Bill,

Thanks for sharing this.  This is precisely the sentiment Mark, Gregory
and me have about George's post.  It was a post that personally attacked
another list member, which is not permitted under the list rules.  In
accordance with list rules, George has received a warning.

It is fair to disagree with someone's ideas or their actions but not who
they are as a person.

Speaking of actions, the argument regarding free directory assistance for
blind cell phone users is a compelling one.  According to the Gardner
research group, about three percent of all residential voice telephone
users utilize a cell phone as their means of voice communication.  They
have ditched wireline telephones altogether.  Further, printed telephone
books are dropped off to every residential home in my area.  They can be
purchased for under $10.  While sighted people cannot easily carry around
the Chicago white pages for example, they can easily consult it at will,
as often as they wish, at a time of their choosing from a fixed location.
Given the wide and either free or low-cost community availability of
telephone books, the argument for similar access to directory information
for blind cell phone users makes sense.

At issue is the intent of congress when it passed the accessibility
provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The Federal
Communications Commission interpreted the phrase thusly in its
regulations that were released in 2000:

     3.  "Accessible To and Usable By"

     21.  Section 255 requires equipment manufacturers to ensure that
their equipment is designed, developed and fabricated to be "accessible
to and usable by" individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable,
and requires service providers to ensure that the service is "accessible
to and usable by" individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
The terms "accessible to" and "usable by" are not defined in either
section 255 or the ADA.

     22.  The Access Board adopted a functional approach, defining
equipment "accessible to" individuals with disabilities as including
various input, control and mechanical functions, as well as output,
display and control functions.  The Access Board guidelines for equipment
define "usable by" as meaning that "individuals with disabilities have
access to the full functionality and documentation for the product,
including instructions, product information (including accessible feature
information), documentation, and technical support functionally
equivalent to that provided to individuals without disabilities."  The
Access Board states that the "usable by" requirement is intended "to
convey the important point that products which have been designed to be
accessible are usable only if an individual has adequate information on
how to operate the product."  In addition, section 1193.37 of the Access
Board's rules calls for pass-through of "cross-manufacturer,
non-proprietary, industry-standard codes, translation protocols, formats
or other information necessary to provide telecommunications in an
accessible format," in order to ensure, among other things, that signal
compression technologies do not remove information needed for access, or
restore it upon decompression.

     23.  We adopt the Access Board's definitions of "accessible to" and
"usable by."  We initially proposed in the NPRM to combine these terms
under one definition under our rules, reasoning that the term "accessible
to" should be used in its broadest sense to refer to the ability of
persons with disabilities actually to use the equipment or service by
virtue of its inherent capabilities and functions.  Upon further review,
however, we believe that it is more precise, and will provide clearer
guidance to entities covered by section 255, for us to follow the lead of
the Access Board and define these two terms separately because the
requirements of "accessible to" and "usable by" embrace two distinct
concepts.  While "accessible to" generally refers to the incorporation of
specific features in products and services that will allow people with
disabilities to access those products, we agree with the Access Board
that "usable by"  generally refers to the ability of people with
disabilities to learn about and operate those features effectively.
Although the Access Board guidelines were designed in the context of
equipment and CPE accessibility, we conclude that these guidelines are
equally applicable to the services context, and thus our definition of
accessibility and usable applies to both equipment and services.  We also
adopt the proposal made in the NPRM to ensure that support services (such
as consumer information and documentation) associated with equipment and
services are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.

     28.  We adopt the Access Board's definition of "usable by" as our
definition under the rules.  As many commenters that addressed this issue
recognized, providing access to all supporting documentation and support
services is an essential ingredient for the successful implementation of
section 255 and is encompassed by our definition of "usable by."  Support
services include, but are not limited to, access to technical support
hotlines and databases, access to repair services, billing and any other
services offered by a manufacturer or service provider that facilitate
the continued and complete use of a product or service.  Support services
also include efforts by manufacturers and service providers to educate
its sales force about the accessibility of their products and how
accessibility features can be used.

     29.  We further conclude, consistent with the Access Board's
guidelines and supported by the record, that "usable by" means
manufacturers and service providers ensure that consumers with
disabilities are included in product research projects, focus groups, and
product trials, where applicable, to further enhance the accessibility
and usability of a product, if readily achievable.  Consumers with
disabilities, even if they can access the functionalities of a specific
product, may still face significant barriers in the use of
telecommunications equipment and services.  We believe that Congress,
through its inclusion of the words "usable by," intended that consumers
with disabilities should be able to use telecommunications equipment and
services on terms equal to those of any other customer, and that
participation in the activities described above is an important step
towards reaching this goal.

***

If anyone wants the full text of the 255 rules, let me know, I will be
happy to send them to you.  I am hesitant to post them because they are
118 pages long and many might not be interested in going through such a
long document.

In reading the commission's rules, it seems that the free directory
assistance issue is in fact whether a blind person can use
telecommunications services on terms equal to that of any other customer.
Yes, sighted people do not receive telephone directories from cell phone
companies, but they can read them and buy them at a low cost.  They can
also browse telephone directories on the Internet on their cell phones.
The FCC access rules do not require that Internet browsing functionality
be accessible on cell phones, just the functions and features that allow
one to place a voice call.

I hope this has clarified the issue for some.

Kelly

a cell phone as independently as a sighted person.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Sun Sounds of Arizona" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Update on Sprint PCS free directory assistance


> Dear Listers,
>
> >Terri does not need me to defend her, but FYI: she has historically
been
> >one of the most activistic blind people in Arizona.  To paint her as
> >regressive, or as a knee jerk NFB supporter is unfair, and uninformed.
To
> >be honest, I took exception to some of her position myself, and wrote
her
> >privately on it.  But to see what was written about her by a couple of
> >listers was really unsettling.  First off, no matter what our personal
> >view, each of us should be treated with respect and as if our view
> >matters, because it does. Secondly, if you just can't help a personal
> >attack because you've had too much coffee that day, or you're on a
diet,
> >or you're just grouchy for what ever reason, then at least make sure
you
> >know of what you speak.  Since, obviously, the flaming writers do not
know
> >Terri at all, those notes should not have been written at all.  BTW,
> >before being accused, I am not of the NFB, or the ACB.  I am also an
> >activist though, and the work that still needs to be done by those of
us
> >who actually care about the wider blind and visually impaired
community
> >should support, respect, and discuss freely to arrive at consensus.
> >Personal attacks are counter productive and unnecessarily fragment our
> >efforts even more than they already are.
>
> Bill
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> To join or leave the list, send a message to
> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply
type
> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html