# FCC-06-57: In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (05/09/06): In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_06_57

## Section

- **Citation:** FCC-06-57: In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (05/09/06)
- **Heading:** In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FCC Declaratory Rulings / In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities

## Text

Federal Comnmnications Commisiiion
FCC 06-57
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
)
)
Telecommunications Relay Services and
)
Speech-to-Speech Services for
)
CG Docket No. 03-123
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities )
DECLARATORY RULING AND
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAHNG
Adopted: May 3,2006
Released: May 9,2006
Comment Date: (45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Conunent Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission; Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and Tate issuing sq>arate
statonraits.
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. In this Declaratory Ruling, we address a petition (Petition) requesting the Commission to
declare that a Video Relay Service (VRS)' provider may not receive con:q)raisation from the Interstate
TRS Fund (Fund) if it blocks calls to conq)eting VRS providers.^ We agree, and conclude that the
practice of restricting the use of VRS to a particular provider -
sometimes termed "call blocking" -
is
inconsistent with the TRS regime as intended by Congress, and raises serious priblic safety concons.^ All
VRS consumers should be able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers' SCTvice, and all
VRS providers should be able to receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. Accordingly,
as discussed below, effective 60 da)^ after publication of this Declaratory Ruling in the Federal Register,
any VRS provider restricting the use of its service, as described below, will be inehgible for
conq>ensation from the Fimd.^
'
As ftirther discussed below, VRS is a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS) that allows a deaf person
whose primary language is ASL to access the telephone system to call voice telephone users via a video link through
a commimications assistant (OA). The CA makes a voice telephone call to the party the VRS user desires to call,
and relays the call back and forth between the parties. See 47 U.S.C
ther discussed below, VRS is a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS) that allows a deaf person
whose primary language is ASL to access the telephone system to call voice telephone users via a video link through
a commimications assistant (OA). The CA makes a voice telephone call to the party the VRS user desires to call,
and relays the call back and forth between the parties. See 47 U.S.C. § 225(aX3) (defining TRS); 47 C.F.R. §§
64.601(14) &
(17).
^ California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH or Petitioner), Petition for
Declaratory Ruling on Interoperability, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, filed February 15, 2005.
CCASDHH is a coalition of eight commimity-based nonprofit agencies providing various social services to deaf and
haid-of-hearing consumers in California. See Petition at 1 n. 1.
^ As discussed below, the practice of call blocking proscribed herein includes providing degraded service quality for
connections to the service of other VRS providers. See para 29, infra
* The Interstate TRS Fund conq)ensates eligible providers for their costs of providing certain forms of TRS,
including all VRS calls. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(cX5)(iii); para. 8-9, infra.
5442

Federal Communications Cwmniission
FCC 06-57
2. Petitioner also raises the issue of VRS providers using a proprietary database of "proxy" or
"alias" numbers that allow their customers to use their existing telephone number (or some other munber)
as a proxy for their Internet Protocol (IP) address.' This arrangement permits a VRS provider to
determine automatically the IP address of a VRS user when a hearing person initiates a VRS call. These
databases, however, are generally used only for calls made via one provid«''s service and using that
provider's equipment
their customers to use their existing telephone number (or some other munber)
as a proxy for their Internet Protocol (IP) address.' This arrangement permits a VRS provider to
determine automatically the IP address of a VRS user when a hearing person initiates a VRS call. These
databases, however, are generally used only for calls made via one provid«''s service and using that
provider's equipment. In the corresponding Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek
comment on whether and how an open and global database of proxy munbers for VRS users may be
created so that a hearing person may call a VRS user through any VRS provider without having to
ascatain first the VRS user's current IP address. We also seek comment in the FNPRM on whether we
should adopt specific Internet protocols or standards to ensure that all VRS providers can receive calls
fix>m, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and all VRS consumers can m^e calls through any VRS
provider.
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
Section 225 and the Regulation of TRS
3. Congress mandated a nationwide TRS program in Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA).® Title IV added Section 225 to the Commimications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),^
which requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to the extent possible and in the most
efficient mamer, to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in the United States.* Congress
recognized that persons with such disabilities have long experienced barriers in their ability to access,
utilize, and benefit fipom telecommunications services.' The legislative history of Title IV notes that "the
inabihty of over 26 million Americans to access fully the Nation's tel^hone syston poses a serious threat
to the fidl attainment of [the goal of universal telephone service]."'® Congress therefore found TRS
necessary to "bridge the gap between the communications-in^aired telephone user and the community at
large," and en:q)hasized that to "participate actively in society, one must have the ability to cal
y of over 26 million Americans to access fully the Nation's tel^hone syston poses a serious threat
to the fidl attainment of [the goal of universal telephone service]."'® Congress therefore found TRS
necessary to "bridge the gap between the communications-in^aired telephone user and the community at
large," and en:q)hasized that to "participate actively in society, one must have the ability to call fiiends,
family, business[es] and enq)loyers."" TRS is now available nationwide, twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week, so that persons with hearing and speech disabilities can access the telephone system to make
calls to, and receive calls fiom, voice telephone users.
4. Title IV places the obUgation on common carriers offering "telephone voice transmission
services" to offer TRS throughout the areas in which they offer service.'^ As the Commission has
explained, TRS is an accommodation under the ADA for persons with disabilities." Carriers providing
'
Petition at 3-4 &
n.3.
^ Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401,104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (1990); 47 U.S.C. § 225.
^7
U.S.C. § 225.
* 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).
'
See generally Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Red 12475, at 12479-12480, para. 3 (June
30,2004) (2004 TRS Report and Order) (discussing legislative history of Title IV of die ADA).
See H.R. Rep. No. 485, PL 2,101st Cong., 2d Sess. at 129 (1990) (House Report).
"
Id.
"
47 U.S.C. § 225(c). Covered carriers may do so "individually, through designees, through a corrq)etitively
selected vendor, or in concert vidth other carriers." Id.
"
2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 12543, para. 179. The legislative history of the ADA malms clear
that Title IV was directed at remedying the discriminatory effects of a telephone system inaccessible to persons with
disabilities. See, e.g., id
Covered carriers may do so "individually, through designees, through a corrq)etitively
selected vendor, or in concert vidth other carriers." Id.
"
2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 12543, para. 179. The legislative history of the ADA malms clear
that Title IV was directed at remedying the discriminatory effects of a telephone system inaccessible to persons with
disabilities. See, e.g., id. at 12480, para. 3 rLl7.
5443

Federal Conunnnications rnmmissinn
FCC 06-57
voice telephone service must also offer TRS so that parsons with hearing and speech disabilities will have
access to their services.'^ As the legislative history of Title IV emphasizes, TRS is meant to provide
"opportunities for communications that are equivalent to those provided to individuals able to use voice
telephone services."'^
5. In view of the purpose of TRS, Congress specifically mandated in Section 225 that relay
services offer access to the telephone system that is "functiormlly equivalent" to voice telephone
services." The "functional equiAralency" standard serves as the benchmark in determining the services
and features TRS providers must offo* to consumers, and is reflected in the TRS mandatory minimum
standards contained in the Commission's rules.'^ These standards ensure that TRS users have the ability
to access the telephone system in a manner that approximates, as closely as possible, the experioice of a
voice telephone user." These standards, however, do not address equipment consumers may use to make
a TRS call. Rather, the standards address how relay service provido^ must handle calls that are made to
the relay center, and the duties and responsibilities of the CAs in relaying the conversation between the
parties.
6. One of the mandatory minimum standards requires TRS provido^ to answer calls within a
specific time period." The Commission has stated that "[t]he ability to make a telephone call without
delay... is fimdamental to our concqit of a rapid, efficient
ust handle calls that are made to
the relay center, and the duties and responsibilities of the CAs in relaying the conversation between the
parties.
6. One of the mandatory minimum standards requires TRS provido^ to answer calls within a
specific time period." The Commission has stated that "[t]he ability to make a telephone call without
delay... is fimdamental to our concqit of a rapid, efficient. Nationwide communications system."^" The
Corrunission has further enqrhasized that the "[s]peed-of-answer requirements are a cornerstone of the
Commission's TRS rules," and the "ability of a TRS user to reach a CA prepared to place his or her call,
without experiencing delays that a voice telephone user would not experience in placing a telephone call,
is fimdamental to the concept of 'fimctional equivalence.'"^'
"
Id.', see also id. at 12345, para 182 n.S21 (TRS is "an accommodation that is required of telecommunications
providers, just as odter accommodations for persons with disabilities are required by the ADA of businesses [Title
m]
and local and state governments [Title 11].").
"
House Report at 24.
"47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).
"
47 C.F.R. § 64.604. The legislative history of Section 225 makes clear that "[t]elecommunications relay services
are to be governed by standards that ensure that telephone service for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals is
fonctionally equivalent to voice services offered to hearing individuals." House Report at 129; see also
Telecommunication Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans With
Disabilities Act of1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Rqxnt and Order and Request for Comments, 6 FCC Red 4657
(July 26,1991) {TRS I) (adcpting the TRS regulations). We note that failure to meet the mandatory Tninimnm
standards could subject a TRS provider to enforcement action.
"
See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No
ies Act of1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Rqxnt and Order and Request for Comments, 6 FCC Red 4657
(July 26,1991) {TRS I) (adcpting the TRS regulations). We note that failure to meet the mandatory Tninimnm
standards could subject a TRS provider to enforcement action.
"
See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Red
5140, at 5196-5197, para. 138 (March 6, 2000) {Improved TRS Order)', Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 & CG
Docket No. 03-123, Second Rqxrrt and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18
FCC Red 12379, at 12415-12416, para. 62 (June 17,2(X)3) {Second Improved TRS Order).
"
See Atl CF.R § 64.604(b)(2) (speed of answer rule, requiring 85 percent of all calls to be answered within 10
seconds, measured on a daily basis); see also Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order,
20 FCC Red 13165 (July 19,2005) {2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order) (phasing in speed of answer requirements
for VRS beginning January 1,2006).
^
Telecommunications Servicesfor Hearing-Impaired and Speech Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 14187, 14289, at
para. 3
(May 20,1998) {1998 TRSNPRM).
Id. at 14207, para. 49.
5444
y 19,2005) {2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order) (phasing in speed of answer requirements
for VRS beginning January 1,2006).
^
Telecommunications Servicesfor Hearing-Impaired and Speech Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 14187, 14289, at
para. 3
(May 20,1998) {1998 TRSNPRM).
Id. at 14207, para. 49.
5444

