In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the 
  Telecommunications Act of 1996
  
  WT Docket No. 96 - 198
  
  Access to Telecommunications Service,
  Telecommunications Equipment, and 
  Customer Premises Equipment
  by Persons with Disabilities
  
  COMMENTS OF OKLAHOMA ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT
  
  On behalf of the Oklahoma Assistive Technology Project, we file these comments in
  regard to the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for implementation of Section 255
  of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, WT Docket No. 96-198.  The mission of the
  Oklahoma Assistive Technology Project is to advocate for increased access to assistive
  technology for Oklahomans of all ages with all types of disabilities.  Accessibility of
  telecommunications products and services, directly or through compatibility with
  peripheral assistive technology, is critical to the productivity and independence of people
  with disabilities in Oklahoma.  Therefore, in an effort to assure accessibility of
  telecommunications products and services as required by Section 255, we are providing
  the following comments and/or recommendations:
          1.     adopt the Access Board Guidelines, in full, including their treatment of
          'timing' and their prohibition against a decrease in accessibility;
          2.     revise the distinction between 'telecommunications' and  'information
          services' to include those technologies,  such as voice mail which is critical to
          full access and participation for people with disabilities;
          3.     revise the definition of 'commonly used' and 'readily achievable' in order that
          it simplified and more in keeping with existing use of such terminology; and
          4.     revise the compliance and enforcement process .
  
  Access Board Guidelines  (30)
  The Access Board Guidelines regarding equipment accessibility was the result of work
  accomplished by both consumers and industry stakeholders alike which took months of 
  discussion and negotiation.  The FCC asserts that the guidelines must be adapted to
  "develop a coordinated approach to accessibility for both services and equipment."  We
  recognize the differences between telecommunications equipment and services; however,
  we are unable to understand why the Access Board's guidelines can not be adopted in full
  for equipment.  If the guidelines for equipment accessibility were adopted, the FCC
  would be able to adapt or develop appropriate accessiblity requirements for services in
  addition to those for equipment.  Adopting only part of the guidelines, may result in
  confusion for people with disabilities.  Therefore, we strongly recommend that the FCC
  adopt in full the Access Board's guidelines regarding equipment accessibility and
  subsequently adapt them to appropriately address telecommunications service
  accessibility.
  
  Telecommunications and Information Services  (42)
  Under the current FCC proposal to implement the definitions of telecommunications vs.
  Information services, services such as voice mail and electronic mail would not be subject
  to the accessibility requirements of Section 255.  Realizing the rapidity with which
  technological advances are occurring in the telecommunications industry, we strongly
  encourage the FCC to reexamine it's approach in the implementation of these definitions
  in order to recognize what is considered 'basic' telecommunication for individuals with
  disabilities.  Excluding these services from the accessibility requirements of Section 255
  will give individuals with disabilities an unfair disadvantage.  Given the pace of changes
  in telecommunications technology, we are concerned that a distinction between 'basic',
  'adjunct-to-basic', and 'enhanced' services will necessitate review and revision far too
  frequently.  What may be enhanced today will more than likely be basic in the near future
  or possibly replaced by a better enhanced service.  Utilization of this process to determine
  what is covered and not covered by Section 255 surely will not achieve what Congress
  intended regarding accessibility for people with disabilities.  We would like to
  recommend that the re-examine its distinction between 'telecommunications' and
  'information service' with a focus on the communication purpose of telecommunication.
  
  Commonly Used Peripherals  (90)
  The FCC proposes that 'commonly used' peripherals or access devices be 'affordable and
  widely available'.  Furthermore, the FCC presumes that devices distributed by the state
  telecommunication equipment program should be considered 'commonly used'.  Both of
  these suggestions pose concern.  First,  limiting the requirements for compatibility with
  devices that are 'affordable' and 'widely used' could result in compatibility only being
  required for inexpensive items or items used by 'high incidence' disabilities.  Many
  devices which are necessary for individuals with disabilities to access
  telecommunications are not 'affordable' and not widely used because of a lack of
  knowledge and/or money.  The idea of using state equipment distribution programs as the
  measurement for 'common usage' is not necessarily the best because these programs are
  quite diverse in their scope and purpose.  While some programs may provide equipment
  across all disabilities for all types of telecommunications access, many are simply TTY
  distribution or are limited to devices that are strictly related to the relay service.  Some of
  the programs that have a broad scope are voucher programs without a set list of approved
  equipment.  With so many differences, we recommend that the FCC not use the terms
  'affordable and widely used' to clarify 'commonly used' and not use the equipment
  provided by state distribution programs as the indicator of commonly used.  We instead
  recommend that the FCC identify and describe the functions of peripherals that are
  commonly used by individuals with disabilities and if appropriate provide a list of
  examples of peripherals which provide that function.  
  
