FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Provision of Improved
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
CC Docket No. 98-67
Joint Comments of
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.,
National Association of the Deaf,
and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People
to
Sprint Corporation Petition for Limited Reconsideration.
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (“TDI”), National Association of the Deaf (“NAD”) and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (“SHHH”) (TDI, NAD, and SHHH collectively, “Joint Commenters”) respectfully submit the following Joint Comments to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) in response to the Petition for Limited Reconsideration (“Petition”) filed by Sprint Corporation (“Sprint”) on April 14, 2003. [1] Sprint seeks limited reconsideration of the FCC’s March 14, 2003 Order on Reconsideration in the above-referenced docket, [2] insofar as it denied cost recovery to those IP Relay providers who were providing IP Relay service prior to the effective date of the Order on Reconsideration that did not meet the applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards, including those concerning HCO (hearing carry over) and 900 number services. [3] The Joint Commenters support Sprint’s Petition and respectfully request that the FCC allow all entities that provided IP Relay service after the effective date of FCC’s IP Relay Ruling, [4] but for the HCO and 900 service requirements, to be reimbursed for the IP Relay services they provided during that time.
INTRODUCTION
TDI is a national advocacy organization actively engaged in representing the interests of the twenty-eight million Americans who are deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened, and deaf-blind. TDI’s mission is to promote equal access to telecommunications and media for the aforementioned constituency groups through consumer education and involvement, technical assistance and consulting, application of existing and emerging technologies, networking and collaboration, uniformity of standards, and national policy development and advocacy. TDI supports the introduction of technological advances and new services which enable Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, late-deafened, and deaf-blind to enjoy the opportunities and benefits of the telecommunications revolution to which they are entitled.
NAD is the nation’s oldest and largest constituency organization safeguarding the accessibility and civil rights of twenty-eight million deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened, and deaf-blind Americans in a variety of areas, including education, employment, health care, and telecommunications. A private, non-profit organization, NAD is a dynamic federation of state associations and organizational affiliates and direct members. Primary areas of focus include grassroots advocacy and empowerment, captioned media, deafness-related information and publications, legal rights technical assistance, policy development and research, and youth leadership development. NAD works closely with deafness related national organizations and is a member of several coalitions representing the interests of deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened, and deaf-blind individuals.
SHHH is a nonprofit, consumer, educational organization founded in 1979, and devoted to the welfare and interests of those who cannot hear well, their relatives and friends. SHHH, based in Bethesda, Maryland, has 13 state organizations and 250 chapters nationwide. It is the largest consumer organization in the United States representing people with hearing loss. As the voice for the hard of hearing people, SHHH strives to improve the quality of life for hard of hearing people through education, advocacy, and self-help. SHHH influences national policy to improve the rights, services, research, and public awareness of the rights and needs of people with hearing loss.
BACKGROUND
In April 2002, the IP Relay Ruling authorized cost recovery for IP Relay services from the interstate TRS fund. In addition, the IP Relay Ruling waived certain TRS capabilities that IP Relay providers would otherwise need to meet in order obtain the certification required under the Commission’s rules prior to qualifying for reimbursement. The FCC waived these minimum TRS requirements because it was technically infeasible or inappropriate for carriers to provide such capabilities in an IP Relay environment. The waivers granted by the Commission did not extend, however, either to the provision of HCO functionality[5] or the requirement that IP Relay provide access to 900 “pay per call” services.
On July 11, 2002, Sprint filed a Limited Petition for Reconsideration of the IP Relay Ruling, requesting that the Commission reconsider its decision not to extend waivers to the provision of HCO functionality [5] and 900 pay per call service. Sprint argued that it was technically impossible to provide these capabilities.[6] Also in July 2002, Sprint began offering IP Relay without these capabilities. Sprint later sought clarification from the FCC to confirm its eligibility for reimbursement from the TRS Fund notwithstanding its inability to provide the requisite certifications regarding provision of HCO and 900 services. TDI filed comments in support of Sprint’s request for reimbursement.
In its Order on Reconsideration, the FCC acknowledged that the same technological obstacles exist for HCO as for other capabilities that were waived in the IP Relay Ruling.[7] In addition, the Order on Reconsideration found that there were no viable solutions to meet the 900 number minimum standard.[8] In light of these findings, the FCC concluded to waive the HCO and 900 number requirements going forward. However, the FCC declined to apply these waivers retroactively, and denied cost recovery to those IP Relay providers who were providing IP Relay service prior to the effective date of the Order on Reconsideration that did not meet the applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards.
COMMENTS
The Joint Commenters respectfully request that the Commission grant Sprint’s Petition and authorize Sprint, as well as any other similarly-situated carriers, to receive reimbursement for IP Relay services they provided prior to the effective date of the Order on Reconsideration, even though these carriers lacked the ability to strictly comply with the HCO and 900 service requirements. The Joint Commenters believe that the unique circumstances of this case justify reimbursing Sprint and other similarly-situated carriers for the IP Relay services they rendered to members of the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population.
