**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CG Docket No. 03-123         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         | ** |                              |
| Services and                     |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Speech-to-Speech Services for    | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Individuals with Hearing and     |    |                              |
| Speech Disabilities              | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**DECLARATORY RULING AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: May 3, 2006 Released: May 9, 2006**

**Comment Date:** **(45 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register)**

**Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register)**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and
Tate issuing separate statements.

# Introduction

1.  In this *Declaratory Ruling,* we address a petition (Petition)
    requesting the Commission to declare that a Video Relay Service
    (VRS)[^1] provider may not receive compensation from the Interstate
    TRS Fund (Fund) if it blocks calls to competing VRS providers.[^2]
    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 public safety concerns.[^3] All VRS consumers should
    be able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers'
    service, and all VRS providers should be able to receive calls from,
    and make calls to, any VRS consumer. Accordingly, as discussed
    below, effective 60 days after publication of this *Declaratory
    Ruling* in the Federal Register, any VRS provider restricting the
    use of its service, as described below, will be ineligible for
    compensation from the Fund.[^4]

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
    number) as a proxy for their Internet Protocol (IP) address.[^5]
    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 provider'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 numbers for VRS users may be created so that a
    hearing person may call a VRS user through any VRS provider without
    having to ascertain 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 from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and all VRS
    consumers can make calls through any VRS provider.

# background

## 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).[^6] Title IV added
    Section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),[^7]
    which requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to
    the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to persons
    with hearing or speech disabilities in the United States.[^8]
    Congress recognized that persons with such disabilities have long
    experienced barriers in their ability to access, utilize, and
    benefit from telecommunications services.[^9] The legislative
    history of Title IV notes that "the inability of over 26 million
    Americans to access fully the Nation's telephone system poses a
    serious threat to the full attainment of \[the goal of universal
    telephone service\]."[^10] Congress therefore found TRS necessary to
    "bridge the gap between the communications-impaired telephone user
    and the community at large," and emphasized that to "participate
    actively in society, one must have the ability to call friends,
    family, business\[es\] and employers."[^11] 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 from, voice
    telephone users.

4.  Title IV places the obligation on common carriers offering
    "telephone voice transmission services" to offer TRS throughout the
    areas in which they offer service.[^12] As the Commission has
    explained, TRS is an accommodation under the ADA for persons with
    disabilities.[^13] Carriers providing voice telephone service must
    *also* offer TRS so that persons with hearing and speech
    disabilities will have access to their services.[^14] 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."[^15]

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 "functionally equivalent" to voice telephone services.[^16]
    The "functional equivalency" standard serves as the benchmark in
    determining the services and features TRS providers must offer to
    consumers, and is reflected in the TRS mandatory minimum standards
    contained in the Commission's rules.[^17] These standards ensure
    that TRS users have the ability to access the telephone system in a
    manner that approximates, as closely as possible, the experience of
    a voice telephone user.[^18] These standards, however, do not
    address equipment consumers may use to make a TRS call. Rather, the
    standards address how relay service providers 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 providers to
    answer calls within a specific time period.[^19] The Commission has
    stated that "\[t\]he ability to make a telephone call without delay
    \... is fundamental to our concept of a rapid, efficient, Nationwide
    communications system."[^20] The Commission has further emphasized
    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 fundamental to the concept of 'functional
    equivalence.'"[^21]

7.  The TRS mandatory minimum standards also require TRS CAs to handle
    emergency (*e.g.,* 911) calls.[^22] 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.[^23] As a
    result, providers must make relay calls to 911 "functionally
    equivalent to a direct call to 911."[^24] Accordingly, TRS providers
    must route emergency TRS calls to the appropriate Public Safety
    Answering Point (PSAP). [^25] As noted below, the Commission has
    presently waived this requirement for VRS.[^26]

8.  Congress also mandated that TRS users cannot be required to pay for
    the service costs of using TRS.[^27] 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.[^28] At the same time,
    Congress determined that TRS providers would be compensated for
    their "reasonable" costs of providing TRS.[^29] As a result, for
    *interstate* TRS calls,[^30] the Commission adopted a cost recovery
    framework 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.[^31] Contributions to the fund are based on the carrier's
    interstate end-user revenues. All contributions are placed in the
    Interstate TRS Fund, which is administered by the TRS Fund
    Administrator, currently the National Exchange Carrier Association
    (NECA).[^32]

9.  The Fund administrator uses these funds to compensate eligible TRS
    providers[^33] on a per-minute basis for the costs of providing the
    various forms of TRS.[^34] Each month the providers submit their
    minutes of use to NECA for reimbursement.[^35] 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."[^36] The size of the Fund for
    the 2005-2006 Fund year is approximately \$441 million, and it
    compensates providers for more than 10 million minutes of TRS per
    month.[^37] Nearly half of the \$441 million compensates providers
    of VRS.[^38]

## Traditional TRS and VRS

10. When Congress enacted Section 225, and the Commission implemented
    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 step for the TRS user, the completion of
    the outbound call to the TRS facility, is functionally equivalent to
    receiving a \"dial tone.\"[^39] Both persons with hearing and speech
    disabilities and voice telephone users can initiate a traditional
    TRS call by dialing 711 to reach a TRS provider.[^40]

11. VRS allows persons using American Sign Language (ASL) to access the
    telephone system through a broadband Internet video connection
    between the VRS user and the CA. A VRS user may initiate a VRS call
    either via a VRS provider's website or directly through VRS
    equipment connected 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 manner 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 Internet service provider, and change
    periodically.[^41] 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' IP addresses,
    the calling party must determine in advance the VRS user's correct
    IP address and give that address to the VRS provider.

## 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 million monthly minutes of use. In December 2005,
    the number of VRS minutes surpassed three million.[^42] Further,
    there are now eight VRS providers, and more are expected.[^43] 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.[^44]

14. VRS consumers can use a variety of equipment to communicate with the
    VRS CA in the video-to-video leg of a VRS call.[^45] Most commonly,
    VRS consumers use a videophone device that attaches to a television.
    These devices are popular because they do not require a computer and
    are easy to use.[^46] The D-link (also called "i2eye")
    videophone[^47] and the VP-100 videophone,[^48] 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.[^49] 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 competition between the VRS providers
    to increase their 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.[^50] The Commission has made clear that
    the costs of consumer equipment that a provider may give to a
    consumer are not compensable from the Fund*.*[^51]

16. Sorenson distributes VP-100s to its customers free of charge, but
    Sorenson currently does not permit its customers to use a VP-100 to
    make an outgoing VRS call through any VRS provider's service except
    its own.[^52] 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 Internet connection with either
    piece of equipment.[^53] Another provider, Hands On, has engaged in
    a similar market 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 broadband access charge.[^54]

## The Petition.

17. Petitioner requests the Commission to mandate that VRS providers
    receiving compensation from the Fund be prohibited from restricting
    VRS equipment from accessing other VRS providers, arguing that this
    practice violates the principle of functional equivalency.[^55]
    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
    example, "keep separate lists of contacts, unique names and
    passwords\[,\] and learn how to operate two systems."[^56]
    Petitioner states that "\[j\]ust as hearing people are not expected
    to have two separate devices to make or receive calls \... neither
    should VRS users be expected to have dual equipment."[^57] The
    Petition also emphasizes that because it is not always possible to
    promptly 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.[^58]
    Petitioner also argues that a consumer's consent cannot justify
    compensating a provider from the Interstate TRS Fund, if that
    provider is restricting the use of its equipment.[^59] Petitioner
    states that as "the final arbiter of the \[Interstate TRS\] Fund,
    the \[Commission\] has a duty to ensure that all providers of VRS
    act in a manner that does not frustrate the purposes of Section 225
    \[or\] interfere with the other objectives of the Communications
    Act."[^60]

