WASHINGTON-Admitting the disabilities provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are arcane, but saying the “impact is huge,” the Federal Communications Commission this week is expected to adopt rules allowing the disabled community to participate in the telecommunications-dominant world.
The FCC long has been expected to release the rules at this week’s open meeting, so last week’s official announcement was no surprise. In preparation for the meeting, the FCC briefed reporters on the importance of the item. None of the staffers agreed to be identified but many of their themes were part of a speech given June 30 by Dale Hatfield, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology.
Speaking to the Association of Access Engineering Specialists Disabilities Access Technical Development Workshop in Long Beach, Calif., Hatfield said, “We envision a software-driven network-a network of networks really-that allows us to communicate any time, any place and in any mode or combination of modes. The potential is there for us to use this increased functionality and flexibility to bring the benefits of the telecommunications revolution to all Americans, including those who traditionally have faced accessibility barriers to telecommunications products and services.”
The disabilities provisions-known as Section 255-is one of a handful of outstanding issues the FCC has yet to implement since the telecom act passed in 1996. It has been a top priority of FCC Chairman William Kennard. Indeed, in his speech, Hatfield noted Kennard’s “commitment to seeing that all people receive the benefits of the wonderful technological revolution that is occurring in the telecommunications field.”
It has taken many steps to get these rules ready for deployment. Following passage of the telecom act, the United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Board-known as the access board-developed guidelines for manufacturing equipment. The FCC then released a notice of inquiry and a notice of proposed rule making. More than 200 comments were received on the NPRM alone, said Hatfield.
The FCC staff said a lot of these comments came from people with disabilities. “It has been a very moving record from the disabilities community,” said one staff person.
Not to be seen favoring the disabled community, another staffer quickly piped up that “what also comes through in the comments is the industry’s commitment. These are customers. This is not lost on them,” the other staffer said.
Mary McDermott of the Personal Communications Industry Association agreed, even noting she had attended meetings last week with the disabilities community. An ex parte letter indicates that representatives of the Alliance for Public Technology, the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, the American Foundation for the Blind and the World Institute on Disability attended the meetings, along with PCIA and the Communications Workers of America.
While telecommunications carriers and service providers are used to FCC regulation, telecom equipment manufacturers are not. “This is a huge new area. No one is sure how this will work,” said one staffer. Grant Seiffert, vice president for government relations for the Telecommunications Industry Association, agreed that manufacturers are concerned. “We have spent a lot of time at the FCC trying to understand where the FCC is going on enforcement … There is a lot of uncertainty … it makes us nervous,” said Seiffert.
One theme found in both Hatfield’s speech and the FCC briefing is that design engineers need to think about accessibility issues from the beginning and not wait until a specific disabilities community complains.
“Access must be planned and implemented on the same schedule as general products. That is, these powerful new platforms must be designed, developed and fabricated at the outset to be accessible to-and usable by-individuals with disabilities. To do otherwise means that people with disabilities will become more isolated rather than empowered by these advances … we no longer have the luxury of considering accessibility issues after the product is designed, fabricated and deployed … it must be designed in at the `get-go,’ ” he said.
A big issue is the complaint process. TIA previously has said it wants explicit language stating the complaints for noncompliance of this portion of the telecom act will be handled like other complaints. This would make a strong distinction between formal and informal complaints. There needs to “truly be a difference between the informal and formal complaint process. We are concerned about the FCC intervening,” Seiffert said.
Along these lines, the FCC seems to be looking at how complaints were handled during implementation of the ADA. In that scenario, complaints were evaluated based on individual facts. An example used in the briefing is whether an individual doctor in rural America would be under the same requirement to hire a sign language interpreter as a doctor in a large urban hospital where those resources are more readily available.
