May 16, 2022
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the Notice of Inquiry on Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination. The American Foundation for the Blind is a national nonprofit that works toward a world of no limits for people with vision loss through research and advocacy. Because the Commission has been directed to “ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service,” the Commission should consider the needs of people with disabilities both in accessing broadband and in benefiting from that access.
Equal Access
As Chairwoman Rosenworcel said in her statement on this issue, “There are too many people who don’t have the connections they need to fully participate in modern civic and commercial life.” This concern is relevant both to the availability and quality of broadband service. People with disabilities have unique access needs that may affect how comparable the quality of their broadband service is to the minimum or typical quality of service required by people without disabilities. Dependent on their individualized access needs, people with disabilities may need higher speed, bandwidth, and data limits in order to benefit equally from broadband access. The need for additional internet connected devices, access to interpreters, and high-quality audio and video during video conferencing or telehealth are examples of factors that may require greater speeds, broadband usage, and latency just to achieve comparable access to the services a typical consumer would access through a broadband connection.
The Commission should ensure that any quality and quantity of service metrics for broadband take into account the potentially greater needs of people with disabilities, in order to receive comparable service. These considerations would be especially important if the Commission were to pursue a minimum acceptable standard for evaluating quality of service metrics. As assistive technologies and communication access services change over time, the Commission would need to evaluate periodically whether the metrics must also change to keep pace with the access needs of people with disabilities. Finally, because there is a strong correlation between disability and poverty, it is important to ensure that higher quality services not only be available but be affordable to people with low incomes with or without subsidies. The Commission should endeavor to evaluate broadband services based on whether people with disabilities can access comparable internet-based services at comparable quality and price points as people without disabilities, even when accounting for potentially higher service needs.
Digital Discrimination
We believe that the definition of digital discrimination should be interpreted broadly to include all of the digital access needs of people with disabilities, even if the Commission’s proposed rules in this proceeding may more narrowly reflect the specific authority of the commission. Indeed, digital discrimination should cover access to fixed and mobile broadband, internet-based services, digital devices, apps, and any other touch points involved in accessing, acquiring, maintaining, and benefiting from digital services. Addressing all of these issues will require a whole-of-government approach, with each agency addressing digital equity and discrimination within the areas of their respective authority.
It is important to note that disability discrimination often occurs without intention of exclusion or through ignorance of best practices in accessibility. Therefore, we support an approach to digital discrimination that examines the impact of practices and policies on people’s access to broadband and internet-based services rather than an approach requiring proof of intentional exclusion. Such an approach combined with a broad definition of digital discrimination would additionally account for how technologies change and emerge and account for other as-yet-unforeseen factors that develop in the future.
Federal Policies Are Necessary to Promote Equal Access and Its Benefits
It is the belief of the American Foundation for the Blind that people who are blind or have low vision cannot “benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service” if the websites accessed through a broadband internet connection are inaccessible. The Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to work with the Attorney General to “ensure that Federal policies promote equal access to robust broadband internet access service.” To this end, the Commission should coordinate with the Department of Justice on rulemaking that requires websites and apps to be accessible. Even though it has long been the opinion of the Department of Justice that the ADA applies to websites, so far industry standards, litigation, guidance, and technical assistance have not bridged the gap to make websites and apps accessible. Rather, the absence of rules has prolonged the discrimination that people who are blind or have low vision face in accessing services provided over a broadband connection, including government services, telehealth, educational curricula, social opportunities, video programming, transportation, and more.
Specifically with regard to these rules that the Commission must promulgate, the Commission should adopt an approach that fully considers how people with disabilities will “benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service,” including whether internet-based services are accessible. At a minimum, the Commission should require online information, applications, services, and benefits provided by broadband service providers to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Such accessibility requirements should apply to websites and apps containing information for subscribers or potential subscribers; online and downloadable applications; online portals for bill payment, reporting and identifying service problems, and changing subscriptions; and any other webpages or apps operated by the service providers. Though not a broadband service provider, it is instructive to note that when the White House launched GetInternet.gov, the site contained unlabeled combo boxes that could discourage a user from completing the form to find out whether they qualified for broadband benefits. This experience is far from unusual for people who are blind and represents the daily barriers to accessing services, benefits, and information of all kinds.
In addition, we note that people with disabilities must have equal access to store fronts operated by internet service providers, including paper documents in accessible formats, such as large print or braille. To the extent that any web accessibility requirements promulgated by the Commission are limited, the Commission should work across agencies, especially with the Department of Justice, to further address digital discrimination through inaccessible websites and apps with the goal of achieving digital equity for people with disabilities.
Conclusion
The Commission cannot fully prevent digital discrimination or work toward digital equity with an approach that excludes people with disabilities. The definition of digital discrimination must be broad enough to encompass all people and address additional intersecting factors that impact equal access to and benefit from broadband services. We appreciate the work the Commission has done to promote accessibility and encourage the Commission to go even further to expansively embrace digital equity that is inclusive of people with disabilities across its programs and rulemaking. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Notice of Inquiry.
Contact
Sarah Malaier
Senior Advisor, Public Policy and Research
American Foundation for the Blind
