TDI Workshop "TRS State Administrators/Consumer
Panel"
This workshop was part of an afternoon session entitled "Quality
of Service Revisited: On the Road to Functional Equivalency in
TRS". The presenters were:
Judy Viera, CA Consumer Advocate
Dana Mulvany, CA Consumer Advocate
Jack Cassell, WI TRS Contract Administrator
Cheryl Heppner, VA Consumer Advocate
Ed Bosson, TX TRS Contract Administrator
~~~~~~~~~~
Judy Viera noted that the real topic this afternoon is quality of
services and functional equivalence. Some similarities exist between
functional equivalence and universal design. It's important to think
about accommodation as the beginning of the design process. This is also
true for planning relay services. For example, why can't relay provide
interpreting services in situations other than telephone relay?
This functional equivalency depends on state equipment distribution
program. Some states say that equipment is limited to phone service. I
think the provided equipment must allow us to use the service in a way
that provides functional equivalence to what a hearing person does on
the phone.
One barrier is that the state has long-term contracts with specific
providers, and they don't provide new technology before the end of the
contract period. A second barrier is the failure of the state to include
consumers in having a clear description of the roles in TRS. Finally,
the state fails to realize that the FCC provides minimal requirements.
The states should go beyond those requirements.
Two developments on the horizon will contribute to functional
equivalence:
1. IP relay - I think this will lead to multiple vendors, which means
that consumers have a choice.
2. Video Relay Service - this will achieve functionally equivalent relay
service, because it allows the inclusion of tone and emotions in both
directions
~~~~~~~~~~
Dana Mulvany, who grew up hard of hearing, focused on the needs of
HOH
people during this workshop. She thanked TDI and Pam Holmes for giving
her this opportunity to speak and noted that previously, hard of
hearing people often seemed to have been overlooked in discussions
about relay services.
Two years ago at the TDI conference in Seattle, Judy Viera made a
very
important point about the need to make the relay service better for
all users of relay, including hearing people. This led to Dana
thinking about the experience of hard of hearing people who receive
relayed calls. As a hard of hearing person, she had found it
extremely difficult to understand what is being said via relay. The
Communications Assistants (CAs) often speak quickly and in a monotone,
and do not seem to think they can accommodate the needs of the hard of
hearing person. CAs should have the authority (given by the person
with hearing loss) to use some discretion in how they handle a relay
call. Hard of hearing people could create individual profiles so the
CA can more easily accommodate their communication needs when the hard
of hearing person receives relayed calls.
People with accents can be very difficult for hard of hearing people
to understand; consequently, hard of hearing people need relay
operators without accents.
Many states don't provide amplified telephone equipment for hard of
hearing people, and a HOH person may not be "deaf enough" to
get a
TTY. But they may be be unable to understand a person with an accent
or speech impairment. We need speech relay for HOH people to help
overcome this barrier. The idea here is that a hard of hearing person
would be able to use a relay agent with clear speech who can revoice
what the person with the accent is saying.
Many hard of hearing people have tremendous difficulty understanding
answering machine or voicemail messages. Hard of hearing people need
to know whether they can use speech relay service to decipher an
answering machine message. We need clarification from the FCC if this
is a legitimate use of speech relay or not.
If speech to speech relay could be used by hard of hearing people,
HOH
people could be the largest users of relay. I estimate about 5 million
HOH people could use speech-to-speech relay assistance.
CAs need to be trained to accommodate HOH people. They need to speak
slowly and clearly with a natural inflection, and to be trained in
other strategies to enhance communication.
Speech is faster and easier to produce than text, so it is more cost
effective for those people who can understand clear speech well.
Because of the speed factor, it could also be more effective for voice
menus than text relay due to time-out issues.
Some hard of hearing people need high or low pitched voices,
according
to the nature of their hearing loss, and they would need to be able to
obtain a relay agent with the kind of voice they need.
Relay services should be looking to play a role in expanding the
functionality of cell phones to function as VCO phones. That may be
possible today; if not, it could hopefully happen soon.
Two Line VCO currently requires three way calling on the voice line.
That requirement doesn't seem necessary and is too restrictive. The
relay agent should be able to call out on the voice line if the voice
line does not have three-way calling. This way, if we had a wireless
TTY or access to Internet relay, we could use 2 line VCO anywhere
where there is a voice line, including payphones.
The FCC needs to encourage the use of automated bridges that bypass
the relay service. For example, AT&T had a PC to TTY bridge. If the
FCC funded bridges at no cost to users, it would cut down the use of
relay, which is very expensive. Bridges would also allow faster and
more direct communication.
