A Hofstra Professor’s Adventures in Policy Research Frank G. Bowe Professor Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education and Rehabilitation

uch of the research I have done Clearly, what was needed was a way The senator told me he would Msince coming to Hofstra is in the to grow the audience, quickly, to a size introduce such a bill if I could assure area of policy research. That term puzzles that would appeal to producers of him that the industry would not oppose some of my colleagues. What, they ask, is television programs and to the networks it. I then spent two weeks in Japan and policy research? To me, it is a process that distribute those programs. Knowing Korea, where the vast majority of involving: (1) identification of a public that television was publicly regulated, televisions sold in this country are problem, (2) documentation of the issues members of the commission explored made. I met with executives of Sony, involved, (3) development of alternative alternatives. We could recommend that Matsushita, LG (then Lucky Goldstar), solutions to the problem, (4) incorpo- Congress subsidize the cost of decoders, Mitsubishi, and many others. They told ration, to the extent possible, of the thus increasing sales. We could require me many things, but their concerns views of interested publics, and (5) the networks to caption prime-time generally revolved around two issues. creation of a solution that both solves the programming, notwithstanding the small First, they said, if the requirement for problem and is politically feasible. All of size of the market. Eventually, the American television sets to have built-in this sounds rather more abstract than it commission settled on a third option. captioning capability were imposed usually is, at least in my experience. The On behalf of the commission, I immediately, the costs to retool would generality of language is necessary asked Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) if he be tremendous. However, if the effective because policy research varies consid- would introduce a bill requiring that date of the requirement were some two erably from case to case. A few examples caption chips be built into all new years in the future, they could may explain more clearly. I begin with television sets. That, the commission accomplish the task at little cost. one that illustrates the process from start believed, would work. Ten to 15 million Second, they told me, small television to finish and then continue with another television sets are sold annually in this sets were priced at cutthroat levels. They instance of policy research on which I am country; within a year or two, it would wished for television sets measuring 13" currently working. generate an audience of 20 to 25 million or less diagonally to be excused from caption-ready homes. Once that was any requirements. Television Captioning accomplished, captioning would be self- After returning to the United States, I While chairing a commission for sustaining because the industry would gave Senator Harkin a memo that Congress shortly before joining the faculty see it as a worthwhile investment. included those provisions. It said that as here, I learned from engineers that it was possible to place the electronics of television captions onto a small chip. Such chips were not being made, anywhere. People who wanted captions were purchasing $200 caption decoder boxes and cabling them to their television sets. The public problem was that only 200,000 such boxes had been sold as of 1987. That was far too few. The television industry thinks in terms of tens of millions of viewers. Because captioning a half-hour program cost as much as $2,000, and there were many thousands of hours to be captioned, the industry was beginning to rethink its voluntary commitment to captioning. A representative of ABC told my commission: "Increased decoder ownership — not just more captioning — is required for a strong, self-sustaining captioning service." Professor Frank G. Bowe (r) poses for a photo with President George H. W. Bush (l) and Professor Emeritus of Political Science William F. Levantrosser (c) during the Presidential Conference “George Bush: The 41st President of the United 3 States,” held at Hofstra University in April 1997. of mid-1993 (then a full three years away) accessible. The concrete reality of a localities -- and will become available all television sets measuring 13" or more working accessible bus would, I thought, elsewhere within the next few years. diagonally that were made and/or sold in seal the deal. What I did not do was Telecommunications in this country the United States had to come with built- to meet with the manufacturers of is governed by the Federal Comm- in caption decoding capabilities. The mass-transit buses. That was, in unications Commission (FCC), an senator asked the National Center for retrospect, a fatal error on my part. Their independent federal regulatory agency. Law and Deafness to help drum up public opposition ultimately sank the deal - they The FCC is, in turn, governed by support for the plan. Eventually, the law won a court order invalidating the Congress, notably by the Commerce center produced a list of more than Transportation rules. We were to wait 13 committees in the House and Senate. The 100 organizations, including literacy more years, until 1990, before accessi- FCC has proposed that because advocates, educators, senior citizen bility would finally be required in mass- broadband is a new technology, one that groups and, of course, associations of and transit buses. I learned my lesson. the nation wants to encourage to develop for people who are deaf or hard