18. Petitioner also asserts that requiring interoperability is in the
    public's interest. Petitioner emphasizes that blocking access to
    other VRS providers creates a serious danger for VRS consumers
    attempting to place a VRS call in the event of an emergency.[^61]
    Petitioner notes that many videophone users have abandoned their
    TTYs and choose to use VRS exclusively for calls to hearing
    individuals.[^62] As a result, in the event of an emergency, if a
    consumer cannot promptly reach a CA through the only VRS provider
    they are allowed to use with their equipment, they will not be able
    to call emergency services at all.[^63] Petitioner contends that a
    "practice that prohibits customers from accessing another VRS
    provider \[during an emergency\] conflicts with our nation's
    homeland security polices, which are designed to facilitate, not
    restrict, access to emergency support -- especially when an
    emergency strikes a sizeable area."[^64] 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
    imperative that consumers have access to all VRS providers, as well
    as all available interpreters.[^65]

19. Finally, Petitioner asserts that restricting the use of VRS
    equipment to a single provider is at odds with the Commission's
    emphasis on open and integrated telecommunications networks,
    including the Internet, and interconnection principles.[^66]
    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
    furthering competition and facilitating use of the nation's public
    telecommunications networks by the broadest number of
    consumers."[^67] Relatedly, Petitioner asserts that requiring
    interoperability would level the playing field and foster
    competition by encouraging new providers to offer service.[^68]

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.[^69] 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 from making a VRS call through another
    provider's service using the VRS user's proxy number.[^70]
    Petitioner 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 dynamic IP addresses so that they
    likely do not know their IP address to give to the calling
    party.[^71]

## The Comments

21. On March 1, 2005, the Petition was placed on Public Notice.[^72] Six
    TRS providers[^73] and six organizations filed comments and reply
    comments.[^74] 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.[^75]

22. *The Comments.* Supporting commenters generally make the same
    arguments as Petitioner.[^76] 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.[^77] The commenters argue that consumers should not be
    locked into using one provider's relay service simply because the
    provider gave the consumer free VRS equipment.[^78] 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.[^79] Commenters state that
    it is inconsistent with functional equivalency to require consumers
    using VRS to use two or more separate video devices to ensure that
    they can promptly reach a VRS CA (the equivalent of reaching a dial
    tone when hearing people can use a single conventional voice
    phone).[^80] Commenters also emphasize that restricting the use of
    VRS equipment can thwart a consumer's ability to contact promptly
    emergency services.[^81] 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.[^82] Most
    individual commenters also express the desire to be able to call any
    of the VRS providers in an emergency.[^83]

23. Commenters also address the use of proxy numbers for the IP
    addresses of VRS users. CSD notes, for example, that presently
    "there is no uniform means of identifying and accessing VRS users
    that offers the ease of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP)
    enjoyed by voice users."[^84] Instead, CSD asserts, each VRS
    provider has its own system for enabling hearing persons to make a
    relay call to a VRS user.[^85] CSD maintains that this results in
    serious confusion 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."[^86] CSD
    states that a "seamless numbering scheme" is needed that will allow
    all VRS users -- deaf and hearing -- to contact each other with the
    same ease that other telephone users do so.[^87] Finally, CSD notes
    that such a numbering scheme would facilitate the handling of
    emergency calls.[^88]

24. *Sorenson's Response.* Sorenson opposes the Petition. Sorenson
    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.[^89] But Sorenson asserts that consumers using the VP-100
    still remain free to use any providers' VRS service with any other
    equipment they may have.[^90]

25. Sorenson characterizes its VRS service as a "total service
    platform," which it states it has developed at considerable
    expense.[^91] According to Sorenson, this platform includes
    provision of the VP-100 with its "high-quality video imagery,"
    access to highly trained interpreters, maintenance and repair of all
    elements of its service (including the VP-100), and unlimited
    point-to-point calling.[^92] Sorenson asserts that each provider
    "should be free to offer whatever service packages it thinks will be
    most attractive to consumers."[^93] Sorenson also describes its
    total service platform approach as consistent with the approach used
    by most consumer communications today, such as wireless
    providers.[^94] Sorenson argues that if it were forced to "unbundled
    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.[^95]

26. Sorenson further asserts that if it is required to permit consumers
    to use its VP-100 to make calls through other providers' VRS
    service, "much of the incentive to develop innovations 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."[^96] Sorenson contends that under
    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 manner as possible.[^97] Sorenson
    therefore argues that allowing a competitive VRS market without
    regulatory intervention -- such as an interoperability requirement
    -- will "encourage providers to invest in advanced technology for
    VRS products and services, which will, in-turn, benefit the deaf and
    hard-of-hearing communities."[^98]

27. Sorenson also maintains that its proposed solution for handling
    emergency calls made via their VRS service -- identifying emergency
    calls that are in queue and routing them to a CA trained in
    facilitating the VRS caller in reaching an appropriate PSAP --
    negates the argument that providing access to emergency service
    requires interoperability.[^99] Sorenson explains that it "plans to
    integrate software that automatically moves the caller, in an
    emergency situation, to the front of the queue for the next
    available operator."[^100]

28. With regard to its database of proxy numbers for its customers' IP
    addresses, Sorenson explains that, because VRS equipment is
    generally connected to the Internet through a dynamic IP address, it
    developed a means by which callers can reach a device identified by
    an IP address.[^101] Sorenson assigns a unique number to each
    videophone (usually the consumer's telephone number), and the VP-100
    and Sorenson's servers "work together to match the unique identifier
    with the user's dynamic IP address."[^102] As a result, Sorenson
    creates a directory "that matches pseudo phone numbers (which remain
    constant) with dynamic IP addresses," so that a hearing person
    seeking to call a Sorenson VRS user can do so by calling a Sorenson
    and providing the CA with the VRS user's "phone number."[^103]
    Sorenson states that this "proprietary videophone number dialing
    feature is part of Sorenson's integrated VRS solution and is not
    available independently of the VP-100."[^104] Although this feature
    only works for calls made via Sorenson to a Sorenson VRS user,
    Sorenson asserts that it does not violate any Commission rule
    because it does not restrict a consumer's access to other VRS
    providers' service.[^105]

# declaratory ruling

29. We conclude that a provider's practice of restricting the use of VRS
    as described herein -- including by blocking calls to other
    providers or providing degraded service quality for connections to
    the service of other VRS providers -- is inconsistent with the
    functional equivalency mandate, the public interest, and the TRS
    regime as intended by Congress. We further conclude that all VRS
    consumers 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 from, 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 providers' relay service will be ineligible
    for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.[^106]

30. *Functional Equivalency.* We conclude that restricting access to
    competing VRS providers is inconsistent with Section 225's
    functional equivalency mandate.[^107] Voice telephone users reach a
    dial tone almost instantaneously every time they pick up the
    telephone. 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.[^108] Therefore, "the ability of a TRS user to
    reach a CA prepared to place his or her call \... is fundamental to
    the concept of 'functional equivalency.'"[^109] 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.[^110] For text-based TRS
    services, the speed of answer requires that 85 percent of all calls
    be answered within 10 seconds.[^111] Presently, for VRS, the speed
    of answer rule requires 80 percent of all calls to be answered
    within three minutes.[^112]

31. If a consumer is limited to using only one provider's service, the
    consumer is dependent solely 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 consumer cannot attempt to contact a CA of another
    provider's service because such calls are blocked. Therefore, at any
    particular moment in time, a VRS user is at a disadvantage compared
    to voice callers because a CA may not be available to handle the VRS
    user's call, and the VRS user cannot promptly reach a "dial
    tone."[^113] 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 impractical in an urgent situation
    to expect users to have to switch out equipment if one provider is
    not available quickly enough.[^114] 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.[^115] 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 example, 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.[^116] Voice telephone users do not similarly
    risk missing incoming calls because of the necessity of having
    multiple equipment to ensure access to a dial tone.[^117]

33. Further, call blocking adversely affects the ability of hearing
    person to successfully 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 attempt to place a VRS call through several
    providers 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
    disabilities access to the telephone system, regardless whether the
    person with a disability or the voice telephone user initiates the
    call.

