vickery

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION 



Washington, D. C. 



In the Matter of 
 Implementation of Section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996  
Access to Telecommunications Services,
Telecommunications Equipment, and 
Customer Premises Equipment
by Persons with Disabilities
WT Docket No. 96- 198


Comments of 


Ronald H. Vickery 
Ron. Vickery@ ibm. net
404 Benton Dr. 706 802- 1761 
Rome, Georgia 30165 



I am a person with severe hearing loss and have first
hand knowledge of the problems hard of hearing
people have in using Telecommunications
Equipment and Services. I file these comments on
June 30, 1998 in the FCC s Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, WT Docket No. 96- 198. I am submitting
eight comments with the titles: 



1. Section 255 coverage of $ Informational Services
# 



2. The Access Board Guidelines Should be Adopted
3. The Readily Achievable Standard Gives too
Much Latitude 4. An Improved, More Effective
HAC Standard 5. An Improved Specification for
Auditory Output 6. All CPE Should Have an Output
Connector 7. All CPE Should Have an Access Port
8. The Guidelines and the NPRM Have an Internal
Inconsistency 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 2 



Comment Title: 



1. Section 255 Coverage of $ Informational
Services # 



Abstract: 



Hard of hearing and deaf people are having a
significant amount of difficulty in using telephone
service because of interactive voice response
systems. People who rely on using voice
communication on phones have trouble
understanding the recordings and cannot press the
proper key in response to the recording. People who
rely on using TTY with Relay have difficulty
because the recordings go too fast and the Relay
operator cannot keep up and type the response
question to the TTY user. Congress intended to
solve this problem by issuing section 255 of the
Telecommunication Act, which emphasizes that
telecommunication service must be usable by
people with disabilities. 



References: 



36. We tentatively conclude that to the extent these
phrases are broadly grounded in the
Communications Act, they require no further
definition, and our sole task here is to elucidate their
application in the context of Section 255. However,
to the extent specific terms arise solely in
connection with Section 255, we will consider
whether further definition or clarification is
appropriate. We note that the statute's use of the
term $telecommunications# may have the effect of
excluding from the coverage of Section 255 a
number of services that might be desired by
consumers. Only those services which are
considered to be $telecommunications services# are
subject to regulation under Title II of the
Communications Act. $Information# services# are
excluded from regulation. We now discuss this
regulatory dichotomy further. 



37. Section 3 of the Act defines
$telecommunications# as: the transmission,
between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing, without change
in the form or content of the information as sent and
received. 



It defines $telecommunications service# as: the
offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to
the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used. 



The Act defines an $information service# as: the
offering of a capability for generating, acquiring,
storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
utilizing, or making available information via
telecommunications, and includes electronic
publishing, but does not include any use of any such
capability for the management, control, or operation
of a telecommunications system or the management
of a telecommunications service. 



38. In 1996 the Commission found that all of the
services it had previously considered to be 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 3 



$enhanced services#77 under the regulatory
structure it had established in the 1980 Computer II
proceeding 78 should be considered $information
services. #79 Examples of services the Commission
has treated as enhanced include voice mail,
electronic mail, facsimile store- andforward,
interactive voice response, protocol processing,
gateway, and audiotext information services. Other
enhanced services include electronic store- and-
forward, data processing, gateways to online
databases, and alarm monitoring. Similarly, the
Commission has deemed reverse directory service
to be an information service and, thus, not regulated
under Title II of the Act. 



My Response: 



While all of the above may be reasonable
explanation of how services are divided and
classified, the fact remains that many hard of
hearing and deaf people cannot use some of these
services. In most cases, informational services are
not a matter of luxury or choice, but such services
are being forced on us and they are unusable. In
many cases, companies do not provide any other
way to contact them. The basic ability to complete a
telephone call, which is a Telecommunication
Service, is being denied to some people with
disabilities. The letter and spirit of the Telecom Act
is not being followed by omitting people with
disabilities from these services. The FCC should
take the lead in this matter and work with Congress
to re- define those services that are causing trouble
for people with disabilities. 



The above is a general concern that applies to many
types of companies that have nothing to do with
Telecommunication. The remainder of my comment
applies more specifically to companies that provide
Telecommunication Services, market CPE, or are
engaged in business that is covered by the ADA. 