of As this story illustrates, what makes as rapidly and as widely as possible, the hearing. The bill, called the Television policy research interesting for me is the proper regulatory stance is "hands-off" -- Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, passed the challenges of 1) defining a problem and to use the jargon, broadband is an U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of defending my interpretation of it, 2) information service, not a telecommuni- Representatives without even one "nay" generating alternative solutions and cations service. Information services, vote. It became law on October 15, 1990. defending those against other possible including the Internet and most of what is Zenith, then the sole U.S. manu- solutions, and (most difficult) 3) creating conveyed over it, are almost 100 facturer of television sets, introduced its a political basis upon which the desired percent unregulated. Telecommunications first caption-ready set in 1991. The other policy can take hold. My hypotheses, services, by contrast, are heavily regulated. manufacturers soon followed. Today, methods and data, as well as my This strikes me as fine as far as it virtually all television sets are caption- proposed solutions, are studied and goes. However, it falls short on one equipped. This is why you can see either supported or attacked — all in a measure important to me: it means that captions in airports, in bars, in banks – public forum and usually within a short broadband would develop without being and in every hotel room in America. New period of time. accessible to and useable by tens of immigrants, and students who are English Below, I describe another example millions of Americans with disabilities language learners, are using captions to of policy research. By way of (see, for example, Bowe, 1993). For more help them learn to read English. introduction, note that the than a quarter century, I have advocated This example illustrates the policy- Telecommunications Act of 1996 for accessibility and for nondiscrimi- research process. First, a public policy requires broadcasters and cable nation on the basis of disability. The problem was identified (here, the risk companies to caption programming. policy problem, for me, then, was: How that television captioning might decrease The current requirement (2003) is 50 can broadband be required to offer or even disappear). Second, alternative percent of such programming. By disability access while remaining solutions are defined. Third, the views of January 2006, all (100 percent) must be unregulated in most other respects? interested publics are solicited and, if captioned. Thus, this law did what the I became engaged with broadband possible, incorporated into a solution. 1990 law did not — because, by 1996, when the U.S. House of Representatives Finally, a solution is generated that is so many people were benefiting from prepared to vote on a bill that would politically feasible, meaning that even its captioning in so many ways that deregulate broadband. The bill’s wording opponents concede that “we can live opposition to a mandate to caption could be read, in one interpretation, as with this.” I do policy research this programs had dissipated. My recent undercutting a provision in the 1996 Act way because I have learned from some policy research involves this that was important to Americans with rather spectacular failures. In 1977, for 1996 law. disabilities. This was section 255, in title example, I helped an American auto II of the Act. Section 255 requires company develop and demonstrate a Broadband telecommunications products and prototype for an accessible mass-transit One of the hottest buzzwords in services to be accessible to and useable bus. Such R&D is a component of policy Washington today is "broadband," which by people with disabilities. One research, broadly defined. At the time, no refers to very high-speed, always-on, provision of the House bill could be such buses were accessible to people multimedia communications. Broadband interpreted as revoking those using wheelchairs. As the first executive lets people see each other, in full-motion requirements. Since the bill was ready for director of the American Coalition of video, conversing on the phone. They a floor vote by the time I recognized this Citizens with Disabilities (ACCD), then also hear each other, of course. They can threat, all I could do was to write popularly known as “the handicapped even exchange faxes and share other “colloquy” language for use during the lobby,” I had worked closely with the data. So broadband conveys video, voice floor debate preceding the full House U.S. Department of Transportation to and data on the same phone line at the vote. Working with the general counsels issue regulations requiring buses to be same time. It is already available in some for the majority and minority staff of 4 the House Energy and Commerce disability group leaders, I met with FCC, Committee, I prepared a scripted Commerce and Congressional staff to give dialogue between the bill’s floor manager them copies of the report, explain our and the ranking minority member of the needs and answer questions raised by the authorizing committee. In the colloquy, policy paper. the two agreed that the offending The next step was to get our provision did not affect section 255 in language introduced into a bill. Because I any way, shape or form. Committee was already talking with the staff of Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) about ranking member John Dingell (D-MI) other legislation (the Individuals with concurred with this colloquy language. Disabilities Education Act), I