34. In sum, consistent with functional equivalency, all VRS consumers
    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 from,
    and make calls to, any VRS consumer. Therefore, a provider may not
    block calls so that VRS equipment cannot 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 service
    quality to consumers using VRS equipment or service with another
    provider's service. Finally, 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 emphasized the public interest importance
    of ensuring that consumers have access to emergency services.[^118]
    Because a VRS user, like all consumers, must be able to contact
    promptly 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 emergency services.[^119] If a VRS
    user is restricted to placing a call with one provider, and that
    provider's wait time prevents the user from promptly reaching a CA
    in the event of an emergency, the consumer may suffer serious
    harm.[^120] Even assuming a VRS provider is able to develop a means
    of promptly handling emergency calls, this does not negate the
    broader public interest in ensuring full VRS access to all
    providers.[^121] In the event of an emergency, or an event that
    might temporarily affect a particular provider's ability to offer
    service, consumers must be able to call any CA to reach emergency
    services.[^122] 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.[^123]

37. *Call Blocking Cannot be Justified as Part of a "Total Platform
    Service."* Sorenson contends 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;[^124] (2) TRS providers therefore may offer
    whatever "service package" they like, which may include bundling
    equipment, the relaying of calls, maintenance and repair of the
    equipment, and additional features;[^125] (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;[^126] and (4) bundling
    equipment with service permits deaf consumers to use the equipment
    to make free peer-to-peer calls, which furthers the goal of
    improving communication for deaf people.[^127] As summarized below,
    these arguments cannot support the use of the Interstate TRS Fund to
    compensate 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 fully compensated by the states and the federal Interstate TRS
    Fund; it is not paid for by the consumer.[^128] Moreover, Section
    225 focuses on the provision of relay *service*.[^129] 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 compensated for their reasonable costs of operating relay
    facilities and relaying calls.[^130] Relay service provides the
    means by which persons with disabilities can communicate with voice
    telephone users through the services of a third party, the CA.[^131]
    For this reason, relay users have traditionally purchased their own
    devices (*e.g.,* TTYs) or received them from state programs.[^132]
    Although 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 equipment
    are not compensable from the Fund.[^133]

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
    compliance with these rules, it may be compensated from the Fund.
    But an entity cannot 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.[^134]

40. Sorenson's final argument, that its "bundled" approach permits deaf
    consumers to make free peer-to-peer calls,[^135] is irrelevant to
    the fundamental point that to receive compensation from the Fund a
    company must allow full unrestricted access to this nation's
    communications network.[^136]

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 improvement of VRS service.[^137] The Commission has
    previously emphasized that, as a 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 compensable from the
    Fund.[^138] 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 compensable
    subject to the "reasonableness" standard.[^139]

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.[^140]

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.[^141] For
    these reasons, this *Declaratory Ruling* shall be effective 60 days
    after publication in the Federal Register. Beginning on that date,
    any VRS provider restricting its service as described above will be
    ineligible for compensation from the Fund.

# FURTHER notice of proposed rulemaking

44. In this *FNPRM* we 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 consumer, and all VRS consumers can make
    calls through any VRS provider.

45. *Proxy Numbers for 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. Because most consumers' IP
    addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer 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.[^142] These numbers often resemble telephone 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, 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.[^143]

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 services. We also seek comment
    on whether there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on
    functionalities outside of a database, such as functionalities in
    the user's equipment. If so, parties should address whether
    standardization is required. Commenters should address any other
    technical issues they believe are relevant to this issue.

48. We also seek comment 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 functionally equivalent to voice
    telephone services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals 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."[^144] Accordingly, CSD urges that this matter be
    referred to the North American Numbering Council (NANC).[^145] 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
    composition 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
    providers 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 operate via specific call signaling protocols or
    standards that connect the two endpoints to the call.[^146] In
    declining to mandate the provision of VRS in the *Improved TRS
    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 allow\[\]
    for the development of new and improved technology."[^147]

52. With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring
    TTYs to be capable of communicating in either ASCII or Baudot
    formats.[^148] 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 personal computers.[^149] 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.[^150]

53. Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission
    protocols had evolved since the initial TRS regulations were
    adopted, and therefore sought comment on whether these enhanced
    protocols, such as the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used
    by TRS providers.[^151] 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.[^152]
    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
    compatibility with various TTY protocols" and stated that it would
    continue to monitor this issue.[^153]

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 providers to ensure 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 providers' 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 service, nor will a hearing person attempting 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 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 therefore 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.[^154] 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 whether such costs should be
    compensable 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 other issues
    relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS equipment to
    call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can make calls
    to all VRS consumers.

# VI. procedural matters {#vi.-procedural-matters .unnumbered}

58. *Comments and Reply Comments.* Pursuant to sections 1.415, 1.419,
    and 1.430 of the 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 Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper
    copies.[^155] For additional information on this proceeding, please
    contact Thomas Chandler in the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
    Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418**-**1475.

59. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS:
    [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/](http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html)
    or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

60. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in
    the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should
    include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and
    the applicable 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 sample form and instructions will be sent in response.

61. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original 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
    rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
    delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
    overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to
    experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

62. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper 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 Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

64. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority
    Mail should be addressed to 445 12^th^ 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
    \<<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb.dro>\>.

66. *Ex Parte Rules.* This matter shall be treated as a
    "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
    *ex parte* rules.[^156] 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.[^157] 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[^158], the Commission has prepared a Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant
    economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules
    addressed in this document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix.

68. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,[^159] the
    Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
    of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is
    set forth in Appendix. Written public comments are requested on the
    IRFA. Comments 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 IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.[^160]

69. *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 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. Public and
    agency comments are due **60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 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 shall have practical utility; (b) the
    accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
    the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 technology. In addition,
    pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
    Law 107-198,[^161] we seek specific comment on how we might "further
    reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
    with fewer than 25 employees."

# CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT

70. The Commission will not send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling
    pursuant to the Congressional Review Act[^162] because the adopted
    rules are rules of particular applicability.

# 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CCASDHH's Petition IS GRANTED to the
    extent indicated herein.

73. IT 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 Affairs 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
    <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb.dro>.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

    **APPENDIX**

**VII. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

75\. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)[^163]
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities."[^164] The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the
same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and
"small governmental jurisdiction."[^165] In addition, the term "small
business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
under the Small Business Act.[^166] A "small business concern" 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).[^167]

76\. This *Declaratory Ruling* addresses a petition requesting the
Commission to declare that a VRS provider may not receive compensation
from the Interstate TRS Fund if it blocks calls to competing VRS
providers. [^168] 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 public safety
concerns.[^169] The Commission further concludes that all VRS consumers
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 from, 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 Fund. The
Interstate TRS Fund administrator distributes the VRS providers for
reasonable costs of providing VRS.[^170] In order to be compensated for
the costs of providing VRS, the providers are required to meet the
applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards as required in §64.604.[^171]
Reasonable costs of compliance with this *Declaratory Ruling* are
compensable from the Fund. Because the providers will be recouped for
the costs of compliance within a reasonable period, we assert that the
providers will not be detrimentally burdened. Therefore, we certify that
the requirements of the *Declaratory Ruling* will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

77\. We also note that, arguably, there are not a substantial number of
small entities that will be affected by our action. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees.[^172] Currently, only eight providers are providing VRS and
being compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund: AT&T Corp.;
Communication Access Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.;
Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands On; MCI; Nordia Inc.; Sorenson; and Sprint.
We note that two of the providers noted above are small entities under
the SBA's small business size standard. Because two of the affected
providers will be promptly compensated within a reasonable period for
complying with this *Declaratory Ruling*, we conclude that the number of
small entities affected by our decision in this Order is not
substantial. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this
*Declaratory Ruling* will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of
the *Declaratory Ruling*, including a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.[^173] In addition, the *Declaratory Ruling*
and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal
Register.[^174]

**VIII. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

78\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^175] the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*FNPRM*).
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the *FNPRM* provided in paragraph 57 of the *FNPRM*. The
Commission will send a copy of the *FNPRM*, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).[^176] In addition, the *FNPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof)
will be published in the *Federal Register*.[^177]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

79\. Currently, it is difficult for a voice telephone user to call a VRS
user because either the voice telephone user or the CA must know the IP
address of the VRS user, and most VRS consumer's IP addresses are
dynamic and therefore continually change. Some VRS have developed a
solution to this problem by creating their own database of unique
"proxy" number for their customers, which generally resemble telephone
numbers. The provider has a method of ensuring that the proxy number
will always correlate with the VRS user's IP address, even when the IP
address changes. The record reflects, however, that these proxy numbers
can be used only if the voice telephone user is using the VRS provider
that assigned the consumer the proxy number.

