Philips Consumer Communications 

A Lucent Technologies and Philips Electronics venture 

Gerard G. Nelson 

Government Affairs Director BY FEDERKL EXPRESS Ms. Magalie Roman Salas
secretary Federal Communications Commission 1919 “MI” Street N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20554 

Dear Ms. Salas: Enclosed are an original and ten copies of the Comments of
Philips Consumer Communications LP in response to the Commission ‘s Notice
of Proposed 

Rulemaking W. T. Docket No. 96- 198, FCC 98- 55 (released April 20, 1998), 

Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access
to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer
Premises Eqt@ ment. 

Also enclosed is a computer disk, with copies of the document in five
different formats: Microsoft Word 6.0 for Windows, Rich Text Format, Text
Only, WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, and WordPerfect for Windows. 

Kindly stamp one of the ten copies indicating that it has been received by
the Commission and return it in the enclosed self addressed, stamped
envelope. 

Very truly yours, , 

Philips Consumer Communications L. P Room D320 535 Mountain Avenue Murray
Hill, NJ 07974 U. S. A Tel: I (908) 673 3052 Fax: I (908) 673 3062 

Before the Federal Communications Commission  Washington, D. C.

In the Matter of

Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [1] 

Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and
Customer Premises Equipment ) By Persons with Disabilities ) 

WT Docket 96- 198 COMMENTS OF PHILIPS CONSUMER COMMUNICATONS LP 

Gerard G. Nelson Government AfFairs Director Philips Consumer Communications
LP 535 Mountain Avenue Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 

Telephone: 908- 673- 3052 Dated: June 30, 1998 

Table of Contents Executive Summary In resolving complaints under Section
255, the Commission should dismiss any complaints upon a manufacturer’s
demonstration that another of the manufacturer’s products provides the
desired accessibility features. 

In resolving complaints under Section 255, the Commission should recognize
that manufacturers are obligated to incorporate fatures enhancing the
accessibility of their equipment only to the extent that it is “readily
achievable” to do so. 

The Commission should implement Section 255 as clearly intended by Congress
and apply it to telecommunications services, telecommunications equipment,
and customer premises equipment. 

The Commission should not adopt its proposed definition of the term
“accessible to and usable by” and adopt, instead, a term that reflects the
practical impossibility of a universally accessible product. 

The Commission should not adopt its proposed “fast track” process for
adjudicating complaints under Section 255 and adopt, instead, a process that
provides adequate time to resolve access problems. 

The Commission should establish a reasonable standing requirement for
complaints under Section 255. 

The Commission should fully protect the confidentially of confidential or
proprietary information provided by a manufacturer in response to a
complaint. 

Conclusion

Executive Summary In its Comments, Philips Consumer Communications LP (“
PCC”) argues that the Commission should dismiss Section 255 complaints upon
a manufacturer’s demonstration that one of the manufacturer’s products
provided the desired accessibility features, the lack of which in another
one of the manufacturer’s products prompted the complaint. Providing such a
product clearly accomplishes the goal of Section 255, ensuring that
accessible products are available to individuals with disabilities. In
addition to considering the questions “Is the feature feasible?,” “What
would be the expense of providing the feature?,” and “Given its expense, is
the feature practical?” when evaluating whether an action to enhance
accessibility is readily achievable, the Commission also should consider
whether the action would involve delays in introducing new products into the
marketplace and whether the action would involve an alteration of an
essential or fundamental characteristic of the product. The Commission
should not extend the obligations of Section 255 to providers of information
services and manufacturers of related equipment because such an extension
would be inconsistent with the plain language of Section 255 which limits
such obligations to providers of telecommunications services and manufarers
of telecommunications equipment and CPE. The five day response period
contemplated by the Commission’s “fast track” complaint process is far too
short to provide a meaningful opportunity to resolve complaints about the
accessibility of products. Rather than implement its proposed fast track
process, the Commission should refer consumers with a complaint about the
accessibility of a product to the manufacturer and provide a period of sixty
days for the manufacturer to resolve the consumer’s accessibility issue. A
reasonable standing requirement for Section 255 complaints -- that the
complaint be filed by or on behalf of an individual with a disability --
would facilitate the orderly resolution of Section 255 complaints;
therefore, such a standing requirement should be adopted by the Commission.
PCC proposes that the Commission require that any complaints lodged under
Section 255 be filed by, or on behalf of, an individual with a disability.
And, finally, the Commission should adopt measures to fully protect a
manufacturer’s confidential business information that is submitted in
response to a Section 255 complaint by adopting procedural rules that
provide a manufacturer with a presumption that material identified as
“business confidential” information when it is submitted to the Commission
will be treated as such. 