Federal Commmiications Crmimissinii
FCC 06-57
7. The TRS mandatory minimum standards also require TRS CAs to handle emergency (e.g.,
911) calls.^ The Commission has noted that despite regulations requiring state and local governments to
make emergency services directly accessible to TTY users (i.e., for direct TTY to TTY calls), many
individuals with hearing and speech disabilities use TRS to contact emergency services.^^ As a result,
providers must make relay calls to 911 "functionally equivalent to a direct call to 911."^" Accordingly,
TRS providers must route emergency TRS calls to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP). As noted below, the Commission has presently waived this requirement for VRS?®
8. Congress also mandated that TRS users cannot be required to pay for the service costs of
using TRS.^^ Because Title IV requires certain common carriers to offer TRS so that persons with
disabilities can have access to their services, the costs of providing TRS are considered another cost of
doing business, i.e., of providing voice telephone service.^' At the same time. Congress determined that
TRS providers would be compensated for their "reasonable" costs of providing TRS.^' As a result, for
interstate TRS calls,'" the Commission adopted a cost recovery fiamework that entails collecting
contributions from providers of interstate telecommunications services to create a fund from which
eligible TRS providers are compensated for the costs of eligible TRS services." Contributions to the fund
are based on the earner's interstate end-user revenues
costs of providing TRS.^' As a result, for
interstate TRS calls,'" the Commission adopted a cost recovery fiamework that entails collecting
contributions from providers of interstate telecommunications services to create a fund from which
eligible TRS providers are compensated for the costs of eligible TRS services." Contributions to the fund
are based on the earner's interstate end-user revenues. All contributions are placed in the Interstate TRS
^
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(aX4); see also TRS 1,6 FCC Red at 4659, para. 10.
1998 TRSNPRM, 13 FCC Red at 14203, para. 41.
Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Red at 5183, paras. 99-100.
^
Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC Red at 12406-12408, paras. 40-42. Beeause of jurisdietional boundaries,
the "appropriate" PSAP is not always the geogr^hieally elosest PSAP to the ealling party. The Commission has
therefore elarified that the "^propriate" PSAP is "either a PSAP that the ealler would have reaehed if he had dialed
911 direetly, or a PSAP that is eapable of enabling the dispateh of emergency services to the ealler in an expeditious
manner." See also 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 12559 ,
para. 216 (modifying the definition of
"appropriate" PSAP.)
^
See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CG Doeket No. 03-123, Order, DA 05-3139 (Dee. 5, 2005) (extending waiver of emergeney eall
handling requirement for VRS until January 1,2007, or upon release of an order addressing the issue, whiehever
eomes first); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-196 (Nov. 30,2005) (VRS
911NPRM)
(seeking comment on how VRS providers mi^t handle emergeney calls and determine the appropriate
PSAP to eall).
"
See 47 U.S.C. § 225(dXl)(D); 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(e)(4). In addition, VRS consumers presently do not pay for
any long distance charges in connection with a VRS eall
ing and
Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-196 (Nov. 30,2005) (VRS
911NPRM)
(seeking comment on how VRS providers mi^t handle emergeney calls and determine the appropriate
PSAP to eall).
"
See 47 U.S.C. § 225(dXl)(D); 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(e)(4). In addition, VRS consumers presently do not pay for
any long distance charges in connection with a VRS eall. See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at
12524-12525, paras. 127-129 &
n.364. Therefore, there is no cost to the eotisumer for placing a VRS eall.
^ 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 12543, para. 179.
^
Id. at 12543-12544, paras. 179-181. "Reasonable" costs eonqiensable by the Fund do not include profit or a
markup on expenses. Rather, they include only those direct and indirect costs necessary to provide relay service
consistent witii all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. Id. at 12543-12544, paras. 179-182.
Section 225 distinguishes between intrastate and interstate TRS services, and provides that states are responsible
for the reimbursement of the costs of intrastate TRS and the Interstate TRS Fund is re^onsible for the
reimbursement of the costs of interstate TRS. 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3XB). Presently, however, all VRS calls are
conq>ensated from the Fund because it is not possible to determine tf a particular call is intrastate or interstate. The
issue of separation of costs for the provision of VRS is pending pursuant to the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the 2004
Report & Order. See 2004 TRS Report & Order, 19 FCC Red at 12565-12567, paras
234-242.
"
See 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5). The regulations, addressing these matters separately,
characterize the former as "cost recovery," see 47 CJF.R.§§ 64.604(c)(5)(ii) &
separation of costs for the provision of VRS is pending pursuant to the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the 2004
Report & Order. See 2004 TRS Report & Order, 19 FCC Red at 12565-12567, paras
234-242.
"
See 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5). The regulations, addressing these matters separately,
characterize the former as "cost recovery," see 47 CJF.R.§§ 64.604(c)(5)(ii) &
(iii)(A) -
(D), and the latter as
"payments to TRS providers," 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) &
(F).
5445

Federal Communications Cnmmissinn
FCC 06-57
Fund, which is administered by the TRS Fund Administrator, currently the National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA).'^
9. The Fimd administrator uses these fimds to conqtensate eligible TRS providers'' on a per-
minute basis for the costs of providing the various forms of TRS.
Each month the providers submit
their minutes of use to NECA for reimbursement." The regulations provide that the Fund administrator
"shall make payments only to eligible TRS providers operating pursuant to the mandatory minimum
standards as required in § 64.604."'^ The size of the Fund for the 2005-2006 Fimd year is approximately
$441 million, and it conq)ensates providers for more than 10 million minutes of TRS per month.'^ Nearly
half of the $441 million compensates providers of VRS.'®
B.
Traditional TRS and VRS
10. When Congress oiacted Section 225, and the Commission inq)lemented the TRS, relay calls
were placed using a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network
(PSTN). In such a "traditional" TRS call, a person with a hearing (or speech) disability dials a telephone
number for a TRS facility using a TTY
lion compensates providers of VRS.'®
B.
Traditional TRS and VRS
10. When Congress oiacted Section 225, and the Commission inq)lemented the TRS, relay calls
were placed using a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network
(PSTN). In such a "traditional" TRS call, a person with a hearing (or speech) disability dials a telephone
number for a TRS facility using a TTY. In this context, the first stq) for the TRS user, the completion of
the outbomd call to the TRS facility, is fiinctionally equivalent to receiving a "dial tone."" Both persons
with hearing and speech disabilities and voice telephone iisers can initiate a traditional TRS call by
dialing 711 to reach a TRS provider.^
The amount of each carrier's contribution is the product of the carrier's interstate end-user telecoimnunicatioiis
revenue and a contribution factor determined aimually by the CommissiorL 47 C.FJR.. § 64.604(cX5)(iii).
47 CT.R § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) &
(F)
(setting forth the eligibility requirements for TRS providers seeking to
receive conqrensation fix>m the Interstate TRS Fund). Recently the Commission released an order providing for
Commission certification of IP Relay and VRS providers eligible for conqrensation from the Fund. See
Telecommunications Relay Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order and
Order on Reconsideration, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 05-203 (Dec. 12,2005) {2005 VRS Provider Order)
(adopting new provider eligibility rules).
"
See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 &
CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 20 FCC Red 12237 (June 28,2005) {2005 TRS
Rate Order) (adopting rates for the July 1,2005 to June 30,2006 fimd year). Presently, interstate traditional TRS
calls are conqrensated at the rate of $1,440 per minute; VRS calls are corrqrensated at the rate of $6,644 per minute.
"
See generally 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(cX5)(iii)(E)
and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 &
CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 20 FCC Red 12237 (June 28,2005) {2005 TRS
Rate Order) (adopting rates for the July 1,2005 to June 30,2006 fimd year). Presently, interstate traditional TRS
calls are conqrensated at the rate of $1,440 per minute; VRS calls are corrqrensated at the rate of $6,644 per minute.
"
See generally 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(cX5)(iii)(E).
"
See id', see also Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Red
5433,5443, at para. 32 (March 9,2005)
(emphasizing that providers must offer service in compliance with the
mandatory minimum standards to be eligible for conqiensation fix)m the Fund); 2004 TRS Report &
Order, 19 FCC
Red at 12547-12548, para. 189 (same).
"
2005 TRS Rate Order, 20 FCC Red at 12248, para. 29; TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by
National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA)
as of March 31,2006, www.neca.org (under Resources, then TRS
Fund).
See, e.g., TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA)
as of October 31,2005, www.neca.org (under Resources, then TRS Fund).
"
The caller then types the number of the party he or she desires to call. The CA, in turn, places an outbound voice
call to the called party. When the called party answers, the CA serves as the "link" in the conversation, converting
all TTY messages from the caller into voice messages, and all voice messages fixjm the called party into typed
messages for the TTY user. A voice telephone user can also initiate a TRS call to a person with a hearing or speech
disability (the TTY user), in which case this process is performed in reverse.
See, e.g.. 47 C.F.R § 64.601(1).
5446
CA serves as the "link" in the conversation, converting
all TTY messages from the caller into voice messages, and all voice messages fixjm the called party into typed
messages for the TTY user. A voice telephone user can also initiate a TRS call to a person with a hearing or speech
disability (the TTY user), in which case this process is performed in reverse.
See, e.g.. 47 C.F.R § 64.601(1).
5446

Federal Comnninications Cnmmission
FCC 06-57
11. VRS allows persons using American Sign Language (ASL) to access the telephone system
through a broadband Internet video coimection between the VRS user and the CA. A VRis user may
initiate a VRS call either via a VRS provider's website or directly through VRS equipment cormected to
the Internet. With VRS, the dial tone equivalent is when the VRS user establishes a video connection
with the CA, who then places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA
communicates in ASL with the VRS user and by voice with the hearing person. As a result, the
conversation between the two end users flows in near real time and in a faster marmer than with a TTY or
a text-based TRS call. VRS therefore provides a degree of "functional equivalency" that is not attainable
with text-based TRS by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL to communicate in sign
language, just as a hearing person communicates in, e.g., spoken English.
12. A hearing person may also initiate a VRS call by calling a VRS provider through a toll-free
telephone number. However, unlike the voice telephone network, VRS equipment is not linked to a
uniform numbering system that correlates to a VRS user's IP address. Most VRS users have "dynamic"
IP addresses, which are temporary addresses assigned to the user by an Intemet service provider, and
change periodically.^' This makes it difficult for a hearing person to know in advance the IP address of
the VRS user he or she desires to call
oice telephone network, VRS equipment is not linked to a
uniform numbering system that correlates to a VRS user's IP address. Most VRS users have "dynamic"
IP addresses, which are temporary addresses assigned to the user by an Intemet service provider, and
change periodically.^' This makes it difficult for a hearing person to know in advance the IP address of
the VRS user he or she desires to call. If the calling party is not calling a VRS user through a VRS
provider that maintains a database of its customers'
addresses, the calling party must determine in
advance the VRS usct's correct IP address and give that address to the VRS provider.
C.
VRS Equipment and Provider Marketing Practices
13. VRS usage has grown rapidly. VRS first began in January 2002, with approximately 7,200
monthly minutes of use. By January 2004, there were nearly a half milhon monthly minutes of use. In
December 2005, the numbCT of VRS minutes surpassed three milhon.''^ Further, there are now eight VRS
providers, and more are e;q)ected.''' The growth in minutes and the number of providers has contributed
to a competitive VRS environment and marketing plans by the providers seeking to increase their minutes
and market share.^
14. VRS consumers can use a variety of equipment to communicate with the VRS CA in the
Because there are more Internet users than possible IP addresses, Internet service providers generally assign a
temporary "dynamic" IP address to a conq>uter. Dynamic addressing generally assigns an ava^able address to the
conq>uter each time a coimection is established. See R. Horak, Communications Systems and Networks (3^ ed.) at
489 (2002). By contrast, a "static" IP address is a number assigned to a conqiuter by an Internet service provider as
a permanent Intemet address.
See TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA),
www.neca.org (under Resources, then TRS Fund)
q>uter each time a coimection is established. See R. Horak, Communications Systems and Networks (3^ ed.) at
489 (2002). By contrast, a "static" IP address is a number assigned to a conqiuter by an Internet service provider as
a permanent Intemet address.
See TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA),
www.neca.org (under Resources, then TRS Fund).
The following VRS providers presently receive conqjensation from the Interstate TRS Fund: AT&T;
Communications Access Center (CAC); Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton); Hands On Video Relay Service, Inc.
(Hands On); MCI; Nordia; Sorenson Media, Inc. (Sorenson); and Sprint Corporation, Inc. (Sprint). See
http://www.neca.ore/media/1205TRSStatus.Ddf. As noted above, the 2005 VRS Provider Order adopted a new
means by which entities may become eligible to offer VRS and receive compensation from the Fund. See note 33,
supra.
** See, e.g.. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Servicesfor Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, CO Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Red 1466 (Jan. 26,
2005) (VRSMarketing Practices Declaratory Ruling) (addressing VRS marketing plan); Federal Communications
Commission Clarifies that Certain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Marketing and Call Handling
Practices are Improper and Reminds that Video Relay Service (VRS) May not be Used as a Video Remote
Interpreting Service, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 FCC Red 1471 (Jan. 26,
2005) (Call Handling Practices PN)
(addressing certain kinds of marketing practices).
5447
Commission Clarifies that Certain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Marketing and Call Handling
Practices are Improper and Reminds that Video Relay Service (VRS) May not be Used as a Video Remote
Interpreting Service, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 FCC Red 1471 (Jan. 26,
2005) (Call Handling Practices PN)
(addressing certain kinds of marketing practices).
5447