80\. The *FNPRM* therefore seeks comment on the feasibility of
establishing and maintaining a single, open, and global database of
proxy numbers for VRS users so that a hearing person may call a VRS user
through any VRS provider and without having to ascertain first the VRS
user's current IP address. This would permit VRS users to have one
number for their VRS equipment that voice telephone users could "call"
through any VRS provider, similar to the way that traditional TRS calls
are presently made to the PSTN number of TTY users. The Commission asks
if there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on
functionalities outside of a database, such as functionalities in the
user's equipment and, if so we further ask whether standardization
should be required. The Commission also seeks comment on any other
technological considerations that may be relevant to this issue.

81\. In addition, we seek comment on the nature of the proxy numbers
that might be used and how they might be administered. We also ask
whether this matter should be referred to North American Numbering
Council (NANC).[^178]

82\. We seek comment on the maintenance and operation of such a
database. We specifically seek comment on whether the maintenance and
operation of such a proposed database be the responsibility of the Fund
administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers.
We invite further comment on the role of the Commission in creating and
maintaining the database, including whether participation by service
providers should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming
calls. Finally, we ask what ongoing Commission oversight or regulation,
if any, would be necessary.

83\. The Commission notes that the development and use of videophones
that use new Internet protocols are incompatible with existing
videophone protocols, which 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.

84\. We therefore invite comment on whether we should mandate specific
Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to receive and place VRS
calls.[^179] 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 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 whether such costs should be
compensable 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.

85\. We also seek comment on whether we can ensure interoperability in
some way other than mandating protocols, and on any other issues
relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS equipment to call
any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can make calls to all
VRS consumers.

## Legal Basis

86\. The authority for the actions proposed in this *FNPRM* may be found
in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, [47 U.S.C. §§
151](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS151&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
[154(i)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS154&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)
and
[(j)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS154&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
[201](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS201&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)-[205](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS205&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
[218](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS218&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)
and
[225](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS225&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
and Sections 64.601-64.608 of the Commission's regulations, 47 C.F.R. §§
64.601-64.608.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

87\. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^180] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^181] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^182] A small business concern 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 SBA.[^183]

88\. As noted above, the *FNPRM* seeks comment on establishing a global
database of proxy IP addresses for VRS users that would be available to
all VRS providers. As a result, we believe that the entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules are only VRS providers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of "small entity"
specifically directed toward VRS providers. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
for which the small business size standard is all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees.[^184] Currently, there are eight VRS
providers. Approximately two or fewer of these entities are small
entities under the SBA size standard.[^185]

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other Compliance Requirements

89\. The proposed rule establishing an open, global database of VRS
proxy numbers would require VRS providers to provide information to
populate the database and to keep the information current. Further, the
proposed rule mandating specific Internet protocols and or standards
would require VRS providers to use compatible video protocols in order
to receive and place VRS calls.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

90\. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
alternatives, specific to small businesses, that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others); "(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from
converage of the rule, or any part therefore, for small entities."[^186]

91\. 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. Because most
consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know the
IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time.

92\. 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.[^187]
These numbers often resemble telephone 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, 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.[^188]

93\. In this *FNPRM*, we contemplate 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 services. We ask whether there are aspects of proxy numbers that are
dependent on functionalities outside of a database, such as
functionalities in the user's equipment. If so, parties should address
whether standardization is required. We request that commenters address
any other technical issues they believe are relevant to this issue. We
consider the potential impact of these technical and economic issues on
small business and the alternatives in easing the burden on small
businesses.

94\. We also invite comment 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 functionally equivalent to voice telephone services,
deaf and hard of hearing individuals 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."[^189] Accordingly, CSD urges
that this matter be referred to the North American Numbering Council
(NANC).[^190] We seek comment on this approach and the alternatives to
this approach that may have a minimal burden on small businesses.

95\. We further seek comment on the maintenance and operation of such a
database. We invite commenters to address whether this type of database
should be the responsibility of the Fund administrator, a separate
entity, or a consortium of service providers and whether the proposed
responsibility would pose a significant burden on small businesses. We
ask that commenters that urge creation of an oversight committee should
specify the scope and composition of the committee.

96\. Finally, we contemplate the role of the Commission in creating and
maintaining the database. We provisionally consider that specific rule
changes may be necessary to establish the database and that the
alternatives to these rule changes may be needed to alleviate the burden
on small businesses. We request that commenters address whether
participation by service providers should be mandatory so that all VRS
users can receive incoming calls. We consider the exemption of a
mandatory participation by small entities as it may create a significant
burden on small businesses. Finally, we seek comment on what ongoing
Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary and on
what would be the alternatives in considering the impact on small
businesses.

97\. Videophones and other devices that send video via the Internet to
make VRS calls operate via specific call signaling protocols or
standards that connect the two endpoints to the call.[^191] In declining
to mandate the provision of VRS in the *Improved TRS 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 allow \[...\] for the development of new
and improved technology."[^192]

98\. With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring
TTYs to be capable of communicating in either ASCII or Baudot
formats.[^193] 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 personal computers.[^194] 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.[^195]
Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission protocols
had evolved since the initial TRS regulations were adopted, and
therefore sought comment on whether these enhanced protocols, such as
the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used by TRS providers.[^196]
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.[^197] 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 compatibility with various TTY
protocols" and stated that it would continue to monitor this
issue.[^198]

99\. Presently, unlike traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and the
PSTN, the Commission has not mandated the use of particular protocols by
VRS providers to ensure that all consumers and providers can communicate
with each other. However, with the increasing use of VRS and changes in
technology, we now contemplate whether we should adopt specific
protocols for VRS calls and if so, what protocol or protocols should be
adopted. We further contemplate the effects of adopting specific
protocols on small businesses.

100\. 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 providers' 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
service, nor will a hearing person attempting 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 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.

101\. We therefore contemplate, following the model of traditional TRS,
mandating specific Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to
receive and place VRS calls.[^199] If so, we seek comment on what
standard or standards we should mandate, and on an appropriate
transition period for the adoption of these standards. We provisionally
consider what costs may be involved if we require all providers to be
able to receive and make calls through specific multiple protocols, and
whether such costs should be compensable by the Fund as a way to ease
financial burden on small businesses. 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.

102\. We also consider the alternatives of ensuring interoperability
other than mandating protocols. We further ask for comments on any other
issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS equipment to
call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can make calls to
all VRS consumers. We also request for comments that will propose any
alternative that will minimize adverse economic impact on small
entities.

## Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rules.

103\. None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (CG Docket No.
03-123).*

Since being recognized as a form of TRS in March 2000, Video Relay
Service (VRS) has seen tremendous growth. Given the huge positive impact
VRS has had on the lives of so many Americans, I anticipate that its
growth will only continue. Although most providers are using compatible
equipment, certain providers have modified their software so that it
cannot be used to contact other providers' services. This has meant that
a VRS user wishing to access different providers must keep multiple
terminals which is cumbersome and frustrates the goal of functionally
equivalent access to a dial-tone. Also troublesome is that, in the event
of an emergency, a VRS user with access to only one provider could
effectively be denied access to emergency responders, raising serious
public safety concerns. I am pleased that we conclude that restricting
access to competing VRS providers is inconstant with the functional
equivalency mandate for TRS. Today's Order continues the Commission's
work to ensure that all Americans have full access to communications and
emergency services.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for*

*Individuals with Hearing and Speech*, Declaratory Ruling and Further
Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (CG Docket No. 03-123)

The Americans with Disabilities Act charges the Commission with doing
everything we can to ensure that people with disabilities have access to
functionally equivalent services. For the millions of Americans with
disabilities, functional equivalency is a huge step towards equal
opportunity. It means an equal right to access the tools they need to
contribute to our communities, participate in our economy and ensure
that their talents and energies have a fighting chance to reach their
full potential. Because today's decision honors the mandate of
functional equivalency, I am pleased to support it.