approached Then, shortly before the floor vote, an them with the disability language. At amendment prepared by Tauzin placed about the same time, Karen took this my interpretation into the legislation language to the staff of Senator John itself, obviating the need for colloquy McCain (R-AZ). Both Senators agreed to language. The bill passed the House in place our provisions into broadband bills December 2001. they were writing. Senator McCain acted All we had done there was to play first. (See sidebar: “Disability Language defense: to protect what was already in in Senator McCain’s Bill.”) The disability law. It was time to start playing offense. Professor Frank G. Bowe standing in front of the Capitol groups celebrated this development, Building in Washington, D.C. The caption on the cover Could we extend the requirements of reads: “Frank Bowe — Keeping Congress Cued on the issuing press releases heralding the section 255 to cover broadband? Rights of Disabled Persons.” (Reproduced with permis- appearance in a formally introduced sion by McDaniel College, Office of Communications Telecommunications attorney Karen and Marketing). piece of legislation of language requiring Peltz Strauss helped me and others to broadband products and services to be draft legislative language for this What we hoped for was what we got: a accessible to and useable by Americans purpose. This new language would commitment from them not to oppose with disabilities. require manufacturers of equipment used our language. Because 2002 was an election year, for broadband, and providers of Most Americans know what captions the Congressional calendar was broadband services, to make their are. The technology is not complex. shortened to the extent that lawmaking offerings accessible, unless the manufac- “Broadband” communications, by did not occur, even with a House-passed turers or providers could demonstrate contrast, are not well-understood. Many bill. However, the fact that Senator that doing so would impose an undue people who would benefit from McCain — in 2002 the ranking member burden on their businesses. That would broadband either do not know what it is and in 2003 the chairman of the Senate represent a step forward — manufac- or do not recognize that it is right around Commerce committee and a major turers and providers of broadband- the corner. If people have seen player in Washington due to his strong related products and services would have broadband at all, they have noticed it in showing in the 2000 presidential to take affirmative steps to be sure futuristic movies such as the “Star Trek” primaries — had put forth a bill devices and services were accessible. series. Even those viewers tend not to containing disability requirements sent Karen and I shared the draft wording understand that what they are seeing are a strong message to the FCC. with leaders of major disability organi- telephones rather than television sets: Accordingly, advocates focused their zations, including the American broadband is a telecommunications energies upon the FCC for the balance of Association of People with Disabilities, technology, one that connects people 2002 and in the first months of 2003. the American Council of the Blind, the over phone lines. Thus, I thought, there First, the House committee counsels for American Foundation for the Blind, the was a need to explain broadband to its the majority (Republican) and minority National Association of the Deaf, Self potential interested publics. A report I (Democratic) were asked to Help for Hard of Hearing People, and wrote, Broadband and Americans with communicate to the FCC their support TDI. The association leaders supported Disabilities, was published in May 2002. for the McCain disability language. our efforts. The next step was to meet, It described the technology, outlined the Second, the Broadband paper was widely accompanied by representatives from issues, and proposed several possible circulated among opinion leaders in these groups, with industry executives. policy alternatives. The paper was Washington. Those leaders were asked to Those officials’ companies would have to distributed widely in Washington: to tell the FCC that they, too, support the spend money to comply with the Congress, the White House, the FCC, the McCain language. In-person meetings requirements were these to be enacted U.S. Department of Commerce, and to key were arranged with Commissioners into law. We did not expect industry advocacy organizations headquartered in Abernathy and Copps at the FCC. representatives to embrace our proposals. the nation’s capital. Together with the As this is written, the “word” from

5 the FCC is that both commissioners and References staff are now aware of the need for Bowe, F. (Ed.) (1988). Toward Equality: disability access. They have documen- Education of the Deaf. Report of the U.S. tation in hand demonstrating that Congress Commission on Education of the disability access is needed. They have Deaf. Washington, DC: U. S. Government told advocates that they are working on Printing Office. ways to provide that access. Bowe, F. (1993). Access to the information age: Fundamental decisions in telecommu- nications policy. Policy Studies Journal, 21 (4), 765-774. Bowe, F. (2002). Broadband and Amer- icans with Disabilities. Online at: Frank Bowe has advised the U.S. Senate, U.S. http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/ House of Representatives, and Executive Branch disability.pdf. agencies on federal disability policy for more than 27 years. In 1992 he received the Distinguished Service Award of the President of the United States for lifetime achievement in this field.