PwpsConaunercommunications iv June 30,1998 

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 96- 198

COMMENTS OF PHILIPS CONSUMER COMMUNICATONS LP 

Pursuant to Section 1.415 of the Commission’s Rules, Philips Consumer
Communications LP (“ PCC”) respectfully submits the following Comments in
response to the Notice of Propsed Rulemaking, FCC 98- 55, released April 20,
1998 ( ‘NPRM”), seetig comment on issues related to the implementation of
Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“ 1996 Act”) regarding
the accessibility of telecommunications services, telecommunications
equipment, and customer premises equipment to persons with disabilities. PCC
is a joint venture of Lucent Technologies Inc., formerly AT&T Corp.[2]
systems and technology business, and Philips Electronics N. V. PCC
manufactures a broad array of wireline and wireless customer premises
equipment (“ CPE”) and is a major supplier of such equipment in the United
States, Lucent Technologies’ Consumer Products operating unit, which Lucent
contributed to the joint venture with Philips Electronics, participated in
various proceediigs before the Commission regarding the accessibility of
customer premises equipment products for individuals with disabilities
affecting hearing. In addition, the Lucent Consumer Products operating unit
participated actively in the work of the Telecommunications Access Advisory
Committee (“ TAAC”), established by the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (“ Access Board”) for the purpose of making
recommendations regarding accessibility guidelines for telecommunications
equipment and customer premises equipment. [3]

As it affects manufacturers, Section 255( b) of the 1996 Act requires
manufacturers of telecommunications and customer premises equipment to
“ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily
achievable.” If such accessibility is not readily achievable, mam& cturers
must ensure that the equipment is compatible with “existing peripheral
&vices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by
individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.” The
term “readily achievable” has the meaning given to it by Section 301( 9) of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ ADA”), 42 U. S. C. 12181( 9).
Section 255( e) f$ ther requires the Access Board, in conjunction with the
Commission, to develop guidelines for equipment accessibility (“
Accessibility Guidelines”) within 18 months of enactment. Section 255( f) of
the 1996 Act vests with the Commission “exclusive jurisdiction” with respect
to complaints under Section 255. PCC’s Comments on the issues raised by the
Commission in its NHW follow. 

[missing text] under Section 255. the Commission should of the
manufacturer’s Droducts orovides the desired . . . accessabdnv features. The
Commission’s adjudication of complaints about the accessibility of a product
should not subject a manufacturer to the expense of further processing of
the complaint -- for example, by requiring the manufacturer to demonstrate
that providing the desired accessibility feature was not readily achievable
-- once the manufacturer has demonstrated that another of the manufacturer’s
products with substantially similar features, functions, and prices provides
the accessibility feature that the complaint alleges is lacking and the
manufacturer has made arrangements foa the consumer to purchase a product
that provides the required accessibility features. 

Several factors make this approach appropriate. First, as the Commission
recog& ed in its discussion of “feasibility,” it is often not possible to
design individual products that incorporate solutions to a wide variety of
barriers. NORM, para. 101. Second, as they compete in the hotly contested
marketplace for CPE, manufacturers differentiate their products by offering
numerous products with different combinations of product features -- many of
which serve to enhance the accessibility of products to individuals with
disabilities. For example, speakerphones, often used by individuals with
motor impairments, are offered as one of several features on many, but not
all, wireline telephones. Third, consumers, including individuals with
disabilities, have the ability to choose among various manufILcfurers’
offerings in the competitive marketplace. And, fourth, the availability of a
product of a given manufacturer with a specific accessibility feature at any
given retail outlet is subject to product- carrying decisions by
unaffiliated, independent retail operators who may, for example, choose to
carry one product with a speakerphone from one manufacturer and another
product without a speakerphone from another manufacturer. 

Given these factors, and the fact that the goal of Section 255 is to meet
the accessibility needs of individuals with disabilities, the ability of a
manufacturer to provide to a consumer a product that provides both the
desired accessibility and substantially comparable features and prices
should end a complaint. 

. comnlants under Section 255. the Commission should at mantiacturers are
obligated to incorporate features he &bilitv of their equipment only to the
extent that it is readilv achievable” to do so. 