I recommend that the rules should say that
Telecommunication Service Providers who offer
services to the public for a fee, must offer those
same services to people with disabilities in a usable
format. For example, Telephone companies that
offer voice mail to the public should offer an
equivalent form of voice mail using a TTY or other
commonly used device for set up, initialization, and
control. Interactive voice response menus do not
provide a usable format for deaf people and people
with severe to profound hearing loss. 



Similarly, the ADA requires that places of public
accommodation offer their accommodations to
people with disabilities in a way that is usable. If a
person cannot call a public accommodation facility
and make arrangements and reservations because
the public accommodation utilizes an interactive
voice response system, then this may already be a
violation of the ADA, and I recommend that it be a
violation of the Telecommunications Act.. 



I base my response on the following: 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 4 



Section 255( c) of the Act requires that a provider of
telecommunications service ensure that the service
is accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if readily achievable. 



Furthermore, 



72. The Access Board guidelines define $usable# as
meaning that $individuals with disabilities have
access to the full functionality and documentation
for the product, including instructions, product
information (including accessible feature
information), documentation, and technical support
functionally equivalent to that provided to
individuals without disabilities, and the guidelines
define $accessible# as compliance with Sections
1193.31 through 1193.43 of the rules. 



And, 



73. We propose to adopt the Access Board's
definition of usability as part of our definition of 



$accessible to and usable by. #155 It is our view
that Section 255 does not establish separate
requirements for accessibility and usability, but
looks toward elimination of all impediments to the
functional use of telecommunications services and
equipment by individuals with disabilities. Thus, we
tentatively conclude that there is no reason to
distinguish the two terms for purposes of Section
255, and propose to use the term $accessibility# in
the broad sense to refer to the ability of persons
with disabilities to actually use the equipment or
service by virtue of its inherent capabilities and
functions. 



Paragraph 72 above clearly states that
Telecommunication Service must be in a usable
format and all documentation and support provided
must be usable by a person with disabilities. So to
continue my reasoning, if I needed to call a
Telecommunication Service provider to discuss any
service offered by that company, then I must be able
to get through to the company to conduct my
business. Since the company does not know what I
am calling about before I call, it must be prepared to
communicate with me in an usable manner. If it is
prepared to do that, then the same facilities and
procedures will be in place for services more
formally classified as $ informational # . 



The same line of reasoning applies to companies
that provide CPE. Their documentation and support
facilities must be usable by people with disabilities,
which means if the CPE company uses an
interactive voice response system, it must be
prepared to offer an option that will allow their
system to be usable by people with disabilities, such
as some mode of TTY. This is specifically stated in
the Guidelines under section 1193.33: 



Sec. 1193.33 Information, documentation, and
training. 



(3) Ensuring usable customer support and technical
support in the call centers and service centers which
support their products at no additional charge. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 5 



Also footnote 298 below indicates the same level of
usable support must be provided by
telecommunication service providers: 



298 To note just one example, the Board defines
CPE accessibility as including access to user guides
and product support, where readily achievable. 36
C. F. R. 
 1193.33. Such information is equally applicable to
telecommunications services. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 6 



Comment Title: 



2. The Access Board Guidelines Should be Adopted 



Abstract: 



It is unclear whether or not the FCC intends to
adopt the Access Board Guidelines, which were
published in February 1998. 



Reference: 



Paragraph 30 We view the Board's guidelines as our
starting point for the implementation of Section
255. We note that, as a practical matter, we must
strive to interpret Section 255 in a way that ensures
that telecommunications services and equipment
will be treated consistently. Because the Board's
guidelines address only the accessibility of
equipment, we must necessarily adapt the Board's
guidelines to develop a coordinated approach to
accessibility for both services and equipment. 58
This coordination is particularly necessary because
technological developments have resulted in a
convergence between telecommunications
equipment and services, requiring us to consider
both as we implement the statute. We therefore
tentatively conclude that while we have discretion
regarding our use of the Access Board's guidelines
in developing our comprehensive implementation
scheme, we propose to accord the guidelines
substantial weight in developing our own
regulations and in our broader structure for
implementation. We seek comment on this
approach. 



My Response: 



Congress created the Access Board specifically to
become the experts on disability issues and access.
The FCC should build a strong relationship with the
Access Board and look to it to provide leadership
and guidance on matters of disability and access.
The Act directed the Access Board to conduct
annual reviews of its Guidelines to ensure
regulations are in keeping with current technology
and advancements in disability solutions. 



