bplist00w_WebSubresources_WebMainResource( #$()-.2378<=ABFGKLPTX\`dhijklmqrs _WebResourceResponse_WebResourceData^WebResourceURL_WebResourceMIMETypeOCbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:52 GMTT148112^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  "0>IN]j  (-1EhSOJFIFHHC  !"$"$Cp"6u34q ?G l=TOY3UAδמ}n -3U@My7񺀚P?_Thttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/spgnofr3.jpgZimage/jpegOBbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:52 GMTT261012^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  !/=HM\i ',0DhRO 2GIF89aUN^8rVba[eNDZbsU4,gA}K^ldc`baaec`feddchgkhrՑcfĪlisLqr~{hHi#˪5:,U@% -.- #1699;>?84/Ɖ1:;?4&6::776;97559>=2➔/<5>v"@B$$8XPÇ! --uׯGAܕ"?TI bAX% ɳ HѢC99ʧr&Jj&VA5D'@a%6x80A]SP)ZHl!a_VȠ(e@ _.pEov '4(qȆG>6'obe$#FpN 1jܨ7y`>HYj70D-#DȠyH,8"=uD @#)`2!ɁEu@饗DH)@pp*`!e *f\!P^aB @ .d/ W *0'm g 7vƜꪬ>8 kӵ\& C 6l]-6-  5 p/X !%(&hO5`Bݢ g2լ@$ BEKb hR0$H,M$CdžTp4LJ#s@?3!56@)t :&4tHF׾Cc@u* `@.lL tEfS >(A@+8NTH N`Sh L 8e `,'{ H"6%@"pΈ! F `Z#qil  em1^6o@#<[ iT@e#ŏf7B2`Wc \zNhE(ZϨ7KN  `1WCWֈ.fBԚ- ЀjF d+:*2Ȅ+ x-V-؀$"<"T U$0K3$hy2|k"bTY5I-Պ1EPS>çA"y-dPEP@( ҹ)`C%NX`?B!F`@K6% V 1Z#u H̶7P|EAL³n!`׉z@2Ӗ!K&E{{ XЁm ;0V?#|thql[G$M<`9G0)H;H` Kg=f. zv|0P;^Z`I XE^]<-! f;HI9ݓg(o0z5}T>S (7L_dhOՄW}OM~l|Tߗ 1 `eNNJ,"&5A;_Thttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/itcustom.gifYimage/gifOFbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:52 GMTS11512^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd *,.0&4BMRan +04HhVOsGIF89a!,@."ajX;;;;I+{^(Nڵ䨮l{*7}p;[;_Zhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/slwhite_box_22.gifOIbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS29412^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  ")7EPUdq .37KhYO&GIF89apk΀!,p` dihlp,tmx| Q\r4596ncDUua: W%; w$\uQt|>gy%sFuO=ex\c{,Vc<~EovP0:3!;_\http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_help_article.gifOGbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTS98312^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1 '5CNSbo ,15IhWOGIF89ap3f3k3f333ff3fffff3f̙3f3f3333f3333333333f333333f3f33f3ff3f3f33333f33̙33333f3333333f333ff3fffff3f3f33ff3f3f3fffff3fffffffffff3ffff̙fff3fffffff3fffff3f3333f333ff3fffff3f̙̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f3f̙3333f3̙33ff3fff̙ff3f̙̙3f̙3f̙3f3333f333ff3fffff3f̙3f3f!,pH*\ȰÇ#JHŋ3jȱǏ CIɓ\y@@]*&B(3$(sgJ }HJ=YѦBJ,jӘ@}UjDX&]ZpkV^{NU٦j[aDwúcڭiw_kVeҺ#KL˘3k̹c@;_Zhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_title_list.gif !"OCbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTS20612^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd *,.0 #1?JO^k  (-1EhSOGIF89az---!,z@Uڋ޼H扦ʶ L׎ DL*̦ JԪ5jܮ rN ;dihlp,tmx|pH,Ȥrl:ШtJZsvzװxL.zn|N;_Whttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_toc_div.gif%&'OGbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS28412^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1 '5CNSbo ,15IhWOGIF89aD̙f3,DI8͋(`(dihj|i t-Gu`HNaI ݂TjDBLw&l66=I)6 ΢&us-x ;`#_Xr\#{C~ne%}"w@!9nLźM>BΛͶ4Ԋ1#j;_Zhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_rfmt_print.gif*+,OGbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTT104412^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1&4BMRan ,15IhWOGIF89apk΀!,pH*\ȰÇ#JHŋ3jȱǏ CI!(/s`O?}r%OF |fSMJْѢU QI f-uhXcf=jւ/ue,ToںQ|{wnݳO*cqjW(`՜XqᶕnLtpⳓb. YteԍO.T)9isjkl-s.Iȓ+_μУKn1 ;_Yhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_retrieval.gif/01OAbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS95012^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  !/=HM\i &+/ChQOGIF89apk΀!,pH*\ȰÇ#JHŋ3jȱǏ CIr!O"TYeD ai%A8my&͙2DSΣ?XԨQ= t(ԨR[R%@YGnu'٠a?Z+ӣhʝKݻx˷߿a;_Thttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_link.gif456OFbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:06:05 GMTS29912^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1&4BMRan +04HhVO+GIF89apk΀!,p` dihlp,tmx|` Eb2'ʒΩ#I\FDњn?uk'Ӽ~ΟW}v'{g~yxHpna~n>pl]jh:Rcro9{x^8!;_Yhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_checklist.gif !"9:;ODbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTS26212^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1 $2@KP_l  ).2FhTOGIF89apk΀!,p` dihlp,tmx|`@,`DR5[OStNUWʵnfZ>c4lyyZ*9wbo~Ysvmq~:jOjx}dnY-!;_Whttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_back_to.gif>?@OJbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS27112^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  !#*8FQVer /48LhZOGIF89apk΀!,p` dihlp,tmx|@,1pR%IʬS( kQ1P#gZ &glu%׽ePvgfp|.