Section 255( a) (2) incorporates by reference the term “readily achievable”
Born the ADA where it is defined as “easily accomplishable and able to be
carried out without much di& ulty or expense.” 42 U. S. C. 12181( g). The
Commission proposes adopting the statutory definition of the term “readily
achievable” and analyzing whether an action is readily achievable by
considering three questions: (1) Is the feature feasible? (2) What would be
the expense of providing the feature? and (3) Given its expense, is the
feature practical? W& j, at para. 100. In view of its origins, it is
appropriate to look for guidance about the meaning of the term “readily
achievable” in the context in which it is used in the ADA. There, the term
“readily achievable” is used to describe the limits on the obligation of
operators of public accommodations to remove architectural and
communications barriers that are structural in nature. Barrier removal is
limited to those circumstances where it can be accomplished “easily and
without much difficulty or expense.” The term addresses “the degree of ease
or difficulty that the business operator would experience in removing a
barrier. . . .” House Committee on Energy and Commerce, H. Rep. No. 485,
Part 4, 1Olst Cong., 2d Sess. (1990), at pp. 56- 57 (“ Commerce Report”).
Examples of the types of actions that would be considered readily achievable
include “the addition of grab bars, the simple ramping of a few steps, the
lowering of telephones, the addition of raised letter and Braille markings
on elevator control lights, and similar modest adjustments.” House Committee
on Education and Labor, H. Rep. No. 485, Part 2, IOlst Cong., 2d Sess.
(1990), at p. 110. Thus, the ADA requires only that an operator of a public
accommodation take relatively simple, inexpensive actions that would
increase the accessibility of the public accommodation, even if the end
result is something short of till accessibility. The DOJ regulations
implementing the provisions of Title III of the ADA that require the removal
of architectural barriers in existing facilities, where readily achievable,
provide numerous examples of steps to remove barriers. 28 C. F. R. 36.304
(a) and (b). None of these examples are steps which would constitute more
than a small fraction of the operating expenses of the public accommodation.
Moreover, the DOJ, when it urges in its Regulations that operators of public
accommodations follow its recommended priorities for barrier removal,
clearly recognizes that all barriers may not be removed at once. 28 C. F. R.
36.304( c). 

Applying this definition and guidance regarding the term “readily
achievable” from the ADA to manufacturers of telecommunications and customer
premises equipment would require manufacturers to design, develop, and
fabricate equipment incorporating analogous simple and inexpensive features
that increase the usability of the equipment by individuals with
disabilities. It would be inconsistent with the definition and application
of this term to require manufacturers of telecommunications or customer
premises equipment to incorporate accessibility features if doing so would
add materially to the cost of designing, developing, and manufacturing a
product. The use of highly contrasting colors for numbers or letters and
their background, making buttons as large as practical in view of the size
of the equipment, and making wireline handsets that can be used by
individuals with hearing aids equipped with telecoils are all examples of
accessibility features that clearly would be “readily achievable,” Other
technically feasible features -- voice recognition, for example -- would not
be required on simple, low cost products because the degree of diiculty or
expense of providing them currently would exceed the “readily achievable”
threshold. 

In addition, the DOJ regulations implementing the ADA do not require
operators of public accommodations to modifjr their policies, practices, or
procedures where “the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of
the [public accommodation’s] goods, services, facilities. . . .” 28 C. F. R.
36.302. Likewise, telecommunications and customer premises equipment
manufacturers should not be required to add accessibility features if doing
so would alter fundamentally the nature of the equipment. For example, a 
manufacturer of a very small communications device intended to meet a market
need for such small devices would not be required to incorporate
accessibility features -- such as large control buttons or a large visual
display on a wrist- watch sized paging device - which would require
enlarging the size of the device, thereby altering the fundamental
characteristic of “smallness”. Similarly, manufacturers ought not be
required to incorporate accessibility features that would materially limit
the mass market appeal -- and hence the volume of sales -- of a product in
the general marketplace. Incorporating accessibility features that would so
limit the appeal of a product would have the effect of changing a mass
market product into an assistive device of limited application -- thus
altering a fbndamental characteristic of the product. 

PCC believes that the Commission’s three questions are an appropriate
starting place for an analysis of whether, in a particular circumstance and
with respect to a particular product, an action to enhance accessibility is
readily achievable. However, PCC also believes that the Commission should
explicitly recognize that, in addition to feasibility and expense, an action
to enhance accessibility should be assessed by considering whether
incorporating an accessibility feature would add time to the product
development process, thus delaying the introduction of the product into the
marketplace, whether it would involve altering a fundamental or essential
characteristic of a product, or whether it would limit the usefulness of the
product to its target market or its expected volume of sales. Requiring a
manufacturer to take actions having these effects would clearly be
inconsistent with the limitation on manufacturers’ obligation to do that
which is readily achievable - that which is accomplished easily and without
much difficulty or expense. 

