IP CTS Rules Tightened; Providers Can’t Get Reimbursed for Minutes on Devices Less than $75
Rules have been tightened for who may offer Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service and who’s eligible to use it. In an order released Monday evening (http://bit.ly/19KiEQP), the FCC prohibited referrals-for-reward programs and other incentives for registering or referring IP CTS customers. It required providers to register customers directly and obtain a self-certification of eligibility. It also said providers can’t get compensation from the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund if the consumer received an IP CTS device for no charge, or bought it for less than $75.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
"Where consumers must make an investment in an IP CTS equipment purchase, they are far less likely to acquire such equipment if they do not need the service,” the commission said. Seventy-five dollars “represents a reasonable balancing of interests,” it said: high enough to deter customers who don’t need the equipment, but low enough to keep the purchase from being “overly burdensome."
That $75 requirement sparked deep disappointment from CaptionCall, a CTS phone provider that often runs promotions that give away phones for free to customers who can certify they are hard of hearing. “CaptionCall is very disappointed as we think about the impacts this order will have on people who struggle to use the telephone,” said Bruce Peterson, senior director-marketing. The commission is taking “backward steps” in attempting to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide functionally equivalent phone service, he said by email. “Even though a fully hearing person can buy a phone at WalMart for less than $6, a hard-of-hearing consumer must pay for high-speed internet, and now must also pay ‘at least $75’ for a captioning phone."
The order said that, despite adopting a third-party certification requirement in interim rules, the agency “continued to be concerned that by giving away devices at no cost, providers were encouraging consumers to obtain and use the free equipment whether or not they had a hearing disability.” The commission quoted CaptionCall’s promotions in a footnote: In bolded and italicized text, CaptionCall promised users could get the normally $149 phone “FREE!”, which includes closed-captioning and in-home setup for “FREE!” Such advertising “only vaguely” refers to the need for third-party certification, the commission said. “When consumers are drawn in initially by a provider’s offer of a free phone, and only subsequently seek evaluation and certification by a professional, the professional’s role is likely to change from helping the consumer select on their merits from a number of alternative assistive technologies, to accepting or vetoing a choice already made by the consumer."
The FCC justified its rules based not on evidence of actual misuse, but on “speculation,” Peterson said. The agency’s actions will “make captioned telephone service hard to use,” he said. “The FCC’s disabilities leadership needs an overhaul."
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing “generally approves” of the actions taken by the commission, said Executive Director Claude Stout by email. “While we deeply regret that there are additional requirements imposed on consumers in areas of registration, education, and outreach, we will count on the FCC to ensure that an effective and reliable monitoring mechanism is in place to enforce as needed, compliance by all providers with its policies and procedures."
The commission also required that captions default to off, so a consumer must affirmatively turn the captions on to use the service. A showing of hardship will let users get an exemption from the default-off rule. Purple Communications had urged the commission to reject the default-off requirement in the workplace, arguing there’s “virtually no risk of misuse” there (CD Aug 27 p6). “While we are unable to quantify the amount of IP CTS usage attributable to casual or inadvertent use of captions, it stands to reason that an unregistered individual who makes casual use of an IP CTS telephone is likely to ignore the presence of captions, or to forget, or be unable or unmotivated -- or unaware of the option -- to turn them off,” the commission said. Concerns and confusion about the need to turn captions on will “subside over time,” it said. “A requirement to push one additional button when dialing or when receiving a call will become habit."
A further notice seeks comment on the extent to which states should be responsible for funding, overseeing and determining eligibility for IP CTS. It also contemplates a user registration database, the need for minimum standards, and whether to adopt a “low income exception” to the $75 rule. The prohibition against free IP CTS phones doesn’t apply to programs administered by state and local governments, but “not all states have equipment distribution programs,” the FNPRM said. “Should the Commission allow for a low-income exception to the prohibition of providing compensation for IP CTS minutes of use generated by equipment that is distributed for less than $75? If so, who should be permitted to distribute equipment for less than $75?”