In a Public Notice released yesterday, the FCC reminded providers of its new procedures for handling consumer complaints about the accessibility of communications services.  A brief review of the FCC’s accessibility rules and new enforcement procedures follows.

Background.  Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC adopted rules to ensure that people with disabilities can access telecommunications services.  These rules were focused on accessibility to voice services for the deaf and hearing impaired.  In 2007, the FCC extended those rules to interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services.  In 2011, the FCC adopted similar rules for advanced communication services, or ACS, many of which mandate accessibility for the blind and visually impaired.  ACS includes interconnected VoIP services not available before October 8, 2010 and electronic messaging services (including web-based email), among others.  For most providers, the ACS rules took effect on October 8, 2013.

Requirements.  The rules generally require providers to make their services accessible to and usable by people with a range of disabilities.  The new rules also, for the first time, require providers to keep records about their efforts to make their services accessible and file an annual compliance certificate each April 1.  In addition, the FCC adopted procedures for handling consumer complaints about the accessibility and usability of their communications services.

New Complaint Procedure.  The new complaint procedures apply to ACS, telecom, and VoIP services.

The FCC encourages consumers to first contact their service provider to resolve accessibility problems.  With this in mind, the FCC created a registry to maintain contact information for each provider’s point of contact for consumer accessibility questions.  Providers submit contact information online.

If the provider does not resolve the accessibility issue, consumers can escalate it to the FCC.

Informal Complaints.  Before filing an informal complaint, a consumer must submit a Request for Dispute Assistance (“RDA”) to the FCC’s Disability Rights Office, which is part of the Consumer and Government Bureau.  Upon receipt of an RDA, this office will help the consumer and provider try to resolve the issue informally.  If the complaint isn’t resolved within 30 days, the consumer can either request another 30 days or file an informal complaint with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau.

Formal Complaints.  Unlike with the RDA process for informal complaints, there is no prerequisite to filing a formal complaint.  Formal complaints are governed by more detailed requirements and a lengthier process than informal complaints.

Enforcement.  If the FCC finds a violation, it can impose fines (up to $100,000 per day for continuing violations), require the provider to bring the service into compliance, or take other appropriate enforcement action.

If you have any questions about the accessibility rules or the new complaint procedures, please contact Bruce Beard at (314) 394-1535 or bbeard@cinnamonmueller.com, Elvis Stumbergs at (202) 872-6881 or estumbergs@cinnamonmueller.com, or Jake Baldwin at (312) 372-3930 or jbaldwin@cinnamonmueller.com.

FCC Denies Leased Access Complaint

            On November 13, 2013, the FCC’s Media Bureau (Bureau) released an Order denying a petition filed by a leased access programmer.  The programmer, King Kong Broadcasting, had alleged that Cox Communications refused to provide a commercial leased access channel in Boulder City, Nevada.

            According to the Order, King Kong requested a commercial leased access channel on the portion of Cox’s Las Vegas cable system serving Boulder City.  King Kong claimed that inserting programming at Boulder City, with a subscriber base of about 3,500 subscribers, would provide a feasible alternative to service from Cox’s Las Vegas headend where the lease rate would be substantially higher due to the fact that all 320,000 subscribers on the cable system would receive the programming.  Cox denied King Kong’s request, stating that its Las Vegas cable system is a technically integrated system not required to accommodate the request to provide service only to Boulder City.

            The Bureau sided with Cox, noting that the FCC’s leased access rules do not address the leasing of channels on portions of systems, and emphasizing that the Commission has previously addressed this issue in a prior case.  The Bureau further explained that requiring a cable operator to reconfigure its system and incur the significant costs that area-specific lease agreements might involve could entail costs inconsistent with the Cable Act.

Commercial leased access requirements date back to the 1984 Cable Act, which sought to assure access to cable systems by unaffiliated third parties that want to distribute video programming free of the cable operator’s editorial control.  Accordingly, under the Cable Act and FCC regulations, leased access programmers can obtain valuable and scarce capacity on cable systems.  Cable systems must provide a minimum number of channels for leased access, and leased access programmers may demand a full channel or part-time access of as little as one-half hour, with rates calculated using the formula set forth in the FCC’s regulations.  Leased access programmers can also lease capacity, then resell it to a third party.

FCC regulations also specify certain leased access response obligations and complaint procedures, and  permit cable operators to adopt a written policy refusing to carry leased access programming that the cable operator believes is indecent.

If you have any questions regarding leased access programming, or need assistance adopting a written policy, please contact Heidi Schmid at (312) 372-3930 or hschmid@cinnamonmueller.com.