“The disabled want what all of us want: the opportunity to contribute to our communities, to use our creativity, and to go as far as our God-given talents will take us.” – President Ronald Reagan, National Decade of Disabled Persons Proclamation.
In this blog, I focus on the critically important subject of communication access for disabled people, with particular attention to the deafblind community. Specifically, I explain what the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) is and why it matters; briefly cover California’s efforts to promote communication access for all disabled people; summarize the history of relevant telecommunications law in the past forty years; and broadly discuss the current state of communication access for deafblind Americans.
The NDBEDP
What it is
In 2010, Congress found that the Communications Act of 1934, which created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), needed to be amended to ensure that America’s modern communications infrastructure is accessible to all Americans. So, a new law called the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) was passed. I will explain CVAA in more detail later.
CVAA created section 719 in the Communications Act of 1934. This new section directed the FCC to establish NDBEDP within 6 months of President Obama signing CVAA into law on October 8, 2010. Specifically, section 719 provides up to $10 million every year for the to distribute communications equipment to low-income deafblind people across America so that they can access the telephone, Internet, email, text messaging, and other Internet-based communications.
To establish NDBEDP and the rules governing it, the FCC asked the public for feedback. I had expressed the view to the FCC in 2011 that this approach ignores the fact that many deafblind people did not have access to communications to be able to give feedback. Nevertheless, the FCC adopted interim rules for how NDBEDP should be administered, and in 2012 it began to certify organizations in each state and U.S. territory for a pilot period before the program was made permanent in 2016.
Why it matters
All humans have a basic need to connect and to belong, right? Imagine being without your phone or computer for a month or longer. Some people say they can live “off the grid,” but how will they meet their basic needs if they cannot see or hear? Regardless of one’s ability, life requires that certain biological and psychological needs be met.
In my two decades of experience providing assistive technology (AT) services, I witnessed the vital role accessible communications play in reducing isolation and opening up doors of opportunity for disabled people. I know some deafblind people who openly contemplated or attempted suicide because they did not have access to communication. Social isolation can take a huge psychological toll on anyone. We cannot allow a life to be lost because of the inaccessibility of communications.
Deafblind people in California, especially those who use Braille, have been struggling to consistently receive equipment and training under the NDBEDP, informally known as iCanConnect. Despite language and communication barriers, many have shared their concerns with the FCC for years, but no meaningful improvements have been made. For this reason, the community launched a petition to the FCC. I also took legal action to support the community, facing off against a well-established law firm by taking advantage of my years of experience fighting against disability discrimination in various arenas, from rideshare to air transportation to communication access.
The California Connect
“Connect Your Way”
In 1979, California passed a law to create the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP), better known as California Connect. Other states may have similar programs (such as Texas’ Specialized Telecommunications Assistance Program (STAP) or Florida’s FTRI) designed to remove barriers to telecommunications. It was through California Connect that I had my first experience with an accessible telephone, the incredible TeleBraille, which empowered me to stay connected and productive in my daily life.
According to its website, California Connect “is funded by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and is a public purpose program that provides communications equipment and services to persons with disabilities. The program’s accessible products and services are available at no cost, removing financial barriers.” So, while NDBEDP provides funding for very expensive tech such as Braille displays to access communications, California Connect, whose nice motto is “Connect Your Way,” ensures that Californians with vision, hearing, cognitive, mobility, and speech-related disabilities have access to communications.
Why NDBEDP if we have California Connect?
For years, I served on California Connect’s Equipment Program Advisory Committee (EPAC), which advises the CPUC regarding telecommunications equipment and related policies. During my membership in EPAC, a consistent theme emerged: the lack of accessibility for deafblind people built into telecommunications devices. For example, a wireless telephone or a smartphone did not have a built-in Braille display or large print to make it usable by a deafblind person. NDBEDP addressed this problem by allowing the distribution of specialized equipment that provides access to existing communications products and services.
In addition, deafblind people have unique needs concerning needs assessment and equipment training. For example, NDBEDP pays for qualified trainers with expertise in the field of deafblindness who are expected to not only be literate in Braille and American Sign Language, but they must keep up with rapidly evolving AT products and their features relevant to NDBEDP’s purpose to meet the needs of a highly diverse community. Finally, qualified ASL interpreters and support service providers (SSPs) are paid for by the federal program to ensure statewide coverage.
A brief look at communications laws
Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Title 4 of the ADA requires the creation of a nationwide system that allows a person who is “deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has a speech disability” to communicate by telephone. Companies providing telephone services are required to provide this system, which must be “functionally equivalent” to a system used by those who are hearing without speech disability – that is, deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and those with speech disability should be able to enjoy access to the telephone in a way that is similar to what hearing people without speech disability enjoy.
The ADA calls for a “rapid, efficient” system that telephone companies are required to provide in the form of a telecommunications relay service (TRS). The FCC is required to ensure that this system exists and works as required by the law. TRS providers are compensated by the FCC through either a state program or the federal TRS Fund. In short, a person with hearing or speech disability should be able to call a hearing person without speech disability through a relay service that is available in all 50 states and U.S. territories, 24 hours and 7 days a week.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 sought to overhaul the telecommunications industry. A key goal of the law was to increase competition within the industry.
For people with disabilities, the Telecommunications Act added section 255 to the Communications Act of 1934. This new section required telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities if it can easily be accomplished.
The CVAA
The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) is the first major legislation designed to promote accessibility in modern communications. This law is divided into two major parts: Title I and Title II.
Title I focuses on telecommunications access. Specifically, this part of the CVAA mandates advanced communications services (such as text messaging, e-mail, and video-based communications) to be accessible to people with disabilities; “deaf-blind” was added to the list of relay service users (previously only included deaf, hard of hearing people and those with speech disability); requires web browsers on mobile phones to be accessible to the blind and visually impaired; and provide up to $10 million for the NDBEDP, among other requirements.
