ITU Standards
Editor: The TDI Workshop entitled "International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) Standards" was a panel discussion
moderated by Andrea Saks, TDI's ITU representative. The panelist were:
- Dick Brandt, retired communications consultant
- Michael J. Day, Product Manager for British Telecom (BT) TextDirect
- George Skorkowski, founder and managing director of DSPG Ltd.
- Paul E. Jones, ITU contributor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Dick Brandt
When mainstream society doesn't develop solutions that accommodate
the deaf, they often develop their own answers. Baudot code for TTYs is
an example. But it doesn't work with other coding systems. A similar
situation happened with early modems - each modem had a different
protocol and they didn't work together.
Europe used DTMF (touch tone phone protocol), others used various
versions of the V series protocols, but most were used in non-standard
way, and most didn't communicate with the others.
The identification of the Problem
Judy Harkins came to me in 1991 when I was chairman of the T.30
committee, and I was astounded. I was totally unaware that there was a
problem for the deaf community. She said they want to get a modem so
people can use a TTY to communicate with other TTYs or with a computer.
We started with TR30
The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) oversees TR30. We
wanted to have the TIA take this issue to the ITU and get it to be a
worldwide standard. (The ITU is part of UN).
So we went to the State Dept, and they approved the concept. Later
the ITU said they would approve it, and this was the start of V.18. I
became aware of all the different protocols, and the fact that some are
not even modem protocols (like DTMF).
It took five years to get the first standard out, and when we
finished, we had a modem on paper only. But all the manufacturers said
they would incorporate our standard in their modems, so all modems would
allow communication with the deaf. At that time modems were expensive,
costing $200 to 300 each.
Just after we got those promises, modems became a commodity and
prices dropped very low. The modem manufacturers couldn't afford to
incorporate V.18. But it wasn't a total loss, because V.18 became a
building block, and lots of its pieces were in use.
But the biggest change was the culture change. Before that time, we
and the ITU were totally unaware of the deaf community. Now the ITU has
a group working on disability issues. That experience also woke up
advocacy groups in the US; they realized they needed to be involved in
these processes early.
So the ITU now includes advocates for all disabilities, and solutions
to their needs are designed in. Appropriate international standards mean
access for all to the information highways of the future. Gallaudet
University has people who are involved with the working groups, so let
them know your concerns and ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Paul Jones, Cisco Systems
We want to get to a place where any device can talk to any other, so
we have universal communications connectivity.
The ITU-T is working on standards that will converge voice and data
(including text).
Service definitions F.700 and F.703 talk about text and video as
components of multimedia.
Popular multimedia systems include H.323, Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP - from the IETF), H.320 (an ISDN based room teleconferencing
standard) and H.324 (this is less known, but gaining popularity,
especially in the mobile market).
The main problem with these systems is that they generally don't
consider the needs of the deaf. For example, current multimedia efforts
focus on video and sound, with little or no support for text.
Some of the newer standards are more aware of disability access
requirements. For example, a new H series supplement raises awareness
about video quality requirements for sign language and lip reading, and
the T.140 standard (supported by H.323 and SIP) supports Unicode for
text conversations.
Between 1997 and 2000 we tried to integrate text into the systems,
and today H.323 and SIP support real-time text.
We know how to solve the problem; now we need to educate the market
and the industry about the issues. The ITU-T has made an effort to do
this.
Still Segregated
Video Conferencing is still largely used by people who must have the
same equipment. It's not tied into larger public communications
networks, and you won't find one service provider's IP phone calling the
phone of a different provider. This will come eventually.
We need to develop gateways to tie various networks together.
VoIP Revolution
Voice over IP (VoIP) has been in development since the late 90s, so
it's still in its infancy compared to the public telephone switched
network (PTSN); it uses the IP network (Internet) to carry voice calls.
Many "normal" calls go over IP today, and people don't even
know it.
One of the major forces behind the use of VoIP is the desire of
providers to merge existing networks. It's much easier to maintain one
network than two. This convergence might also be good for the consumer,
because it makes it easier to add text support to all communications
protocols that use the network.
Problems result in VoIP application when TTY calls are routed over
IP; it results in garbled text. New standards that address this issue
are being developed, with a target completion date of January 2004. The
new standard is being referred to as Text over IP (ToIP) and is
characterized by:
1. Character by character text communications (just like a TTY)
2. Simultaneous 2-way conversation, along with voice and video
3. Standardization on an international character set (Unicode)
4. Support all standard devices in ITU-T V.18
5. Allow different types of TTY to communicate through different
gateways.
The ultimate goal is to have any device supported by the network, so
it can communicate with any other device. This requires us to build
gateways that accommodate all protocols. The best way to accomplish that
is to have vendors of all the various devices represented on the
standards bodies.