~uwwq/Ryhvcx{!;_]http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_ret_citations.gifCDEOFbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTS25312^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd *,.0&4BMRan +04HhVOGIF89apk΀!,pz` dihlp,tmx|pH\Hޱ\9(S(U x&헫F4i u]3Kq^|`yUx|;R~y8u^xIc*!;_Zhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_ret_search.gifHIJOGbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTT108712^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1&4BMRan ,15IhWO?GIF89apk΀!,pH*\ȰÇ#JHŋ3jȱǏ C@@B KJa*)5Hd8}$J7])QLJuѨIVejQ=NJk֙\UYS&٦e"=;UعnŚ%+ݟj5oa՚gXCB5uh1khyϠCMF !5iLՊY_4;6N/e4W~xʹku,Yð1Ӯ֮lF]]^3ꍬ};_Yhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_databases.gifMNOOHbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTS25912^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1 !(6DOTcp -26JhXOGIF89apk΀!,p` dihlp,tmx| 0EGD5PXZi@ȭv\q[Ѹ<,63L?2?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTT147212^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  !#*8FQVer 059Mh[OGIF89a###[.k,c3k>:vB}LbpˁاEs%N+Z/_8p6l;s5iFz,E*U=_5S3f2b'Lw#EkDv@kФ 0W{Y<[y?NZPejpp|oh[6$)ܱ@bcw@6CX$T*wH $XI0w*w\wH rHdwdwH>@wwPwP>d>P>8<H>`PR{ww{w(iid>Hw|wX>P>hwwPwhXX| PU~1P>0d \|hW| EP> $@ ѻ@XI cus_8w@wH}W|rHICIXIIrHCI!<,##@yH@= *\ (@o @# $8HX0.TXB9bƔ1@eJ!$D0A`8p@ԃHE@tFMP 0j ƏU5(p8" @ )ݐAgԭK#c/ t\鶄=,,\蘜o:p;N@A<=/졡j٦$@j0P7}o``w tX1C3hh5@|y2rQqvJPE&:ĤC SN A;0QHA0B RBd, ԃ ,p"D q!<~B eH0Qh #["QBCV 1Pa .pB "W gq0 (ׂ;_]http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_purl_markable.gifUVWOFbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTT209412^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1%3ALQ`m +04HhVO.GIF89adŧlfpgJIC2ùZ-(&㼓XTR[޽vsqzӼӺ̙ sffftәMIG̲v;74|`\Z֍ҰÆnǹʖc[B̚~|­% |sR`IDBŊspn`ơʽܭ@;9RPM2.+fӧɼ|ytͱεyfffĝɌx֖{ġ`*&#{ofJ|iD@=ڶɭyӽ̯믢rPKD֟qmlprֻ#333[XUUQOحͳbεŽ;;;͏0+(ÿ^zzzb_]xussϯ̒Ѻ}PLI(# BBB٥t~lfƦߴ޼rХֽ!,d@e Hp"B*\ȰÇ20+>P@ BÅA&8 C"ʜIsBra"G@>h` Yn0`jE6K]SB8#CI86eYYI,HJa&No*^,`WyAC"p lm!z4JW8Fr|B#.@B&Qc QL\Ԍ!᦬?1kj߮0+TX " J4 aN=PmNο&**A7! XaDArUA^`l(P p"A'tA'F K$'%Ix@D)I#8y4`v!hTҔGQ,V%PSdITP!T7@| tZaHтZgIUP@ OB Au4B 'mrxWp K $qwf (t` .BR S;qTF@Pqr'Dʲw%\,"Ha]pm)hPJ)xP P){(e^' pz(K =`,Y@EDž!P' t@p #ZubdP]'ű0,,L1IB.A-x0 $n!E!ԑ" ]ݧz|Uȡh^rp @cr͝-[jt#X!'`ަT@عM' FM `C%,XXr(q,|nxr@CXaE9ls) ( 4md-q.S1a7pB>!^0 _ǭD Da oȂME_4vg 0@!3Z- (2 A8`HX@dA ( B0w.n{Xp2!DJ{< IN摅І?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS27712^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1 #1?JO^k  (-1EhSOGIF89a-bfк,#h dAr6( :I.E8rFÕ@ HQIj1 :LG/#DA@E wd }uwo#UtwR$ jm"-~# Qg$<hp- ,N>$[8.'d1 JN:') K$!;_Vhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_prevpg.gif]^_OCbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS27912^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1 #1?JO^k  (-1EhSOGIF89a-bfк,#CSE3츘Mi"ZG:patJQ92b! :d_BhD˛.E`E p}p_ [pwuyeg #X"[{_"+"pkWG$#,[ PE&d9GK N79,5(),!;_Vhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_nextpg.gifabcOAbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS37812^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1  !/=HM\i &+/ChQOzGIF89ac //)>>5MMB\\Okk\{{ivfƩն!,c$d)Ehlpt=FP|ЧKr`?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS43912^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1%3ALQ`m */3GhUOGIF89ac //)>>5MMB\\Okk\{{ivfƩն!,c$d)Ehlpt=FP|ЧKr{0aHM. 1npJ5Za7|< A8@! <|\pmKdt4vB \    p LH][; pmP ƹ5C :Љ`9ۖQi9;hE/qaމ( Xj2 -v$hp@N47q &3N4Rϟ9vn h"(XʴӧPJJ5j;_Xhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_see_also.gifabcefgabcefgabcnopOGbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:25:41 GMTS20412^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd *,.0 '5CNSbo ,15IhWOGIF89a̙fff33fff!,ypI8qxH!JB$bW[7R䊳0@RN԰H.C(ZhG6cLrcwyoq  ! X{ fwf;_[http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/cus_holdings_av.gifYZ[]^_tuvOFbplist00 Y$archiverX$versionT$topX$objects_NSKeyedArchiver _WebResourceResponse )/078?GOZNS.objectsWNS.keys@ABCDEFHIJKLMN VServer]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesZConnectionTDate^Content-Length\Content-Type_Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1_Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:09:45 GMTTnoneUclose_Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:05:53 GMTT156512^__`6_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary12bcc6_NSHTTPURLResponseInternal12effg6_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse$)2DILbd+-/1%3ALQ`m +04HhVOGIF89aq(̙̙̙ffff3f3ff3333f3f)wؤADw8wؤCHfؤF HLF @H`l"/ؤ`s@HOpen@B([C:\WINNT\Profiles\rheller\Desktopthomson_gale.gif <cw0@Bu wL AwF   Y([,8(x  d[xw$ ؤPx,w`w<TGw C:\WINNT\Profiles\rheller\Desktop\thomson_gale.gif Gw;EF LCEF ([6'Readyw[Ep/[ (wffF wPDwwCF !,q(@`P@ 02 4Pb 8Î8sɳϟ@ H (]O HJA*Hu`rUTBu ңp +C˷_U`<`T`1b`,I3d8@@$XĎavL 4r~ѱHE(@5U j^ޓ1H 24kuRʌn_ϾrΞp>;ܺm bT ('Pyj)W~VZg 0tH.F} (n t[o#͖ aq#{8樣t 0]g+zs) [KvZO:dQXP$nC@p]bٓ`)g wl 0xQĕX[eD@V9Ĩƕrd} kZzIc@&gato` Zyԁ`|*g'P~"4wjX.@^GぜZq{Frea`^Qp$\$mԐH]y*\\~6`pGHu^!tIVlgI(IXU@bo If/x 4I)3p/l&`Kr,5落p(P! @>@T\4Ng`M[#W4B23DkRYtm7{;_Xhttp://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/it/images/english/thomson_gale.gifxyz{|_WebResourceTextEncodingNameUUTF-8OArticle 10
InfoTrac Web logo
 