. . . The Co- n should m& m1n Con& ress and epolv it to telecommunications
services, . mcations eouiument and customer nrernises eouioment. 

The Commission seeks comments on whether, given the “broad objectives” of
Section 255, Congress might have intended Section 255 to apply to a “broader
range of services” than telecommunications services and, by implication, a
broader range of equipment as well. ZVPRM para. 42. However the objectives
the Congress sought to accomplish with Section 255 are described, the fact
is that the Congress used several specific terms in Section 255 -- terms
that are defined in the 1996 Act -- to establish the scope of service
provider and manufacturer obligations under Section 255. Specifically, this
Section applies to manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and
customer premises equipment and to providers of telecommunications services.
Each of these terms, which define the responsibilities of manufacturers and
service providers to provide equipment and services that are accessible, are
defined in the Act. In addition, the 1996 Act also defined the term
“information service,” which was not included in the language of section
255. 47 U. S. C. A. Section 153 (14), (20), (43) (45), and (46) and 47 U. S.
C. A. 255. It would be inconsistent with the very plain language of the
statute for the Commission to conclude that the Congress intended that a
broader array of services be covered by the obligations of Section 255. If
the Congress had intended that Section 255 apply to a broader array of
services, it would have written Section 255 differently than it did. 

. . Commrssron shouId not adopt _ _ . . its DroDosed defimtron of the “ t- m
tm23s ,, ible to and usable bv and adoDt. instead. a term that reflects the
practical imDossibilitv of a universallv accessible Droduct Although Section
255 uses the term “accessible to and usable by,” it does not provide or
incorporate a specific definition. 47 U. S. C. A. Section 255. In its
Accessibility Guidelines, the Access Board defined equipment accessibility
as equipment which included a list of 18 various input, control, mechanical,
output, display, and control functions. 36 CFR 1193.41,43. The Commission
proposes to adopt these 18 functions as part of its definition of the
statutory term “accessible to and usable by.” [4] NORM, para. 74- 75. PCC is
concerned that this definition, if adopted as proposed, could be construed
as requiring each product to incorporate all 18 functions. If the regulatory
requirement is construed as requiring each product to incorporate all 18
functions, a consumer requiring any one of the 18 functions in order to use
the product could, when finding a product lacking that one needed tin& on,
consider himself or herself entitled to seek a complaint under Section 255
-- even if other products which provided the required function were
available. With the term “accessible to and usable by” defined in terms of
all 18 functions, a manufacturer could be expected to attempt the
practically impossible -- and then expend resources to document that it
could not achieve the impossible. PCC recommends that the Commission adopt a
definition of this term that is consistent with its recognition that: 

. . . the ideal of full accessibility is generally limited by feasibility,
expense, or practicality (individually or in combination), especially in the
case of CPE offerings, where direct physical interaction between user and
equipment is oflen extensive. In the marketplace, providers must decide what
features to include and what features to omit. 

. . Commtsston should not adoot its proposed “fast track” process for
adiudicatina complaints under Section 255 and adopt. instead. a process that
provides adequate time to resolve access problems. 

The Commission proposes a “fast track” process in which complainants would
be “encouraged,” but not required, to first contact the manufacturer to
attempt an informal resolution of the complaint; the Commission promptly
would forward the complaint to the manufacturer whose offering was the
subject of the complaint; the manufacturer would then have 5 business days
to “. . .study the complaint, . . . identify possible accessibility
solutions, and, most importantly, work with the complainant to solve the
access problem if possible,” and provide a written response to the
complaint. In circumstances where “substantial efforts are underway,” the
manufacturer would be permitted to provide an informal progress report and
“request” additional time to continue the problem- solving efforts. NPRM,
paras. 128 8~ 135- 137. 

The five- day period for responding to a complaint is far too short to
permit a meaningful exchange of information about the barrier to
accessibility that presents a problem to the consumer, investigate possible
solutions to the problem, discuss those possible solutions with the
consumer, agree on a solution, and document the resolution for reporting to
the Commission. Although some complaints may be resolved easily with one
phone call, others will require significant time and resources to
investigate adequately. If nothing else, it is not a trivial possibility
that, at any given time, people with information or  expertise necessary to
resolve a complaint will be unavailable due to business travel, vacations,
or illness, or that the complainant may not be available to provide the
information needed for the manufacturer to evaluate the access requirement.
Moreover, given that many manufacturers have facilities with potentially
necessary information and expertise located outside of the United States, a
good portion of the allowed five- day period could be consumed simply by the
complexities of communicating with people on the other side of the world --
and, more significantly, on the “other side of the clock.” 