We need full compatibility between all devices, including Baudot, IM,
email, and IP.
It may be possible for the federal Universal Service Fund to
subsidize
equipment distribution throughout the USA. The purpose of the
legislation behind this fund was to encourage universal access to
telephones, but many people with disabilities cannot afford the
adaptive equipment necessary.
We need faster relay services, and relay services using speech
recognition software. Ultratec's Fastran service, which pioneered two
years ago is an example.
We need true caller ID for all relay services, and it would be
helpful
if it was identified that the call was coming through the relay
service. Caller ID is very helpful for hard of hearing people in
identifying who is calling and the context of the conversation, which
helps them understand the speech better.
~~~~~~~~~~
Jack Cassel stated that the requirement for functional equivalence is
a result of the Americans with Disabilities Acd (ADA), and we have seen
improvements because of it. But we still have a long way to go. Some
states have the attitude that they just meet the minimum requirements;
others have contracts that include things like technical enhancement.
In Oregon, four times as many relay calls are initiated from a TTY
compared to a voice phone. This means that hearing people don't like to
use the relay.
We've heard about CAs having monotone voices, and that needs to
improve.
The 711 concept is great, but it still has problems. We need to
educate the hearing users about how to call 711, then give them the
number you want to call.
Recent requirements include increased typing speed, Video Relay
Service (VRS), 711, etc. IP Relay is cool, and I think we'll see more
improvements in the future.
Functional equivalence is more than communicating efficiently; in
order to have functional equivalence, communication must also be
effortless. I like the conference comments about gold and access. We
need to have everyone working together so everyone can benefit.
~~~~~~~~~~
Cheryl Heppner presented her "Wishlist for Functional
Equivalence"
If the hearing person feels comfortable using relay, that's
essential. My husband will go out of his way to get to a TTY to call me,
rather than use the relay service.
Everyone must be comfortable using relay. Senior citizens must be
able to use it. Remember that they may not have used the phone for a
long time.
Relay service must fit the technology to the consumer, rather than
the consumer to the existing tech.
We need relay that will respond right away when I dial. I saw a demo
where the caller dialed the number of the person he wanted to talk to
(rather than the relay number) and the relay connection happened in the
background. That's very nice!
We need to provide a system that allows any device, wired, cell, IP,
whatever, to access relay.
We can't be afraid of a complete overhaul. We should incorporate new
technology quickly, but not sacrifice the best of what we have now.
I want federal government to provide incentives to get smart people
working on new concepts for the relay service of the future. Maybe can
have things like automated devices outputting sign.
We all need to advocate for what we need, Let's not accept less than
the best.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ed Bosson talked about the turnover in relay officials in his state.
We have three commissioners appointed by the governor. I've seen 9
different commissioners, 8 supervisors, and 13 lawyers that represent
the Public Utility Commission (PUC) in Texas. How did I convince them to
accept new ideas? Functional Equivalence!
In the 1990s, this meant "basic". But that's not enough.
Now we really mean to provide functional equivalence. When we change a
Commissioner, supervisor, or lawyer, I always explain what functional
equivalence is and why we need it.
Hearing people use ears, voice, and English language. What does a
deaf person use? Eyes, hands, and ASL. That's a strong argument for
Video Relay.
For a hearing person, the next best thing (to voice) is text. Would
they settle for that instead of voice communication? So why should we?
We need to be persistent in dealing with the politicians; tell them
over and over what we need.
~~~~~~~~~~
Q: I'd like to extend the theme of goals. I agree with all the points
made by the panel. The ability to finance these improvements is
important. CAs make $6 to $8 an hour. How can you recruit and retain
talented CAs? Video interpreters will demand more, as do STS (Speech to
Speech) operators. That also extends to equipment. Where does the money
come from and how can we work to finance this?
A: In CA, the state passed laws to tax phone users to pay for the
equipment program and the relay. States can fund the services that way.
But maybe also use a Federal Universal Service Fund. I think that fund
doesn't accommodate people with disabilities. For example, we just
changed the law to allow people using Two Line VCO to continue to pay
the lifeline rate on their phones. We need to be more creative in using
resources to subsidize equal access.
A: The states are trying to address that and it is a challenge. We need
to do lots of lobbying. The money is not the issue, functional
equivalence is.
Q: When we have discussions with the PUC, they say it's a good idea,
but they don't do it. The relay providers really have more power than we
do. The final focus is on the recommendations made by the relay
providers. How do we overcome that?
A: Go to your legislature and tell them to pass a bill to create a
position in the PUC to hire a deaf person.