Reference: The Mission of the Access Board The
Board is the federal agency which develops
minimum guidelines and requirements for standards
issued under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA),
develops accessibility guidelines for
telecommunications equipment and customer
premises equipment under the Telecommunications
Act, provides technical assistance on those
guidelines, and enforces the Architectural Barriers
Act. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 7 



Comment Title: 



3. The Readily Achievable Standard Gives too
Much Latitude 



Abstract: 



When Congress wrote the Telecommunications Act,
it adopted the term "readily achievable" from the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to describe
a company's obligation to make products accessible.
Under the ADA, entities are not expected to
undertake changes that are difficult or involve a
financial burden. However the NPRM gives CPE
Manufacturers and Telecommunication Service
Providers too much latitude in their determination. 



References: 



97. We tentatively conclude that $readily
achievable, # as defined by the ADA and
incorporated by Section 255, simply means $easily
accomplishable and able to be carried out without
much difficulty or expense. # We believe that this
broad definition is applicable to
telecommunications equipment and services. 



100. We believe a useful framework for analyzing
whether a particular telecommunications
accessibility feature is $readily achievable#
involves looking at three areas: 



# Is the feature feasible? 



# What would be the expense of providing the
feature? 



# Given its expense, is the feature practical? We
seek comment on these proposed factors, as
discussed more fully below. We especially seek
comment on the practical implications of options
we may be urged to adopt: their effect on the
development and marketing of accessibility
features, on the pace of innovation, and on the
administrative costs associated with implementation
and enforcement measures (discussed in the
remainder of this Notice). 



My Response: 



I agree that an accessibility feature must be feasible
to be readily achievable. For example, at the current
stage in technology development, it is not feasible
to include a speech to text processor in every phone.
Even if it were feasible, it would not be practicable
due to its high expense. Perhaps someday it will be
feasible and practicable. The kinds of things that
have been proposed by the Guidelines are very
inexpensive and by their nature should be readily
achievable by any CPE manufacturer. The very
definition of readily achievable specifies features
that are inexpensive. Therefore, I do not think it is
wise to go into such detail as proposed by the
NPRM. Specifically, no manufacturer should be
allowed to factor in opportunity cost, cost recovery,
or market conditions. This is analogous to the seat
belt law for automobiles which does not allow
Chrysler, for instance, to determine that it would
cost too much for 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 8 



it to include seat belts, when every other car
manufacturer must provide them. Another analogy
would be the FDA s allowing an entry level
pharmaceutical manufacturer to market new drugs
without extensive testing, like an established
manufacturer must do. 



Since accessibility features should apply to every
CPE manufacturer equally, no manufacturer would
be at an economic disadvantage. If an AT& T phone
cost $1 more to include a feature, more than likely,
it would cost about the same for a Panasonic phone.
Consumers who buy these phones, whether they
intend to use the features or not, would be financing
the research and development and cost of adding the
features. 



Everyone benefits, even people who do not have
disabilities, because it will allow these people to
communicate more freely with the growing number
of people with disabilities and the principle of
Universal Design will make products more usable
for everyone. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 9 



Comment Title: 



4. An Improved, More Effective HAC Standard 



Abstract: 



CPE that produces auditory output should have a
very strong electromagnetic field strength and
independent control for field strength and auditory
output. 



References: 



Sec. 1193.43 Output, display, and control functions. 



(i) HEARING AID COUPLING. Where a product
delivers output by an audio transducer which is
normally held up to the ear, provide a means for
effective wireless coupling to hearing aids. 



My Response: 



I certainly agree with this statement. However, I
think it should be expanded to let CPE
manufacturers know what is expected. I suggest a
study be done to determine the electromagnetic field
strength required to effectively couple with hearing
aids in all environments. 



Since the telecoil in a hearing aid is non selective, it
will pickup electromagnetic radiation from any
nearby electrical device, which is usually 60 Hz or
some overtone of 60 Hz., making a hum or buzz in
the hearing aid. If hearing aid manufacturers
increased the sensitivity of telecoils, then hearing
aids would receive signals from CPE stronger, but it
would also receive interference signals stronger by
the same amount and the net effect would be the
same poor signal to noise ratio. Most hearing aid
users must increase the gain on their aid to pickup
CPE signals over and above their normal setting for
acoustic pickup. This also picks up noise signals,
just as if the telecoil was made more sensitive. 



