|
FCC Extends Hearing and Speech-Impaired Access
Requirements (TRS) to VoIP Services
By James
M. Smith
[June 2007]
On May 31, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
moved to extend its Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) requirements,
which oblige telecommunications service providers and manufacturers
to afford persons with hearing and speech-impaired disabilities
reasonable access to telephone services and equipment. The Order
imposes those same requirements on “interconnected”
[to the public switched network] Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) providers and manufacturers of VoIP equipment. VoIP providers
will also be required to offer abbreviated “711”
dialing to access these services and contribute to TRS funding.
The text of the FCC’s Order has not yet been released,
and so the specific details and effective date of these new
VoIP regulations are not yet known. We will issue further advice
when those details are released.
The objective of the TRS rules is to provide telecommunications
services to disabled persons “functionally equivalent”
to those enjoyed by persons without disabilities. The services
mandated under the FCC’s TRS rules (47 C.F.R. §§
64.601-64.605), currently designed to serve hearing and speech-impaired
persons, comprise seven categories, the first four of which
are mandatory for telecommunications providers and, henceforth,
VoIP providers and equipment manufacturers:
- Text-to-Voice (TTY): the most basic type, where a TRS
calling party calls an access number and types a message
on a special phone keyboard, and a dedicated operator (the
“Communications Assistant” (CA)) reads the message
to the called party;
- Voice Carry Over (VCO): wherein a hearing-impaired person
speaks directly to the called party, but receives responses
in text form through the CA;
- Hearing Carry Over (HCO): wherein a speech-impaired person
keyboards an outgoing TTY message but hears the response
directly from the called party;
- Spanish Relay Services (SRS): interstate TRS in Spanish;
- Speech-to-Speech Relay (STS): enabling a speech impaired
person to speak to a CA who is specially trained in speech
disorders and so can “translate” the voice message
to the called party, without the use of TTY;
- Video Relay Service (VRS): enabling those who use sign
language to “sign” to a CA via a video link
(typically broadband Internet), who then speaks the signed
message to the other party; and
- IP Relay: TRS using a computer, PDA or like device rather
than a TTY keyboard.
Providers must offer the mandatory services, and must (unless
granted a waiver) adhere to various “mandatory minimum”
operational, technical and functional standards set forth in
Section 64.604 of the FCC’s rules.
Importantly, these new rules apparently include funding obligations.
Therefore, all affected providers must contribute a percentage
of their interstate gross end-user revenues into the Interstate
TRS Fund, which is administered by USAC in a very similar way
to the Universal Service Fund (USF). Such entities are also
eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for both
the mandatory and non-mandatory services they provide.
This action is the latest in a series in which the Commission
has gradually imposed various “telephone-type” public
safety, consumer protection and law enforcement-related regulations
on VoIP services, even as it declines to decide whether VoIP
services are “telecommunications” subject to traditional
FCC regulation. The Commission had already imposed 911/E911,
universal service, CALEA (wiretapping) and CPNI (subscriber
privacy) obligations on VoIP services. As FCC Chairman Kevin
Martin stated yesterday, “VoIP services are increasingly
being marketed and used as a substitute for traditional landline
phones. While technologies will continue to evolve, core social
goals in the Act regarding the provision of communications services
to all remain unchanged.” Indeed, he added that the Commission
will “continue to evaluate” the applicability of
other telephone-type obligations to VoIP, including: “numbering.
. . and consumer protection issues (service discontinuance notifications,
slamming, and billing issues, etc). Chairman Martin stated that
he hoped that "by addressing these obligations, the Commission
will be able to continue to protect the interests of consumers
and establish a competitively neutral playing field for competing
services.” VoIP providers and equipment manufacturers
thus may expect additional FCC regulation in the future.
For further information, please contact:
This advisory is a publication of the Communications Group of
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Our purpose in publishing this advisory
is to inform our clients and friends of recent developments
in the communications industry. It is not intended, nor should
it be used, as a substitute for specific legal advice as legal
counsel may be given only in response to inquiries regarding
particular situations.
Copyright
© 2007, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
return
to bulletins main page |
