The Possible Effects of Section 255 in Telecommunications: Is Universal Design the Answer?

By Jeffrey Pledger, Bell Atlantic
Jim Barry, NYNEX

Web Posted on: December 12, 1997

A significant percentage of the United States population is disabled or has functional limitations as a result of injury, illness, or aging. This number increases every year as the percentage of the population of older age groups increases. It has been estimated that this number has extended past 48 million people with disabilities, approximately 20% of the total US population. Historically, the telecommunication industry has viewed individuals with disabilities as comprising niche markets. However, a growing trend within the industry is to have products and services that meet the requirements of a broader market, which includes individuals with special needs. Section 255 of the 1934 Communications Act requires that the Architectural Access Board, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), develop guidelines by August 1997, for access to services, telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment (CPE) by individuals with disabilities. The significant portions of Section 255 which are relevant read as follows:

• (b) MANUFACTURING - A manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
• (c) TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES - A provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
• (d) COMPATIBILITY - Whenever the requirements of subsections (b) . . . are not readily achievable, such a manufacturer ...shall ensure that the equipment ..is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.

The provisions of Section 255 reflect Congress's recognition that individuals with disabilities need improved access to telecommunications technology. They place a responsibility on manufacturers to consider accessibility when designing, developing, and fabricating services, telecommunications equipment and CPE. Because of the fast changing pace of technology within telecommunications, it is expected that many accessibility design issues which are not readily achievable today will become readily achievable in the future. Before setting forth basic principles that the consumers and manufacturers need to understand, it is important to note the voluntary progress that the telecommunication industry has made on behalf of individuals with disabilities.

Since the early 1970s, some telecommunication companies have initiated and supported several developments. The application of Baudot technology (both TTY hardware and the protocol) to text terminals for deaf and hard of hearing users, and its dissemination, was a principal focus of their efforts in this area. In addition to general initiatives, some companies provided case-by-case custom support for telecommunications functions for people with disabilities, including special assemblies, such as on-hook/off-hook switches that could be controlled by light touch, puff and sip, and electronic environmental controls. In fact, the Bell System, through its volunteer organization, the Pioneers, published and distributed the first compendium of telecommunications accessibility tools, called the Green Book.

In the 1980s, a number of telecommunication companies participated in state equipment distribution programs for customers with disabilities, initial (pre-mandate) efforts to establish telecommunications relay services (TRS), and research in speech technology that was recognized to offer new input and output opportunities for people who had speech, vision, and physical limitations. As a result of developments in both regulation and technology, industry initiatives have broadened in recent years. Telecommunications and related companies and their industry organizations have implemented or participated in the following:

• a) Full-service (24 x 7) telecommunications relay services
• b) New TRS technologies
• c) Hearing aid compatible handsets
• d) Accessible network services (TTY Directory Assistance, etc.)
• e) Development of accessible wireless technologies (such as voice, vibrating pagers and voice activated handsets)
• f) Testing of wireless handset compatibility and non-interference with hearing aids
• g) Improvements to telecommunications-oriented computing
• h) Inclusion of captioning and audio description capabilities in television and computer-based technology
• i) Educational outreach efforts, both internal and external

Initially many of these efforts were made by individual champions working within companies beyond their formal job responsibilities. More recently, many leading telecommunication companies have made significant progress in moving accessibility from a "philanthropic" or champion driven function to an integrated part of their general business processes. This particular advance has resulted from the recognition within those companies that customers with disabilities are like other customers and should receive the appropriate level of attention and resources in addressing their particular product preferences.

Universal design is an important approach that manufacturers of telecommunications services, CPE and telecommunications equipment should look at in trying to comply with section 255 when designing accessible products. Universal design is the process of designing products so that they are usable by the broadest possible audiences. Products designed in this way are more usable by people with a wider range of abilities without reducing the usability or attractiveness of the product for mass or core groups. With universal design, the primary goal is to ensure maximum flexibility, benefits, and ease of use for as many individuals as possible. Although universal design is just in its infancy, there are several success stories which can illustrate its benefits. For example, curbcuts, originally designed to ensure wheelchair access, are routinely used by parents with strollers, bicyclists, and delivery personnel. Similarly, closed captioning on television programming, created for the benefit of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, is frequently used in airports, restaurants, and other noisy locations where it is difficult to hear the audio portion of the programming. The question to ask is "Why have universal design principles been successful in product design and implementation?" The answer is that these principles take advantage of synergistic opportunities within diverse user groups. It is important to note that there are two distinct perspectives regarding the definition of universal design principles.

