FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




In the Matter of

Implementation of Section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996        

WT Dkt. No.96-198


Reply Comments Of
The World Institute on Disability
Submitted August 14, 1998


1.  Scope of Covered Services

In light of the many comments submitted on the Commission's
proposal to cover only "basic" and "adjunct-to-basic"
services, the World Institute on Disability feels it
necessary to reiterate its position that  this question must
be considered in the broader context of federal disability
policy. If Congress had wanted to modify existing law that
applies to access to basic services for people with
disabilities, it would have amended Title IV of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 255 defines new
policy, and in doing so, recognizes a level of access to
telecommunications technology that goes beyond what is
stated in the ADA. We believe that the Commission's
rulemaking process must acknowledge this and that the
services covered under Section 255 must include enhanced
services.

Although the Commission has made a distinction between
"basic," "adjunct-to-basic," and "enhanced" services, these
somewhat arbitrary classifications blur when considered from
the perspective of disability access. What constitutes an
"enhanced" service for a customer without a disability may
indeed be a "basic" service for someone with a disability.
Consider the use of the fax machine to accomplish "basic"
communications when used by people who are deaf, hard of
hearing, or those with speech disabilities.  While the fax
machine was not originally intended as a basic form of
communication, enterprising consumers with disabilities have
applied it to meet their basic communications needs. The
Commission's narrow definition of "basic" services would
clearly eliminate from consideration under Section 255 a
whole host of current and future technologies that may well
play a role in "basic" communications for end users with
disabilities. Many of these technologies provide the
essential  link for people with disabilities to participate
in work, education and recreation.  WID finds it hard to
believe that the Commission would interpret Section 255 so
narrowly that the end result would be to exclude many of the
very consumers Section 255 was enacted to benefit.



2.  Product by Product vs. Product Line

Many commenters have recommended that the Commission
consider a "product line" approach to compliance with
Section 255 as opposed to a "product by product" approach.
WID strenuously disagrees with this recommendation. WID
believes the "product line"  proposal would result in
minimal accessibility to the broad range of
telecommunications products and services, and only in
exceptional circumstances.

A "product line" approach negates the very underpinning of
Section 255 -- that is to stimulate product development from
the perspective of universal design.  By singling out one
model of a technology from a product line -- for example,
one pager, one wireless telephone or one answering device --
that will offer particular accessibility features,
manufacturers are concentrating their access efforts on the
exceptional piece of technology as opposed to integrating
their access efforts into broad product development design.
Under this scenario, the manufacturers themselves are likely
to miss opportunities to enhance the usability of their
products across the board by integrating access features
broadly into their products.

Furthermore, in pursuing a "product line" approach,
manufacturers will  essentially be making a choice for their
customers with disabilities about which product is right for
them. Certainly, manufacturers would not presume to do this
for the general consumer market, in fact they understand all
too well that the key to business growth is to offer more
choices, greater options and a wider range of services.
That is the intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as
well.  WID has difficulty understanding why, in a piece of
legislation which aims at stimulating competition and
encouraging the development of new products and services,
the Commission would allow sections of that legislation to
limit choice of products and services for customers with
disabilities.


3.  Readily Achievable Determinations

WID is pleased to see that many commenters largely agreed
that "Readily Achievable" as defined in the Americans with
Disabilities Act should prevail in this rulemaking.
However, there seems to be some confusion on the issue
broached by the Commission regarding "cost recovery." WID
unequivocally believes that under no circumstances should
the concept of "cost recovery" be introduced into the
definition of readily achievable.  There is no precedent for
doing so in the ADA and it is not appropriate to introduce
this concept under Section 255.

Reiterating our earlier comments, the need for Section 255
grew from the recognition that a reliance on free market
incentives alone is not sufficient to result in
accessibility of telecommunications. If manufacturers are
exempted from compliance with Section 255 by arguing that
they cannot recover their costs for providing access, then
Section 255 will accomplish precious little in terms of
creating a strong incentive for manufacturers to pursue
accessibility.
Furthermore, WID believes that developing a workable cost
model for this proposal would be extremely difficult to do.


4.  Accessibility Analysis

Many commenters have said that the accessibility analysis
provisions of Section 255 are too burdensome.  WID
disagrees.  We believe that the accessibility analysis of
products can be easily streamlined into other product
evaluation protocols and integrated into standard
manufacturing procedure.

Conducting an accessibility analysis provides multiple
benefits, not the least being a solid document that the
manufacturer can refer to as evidence of having tried to
achieve access, especially in cases where disability access
was not "readily achievable."  Without some kind of
analytical instrument, consumers are left with only the
manufacturers word that they tried and were unsuccessful in
pursuing access.  If, as many commenters have suggested, the
first line of dispute reconciliation under Section 255
should happen directly between the consumer and the
manufacturer, then consumers will need to have solid
documentation that the manufacturer made a good faith effort
to pursue accessibility. And, for the Commission to
successfully determine and decide complaints brought under
Section 255, it will need sufficient evidence of a
manufacturers efforts toward accessibility. An accessibility
analysis would be part of the documentation to provide that
proof.

5.  Conclusion

WID wishes to reiterate our view that the Commission should
adopt the guidelines proposed by the U.S. Access Board.
These guidelines were developed on a consensus basis with
input from consumers, researchers, industry representatives
and disability advocacy organizations.  The effort to reach
consensus among the TAAC representatives was a  long and
difficult  process, but ultimately a successful one. The
TAAC worked through and resolved many contentious issues
regarding how to implement Section 255.  WID therefore
encourages the FCC to take advantage of the work that has
already been done by the TAAC and adopt the guidelines that
it developed.

WID thanks the Commission for this opportunity to submit
reply  comments in this rulemaking procedure.  We are
gratified by the Commission's decision to move forward on
this issue.  We agree with the assessment of Chairman
Kennard that Section 255 is the most important legislation
for people with disabilities since the passage of the
Americans With Disabilities Act. We urge the Commission to
vigorously enforce Section 255 so that the goals of the
legislation as originally intended by Congress can be
pursued on behalf of all people with disabilities.


                         Respectfully Submitted



                         Betsy Bayha
                         Director, Technology Policy
                         World Institute on Disability