FCC Press Release on VRS
For those who don't know, VRS stands for Video Relay Service. That's
the Deaf relay service that uses an interpreter as the communications
assistant, so that a Deaf person can sign into a camera rather than type
on a TTY, and view the interpreter signing on her monitor, rather than
having to read English on the TTY display. The claim that Deaf and hard
of hearing people use VRS perpetuates the ideas that hard of hearing
people sign, and that a sign language interpreter is an appropriate
accommodation. Here's the press release to which we object.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW
RULES ADOPTED TO IMPROVE VIDEO RELAY SERVICE
July
19, 2005
Speed
of Answer Requirements Now Mandated
Washington,
DC - Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules
moving the Video Relay Service (VRS) closer to the goal of providing
deaf and hard of hearing persons functionally equivalent access to the
nation's telephone system.
VRS
is a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS). TRS enables an individual with a hearing or speech disability
to communicate by telephone or other device through the telephone system
with a person without such a disability.
VRS allows communications using sign language through a
communications assistant (CA), who facilitates the call, via a video
link, rather than through typed text.
Through VRS, the conversation between the two end users, deaf and
hearing, flows in near real time and in a faster and more natural manner
than with a TTY or text-based TRS call.
As a result, VRS calls reflect a degree of "functional
equivalency" unimaginable in a solely text-based TRS world.
The use of VRS reflects this reality:
in April 2005 the monthly minutes of use were approximately 1.8
million, a ten-fold increase in the past two years, and more than the
number of interstate traditional TRS minutes.
The
new rules establish, for the first time, mandatory speed of answer
requirements for VRS, require VRS to be offered 24 hours a day, seven
days a week (24/7), and permit VRS providers to be compensated for
providing VRS Mail.
The
Commission recognized VRS as a form of TRS in March 2000, but waived the
speed of answer rules for VRS until January 1, 2006.
"Speed of answer" refers to the amount of time that
elapses between receipt of dialing information and the dialing of the
requested number.
Specifically,
the new rules require that:
Speed
of answer requirements for VRS be phased in as follows, measured on a
monthly basis: (1) by January 1, 2006, VRS providers must answer 80 percent
of all VRS calls within 180 seconds; (2) by July 1, 2006, VRS providers
must answer 80 percent of all VRS calls within 150 seconds; and (3) by
January 1, 2007, VRS providers must answer 80 percent of all VRS calls
within 120 seconds.
VRS
providers must offer service 24/7 to be eligible for compensation from
the Interstate TRS Fund. The
Commission noted that as consumers increasingly rely on VRS as their
preferred means of using TRS to access the telephone system, it becomes
important for consumers to have access to this service at all times.
VRS
Mail be recognized as a VRS service eligible for compensation from the
Interstate TRS Fund. When a
deaf or hard of hearing person makes a VRS call to a hearing person who
is not able to take the call, the VRS provider can leave a voice message
for the hearing person, and the VRS call is eligible for compensation
from the Fund. Under the
new rules, when a hearing person leaves a message for a deaf or hard of
hearing person using VRS, that call will also be compensable from the
Fund.
The
order will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.
The following email was sent to
Ms. Kimball and Mr. Rumelt, the contacts listed in the press release.
July 21, 2005
Dear
Ms. Kimball and Mr. Rumelt:
I
read with some dismay your recent press release entitled "NEW RULES
ADOPTED TO IMPROVE VIDEO RELAY SERVICE." While I think it's
wonderful that you are improving the video relay service, your press
release perpetuates misinformation that prevents hard of hearing people
from obtaining appropriate telecommunications services.
I'm
referring to your use of the phrase "Deaf and hard of hearing"
when you really mean "Deaf".
The
truth of the matter is that over 95% of "Deaf and hard of
hearing" people are hard of hearing, and the overwhelming majority
of them cannot use VRS services because they don't sign. Your claims
that "Deaf and hard of hearing" people benefit from VRS and
related services misinforms the general public that hard of hearing
people benefit from services that are really applicable only to Deaf
folks.
Oral
Hearing Loss (OHL) Advocacy (OHLA) represents people with hearing loss
whose primary means of communication is spoken language. This includes
people who are hard of hearing, late deafened, and oral deaf. We are
working to reclaim ownership of terms that refer to our community. This
includes the term "hard of hearing", which is most often
misappropriated, as in "Deaf and hard of hearing".
People
are so used to seeing the term "Deaf and hard of hearing" that
they assume members of the two groups comprise a single group. Hard of
hearing people are not "Deaf lite" or "less deaf";
hard of hearing people have a different disability, require different
accommodations, and comprise a separate group from Deaf people. The term
"Deaf and hard of hearing" is almost never an accurate
description of reality, and should generally be avoided.
Referring
specifically to telecommunications services for hard of hearing people,
many members of our community are very successful using amplified
telephones. For those whose hearing loss is more severe, the voice
carryover service provided by some relay services is often the
accommodation of choice.
We
do not, and cannot use Video Relay Service. We would very much
appreciate it if you would quit claiming that Video Relay Service serves
the "Deaf and hard of hearing" community, because that claim
perpetuates the misinformation that hard of hearing people have access
to adequate and appropriate services.
Thank
you,
Larry
Sivertson
July 21, 2005
Mr. Sivertson:
Your e-mail about our use of the phrase
"deaf and hard of hearing" in conjunction with VRS was
forwarded to me. Even though many hard of hearing persons may not
use VRS, we try to be as inclusive as possible, and since some do, the
phrase does not seem inaccurate. We certainly don't favor one
group over another, nor do we believe all persons with a hearing
disability have the same needs. Also we do have many laws
addressing the needs of the hard of hearing, like the Hearing Aid
Compatability Act (HAC) and captioned telephone service, a form of TRS.
I hope that helps. Tom
Tom Chandler
Chief, Disability Rights Office
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Room CY-B523
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
(202) 418-1475
(cell) (703) 338-0372
(TTY) (202) 418-0597
thomas.chandler@fcc.gov
Actually it doesn't help ;-)
Don't get me wrong. I'm very familiar with many of the laws that
address needs of hard of hearing people, including those you mention.
And I applaud the FCC for their efforts in those areas.
But this is not a question of what laws we might or might not have. It
is a question of the FCC contributing to misinformation regarding the
telecommunications needs of hard of hearing people. I realize that
you're probably so used to saying "Deaf and hard of hearing"
that the idea of separating them is a bit "outside the box".
But pretty much any hard of hearing person will tell you that the two
populations are distinct, and social scientists are coming to the same
conclusion. (See, for example, the work of Dr. Carren Stika or Dr.
Michael Harvey.)
Hard of hearing people lipread and use hearing aids, amplified phones
and assistive devices. Of the few who do sign, almost none signs
well enough to use a VRS interpreter, or any other interpreter, for
that matter. Yet the accommodation that is routinely offered a hard of
hearing person in need of communication access is a sign language
interpreter. Efforts to get more appropriate accommodations are often
denied, because the provider, despite vigorous clarifications,
maintains that selecting CART over an interpreter is a personal
preference. The result is that yet another hard of hearing person is
denied appropriate communications access.
The FCC is contributing to this travesty by claiming that "Deaf
and hard of hearing" people use VRS. Of course the average
American thinks that hard of hearing people can sign, when the FCC
tells them so. By continuing to promote this misinformation you are
doing a disservice to 30 million hard of hearing Americans.
We respectfully request that you reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Larry Sivertson