Federal Cnnimwnications Commisirfon
FCC 06-57
video-to-video leg of a VRS call.^' Most commonly, VRS consumers use a videophone device that
attaches to a television. These devices are popular because they do not require a conq>uter and are easy to
use.^ The D-link (also called "i2eye") videophone''^ and the VP-100 videophone,''* both developed by
Sorenson, are the most widely used videophone devices. The VP-100 videophone has additional features
that distinguish it from the D-Link and other videophones.'" Also, the VP-100 videophone is available
only from Sorenson, with the restrictions Sorenson places on the use of device, as discussed below.
15. The popularity of VRS and the con:q>etition between the VRS providers to increase then-
share of the VRS market has resulted in the providers using a variety of marketing practices to gain new
customers and a larger market share. These include the practice of distributing and installing VRS
equipment at consumers' premises at no charge to the consumer.'" The Commission has made clear that
the costs of consumer equipment that a provider may give to a consume are not conq)ensable from the
Fund."
16
VRS market has resulted in the providers using a variety of marketing practices to gain new
customers and a larger market share. These include the practice of distributing and installing VRS
equipment at consumers' premises at no charge to the consumer.'" The Commission has made clear that
the costs of consumer equipment that a provider may give to a consume are not conq)ensable from the
Fund."
16. Sorenson distributes VP-lOOs to its customers free of charge, but Sorenson currently does not
pomit its customers to use a VP-100 to make an outgoing VRS call through any VRS provider's service
except its own.'^ Presently, a consumer who desires to obtain and use the Sorenson VP-100 can only
make VRS calls through Sorenson's relay service, unless the consumer has a second piece of equipment
and the ability to use his or her broadband Intemet connection with either piece of equipment." Another
provider. Hands On, has engaged in a similar nraiket practice that involves the distribution and
installation of a free pre-configured router and videophone that restricts its customers to using its VRS
service. The customers agreeing to this arrangement receive reimbursement from Hands On for their
Consumers generally use either a small camera that connects to a personal conqiuter (generally called a
"webcam") or a videophone that directly attaches to a television. Both must have a broadband Intemet connection.
^
See, e.g., httD://www.i-tech.com.au/products/4890 D I.INK DVC 1000 DT .ink i2eve BroaHHanri asp (an
exanqtle of how to set iq) a videophone).
Petition at 4 n.4. The D-Link i2eye is available for purchase on the retail market for ^tproximately $200 and also
is offered for free by some VRS providras. The D-LiA is essentially a more basic model than the VP 100, with
fewer user interfrce features and a slightly lower quality of video image. Both use the same proprietary video
conq)ression technology that enables these devices to woik effectively with TVs
n.4. The D-Link i2eye is available for purchase on the retail market for ^tproximately $200 and also
is offered for free by some VRS providras. The D-LiA is essentially a more basic model than the VP 100, with
fewer user interfrce features and a slightly lower quality of video image. Both use the same proprietary video
conq)ression technology that enables these devices to woik effectively with TVs.
** See generally httD://www.sorensonvrs.com/options/vDlOO infn php
"
See httD://www.sorensonvrs.com/options/vp 100 info-phn.
See htq)://207.188.238.148/DLmk/ (Hamilton); https://secure.hovrs.com/eQuipment/reauestform.aspx (Hands On);
and http://www.sorensonvrs.com/applv/index.php (Sorenson).
"
See NECA, Interstate TeleccHnmunications Relay Services Fund Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate, CC
Docket No. 98-67 at Appendix A (Relay Service Data Request Instructions), p. 4
(filed /^nil 25,2005) (stating that
"[t]he cost of equ^ment given to, sold to, and/or used by relay callers, and call incentives, are NOT to be reported as
expenses" (enqrhasis in original)); VRS Marketing Practices Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Red at 1469, para. 8 nJO.
"
See Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 12 ("Sorenson has decided to offer users a VP-100 only in conjunction
with access to its interpreters"). We note that on February 20,2006, Sorenson issued a press release armouncing
plans to allow, by July 1,2006, users of its videophones to use the services of other VRS providers. See
http://www.soiensonvrs.com. That announcement, addressmg Sorenson's future marlfP'fing plans, does not preclude
us from ruling on the PetitioiL
"
See Sorenson Reply Comments at 4; http://www.sorensonvrs.com/applv/index-php. Sorenson allows customers to
make peer-to-peer calls — i.e., direct videophone-to-videophone calls — to other individuals See of charge even if the
other party is not using a VP-100. These calls are not TRS calls and therefore are not regulated or conqiensated
under Section 225
preclude
us from ruling on the PetitioiL
"
See Sorenson Reply Comments at 4; http://www.sorensonvrs.com/applv/index-php. Sorenson allows customers to
make peer-to-peer calls — i.e., direct videophone-to-videophone calls — to other individuals See of charge even if the
other party is not using a VP-100. These calls are not TRS calls and therefore are not regulated or conqiensated
under Section 225. Sorenson states that these calls constitute more than 80 percent of all Sorenson calls. Sorenson
Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 10-11.
5448

Federal Communications Cominissinii
FCC 06-57
broadband access charge.^''
D.
The Petition.
17. Petitioner requests the Commission to mandate that VRS providers receiving compensation
ftom the Fund be prohibited fiom restricting VRS equipment from accessing other VRS providers,
arguing that this practice violates the principle of fimctional equivalency.'' Petitioner asserts that
although consumers could access multiple providers by having two sets of equipment, "having two sets of
devices creates a considerable burden for consumers," who must, for exanq>le, "keep separate lists of
contacts, unique names and passwords[,] and learn how to operate two systems."'® Petitioner states that
"UJust as hearing people are not expected to have two sraarate devices to make or receive calls ... neither
should VRS users be expected to have dual equipment." The Petition also enq>hasize$ that because it is
not always possible to pronq)tly reach an available CA,
if VRS equipment is restricted consumers have no
choice but to wait for an available CA; they cannot, instead, try to place a call through another provider.'®
Petitioner also argues that a consumer's consent caimot justify compensating a provider fiom the
Interstate TRS Fimd, if that provider is restricting the use of its equipment.' Petitioner states that as "the
final aibito' of the [Interstate TRS] Fund, the [Commission] has a duty to ensure that all providers of VRS
act in a manner that does not fiustrate the purposes of Section 225 [or] i
ovider.'®
Petitioner also argues that a consumer's consent caimot justify compensating a provider fiom the
Interstate TRS Fimd, if that provider is restricting the use of its equipment.' Petitioner states that as "the
final aibito' of the [Interstate TRS] Fund, the [Commission] has a duty to ensure that all providers of VRS
act in a manner that does not fiustrate the purposes of Section 225 [or] interfere with the other objectives
of the Communications Act."®°
18. Petitioner also asserts that requiring interoperability is in the public's intaest. Petitiona
enq)hasizes that blocking access to otha VRS providers creates a serious danga for VRS consumers
attenq)ting to place a VRS call in the event of an emergency.®' Petitiona notes that many videophone
usas have abandoned their TTYs and choose to use VRS exclusively for calls to hearing individuals.®^
As a result, in the event of an emergency, if a consuma cannot promptly reach a CA throu^ the only
VRS provida they are allowed to use with their equipment, they will not be able to call emagency
services at all.®' Petitiona contends that a "practice that prohibits customas fiom accessing anotha VRS
'* See Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 12-13 n.33; CSD Ex Porte Letter (Nov. 7, 2005). Hands On asserts that it
adopted the practice of blocking access to competitors ova the broadband service it provides "out of competitive
necessity to prevent loss of market share." Hands On Ex Parte (Nov. 11,2005) at 13 (attachment). Hands On
fiirtha asserts, howeva, that it does not block videophones sipplied by conpetitors, and that in any event it
"believes all blocking of consuma access to competitors should be prohibited" because odierwise otha providers
will do the same and "balkanize the VRS market" Id.
"
Petition at iii-iv, 8-10; see 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3). Petitioner focuses in particular on Sorenson's practice of giving
its VP-100 videophone to consumers for free but restricting its use to Sorenson's VRS service and blocking
customers from contacting any otha VRS provida
ss to competitors should be prohibited" because odierwise otha providers
will do the same and "balkanize the VRS market" Id.
"
Petition at iii-iv, 8-10; see 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3). Petitioner focuses in particular on Sorenson's practice of giving
its VP-100 videophone to consumers for free but restricting its use to Sorenson's VRS service and blocking
customers from contacting any otha VRS provida. Petitiona asserts that this practice violates functional
equivalency because Sorenson's customers are unable to use the services of otha VRS provida for any incoming or
ou^oing calls. Petition at iii.
^
Petition at iv.
''Id.
"
Id. at 5. As noted above, speed of answa rules became effective for VRS on January 1, 2006. The initial
benchmark is answering 80 percent of all calls within three minutes, measured on a monthly basis. See note 19,
supra.
"
Id. Petitiona also asserts that deaf VRS consumers accepting Sorenson's equpment often do not have a full
understanding of restrictions placed on their use of the equipment. Id. at 10.
*"Mat24.
"
Id. at 19-22.
^
Id. at 19-20.
"
Id. at 20; see also note 26, supra (citing recent NPRM on using VRS to call emagency services and the extension
of the waiva of this requirement until January 1,2007).
5449

Federal Cnmnmniciitions rnmmission
FCC 06-57
provider [during an emergency] conflicts with our nation's homeland security polices, which are designed
to fecilitate, not restrict, access to emergency support -
especially when an emergency strikes a sizeable
area."^ Petitioner also notes that there may be times when a provider's service is shut down or
overwhelmed by an influx of calls, and that in such cases it is inqrerative that consumers have access to
all VRS providers, as well as all available interpreters.®^
19
polices, which are designed
to fecilitate, not restrict, access to emergency support -
especially when an emergency strikes a sizeable
area."^ Petitioner also notes that there may be times when a provider's service is shut down or
overwhelmed by an influx of calls, and that in such cases it is inqrerative that consumers have access to
all VRS providers, as well as all available interpreters.®^
19. Finally, Petitioner asserts that restricting the use of VRS equipment to a single provider is at
odds with the Commission's enqihasis on open and integrated telecommunications networks, including
the Internet, and interconnection principles.®® Petitioner states that "Congress and the Commission have
consistently renewed their commitment to policies that promote the interconnection of services and
equipment, in the interest of both fiirthering conqietition and facilitating use of the nation's public
telecommunications networks by the broadest number of consumers."®' Relatedly, Petitioner asserts that
requiring interoperability would level the playing field and foster conqietition by encouraging new
providers to offer service.®*
20. Petitioner also addresses Sorenson's practice of using a database of "proxy" numbers that
allow its customers to use their existing telephone number (or some other number) as a proxy for their IP
address.®' This arrangement permits a hearing person to call a VRS user through Sorenson without
having to know the VRS user's IP address. Petitioner asserts that this "restricted database" precludes a
hearing person fiom making a VRS call throu^ another provider's service using the VRS user's proxy
number. Petitiona- notes that although a hearing person may still be able to call a VRS user by
providing the VRS provider with the VRS user's IP address, most VRS users have dynarmc IP addresses
so that they likely do not know their IP address to give to the calling party."
E.
The Comments
21. On March 1, 2005, the Petition was placed on Public Notice." Six TRS providers" and six
®*M at 20-21.
Id
umber. Petitiona- notes that although a hearing person may still be able to call a VRS user by
providing the VRS provider with the VRS user's IP address, most VRS users have dynarmc IP addresses
so that they likely do not know their IP address to give to the calling party."
E.
The Comments
21. On March 1, 2005, the Petition was placed on Public Notice." Six TRS providers" and six
®*M at 20-21.
Id. at 22.
®® Petitioner maintains that this practice is-"contrary to the Commission's overall efforts to achieve a seamless and
integrated network of communications services, and inconsistent vridi national policies promoting competition,
nondiscriminatory practices, and dialing parity." Petition at iii.
Id. at 8. Petitioner emphasizes that the requirement in the TRS rules that providers offer consumers their lor^
distance carrier of choice "is a form of interoperability designed to foster competition for relay calls made over long
distance." Id.
®* Id. at 22-23. Petitioner also asserts that Sorenson's practice prohibits hearing persons fiom using another VRS
providers' service to call a deaf person wdio uses Sorenson's VRS equipment. Petition at 5,18-19. The record
reflects, however, that this is no longer the case. See Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 11-12 n.29 ("Sorenson
subscribers can use their VP-lOOs to receive incoming calls fiom any VRS provider... There are no longer any
contractual restrictions preventing Sorenson VRS customers fiom receiving calls over dieir VP-100s fiom customers
of other VRS providers."); see also Reply Comments by CCASDHH at 2 n. 1 (May 2,2005) (acknowledging that
Sorenson now allows its customers to receive calls fiom other VRS providers).
®' Petition at 3-4 &
rm.3, 5-6.
"W.at6.
Id. The Petition asserts that acquiring a static {i.e., permanent) IP address is costly and that consumers generally
do not have such IP addresses. Id. at 3 &
nn.3,6
customers
of other VRS providers."); see also Reply Comments by CCASDHH at 2 n. 1 (May 2,2005) (acknowledging that
Sorenson now allows its customers to receive calls fiom other VRS providers).
®' Petition at 3-4 &
rm.3, 5-6.
"W.at6.
Id. The Petition asserts that acquiring a static {i.e., permanent) IP address is costly and that consumers generally
do not have such IP addresses. Id. at 3 &
nn.3,6.
"
See Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing (CCASDHH) concerning Video Relay Service (VRS)
Interoperability), CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket
No. 03-123, Public Notice, 20 FCC Red 4162 (March 1,2005) (Interoperability PN).
5450

