CONSUMER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Recommendation Regarding VRS Blocking
Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requires the provision of telecommunications relay services (TRS) to people
who are deaf, hard of hearing or speech disabled that is functionally
equivalent to voice telephone services. Video relay service (VRS) is one type
of TRS, which enables deaf people who use sign language to communicate
naturally and in real time in their first or preferred language. VRS is
authorized by the FCC and its providers are reimbursed by the Interstate TRS
Fund administered by the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA).
On February 15, 2005, the California Coalition of Agencies
Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH) filed a petition with the FCC
charging that one VRS provider donates equipment to consumers that blocks
consumer use of any other VRS provider. This petition further charged that the
practice of not making all video equipment and service interoperable is a
restrictive and unfair practice that denies functionally equivalent
communication service to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The CCASDHH
petition asked the FCC to “impose a condition of interoperability on all VRS
providers as a prerequisite to receiving compensation from the Interstate TRS
Fund.”
The FCC’s Consumer Advisory Committee, TRS Working Group, is
very concerned about the failure of the FCC to respond to the CCASDHH petition;
indeed, convincing the FCC to grant the petition has now become one of our top
objectives. This petition has received the support of all leading national
organizations by and for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. In addition,
hundreds of consumer comments, constituting 80-90% of all commenters to this
proceeding, have been filed in support of the petition’s objectives. We are
concerned that the lack of a response to the public’s overwhelming support for
the California petition may be in conflict with the Administrative Procedure
Act’s requirement for federal agencies to respond appropriately to comments
received from the public. Although the FCC has established rules for average
speed of answer, such rules do not address the issue raised by the petition,
i.e., that of preventing VRS providers from blocking consumer access to relay
services.
The FCC itself has stated that it has an obligation to
ensure that each and every person who is deaf or hard of hearing has access to a
dial tone. But this is not currently possible for all VRS users. Unlike the
general population who can call anyone regardless of the provider of their
telephone service and regardless of the manufacturer of the telephone itself,
VRS consumers of one VRS provider must acquire multiple video devices in order
to make and receive calls through other VRS providers.
All VRS users are already paying a premium for the privilege
of using their preferred language/communication mode to make telephone calls.
The cost of high speed Internet access is several times greater than the cost of
basic telephone service. We believe it is unreasonable for the FCC to continue
to limit the full benefit of this greater expense to the user. Simply put, the
FCC is allowing a practice that blocks deaf people from hearing people who are
attempting to communicate with them via relay.
As the CCASDHH petition notes, blocking access to and from
VRS users violates various sections of the Communications Act. These include
Section 1, requiring universal communications services for all Americans,
Section 225, requiring functionally equivalent telephone service for all relay
users, Section 201, prohibiting unjust or unreasonable practices, Section
202(a), prohibiting unreasonable discrimination, Section 251, requiring
interconnection across telecommunications carriers, dialing parity, and the
installation of network features and capabilities that are consistent with
Section 255’s mandates, and Section 256, allowing the FCC to develop standards
for network interconnectivity so that communication services are fully
accessible to people with disabilities.
All of the above sections of the Communications Act have
contributed to a seamless and integrated network of communications services that
all Americans can utilize with ease. The language of and goals established by
these sections, however, are now being violated through the willful practice of
one VRS provider, who technically and contractually blocks its customers from
making calls through other VRS providers. If this provider’s customers want
service that is functionally equivalent to that available to hearing people,
these individuals have no choice but to acquire multiple video devices. This is
discriminatory and burdensome and inconsistent with services available to
wireline voice users who can have a single telephone to reach their entire
universe of contacts. Moreover, even when a person acquires multiple devices,
that person runs the risk of missing incoming calls when those calls are either
directed to the device that is not turned on or routed to the wrong device by an
Internet router.
The Need For A Dial Tone – Anytime, Anywhere:
There are a number of reasons to prohibit blocking of access
to multiple VRS providers. These can be grouped as follows:
Functional Equivalency – Title IV of the ADA requires
the FCC to ensure that people who are deaf or hard of hearing are able to have
the same level and quality of telecommunications access as is available to all
other Americans. When a hearing person picks up a telephone to make a call, that
individual can immediately access anyone, at anytime, regardless of the
telephone carrier to which that person or the called party subscribes. This same
capability is not being made available to those VRS users who are restricted to
one service provider. These consumers are presently unable to switch to another
provider to make their calls, even when their primary provider has no dial tone
(i.e. no interpreter available to place the call). Although it might take
several minutes for an interpreter to become free, these “captive” consumers
have no choice but to wait – this is not functionally equivalent access.
Allowing a provider to block deaf people from communication with hearing people
is also contrary to Title IV’s goals to further the independence and
productivity of TRS users.
