Randy Sergeant 7514 E. Taylor 
Scottsdale, AZ 85257 


June 26, 1998 
Federal Communications Commission 
Off-ice of the Secretary, 
1919 M Street, NW, Room 222 
Washington, DC. 20554 


REF: Proposed Rules, Enforcement: Section 255 of Telecom Act 

Dear Sir: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the referenced action. I encourage the FCC, in 
its final rules, to adopt the Access Board Guidelines for manufacturers, to incorporate the 
ADA definition of "readily achievable" as opposed to "cost recovery" and to support a 
complaint process that imposes no filing fees or time limits, allows complaints to be filed in 
alternative formats and requires accessible company contact points. 

Section 255 requires telecommunications manufacturers and service providers to make their 
products and services accessible to people with disabilities. I believe that certain proposed 
rules, if adopted in their present form, would have a negative impact on accessibility. Since 
the final rules will have a tremendous impact on the accessibility of telephone equipment and 
services for many years to come, I urge the Commission to consider the implications of the 
rules from a disabled consumer perspective. 

As a deaf person, I constantly face obstacles and barriers when information is available only in 
auditory format. Telecommunications access is extremely important to me in both my private 
and professional activities. As such, it is important to me, personally, as well as for millions 
of other Americans with disabilities, that the rules adopted by the FCC are strong enough and 
enforceable so as to truly make a difference in accessibility of telecommunications services. 

Congress, in its wisdom, gave to the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (Access Board) the authority to write accessibility guidelines for telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers. Last year, the Access Board issued guidelines which, among other 
things, suggest ways for manufacturers to achieve access in the design of their products and 
require product information and instructions to be accessible to people with disabilities. It is 
not clear, from my review of the proposed rules, whether the FCC intends to incorporate these 
guidelines in the final rules. Such guidelines are imperative in that they provide explicit 
guidance to manufacturers on their obligation to make their products accessible. 

Congress also adopted the "readily achievable" concept from the American's with Disabilities 
Act in Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act in requiring telecommunications providers 
and manufacturers to provide access where it is readily achievable to do so. In the proposed 
rules, the Commission has defined readily achievable in a manner that is very different from 
that of the ADA. For example, the proposed rules allow companies to consider cost recovery 
and marketability into the equation. These factors may allow a company to evade its access 
obligations on that basis that the market for certain accessible products may be smaller. This 
is contrary to the intent and purpose of Section 255, which was enacted precisely because the 
market forces alone were not enough to ensure access. Even today, for example, I do not have 
direct access to many telecommunications services, including voice mail, interactive systems, 
etc. I urge the Commission to adopt the definition of "readily achievable" as defined in the ADA,
that being balancing of the costs of providing access with the overall financial resources of the
company. 

From my review of the proposed rules, such "enhanced services" as voice mail, interactive 
voice response systems (which incorporate telephone or voice prompts), and audiotext 
informationare not considered. Many of these services are commonplace, yet they remain 
inaccessible to people who, like myself, are deaf or who are hard of hearing. I do not believe 
that Congress intended to exclude these features from the scope of Section 255 since its whole 
purpose was to expand telecommunications access. 

Congress gave enforcement authority of Section 255 to the FCC through a complaint process. 
I support the proposed rules imposing no filing fees for both informal and formal complaints 
with the FCC against manufacturers or service providers, no time limit for filing complaints, 
and no restrictions on the means or media by which complaints may be filed. I also support 
requiring manufacturers and service providers to establish contact points in their companies 
that are accessible to consumers with disabilities. 


Sincerely, 


Randy Sergeant