Title II deals with accessible video programming. For example, this part of the CVAA requires closed captioned video content on TV to be closed captioned if shown online; requires audio description; requires TV equipment (such as a set-top box) to be accessible to people who are deaf, blind, and visually impaired; and mandates that emergency information distributed over video to be accessible to the blind and visually impaired.
The impact of telecommunications laws on deafblind people
The ADA and the Telecommunications Act
As noted earlier, the ADA did not specifically address the needs of deafblind people as originally written, despite broadly defining disability as “a physical and mental impairment.” Specifically, the CVAA would add deafblind people to the list of people who qualify for relay services twenty years after the ADA’s passage. However, the ADA’s lack of deafblind people’s full inclusion as a class of individuals with disabilities goes far beyond telecommunications access: the definition of auxiliary aids and services does not consider a combination of blindness and deafness.
In the same vein as the ADA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 failed deafblind people. It required telecommunications products and services to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, but only to the extent it is readily achievable. Of course, Braille devices are difficult to manufacture, so this law essentially leaves out deafblind people, although companies spend years of hard development work and enormous investment money for any mainstream communications device like the iPhone even without any accessibility features. This, I believe, means large technology firms with hundreds of billions of dollars do not have to include deafblind people. And if a small business wants to incorporate Braille solutions into its telecommunications product or service, who would fund research and development?
Despite the serious limitations of both the ADA and Telecommunications Act concerning deafblind people, telecommunications products and services existed to specifically meet their needs. For example, the TeleBraille, which is essentially a TTY on top of a Braille display the size of a standard typewriter, was widely used by deafblind people in the 1980s and 1990s, making it the most reliable piece of telecommunications equipment ever designed for deafblind people. But with technology rapidly advancing and repair parts quickly dwindling, deafblind people began to switch to software-based telecommunications solutions like NexTalk and AOL’s instant messaging service featuring real-time text relay capability; both of these options are no longer available.
Efforts to address deafblind people’s dire telecommunications access situation in the 21st century continued. For example, HumanWare Group and Washington State’s Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing reached an agreement whereby HumanWare would develop the DeafBlind Communicator, a suite of communication software applications including a TTY app. However, because the software suite was built to work on an older model of HumanWare’s Braille Note (a Braille and speech notetaking device with built-in e-mail, word processing, web browser, and other capabilities), there was no further development and the product quickly lost its usefulness in the face of rapid mainstream technological change that left deafblind people behind.
Other attempts to provide deafblind people telecommunications access include Internet Protocol (IP) relay services and video-based solutions, none of which are near the effectiveness of the trusty TeleBraille. For example, T-Mobile’s IP Relay service is touted as an alternative solution for deafblind people, but it barely is usable by the average deafblind person, in large part because the FCC says Internet-based relay service is not required. Similarly, myMMX db, which provides real-time text and video calling capabilities, has been around for years but many deafblind people find it to be far less effective compared to solutions that were available in the 1990s and 2000s. Deafblind people with enough hearing or vision have other limited options for making and receiving calls.
The CVAA’s shortcomings
There is no question that the CVAA is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that substantially improves access to modern communications by people with disabilities in general. However, as with the ADA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the CVAA’s impact on deafblind people’s access to communications is limited, to say the least.
The first problem involving the CVAA is that while it requires advanced communications services (ACS) to be accessible to everyone, the FCC decided to exclude deafblind people. Specifically, the CVAA directed the FCC to write the rules around how people with disabilities (including deafblind people) should be able to access ACS on mobile devices like the iPhone. However, in writing such rules, the FCC effectively excluded deafblind people (apart from those with a combination of low vision and hearing disability), even if Congress defined “disability” to include deafblind people. The FCC’s decision reflects a longstanding pattern of excluding deafblind people from telecommunications regulations, essentially relegating them to second-class citizenship. This needs to change and the FCC must follow both the letter and spirit of the CVAA by explicitly including deafblind people.
The second major issue with the CVAA is its failure to consider funding for research and development (R&D) for telecommunications products and services that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive for small to medium companies to develop and manufacture. Without even just $5 million in R&D funding, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will continue to leave out deafblind people because it does not provide incentives to create accessible technologies while the federal government provides billions in subsidiaries for corporations (see “Welfare for the Well-off.”) What the CVAA does is permit the distribution of equipment that either falls far short of providing a user experience that’s near the level of what non-disabled people enjoy or becomes obsolete soon after purchase.
Another criticism of the CVAA is that it does not spell out specific actions for the FCC to take in establishing the NDBEDP. The FCC is thus granted too much flexibility in how it administers the NDBEDP. In turn, the FCC, by certifying state programs without any real involvement from the community the program was meant to serve, allows decisions about consumer eligibility, equipment, training and other related services to be made by certified programs. This approach sacrifices accountability and contradicts the CVAA’s goal of increasing equal access to communications.
Finally, the income requirement for the NDBEDP set at 400% of Federal Poverty Guidelines imposed by the FCC unfairly leaves out a large number of deafblind people. Although the CVAA uses the term “low-income,” it does not specifically define the term or establish any other eligibility criteria. Many state telecommunications programs do not require income verification, and anyone can use a relay service regardless of income level. For deafblind people, the problem is that disability-related expenses not incurred by other disability groups, as well as the high cost of Braille devices, are not likely reflected in the FCC’s determination of who should be eligible. But even if the FCC eliminates the income requirement, there would not be enough money to include most deafblind people who would otherwise be denied access to communications, or forced to adopt low-quality and ineffectual solutions they could afford, without Congress increasing annual funding for the program. For now, the FCC should at least increase the income eligibility threshold.
“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.