The solution is to make the signal from CPE much
stronger than any nearby electrical interference. I
have only one set of hearing aids and they have a
good telecoil. Using my set of hearing aids as my $
standard # , I find extremely wide variation in CPE
signals in different locations because CPE is
different and the electrical noise environment is
different. In some locations the signal to noise ratio
is good and I can carry on a conversation. In other
locations it is impossible to use existing phones and
the phones in those locations are new enough to be
classified as Hearing Aid Compatible. 



CPE should be designed to produce a very high
level of electromagnetic field strength irrespective
of the setting of the sound (acoustic output) control,
or there could be two gain controls on CPE, one for
field strength and one for acoustic output. There is a
limit 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 10 



to the amount of acoustic output possible before
acoustic feedback occurs, so this approach to HAC
solves that problem. Technology is certainly easily
available to boost the signal to very adequate levels. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 11 



Comment Title: 



5. An Improved Specification for Auditory Output 



Abstract: 



Auditory output should be specified in terms of a
minimum Sound Pressure Level (SPL) and a
maximum SPL 



References: 



Sec. 1193.43 Output, display, and control functions. 



(e) AVAILABILITY OF AUDITORY
INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
HARD OF HEARING. Provide audio or acoustic
information, including any auditory feedback tones
that are important for the use of the product,
through at least one mode in enhanced auditory
fashion (i. e., increased amplification, increased
signal- to- noise ratio, or combination). For
transmitted voice signals, provide a gain adjustable
up to a minimum of 20 dB. For incremental volume
control, provide at least one intermediate step of 12
dB of gain. 



My response: 



The referenced paragraph does not consider that
some CPE has a weak auditory output. For example,
suppose the CPE normally produces 20 dB SPL.
Applying this rule only gives a range of 20 dB SPL
to 40 dB SPL, which is not at all satisfactory. If a
CPE normally gives 70 dB SPL, then the rule gives
a range of from 70 dB SPL to 90 dB SPL. 



I feel sure there is a standard for minimum SPL, but
I have observed that there is a wide variation in
current CPE. I am only suggesting that this standard
be enforced and specifying it in section 255 would
highlight it and help to enforce it. 



The rule should state the minimum SPL that all
CPE must produce and it should further specify an
adjustable gain of at least 20 dB. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 12 



Comment Title: 



6. All CPE Should Have an Output Connector 



Abstract: 



The Guidelines, as well as the NPRM, specify that
CPE must have an output connector (if readily
achievable) if it is not readily achievable for CPE to
conform to the requirements for accessibility. I will
show how this works against the interests of hard of
hearing people in gaining access to
telecommunications. 



References: 



Sec. 1193.51 Compatibility. 



(b) CONNECTION POINT FOR EXTERNAL
AUDIO PROCESSING DEVICES. Products
providing auditory output shall provide the auditory
signal at a standard signal level through an industry
standard connector. 



85. For example, it is our tentative view that, if a
telecommunications product can be used by a
person with a hearing aid without any need to
employ a peripheral device or specialized CPE, then
the product has complied with the accessibility
requirements of Section 255. If the product is usable
by a person using a hearing aid only through the
application of a peripheral device or CPE, then the
product meets the compatibility criteria of Section
255. We believe this view is consistent with the
plain language of Section 255, and does not conflict
with the FDA's requirements regarding hearing aids. 



My response: 



Paragraph 85 above focuses on the relative
difficulty of making products accessible and it
ignores people who must use products. The
emphasis should be on people and how they will
interface with products. Hard of hearing people
have considerable difficulty in hearing and
understanding the spoken word on telephones
because, for one reason, we can not lip read the
person we are communicating with. Every effort
should be made to improve the quality of sound to
make up for the loss in lip reading. The addition of
an output connector allows connection to assistive
devices that improves signal quality considerably.
Hearing loss covers a very wide range from mild to
profound, and it is the people with severe to
profound hearing loss who need the provisions of
section 255 of the Telecom Act the very most. 



