarily using a “complaint form” are good.
The process must be timely. While the FCC has proposed a process relying
mainly on complaints, we would urge that attention be given to patterns of
noncompliance. In order to respond effectively, FCC staff should receive
training on the telecommunications access issues for people with
disabilities.

William E. Kennard, FCC chairman, in addressing the Josephine L. Taylor
Leadership Institute in March of this year stated that “Section 255 of The
Telecommunications Act of 1996... is a broad mandate. Given the fundamental
role that telecommunications has come to play in today’s world, Section 255
represents the most significant opportunity for people with disabilities
since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. And at the
FCC, we intend to fully implement it.”

We wholeheartedly support this statement and look to the FCC to provide the
structure for its implementation.

Barbara Silverstone, DSW
President and CEO