WASHINGTON-With the wireless industry and hearing impaired community unable to agree on long-term solutions for hearing-aid compatibility and interference problems after more than a year of negotiations, federal regulators could be forced to intervene as part of a congressional mandate to enforce the disability access requirements of the 1996 telecom act.
Talks between the two groups resumed recently, but fundamental differences still remain. Consumer advocates, representing the 5 million hearing aid users, argue compatibility should be built into wireless phones from the start.
The wireless industry, pointing to various external devices as a short-term fix, opposes being told by government how and when mobile phone-hearing aid compatibility should come about.
“The industry doesn’t want a timeline; that’s the bottom line,” said Brenda Battat, deputy executive director of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People.
Commenting on proposed Federal Communications Commission implementation of the telecom act, she stated, “Leaving it to market forces will not work and has never worked up to now in responding to the need for disability access.”
Mark Golden, senior vice president of the Personal Communications Industry Association, said “consumers, not industry or government, are best able to decide what meets their needs. It is industry’s role to listen, and it makes good business sense.”
Last May, separate reports from industry and the hearing aid community outlining each group’s differences were filed with the FCC.
Meanwhile, the FCC has yet to act on a June 1995 petition requesting that mobile telephones be hearing-aid compatible. Under current rules, wireline phones must be configured to enable persons with hearing aids to communicate. There is no such requirement regarding wireless phones.
“We’re very pleased about our progress on this issue and the cooperation among the wireless industry, the hearing aid industry and the people with hearing loss,” said Tim Ayers, spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.
“The research and standards-setting process has been put on a fast track and we anticipate having significant results by this spring,” added Ayers. “In the meantime, the wireless industry is letting customers know about the options that are available for people with hearing loss, and at the end of the process we anticipate that additional solutions will be found to address interference and accessibility issues.”
FCC officials, who are monitoring negotiations, have indicated previously that they will intercede if there is a prolonged stalemate.
Under the 1996 telecom reform bill, which President Clinton signed into law one year ago Feb. 8, telecommunications manufacturers and carriers must ensure that equipment and services are available and accessible to persons with disabilities provided that to do so is “readily achievable.”
Battles between industry and disabled individuals will likely be about the “readily achievable” caveat.
The FCC is focusing on implementing telecom act provisions regarding disability access to telecommunications services. Equipment compatibility issues are being handled by the congressionally chartered Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. The board is required to have guidelines in place by this summer.
In its report to the board last month, an industry-consumer advisory group recommended eight principles be followed in crafting disability access guidelines for telecom equipment:
1. The guidelines must be specific enough that one can determine when they have been followed.
2. The guidelines must be sufficiently flexible to give manufacturers the freedom to innovate.
3. Products should be made accessible and usable to people with as wide a range of abilities or disabilities as is readily achievable.
4. Whenever it is not readily achievable to make a product accessible, the manufacturer or provider of that product shall ensure that the product is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.
5. The committee understands that it may not be readily achievable to make every type of product accessible for every type of disability using present technology. Future technologies may result in accessibility where it is not currently readily achievable.
6. Because telecommunications technology is changing so rapidly, it is expected that the guidelines will need to be updated on a regular basis.
7. Guidelines must reflect the fact that computer, telephone, information, and tele-transaction systems may converge such that single devices may simultaneously provide all of these functions.
8. Guidelines should address process, performance, and compliance and coordination issues.