 

This Declaratory Ruling follows from a petition filed last year by the
California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
In it, the deaf and hard of hearing community described a situation they
were facing with Video Relay Service (VRS) that would have been
untenable for anyone accustomed to using voice communications. Imagine
if your primary means of communication blocked access to any other voice
provider. You'd be unable to make calls seamlessly to anyone in the
country. You'd be limited to calling only others who subscribe to the
same provider. Your desk at work and your coffee table at home could be
cluttered with a jumble of calling equipment from multiple
providers---just to ensure that you could call someone who might use a
different network provider. And because VRS requires the use of a
Communications Assistant, if none were available from your provider you
could be forced to wait---perhaps for a long, long time---until one
became available to make your call. If your call is to public safety or
911, that waiting could be life-threatening.

 

Today's decision remedies this injustice by requiring VRS providers that
receive compensation from the interstate TRS fund to ensure consumers
can place calls to and from any VRS consumer. Doing so restores
integrated VRS communications and ensures the kind of functional
equivalency the disabilities community must have.

 

I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to make adjustments to this
Declaratory Ruling. In particular, I am pleased that our prohibition on
***blocking*** calls also restricts any attempts at ***degrading***
service quality for connections to the service of other VRS providers.
Similarly, I think it is significant that we clarify here that new
providers will need to ensure that their services are
***interoperable*** with the services of existing providers. 

 

With communications technologies evolving at a blistering pace, we have
a special duty to ensure that our rules relating to functional
equivalency are reviewed with a speed and vigor that reflects changes in
the larger marketplace. This is not an easy task. But it is our
obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is one we live
up to in this Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and for this reason I am pleased to support this item. Thanks
to the Bureau, to my colleagues, and---most of all---to our friends in
the affected communities who worked so hard to resolve this problem.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CG Docket No. 03-123,
Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (May 3,
2006).

I'm pleased to support this Order which will significantly enhance the
access to and the quality of communications services for the deaf and
hard of hearing community. It ensures that Video Relay Service (VRS)
providers do not block or degrade consumers' access to the VRS provider
of their choosing. This Order will improve the ability of Americans with
disabilities to communicate using VRS technology, increase access to
emergency services, and better achieve the "functional equivalency"
standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

VRS is an increasingly important tool for those portions of the deaf and
hard of hearing community who rely on American Sign Language (ASL). VRS
allows ASL and hearing individuals to have real-time conversations that
more closely mirror the speed and natural flow of voice-to-voice
conversations. For anyone who has had the chance to use VRS services or
see them demonstrated, it is not surprising that VRS has been widely
embraced by the deaf and hard of hearing community, particularly given
that VRS more vividly conveys emotions than traditional relay services.
It also opens a world of new communications opportunities for many
senior citizens, children, and others who may be unable to type on a TTY
phone easily. Users of VRS rely on these services not only to
communicate with friends and family, but also to run successful
businesses, reach operators in the event of an emergency, and complete
everyday tasks that many of us take for granted.

Given the increasing adoption of VRS, I'm pleased that we are able to
respond to concerns about VRS blocking practices. This Order finds that
restricting access to competing VRS providers is inconsistent with the
ADA, Section 225 of the Communications Act, and the public interest. The
approach we take here was supported by the leading national
organizations for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, hundreds of
individual consumers, and the FCC's own Consumer Advisory Committee. So,
I'm glad that we take another step toward ensuring that every person who
is deaf or hard of hearing will have access to a dial tone and the
critical link to the rest of the world that our telephone system
provides.

We also move forward with a Further Notice that seeks comment on how we
can make it easier for hearing persons to contact VRS users through any
VRS provider. VRS has a reciprocal role as a valuable tool for those
many hearing Americans who wish to reach members of the deaf and hard of
hearing community, so this is an important inquiry and I look forward to
the record that we will develop here.

Finally, I want to commend Chairman Martin and my colleagues for their
commitment on these issues, and would like to thank Monica Desai and the
staff of our Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau for their hard
work on this item. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with
the hearing and speech impaired communities as we continue to work
towards the ADA's enduring standard of accessibility and functional
equivalency for all Americans.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

Re: *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CG Docket No. 03-123

Today, we not only ensure more independence for the hearing impaired,
but, by requiring interoperability among Video Relay Service (VRS)
providers receiving interstate Telecommunications Relay Services
funding, we ensure that VRS consumers are more likely to have access to
this tool in the event of an emergency.

There are over 31 million Americans with some degree of hearing loss.
This number is rising dramatically with the aging of baby boomers, and
is expected to reach 78 million by 2030. I recently discussed the
difficulties and challenges with one of my good friends and a respected
attorney just diagnosed with a disease which causes hearing loss for men
as they reach 50. His courage and faith touched me and I hope to do as
much as possible to keep all Americans connected to vital information,
whether in everyday life or in an emergency.

In March I attended a meeting of the FCC Independent Panel Reviewing the
Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks in Jackson,
Mississippi. At that meeting, Cheryl Heppner, a representative for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, reminded us that, in
the event of an emergency, while people with hearing loss use many
strategies and tools for communications, the very nature of the
emergency or disaster can stress those options and take away many tools
ordinarily available to the hearing impaired.

In the case of Hurricane Katrina, for example, many of the hearing
impaired were cut off from their support service providers who
facilitate communication. Moreover, network outages made it difficult or
impossible for the hearing impaired to reach the professionals who
provide visual interpretation to facilitate communication with the
hearing world. As we review our response to Hurricane Katrina, and look
to disaster plans that provider interoperability and redundancy of
communications systems for hearing consumers, it is imperative that we
also consider the needs of the hearing impaired.

Prohibiting a VRS provider from blocking access to other VRS providers
ensures that, if a consumer cannot promptly reach help through the VRS
provider associated with his/her equipment, that consumer is not simply
stranded, but is able to reach help through another VRS provider.
Moreover, in the event of a large-scale emergency, if a VRS provider's
service is shut down or overwhelmed by an influx of calls,
interoperability will allow consumers to have access to all other VRS
providers, as well as all available interpreters, no matter who they
work for.

Even in the non-emergency context, interoperability is important. As
stated in our Order, if a consumer is limited to using only one
provider's service, the consumer is dependent solely on that provider to
place a call. Thus, absent interoperability, a VRS user is at a
disadvantage compared to voice callers -- unlike voice callers, the VRS
user cannot promptly reach a "dial tone."

Finally, I agree that that requiring interoperability will help to level
the playing field and foster competition by encouraging new providers to
offer this service. It is my hope that our action today, including our
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing technical issues such
as the feasibility of establishing a single global database of proxy
number for VRS uses, is an important step toward providing not only
functionally equivalent services to the hearing impaired, but equivalent
access to, and choice of, VRS providers.

I want to thank the many people who have shared with us the unique
challenges faced by the hearing impaired. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to see that we are always cognizant of the needs of the
hearing impaired and those with disabilities as we address critical
issues such as disaster preparedness and response.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

[^1]: As further 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 communications assistant (CA). 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(a)(3) (defining TRS); 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601(14) &
    (17).

[^2]: 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 community-based
    nonprofit agencies providing various social services to deaf and
    hard-of-hearing consumers in California. *See* Petition at 1 n.1.

[^3]: 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*

[^4]: The Interstate TRS Fund compensates eligible providers for their
    costs of providing certain forms of TRS, including all VRS calls.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii); para. 8-9, *infra.*

[^5]: Petition at 3-4 & n.3.

[^6]: Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (1990); 47
    U.S.C. § 225.

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^9]: *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 Rcd 12475, at 12479-12480,
    para. 3 (June 30, 2004) (*2004 TRS Report and Order*) (discussing
    legislative history of Title IV of the ADA).