The Joint Commenters support the development and availability of new products and service offerings that allow greater access and flexibility to TRS services. For that reason, the Joint Commenters were extremely pleased with the Commission’s finding in its IP Relay Ruling that IP Relay services should be eligible for TRS reimbursement. The Joint Commenters share the Commission’s belief that “IP Relay is a valuable addition to TRS because it permits consumers to access TRS through personal computers and similar devices.”[9] IP Relay has been well-received by the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population, and demand for this service continues to grow strongly.
The Joint Commenters are grateful to Sprint, and other similarly situated carriers, that made IP Relay service available to members of the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population. The Joint Commenters understand that the service offered by Sprint and other similarly-situated carriers was not in exact accordance with the Commission’s rules because HCO and 900 service issues were unresolved. However, as the Commission recognized in theOrder on Reconsideration, the reason why Sprint and others were unable to fully comply with the HCO and 900 service minimum requirements was because it was impossible to do so. Now that the Commission has made this finding and waived those minimum requirements, the Joint Commenters believe it would be unjust to punish Sprint and others by denying them retroactive reimbursement when the service they offered was as compliant with the rules as technically possible at the time it was offered.
Moreover, Sprint and others’ respective offering of IP Relay service also yielded a substantial public interest benefit by enabling members of the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population to access this new technology in a more timely manner than the administrative process would have allowed. Had Sprint and others waited for resolution of the HCO and 900 service issues, members of the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population would have been unable to have additional choices of IP Relay providers until the effective date of the Order on Reconsideration. Sprint’s actions enabled deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to access the services of at least one IP Relay provider months sooner than they otherwise would have. The Joint Commenters respectfully submit that it would be unjust to punish Sprint and others for taking action that had the positive effects of providing persons with disabilities equal access to technology as well as increased choices of service providers in a more timely manner than they otherwise would have received them.
The Joint Commenters understand the Commission’s reluctance to authorize reimbursement for services that may fail to meet the minimum standards for TRS. The Joint Commenters agree generally that the Commission should not “encourage common carriers and others to provide regulated services in contravention of [the Commission’s] rules, with the hope that they eventually may be retroactively rewarded for the providing the services.”[10] In addition, the Joint Commenters appreciate and are discouraged that other potential providers of IP Relay service declined to enter the marketplace when Sprint did because the HCO and 900 service issues were unresolved. [11] However, the Joint Commenters also believe that the Commission should retain incentives for TRS providers to offer new, innovative services so that members of the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population may continue to benefit from these developments. In light of these unique circumstances, where the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population benefited from the wider range of IP Relay service alternatives and the FCC ultimately determined that it was technically infeasible to provide the minimum requirements at issue, the best way for the Commission to accomplish this objective and promote the future deployment of innovative TRS services is to grant Sprint’s Petition.
CONCLUSION
The Joint Commenters respectfully submit that the Commission’s policies should support the development and availability of new products and services. At the same time, the Commission’s policies should also encourage all TRS vendors, including IP Relay providers, to make new functionalities available at the earliest time possible to maximize the benefit of these new functionalities to the deaf community and the hard-of-hearing population. To that end and in light of the unique circumstances presented by this case, the Joint Commenters respectfully request that the Commission grant Sprint’s Petition for reimbursement.
Respectfully submitted,
Claude Stout
Executive Director
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
8630 Fenton Street, Suite 604
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Andrew D. Lipman
Paul O. Gagnier
Jeanne W. Stockman
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20007
Brenda Battat
Director, State Development/Chapter Relations
Self Help for Hard of Hearing People
7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1200 Bethesda, MD 20814
Nancy Bloch
Executive Director
National Association of the Deaf
814 Thayer Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-4500
Dated: May __, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Sprint refiled its Petition on April 24, 2003.
[2] Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, rel. Mar. 14, 2003 (“Order on Reconsideration”).
[3] Petition at 1.
[4] In re Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities - Petition for Clarification of WorldCom, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7779 (“IP Relay Ruling”).
[5] The Commission’s IP Relay Ruling does not clarify whether a carrier must support all HCO functionality or whether support of text leg of the call only (i.e. 2-line HCO) is sufficient to allow an IP Relay carrier to be eligible for reimbursement. See 17 FCC Rcd at 7790.
[6] See Petition at 3.
[7] Order on Reconsideration, ¶ 18.
[8] Order on Reconsideration, ¶ 22.
[9] Order on Reconsideration, ¶ 27.
[10] Order on Reconsideration, ¶ 26.
[11] See Comments of Hamilton Relay, Inc. filed in CC Docket No. 98-67 on April 28, 2003 at 2 (“Hamilton Comments”).
