In 2010, Congress passed the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). This law set aside $10 million for the establishment of the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) which “provides equipment needed to make telecommunications, advanced communications, and the Internet accessible to low-income individuals who have both significant vision loss and significant hearing loss.” The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which administers the NDBEDP, certifies an entity from each state to provide equipment and training at the state level.
California, where I live, receives its share of the annual fund through the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, located in San Francisco. For the fiscal year 2024, which began on July 1, 2023, California received $837,893. This money pays for Braille and low vision hardware and software products and accessories; training to help consumers successfully use the equipment; and for staff to provide direct services and administrative support. The rules say that for California’s certified program to provide services to all eligible residents throughout the state, adequate staffing is required. The problem with California’s certified program is that not all rules are obeyed by LightHouse. The result is that consumers are denied the equipment and related services they are entitled to under the CVAA.
The specific rules are set forth in the FCC’s Part 64 rules. Section 64.6207(c) requires LightHouse to have staffing and facilities “sufficient to administer the program, including the ability to distribute equipment and provide related services to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind throughout the state, including those in remote areas.” Familiarity with deafblind culture and etiquette, as well as the ability to communicate effectively with deafblind people, is another requirement LightHouse does not fully comply with, especially at the management level. As of this writing, LightHouse has only one direct provider covering NDBEDP equipment recipients throughout the state.
To provide equipment and training, an interpreter is necessary. LightHouse never had a sign language interpreter in-house, despite many requests from the staff that administers the NDBEDP in California. Consequently, interpreters had to be hired through an agency. Even then, from April until this writing, LightHouse’s management rejected the use of an interpreter that is highly qualified. The reason they gave was that a contract is required to provide a communication service that is required by the ADA, even though the interpreter previously provided services to LightHouse without one. Related to this issue is also the fact that LightHouse effectively tries to decide who should provide communication services, instead of permitting recipients of equipment and their service providers to decide what constitutes effective communication within the scope of the ADA. Thus, consumers across California have been unable to receive direct services. By not once negotiating with an interpreter, trying to dictate how communication access should be provided, as well as not obeying other rules, LightHouse demonstrated that the deafblind community is not a priority for them.
When Congress establishes national programs to address the needs of a particular population, there should be a robust process for ensuring accountability. Without such a process, the population suffers because of mismanagement or other problems that are not the fault of recipients of federal assistance. For the NDBEDP, there should be something similar to the Taxpayer Advocate Service. The FCC’s current approach for gathering, analyzing and responding to consumer feedback is inherently biased in favor of those who are not deafblind.
Deafblind people face significant barriers in expressing their concerns and seeking redress for their grievances. At the core of their struggle is the lack of a process for filing a complaint in a way that is both linguistically and technologically accessible. Many do not understand the rules and the dynamics surrounding the FCC’s regulatory authority. Consequently, if their rights are violated, many tend to resign themselves to a state of hopelessness, believing they have little recourse. But this is precisely what happens when a community is disempowered.
Some people may wonder why we need a national program to distribute equipment. Imagine you buy an iPhone for $799. If you can effortlessly operate it out of the box, congratulations! But what if you can neither see nor hear what is on the screen? That is where another piece of equipment is needed, and this is usually a Braille display. Depending on the size and brand, a Braille display might cost anywhere between $1,000 to $10,000. Assuming a deafblind person has no job – and many of them are unemployed due to structural barriers in our society – the person may not afford even the iPhone itself. Communication is a basic human need, and everyone is entitled to equal access to communications.
Braille device with blue buttons opened with iphone on the inner cover. It is perched upon the device. There is a reflection on the screen of Mussie holding an iphone to take a picture of it.
Helen Keller is one of history’s most famous deafblind people. She was an activist, a force to be reckoned with. If she were alive today, how would she have dealt with the issues described in this blog? More specifically, if the LightHouse told her she cannot have Annie as her interpreter to learn how to use her new iPhone and Braille display, how would she have reacted? I do not know what she would do exactly, but Helen Keller would have been outraged at what she would have considered as an injustice of the moment. “Let me have my Annie! She is the one who knows what is best for me! And I know who the best for me is!” That is what I imagine her saying.
The sculpted metal statue is Helen Keller as a child. She is standing near a water pump, one hand on the handle and the other hand under the water spout. Her gold face looked out in awe. Mussie is standing next to the statue. His hand is touching Helen’s wrist/hand under the water spout. There are inscriptions on two sides with a building engraved in the middle on the base, then underneath is a sign. The sign says HELEN KELLER in block letters, with inscriptions between another block letter word: ALABAMA.