Help on article
Title List. You can see all the titles contained in this database.
Reformat article and print in one click
Local jump to Print, E-mail and Retrieval section
Local jump to subject headings section
View mark list
Back to citations
Back to search page
Choose another collection from menu
Go back to library home page
InfoMark: you can save this URL for future useUniversity Library,University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Expanded Academic ASAP  Plus 		ingenta


previous article   ——      Article 10 of 15      ——   next article


    Mark 
Policy Studies Journal, Winter 1993 v21 n4 p765(10)
Access to the information age: fundamental decisions in telecommunications policy. (Disability Issues in Public Policy) Frank G. Bowe.

Abstract: The continued effort of disability rights leaders to promote accessibility to Information Age telecommunications equipment and services underscores the significance of the task to ensure access and fairness for the handicapped. The efforts of these disability rights leaders also point up to the old debate in public policy regarding equity. This debate weighs the issue of making all Americans pay a little more to enable the handicapped to gain full access against keeping overall rates low while the disabled use adaptive devices.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT Policy Studies Organization 1993

As federal and state budget sheets show more red than black ink, the private sector is delivering more social services and even protecting rights. The experience of disability rights leaders during the past five years shows that the private sector will accept such obligations as long as the burden is evenly distributed throughout an industry. They will balk if it is not. The task of ensuring access and fairness for people with disabilities in an industry where equal allocation of social responsibility is difficult is illustrated by the continuing effort of disability rights leaders for accessibility to Information Age telecommunications products and services. The effort also highlights a recurring theme in public policy: Does equity mean that all Americans pay a little more so that those with disabilities gain full access, or does it mean that overall rates are kept low while those with special needs use adaptive devices? Each point of view was illustrated in the telecommunications policy debate of the 102nd Congress--and likely will shape that of the 103rd Congress as well.

