To: FCC


RE: Rules for Enforcing Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act

The proposed rules for enforcing Section 255 of the Telecom Act will
have a tremendous impact on the accessibility of telephone equipment and
services for many years to come.  If they are adopted as proposed, they
will have a negative impact on access for people with disabilities.  It
is unconscionable that people with disabilities would be denied access
to a realm of modern life so indispensable as telephone equipment and
service!

1.  It is not clear in the proposed rules whether the FCC intends to
adopt the Access Board guidelines.  I urge you to adopt these
guidelines.  They are necessary in order to provide clear guidance to
companies regarding their obligations to make products and services
accessible.

2.  The use of the phrase "readily achievable" has undergone a radical
transformation since its use in the ADA.  The proposed rules allow
companies to consider the extent to which costs of providing access will
be recovered.  To allow this as a "readily achievable" factor defeats
the very purpose of Section 255.  Section 255 was passed precisely
because the market was not responding to the needs of people with
disabilities.  Cost recovery considerations have never been permitted
under other disability laws.
Please follow the definition of "readily achievable" as it has been
defined in the ADA.

3.  Enhanced services, not covered under the proposed rules, are
actually commonplace services which many people who are not yet disabled
consider indispensable.  Voice mail and electronic mail are two
examples.  Please cover "enhanced services" since coverage of these
services is critical to full telecommunications access -- and thus to
the intent of Section 255.

4.  Finally, some comments regarding the complaint process:
   a. There should be no filing fees for informal or formal complaints
with the FCC against either manufacturer or service providers.
   b. There should be no time limit for filing complaints.
   c.  Consumers should be able to submit complaints by any accessible
means available.
   d.  Manufacturers and service providers should be required to
establish contact points in their companies that are accessible to
consumers with disabilities.

Thank you for taking these comments into consideration.  We have taken
the time to make them because we are concerned that if Section 255 is
diluted in any way, people with disabilities will remain second class
citizens with respect to new telecommunications technological advances.

Yours very truly,

Maia Justine Storm 
Staff Attorney for  Protection & Advocacy for Users of Assistive
Technology
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
106 W. Allegan, Suite 300
Lansing, MI  48933-1706