PCC believes that the Commission should encourage the prompt, informal
resolution of complaints about the accessibility or usability of a product
by individuals with disabilities and that it would be most productive for
all parties if each complaint or inquiry resulted in an exchange of
information about an unmet need for the removal of a barrier to
accessibility of a product. PCC believes that, in many cases, an initial
complaint is, in reality, an inquiry from a consumer about how to obtain a
product that meets the consumer’s very specific, individual need, and
expects that many such inquiries can be resolved expeditiously by providing
the consumer information about products that may meet the consumer’s needs.
The Commission’s “fast track” complaint process would turn many of these
inquiries into complaints, unnecessarily involve the Commission in the
process, and cause manufacturers to expend their resources in providing
written reports and requests for extensions of time to the Commission. 

PCC proposes that, instead of its “fast track” process, the Commission adopt
a process for adjudicating complaints in which the Commission initially
refers all Section 255 complaints to the manufacturer, provided that the
manufacturer has established a point of contact for inquiries about the
accessibility of its products and has provided that contact information to
the Commission. This would permit the manufacturer and the consumer to
engage in a mutual problem- solving discussion unburdened by what would, in
virtuahy all events, be an impossible five day deadline. Under PCC’s
proposal, the Commission would not initiate its own complaint process unless
the consumer and manufacturer had been unable to reach a satisfactory
solution to the access problem within a period of sixty days. Obviously, if
the consumer believes that progress is being made toward resolving the
problem, the consumer could elect not to proceed any further toward filing a
Section 255 complaint with the Commission. If the consumer’s problem remains
unresolved after sixty days, the consumer would be permitted to file a
Section 255 complaint with the Commission using, first, the Commission’s
existing informal complaint process and proceeding, if circumstances
warrant, to a formal complaint. 

. . Commtsslon shouId establish a reasonable standing requirement for
complaints under Section 255. 

The Commission proposes not to impose a standing requirement for complaints
under Section 255 “whether by virtue of being a person with a disability,
being a customer of the entity that is the subject of the complaint, or
otherwise.” The Commission explains that the absence of a standing
requirement serves the purposes of the statute by “not restricting
complaints about accessibility problems” and avoids “burdening the complaint
process with disputes relating to standing” NORM, para. 148. PCC disagrees
with the premise that a reasonable standing requirement would place an
inappropriate burden on the complaint process. Rather, PCC believes that the
absence of a standing requirement will impede the orderly resolution of
Section 255 complaints and, therefore, urges the Commission to impose a
reasonable standing requirement. 

It is difficult to imagine a valid complaint about the accessibility or
usability of a product that does not relate to the circumstances of a
specific individual with a specific type and degree of disability seeking to
use a specific product and facing a specific barrier to accessibility. The
demonstrations at the Commission’s April 2, 1998 Open Meeting, at which the
NPRM in this docket was adopted, clearly illustrate that accessibility and
usability involve highly individualized accessibility evaluations. None of
the products demonstrated was totally accessible -- in that not one of the
products would have met the needs of all of the demonstrators. Likewise, not
one of the products was totally inaccessible -- in that none of them failed
to meet the needs of at least one of the demonstrators. Transcript
(unpaginated), pages l- 5. A reasonable standing requirement will ensure
that Section 255 complaints are the result of the inability of an individual
with a disability to obtain an accessible or usable product. 

Thus, PCC proposes that the Commission require that any complaints lodged
under Section 255 be filed by, or on behalf of, an individual with a
disability, show that the complaint could not be resolved on an informal
basis directly with the manufacturer within a 60 day period, and state with
particularity the barrier to accessibility associated with the equipment
that is the subject of the complaint. This minimum standing requirement
would not prevent organizations representing the legitimate interests of the
disability community from assisting an individual to file a complaint -- or
even filing the complaint on behalf of an individual. On the other hand,
this modest standing requirement would discourage Section 255 complaints
from being filed by persons with only a pecuniary interest in a dispute with
a manufacturer or by persons who might be tempted to file a complaint as a
means of obtaining information about a manufacturer’s cost structure or
design and development process that would ordinarily not be publicly
available. The Commission’s Section 255 complaint process simply should not
be available to be used for such irrelevant, abusive, and anti- competitive
purposes. 

