Skip Navigation
DATI Logo

Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative

. . . bringing technology to you

AT Messenger Logo - Bringing Technology to You

Volume 16, No. 3, Summer 2008

Previous Issues

Subscribe to AT Messenger
Download PDF Viewer
PDF Version (for printing)
Large Print (PDF)
Text Version

Telecommunications Access for People with Disabilities in Delaware

Daniel Atkins
Legal Advocacy Director
Disabilities Law Program of Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.

Closed captioning and telephone relay for the hearing impaired and audio announcements of the written word have become so ubiquitous that they no longer seem fanciful or exotic. But, what about internet websites which rely on extensive graphics—must they be accessible to people with visual impairments? How about video clips on the internet—must large content providers such as YouTube make sure that their videos are accessible to consumers who are deaf or blind?

In 1990 the Americans with Disabilities Act required for the first time that private businesses (places of public accommodation) reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. In 1990 the internet was neither world-wide nor a web. Did Congress intend to require that Southwest Airlines make its website fully accessible to people with disabilities when it began offering discounts to consumers who booked reservations on-line in the late 1990’s? Federal courts have not been in complete agreement about that point. Some courts, like a federal court in Florida, held that Title III of the ADA (the title regulating private businesses which are open to the public) did not cover internet websites. Apparently, to one court at least, only businesses with buildings were places of public accommodation. Bricks and mortar were regulated by the ADA, but not internet websites.

In 1996, Congress extended civil rights protection for people with disabilities into the more futuristic realm of communications by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Section 255”). Section 255 requires that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment (e.g., TTYs, closed captioning devices) and services (e.g., video relay services) be accessible to people with disabilities if readily achievable. If not readily achievable, manufacturers of equipment or service providers must ensure (again, if readily achievable) that their equipment or services are compatible with peripheral devices that facilitate access. What does readily achievable mean? Companies must incorporate accessibility features if they are easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. This is a contextual—rather than a bright-line—test in that companies are able to consider their resources on a case-by-case basis. What is expected of a large corporation will be quite different than what is required of a small business. The law also gives a safe harbor to businesses when providing an access feature would so fundamentally alter the product that it would substantially reduce the product’s functionality, make some features unusable, substantially deter use of the product by other individuals, or substantially and materially alter the shape, size, or weight of the product.

In 2008, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives that would move disability rights into cyberspace. The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2008 would amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ensure that new internet-based telephone and television services are accessible to people with disabilities. Just as closed captioning makes television programs accessible for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, captions and video description (verbal depiction of key visual elements inserted into natural pauses in dialogue) would ensure that internet videos are accessible for the visually impaired.

It cannot be overstated how internet video content has become so fundamental in our entertainment landscape, especially for people under 30 years of age. Televisions may soon be obsolete for everyone born after the year 2000. Imagine a teenager today who cannot hear and how cut-off from her peers she is because so much of the content on the internet is not fully accessible to her. Similarly, consider how it might improve the lives of workers or students who are blind or impaired visually, for instance, if they would have access to text messaging services on their phones and would be able to receive important emergency alerts. Given how fundamental to business people PDAs (personal digital assistants such as BlackBerries, Treos, iPhones) have become, and how central to teenagers’ lives text messaging has become, consider how isolating they are to those with visual impairments if they are not equipped with audio accessibility.

Full accessibility for people with disabilities has not yet been realized, but technology holds the promise of closing the gap very quickly. And, incrementally, the law brings the promise closer to reality.  ■

Back to the top
Current Issue