Federal Conminiiications Cnwimission
FCC 06-57
organizations filed comments and reply commraits7^ Of these commenters, only Sorenson opposes the
Petition. Numerous individuals also filed comments and reply comments, most of which generally
support the Petition. Many ex parte meetings and paper filings also occurred.'^
22. The Comments. Supporting commenters generally make the same arguments as Petitioner.'*
They assert that because equipment restrictions limit the ability of the consumers to use their VRS
provider of choice, the practice violates the functional equivalency mandate." The commenters argue
that consumers should not be locked into using one provider's relay service siiiq)ly because the provider
gave the consumer fioe VRS equipment.'® Commenters further assert that this practice compels
consumers who desire to have access to multiple providers to have more than one videophone device,
which is burdensome and costly." Commenters state that it is inconsistent with fimctional equivalency to
require consumers using VRS to use two or more separate video devices to ensxire that they can promptly
reach a VRS CA
(the equivalent of reaching a dial tone when hearing people can xise a single
conventional voice phone).®" Commenters also emphasize that restricting the use of VRS equipment can
(...continued from previo
y." Commenters state that it is inconsistent with fimctional equivalency to
require consumers using VRS to use two or more separate video devices to ensxire that they can promptly
reach a VRS CA
(the equivalent of reaching a dial tone when hearing people can xise a single
conventional voice phone).®" Commenters also emphasize that restricting the use of VRS equipment can
(...continued from previous page)
Comments and reply comments were filed by the following TRS providers: Commimication Services for the Deaf
(CSD)(>^ril 15,2005 and May 2,2005); Hamilton (.^ril 15,2005 and May 2,2005); Hands On (April 15,2005
and May 2,2005); MCI
(i^ril 15,2005); Sorenson (^ril 15,2005 and May 2,2005); and Ultratec, Inc. (May 2,
2005).
Comments and reply comments were filed by the foUowing organizations: Alexander Graham Bell Association
for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) (.April 15,2005); Orange County Deaf Advocacy Center (OCDAC)
(March 4,2005); National Association of the D^eaf (NAD)
(April 15,2005 and May 2,2005); Telecommunications
for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI) and Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (DHHCAN)
(filed together on
April 15,2005 and May 2,2005) (TDI/DHHCAN); RERC on Telecommunications Access (RERC-TA)
(.^ril 15,
2005); and CCASDHH (May 2,2005).
"
Letters of Ex Parte presentations were filed by the following parties: CSD (May 14,2005, June 16,2005, June
23.2005, August 24,2005, October 20,2005, November 7,2005, December 14,2005, January 24,2006, and
January 25,2006); Hamilton (September 27,2005; October 24, 2005, November 17,2005, December 14,2005,
January 24,2006, and January 30,2006); Hands On (November 10,2005, December 14,2005, and January 27,
2006); National Video Relay Service Coalition (NVRSC)
(June 28,2005); Sorenson (April 13, 2005, May 4,2005,
July 10,2005, July 21,2005, November 30,2005, December 20,2005, January 4,2006, January 19,2006, January
24.2006, February 2, 2006, February 6,2006, February 23,2006, March 7,2006, and March 29,2006); Sprint
(.^wil 20,2005, November 3,2005
November 10,2005, December 14,2005, and January 27,
2006); National Video Relay Service Coalition (NVRSC)
(June 28,2005); Sorenson (April 13, 2005, May 4,2005,
July 10,2005, July 21,2005, November 30,2005, December 20,2005, January 4,2006, January 19,2006, January
24.2006, February 2, 2006, February 6,2006, February 23,2006, March 7,2006, and March 29,2006); Sprint
(.^wil 20,2005, November 3,2005); TDI (October 20,2005); and Snap Telecommunications, Inc. (March 22,2006).
The following parties filed late comments: CSD (November 30,2005); Hamilton (December 2,2005 and December
23,2005); Hands On (December 19,2005); NAD, NorCal Center on Deafriess (NorCal), Northern Virginia
Resource Center (NVRC), and TDI (November 9,2005) (joint filing); Sorenson (January 6,2006); and the FCC
Consumm Advisory Committee (CAC)
(January 9,2006). Petitioner, along with TDI, NAD, DHHCAN,
and the
Association of Late Deafened Adults, filed a written ex parte on February 15,2006. Petitioner, along with TDI,
NAD,
and the National Council on Disability filed an ex parte letter on February 17,2006.
'* CAC notes that the Petition "has received the support of all leading national organizations by and for people who
are deaf and hard of hearing," and that "hundreds of consumer comments, constituting 80-90% of all commenters to
this proceeding, have been filed in support of the petition's objectives." CAC Comments at 1.
"
See, e.g., CAC Cormnents at 3; CSD Commraits at 9-10; AG Bell Conunents at 1; Hamilton Comments at 3-4;
MCI Comments at 1-2; NAD Comments at 7-8, 14-15; OCDAC Conunents; RERC-TA Comments at 3-4;
TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 8-9; Hamilton Reply Conunents at 2.
'® NAD Comments at 9, n. 12; RERC-TA Conunents at 5; TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 5.
"
CSD Corrunents at 15; NAD Reply Conunents at 7; TDI/DHHCAN Reply Conunents at 3
Cormnents at 3; CSD Commraits at 9-10; AG Bell Conunents at 1; Hamilton Comments at 3-4;
MCI Comments at 1-2; NAD Comments at 7-8, 14-15; OCDAC Conunents; RERC-TA Comments at 3-4;
TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 8-9; Hamilton Reply Conunents at 2.
'® NAD Comments at 9, n. 12; RERC-TA Conunents at 5; TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 5.
"
CSD Corrunents at 15; NAD Reply Conunents at 7; TDI/DHHCAN Reply Conunents at 3.
®° CAC Conunents at 2-3; CSD Conunents at 15 (burdensome, inefficient and e3q)ensive for a consumer to acquire
more than one equ^ment); NAD Reply Conunents at 7 (additional equipment requires a financial cormnitment on
the part of consumer).
5451

Federal Communications Commissinn
FCC 06-57
thwart a consumer's ability to contact pron^tly emergency services.*' If the consumer cannot promptly
reach a CA
(e.g., because of long wait times), the inability to place a call through another VRS provider
puts their safety at risk.*^ Most individual commenters also express the desire to be able to call any of the
VRS providers in an emergency.*'
23. Commenters also address the use of proxy numbers for the DP addresses of VRS users. CSD
notes, for exanq)le, that presently "there is no uniform means of identifying and accessing VRS users that
offers the ease of the North American Numbering Plan (NAN?) enjoyed by voice users."** Instead, CSD
asserts, each VRS provider has its own system for enabling hearing persons to make a relay call to a VRS
user.*' CSD maintains that this results in serious conhision for hearing individuals who want to make a
VRS call and requires them to have "the specific provider information and extension of the individual
they are trying to reach."** CSD states that a "seamless numbering scheme" is needed that will aUow all
VRS users -
deaf and hearing -
to contact each other with the same ease that other telephone users do
so.*^ Finally, CSD notes that such a numbering scheme would fecilitate the handlmg of emergency
calls.**
24. Sorenson's Response. Sorenson opposes the Petition
and extension of the individual
they are trying to reach."** CSD states that a "seamless numbering scheme" is needed that will aUow all
VRS users -
deaf and hearing -
to contact each other with the same ease that other telephone users do
so.*^ Finally, CSD notes that such a numbering scheme would fecilitate the handlmg of emergency
calls.**
24. Sorenson's Response. Sorenson opposes the Petition. Sormison acknowledges that it
currently does not permit a consumer to use its VP-100 device to place a VRS call through any other VRS
provider's service. But Sorenson asserts that consumers using the VP-100 stiU remain fi^
to use any
providers' VRS service with any other equipment they may have.""
25. Sorenson characterizes its VRS service as a "total service platform," which it states it has
developed at considerable expense.^' According to Sorenson, this platform includes provision of the VP-
100 with its "high-quality video imagery," access tb highly trained interpreters, maintenance and repair of
all elements of its service (including the VP-100), and unlimited point-to-point calling.'^ Sorenson asserts
CAC Comments at 3-4; AG Bell Comments at 2; CSD Comments at 21-22; TDI/DHHCAN at 3; RERC-TA
Comments at 4; Hands On Reply Comments at 1; NAD Comments at 8. The commenters note that many
individuals have abandoned their TTYs in &vor of videqihones, and now use their videophones as dieir only means
of telephone communication. As a result, a consumer's only access to emergency services may be by making a VRS
call.
*^TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 3; RERC-TA Comments at 5. Hands On also notes that the shortage of interpreters,
which may make it more difBcult to reach pronptly a CA iu the event of an emergency if restricted to calling one
provider, sipports requiring interoperability so that consumers have access to any interpreters available and on duty
during the time of an emergency. Hands On Comments at 14; Hands On Ex Parte (Nov 10,2005).
See, e.g.. Comments of Mary C. Cart (March 3,2005), Thomas J
of interpreters,
which may make it more difBcult to reach pronptly a CA iu the event of an emergency if restricted to calling one
provider, sipports requiring interoperability so that consumers have access to any interpreters available and on duty
during the time of an emergency. Hands On Comments at 14; Hands On Ex Parte (Nov 10,2005).
See, e.g.. Comments of Mary C. Cart (March 3,2005), Thomas J. DellaMonica (April 20,2005), Diane Plassey
Gutierrez (April 7,2005), Micelle Klenz (March 22,2005), Michelle Michaels (March 16, 2005).
CSD Ex Parte (Oct 20,2005) at 3.
"id.
"id.
"Id.
"id.
"
Sorenson Reply Comments at 4; Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 12. As noted above (note 52), on February
20,2006, Sorenson announced its intention to end this practice by July 1,2006.
^
Sorenson Comments at 4; Sorenson Reply Comments at 4. Sorenson also contrasts the competitive nature of VRS
with the provision of intrastate TRS pursuant to state programs, noting because states generally select one provider,
consumers have no choice of providers for their intrastate TRS calls. Sorenson Comments at 23; Sorenson Reply
Comments at 6-7.
"
Sorenson Ex Parte (JarL 6,2006) at 4, 8,10.
^
Id. at 4,14.
5452