The Commission should fully protect the confidentiality of . confidentral or
proprietary information provided by a manufacturer in response to a
comnlaint. One of the defenses available to a manufacturer in responding to
a complaint that a product was not accessible to or usable by an individual
with a disability is a demonstration that it was not readily achievable to
provide the accessibility features desired by the complainant. In making
such a demonstration, a manufacturer will, in many instances, have no choice
but to provide proprietary and confidential information related to the
manufacturer’s design, development, and fabrication processes, the cost and
expenses related to the product in question, future product introduction
plans, and other highly proprietary aspects of its product design
activities. PCC goes to great lengths to protect its proprietary and
confidential information from disclosure to its competitors, suppliers, and
dealers because disclosure could place PCC at a significant disadvantage
with respect to outside parties with whom it competes or has contractual
commercial relationships. The adverse consequences of disclosing a
manufacturer’s proprietary and confidential information come about whether
the disclosure is intentional or inadvertent. 

In order to adequately protect manufacturers’ proprietary and confidential
business information from disclosure, the Commission should adopt procedural
rules that provide the manufacturer with a presumption that any material
submitted in response to a Section 255 complaint that the manufacturer
identifies as “business confidential” information will be treated as such by
the Commission. In addition, the Commission should permit disclosure of a
manufacturer’s business confidential information to a complainant or the
complainant’s representative only after executing a non- disclosure
agreement. Moreover, a manufacturer’s business confidential information that
is disclosed pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement should be available for
inspection at the offices of the Commission with a Commission employee in
attendance. In no case should the Commission permit a complainant or
representative to make copies of a manufacturer’s business confidential
information. If a complainant violates a non- disclosure agreement or the
Commission’s rules for the protection of a manufacturer’s business
confidential information by disclosing such information, or if a complainant
refuses to sign a non- disclosure agreement, the Commission should dismiss
the complaint. Finally, the Commission, in its Order adopting rules for the
processing of Section 255 complaints, should make it very clear that, in
addition to dismissal of a complaint, substantial sanctions will be imposed
on any individusll or organization which violates either a non- disclosure
agreement or the Commission’s rules for the protection of manufacturers’
confidential business information. 

Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Commission should dismiss
Section 255 complaints upon a manufacturer’s demonstration that one of the
manufacturer’s products provided the desired accessibility features, the
lack of which prompted the complaint. In considering whether an action to
enhance accessibility is readily achievable, the Commission should consider
feasibility, expense, potential delays in introducing new products into the
marketplace, and whether the action would involve an alteration of an
essential or fundamental characteristic of the product. The Commission
should not extend the obligations of Section 255 to providers of information
services and manufacturers of related equipment because such an extension
would be inconsistent with the plain language of Section 255 which limits
such obligations to providers of telecommunications services and
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE. The five day response
period contemplated by the Commission’s “fast track” complaint process is
far too short to provide a meaningfU opportunity to resolve complaints about
the accessibility of products. Rather than implement its proposed fast track
process, the Commission should refer consumers with a complaint about the
accessibility of a product to the manufacturer and provide a period of sixty
days for the manufacturer to resolve the consumer’s accessibility issue. A
reasonable standing requirement for Section 255 complaints -- that the
complaint be filed by or on behalf of an individual with a disability -
would facilitate the orderly resolution of Section 255 complaints;
therefore, such a standing requirement should be adopted by the Commission.
And, finally, the Commission should adopt measures to fully protect a
manufacturer’s confidential business information that is submitted in
response to a Section 255 complaint. 

Respectfully Submitted, Philips er Co ’ tions LP BY, ML Gerard G. Nelson
Government AfEairs Director Philips Consumer Communications LP 535 Mountain
Avenue Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 

Telephone: 908- 673- 3052 Philips Consumer Communications 17 June 30, 1998 

Endnotes

1 Pub. L. No. KM- 104,110 stat. 56 (19%). 

2 Philip CoANmer communications 1 June 30,1998 

3 Notice, 61 Fed. Reg. 138 13 (Much 28,19%). Specifically, the TAAC was
charged with making [missing word] on the following issues: ( 1) trpes of
equipment to be covered by the guidelines; (2) e c the use of equipment by
persons with disabilities; (3) solutions to such barriers, if known, ca@ go&
d by disability; and (4) the contents of the guidelines. 

4 NPRM, para. 170. A definition of the term “accessible to and usable by”
that reflects the practical reality that universal accessibility and
usability in a single product is impossible would have the further salutary
effect of avoiding unrealistic expectations.