[^10]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 485, Pt. 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at 129
    (1990) (House Report).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(c). Covered carriers may do so "individually,
    through designees, through a competitively selected vendor, or in
    concert with other carriers." *Id.*

[^13]: *2004 TRS Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12543, para. 179. The
    legislative history of the ADA makes 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 n.17.

[^14]: *Id.*; *see also id.* at 12545, para 182 n.521 (TRS is "an
    accommodation that is required of telecommunications providers, just
    as other accommodations for persons with disabilities are required
    by the ADA of businesses \[Title III\] and local and state
    governments \[Title II\].").

[^15]: House Report at 24.

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^17]: 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 functionally 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 of
    1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and Request for
    Comments, 6 FCC Rcd 4657 (July 26, 1991) (*TRS I)* (adopting the TRS
    regulations)*.* We note that failure to meet the mandatory minimum
    standards could subject a TRS provider to enforcement action.

[^18]: *See* *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC
    Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, at 5196-5197, para. 138 (March 6, 2000)
    (*Improved TRS Order*); *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, Second
    Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 12379, at 12415-12416, para. 62 (June 17,
    2003) (*Second Improved TRS Order*).

[^19]: *See* 47 C.F.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 Rcd 13165 (July 19, 2005) (*2005 VRS Speed of Answer
    Order)* (phasing in speed of answer requirements for VRS beginning
    January 1, 2006).

[^20]: *Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and Speech
    Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC
    Rcd 14187, 14289, at para. 3 (May 20, 1998) (*1998 TRS NPRM*).

[^21]: *Id.* at 14207, para. 49.

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(4); *see also* *TRS I*, 6 FCC Rcd at
    4659, para. 10.

[^23]: *1998 TRS NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14203, para. 41.

[^24]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5183, paras. 99-100.

[^25]: *Second Improved TRS Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 12406-12408, paras.
    40-42*.* Because of jurisdictional boundaries, the "appropriate"
    PSAP is not always the geographically closest PSAP to the calling
    party. The Commission has therefore clarified that the "appropriate"
    PSAP is "either a PSAP that the caller would have reached if he had
    dialed 911 directly, or a PSAP that is capable of enabling the
    dispatch of emergency services to the caller in an expeditious
    manner." *See also 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12559 ,
    para. 216 (modifying the definition of "appropriate" PSAP.)

[^26]: *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CG
    Docket No. 03-123, Order, DA 05-3139 (Dec. 5, 2005) (extending
    waiver of emergency call handling requirement for VRS until January
    1, 2007, or upon release of an order addressing the issue, whichever
    comes first); *Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, CG Docket No. 03-123, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    FCC 05-196 (Nov. 30, 2005) (*VRS 911 NPRM*) (seeking comment on how
    VRS providers might handle emergency calls and determine the
    appropriate PSAP to call).

[^27]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(c)(4). In
    addition, VRS consumers presently do not pay for any long distance
    charges in connection with a VRS call. *See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report
    and* Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12524-12525, paras. 127-129 & n.364.
    Therefore, there is no cost to the consumer for placing a VRS call.

[^28]: *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12543, para. 179.

[^29]: *Id.* at 12543-12544, paras. 179-181. "Reasonable" costs
    compensable 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 with all applicable
    TRS mandatory minimum standards. *Id.* at 12543-12544, paras.
    179-182.

[^30]: 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 responsible for the reimbursement of the costs of interstate
    TRS. 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B). Presently, however, all VRS calls are
    compensated from the Fund because it is not possible to determine if
    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 TRS Report &
    Order. See 2004 TRS Report & Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12565-12567,
    paras. 234-242.

[^31]: *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 C.F.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).

[^32]: The amount of each carrier's contribution is the product of the
    carrier's interstate end-user telecommunications revenue and a
    contribution factor determined annually by the Commission. 47 C.F.R.
    § 64.604(c)(5)(iii).

[^33]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) & (F) (setting forth the
    eligibility requirements for TRS providers seeking to receive
    compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund). Recently the Commission
    released an order providing for Commission certification of IP Relay
    and VRS providers eligible for compensation from the Fund. *See*
    *Telecommunications Relay Services for 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).

[^34]: *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 Rcd 12237
    (June 28, 2005) (*2005 TRS Rate Order)* (adopting rates for the July
    1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 fund year). Presently, interstate
    traditional TRS calls are compensated at the rate of \$1.440 per
    minute; VRS calls are compensated at the rate of \$6.644 per minute.

[^35]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).

[^36]: *See id*; *see also Provision of Improved Telecommunications
    Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with
    Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on
    Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 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 compensation from
    the Fund); *2004 TRS Report & Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12547-12548,
    para. 189 (same).

[^37]: *2005 TRS Rate Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 12248, para. 29; TRS Fund
    Performance Status Reports maintained by National Exchange Carrier
    Association (NECA) as of March 31, 2006,
    [www.neca.org](http://www.neca.org/) (under Resources, then TRS
    Fund).

[^38]: *See, e.g.,* TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by
    National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) as of October 31, 2005,
    [www.neca.org](http://www.neca.org/) (under Resources, then TRS
    Fund).

[^39]: 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 from 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.

[^40]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(1).

[^41]: Because there are more Internet users than possible IP addresses,
    Internet service providers generally assign a temporary "dynamic" IP
    address to a computer. Dynamic addressing generally assigns an
    available address to the computer each time a connection is
    established. *See* R. Horak, *Communications Systems and Networks
    (3^rd^ ed.)* at 489 (2002). By contrast, a "static" IP address is a
    number assigned to a computer by an Internet service provider as a
    permanent Internet address.

[^42]: *See* TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained by National
    Exchange Carrier Association (NECA),
    [www.neca.org](http://www.neca.org/) (under Resources, then TRS
    Fund).

[^43]: The following VRS providers presently receive compensation 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.org/media/1205TRSStatus.pdf>. 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.*

[^44]: *See,* e.g.*,* *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,
    Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd 1466 (Jan. 26, 2005) (*VRS Marketing
    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 Rcd 1471
    (Jan. 26, 2005) (*Call Handling Practices PN)* (addressing certain
    kinds of marketing practices).

[^45]: Consumers generally use either a small camera that connects to a
    personal computer (generally called a "webcam") or a videophone that
    directly attaches to a television. Both must have a broadband
    Internet connection.

[^46]: *See, e.g.,*
    <http://www.i-tech.com.au/products/4890_D_LINK_DVC_1000_DLink_i2eye_Broadband.asp>
    (an example of how to set up a videophone).

[^47]: Petition at 4 n.4. The D-Link i2eye is available for purchase on
    the retail market for approximately \$200 and also is offered for
    free by some VRS providers. The D-Link is essentially a more basic
    model than the VP 100, with fewer user interface features and a
    slightly lower quality of video image. Both use the same proprietary
    video compression technology that enables these devices to work
    effectively with TVs.

[^48]: *See generally*
    <http://www.sorensonvrs.com/options/vp100_info.php>.

[^49]: *See* <http://www.sorensonvrs.com/options/vp100_info.php>.

[^50]: *See* http://207.188.238.148/DLink/ (Hamilton);
    <https://secure.hovrs.com/equipment/requestform.aspx> (Hands On);
    and <http://www.sorensonvrs.com/apply/index.php> (Sorenson).

[^51]: *See* NECA, Interstate Telecommunications 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
    April 25, 2005) (stating that "\[t\]he cost of equipment given to,
    sold to, and/or used by relay callers, and call incentives, are NOT
    to be reported as expenses" (emphasis in original)); *VRS Marketing
    Practices Declaratory Ruling*, 20 FCC Rcd at 1469, para. 8 n.30.

[^52]: *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 announcing plans to allow, by July 1, 2006,
    users of its videophones to use the services of other VRS providers.
    *See* [http://www.sorensonvrs.com](http://www.sorensonvrs.com/).
    That announcement, addressing Sorenson's future marketing plans,
    does not preclude us from ruling on the Petition.

