PhoneAbility

6. Inclusion in Scope of ‘Terminal Equipment’

It is proposed to extend the scope of the USD by the addition in Article 1 of the wording ‘This Directive also includes provisions concerning consumer premises terminal equipment’. While accepting this change as a positive step, PhoneAbility takes the view that it does not go far enough.

PhoneAbility has repeatedly pointed to the disadvantage caused to many users, and especially to those who are disabled or elderly, by the functional separation of the networks and the terminals. The many advantages of a competitive single market in terminals are recognised but this has come about at the expense of those users who require particular features in their terminal equipment, coupled with advice and assistance in obtaining them. End-to-end operability has ceased to be a network responsibility - as a by-product of liberalisation. 

The proposed revisions do not alter this situation. The definition of a network remains unchanged, in that it stops at the socket or at the air interface. The user has acquired by default the responsibilities for selecting, obtaining and maintaining terminal equipment of an appropriate kind, and the users whose needs are the most critical are also the least able to undertake these tasks. PhoneAbility’s view is that NRAs should be empowered and encouraged to develop remedies; the proposed revision will help but only to a limited extent.

Article 33 (on consultation with consumer interests) is to be amended so as to incorporate the main provision. This is that Member States shall report annually to the Commission and to the new Regulatory Authority on measures and progress ‘towards improving interoperability and use of, and access to, electronic communications services and terminal equipment by disabled end-users’. The Commission, aided by the Authority, may then proceed to consult over appropriate technical measures to address the issues raised in these reports.  As Member States are not likely to report on unsuccessful measures and lack of progress, there may be few issues for the Commission to act upon. However, the need to make a report will serve to concentrate attention by Member States, and their NRAs, on accessibility issues.  Inclusion of terminal equipment in this will provide a useful clarification to NRAs that they do have some responsibilities in relation to terminals that go beyond radio spectrum management matters. Availability and affordability of terminal equipment types suited to the very varied needs of users with disabilities are still crucial matters, and the preferred solutions are as likely to lie in economic measures as in technical ones. As with some forms of specialised support service provision, the lack of supply reflects the absence of a funding mechanism and it is not to be expected that the Commission or the new Authority could deliver that. PhoneAbility continues to believe that more will be achieved through greater activity by NRAs, in consultation with their national consumer representatives, but working within a European framework. The ability to develop, and to share, examples of good practice would be a key factor in this.