STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123 Today, we not only ensure more independence for the hearing impaired, but, by requiring interoperability among Video Relay Service (VRS) providers receiving interstate Telecommunications Relay Services funding, we ensure that VRS consumers are more likely to have access to this tool in the event of an emergency. There are over 31 million Americans with some degree of hearing loss. This number is rising dramatically with the aging of baby boomers, and is expected to reach 78 million by 2030. I recently discussed the difficulties and challenges with one of my good friends and a respected attorney just diagnosed with a disease which causes hearing loss for men as they reach 50. His courage and faith touched me and I hope to do as much as possible to keep all Americans connected to vital information, whether in everyday life or in an emergency. In March I attended a meeting of the FCC Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks in Jackson, Mississippi. At that meeting, Cheryl Heppner, a representative for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, reminded us that, in the event of an emergency, while people with hearing loss use many strategies and tools for communications, the very nature of the emergency or disaster can stress those options and take away many tools ordinarily available to the hearing impaired. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, for example, many of the hearing impaired were cut off from their support service providers who facilitate communication. Moreover, network outages made it difficult or impossible for the hearing impaired to reach the professionals who provide visual interpretation to facilitate communication with the hearing world. As we review our response to Hurricane Katrina, and look to disaster plans that provider interoperability and redundancy of communications systems for hearing consumers, it is imperative that we also consider the needs of the hearing impaired. Prohibiting a VRS provider from blocking access to other VRS providers ensures that, if a consumer cannot promptly reach help through the VRS provider associated with his/her equipment, that consumer is not simply stranded, but is able to reach help through another VRS provider. Moreover, in the event of a large-scale emergency, if a VRS provider's service is shut down or overwhelmed by an influx of calls, interoperability will allow consumers to have access to all other VRS providers, as well as all available interpreters, no matter who they work for. Even in the non-emergency context, interoperability is important. As stated in our Order, if a consumer is limited to using only one provider's service, the consumer is dependent solely on that provider to place a call. Thus, absent interoperability, a VRS user is at a disadvantage compared to voice callers - unlike voice callers, the VRS user cannot promptly reach a "dial tone." Finally, I agree that that requiring interoperability will help to level the playing field and foster competition by encouraging new providers to offer this service. It is my hope that our action today, including our Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing technical issues such as the feasibility of establishing a single global database of proxy number for VRS uses, is an important step toward providing not only functionally equivalent services to the hearing impaired, but equivalent access to, and choice of, VRS providers. I want to thank the many people who have shared with us the unique challenges faced by the hearing impaired. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that we are always cognizant of the needs of the hearing impaired and those with disabilities as we address critical issues such as disaster preparedness and response. Comment Date: (30 days after publication in the Federal Register) 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) we address the misuse of the two Internet-based forms of telecommunications relay service (TRS),' Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and Video Relay Service (VRS), and seek comment on possible changes to the TRS regulations to curtail their misuse. 2. IP Relay is a form of text-based TRS that uses the Internet, rather than the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).2 VRS is a form of TRS that allows communication via American Sign Language (ASL) using video equipment. Currently, if IP Relay and VRS are offered in compliance TRS, created by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), enables an individual with a hearing or speech disability to communicate by telephone or other device through the telephone system with a person without such a disability. See 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3) (defining TRS); 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(14); see generally Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Dockets 90-571 and 98-67 and CG Docket 03-123, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 12475, at 12479-12480, para. 3 n.18 (June 30, 2004) (2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM) (discussing how TRS works). 2 Provision of Improved TRS and Speech to Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 7779 (April 22, 2002) (IP Relay Declaratory Ruling) (recognizing IP Relay as a form of TRS). with the TRS mandatory minimum standards, the costs of providing the services are reimbursed from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), which is overseen by the Commission." 3. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which added Section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in the United States. The statute requires that TRS offers persons with hearing and speech disabilities access to the telephone system that is "functionally equivalent" to voice telephone services. Congress recognized that persons with hearing and speech disabilities have long experienced barriers in their ability to access, utilize, and benefit from telecommunications services." Congress found TRS necessary to "bridge the gap between the communications-impaired telephone user and the community at large," and emphasized that to "participate actively in society, one must have the ability to call friends, family, business[es] and employers."10 Since the implementation of a uniform nationwide system of TRS in 1993, the Commission has addressed issues relating to its provision, regulation, and compensation. 