Several groups representing the deaf and hard-of-hearing urged th...

and other forms of phone mail -- but for the format of the transmissions used in these messages -- compensation through the Interstate TRS Fund should similarly be authorized for this VRS feature,” said Communication Service for the Deaf. The FCC had already approved TRS access to interactive voice response systems and answering machines and ruled that access was compensatory TRS eligible for reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund. “It is a simple, indeed logical step, for the Commission to reach a similar conclusion with respect to video mail,” Telecom for the Deaf (TDI) and National Assn. of the Deaf (NAD) said: “Given the significant increase in VRS usage, functional equivalency requires that video mail, like its TRS equivalent, be considered a compensable TRS service.” They said video mail met the Commission standards for determining whether to require TRS providers to offer a particular service or functionality, because “VRS providers already provide video mail, it is technologically feasible, and it is a feature desired by VRS consumers.” TDI and NAD urged the FCC to rule that video mail is a compensatory VRS and, if necessary, require VRS providers to provide their consumers video mail. Echoing other comments, the Deaf Counseling, Advocacy & Referral Agency said providing reimbursement for the costs of video mail was “fully consistent with the Commission’s rule that TRS providers must be capable of handling any type of call… Video mail is a prime example of a new technology that enhances the functional equivalency of relay services. Without it, the many deaf people who have low English literacy are either left without full understanding if text messages or worse, those who call them are discouraged from leaving any messages beyond name and number.”