Federal Communications C»m™ission
FCC 06-57
that each provider "should be free to offo" whatever service packages it thinks will be most attractive to
consumers."'^ Sorenson also describes its total service platform approach as consistent with the approach
used by most consumer communications today, such as wireless providers.'^ Sorenson argues that if it
were forced to "imbundled its platform," i.e., permit consumers to use its VP-100 with other VRS
providers, the VP-100 would no longer be part of Sorenson's service and therefore, e.g., Sorenson would
not be responsible for maintaining and repairing the equipment.'^
26
consistent with the approach
used by most consumer communications today, such as wireless providers.'^ Sorenson argues that if it
were forced to "imbundled its platform," i.e., permit consumers to use its VP-100 with other VRS
providers, the VP-100 would no longer be part of Sorenson's service and therefore, e.g., Sorenson would
not be responsible for maintaining and repairing the equipment.'^
26. Sorenson fiirther asserts that if it is required to permit consumers to use its VP-100 to make
calls through otha- providers' VRS service, "much of the incentive to develop iimovations will disappear
because any new technology will be shared with all other VRS providers, thus precluding the inventor
from recovering or profiting on any investment made."'® Sorenson contends that unda Section 225, the
Commission has the obligation to ensure that the TRS regulations encourage, not impair, the development
of new technology and that it has a duty to make TRS available to all Americans in an expeditious
maimer as possible.'^ Sorenson thaefore argues that allowing a coirqretitive VRS market without
regulatory intavention -
such as an interoperability requirement -
will "encourage providas to invest in
advanced technology for VRS products and services, which will, in-tum, benefit the deaf and hard-of-
hearing communities."'*
27. Sorenson also maintains that its proposed solution for handling emergency calls made via
their VRS service -
identifying emagency calls that are in queue and routing them to a C A trained in
facilitating the VRS caller in reaching an appnroriate PSAP -
negates the argument that providing access
to emergency service requires intaopaability. Sorenson explains that it "plans to integrate software
that automatically moves the calla, in an emagency situation, to the firrnt of the queue for the next
available operator."^®*'
28
cy calls that are in queue and routing them to a C A trained in
facilitating the VRS caller in reaching an appnroriate PSAP -
negates the argument that providing access
to emergency service requires intaopaability. Sorenson explains that it "plans to integrate software
that automatically moves the calla, in an emagency situation, to the firrnt of the queue for the next
available operator."^®*'
28. With re^d to its database of proxy numbers for its customers' IP addresses, Sorenson
explains that, because VRS equipment is genei^y cormected to the fritemet througfr a dynamic IP
address, it developed a means by which callers can reach a device identified by an IP address.'®'
Sorenson assigns a unique numba to each videophone (usually the consuma's telephone numba), and
the VP-100 and Sorenson's servers "work togetha to match the unique identifia with the usa's dynamic
IP address."''" As a result, Sorenson creates a directory "that matches pseudo phone numbers (wWch
rairain constant) with dynamic IP addresses," so that a hearing person seeking to call a Sorenson VRS
usa can do so by calling a Sorenson and providing the CA with the VRS usa's "phone numba."'®'
at 12-13.
at 21-22.
Id at 14-15.
^
Sorenson Reply Comments at 11; Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 17. Sorenson notes that it has spent
approximately $50 million to develop its videophone and provide VRS service. Id. at 8,10. It furtha notes that it
"is already woiidng on developing an inqiroved videophone, the VP-200." Id. at 9.
Sorenson Reply Comments at 9-12.
'*/m, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. As a result, effective 60 days after
publication of this Declaratory Ruling in the Federal Register, any VRS provider restricting the use of its
service so that a consumer cannot use it to place or receive a call through any of the VRS provides' relay
service will be ineligible for conqjensation fix>m the Interstate TRS Fxmd.'°®
30. Functional Equivalency
ix>m, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. As a result, effective 60 days after
publication of this Declaratory Ruling in the Federal Register, any VRS provider restricting the use of its
service so that a consumer cannot use it to place or receive a call through any of the VRS provides' relay
service will be ineligible for conqjensation fix>m the Interstate TRS Fxmd.'°®
30. Functional Equivalency. We conclude that restricting access to conq)eting VRS providers is
inconsistent with Section 225's functional equivalency mandate.'"' Voice telephone users reach a dial
tone almost instantaneously every time they pick up the telq)hone. For TRS users, the Commission has
recognized that reaching a CA ready to handle the call is essentially the same as reaching a dial tone.'"^
Therefore, "the ability of a TRS user to reach a CA prepared to place his or her call... is flmdamental to
the concq)t of 'functional equivalency.'""" For this reason, the TRS regulations include a speed of
answer requirement so that a TRS user does not have to wait to reach a CA."" For text-based TRS
services, the speed of answer requires that 85 percent of all calls be answered within 10 seconds.'"
Presently, for VRS, the speed of answer rule requires 80 percent of all calls to be answered within three
•
112
mmutes.
31. If a consumer is limited to using only one provider's service, the consumer is dqiendent
soldy on that provider to reach a CA available to place a call. If there is a long wait time, or the call is
urgent, the consiuno- cannot attenq)t to contact a CA of another provider's service because such caUs are
blocked. Therefore, at any particular moment in time, a VRS user is at a disadvantage conq)ared to voice
Sorenson Comments at 12. Sorenson claims that "users find this feature very helpful because the videophone
number does not change and there is no need to acquire a static (fixed) IP address or domain name." Id. at 11.
Id. at 11
to contact a CA of another provider's service because such caUs are
blocked. Therefore, at any particular moment in time, a VRS user is at a disadvantage conq)ared to voice
Sorenson Comments at 12. Sorenson claims that "users find this feature very helpful because the videophone
number does not change and there is no need to acquire a static (fixed) IP address or domain name." Id. at 11.
Id. at 11. Sorenson notes that other VRS providers use a similar system, although each provider's system only
works for calls made on the particular provider's network. Sorenson £*Farre(JarL 6,2006) at 16. Sorenson notes
that calls made via a provider other than the one for which the VRS user has a proxy number require the caller to
know in advance the IP address of the called party's video device. Id.
"'® See para. 43, infra addressing effective date.
J0747 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).
See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order. 19 FCC Red at 12480, para. 3 rulS.
"" Call Handling Practices PN, 20 FCC Red at 1474 (internal quotation marks omitted).
"" See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order, 20 FCC Red at 13168, para. 6
(noting that the ability to make a telephone
call "without delay" is fundamental to rapid and efficient communications system).
47 C.F.R. § 64.604(bX2).
See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order, 20 FCC Red at 13165, para.1 (although this requirement had been waived
for VRS, effective January 1,2006,80 pmcent of all VRS calls must be answered within 3 minutes). This longer
speed of answer period for VRS reflects concerns over the shortage of qualified interpreters available to handle VRS
calls. Id. at 13174-13175, para. 18.
5454
47 C.F.R. § 64.604(bX2).
See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order, 20 FCC Red at 13165, para.1 (although this requirement had been waived
for VRS, effective January 1,2006,80 pmcent of all VRS calls must be answered within 3 minutes). This longer
speed of answer period for VRS reflects concerns over the shortage of qualified interpreters available to handle VRS
calls. Id. at 13174-13175, para. 18.
5454

Federal Cnmmniiications Commission
FCC 06-57
callers because a CA may not be available to handle the VRS user's call, and the VRS user cannot
pronq)tly reach a "dial tone."' Although the VRS speed of answer requirement was adopted to address
this issue, because compliance with the rule is measured on a monthly basis, and the compliance rate is
presently 80 percent of all calls, even if the standard is met a VRS user may have to wait a significant
amount of time to reach a CA. Therefore, in these circumstances, speed of answer does not necessarily
ensure functional equivalency for any particular call.
32. We also believe that it is inconsistent with functional equivalency to require VRS users to
have two sets of equipment to ensure that they can promptly reach a CA, and inq}ractical in an urgent
situation to expect users to have to switch out equipment if one provider is not available quickly
enough."^ Voice telephone users are not required to have multiple sets of equipment to obtain a dial tone
and access the telephone network. In addition, this is burdensome and costly.'" Further, requiring
consumers to have two sets of equipment to access multiple providers adversely affects a VRS user's
ability to receive incoming calls. If, for exanple, only one device is turned on, the router may
nevertheless direct the incoming call to the device that is turned off, and as a result the VRS user will
miss the call."® Voice telqrhone users do not similarly risk missing incoming calls because of the
necessity of having multiple equipment to ensure access to a dial tone."^
33
affects a VRS user's
ability to receive incoming calls. If, for exanple, only one device is turned on, the router may
nevertheless direct the incoming call to the device that is turned off, and as a result the VRS user will
miss the call."® Voice telqrhone users do not similarly risk missing incoming calls because of the
necessity of having multiple equipment to ensure access to a dial tone."^
33. Further, call blocking adversely affects the abihty of hearing person to successfiilly initiate a
VRS call. If a hearing person is limited to calling a deaf person through one provider's service, the
choices of the hearing person are constrained by an arrangement to which he or she is not a party and
likely does not even know about. The hearing person may attenqrt to place a VRS call through several
provides before reaching the one provider that can place a call to the VRS user. This not only
discourages VRS calls initiated by hearing persons, but again is inconsistent with TRS as a service that
must be available to give persons with hearing and speech disabihties access to the telephone system,
regardless whether the person with a disability or the voice telephone user initiates the call.
As CAC states, "[w]hen a hearing person picks up the telephone to make a call, that individual can immediately
access anyone, anytime, regardless of the telephone carrier to uhich that person or the called party subscribes. This
same ctqracity is not being made available to those VRS users who are restricted to one service provider. These
consumers are presently unable to switch to another provider to make their calls, even when their primary provider
has no dial tone (i.e., no interpreter available to place the call." CAC Comments at 3.
' For many consumers, particularly those that are not technologically sophisticated, switching relay equipment that
is attached to the consumer's broadband Internet cormection is not a simple matter
onsumers are presently unable to switch to another provider to make their calls, even when their primary provider
has no dial tone (i.e., no interpreter available to place the call." CAC Comments at 3.
' For many consumers, particularly those that are not technologically sophisticated, switching relay equipment that
is attached to the consumer's broadband Internet cormection is not a simple matter. For exanqile, at a minimum the
consumer must ensure that: (1) he or she has selected the right piece of equipment for the particular provider, (2)
the equqnnent is turned on and plugged into the Internet connection; (3) the other piece of equipment is turned off
and disconnected fiom the Internet cormection; and (4) the piece of equipment is properly configured to read the
correct IP address of the VRS provider. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the argiunent that a VRS user can use
another provider's service on other VRS equipment the user may have. See, e.g., Sorenson Ex Pane (Jan. 6,2006)
at 11-13.
See CAC Comments at 2
(enqrhasizing that if a person has equipment that is not interoperable and "want[s]
service that is fimctionally equivalent to that available to hearing people," the individual has "no choice but to
acquire multiple video devices," which is "discriminatory and burdensome and inconsistent with services available
to wireline voice users who can have a single telq)hone to reach their entire universe of contacts").
"® See, e.g., CSD Ex Pane (Jan. 25,2006) at 2
(attachment); see also CAC Comments at 2 (even if "a person
acquires multiple devices, that person runs the risk of missing incomit^ calls when those calls are either directed to
the device that is not turned on or routed to the wrong device by the Internet router").
Sorenson also argues that because nearly all state TRS programs select only one traditional TRS provider for
traditional intrastate TRS service, most consumers of traditional TRS do not have a choice of providers. See, e.g.,
Sorenson Comments at 6-7
issing incomit^ calls when those calls are either directed to
the device that is not turned on or routed to the wrong device by the Internet router").
Sorenson also argues that because nearly all state TRS programs select only one traditional TRS provider for
traditional intrastate TRS service, most consumers of traditional TRS do not have a choice of providers. See, e.g.,
Sorenson Comments at 6-7. This argument is irrelevant in the federal context. Under Section 225, states have
primary jurisdiction over the provision of intrastate TRS, including the compensation of providers of intrastate TRS,
and may determine for themselves how TRS is provided to dieir residents. See 47 U.S.C. § 225(dX3)(B).
5455

