One evening in 1990, we received a call from Irene Lambert, a founder of the Montréal chapter of AEBC. She said that the phone company was going to charge for directory assistance and not give her a phone book she could read. She asked if anything could be done. This request started a fifteen year struggle with the Canadian Radio Television Commission(CRTC) which culminated in the 2008 hearing and report on accessible phone and television services.
While this particular need was solved early on and free directory assistance for persons who are blind was ordered, that was only the tip of the iceberg of inaccessibility.
Subsequently, numerous broadcasting, cell phone and telephone complaints have been filed and treated as nuisances by the CRTC, even though we were known by the CRTC to be paying more for services because of in-accessible features, or going without these services for the same reason.
. Canadian carriers must provide, upon request, billing statements and billing inserts in Braille, large print or on computer diskette. The Commission also found that a carrier may also provide billing information in any other alternative format(s) mutually agreed upon between the carrier and its visually impaired customer.
customers must be advised of the availability of new services. In Order 96-1191, the Commission ordered Bell to send an insert in Braille to its visually impaired subscribers and to report on other steps taken to advise them of the availability of billing information in alternative formats.
. The Commission considers that Canadian carriers involved in the provision of public pay telephones should be required to install sets that provide, at a minimum, certain functionalities, when they replace or upgrade their existing sets or when they install pay telephones in new locations.
a) a more tactile key pad, larger buttons on the keypad spread further apart than standard sets;
b) bright, contrasting-colour coin and/or card mechanisms to make them easier to see;
c) a feature which enables the user to start the call over if an error is made;
d) a screen which displays context-sensitive dialling instructions in a larger size than can be accommodated with printed instruction cards;
e) a card-reader for a variety of telephone cards; and
f) voice prompts to assist in placing calls or using features.
The CRTC observed that same functionality would help with cell phone and terminals sold to the public. Most of these mandated services, particularly notice of service change and enhancements, are not regularly provided today.
The CRTC itself must bear most of the responsibility and accountability for the shocking lack of access for people who are blind. The Commission could have, and should have, made accessibility a condition of its decisions to forbear regulating telephone terminals, cell phones, and set-top boxes. Furthermore, when matters are brought to the Commission for help, our experience is that the Commission fosters an adjudicative confrontational environment where citizens are pitted against gaggles of company lawyers, service provider associations, and those types of profiteers.
Quote from Report on Interactive Television Services from CRTC begins.
6.6 Accessibility (for persons with Disabilities)
Two parties, the Starks and the “ AEBC “() raised concerns about the accessibility of new technologies, equipment and services for people who are blind or partially sighted. They pointed out that digital set top boxes now provide detailed information in a print format that is unusable to people who are blind or partially sighted.
They stated that digital terminals should be able to provide on-screen information in an accessible format, both in large print and synthetic speech. It recommended that if such technologies do not already exist, the introduction of interactive digital services should be stopped so that the industry can ensure that the equipment used to provide such services is accessible.
The Starks called upon the Commission to take a more proactive stance when it comes to addressing accessibility issues. They were critical of the Commission for not addressing the need for access in its public notices and proceedings.
The Starks recommended that no digital service should be licensed or renewed, and no set-top box should be allowed to be attached to the broadcasting system until the ability of the company and the technology to serve people who are blind has been put in the equipment
Nearly a year after the report of the CRTC hearing was released, little improvement has been seen. People who are blind still face the technological barriers of Canada’s telephone and broadcasting services, as informationally disadvantaged citizens.