VTCSecure Petition Backed by Consumer Groups, Gallaudet, Opposed by VRS Providers
VTCSecure's bid to boost direct sign-language support services received a mixed reaction in comments posted Wednesday and Thursday in FCC docket 10-51. Consumer groups and Gallaudet University generally supported and video relay service (VRS) providers opposed VTCSecure's waiver petition to…
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.
allow providers of direct sign-language (SL) support services to access the telecom relay service (TRS) numbering directory (see 1607070003). The consumer groups "conditionally support" the VTCSecure request and "urge the Commission to (1) classify direct SL customer support service, as defined by Petitioner, as TRS before a provider of such service is permitted access to the TRS Directory and (2) require providers of direct SL customer support service to comply with consumer protection rules applicable to VRS providers with access to the TRS Numbering Directory," said Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, plus the National Association of the Deaf, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization, the National Association of State Agencies of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and others. They said they weren't addressing VTCSecure's assertion its service meets the TRS definition. Gallaudet said it agreed with the petition's premise to enable and facilitate direct sign-language calling. "If done correctly, staffed by deaf individuals who have appropriate signing skills and experience with the culture that they are serving, providing direct sign language communications to registered users of [VRS] would constitute a huge step up over what sign language users currently experience in their communications with businesses and government entities when they have to go through a VRS interpreter," the university said. VRS providers resisted the petition. "Although the Providers recognize the benefits of direct sign-language customer-support services, expanding access to the Numbering Directory to non-VRS providers would create significant security and interoperability challenges that must be considered before doing so," said ASL Services Holdings (Global VRS), Convo Communications, CSDVRS, Purple Communications and Sorenson Communications. "These issues should be addressed in a comprehensive rulemaking proceeding which appropriately considers the technical, security, and cost issues of expanding access to the Numbering Directory -- not through a waiver that sets aside the current rules only for a single company."