The statement in paragraph 85 cuts out the very
people who need section 255 the most. This is
because the current concept in the Guidelines and in
the NPRM is that products do not have to be both
accessible and compatible. The emphasis is on
making products accessible and if that is successful,
then there will be very few products that just meet
the compatibility requirements, which is where the
output connector 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 13 



requirement is currently listed. My comment is to
move the requirement of an output connector from
the compatibility list to the accessibility list. There
may be other ways to solve this problem that I
would also support. 



Using an assistive device plugged into an output
connector provides at least two benefits: 



1. It allows the use of an induction coupling device,
such as a neckloop or silhouette, that provides much
better electromagnetic coupling than any CPE can
do by itself, resulting in a vastly improved signal to
noise ratio. 



2. It allows listening with two ears if the user has
two hearing aids, which improves understanding to
an amazing degree. Synergism is created when both
ears are used and the result is more than twice as
good. 



Many people have to use a direct connection to their
hearing aids or cochlear implant rather than an
assistive device, so an output connector is an
absolute requirement for them. Connecting with a
patch cord is the standard and most widely used
method for cochlear implants, although some
cochlear implant users can talk on a telephone with
just the microphone on the cochlear implant. People
who use a patch cord with hearing aids are usually
forced to use that method because of
electromagnetic interference associated with telecoil
use. $ Y # arrangements are available so both
hearing aids can be used. 



Adding an output connector is one of the simplest
things any CPE manufacturer can do, and is one of
the most effective. I am not saying it is more
important than the features currently listed under $
accessibility # , but it is just as important and it is
definitely an accessibility item. It has to be readily
achievable for all CPE, except the very small
phones, because I am only suggesting a 25 cent part
attached to existing technology. Even a $9.95
Walkman radio has an output connector. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 14 



Comment Title: 



7. All CPE should have an Access Port. 



Abstract: 



My previous comment talked about an output
connector. This comment expands on that concept
by making the connector capable of input as well,
and therefore qualifying the connector to be called
an Access Port. 



References: 



Sec. 1193.51 Compatibility. 



(b) CONNECTION POINT FOR EXTERNAL
AUDIO PROCESSING DEVICES. Products
providing auditory output shall provide the auditory
signal at a standard signal level through an industry
standard connector. 



85. For example, it is our tentative view that, if a
telecommunications product can be used by a
person with a hearing aid without any need to
employ a peripheral device or specialized CPE, then
the product has complied with the accessibility
requirements of Section 255. If the product is usable
by a person using a hearing aid only through the
application of a peripheral device or CPE, then the
product meets the compatibility criteria of Section
255. We believe this view is consistent with the
plain language of Section 255, and does not conflict
with the FDA's requirements regarding hearing aids. 



My response: 



This response should be used in conjunction with
my previous comment. All the things I said in that
comment apply here as well. In this comment I will
show how beneficial a duplex access port would be
not only to people with disabilities, but to other
people as well, which embodies the Universal
Design goal. 



This proposal just involves choosing a three-
conductor jack that may already be available, such
as the 3/ 32" phone jack, or designing a jack that
takes less space inside the CPE. All CPE that
produces audio must produce it in an analog form
since that is the way our ears work, so the circuitry
will already be in CPE, even if it is digital. If the
jack is capable of input and output the following
benefits are possible: 



1. VCO phones and TTYs can be attached easily to
any CPE that has a corresponding Access Port
without the need for adapters. Currently VCO
phones and TTYs are designed to be connected by
way of an RJ11 jack. They have to conform to the
rules of the telephone network to obtain dial tone or
answer a call. However, redesigning the VCO
phone or TTY so it can also be connected through
the Access Port would be very 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 15 



easy to do. It would then work as a slave to the
primary telephone, which may be a digital business
phone, a cellular phone, or a pay phone. 



2. A duplex Access Port would open the door to
future accessibility devices, and devices could be
designed that do not connect directly to the network,
making them simpler and less expensive. This is
analogous to a TTY with acoustic cups. This type of
TTY does not connect to the network, but depends
on a host phone to do that. 



3. VCO Phones and TTYs can be connected to
answering machines and personal computers that
perform the function of an answering machine to
display messages left there. An ordinary answering
machine just records sound, expecting the sound to
be voice, but it could be tones just as well. Some
people that have the acoustic pickup type of TTY
use this method. The Access Port would make it
simpler and applicable for direct connect VCO
Phones and TTYs. 