As the first executive director of the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (ACCD) Disability Language in Senator McCain’s Bill in the mid-1970s to early 1980s, Dr. Bowe was instrumental in achieving historic civil rights The Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act (S 2863), August 1, 2002 gains for people with disabilities. His civil rights work was widely reported in U.S. News & Section 3 of the bill creates a new Title VII, which contains a Sec. 704, Access by World Report and The Washington Post, Persons with Disabilities, which reads: among other publications. Professor Bowe earned a B.A. summa cum laude Section 704. ACCESS BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES from Western Maryland College (later renamed (a) Manufacturers.--A manufacturer of equipment used for consumer broadband McDaniel College), an M.A. from Gallaudet services shall ensure that equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be Graduate School and a Ph.D. from New York University. All three of Professor Bowe’s alma accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, unless the manufacturer maters have recognized his professional demonstrates that taking such steps would result in an undue burden. achievements. He received the Distinguished (b) Consumer Broadband Service Providers.--A provider of consumer broadband Alumni Achievement Award from New York services shall ensure that its services are accessible to and usable by persons University, the Trustee Alumni Award and the with disabilities, unless the provider demonstrates that taking such steps Distinguished Alumni Award from McDaniel College, and an honorary doctor of laws (LL.D.) would result in an undue burden. from Gallaudet College (now University). (c) Compatibility.--Whenever the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) constitute an undue burden, a manufacturer or provider shall ensure that the At Hofstra, Professor Bowe teaches courses on the equipment or service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), physical and sensory disabilities, technology and specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by persons with disability, and inclusion. In 1996 he received the disabilities to achieve access, unless the manufacturer or provider University’s Distinguished Teaching Award. demonstrates that taking such steps would result in an undue burden. (d) Regulations.--Within 18 months after the date of enactment of the Consumer Professor Bowe has authored more than 30 Broadband Deregulation Act, the Commission shall prescribe such regulations books and has an extensive list of publications that focus on social policy on age and disabili- as are necessary to implement this section. The regulations shall ensure ty, demographics, and public interest advocacy. consistency across multiple service platforms with respect to access by His recent journal writing focuses on information persons with disabilities. The regulations also shall provide that neither age technologies and their role in empowering broadband services, broadband access services, nor the equipment used for Americans with special needs. such services may impair or impede the accessibility of information content Professor Bowe’s professional accomplishments when accessibility has been incorporated in that content for transmission have been featured in Who’s Who in the through broadband services, access services, or equipment. World, Who’s Who in America, and Who’s (e) Definitions.--In this section-- Who in American Education, among other (1) Disability.--The term 'disability' has the meaning given to it by section 3(2)(A) directories. In 1991 he received the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Award for his role in of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)). enactment of that landmark legislation. In 1994 (2) Undue Burden.--The term 'undue burden' means significant difficulty or he was inducted into the National Hall of Fame expense. In determining whether the requirements of this paragraph would for People with Disabilities. result in an undue burden, the factors to be considered include-- In addition to having received numerous presti- (A) the nature and cost of the steps required for the manufacturer or provider; gious awards throughout his career, Professor (B) the impact on the operation of the manufacturer or provider; Bowe is currently a Mary E. Switzer Distinguished (C) the financial resources of the manufacturer or provider; and Fellow, conducting policy research in rehabilita- (D) the type of operations of the manufacturer or provider. tion. -SK

6