47 U.S.C. § 255

Access by persons with disabilities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) DefinitionsAs used in this section—(1) Disability

The term “disability” has the meaning given to it by section 12102(2)(A) 11 See References in Text note below. of title 42.

(2) Readily achievable

The term “readily achievable” has the meaning given to it by section 12181(9) of title 42.

(b) Manufacturing

A manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.

A provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.

(d) Compatibility

Whenever the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) are not readily achievable, such a manufacturer or provider shall ensure that the equipment or service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.

(e) Guidelines

Within 18 months after February 8, 1996, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board shall develop guidelines for accessibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment in conjunction with the Commission. The Board shall review and update the guidelines periodically.

(f) No additional private rights authorized

Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any private right of action to enforce any requirement of this section or any regulation thereunder. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 255, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title I, § 101(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 75.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 12102 of title 42, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was amended generally by Pub. L. 110–325, § 4(a), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3555, and, as so amended, provisions formerly appearing in par. (2)(A) are now contained in par. (1)(A).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Fair v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc., 621 F. App'x 52 (2d Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fair v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc., 621 F. App'x 52 (2d Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Fair, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of her disability discrimination claims under Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 255 , and of her state law fraud and breach of contract claims.”

Spectra Commc'ns Grp. v. City of Cameron, Missouri, 806 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2015). “See 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f). We do not believe, however, that this inference establishes “in clear and unambiguous terms” that Congress intended to create a private right of action under § 253.”

Tcg Detroit, (98-2034), (98-2035) v. City of Dearborn, (98-2034),third-Party (98-2035), Ameritech Michigan, Inc., Third-Party (98-2035), 206 F.3d 618 (3rd Cir. 2000). “The resulting implication is that the neighboring section 253(c) concerning the assessment of fair, reasonable, and competitively neutral franchise fees, from which such limiting language is conspicuously absent, does confer such a right.”

At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D. Tex. 1998). “at 938 (citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 255 (f), 613(h) ("The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section.”

At&T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. City of Austin, Tex., 975 F. Supp. 928 (W.D. Tex. 1997). “See 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f) & 613(h) (“The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section.”

Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “See 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f). The Sixth Circuit pointed to this language as an indication that a private right of action was intended under § 253.”

TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2002). “, 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f). The absence of such language does not foreclose primary jurisdiction, however, because primary jurisdiction goes to the issue of when, not whether, courts should consider issues.”

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. S. New England Tel. Co., 27 F. Supp. 2d 326 (D. Conn. 1998). “See 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f). As for implicit foreclosure of the § 1983 remedy, the Supreme Court has “[o]nly twice .”

At & T Commc'ns of California, Inc. v. Pac. Bell, 60 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Cal. 1999). “” 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f) (1999). That express denial of a private right of action could also lead to the conclusion that other provisions of the Act do create rights of action unless Congress has expressly denied them.”

Pac. Bell v. Cook Telecom, Inc., 197 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 1999). “” Under § 251(a), all telecommunications carriers are required “(1) to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers; and (2) not to install network features, functions or capabilities that do not comply with [ 47…”

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 844 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2012). “Each telecommunications carrier has the duty— (1) to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers; and (2) not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and…”

Mapes v. Cable One (N.D. Ind. 2022). “” 47 U.S.C. § 255 (f). So any claim under Title IV of the ADA is a nonstarter.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.