  
  
  Readily Achievable   (104)
  The FCC points out that 'readily achievable' as applied to accessibility of
  telecommunications under Section 255 is somewhat different from readily achievable as
  applied to accessibility of facilities under the ADA.  The FCC utilizes a number of factors
  in determining if a telecommunication accessibility feature is readily achievable for a
  particular product.  These factors include the technical feasibility of the feature, the
  expense of providing the feature, and the practicality.  Certainly, telecommunication
  access, unlike most facility access, can be significantly influenced by what is technically
  feasible.  Therefore, it is understandable that a consideration of technical feasibility be an
  appropriate part of the determination of readily achievable.  However, the expense of
  providing such access feature and the determination of when that expense is unreasonable
  given the resources of the entity, seems really no different from how one determines the
  expense and resource analysis of readily achievable under the ADA.  Furthermore, the
  addition of factors such as 'opportunity costs', the potential market for the access-added
  product or service, and the degree to which the provider would recover the cost of
  providing the accessibility feature, are of concern.  Should these considerations be
  factored into the expense analysis of readily achievable, Section 255 will do very little
  toward assuring accessibility beyond that which is currently available.  We would like to
  recommend that the FCC add the consideration of 'technically feasible' to those currently
  used by the ADA for readily achievable and eliminate considerations such as opportunity
  costs and potential market.  This would allow for the clear advantage of ADA case law on
  readily achievable with the additional factor of technical feasibility.
  
  Timing  (118)
  The Access Board suggests that accessibility requirements apply to new products
  introduced on the market and there should be no requirement to retrofit existing
  equipment.  It would seem that new products should meet the accessibility standards
  established, if readily achievable, during design of such new product.  Hence, a readily
  achievable determination and any associated technical feasibility and cost analysis should
  not be applied following the manufacture of a product.  Application of the readily
  achievable standard after production could result in avoidance for building access in
  during product design.  Once products are on the market, it would be better to re-examine
  the inclusion of accessibility when the product undergoes an upgrade, especially since
  significant product upgrade automatically should involve some degree of product design. 
  Should accessibility requirements only apply to new products, manufacturers could opt to
  simply upgrade an existing product in an effort to avoid meeting accessibility standards.
  
  Compliance and Enforcement
  The FCC proposes a complaint driven system for compliance with the accessibility
  requirements of Section 255.  While a complaint driven system for accessiblility
  requirements of Section 255 is important, there needs to be more than one viable method
  to pursue toward compliance.  Both consumers and manufacturers will need a method
  which allows for a proactive approach to compliance.  TAAC recommends a declaration
  of conformity which could be utilized as an option for a more proactive approach to
  assuring compliance.  If manufacturers are required to produce a declaration of
  conformity, there would be a public record of the following:
  --Awareness of accessibility standards their products should meet,
  --Belief that their products meet those standards,
  --Data to substantiate their belief that their products are accessible.
  Without a declaration of conformity or some other proactive methodology for assuring
  access, the FCC has accepted the fact that inaccessible products and services are likely to
  reach the market.  Once this has occurred, it is much more difficult to completely correct
  the access barriers.  The Access Board indicated that they could not adopt the
  recommendation for the declaration of conformity because enforcement of Section 255 is
  under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC.  Thus, we recommend that the FCC adopt the
  requirement for a declaration of conformity as recommended by the TAAC to provide a
  proactive compliance approach in addition to the reactive complaint response approach.