[^53]: *See* Sorenson Reply Comments at 4;
    <http://www.sorensonvrs.com/apply/index.php>. Sorenson allows
    customers to make peer-to-peer calls -- *i.e.,* direct
    videophone-to-videophone calls -- to other individuals free 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 compensated
    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.

[^54]: *See* Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 12-13 n.33; CSD *Ex
    Parte Letter* (Nov. 7, 2005). Hands On asserts that it adopted the
    practice of blocking access to competitors over 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 further asserts, however, that it does not
    block videophones supplied by competitors, and that in any event it
    "believes all blocking of consumer access to competitors should be
    prohibited" because otherwise other providers will do the same and
    "balkanize the VRS market." *Id.*

[^55]: 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
    other VRS provider. Petitioner asserts that this practice violates
    functional equivalency because Sorenson's customers are unable to
    use the services of other VRS provider for any incoming or outgoing
    calls. Petition at iii.

[^56]: Petition at iv.

[^57]: *Id.*

[^58]: *Id.* at 5. As noted above, speed of answer 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.*

[^59]: *Id.* Petitioner also asserts that deaf VRS consumers accepting
    Sorenson's equipment often do not have a full understanding of
    restrictions placed on their use of the equipment. *Id.* at 10.

[^60]: *Id.* at 24.

[^61]: *Id.* at 19-22.

[^62]: *Id.* at 19-20.

[^63]: *Id.* at 20; *see also* note 26, *supra* (citing recent NPRM on
    using VRS to call emergency services and the extension of the waiver
    of this requirement until January 1, 2007).

[^64]: *Id.* at 20-21.

[^65]: *Id.* at 22.

[^66]: 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 with national
    policies promoting competition, nondiscriminatory practices, and
    dialing parity." Petition at iii.

[^67]: *Id.* at 8. Petitioner emphasizes that the requirement in the TRS
    rules that providers offer consumers their long distance carrier of
    choice "is a form of interoperability designed to foster competition
    for relay calls made over long distance." *Id.*

[^68]: *Id.* at 22-23. Petitioner also asserts that Sorenson's practice
    prohibits *hearing* persons from using another VRS providers'
    service to call a deaf person who 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-100s to receive
    incoming calls from any VRS provider \... There are no longer any
    contractual restrictions preventing Sorenson VRS customers from
    receiving calls over their VP-100s from 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 from other VRS providers).

[^69]: Petition at 3-4 & nn.3, 5-6.

[^70]: *Id.* at 6.

[^71]: *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.

[^72]: *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 Rcd 4162
    (March 1, 2005) *(Interoperability PN*).

[^73]: Comments and reply comments were filed by the following TRS
    providers: Communication Services for the Deaf (CSD) (April 15, 2005
    and May 2, 2005); Hamilton (April 15, 2005 and May 2, 2005); Hands
    On (April 15, 2005 and May 2, 2005); MCI (April 15, 2005); Sorenson
    (April 15, 2005 and May 2, 2005); and Ultratec, Inc. (May 2, 2005).

[^74]: Comments and reply comments were filed by the following
    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
    Deaf (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) (April 15,
    2005); and CCASDHH (May 2, 2005).

[^75]: 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 (April 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 Deafness (NorCal),
    Northern Virginia Resource Center (NVRC), and TDI (November 9, 2005)
    (joint filing); Sorenson (January 6, 2006); and the FCC Consumer
    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.

[^76]: 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.

[^77]: *See, e.g.,* CAC Comments at 3; CSD Comments at 9-10; AG Bell
    Comments at 1; Hamilton Comments at 3-4; MCI Comments at 1-2; NAD
    Comments at 7-8, 14-15; OCDAC Comments; RERC-TA Comments at 3-4;
    TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 8-9; Hamilton Reply Comments at 2.

[^78]: NAD Comments at 9, n. 12; RERC-TA Comments at 5; TDI/DHHCAN
    Comments at 5.

[^79]: CSD Comments at 15; NAD Reply Comments at 7; TDI/DHHCAN Reply
    Comments at 3.

[^80]: CAC Comments at 2-3; CSD Comments at 15 (burdensome, inefficient
    and expensive for a consumer to acquire more than one equipment);
    NAD Reply Comments at 7 (additional equipment requires a financial
    commitment on the part of consumer).

[^81]: 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 favor of videophones, and
    now use their videophones as their only means of telephone
    communication. As a result, a consumer's only access to emergency
    services may be by making a VRS call.

[^82]: TDI/DHHCAN Comments at 3; RERC-TA Comments at 5. Hands On also
    notes that the shortage of interpreters, which may make it more
    difficult to reach promptly a CA in the event of an emergency if
    restricted to calling one provider, supports 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).

[^83]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Mary C. Carr (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).

[^84]: CSD *Ex Parte* (Oct. 20, 2005) at 3.

[^85]: *Id.*

[^86]: *Id.*

[^87]: *Id.*

[^88]: *Id.*

[^89]: 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.

[^90]: 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.

[^91]: Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 4, 8, 10.

[^92]: *Id.* at 4, 14.

[^93]: *Id.* at 12-13.

[^94]: *Id.* at 21-22.

[^95]: *Id.* at 14-15.

[^96]: 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 further notes that it "is already working on developing an
    improved videophone, the VP-200." *Id.* at 9.

[^97]: Sorenson Reply Comments at 9-12.

[^98]: *Id.* at 12.

[^99]: Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 18-20. Sorenson asserts
    that they are implementing a process whereby incoming VRS customers
    calling 9-1-1 will automatically be moved to the front of the queue
    and that those incoming calls will be routed to CAs who are
    specially trained regarding proper handling of 9-1-1 calls. *Id.*

[^100]: Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 18.

[^101]: *Id.* at 15.

[^102]: *Id.* at 16. Sorenson explains that when there is a change in
    the user's IP address, the VP-100 updates the Sorenson servers with
    the new information. *Id.*

[^103]: *Id.*

[^104]: 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.

[^105]: *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 *Ex Parte* (Jan.
    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.*

[^106]: *See* para. 43, *infra* addressing effective date.

[^107]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^108]: *See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12480,
    para. 3 n.18.

[^109]: *Call Handling Practices PN,* 20 FCC Rcd at 1474 (internal
    quotation marks omitted).

[^110]: *See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 13168, para.
    6 (noting that the ability to make a telephone call "without delay"
    is fundamental to rapid and efficient communications system).

[^111]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(2).

[^112]: *See 2005 VRS Speed of Answer Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 13165,
    para.1 (although this requirement had been waived for VRS, effective
    January 1, 2006, 80 percent 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.

[^113]: 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 which that person or
    the called party subscribes. This same capacity 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.

[^114]: For many consumers, particularly those that are not
    technologically sophisticated, switching relay equipment that is
    attached to the consumer's broadband Internet connection is not a
    simple matter. For example, 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 equipment is turned on and plugged
    into the Internet connection; (3) the other piece of equipment is
    turned off and disconnected from the Internet connection; 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 argument that a VRS user can use another provider's service on
    other VRS equipment the user may have. *See, e.g.,* Sorenson *Ex
    Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 11-13.

[^115]: *See* CAC Comments at 2 (emphasizing that if a person has
    equipment that is not interoperable and "want\[s\] service that is
    functionally 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
    telephone to reach their entire universe of contacts").

[^116]: *See, e.g.,* CSD *Ex Parte* (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 incoming 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").

[^117]: 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 their residents.
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B).

[^118]: *See VRS 911 NPRM; see also* *IP-Enabled Services, E911
    Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers*, WC Docket Nos.
    04-36, 05-196, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, at 10247-10248, para. 4 (June 3, 2005)
    (*VoIP E911 Order); Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced* \[cite VoIP *911 Emergency Calling
    Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, First Report and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 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 efficiently.")*.*

[^119]: *See* para. 7, *supra.* Under the TRS rules, providers must
    route emergency TRS calls to the appropriate PSAP. *Second Improved
    TRS Order,* 18 FCC Rcd 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 therefore cannot 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.

[^120]: *See* note 8, *supra* and accompanying text.

