Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix F Access to Telecommunications Technology by Americans with Disabilities: Key Laws and Policies
Pages 478-518

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 478...
... F Access to Telecommunications Technology by Americans with Disabilities: Key Laws and Policies Karen Peltz Strauss* INTRODUCTION The earliest federal disability laws enacted in the United States had little to do with ensuring access by people with disabilities to telecommunications technologies.
From page 479...
...  APPENDIX F aids and services needed to ensure effective communication accommodations for people with disabilities, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense) on the operation of the covered entity.6 Ways to achieve access include, but are not limited to, the use of assistive listening systems, hearing aid compatible (HAC)
From page 480...
... 0 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA companies for affordable specialized customer premises equipment (SCPE) , such as TTYs, amplifiers, light signalers, and artificial larynxes.
From page 481...
... worked with the Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (also known as the Access Board) from June through December 1996 to develop guidelines that formed the basis for the FCC's guidelines on Section 255, which re 17 Peltz Strauss, A New Ciil Right: 34-35.
From page 482...
... 2 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA quires all telecommunications products and services to be accessible. A few years later, the Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee, again operating under the aegis of the Access Board, reached consensus on guidelines for electronic and information technology access by federal agencies under Section 508.
From page 483...
...  APPENDIX F Hearing aid compatibility There are two primary ways for a hearing aid to couple with telephones. One is through "acoustic coupling," which allows the hearing aid's microphones to pick up and amplify sounds from the phone's receiver.
From page 484...
...  THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA have all telephones universally compatible through inductive coupling with hearing aids.28 During the 1970s, as the number of telephones without inductive coupling proliferated throughout government agencies and private businesses, hearing aid advocates went to Congress to secure legislation that would require hearing aid compatibility on all telephones.29 Ultimately, they were only partially successful. Rather than require universal compatibility, the TDA of 1982 created a new category of telephones -- "essential telephones" -- which would have to provide internal compatibility with hearing aids.30 Included in this category were all phones that were coin operated, phones frequently needed for use by persons using hearing aids, and phones provided for emergency use.
From page 485...
...  APPENDIX F tinue subsidizing the costs of providing SCPE with the rates received from their general subscribers.33 Congress explained that while deregulation of telecommunications equipment might ensure a competitive market for most ratepayers, this simply would not work for people with disabilities: For most ratepayers, deregulation may indeed ensure a competitive market in telephone sets and eliminate subsidies for such sets from local rates. For the disabled, however, the ban on cross-subsidization could mean unregu lated price increases on the costly devices that are necessary for them to have access to the telephone network.
From page 486...
...  THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA ing the way for continued cross-subsidization of the costs of SCPE, and for states to develop programs for the distribution of specialized equipment. The new rule, in effect to this day, states: Any communications common carrier may provide, under tariff, customer premises equipment (other than hearing aid compatible telephones as de fined in part 68 of this chapter)
From page 487...
...  APPENDIX F sible to predict beforehand when an emergency situation may arise.
From page 488...
...  THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA Wireless Telephones Just as the struggle to obtain HAC wireline phones was reaching its final resolution, Americans began discovering the benefits of mobile telephones. The earliest wireless phones introduced in the United States relied on analog transmissions and did not pose a problem for hearing aid users.
From page 489...
...  APPENDIX F nologies over a 5-year period (by February 18, 2008) , during which time the industry would develop technical solutions for digital phone hearing aid compatibility.
From page 490...
... 0 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA BOX F-1 Hearing Aid Compatibility Rules for Wireless Telephones 47 C.F.R. §20.19 Schedule of Deadlines • By September 16, 2005, in order to achieve acoustic coupling without inter ference, every digital telephone manufacturer and carrier had to make available 2 handset models with reduced RF emissions for each air interface (CDMA, TDMA, GSM, iDEN)
From page 491...
... 49 The ADA was largely prompted by two reports prepared by the National Council on the Handicapped (later renamed the National Council on Disability) : Toward Independence, released in 1986, and On the Threshold of Independence, released in 1988.
From page 492...
... See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. §36.104 (Title III)
From page 493...
... Although the U.S. Department of Justice has indicated that it does believe that Title III covers the websites of entities that are otherwise covered under the ADA,57 two federal circuit courts have released opinions suggesting that the Act does not cover services provided in virtual space.58 These opinions are in conflict with other federal court rulings that public accommodations cannot exclude people with disabilities from entering their facilities, whether their services are provided in physical or electronic space.59 In 1991, as required under the ADA, the Access Board released the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG)
From page 494...
...  THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA Title IV -- Telecommunications Relay Services Background and Statutory Proisions Prior to the 1960s, deaf individuals had virtually no way to communicate independently by telephone. This changed in 1968, when a deaf engineer named Robert Weitbrecht figured out a way to attach a telephone modem to outdated teletype machines that had been discarded by telecommunications companies and news services.
From page 495...
...  APPENDIX F • TRS operate 24 hours every day; • TRS users pay rates no greater than the rates paid for functionally equivalent voice communication services with respect to such factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and the distance from the point of call origination to the point of its termination; • relay operators not refuse calls or limit the length of calls; • relay operators not disclose the content of any relayed conversation or keep records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration of the call; and • relay operators not intentionally alter a relayed conversation.66 Common carriers may fulfill their TRS responsibilities by providing these services individually, through designees, through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.67 Congress also provided a mechanism for states to receive certification to operate relay programs on behalf of the carriers in their jurisdictions, so long as those states meet minimum relay standards set by the FCC and provide adequate procedures and remedies for enforcing these mandates.68 At present, all 50 states plus the U.S. territories have relay certification.
From page 496...
...  THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA • Video relay services. Video relay services (VRS)
From page 497...
...  APPENDIX F hearing to hear the hearing person's voice. Captioned telephone relay is very popular among older Americans who have lost their hearing because it closely mirrors the typical telephone experience.
From page 498...
...  THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA trastate services and that the costs attributable to interstate TRS may be recovered from the interstate jurisdiction. The two exceptions to this policy are expenses associated with the provision of VRS and IP relay.
From page 499...
...  APPENDIX F requesting comment on the feasibility of establishing a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers that could be used by all service providers to allow hearing people to call any VRS user through any VRS provider without having to know every VRS users' current IP address.76 This type of universal numbering would be neutral with respect to both the provider and the video equipment that the customer uses, just as are ordinary phone numbers. Interoperability of VRS protocols In a recent ruling, the FCC determined that all VRS consumers must be able to place VRS calls through the services of any VRS providers and that all VRS providers must be capable of receiving calls from and transmitting calls for any VRS consumer.77 The order was prompted by the prior marketing practices of some VRS providers that had required consumers to use a single provider in exchange for free video equipment or broadband service.
From page 500...
... 00 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA BOX F-2 TRS Mandatory Minimum Standards 47 C.F.R. §64.604 and §64.605 Technical Standards • Mandated TRS and English VRS must be offered 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
From page 501...
... 01 APPENDIX F • CAs may not intentionally alter or disclose the content of a relayed conversation and must relay all conversations verbatim unless the user specifically requests summarization or requests interpretation of an ASL call. An STS CA may facilitate a call with the permission of the caller, so long as the CA does not interfere with the independence of the caller and the caller maintains control of the conversation.
From page 502...
... To remedy this, in June 1986, the Access Board, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC)
From page 503...
... that transferred the day-to-day relay operations from the Access Board to the General Services Administration (GSA) .83 By 1998, FRS evolved into a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week service, and by 2000, it had a staff of more than 100 operators who handled tens of thousands of inbound and outbound calls each month.
From page 504...
... 0 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA than mainstream equipment. This approach created several problems.
From page 505...
... 0 APPENDIX F tion of their network architecture (i.e., hardware, software, and databases associated with the routing of telecommunications services) complies with the FCC's accessibility rules.
From page 506...
... 0 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA sages; the ability to change the color, font, or lighting on keypads and screens; and the provision of speech output on cell phones.94 Usability Telecommunications service providers and manufacturers must also evaluate whether their products and services are "usable by" individuals with disabilities.95 This mandate requires functionally equivalent access to the full operation of and the documentation for the product, including instructions, product information, technical support hotlines and databases, customer support call centers, repair services, and billing departments. Among other things, companies must provide end-user product documentation in alternate formats (such as braille and large print)
From page 507...
... .98 • Products shall support all cross-manufacturer nonproprietary standard signals used by TTYs. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 In the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Congress strengthened the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require all federal agencies to develop, procure, maintain, and use accessible electronic and information technologies, unless doing so would create an undue burden for the agency.99 Access Board guidelines, released on December 21, 2000, have applied this mandate to telecommunications, computers, software applications, video and multimedia products and applications, and web-based intranet and Internet information and applications.100 Among other things, the guidelines require federal agencies to maintain telecommunications products that provide hearing aid compatibility and amplification and that support TTY transmissions;101 accessible caller identification devices for individuals who cannot see displays;102 and TTY-compatible voice mail, auto-attendant, and interactive voice response telephone systems.103 98 Because only VCO and not HCO was mentioned in the regulations, some companies have implemented the former feature but not the latter feature in their products.
From page 508...
... 0 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA The Access Board's standards also lay out various requirements for video and multimedia information to be captioned and video described, and for certain televisions, tuners, and computer equipment with television receivers to have built-in decoders for the receipt and display of closed captions and secondary audio program circuitry for the playback of video descriptions (narrative verbal descriptions inserted into the natural pauses of a video program to describe visual events that are not part of a program's audio track) .104 In addition, under the Section 508 guidelines, software applications and operating systems must be accessible,105 as must information and documentation about the technologies used by the government, including user manuals, installation guides, and customer and technical support.
From page 509...
... 0 APPENDIX F estimated to be approximately 100 million people, and the number of these devices that had been purchased was attributed to a number of factors.108 First, many people with hearing loss were simply unaware of the existence of decoders or where to purchase them. In addition, the complications involved in hooking up these devices to a television set, video cassette recorder, and cable box discouraged some consumers, especially senior citizens, from purchasing decoders.
From page 510...
... 10 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA FCC Regulations In December 1990, the FCC issued standards that defined the size, font, color, placement, and intelligibility of the captions received and displayed by decoder circuitry in analog television sets.112 Among other things, these required italicized or slanted standard characters, smooth scrolling of captions, upper- and lowercase letters, up to four lines of captions anywhere on the screen, a black background, and prominent labeling of captioning features with television receivers. A subsequent ruling by the FCC also made clear that when computers equipped with television circuitry are sold together with monitors that have viewable pictures measuring at least 13 inches, the computers must also be capable of receiving and displaying closed captions.113 In July 2000, the FCC updated its captioning specifications for digital television programming.114 The new guidelines give viewers several new options, including the ability to choose among three caption sizes (standard, large, and small captions)
From page 511...
... 11 APPENDIX F tuners, as well as all stand-alone digital television tuners and set-top boxes, whether or not these are sold with display screens over a certain size.116 Section 713 of the Communications Act of 1934: Closed-Captioning Mandates Historical Background and Legislation By the time that the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 became effective in July 1993, nearly 100 percent of all prime-time programming, children's programming, and national news programs on NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS and most prime-time programming on Fox was shown with captions.117 However, captioning on cable TV remained scarce, with approximately only 5 to 10 percent of all basic cable programs providing captioning. Concerned that the Decoder Act was not providing sufficient incentives for cable programmers to caption their programs, advocates returned to Congress.
From page 512...
... 12 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA the agency to also promulgate, in 2000, regulations requiring video descriptions on certain broadcast and cable programming.121 However, these rules were struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
From page 513...
... 1 APPENDIX F first 4 years of operations or by programming providers with annual gross revenues under $3 million per year. Moreover, all providers are permitted to cap their captioning spending to 2 percent of their annual gross revenues.
From page 514...
... 1 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA rules apply to all video programming distributors, including broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite television services, without exception. They require the provision of visual information -- in the form of open or closed captions or other visual methods, such as crawls or scrolls that appear on the screen -- whenever emergency information is televised.
From page 515...
... 1 APPENDIX F for the dissemination of information about weather and other emergencies that pose a threat to life and property. In addition, the visual information required to be presented as part of an EAS message need not be as comprehensive as that which is required under the FCC's televised emergency rules.
From page 516...
... 1 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA after September 2001.130 In 2004, Congress again made changes to the scope of the closed-captioning and video description provisions, this time limiting funding to television programs that are "of educational value in the classroom setting to children with disabilities."131 In addition, under these amendments, funding for video description and captioning is provided only when these services have not otherwise been provided by the program's producer or distributor or fully funded through other sources. The 2004 amendments did provide the first federal funding for access to "new and emerging technologies," including "CDs, DVDs, video streaming and other forms of multimedia."132 In addition, the new law establishes a system for the production of student textbooks in a standardized electronic file format called the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard, which can be used to convert books into accessible formats, including braille, large print, or electronic text.133 This will go a long way toward ensuring that children who are blind or who have low vision will have access to information made available through textbooks and classroom materials at the same time that their fellow classmates receive such information.
From page 517...
... 1 APPENDIX F guards will be needed to ensure that these innovations are universally accessible to all Americans. Experience has shown that competitive pressures often make companies reluctant to invest in accessibility features perceived to have a small market with little or no profit.
From page 518...
... 1 THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY IN AMERICA CONCLUSION Although the proposed legislation cited above will go a long way toward safeguarding access to the telecommunications and information technologies of the future, gaps and uncertainties still exist. For example, it is unclear whether the Television Decoder Circuitry Act's requirement for "television apparatus" to have captioning decoder capabilities applies to newer types of devices that can receive or display television programming, including cell phones; MP3 players; video recording devices; and standalone video media, such as home theaters.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.