4. When Section 225 was enacted, and TRS was implemented, TRS calls were placed using a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the PSTN. In March 2000, however, the Commission recognized VRS as a form of TRS, providing an additional means for persons with hearing disabilities who use ASL to have access to the telephone system." VRS requires the use of a broadband Internet connection between the VRS user and the communications assistant (CA), which allows communication 12 3 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5152-5154, paras. 21-27 (March 6, 2000) (Improved TRS Order & FNPRM) (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS); 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(17) (defining VRS). 4 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12547, para. 189. 5 Improved TRS Order & FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 5152-5154, paras. 23-27. Generally, the Interstate TRS Fund compensates providers for providing interstate TRS services, and the states compensate providers for providing intrastate TRS services. Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 5154, para. 26. Presently, however, all VRS and IP Relay calls are compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. The question of whether the Commission should adopt a mechanism for the jurisdictional separation of costs for these services is pending. 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12561-12564, paras. 221-230 (IP Relay), at 12567, paras. 241-242 (VRS). Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (1990). 747 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1). 8 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3). See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12479-12480, para. 3 (discussing legislative history of Title IV of the ADA). 10 See H.R. Rep. No. 485, Pt. 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at 129 (1990) (House Report). 11 See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12479-12486, paras. 2-13 (overview of past TRS orders). 12 Improved TRS Order & FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 5152-5154, paras. 21-27. 2 in ASL via a video link. The CA, in turn, places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA communicates in ASL with the person with a hearing disability and by voice with the hearing person. As a result, the conversation between the two end users flows in near real time and in a faster manner than with a TTY or text-based TRS call. VRS therefore provides a degree of "functional equivalency" that is not attainable with text-based TRS, by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL to communicate in sign language, just as a hearing person communicates in, e.g., spoken English. Although the Commission has not made VRS a mandatory service," it has encouraged its development.' In the past few years, use of VRS has grown tremendously. is 5. In April 2002, the Commission recognized IP Relay." IP Relay calls are text-based calls. Rather than using a TTY and the PSTN, the user connects to the TRS facility via the Internet using a computer, web phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or any other IP-capable device. When the IP Relay user is connected to the IP Relay service provider, the user is immediately routed to a CA, who then makes the outbound call to the hearing person and relays the call between the parties in the same way that TTY-based calls are handled." IP Relay, like VRS, has become very popular because the user can make a relay call with any computer (or similar device) connected to the Internet, rather than only with a dedicated TTY. 6. The Commission continues to receive complaints and anecdotal evidence that IP Relay is being misused by persons without a hearing or speech disability to defraud merchants by making purchases over the telephone using stolen, fake, or otherwise invalid credit cards, and to make harassing calls. Although such conduct may be illegal, because IP Relay calls reach the relay center via the Internet, and the calling party and the CA communicate only by text, the CA presently receives no identifying information. Consequently, IP Relay affords users a degree of anonymity that is generally not 18 That issue is pending before the Commission. See 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12567-12568, paras. 243-245. 14 Improved TRS Order & FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 5152, para. 22. On July 19, 2005, the Commission released two orders further addressing the provision of VRS. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-toSpeech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, CG Docket No. 9867, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13165 (July 19, 2005) (2005 VRS Order) (addressing VRS speed of answer, VRS hours of service, and VRS Mail); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 13140 (July 19, 2005) (2005 ASL-to-Spanish VRS Order) (recognizing ASL-toSpanish VRS). 15 The popularity of VRS is reflected in how rapidly it has grown. In January 2002, the first month VRS was generally offered, there were 7,215 minutes of use; in January 2003, there were 128,114 minutes of use; in January 2004, there were 477,538 minutes of use; and in January 2005, there were 1,634,316 minutes of use; and in January 2006 there were over 3.2 million minutes of use of VRS. 16 See IP Relay Declaratory Ruling, supra. 17 See generally Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services For Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 4761, 4762, para. 3 n.11 (March 14, 2003). 18 See generally FCC Reminds Public of Requirements Regarding Internet Relay Service and Issues Alert, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 10740 (June 18, 2004) (IP Relay Fraud Public Notice). 3 |