Federal Cftmninnications Commission
FCC 06-57
34. In sum, consistent with functional equivalency, all VRS consumes must be able to place a
VRS call through any of the VRS providers' service, and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls
fiom, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. Thraefore, a provider may not block calls so that VRS
equipment caimot be used with other providers' service. In addition, a provider may not take other steps
that restrict a consumer's unfettered access to other providers' service. This includes the practice of
providing degraded sravice quahty to consumers using VRS equipment or service with another provider's
service. Fin^y, new providers seeking to offer service have the burden of ensuring that their service is
interoperable with existing providers' service.
35. The Public Interest and Access to Emergency Services. The Commission has repeatedly
enqjhasized the pubhc interest inqwrtance of ensuring that consumers have access to emergency
services."® Because a VRS user, like all consumers, must be able to contact pronqitly emergency
services, we also conclude that restricting consumers to contacting a single VRS provider is inconsistent
with the public interest.
36
ic Interest and Access to Emergency Services. The Commission has repeatedly
enqjhasized the pubhc interest inqwrtance of ensuring that consumers have access to emergency
services."® Because a VRS user, like all consumers, must be able to contact pronqitly emergency
services, we also conclude that restricting consumers to contacting a single VRS provider is inconsistent
with the public interest.
36. As noted above, many individuals with hearing and speech disabilities use TRS to contact
anergency services."' If a VRS user is restricted to placing a call with one provider, and that provider's
wait time prevents the user fiom pronqitly reaching a CA in the event of an emergency, the consumer
may suffer setious harm.^^° Even assuming a VRS provider is able to develop a means of pronq»tly
handling emerg«icy calls, this does not negate the broader pubhc interest in ensuring full VRS access to
all providCTS.'^' In the event of an emergency, or an event that might tenqiorarily affect a particular
provider's abiUty to offer service, consumers must be able to call any CA to reach emergency services.
Particularly in the aftermath of September 11,2001, and recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, we find that
it is essential to ensure that VRS consumers are not dependent on services of a single provider in the
event of an emergency."^
37. Call Blocking Cannot be Justified as Part of a "Total Platform Service." Sorenson contends
"* See VRS 911NPRM; see also IP-Enabled Services, E911 Requirementsfor IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC
Docket Nos. 04-36,05-196, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Red 10245, at
10247-10248, para. 4
(June 3,2005) {VoIPE911 Order); Revision ofthe Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced [cite VoIP 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, First
Rqxnt and Order, 11 FCC Red 18676,18679, para
irementsfor IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC
Docket Nos. 04-36,05-196, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Red 10245, at
10247-10248, para. 4
(June 3,2005) {VoIPE911 Order); Revision ofthe Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced [cite VoIP 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, First
Rqxnt and Order, 11 FCC Red 18676,18679, para. 5 (July 26,1996) {E911 First Report and Order) ("E911 saves
lives and property by helping emergency services personnel do their jobs more quickly and efBciently.").
See para. 7, supra. Under the TRS rules, providers must route emergency TRS calls to the appropriate PSAP.
Second Imprwed TRS Order, 18 FCC Red at 12406-12408, paras. 40-42. Although the Commission has presently
waived this requirement for VRS, see para. 7, supra, VRS users nevertheless use VRS to contact emergency
services. See generally VRS 911 NPRM. Some VRS users do not have a telephone line or a TTY and flierefore
caimot make a direct 911 call to a PSAP. Also, some TRS users exclusively use VRS because they have limited
English or typing skills and therefore cannot effectively use a TTY. See Petition at 20.
See note 8, supra and accompanying text
Sormson has announced that it is adopting a means of handling emergency calls that will ensure that it pronqitly
answers emergency calls. Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 17-20. Sorenson states that under its "call
prioritization system" it will identify emergency calls that are in queue, move them to the head of the queue, and
route them to a CA trained in fticilitating the VRS caller in reaching an aiqrropriate PSAP. Id. at 20.
See CAC Comments at 3
("Allowing a VRS provider to block outgoing calls through other providers is
extremely dangerous in emergency or urgent situations. If the provider blocking access is operating at hill edacity
and its wait times are long, consiuners have no way to make dieir... calls through another provider
trained in fticilitating the VRS caller in reaching an aiqrropriate PSAP. Id. at 20.
See CAC Comments at 3
("Allowing a VRS provider to block outgoing calls through other providers is
extremely dangerous in emergency or urgent situations. If the provider blocking access is operating at hill edacity
and its wait times are long, consiuners have no way to make dieir... calls through another provider. This could have
disastrous consequences, especially during a national crisis or a weather disaster when one provider's network may
be shut down or exceedingly busy.").
See, e.g., CSD Reply Comments at 8-12; CCASDHH Reply Comments at 5-6; TDI/DHHCAN Reply Comments
at 3.
5456

Federri CnmmnnipaHnns Commission
FCC 06-57
that it may receive compensation from the Fund regardless of how it provisions relay service with
equipment and other services. Sorenson's argument is premised on at least four points; (1) the provision
of TRS is no different from the provision of other communication services to the public, including
wireless telephone calls, traditional wireline telephone calls, and satellite television;'^^ (2) TRS providers
therefore may offer whatever "service package" they like, which may include bundling equipment, the
relaying of calls, maintenance and repair of &e equipment, and additional features;
(3) bundling
equipment with service is essential to ensuring that the provider recovers the cost of developing the
equipment (i.e., a return on investment) and therefore can continue to innovate;'^' and (4) bundling
equipment with service permits deaf consumers to use the equipment to make free peer-to-peer calls,
which ftnthers the goal of improving communication for deaf people.'^' As summarized below, these
arguments cannot support the use of the Interstate TRS Fund to conq)ensate call blocking practices.
38
quipment (i.e., a return on investment) and therefore can continue to innovate;'^' and (4) bundling
equipment with service permits deaf consumers to use the equipment to make free peer-to-peer calls,
which ftnthers the goal of improving communication for deaf people.'^' As summarized below, these
arguments cannot support the use of the Interstate TRS Fund to conq)ensate call blocking practices.
38. First, TRS is fundamentally different from the provision of wireless telephone, satellite
television, or similar services that may bundle equipment and services in that these services are market-
based and, unlike TRS, are paid for by any consumer wishing to subscribe. By contrast, TRS is an
accommodation for persons with disabilities required of voice telephone providers as mandated by
Congress. TRS is fidly conq)ensated by the states and the federal Interstate TRS Fund; it is not paid for
by the consumCT.^^* Moreover, Section 225 focuses on the provision of relay service.^^^ Section 225
requires carriers to make relay service available to handle calls that consumers choose to make, and
provides a mechanism whereby they will be con:q)ensated for their reasonable costs of operating relay
facilities and relaying calls."" Relay service provides the means by which persons with disabilities can
communicate with voice telephone users throu^ the services of a third party, the CA."' For this reason,
relay users have traditionally purchased their own devices (e.g., TTYs) or received them from state
Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 20-22.
Id. at 12-13.
at 1,7-8.
'"/rf. at 10-11.
128 A wireless customer pays his or her wireless provider for at least part of the call, regardless of which networks
are involved. In addition, Sorenson's analogy to wireless service is misplaced because wireless handsets must be
capable of making an emergency (911) on other carrier's networks. 47 C.F.R. § 22.291 (911 call processing
procedures)
at 20-22.
Id. at 12-13.
at 1,7-8.
'"/rf. at 10-11.
128 A wireless customer pays his or her wireless provider for at least part of the call, regardless of which networks
are involved. In addition, Sorenson's analogy to wireless service is misplaced because wireless handsets must be
capable of making an emergency (911) on other carrier's networks. 47 C.F.R. § 22.291 (911 call processing
procedures).
Indeed, this is apparent from the plain language of Section 225, which is directed at "services" that carriers must
offer in their service areas that enable communication between persons vdm use a TTY or odier nonvoice terminal
device and an individual Mio does not use such device. 47 U.S.C. §§ 225(a)(3) &
(c); see also CSD and Hamilton
Ex Parte (Jan. 25,2006) at 5 (attachment) ("the FCC has always interpret^ the ADA's TRS mandates to require the
provision of relay services, not the manufacture and distribution of equipment uses with those services").
Common carriers are not required to make VRS available. See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at
12484, para. 9. At the same time, the Commission has permitted some entities that do not provide voice telephone
service (and are not common carriers) to offer VRS if ttey are part of a certified state TRS program. See, e.g., 2005
VRS Provider Order, supra. State programs are not required to choose common carriers to provider relay service;
some states, for example, have selected non-profit corporations. In the 2005 VRS Provider Order, the Commission
adopted new provider eligibility rules so that carriers can seek certification from the Commission that they are
eligible for conqrensation from the Fund for providing VRS. 2005 VRS Provider Order, supra, at paras. 19-16.
Section 225's focus on service is reflected in NAD's connnents to the initial NPRM following the enactment of
Section 225, vdiich enqrhasized the need for the "seamless" provision of TRS,
"providing equal service everywhere
..
rriers can seek certification from the Commission that they are
eligible for conqrensation from the Fund for providing VRS. 2005 VRS Provider Order, supra, at paras. 19-16.
Section 225's focus on service is reflected in NAD's connnents to the initial NPRM following the enactment of
Section 225, vdiich enqrhasized the need for the "seamless" provision of TRS,
"providing equal service everywhere
... with no variation in quality, limits or range of service." NAD Comments (CC Docket No. 90-571, Jan. 15,1991)
at 7. NAD also asserted that providers' "[mlodems and other equipment [of the provider] shall be fiilly conqratible
with all [TTYs]." Mat 23.
5457