Effective Emergency Access – Allowing a VRS provider
to block outgoing calls through other providers is extremely dangerous in
emergency or urgent situations. If the provider blocking access is operating at
full capacity and its wait times are long, consumers have no way to make their
emergency or urgent calls through a different provider. This could have
disastrous consequences, especially during a national crisis or a weather
disaster when one provider’s network may be shut down or exceedingly busy.
The FCC has already spoken on the importance of providing
individuals who use the Internet for communication purposes with an effective
means of accessing police, fire, and medical assistance. Not only has the
Commission directed the termination of the existing VRS waiver for 911 calls as
of January 2006, but under the FCC’s recent IP-enabled Order on E911,
interconnected VoIP providers must also provide emergency access. The latter
Order directs providers to make available a means for emergency personnel to
return calls to customers. However, in addition to blocking outgoing calls, a
VRS system that restricts access makes receiving return (incoming) calls in an
emergency difficult, if not impossible. This is because when a person has
multiple devices for outgoing calls (which is necessary if one provider’s system
remains blocked to all other providers), the routers for the two devices may
direct incoming calls from emergency centers to the wrong device and then the
call will not be answered. Alternatively, the wrong device may be turned on,
which will also result in the call being blocked. Again, in an emergency
situation, this could have dire consequences.
Denying full emergency access hurts our nation’s homeland
security policies, which are designed to facilitate, not restrict, access to
emergency support. Among other things, permitting relay blocking conflicts with
the FCC’s recent efforts to help relay centers obtain Telecommunications Service
Priority. This status allows a relay center to be given priority when it comes
time to restore telecommunications services after a disaster occurs. Allowing
VRS blocking runs counter to this objective, as it will virtually ensure that
consumers using a restricted provider will be left without access in the event
that that provider has an emergency that forces it to shut down its operations.
Madison River Decision – The FCC’s overriding
interest in keeping Internet communications open and seamless for consumers was
recently demonstrated in the Commission’s decision to fine Madison River
Telephone Company for blocking its ports to calls made over the Internet. The
decision, brought under the authority of Section 201(b) (requiring carriers to
provide “just and reasonable” communication service practices), is consistent
with FCC longstanding policy to ensure a communications network that is equally
available to all Americans, and further emphasizes the obligation for all VRS
providers to keep their ports open to all outgoing calls, regardless of the
providers handling those calls.
A Provider-Neutral Federally Administered and Financed
Program– At present, the single provider that is dominating the VRS market
and blocking its consumers from making outgoing calls through other providers is
receiving compensation for its restrictive system. The federally administered
NECA Interstate TRS Fund should not be used to support restrictive,
anti-competitive, and discriminatory practices that block VRS calls and deny
users functionally equivalent service.
It is worth noting here that if the Interstate TRS Fund was
allowed to reimburse providers for research and development costs as they were
in the past, providers would have less incentive to block their networks. Today,
because research and development costs are not reimbursable, providers are
forced to find ways to increase their revenues to cover these costs and one way
to do that is to ensure that all relay minutes are processed on their system,
i.e. block their networks.
Impermissible Financial Incentive – The FCC should
not permit the distribution of free equipment or free broadband lines that block
users from accessing the services of competitors. The current policy, permitting
this practice, is inconsistent with the FCC’s January 26, 2005 order prohibiting
the use of any type of financial incentive to encourage or reward a consumer for
placing TRS calls. When a provider distributes equipment to consumers completely
free of charge, and then blocks those users from making VRS calls through other
providers, it is attempting to reward those consumers in exchange for having the
consumers use its service for VRS. These consumers not only have a financial
incentive to use the donated device for VRS, they are forced to do so because
calls to other providers are blocked.
Efficient Use of Interpreters – The limited pool of
sign language interpreters in the United States should be available to answer
calls from all VRS customers. Limiting the use of any grouping of interpreters
to the customers of only a single provider makes inefficient use of this limited
supply of interpreters. It is in consumers’ best interest to be able to use the
interpreters of an alternate provider when the restricted provider is operating
at capacity.
The CAC strongly recommends that the FCC mandate the removal
of these existing barriers to video relay services. More specifically, the CAC
urges the Commission to require that the video equipment of providers who are
reimbursed through the Interstate TRS Fund allow every VRS consumer who is deaf
or hard of hearing the privilege of a dial tone – anytime, anywhere. By opening
up the market to all consumers, we fulfill the intent of the ADA to promote
functionally equivalent services.
Adopted: November 18, 2005
Respectfully Submitted: Shirley L. Rooker, Chair FCC
Consumer Advisory Committee
|