In his book, The Work of Nations (Reich, 1991), Harvard University professor and now Secretary of Labor Robert Reich projects that private corporations increasingly will provide key social services for which we now look to government, among them remedial education, day care, and even transportation and housing for workers and their families. That raises the question of how public interest organizations and consumers can influence corporate policy, particularly when divergent views exist on what is the consumer interest. The experience of disability rights activists in attempting to gain access into the Information Age illustrates some of the potential and many of the pitfalls of influencing corporate decisionmaking.

The debate over access to telecommunications was played out against the backdrop of several themes common to public policy. One is that of updating an old statement of public purpose to fit today's needs. In telecommunications, a 1934 law mandates universal service, but that term seldom has been interpreted to mean that persons with disabilities as well as those with no disabilities are to be served. A second theme is that of cost allocation. Granting access to people who have less than equal telecommunications service may mean charging all telephone customers a bit more so that the costs of meeting special needs may be built into the system. Alternatively, access may call for people with disabilities to use personal adaptive devices to meet their individual needs. Advocates for each approach are making themselves heard in the telecommunications policy debate. A third theme is one of equity to companies in an industry. Regulation of business is most fair when all affected firms share a proportionate obligation. Accomplishing that balance in telecommunications is difficult, because some companies, notably the seven so-called "Baby Bells," the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), are much more heavily regulated than are others, such as GTE or MCI. Deregulating the Bells, accordingly, is the principal telecommunications policy question before Congress at present. Bills to remove this RBOC requirement or that RBOC prohibition, however, may not be appropriate vehicles through which to advance equity in telecommunications generally.

These policy questions emerged in the 1991--1992 102nd Congress after the 100th and 101st Congresses had broken new ground by requiring America's private sector to take steps toward equality of access for people with disabilities. The work began with the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 (PL 100--430, 42 U.S.C. 3601) in which Congress mandated that all new apartment and condominium buildings with four or more units be accessible and adaptable for people with disabilities. Realtors and landlords were forbidden to "steer" or otherwise discriminate against applicants and residents with disabilities. The FHAA broke new ground in that it extended to private entities and individuals who receive no federal funds the kinds of nondiscrimination duties previously limited only to federal grant or contract recipients and to government itself.

It continued with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (PL 101--336, 42 U.S.C. 12101), which placed similar obligations on shopping malls and stores, hotels and restaurants, movie theaters and recreation parks, as well as employers of 15 workers or more. Again, private-sector firms were obligated to protect the rights of people with disabilities, although most of these firms had never even applied for a federal grant or contract. A few months after enactment of the ADA, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 (PL 101--431, 47 U.S.C. 609; 47 U.S.C. 303) required all TV sets measuring 13 inches or more diagonally that are sold or manufactured in the United States after mid-1993 to have built-in captioning decoder chips. This Act explicitly covered foreign as well as domestic companies (only Zenith remains as an American manufacturer of TV sets).

These three laws illustrate successful outcomes of negotiations between disability rights leaders and affected industries. One common thread is one of equitable burden: All firms in an industry share the responsibility proportionally (Bowe, 1990a, 1990b). Another common thread is consumer unity: The major consumer organizations were united in support of these measures.

In telecommunications, a fractious, quarrelsome, and unevenly regulated industry achieving such results has proven to be difficult. One success to date has been the relays created by the ADA. Title IV is the only section of the Act that protects only part, not all of the population of Americans with disabilities--deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired people who use special phone devices called text telephones (or teletypewriters, abbreviated TTYs). Title IV guarantees to TTY users "full and equal access" to the telephone network.

It did this by adding a new section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934 (PL 73--416, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). The new section required all 1,600 common carriers (telephone companies) to make available to TTY users dual-party relay services, by means of which TTY users could make and receive local and long-distance calls, no later than July 26, 1993. The relays connect TTY users to relay operators who read what TTY users type, speak those words out loud for non-TTY users to hear, and then type what non-TTY users say so that the words appear on the TTY user's screen. The result is a mediated, real-time, two-way phone conversation.

Shortly after the Act was signed into law by President Bush on July 26, 1990, a few disability rights leaders began work on extending the full and equal service obligation to others with communication-related disabilities. TTY users are not the only ones who face obstacles in communicating. So, too, do many people with cerebral palsy, learning disabilities such as dyslexia and retardation, and blindess or low vision.

Unlike some earlier efforts to influence public policy on behalf of people with disabilities, this one featured divisions within the ranks of consumer activists. In the earlier battles, consumers stood united against industry, forcing company lobbyists to compromise, usually on the effective date; the FHAA, the Decoder Act, and the ADA each took effect eighteen months to three years after date of enactment. In telecommunications, however, consumer divisions allowed industry lobbyists to forestall congressional action.

The Panel

One of the disability activists was Deborah Kaplan, director of technology policy at the World Institute on Disability (WID), in Oakland, California. Kaplan had been active in disability rights issues since the early 1970s, as a Nader's Raider and founder of the Ralph Nader-funded Disability Rights Center in Washington, DC. Kaplan has been a quadriplegia from a diving accident. Another activist was Max Starkloff, executive director of Paraquad, a St. Louis organization serving people with disabilities. Starkloff, also a quadriplegic, uses adapted telecommunications daily in his work. A third was Jay Brill, a Rockville, Maryland, computer expert who uses high-technology telecommunications to overcome a learning disability.

Kaplan recruited Starkloff and a dozen other disability leaders to join a Blue Ribbon Panel that would study telecommunications policy issues and find ways, in her words, "to do what Title IV should have done: Ensure equal access to all Americans with disabilities." Brill became a panel consultant.

The effort brought Kaplan and her panel into national telecommunications policy--and head-to-head with the nation's common carriers. These phone companies are the most regulated private firms in America. Virtually everything they do is dictated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which was created by the 1934 Act, and by state regulatory bodies. The three major long-distance carriers (American Telephone & Telegraph [AT&T], MCI, and Sprint) and the seven Baby Bells (Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell, and U.S. WEST), together with GTE, dominate the industry. They employ legions of lobbyists whose job, in Washington jargon, is to ensure that the company hiring them gains "a fair advantage" over others.

Kaplan, Starkloff, Brill, and their colleagues are consumer activists. But to the phone firms, the word consumer conjures up images of Gene Kimmelman, longtime legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), a 240-group coalition. Kimmelman sees the consumer role as holding the phone companies' feet to the fire on the Act's reasonable charges mandate. CFA reflexively opposes any new telecommunications product or service, fearing that telephone ratepayer costs will rise (Kimmelman, 1992). The relationship between CFA and the Bell companies is best described as opposition, even war. The battlefields are the FCC's corridors, the Hill's lobbies and hearing rooms, and the media's airwaves and newsprint. Week after week, year after year, the Bell companies propose new services and CFA tries to shoot them down.

The telephone companies therefore were confused by Kaplan and her colleagues. They are consumers, but they do not act like Kimmelman. CFA regularly bashes the Baby Bells; every December, the Federation issues a report detailing alleged abuses by the Bells. Kaplan, by contrast, acting as WID's technology policy director, decided to negotiate with the phone companies, seeking commitments to more and better services. CFA embraced the 1984 Modified Final Judgment (MFJ) that separated AT&T ("Ma Bell") from the "seven sisters." Kaplan testified that some MFJ restrictions should be lifted so that the Bells could make new products and offer new services. And while CFA kept its distance from the phone companies, Kaplan urged those firms to improve services for people with disabilities and showed them how they could do that.

The crux of Kaplan's logic was that national policy already required telephone companies to serve people with disabilities. The only question, Kaplan thought, was how that would be done. She asserted that in this post-ADA climate, consumers with disabilities must be consulted. The foundation for the effort was the 1934 Act's universal service obligations.

Universal Service

Kaplan and her panel began where Title IV began: with the 1934 Communications Act. The Act opens by declaring its intent:

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges....

It is, by any measure, a remarkable statement of national policy. These few words have guided the development in America of a telecommunications system that is the envy of the world and one generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually.

The language "so far as possible, to all the people of the United States" is the foundation for what is known as universal service. These words mean that the public switched telephone network is regulated to make telephone service available to virtually everyone in the country. That has led to some amazing results. The most usable consumer product in most people's homes is the telephone, although these phones are tied to some of the biggest, most complex computers in the world. That happened because of the universal service mandate. The telephone has to be usable by young children, by the proverbial little old lady in tennis shoes in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and by people of all ages in between.

There are other aspects of universal service. The words "at reasonable charges" drive regulated telecommunications entities to offer basic telephone service at low cost. That affordability mandate complements the universal service requirement: It is not possible to extend service to virtually all Americans unless most everyone can afford it. The language "with adequate facilities" further supports universal service: The mandate is, in industry jargon, for basic service rather than for enhanced service. Universal service, then, means usable, affordable, basic service.

In 1934, "all the people" did not include individuals with disabilities. Despite modest attempts to extend equal service to America's estimated 43 million citizens with disabilities during the 1980s and notably in 1990, that is still the case. The 1988 Hearing Aid Compatibility Act (PL 100--394, 47 U.S.C. 610), for example, requires phones to be compatible with hearing aids. Also, the ADA establishes a nationwide network of relay services.

The Agenda

Kaplan took her cue from the Television Decoder Circuitry Act. The Act embraces a new kind of thinking. Rather than require deaf people to purchase and connect special devices, the Act mandates that ordinary consumer products be accessible. This approach works under that Act because the requirement to install the $5 chips applies to all television makers, foreign or domestic. It is a fair and equal burden.

Kaplan hoped for something similar in the public switched telephone network. In her vision, the network itself would become accessible. The massive computers in telephone switching stations would be equipped with speech synthesis hardware and software. That would permit blind, low-vision, and dyslexic individuals to listen to information others view on computer screens in electronic mail and other database services. The network would, in time, feature speech recognition hardware and software, so that it could hear for deaf people and print out what others say on the phone. It would also allow people with quadriplegia and other physical disabilities to dial telephone numbers simply by speaking into a phone receiver.

All that consumers might need is an inexpensive terminal including a telephone, a screen, and a keypad. Some persons with disabilities still would need special devices, or PCs, to meet their specific, individual needs. Kaplan believed that some combination of network and personal accommodations was needed. Still, equity and affordability dictated that every possible modification be placed in the network itself.

Susan Hadden, of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin, offers a similar vision, one based on a hypothetical new kind of telephone:

Homes, schools, and libraries would obtain an InfoTel, either for a modest fee or as a built-in appliance. Containing a television screen, an alphanumeric keypad, speakers, and a TV-like remote control, this appliance serves as a gateway into a wide range of information services.... InfoTel can provide voicing of information usually offered as on-screen print for use by the visually handicapped and those who cannot read, and can provide voice messages in written form for the hard-of-hearing or for purposes of maintaining records (Hadden, 1991, p. 81).

It is an appealing idea, one that translates the 1934 Act's universal service mandate into what the technologies of the 1990s makes possible. It is a vision, however, that requires spending money on the public switched network. That is, it interprets in a new way the Act's reasonable charges and adequate facilities language. Hadden, like Kaplan, envisioned a network that goes beyond simple voice service to meet other consumer needs.

Old Words, New Meanings

Were Dr. Hadden's hypothetical InfoTel machine to have its own speech recognition and speech synthesis capabilities, it might well cost thousands of dollars. Kaplan reasoned that this would violate the spirit of the reasonable charges mandate. The Act, therefore, should be understood as saying that the intelligence to do those things should become part of the network, so that consumers would need only an ordinary phone line and a simple "dumb" terminal, costing together perhaps one hundred dollars.

That places the cost allocation question into sharp relief. The position taken by CFA (which, it said, was the consumer view) was that people with disabilities have special, unusual needs that they should meet with their own adaptive equipment. Why should all Americans pay more for telephone service so that a few may be helped? In reply, Kaplan pointed to the economics of the ADA's relays. Although relay services, according to congressional testimony, may cost as much as one-quarter billion dollars a year when fully implemented, that translates into just one to two dollars per year for each of the 100-million-plus residential and business telephone subscribers in the nation. A dollar or so, Kaplan believed, is comfortably within the range of the Act's reasonable charges mandate.

Placing other services in the network so as to bring full and equal access to people with cerebral palsy, blindness, dyslexia, etc., means further network investments. Speech recognition, speech synthesis, and similar advanced capabilities could be attached to the huge computers, called switches, that manage the public switched telephone network. Since the technology is not yet mature, no one knows exactly how much adding these features might cost. Kaplan believed it is not unreasonable to project that the costs will be about the same as the current relays, if not less--another dollar or two for each telephone subscriber each year. Additionally, people with disabilities would not be the only beneficiaries of such network investment: The same adances would help older people, rural residents, schools, and other nonprofit organizations.

Adding such features to the network means, in turn, redefining the 1934 Act's "adequate facilities" phrase. Kaplan believed that what is adequate today includes enhanced as well as basic services. The kinds of information now offered only via modemequipped computers have to be part of what we mean by adequate. Information services, databases, and electronic mail should be reachable, and usable, as much as possible, from ordinary phones. In the words of Justin W. Dart, Jr., former chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, "this system will turn every home into a working place, a university, and a shopping center that will emancipate millions from isolation, poverty and dependence" (Dart, 1992).

To understand why that is, consider the concerns of the average American with a disability. Living in a largely inaccessible environment, he or she needs to know what is accessible and how to get it, as well as what rights he or she enjoys and where they apply. The difference such information makes is the difference between a life of independence and one of constant frustration.

What is so empowering about Justin Dart's vision and Kaplan's is that it brings this kind of urgently needed, very specific information to people with disabilities in an affordable and accessible way. Fewer than 10% of Americans with disabilities have modem-equipped PCs, but well over 90% have telephones (Bowe, 1990c). While the number with modem-linked PCs will grow in the years to come, phones still will be more ubiquitous than PCs in the homes of people with disabilities. By making the information available over the public switched network and reachable via telephones, we expand the number of people with disabilities who can get that information ninefold. By placing the intelligence needed for voice-to-text and text-to-voice into the network, we make information accessible to everyone. People with disabilities could call anyone, anywhere, anytime and arm themselves with the knowledge they need, when they need it.

Fairness to all Players in an Industry

Public policy in telecommunications is made in a complex web of legislative, executive, and judicial policymaking bodies that have great difficulty dealing with such innovative visions. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law of the Judiciary Committee, deal with these issues. In the U.S. Senate, the Communications Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies, and Business Rights of the Judiciary Committee do likewise. Executive branch agencies include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). As Kaplan and her panel entered the fray, federal policy in telecommunications was being made not so much in Congress or in the administration as in a federal district court. Judge Harold H. Greene, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, had control over the MFJ.

The debate was played out in 1991 and 1992 in a series of proposed laws. The Senate acted first. S. 173, authored by Ernest Hollings (Democrat--South Carolina), passed the Senate on June 5, 1991. It would have allowed the Bells to manufacture telephone equipment, something they were banned from doing by the MFJ. In the House, Rep. Jim Slattery (Democrat--Kansas) introduced HR 1527, a Hollings companion bill.

