POWELL URGES TIMELY SOLUTIONS TO VoIP DISABILITY ACCESS ISSUES

FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief Dane Snowden told us after the summit the Commission was “on the proper track to make sure that the disability community is considered on the front end of our policy decision making.” He said one of the major messages that came out of the summit was that “we need to have a coordination with E911 and [PSAPs] as we look at the new technology.”

Powell said while the initial debates about VoIP had been largely about whether it should be regulated for economic purposes, “it occurred to us that there were core values that should stand outside of that debate. Core values that no matter what communications system is… the human being doesn’t change. The human being core values that are needed to be preserved aren’t going to change either. We wanted to at an early stage highlight and focus on those [issues] specifically. And disability access, to my mind, is one of those things.”

“Making sure that IP services are accessible to everyone” is a “chief” challenge to be addressed by the Commission, FCC Comr. Copps said: “It’s the right thing to do. But that’s not just my interpretation. It’s the law.” “So, let’s put that front-and-center,” he said: “Let’s be certain we do everything we can to ensure that we live up to the mandate of functional equivalency as IP services flood the communications landscape.” He said “functional equivalency” was “such an antiseptic and bureaucratic term, but what it means is equal opportunity to lead socially productive lives, to communicate, to have a good job, to pursue education, and so much more. It is a huge challenge and one that we must both meet and master.”

Copps said he was “worried” that reclassification of telecom services as information services “could cause many more problems than it resolves -- if it resolves any… We need a better handle -- a much better handle -- on what that means for access by persons with disabilities. I don’t think it bodes particularly well.”

“We also must build on the TRS [telecom relay service] options we have today that already involve IP platforms,” Copps said: “IP relay has been eligible for TRS fund reimbursement for 2 years. So, you've been ahead of the curve when it comes to using IP services to communicate.” He said the question to ask now was “how broadband deployment impacts IP relay use and what more we can do to ensure that the disabilities communities have access to the bandwidth they need to use the Internet-based alternative to TTY. We also are overdue for getting our policy on VRS [video relay service] compensation right. And it’s time for a frank discussion of the benefits of making it a required form of TRS.”

“Getting it right at the beginning is extremely important,” said FCC Wireline Bureau Senior Deputy Chief Jeffrey Carlisle. He compared FCC designing new regulatory regime with an engineering process, during which “you define the problem, define the solution, you see if the solution works and you go back and change, so you can reach the goal of actually answering the question you started from.” But, he said “all too often in the regulatory space, unfortunately, you end up defining” the regulatory framework “and then by the time you get around to figuring out whether that [framework] has actually worked, you are 2 or 3 years down the road and if it’s not working, it’s extremely difficult to actually change it to make it work.” He said it was also important to be “willing down the road to be flexible in the approach and adopt new solutions as they come up.”

“Some form of regulation [of IP-enabled services] is essential,” said Avaya Senior Engineer Paul Michaelis. For example, he said under the current regulatory regime, VoIP audio channels weren’t required to support TTY communication: “This is a problem because the voice optimized audio compression currently used in VoIP systems can decrease TTY accuracy to the point it becomes unusable.” He said regardless of how the FCC would classify VoIP, “at a minimum, the current access requirements for traditional [telecom] systems should be applied to VoIP.” He stressed those regulations should be implemented at the federal level, “so that manufacturers don’t have to go thorough multiple standards that may be developed by individual states.” He also said “a barrier might develop between VoIP users and the users of traditional systems if interoperability and compatibility aren’t required.”

Funding sources and cost issues emerged as most problematic at the summit. Ed Bosson from the Tex. PUC questioned whether funding should be provided at the federal or state level: “I'd like to emphasize that the money is collected from the carriers, and the carriers collect it from the rate payers.” He urged the govt. to “study which [approach] would be the most cost effective and the most accessible not only to the phone companies, but also to the rate payers who are ultimately paying for that service.” He also urged the FCC to “look into a federal funding support for Internet relay and VRS” services: “I think it’s cost effective -- we will distribute the costs more evenly to all the carriers.”

Michaelis raised concerns about the costs of accessible VoIP systems: “If accessible VoIP systems cost more than inaccessible ones, the FCC may be unable to guarantee the rights of people with disabilities regardless of whether VoIP regulations are adopted.” He said previous statements from the FCC demonstrated it had been “reluctant” to require capabilities that weren’t readily achievable. A key component of how the FCC defines “achievable” takes into account cost of incremental action, he said. But, he said “realistically, it’s not always possible” to produce an accessible system with “no additional charge… If accessible systems cost more than inaccessible ones, this would lead to discrimination in provision of services and opportunities for employment in organizations that are unable or unwilling to cover the expense.”

Claude Stout of TDI, who has a hearing disability, urged IP-based technology manufacturers to “consider our needs.” But he said “don’t assume what needs we have -- go and ask us. There is a variety of degrees of hearing and vision loss, and all that needs should be considered.” Jim Tobias of Inclusive Technologies said “the most functional limitation to moving towards new technologies is not knowing. We have to remember a product with infinite functionality takes infinite amount of time to figure it out.” He also urged the FCC to take an “outcomes-oriented” approach when addressing VoIP technology: “Are we actually showing improvement in people’s ability to communicate?”