The market in terminal equipment
Liberalization of the supply of telephone terminal equipment was achieved by means of a separate Directive effective from the end of 1992. This followed very closely the form of other Single Market Directives for goods, with the ultimate objective of the elimination of all national technical barriers to trade. Immediate achievement of this objective was not possible, however, because the differing technical requirements of national telephone systems made full compatibility across Europe impractical. Member States were and still are permitted to retain some national technical requirements, but only to the extent necessary to maintain the safety and proper functioning of the network.
Because the ability of disabled people to make use of the public telephone network is so often critically dependent upon their having appropriate terminal equipment, and because the availability of that equipment is now dependent on the willingness of the market-place to provide, there is concern that some equipment may either cease to be available or may become prohibitively expensive. Some means of amending this situation is now needed, within the parameters of Community law.
A possible approach, which is being discussed, would be to amend the Terminals Directive so that certain features of importance to disabled users could be added to the essential requirements as mandatory performance features. An alternative is to add such features to European equipment standards, so that although these are not normally mandatory there would be a presumption that manufacturers would follow the guidance. Neither of these proposals is entirely satisfactory.
The range of features which may be needed in some combination, but not all at the same time, is large. It will include amplification of incoming or outgoing speech, inductive coupling to hearing aids, socket provision for an additional earphone, visual indication of tones, loud or frequency-adjustable ringer, tactile identification of keys, colour contrast of keys, enlarged key-pads with finger-rests or barriers, enlarged numerals, handset grips and supports, hands-free operation, socket provision for external microphone/headset, text terminal (keyboard) facilities, non-slip feet, etc, etc. Some of these features might be regarded as desirable components of any well-designed product, while others would be useful only to a very specific customer group. In the structure of European Single Market Directives, any mandatory features would either have to apply to all telephones placed on the market in Europe, or to telephones intended by the manufacturer for specified purposes. The choice, if the mandatory approach is followed, is of the inclusion in all telephone terminals of such of these features as would be commercially acceptable, or of a more extended range in telephone terminals intended (by the manufacturer) for the use of disabled people. Neither would guarantee the availability of any features beyond those which the market would be most likely to offer without prompting.
Inclusion of particular features in standards gives no better guarantee of product availability but it does allow for setting performance characteristics that will ensure that the facility, if offered, is useful. Furthermore, standards are easier to review and update than legal Directives and they have been chosen by the European Union as the preferred method of adding technical detail to the broadly stated essential requirements set out in Single Market Directives. Some additional incentive is nevertheless needed to make certain that the facilities described are offered by some manufacturers, at least.
Member States and their agencies of government are inhibited from acting as purchasers in a way which would lead to distortion of the free market. No such inhibition applies to purchasers remote from government, such as the deregulated Telecommunications service providers. Since many of these have long engaged in the business of equipment supply, and are not prevented from continuing to do so, it might seem a reasonable use of the powers given to regulators to make this a specific requirement. The larger service providers could be placed under an obligation, as a condition of their operating licences, to ensure the availability of telephone terminal equipment for domestic subscribers - including a range of terminals suitable for users with disabilities. The extent of the range could be a matter of agreement between the service provider and the regulator and, as the powers of the regulator to do this derive from the Universal Service section of the proposed Directive, uneconomic provision would create eligibility for support from the fund and affordability would be assured.
While it is possible that intervention of this kind will prove unnecessary, because service providers may conclude - as British Telecom does now - that it suits the company's overall interests to offer such facilities, some confirmation of the regulator's ability and willingness to take such steps would provide considerable reassurance to disabled people and relieve their fears that equipment upon which they are heavily reliant will cease to be available.
| Previous | Contents | Next |