[^121]: Sorenson has announced that it is adopting a means of handling
    emergency calls that will ensure that it promptly 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 facilitating the VRS caller
    in reaching an appropriate PSAP. *Id.* at 20.

[^122]: *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 full capacity and its wait times are long, consumers
    have no way to make their \... 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.").

[^123]: *See, e.g.,* CSD Reply Comments at 8-12; CCASDHH Reply Comments
    at 5-6; TDI/DHHCAN Reply Comments at 3.

[^124]: Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 20-22.

[^125]: *Id.* at 12-13.

[^126]: *Id.* at 1, 7-8.

[^127]: *Id.* 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).

[^129]: 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 who use a
    TTY or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who 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 interpreted the ADA's TRS mandates to require the provision
    of relay services, not the manufacture and distribution of equipment
    uses with those services").

[^130]: Common carriers are not required to make VRS available. *See,
    e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 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 they 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 compensation from the Fund for
    providing VRS. *2005 VRS Provider Order, supra,* at paras. 19-16.

[^131]: Section 225's focus on service is reflected in NAD's comments to
    the initial NPRM following the enactment of Section 225, which
    emphasized 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' "\[m\]odems and other
    equipment \[of the provider\] shall be fully compatible with all
    \[TTYs\]." *Id.* at 23.

[^132]: 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 \[TTY\] 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 perform the simplest of tasks \... that a hearing person
    \... could accomplish \... with a simple telephone call. \....
    \[R\]elay services enable \[TTY\] users to communicate with anyone
    who has a telephone, rather than only those individuals who have
    \[TTYs\].").

[^133]: *See* para.15, *supra; see also VRS Marketing Practices
    Declaratory Ruling,* 20 FCC Rcd 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 equipment was not a component of voice
    telephone services offered over the PSTN. *See* House Report at 24;
    *see generally* 47 C.F.R. Part 68.

[^134]: 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 Rcd 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 Comments at 29. As
    noted above, entities that develop customer equipment are, of
    course, free to sell their equipment to consumers to recover their
    investment in the equipment.

[^135]: Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 10-11.

[^136]: In related contexts, the Commission has repeatedly adhered to
    policies favoring open access to networks and interoperability of
    terminal equipment. For example, in the context of connecting
    terminal equipment to the telephone network, the Commission has
    promulgated a series of rules to ensure open access and
    interoperability. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 68.1 *et seq*. Moreover,
    policies of open access and interconnection were fundamental to the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996. For example, Section 251 provides a
    duty of telecommunications carriers to interconnect with other
    carriers and "not to install network features, functions, or
    capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards
    established pursuant to Section 255 (Access by Persons with
    Disabilities)." 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1) & (2)*.*

[^137]: *See, e.g.,* Hamilton *Ex Parte* (Jan. 30, 2006) at 3; CSD and
    Hamilton *Ex Parte* (Jan. 25, 2006) at 5 (attachment); Hands On *Ex
    Parte* (Nov. 11, 2005) at 14-15 (attachment).

[^138]: *See, e.g., 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at
    12547-12548, paras. 188-189.

[^139]: Such costs do not include those directed at issues inherent in
    Internet-based services generally or the provision of Voice over IP
    (VoIP).

[^140]: *Cf. Call Handling Practices PN, supra* (addressing improper TRS
    marketing practices).

[^141]: *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 implement software, hardware, and
    other modifications necessary to comply" 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 free to choose any provider to make a VRS call,
    and therefore requesting a 90 day waiver of the speed of answer
    requirement).

[^142]: *See* note 41, *supra* (addressing dynamic and static IP
    addresses).

[^143]: *See, e.g.,* Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 16.

[^144]: CSD *Ex Parte* (Oct. 20, 2005) at 3.

[^145]: *Id.*

[^146]: Internet telephony requires standards or protocols so that the
    end-user devices can communicate with each other. H.323 is one
    standard for transmitting real-time voice and video over
    packet-based networks. Another newer standard is SIP (Session
    Initiation Protocol).

[^147]: *Improved TRS Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5153, para. 23.

[^148]: *Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and
    Speech-Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
    of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC
    Rcd 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
    equipment"). 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^rd^ ed. 2002).

[^149]: *TRS I*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4661, at para. 20.

[^150]: *Id.* The rule states that "TRS shall be capable of
    communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed generally
    in use." 47 C.F.R. 64.604(b)(1).

[^151]: *Improved TRS Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5197-5199, paras. 139-146.
    The Commission also noted that Baudot was still 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 Rcd at
    12440-12441, para. 127.

[^152]: *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12512, para. 88.

[^153]: *Id.* at 12512, para. 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[^154]: We note that we do not regulate TRS equipment, but only
    providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund.

[^155]: *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322, 11326,
    para. 8 (April 6, 1998).

[^156]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 *et seq*.

[^157]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^158]: S*ee* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^159]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^160]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will be published in the *Federal Register*.

[^161]: *See* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),

[^162]: *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

[^163]: 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) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^164]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^165]: *Id.*

[^166]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. § 632).
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small
    business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with the
    Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
    opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions
    of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency
    and publishes such definition(s) in the *Federal Register*."

[^167]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^168]: *See CCASDHH Petition*, note 1, *supra.*

[^169]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3), note 2, *supra.*

[^170]: Each year, the Interstate TRS Fund administrator, the National
    Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA), proposes the compensation
    rates for the various forms of TRS, including VRS, to the
    Commission. NECA collects and reviews projected cost and minutes of
    use data submitted by TRS providers to determine the annual TRS
    compensation rates. Reasonable compliance cost is included in the
    projected cost submitted by TRS providers. *See* paras. 8-9,
    *supra*. *See also*, TRS Fund Performance Status Reports maintained
    by National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) as of October 31,
    2005, [www.neca.org](http://www.neca.org/) (under Resources, then
    TRS Fund).

[^171]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).

[^172]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in this category which
    operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic
    Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size
    (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 513310
    (issued Oct. 2000). Of this total, 2,201 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and an additional 24 firms had employment of
    1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small. (The census data do not
    provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have
    employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category
    provided is "Firms with 1,000 employees or more.")

[^173]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^174]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^175]: *See* [5 U.S.C. §
    603](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS603&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06).
    The RFA, *see* [5 U.S.C. §§
    601](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS601&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)-[612](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS612&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
    has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^176]: *See* [5 U.S.C. §
    603(a)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS603&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06).

[^177]: *See* *id.*

[^178]: *Id.*

[^179]: We note that we do not regulate TRS equipment, but only
    providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund.

[^180]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^181]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^182]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of
    a small business applies \"unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register.\"

[^183]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^184]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.

[^185]: *See* National Association for State Relay Administration
    (NASRA) Statistics. These numbers are estimates because of recent
    and pending mergers and partnerships in the telecommunications
    industry.

[^186]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (4).

[^187]: *See* note 41, *supra* (addressing dynamic and static IP
    addresses).

[^188]: *See, e.g.,* Sorenson *Ex Parte* (Jan. 6, 2006) at 16.

[^189]: CSD *Ex Parte* (Oct. 20, 2005) at 3.

[^190]: *Id.*

[^191]: Internet telephony requires standards or protocols so that the
    end-user devices can communicate with each other. H.323 is one
    standard for transmitting real-time voice and video over
    packet-based networks. Another newer standard is SIP (Session
    Initiation Protocol).

[^192]: *Improved TRS Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5153, para. 23.

[^193]: *Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and
    Speech-Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
    of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC
    Rcd 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
    equipment"). 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^rd^ ed. 2002).

[^194]: *TRS I*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4661, at para. 20.

[^195]: *Id.* The rule states that "TRS shall be capable of
    communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed generally
    in use." 47 C.F.R. 64.604(b)(1).

[^196]: *Improved TRS Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5197-5199, paras 139-146.
    The Commission also noted that Baudot was still 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 Rcd at
    12440-12441, para. 127.

[^197]: *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12512, para. 88.

[^198]: *Id.* at 12512, para. 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[^199]: We note that we do not regulate TRS equipment, but only
    providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund.