Communications Act: Section 255

Signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 255 (hereon referred to as Section 255) is an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. Section 255 overhauled regulations within the telecommunications industry by requiring telecommunications products and services to be accessible for people with disabilities. Section 255 issued standards and guidelines enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and created a federal agency known as the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or U.S. Access Board. Together, the FCC and the U.S. Access Board ensure accessible design in environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and information technology. Section 255 sets the stage for creating accessible design standards for technology used by deaf communities.

The language of Section 255 stipulates that products and services must be “designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities” when it is readily achievable to do so. Where access is not readily achievable, Section 255 requires manufacturers and service providers to make their devices and services compatible with peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment. Peripheral devices are devices that help make telecommunications products and services accessible to individuals with disabilities. Examples are teletypewriters (TTYs), visual signaling devices, and amplifiers. Specialized customer premises equipment is telecommunications equipment used to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications. Examples include telephones, [Page 140]wireless handsets, fax machines, answering machines, and pagers.

Several of these technologies are currently obsolete, like TTYs, which are almost no longer in existence. With the advent of smartphones, which have several functions like built-in voicemail and text messaging apps, the distinction between peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment is blurred. VRS (video relay services) have almost completely replaced TTYs, since they are Internet based and allow speakers whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate via video conferencing capabilities. VRS began in about the early 2000s as cellular phone usage increased and companies recognized the need for services like the 711 dialing code to communicate with the deaf.

Accessibility guidelines issued by the U.S. Access Board under Section 255 address telecommunications products and services, including

• Wired and wireless telecommunications devices, such as telephones (including pay phones, land-based lines, and cellular phones), pagers, and fax machines
• Other products that have a telecommunications service capability, such as computers with modems
• Equipment that carriers use to provide services, such as a phone company’s switching equipment

Accessibility guidelines of Section 255 were published on February 3, 1998. They are as follows: The general requirements target accessibility, usability, and compatibility (§1193.21), as well as product design, development, and evaluation (§1193.23). The law also outlines requirements for accessibility and usability, including information, documentation, and training (§1193.33); redundancy and selectability (§1193.35); information pass through (§1193.37); prohibited reduction of accessibility, usability, and compatibility (§1193.39); input, control, and mechanical functions (§1193.41); and output, display, and control functions (§1193.43). A section on compatibility is also included (§1193.51).

Section 255 raised several issues with implications for deaf communities. Manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment were encouraged to make accessible the widest array of functionally different products, such as pagers offering a vibrating function. Some manufacturers read the word equipment in the statute as plural, which they felt supported their claim for coverage of groups of products rather than individual products. Lack of variation among product lines was yet another issue; a pager that offered a vibrating function but did not offer a lighted display would not be useful to someone who is hard of hearing and visually impaired. That is to say, users of the same disability have differing needs. Also, existing products were not required to be retrofitted; however, many current products may be on the market for some time and should be required to be retrofitted to be accessible or compatible, if readily achievable. Another major issue includes the idea that manufacturers can ultimately decide whether their products must be made compatible for people with multiple disabilities. If specialized customer premises equipment manufacturers are not required to follow the guidelines when readily achievable, then individuals with multiple disabilities, or individuals with disabilities other than deafness who want to communicate with individuals who are deaf, may find it difficult or impossible to find specialized customer premises equipment that they can use. For example, a person who is blind may need to communicate with a TTY user directly, without going through a relay service, and would need auditory output. Whether it is readily achievable to provide auditory output would be for the manufacturer to decide.

...