WASHINGTON-As the Federal Communications Commission moves closer to setting guidelines to make telecom equipment and services accessible to disabled individuals, the wireless industry is pressing regulators to back off proposed rules that it claims are too restrictive and burdensome and that run counter to agency goals.
One concern flagged by wireless lobbyists in meetings with the FCC staff in recent weeks involves a proposed rule to turn around complaints in five days.
“I don’t know how the commission is going to manage that,” said Brian Fontes, senior vice president of policy and administration at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. “It sets unrealistic expectations for consumers.”
Fontes said a better way is for carriers and manufacturers first to try to iron out problems with consumers, rather than having the FCC inundated with mountains of complaints that it may be incapable to handling-especially within five days.
Todd Lantor, director of government relations for the Personal Communications Industry Association, agrees.
“Requiring a carrier or manufacturer to adequately address a complaint in fives days is unreasonable,” said Lantor.
Lantor pointed out the process required to investigate a complaint takes time and input from engineers and other specialists. He said he is hopeful the FCC will settle instead on a 30-day timeline for turning around disability access complaints.
Another problem area for the wireless industry is the question of whether every piece of equipment in a product line should be subject to telecom disability access rules. The industry argues it is not practical to require every product to meet FCC disability regulations.
“Our major concern is that the commission give enough flexibility to manufacturers to promote access in product and product lines,” said Grant Seifert, vice president of government relations for the Telecommunications Industry Association. TIA represents U.S. wireless and wireline telecom suppliers.
PCIA’s Lantor said a rule covering every product would be counter productive because it would delay the introduction of disability equipment and services and potentially limit the kinds of access features on any given product.
Having rules apply instead to product lines, said Lantor, “reserves flexibility that manufacturers are used to.”
“My biggest concern is the FCC will set a one-size-fits-all rule,” said Fontes. He added such an approach is unnecessary in a competitive telecommunications industry that has a self-interest in exploiting disability access as Baby Boomers make the graying of America a reality early in the next century.
Related to the product vs. product line debate is the question of what constitutes a telecommunications service insofar as FCC implementation of Sec. 255 (the disability telecom access section of the telecom act). Too broad a definition-one that might cover information services and enhanced services-could create similar development and deployment problems for carriers and manufacturers, according to lobbyists.
The wireless industry says the definition of telecom services in the disability access proceeding should be consistent with the definition in other arenas, like universal service.
The 1996 telecom act mandated that equipment and services be accessible to disabled persons but only if doing so is “readily achievable.” If accessibility is not readily achievable, the telecom law requires that equipment and service be “compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by” disabled individuals.
The “readily achievable” qualification to disability access has become a regulatory gray area that is made all the more complicated by sometimes conflicting technological, economic and legal forces.
FCC Chairman William Kennard has made telecom disability access a pet project of his administration.
But, for all concerned, telecom disability access is a virtual no-man’s land for the telecommunications industry. Like other federal regulations governing disability access, rules likely coming out in June could be merely the beginning of a longer process in which lawsuits come to shape policy as much as the rules themselves over time.
Moreover, the challenge of making telecom products and services available to the disabled goes far beyond federal regulations. It also involves education and attitudes.
Both CTIA and PCIA say they have outreach programs to bridge the gap with the disabled community.
“The hearing aid industry and the wireless industry have been working on a standard to help consumers find the best mobile phone for each level of hearing disability,” said Jo-Anne Basile, vice president of external and industrial relations at CTIA.
An RCR survey of wireless outlets in the nation’s capital and in the surrounding suburbs of Virginia and Maryland found a wide range of business practices and attitudes with respect to serving disabled customers.
“No, we don’t have any phones that are equipped for people that are hearing impaired … It’s kind of a waste of money to keep them in stock [if] only one or two people every so often come in to buy them,” said Lloyd Warton, store manager of Quick Page.
Other stores, like the Cellular Phone Store in Rockville, Md., are more progressive. The store has a list of phones that are hearing-impaired compatible and brochures available for the disabled.
The telecom act does not cover retail outlets, though federal regulators and industry realize it’s potentially a big problem if disabled customers cannot readily get retail exposure to telecom products geared to them.
“The industry and service providers are struggling with that right now,” said Ellen Blacker, a key author of telecom disability access rules.
Radio Shack recently settled a lawsuit filed by a deaf man from Reston, Va., after a store clerk assaulted 39-year-old Michael Gannon in an incident fueled in part by the clerk’s lack of awareness of Gannon’s disability.
Tandy, the parent company, initially would not apologize or pick up any of Gannon’s medical bills that totaled $10,000.
Now Tandy plans to implement a nationwide program to make retail store personnel more sensitive to hearing impaired customers.
“I do not feel that stores have enough knowledge or awareness of disabled persons. I think the staff needs more disability training and awareness,” said Brenda Bettat, deputy executive director of Self Help for Hard of Hearing.
RCR intern Shiffaun Alston contributed to this report.