For help in Washington, Kaplan turned to the Alliance for Public Technology (APT), a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization created by fellow Naderite Samuel Simon. APT brings together unions, educators, senior citizen groups, civil rights organizations, and disability groups. In early 1990, CFA issued a report by Mark Cooper (Cooper, 1990) expressing their view that consumers desiring information services should buy their own PCs. Kaplan, as a member of the team APT created to rebut Cooper's paper, contributed to the Alliance's response. Its document, An Information Age Agenda, concluded:

Our vision has three elements. First, we want the public switched telephone network to support a wide range of communication functions, including electronic mail and voice mail, information services, transactional services, and various conversions (text/voice, language translations, protocol conversions, etc.).... Second, a range of terminal devices should be available, from low-cost, easy-to-use communication terminals to higher-functioning PCs.... Third, there should be an active program of consumer education about information services and how they can be used effectively (Alliance for Public Technology, 1990, p. 4).

The Alliance's agenda was ambitious, with an unknown price tag. Alliance meetings enabled Kaplan, Brill, and the panel members to debate that agenda with other consumer activists and with telephone company representatives. One outcome, in early 1991, was a Bell-funded study of how the network could be made more accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The project found that the top priorities among people with disabilities were for speech services in the network, notably speech synthesis and speech recognition, and for easy-to-use, affordable products and services (Brown, 1991). In March 1991, Kaplan, Brill, and others met with Senator Hollings's staff to seek an expression in S. 173 of the goal of accessibility in telecommunications policy. Hollings responded, both in the bill's committee report and in floor remarks during debate. These gestures convinced Kaplan and many others in the disability rights community to support the bill, which was also a top legislative priority for the Bells. Strategy sessions on how to get the bill passed offered other opportunities for disability activists and Bell company people to work together.

More concrete progress was made in the House, where HR 1527 sponsor Slattery introduced amendments endorsed both by the Bells and by major disability groups in late February 1992. The amendments required the Bell companies to take into account the accessibility needs of people with disabilities when designing new telecommunications products and when upgrading the network. The amendments were not universally accepted in the disability community. Some groups, including the American Council of the Blind and the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, wanted changes that would make the amendments follow the ADA more closely, specifically by allowing exceptions to accessibility only in cases of excess cost, or undue burden as the ADA puts it.

The negotiations were difficult. The Bell lobbyists pointed out that the Bell companies would be subjected to accessibility standards applicable to no other telecommunications companies. The Slattery amendments, they said, would not impose similar access requirements on AT&T, MCI, Sprint, GTE, or the other 1,590-odd communications companies in America. They were willing, the Bell company people said, to make good-faith efforts and to do their share on behalf of people with disabilities, but statutory language imposing so high a burden as to put the Bell companies at a competitive disadvantage was not acceptable.

Ultimately, however, the 102nd Congress ended without agreement on what to do about the MFJ. The Hollings and Slattery bills died. Nonetheless, Kaplan believed that the disability community had achieved significant gains. "We have their attention," she told the panel at its spring 1992 meeting, noting that both the Senate and the House had recognized the needs of people with disabilities for greater access to telecommunications. The stage was set for further progress in the 103rd Congress.

Continuing Battles

Congress will have to resolve the many issues raised by Kaplan's panel. Does universal service in fact mean that people with disabilities have a right to full and equal access to the public switched network? Congress has the precedent of the ADA's Title IV, which gives such a right to TTY users, upon which to base its work. Congress could broaden the right, remove it for TTY users, or ignore the apparent inequity. I believe Congress will seek to expand access. Faced with similar single-disability provisions in the past--as with Social Security benefits granted to blind people but not to others with disabilities--Congress generally has chosen to broaden coverage. Kaplan's work heightened congressional awareness that non-TTY users, including people who are blind or have cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, mental retardation, or physical disabilities, need greater access to telecommunications.

How Congress acts will depend on how it interprets such key terms as reasonable charges and adequate facilities. Will the Congress rule that reasonable means, as CFA argues, the lowest possible phone rates for the greatest number, with a select few paying more to meet their special needs? Or will it adopt the Alliance's view that the public interest justifies charging each residential and business customer a higher (as yet unknown) fee, so that the 1934 mandate of universal service will include people with all kinds of communication-related disabilities? The precedent set by the ADA suggests that Congress will attempt the latter kind of solution. ADA's Title III, for example, requires places of public accommodation such as hotels, restaurants, and stores to offer access to customers with disabilities. The presumption is that the costs (for ramps, wider doors, flashing-light alarms, Braille menus, etc.) will be passed on to all customers, rather than charged only to those with disabilities.

Finally, Congress likely will have to devise an industry-wide vehicle through which to express its vision of telephone service. That may be difficult for the House and Senate committees to do, accustomed as they are to writing Bell-specific legislation. Yet universal service for people with disabilities cannot be achieved merely by telling the seven Bell companies to make their services accessible. The other common carriers must carry their part of the burden, as must telephone equipment manufacturers.

