IP CTS Providers, Deaf Groups Concerned About FCC Proposed Changes; Some Supportive
IP captioned telephone service providers and deaf groups objected to FCC proposals to change the IP CTS telecom relay service program, but some telco interests offered support. IP CTS providers and deaf groups also generally backed Sprint petitions to reconsider…
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.
a June order and declaratory ruling that were combined with an NPRM and notice of inquiry (see Notebook at end of 1806070021). Comments on the notices and replies on the reconsideration petitions were posted through Tuesday in docket 13-24. Sprint said the proposals "are based on flawed premise," including cost-based rate-setting mechanisms that would "harm" deaf and hard-of-hearing users. Hamilton Relay and other IP CTS providers also expressed concerns. Providers and deaf advocates disputed the program was riddled with waste, fraud and abuse. "Given no evidence to the contrary, we believe the increased use is the result of an aging population that is becoming more generally aware of accessibility technologies like IP CTS," said Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and other groups. But ITTA said the FCC should "build upon the reforms" in its order, lower IP CTS compensation rates further and take other actions to curb abuses. IDT Telecom backed FCC efforts to establish a permanent IP CTS funding mechanism, and recommended a "single contribution factor methodology" to expand the industry base to include intrastate revenue. HLAA and the other deaf groups urged the FCC not to transfer IP CTS administration to states. NARUC said the FCC should continue to cooperate with states and engage their expertise in TRS decisions, "including, but not limited to, the option of State IP-CTS administration with funding authority." The California Public Utilities Commission opposed the transfer unless the FCC "provides detailed information regarding potential state impacts, requisite funding and sufficient transition time" to effect state statutory changes. Hamilton Relay supported Sprint petitions to reconsider a 10 percent IP CTS compensation rate cut and the authorization of automated speech recognition (ASR) technology. HLAA and the other deaf groups also generally supported Sprint's request that the FCC reconsider or clarify approach to ASR applications, but MachineGenius opposed the ASR petition.