Federal Communications Commission
FCC 06-57
programs.'^^ Althou^ more recently some providers have distributed free TRS equipment to consumers,
consistent with the purpose of Section 225 the Commission has made clear that the costs of consumer
eqxiipment are not compensable from the Fund.'^'
39. Second, and for the same reason, not all "service packages" marketed by TRS providers are
compensable from the Fund under Section 225. TRS is a service that certain common carriers are
required to offer (and that some non-common carriers such as Sorenson have voluntarily chosen to offer)
that is defined by Section 225 and the TRS mandatory minimum standards. If a provider offers service in
coir^liance with these rules, it may be conpensated from the Fund. But an entity caimot determine for
itself that it is going to provide something different than or beyond the Commission's rules, and still
expect compensation from the Fund.'^
40. Sorenson's final argument, that its "bundled" approach permits deaf consumers to make free
peer-to-peer calls,''' is irrelevant to the fundamental point that to receive conq)ensation fiwm the Fimd a
conqjany must allow full imrestricted access to this nation's communications network.
41. Research and Development
n or beyond the Commission's rules, and still
expect compensation from the Fund.'^
40. Sorenson's final argument, that its "bundled" approach permits deaf consumers to make free
peer-to-peer calls,''' is irrelevant to the fundamental point that to receive conq)ensation fiwm the Fimd a
conqjany must allow full imrestricted access to this nation's communications network.
41. Research and Development. Some commenters assert that in connection with requiring
interoperability the Commission should permit recovery of some costs for research and development
relating to the hr^rovement of VRS service."^ The Commission has previously enqjhasized that, as a
Indeed, nonvoice devices, such as TTYs, have been available since the 1960s. See generally Strauss, Breaking
Down the Telephone Barrier -
Relay Services on the Line, 64 Temple L.Rev. 583, 584-585 (Summer 1991)
(overview of the history and evolution TTYs, including the development of portable, lightweight TTYs in the early
1980s); Bahr, Ease of Access to Telecommunications Relay Services, 344 F. Comm L.J. 473,475 (May 1992).
Relay service was necessary because even with such devices persons with disabilities could not communicate with
voice telephone users. See Strauss at 586 ("Although the invention of the [11Y] enabled deaf people to use the
telephone network to communicate, ...[they] were limited to communicating with friends, employers, or business
establishments who also possessed [TTYs]. As a result, deaf individuals often could not p^orm the sinq>lest of
tasks ... that a hearing person... could acconq)lish... with a simple telephone caU
[R]elay services enable [TTY]
users to communicate vdth anyone who has a telephone, rather than only those individuals who have [TTYs].").
See para. 15, supra; see also VRS Marketing Practices Declaratory Ruling. 20 FCC Red at 1469, para
[TTYs]. As a result, deaf individuals often could not p^orm the sinq>lest of
tasks ... that a hearing person... could acconq)lish... with a simple telephone caU
[R]elay services enable [TTY]
users to communicate vdth anyone who has a telephone, rather than only those individuals who have [TTYs].").
See para. 15, supra; see also VRS Marketing Practices Declaratory Ruling. 20 FCC Red at 1469, para. 8 &
n.30
(TRS requires providers to be available to handle calls consumers choose to make, when they choose to make them,
but the statute does not address "associated issues" such as "the cost of the equipment necessary to make the various
types of TRS calls" or "the cost of bringing high speed Internet access to the home"). When the ADA was enacted,
customer premises equqnnent was not a conqtonent of voice telephone services offered over the PSTN. See House
Report at 24; see generally 47 C.F.R Part 68.
For example. Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)
is a commercial service similar to VRS for which consumers
must pay a fee. See generally Call Handling Practices PN, 20 FCC Red at 1475 (distinguishing VRI and VRS).
Sorenson makes the related argument that call blocking is necessary to allow it to recover the cost of developing its
equipment. See, e.g., Sorenson Conunents at 29. As noted above, entities that develop customer equ^ment are, of
course, free to sell their equipment to consumers to recover their investment in the equipment.
Sorenson Ex Parte (Jan. 6,2006) at 10-11.
In related contexts, the Commission has repeatedly adhered to policies &voring open access to networks and
interoperability of terminal equipment For exanq)le, in the context of cormecting termiruil equipment to the
telephone network, the Cotmnission has promulgated a series of rules to ensure open access and interoperability.
See 47 C.F.R § 68.1 er seq. Moreover, policies of open access and intercormection were fundamental to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. For exanqrle
open access to networks and
interoperability of terminal equipment For exanq)le, in the context of cormecting termiruil equipment to the
telephone network, the Cotmnission has promulgated a series of rules to ensure open access and interoperability.
See 47 C.F.R § 68.1 er seq. Moreover, policies of open access and intercormection were fundamental to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. For exanqrle. Section 251 provides a duty of teleconununications carriers to
intercormect with other carriers and "not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not conqrly
with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to Section 255 (Access by Persons with Disabilities)." 47
U.S.C.§ 251(a)(1) &
(2).
See, e.g., Hamilton Ex Parte (JaiL 30,2006) at 3; CSD and Hamilton Ex Parte (Jan. 25,2006) at 5 (attachment);
Hands OnExParte (Nov. 11,2005) at 14-15 (attachment).
5458

Federal Communications Commission
FCC 06-57
general matter, engineering and other expenses for research and development to meet waived mandatory
minimum standards, or to provide enhancements beyond applicable non-waived mandatory minimum
standards, are not con:q)ensable from the Fund."* We clarify, however, that to the extent providers
engage in research and development directed at the provision of service to the consumer as required by
the rules, e.g., the routing and handling of calls at the relay center, such costs may be conqjensable subject
to the "reasonableness" standard."'
42. Notification. We require any VRS provider that has restricted the use of its service to notify
their customers by the effective date of this Declaratory Ruling that they may make or receive a VRS call
through any of the providers. Further, as of that date, it will be an impermissible marketing practice for
any provider to tell or suggest to any consumer that the consumer may not make a relay call through
another provider's service.''"
43. Effective Date
cted the use of its service to notify
their customers by the effective date of this Declaratory Ruling that they may make or receive a VRS call
through any of the providers. Further, as of that date, it will be an impermissible marketing practice for
any provider to tell or suggest to any consumer that the consumer may not make a relay call through
another provider's service.''"
43. Effective Date. We recognize that because the provision of VRS is now subject to a speed of
answer requirement, and as a result of this order some providers may experience an increase in call
volume, all providers may need a period of time to adjust their operations to take into account the possible
effect of this order.''*' For these reasons, this Declaratory Ruling shall be effective 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Beginnmg on that date, any VRS provider restricting its service as
described above will be ineligible for condensation from the Fimd.
rv.
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
44. In this FNPRMwe address two issues: (1) the feasibility of establishing a single global
database of proxy numbers for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a
hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first to ascertain the
VRS user's current IP address; and (2) whether the Commission should adopt specific Internet protocols
or standards to ensure that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS
consuma", and all VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider.
45. Proxy Numbersfor VRS Users. As noted above, a hearing person may contact a VRS user by
calling a VRS provider's toll free number. The VRS CA, however, will be able to establish the video-to-
video link with the VRS user only if the CA knows the IP address of the VRS user's equipment. Often,
that requires that the calling party know in advance the IP address of the VRS user so that the calling
party can give that address to the VRS CA
above, a hearing person may contact a VRS user by
calling a VRS provider's toll free number. The VRS CA, however, will be able to establish the video-to-
video link with the VRS user only if the CA knows the IP address of the VRS user's equipment. Often,
that requires that the calling party know in advance the IP address of the VRS user so that the calling
party can give that address to the VRS CA. Because most consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS
consiuner may not know the IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time.
46. Some providers have created their own database of "proxy" or "alias" numbers that associate
with the IP addresses of their customers, even if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and
changes.'''^ These numbers often resemble telqphone numbers, which makes it easier for VRS users to
give their "number" to hearing persons who may wish call them via VRS. These databases, however, are
maintained by the service provider and, generally, are not shared with other service providers. Therefore,
138See. e.g.. 2004 TRS Report and Order. 19 FCC Red at 12547-12548, paras. 188-189.
"' Such costs do not include those directed at issues inherent in Internet-based services generally or the provision of
Voice over IP (VoIP).
Cf. Call Handling Practices PN, supra (addressing improper TRS marketing practices).
See, e.g.. Sorenson Ex Parte (January 24, 2006) at 1 (requesting if the if the Commission requires interoperability
a reasonable amount of time "to iirq>lement software, hardware, and other modifications necessary to conq)ly" with
the new rule); Hands On Ex Parte (Jan. 27,2006) (noting that elimination of call blocking may result in a
"temporary dislocation of the market" as consumers will be fiee to choose any provider to maifB a VRS call, and
therefore requesting a 90 day waiver of the speed of answer requirement).
See note 41, supra (addressing dynamic and static IP addresses).
5459
difications necessary to conq)ly" with
the new rule); Hands On Ex Parte (Jan. 27,2006) (noting that elimination of call blocking may result in a
"temporary dislocation of the market" as consumers will be fiee to choose any provider to maifB a VRS call, and
therefore requesting a 90 day waiver of the speed of answer requirement).
See note 41, supra (addressing dynamic and static IP addresses).
5459

Federal Cnnimnnigations Coinmissinn
FCC 06-57
a person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the consumer's proxy number can only use the services of
the VRS provider that generates the number.**'
47. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on the feasibility of establishing a single, open, and global
database of proxy numbers for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a
hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first to ascertain the
VRS user's current IP address. In assessing the feasibility of this proposal, commenters should address
both technical and the economic issues. Technical issues include the need for standard protocols so that
the database system can work with all VRS equipment and sovices. We also seek comment on whether
there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on fimctionalities outside of a database, such as
fimttrionalifies in the user's equipment. If so, parties should address whether standardization is requued.
Commenters should address any other technical issues they believe are relevant to this issue.
48. We also seek corrunent on nature of the proxy numbers that might be used and how they
might be administered. As we have noted, some VRS databases associate users with ten-digit telephone
numbers. Others allow the user to create their own unique identification
ddress whether standardization is requued.
Commenters should address any other technical issues they believe are relevant to this issue.
48. We also seek corrunent on nature of the proxy numbers that might be used and how they
might be administered. As we have noted, some VRS databases associate users with ten-digit telephone
numbers. Others allow the user to create their own unique identification. CSD states that "in order for
VRS to be fimctionally equivalort to voice telephone services, deaf and hard of hearing indiAnduals using
video broadband communication need uniform and static end-point numbers linked to the North
American Numbering Plan (NANP)
that will remain consistent across all VRS providers so that they can
contact one another and be contacted to the same extent that Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
and VoIP users are able to identify and call one another."'** Accordingly, CSD urges that this matter be
referred to the North American Numbering Council (NANC).'*' We seek comment on this approach.
49. We further seek comment on the maintenance and operation of such a database. Commenters
should address whether this type of database should be the responsibility of the Fund administrator, a
separate entity, or a consortium of service providers. Commenters that urge creation of an oversight
committee should specify the scope and conqxisition of the committee.
50. Finally, we seek comment on the role of the Commission in creating and maintaining the
database. Commenters should address what specific rule changes would be necessary to establish the
database. Commenters should also address whether participation by service providra^ should be
mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. Finally, we seek comment on what ongoing
Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary.
51. Adoption of Specific VRS Internet Protocols or Standards
rs should address what specific rule changes would be necessary to establish the
database. Commenters should also address whether participation by service providra^ should be
mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. Finally, we seek comment on what ongoing
Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary.
51. Adoption of Specific VRS Internet Protocols or Standards. Videophones and other devices
that send video via the Internet to make VRS calls cmerate via specific call signaling protocols or
standards that cormect the two en^xrints to the call. *^ In declining to mandate the provision of VRS in
the Improved IRS Order, the Commission stated because VRS was in its early stages of technological
development the Commission would "permit market forces, not the Commission, to determine the
technology and equipment best suited for the provision of [VRS], and allowQ for the development of new
and inproved teclmology."'*^
52. With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring TTYs to be capable of
'*' See, e.g., SareasonExParte (Jan. 6,2006) at 16.
CSD Ex Parte (Oct. 20,2005) at 3.
'*'/d.
Internet telephony requires standards or protocols so that die end-user devices can communicate with each other.
H.323 is one standard for transmitting real-time voice and video over packet-based netwoiks. Another newer
standard is SIP (Session Initiation Protocol).
'*^ Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Red at 5153, para. 23.
5460
easonExParte (Jan. 6,2006) at 16.
CSD Ex Parte (Oct. 20,2005) at 3.
'*'/d.
Internet telephony requires standards or protocols so that die end-user devices can communicate with each other.
H.323 is one standard for transmitting real-time voice and video over packet-based netwoiks. Another newer
standard is SIP (Session Initiation Protocol).
'*^ Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Red at 5153, para. 23.
5460

Federal Coammnications rnmmission
FCC 06-57
communicating in either ASCII or Baudot formats.''*® In adopting the TRS regulations, the Commission
noted that both codes were being used by TTY users and existing TRS providers, although ASCII was the
superior technology and had the advantage of being able to be used by parsonal computers.''*' The
Commission concluded that it would not adopt a phase-out period for Baudot because many persons who
rely on TRS have access only to Baudot terminals. Therefore, the Commission adopted the proposed rule
requiring TRS to be capable of communicating in both ASCII and Baudot formats.' °
53. Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission protocols had evolved since
the initial TRS regulations were adopted, and therefore sought coimnent on whether these enhanced
protocols, such as the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used by TRS providers.'" In the 2004 TRS
Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the record did not reflect that there were any new non-
proprietary TTY protocols available on the market.'" The Commission therefore declined to mandate the
use of additional TTY protocols. At the same time, it recognized that it is desirable to make TRS
"universal for all types of callers by ensuring its conq)atibility with various TTY protocols" and stated
that it would continue to monitor this issue.'"
54. Presently, unlike with traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and the PSTN, the Commission
has not mandated the use of particular protocols by VRS provides to oisure that all consumers and
providers can communicate with each other
to make TRS
"universal for all types of callers by ensuring its conq)atibility with various TTY protocols" and stated
that it would continue to monitor this issue.'"
54. Presently, unlike with traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and the PSTN, the Commission
has not mandated the use of particular protocols by VRS provides to oisure that all consumers and
providers can communicate with each other. With the increasing use of VRS and changes in technology,
we now seek comment on whether we should adopt specific protocols for VRS calls and if so, what
protocol or protocols should be adopted.
55. As the provision of VRS has developed, nearly all VRS equipment (the VP-100, the D-Link,
and webcams) uses the H.323 protocol, and all present providers use this protocol. As a result, this
equipment is inherently interoperable with any of the VRS provides' service, and vice versa. Some
newer videophone equipment, however, uses other protocols, such as SIP. A SIP device cannot, without
translation, communicate with an H.323 device. Without a translation mechanism, if a VRS consumer
has a SIP-based videophone the consumer will only be able to use the relay services of a provider that can
handle SIP-based calls. Similarly, if a provider can only accept SIP-based calls, a consumer with an
H.323-based videophone will not be able to use that provider's SCTvice, nor will a hearing person
attenq}ting to call a VRS user with an H.323-based videophone. As a result, it is clear that the
development and use of videophones that use new Internet protocols that are incompatible with existing
Telecommunications Servicesfor Hearing-Impaired and Speech-Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulftmalfing, 5 FCC Red 7187,7188-7189, at
para. 12 (Nov
user with an H.323-based videophone. As a result, it is clear that the
development and use of videophones that use new Internet protocols that are incompatible with existing
Telecommunications Servicesfor Hearing-Impaired and Speech-Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulftmalfing, 5 FCC Red 7187,7188-7189, at
para. 12 (Nov. 16,1990) (noting that although ASCII offers a higher data transfer rate, not all TTY users have
compatible equipment and rely instead "on Baudot code equipmenf')- Baudot code was developed in the late
1800's and is a 5 bit coding scheme limited to 32 characters. ASCII was developed in the 1960's and is a 7 bit
coding scheme specifically intended for data processing. See generally R. Horak, Communications Systems and
Networks at 196-198 (3*^ ed. 2002).
"*' TRS 1,6 FCC Red at 4661, at para. 20.
Id. The rule states that 'TRS shall be cq>able of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed
generally in use." 47 C.F.R. 64.604(b)(1).
Improved TRS Order, 15 FCC Red at 5197-5199, paras. 139-146. The Commission also noted that Baudot was
stiU the dominant protocol. Id. In the June 2003 Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it did not
receive adequate comments on this issue and sought further comment on "the extent to which innovative non-
proprietary protocols for TTY products are currently being used, and any advantages or disadvantages such
protocols may present to TRS providers." Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC Red at 12440-12441, para. 127.
2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 12512, para. 88.
'"
Id. at 12512, para. 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
5461
sought further comment on "the extent to which innovative non-
proprietary protocols for TTY products are currently being used, and any advantages or disadvantages such
protocols may present to TRS providers." Second Improved TRS Order, 18 FCC Red at 12440-12441, para. 127.
2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 12512, para. 88.
'"
Id. at 12512, para. 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
5461

Federal Communications Cnmmiitsion
FCC 06-57
videophone protocols creates a barrier to realizing the goal of ensuring that all VRS providers can receive
calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all VRS consumers can make calls
through any VRS provider.
56. We thojefore seek comment on whether, following the model of traditional TRS, we should
mandate specific Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to receive and place VRS calls.
If so,
we seek comment on what standard or standards we should mandate, and an appropriate transition period
for the adoption of these standards. We also seek comment on what costs may be involved if we require
all providers to be able to receive and make calls through specific multiple protocols, and whetho* such
costs should be con:q)ensable by the Fund. We further seek comment on whether we should invite the
providers, consumer groups, and other interested parties to work together to jointly propose standards to
the Commission and if so, on the appropriate timing of such an endeavor.
57. We also seek comment on whether we can ensure interoperability in some way other than
mandating protocols, and on any oth^ issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS
equipm^t to call any of the VRS providCTS, and the VRS providers can make calls to all VRS consumers.
VI.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
58. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to sections 1.415,1.419,and 1.430 ofthe
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415,1.419,1.430, interested parties may file comments on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document
ring that VRS consumers can use VRS
equipm^t to call any of the VRS providCTS, and the VRS providers can make calls to all VRS consumers.
VI.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
58. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to sections 1.415,1.419,and 1.430 ofthe
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415,1.419,1.430, interested parties may file comments on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings should refer to CG Docket No. 03-123.
Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the
Federal GovCTnment's eRiilemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.'^' For additional information on
this proceeding, please contact Thomas Chandler in the Consumer &
Governmental Af&irs Bureau,
Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-1475.
59. Electronic Fil«s: Comments may be filed electronically using the Intem^ by accessing the
ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Filors should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.
60. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the cation of this
proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking
number referenced in the cation. In conqileting the transmittal screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and the ^)plicable docket number: CG Docket No. 03-123.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should
send an e-mail to ecf@fcc.gov. and include the following words in the body of the message: "get form".
A sanq)le form and instructions will be sent in response.
61. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an origiiuil and four copies of each
filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulonaking nmnber
following words in the body of the message: "get form".
A sanq)le form and instructions will be sent in response.
61. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an origiiuil and four copies of each
filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulonaking nmnber. Filings can be sent
by hand or messenger delivery, by commauial overnight courier, or by first-class or ovemi^t U.S. Postal
Service mail (although we continue to experioice delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
filings must be addr^sed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Commimications Commission.
62. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messengCT-delivered paper
We note that we do not regulate TRS equipment, but only providers to the extent they seek conq>ensation from
the Fund.
See Electronic Filing ofDocuments in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13
FCC Red 11322,11326, para. 8 (April 6, 1998).
5462

Federal Commmiications Cnwimission
FCC 06-57
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, D.C.
20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
63. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)
must be sent to 9300 East Hanqjton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
64. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail. Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to
445 12*'' Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
65
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
63. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)
must be sent to 9300 East Hanqjton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
64. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail. Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to
445 12*'' Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
65. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (such as Braille, large print, electronic files, or audio format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY). This Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can also be
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format at .
66. Ex Parte Rules. This matto' shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte mles.'^® Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the
presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
description of the views and arguments presented is generally required."^ Other requirements pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
67. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexible Act of 1980"*, the
Commission has pr^ared a Final Regulatory FlexibiUty Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant
economic in:q)act on small entities of the pohcies and rules addressed in this document. The FRFA is set
forth in Appendix.
68. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,"' the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory FlexibiUty Analysis (E^A) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the poUcies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is set forth in i^rpoidix
n:q)act on small entities of the pohcies and rules addressed in this document. The FRFA is set
forth in Appendix.
68. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,"' the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory FlexibiUty Analysis (E^A) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the poUcies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is set forth in i^rpoidix. Written
pubUc comments are requested on the IRFA. Conunents must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM specified in paragraph 57 above. The
Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the I^A,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.'*'
69. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 Analysis. This document contains proposed or
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to
comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. PubUc and agency comments are due 60 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBUCATION OF THIS NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shaU have practical
utiUty; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility.
'^47 C.F.R.§§ \.2metseq.
'"See47C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
"®5eg5U.S.C. §603.
^^See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.
5463
of the Commission, including whether the information shaU have practical
utiUty; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility.
'^47 C.F.R.§§ \.2metseq.
'"See47C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
"®5eg5U.S.C. §603.
^^See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.
5463

Federal rnmninnications Commission
FCC 06-57
and clarity of the infonnation collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technolo^. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of2002,
Public Law 107-198, we seek specific comment on how we might "fhrther reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."
V.
CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT
70. The Commission will not send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act'® because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability.
VI.
ORDERING CLAUSES
71. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1.2 and
225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,152 and 225, this
DECLARATORY RULING AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS
ADOPTED.
72. rr IS FURTHER ORDERED that CCASDHH's Petition IS GRANTED to the extent
indicated herein.
73. FT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this DECLARATORY RULING AND FURTHER
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register.
74. To request materials in accessible formats (such as Braille, large print, electronic files, or
audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Af&irs Bureau at
to the extent
indicated herein.
73. FT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this DECLARATORY RULING AND FURTHER
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register.
74. To request materials in accessible formats (such as Braille, large print, electronic files, or
audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Af&irs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice and
proposed Rulemaking can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Formats (PDF) at
httD://www.fcc.gov/cgb.dro.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
161 See 44 U.S.C. 3506(cK4),
See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
5464

Federal Comimmications Commission
FCC 06-57
APPENDIX
Vn. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION
75.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)'®^ requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will
not have a significant economic intact on a substantial number of small entities."'^ The RFA generally
defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization,"
and "small governmental jurisdiction."'*^ In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as
the term "small business concern" imder the Small Business Act.'** A
"small business concem" is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).'*'
76.
This Declaratory Ruling addresses a petition requesting the Commission to declare that a
VRS provider may not receive condensation fiom the Interstate TRS Fund if it blocks calls to condeting
VRS providers
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).'*'
76.
This Declaratory Ruling addresses a petition requesting the Commission to declare that a
VRS provider may not receive condensation fiom the Interstate TRS Fund if it blocks calls to condeting
VRS providers. '** The Commission concludes that the practice of restricting the use of VRS to a
particular provider is inconsistent with the TRS regime as intended by Congress, and raises serious pubUc
safety concerns.'*' The Commission further concludes that all VRS consumers must be able to place a
VRS call through any of the VRS providers' service, and aU VRS providers must be able to receive calls
fium, and make calls to, any VRS consumer. As consumers increasingly rely on VRS as their preferred
means of using TRS to access the telephone system, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest
that all VRS consumers can place and receive calls through any VRS providers' service in the event of
emergency and urgency. Therefore, this Declaratory Ruling concludes that providers must ensure that all
VRS consumers can place and receive calls through any of the VRS providers' service in order to receive
compensation from the Interstate TRS Fimd. The Interstate TRS Fund administrator distributes the VRS
providers for reasonable costs of providing VRS.'™ In order to be con^ensated for the costs of providing
VRS, the providers are required to meet the apphcable TRS mandatory minimum standards as required in
§64.604.' '
Reasonable costs of compliance with this Declaratory Ruling are conqrensable fixrm the
Fund. Because the providers will be recouped for the costs of conqrhance within a reasonable period, we
'*^ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat 847 (1996) (CWA

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [DA-00-1341: A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling (06/20/00) A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_00_1341.md)
- [DA-01-2234: Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services (09/26/01) Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2234.md)
- [DA-01-2871: Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan (12/11/01) Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2871.md)
- [DA-02-765: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66 (04/04/02) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_765.md)
- [DA-02-2078: Time-Telepictures Television (08/26/02) Time-Telepictures Television](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_2078.md)
- [DA-03-2865: INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC (09/09/03) INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_2865.md)
- [DA-03-4108: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration (01/06/04) Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_4108.md)
- [DA-04-970: List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets (04/08/04) List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_970.md)
- [DA-04-3201: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies (10/06/04) Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3201.md)
- [DA-04-3576: Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (11/12/04) Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3576.md)
- [DA-05-140: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (01/26/05) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_140.md)
- [DA-05-148: CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS (01/21/05) CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_148.md)
- [DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05) Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618.md)
- [DA-05-1667: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (06/15/05) Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1667.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_06_57. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.