Many consumer advocacy groups speak of universal design as meaning "all things to all people" or that "a single product can be made accessible to serve all types of disabilities". Many within the industry identify two basic strategies which are the underlying support for universal design principles. The first strategy is the understanding that not all products can be made accessible for individuals with disabilities. This strategy illustrates industry's understanding that there will be some technological barriers for developing and implementing accessibility into their products and services. The second strategy is the comprehension that no one product or service can be made accessible for all types of disabilities. This second statement has both cost prohibitive factors as well as functional limitations to the useability of the given product/service. The reasoning behind the difference in the definitions is simple. Consumers are concerned with receiving a product/service which they can use at an affordable price, regardless of what the manufacturing cost of the product/service is. Manufacturers are concerned with making their products/services usable by the broadest possible population, but at a cost which still realizes some profitability for the company. In order to understand the commitment of manufacturers in ensuring accessibility to services, telecommunications equipment and CPE, it is necessary to define four important terms: readily achievable, CPE, telecommunications equipment and customer premise user interface (CPUI).

Section 255 defines that "readily achievable" should follow the definition as prescribed by the 1990 Americans with Disability Act. In this regulation, readily achievable is defined for the purposes in removing architectural barriers in public places. The significance of the term is based upon several factors of the business concern looking to remove the barriers. These factors are as follows:

The term "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include:

• a) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
• b) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
• c) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
• d) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity.

This definition of readily achievable is well suited for developing solutions on accessibility in a static environment such as in architectural Design and implementation. However, it can not be assumed that these same factors can be deployed for an environment which is in constant change, such as in telecommunications. In order to utilize the term readily achievable in the world of telecommunications, several other important factors need to be considered. They are as follows:

• a) technical feasibility for a given product/service,
• b) market potential/profitability for the given product/service,
• c) if there are solutions which are readily achievable, ensure that the solutions are compatible with each other, thus creating products/services which are useable.

As defined in the new regulation, The term Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) means equipment employed on the premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications. This statutory definition for CPE is very broad and can include any equipment used for telecommunications at the customer's site. This is a very sweeping definition, since telecommunications is now beginning to be provided as part of a wide array of electronic products, especially personal computers. Because of the nature of electronic products today and the fact that most capabilities cannot be implemented without software, one can expect that the definition of CPE should include that software which is used to provide telecommunications. However, it must be noted that the statutory definition only includes hardware, and not software, located at the customer premise.

If you believe in the concept of CPE including both hardware and software, you can carry the assumption further by defining the Customer Premise User Interface (CPUI) to be the interface which the user experiences, i.e. the interface they are faced with when using the CPE for telecommunication, regardless of who provides the user interface component for the CPE.

The last relevant term is Telecommunications Equipment. The new law defines telecommunications equipment' to be that equipment, other than customer premises equipment, used by a carrier to provide telecommunications services, and includes software integral to such equipment (including upgrades). The ramifications of section 255 have the possibility of having either a positive or negative effect on a future relationship between the disabled consumer market place and the telecommunications industry. On the one hand, the industry can embrace the principles of universal design for the products/services produced for the market. Universal design has shown that it can be utilized effectively to give a business entity a larger share of a market segment. While increasing market share, the cost structures for producing the products and service will be reduced as well. These two factors equate to tangible results and increased profit margins.

However, it must be understood that universal design principles applied within telecommunications products/services will not solve all of the accessibility issues that a given disability group may encounter. Strategic decisions will have to be made by those companies to ensure that these niche markets requirements are met. For the disabled consumer community, there is the need for patience in allowing the industry to enhance their product life cycle streams to accommodate accessibility issues. These modifications should not only be done for new products/services coming to the market, but also include a re-examination of accessibility to the products/services already in the market stream. These changes to business process cycles could take from 12 to 18 months to implement after the FCC guidelines have been published. The possibility of great strides being taken by industry on behalf of the accessibility movement can be derailed via the FCC's complaint process if consumers do not allow the industry sufficient time to implement the proper processes.