WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission last week rejected a telecommunications industry proposal to use a product-line approach to make telecom products accessible to the estimated 54 million Americans with disabilities.
The FCC “certainly rejected the product-line approach by name, but what they seem to be saying is that they have granted enough flexibility that if there is a feature that is too cumbersome or expensive,” then it can be put in separate products, said Mary McDermott, senior vice president and chief of staff for government relations, Personal Communications Industry Association.
For its part, the FCC said companies are legally obligated to have all products be accessible.
“Legally, the obligation falls on each product and each service, but we believe we have provided the flexibility through our analysis,” said Ellen Blackler of the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau. Companies have to do the analysis and if a feature is not readily achievable, they don’t have to include it, she added.
The FCC’s action represents the final step in implementing Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires telecom manufacturers and carriers to make equipment and services accessible to disabled people, with the caveat that doing so is readily achievable.
Telecom manufacturers are concerned about the FCC’s decision to choose the product-by-product approach rather than the product-line approach because they believe it will lead to more reporting requirements and less innovation.
The rules require “you to defend every design decision you make. I don’t know how you do that,” said Al Lucas, vice president and director of spectrum and standards strategic planning for Motorola Inc.
The FCC’s threshold of what is readily achievable will come into play much sooner with a product-by-product approach because manufacturers could decide that a specific feature is not readily achievable earlier, said Grant Seiffert, TIA vice president for government relations.
McDermott said she was not surprised the FCC will use the same process used to investigate Section 255 noncompliance reports as it used to investigate the telecom industry generally. She also said PCIA doesn’t “want the FCC staff to get involved in a heavy-handed way, but they can help when consumers don’t known where to complain.”
The FCC also said voice mail and interactive menus must be made accessible to disabled people.
The two Republican FCC commissioners, Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Michael Powell, while favoring the overall decision, did not agree with including these features under the rules.
Furchtgott-Roth, a former congressional staffer, gave a history lesson on the drafting of Section 255, including the efforts of three senators who have been impacted personally by disabilities: Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who talked of his blind father; Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who lost his arm in World War II; and former Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kansas), who also was disabled in World War II.
“Based on concepts of ancillary jurisdiction … taken to their logical conclusions means we never needed Section 255. We never needed Sen. Stevens or Sen. Inouye or Sen. Dole to write Section 255 as they did,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
Powell said he was looking for another legal basis other than the FCC’s ancillary jurisdiction favored by the three Democratic members of the commission, but did not elaborate on what that basis might be.
There has been some controversy about including voice mail under the umbrella of covered services since it traditionally has been considered an information service and IS is a separate and distinct category from telecom services or equipment.
Powell said he is committed to the policy of including voice mail and interactive menus but not the way the FCC’s Democratic majority got there.