4. A simple analog duplex Access Port embodies
the Universal Design goal. Devices such as modems
could be designed to use the Access Port, which
broadens their range of usefulness. People could
plug in their laptop computer to any phone, whether
it is a digital phone, analog phone, or pay phone,
without special adapters. New versions of text
telephones could emerge that all people, not just
people with disabilities, would find useful. 



5. People with low speech, such as laryngectomees,
could use an amplifier connected to the Access Port
to boost their speech. There is nothing in the
Guidelines nor the NPRM that addresses problems
of low speech. There are some telephones that have
a gain control to boost the outgoing speech, so there
is evidence that such a feature is desirable and
necessary. Even people with normal speech would
find this capability useful when talking to a hard of
hearing person. It would also be a tremendous help
for hard of hearing people talking on long distance.
Quite often the signal to noise ratio is not good on
long distance, and increasing the gain on the CPE
that a hard of hearing person is using amplifies both
the signal and the noise, which does not help the
conversation. If the hard of hearing person could tell
the person on the far end to turn up the gain, the
signal would come in stronger, giving a better
signal to noise ratio. 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 16 



Comment Title: 



8. The Guidelines and the NPRM have an Internal
Inconsistency 



Abstract: 



The concept of requiring accessibility first, and if
that is not readily achievable, falling back to an
easier requirement for compatibility, circumvents
the intention of improving access for people with
disabilities. 



References: 



My comment concerning the output connector 



8. The 1996 Act became effective when the
President signed it on February 8, 1996. Its
principal provisions regarding access for persons
with disabilities are contained in Section 255: 



# If the accessibility requirements of Sections 255(
b) and 255( c) are not readily achievable, Section
255( d) requires manufacturers and service
providers to ensure compatibility with existing
peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly
used by individuals with disabilities to achieve
access, if readily achievable. 



85. For example, it is our tentative view that, if a
telecommunications product can be used by a
person with a hearing aid 175 without any need to
employ a peripheral device or specialized CPE, then
the product has complied with the accessibility
requirements of Section 255. If the product is usable
by a person using a hearing aid only through the
application of a peripheral device or CPE, then the
product meets the compatibility criteria of Section
255. We believe this view is consistent with the
plain language of Section 255, and does not conflict
with the FDA's requirements regarding hearing aids. 



91. Several commenters note that ensuring
compatibility requires coordination among, e. g.,
manufacturers of specialized CPE, network
equipment and CPE manufacturers, and service
providers. The Access Board lists five criteria for
determining compatibility, subject to applicability: 



# External access to all information and control
mechanisms; 



# Connection point for external audio processing
devices; 



# Compatibility of controls with prosthetics; 



# TTY connectability; and 



# TTY signal compatibility. 



My response: 



WT Docket No. 96- 198 Comments of RH Vickery
June 30, 1998 Page 17 



Since I am a hard of hearing person, I am mostly
concerned with features that affect hard of hearing
people. I have a concern with the ordering or
grouping features into accessibility requirements
and compatibility requirements in that the order
appears to be backwards. I commented on this in
my comment titled $ All CPE Should Have an
Output Connector # . To explain my concern more,
suppose I am a person with a prosthetic. My
prosthetic will not operate such things as touch
screens, which a CPE may have. 



$ Compatibility of controls with prosthetics # is
listed as a compatibility requirement, but it is not
listed anywhere else. 



Since the Access Board and the FCC want all CPE
to meet the requirements of accessibility, and if all
CPE do, in fact, meet those requirements, then the
obvious conclusion as things now stand, is that none
of the five compatibility requirements listed above
will be requirements. I, as a person with a
prosthetic, will not be able to find any CPE that is
operable with my prosthetic. (Unless, of course, I
get one special made, or if a CPE manufacturer
finds a niche that it voluntarily wants to fill in one
of its products.) 



My solution to this problem, and it may take an
amendment to the Act to accomplish this, is to
require all CPE to meet certain basic compatibility
requirements, if readily achievable. That would be
the starting point for all CPE. In addition to meeting
basic compatibility requirements, CPE would be
expected to meet accessibility requirements, if
readily achievable. 



I would hope that it will not take an amendment to
fix this problem, but rather the Access Board and
the FCC can meet with members of Congress to
explain this problem and ask, $ what did you really
mean? #