Implications

If, as Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues, important public services are to be delivered in the future by private corporations as well as by government entities, disability rights activists will need to devise new advocacy strategies. The work of Kaplan and her panel suggests that disability leaders first seek to answer difficult cost allocation questions. In order for Congress to decide, for example, what reasonable charges means, lawmakers must understand the costs and benefits of different approaches. To illustrate, the vision offered by the Alliance for Public Technology--one featuring information services as well as voice service, low-cost telephone devices, and consumer education programs--needs to be spelled out in terms of costs and benefits. Congress will want to know, too, the cost/benefit aspects of the competing CFA vision of low-cost, voice-only telephone service. How much would people with disabilities have to pay for personal adaptive devices that would allow them to gain equal benefit from the public switched network? These cost questions have yet to be answered in sufficient detail for Congress to make informed decisions.

The experience of the past two years suggests, too, that disability rights activists ensure that any burden they seek to place upon private industry be equally applied across all companies in that industry. The telecommunications debate of 1991--1992 focused only on what the seven Bell companies should do. But public policy, particularly in regulatory affairs, should address an industry as a whole. In this case, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and the many hundreds of smaller telephone companies must be involved in any national effort to enhance telecommunications services for Americans with disabilities.

Addressing these issues will not be easy. How Congress handles them will teach us a great deal about how consumer activists can advance on other fronts where private industry delivers important public services. Should television routinely offer descriptive video services, by means of which stereo TVs carry optional auditory narratives of what is shown on the screen for the benefit of blind people who cannot see those images? Allowing blind and low-vision people to choose to hear descriptions would appear to be fair, since federal law already requires TVs to exhibit closed captioned subtitles for deaf viewers. Should companies pay for personal attendant services needed by physically disabled workers? Again, the precedent of company-paid sign-language interpreters for deaf workers and readers for blind employees suggests that would be fair. The telecommunications debate of 1991--1992 offers us guidance about how to draw the lines.

References

Alliance for Public Technology. (1990). An information age agenda: The telecommunication services platform. Washington, DC: Author.

Bowe, F. (1990a). Disabled and elderly people in the first, second, and third worlds. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 13 (1), 1--12.

Bowe, F. (1990b). Into the private sector: Rights and people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1 (1), 87--99.

Bowe, F. (1990c). National survey on telephone services and products: The views of disabled and elderly people. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University.

Brown, C. (1991). Final report for the universal network accessibility study. Unpublished document prepared for NYNEX Corporation.

Cooper, M. (1990). Expanding the information age for the 1990s: A pragmatic consumer analysis. Washington, DC: Consumer Federation of America and American Association of Retired Persons. Dart, J. (1992, May 29). Remarks. Presented at President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities annual meeting.

Hadden, S. (1991). Technologies of universal service. In Insitute for Information Studies, Universal telephone service: Ready for the 21st century? Annual review of communications and society, 1991 (pp. 53--92). Nashville, TN, and Queenstown, MD: Author.

Kimmelman, G. (1992, June 16). The bells really want to reach out: Their goal is to shoulder out rivals in nonphone areas. Newsday, p. 87.

Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Alfred Knopf.

 
    Article A16014028
    
 

View other articles linked to these subjects:

 Information Society - Social Aspects
Information Society - Social Aspects View 17 Periodical references 17 Periodical references
Information Society - Social Aspects See also 49 other subdivisions 49 other subdivisions
 Information Technology - Management
Information Technology - Management View 3554 Periodical references 3554 Periodical references
Information Technology - Management See also 242 other subdivisions 242 other subdivisions
 Telecommunication Policy - Analysis
Telecommunication Policy - Analysis View 330 Periodical references 330 Periodical references
Telecommunication Policy - Analysis See also 139 other subdivisions 139 other subdivisions

 Policy Studies Journal, Dec 22, 1993
Policy Studies Journal, Dec 22, 1993 View other articles in this issue other articles in this issue

Library holdings and other related sources

Search UIUC Online Catalog for library copy & volume information Search UIUC Online Catalog for library copy & volume information

Print, e-mail, and other retrieval options

Browser Print — Full Text —
Reformat for printing (approximately 11 pages) from your browser. To return to InfoTrac, use the back function of your browser.

Acrobat Reader — Full Text —
Retrieve for viewing and printing from Acrobat™ Reader. Please allow a few minutes for the retrieval operation to complete (approximately 8 pages)

E-Mail Delivery — Full Text —
We will send a plain text version to the e-mail address you enter (e.g. bettyg@library.com).
E-Mail Address:
Subject
(defaults to title):


previous article   ——      Article 10 of 15      ——   next article

About Expanded Academic ASAP   Thomson - Gale logo    Copyright and Terms of Use

_http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/itw/infomark/139/638/87443561w7/purl=rc1_EAIM_0_A16014028&dyn=5!xrn_10_0_A16014028?sw_aep=uiuc_ucYtext/html 1\e{  ( 1wa4=#$%%%%)p-K--123#3,3578899=ZArAAAF%IJ6J?JHNOPP&P/TwUUUUZ;[N[[[` a agapayejjcjljunop&p/t~zBzz~'DMV+4}8AJS\"+IO|r} }}