July 26, 2000

The Honorable William Kennard, Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room 8B- 201

Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Kennard:

We are writing regarding the issue of instant messaging (IM), which has
recently been the subject of debate in relation to the proposed merger
of America Online and Time Warner.

As advocates for communications accessibility, we are of course deeply
interested in all technologies that can solve particular challenges for
people who are deaf, late-deafened, hard of hearing and deaf-blind. In
its current incarnation, IM enables deaf-to-deaf and deaf-to-hearing
seamless communication for people with computers and Internet
connections (but only as long as they share the same provider).

Therefore, we have a strong interest in making sure the open and
interoperable communication functions that have helped fuel the
explosive growth of the Internet continue as the medium makes new forms
of communications possible.

As IM technology develops and IM moves onto wireless devices such as
pagers and cell phones, the possibilities for enhanced communication
become even more exciting.

A fundamental principle of accessibility is that users of critical
communications functions should be able to communicate with all others,
even those who have different service providers. Ease of communication,
regardless of provider, is important to all consumers, and especially so
to deaf and hard of hearing people, for whom instant messaging
represents an important new advance.

Because of this, the government should support the principle of open
standards and interoperability for instant messaging, as it has for
other critical communications functions.

At the 45th Biennial Conference of the National Association of the Deaf,
held in July 2000 in Norfolk VA, the following resolution was passed by
formal vote of conference delegates:

*Whereas, Instant Messaging will become a large and critical
communications function in telecommunications generally, and*

*Whereas, Instant Messaging provides significant benefits for the deaf
and hard of hearing community, enabling instant communications in a user
friendly manner, and*

*Whereas, individuals should be able to exchange instant messages
regardless of which product, or which service provider, they use, just
as is true with telephony and e-mail, and*

*Whereas, the government should support the principle of open standards
and interoperability for instant messaging, as it has for other critical
communications functions, and*

*Whereas, the government should make it clear to the marketplace its
expectation that no single provider will be allowed to put a wall around
the market, either to keep their customers in or to keep competition and
innovations out,*

*Therefore, be it resolved that the National Association of the Deaf
shall communicate with the Federal Communications Commission and the
Federal Trade Commission and advocate that those Commissions take action
to ensure that the Instant Messaging market has the benefits of open
standards and interoperability as soon as possible.*

Instant messaging represents a potential breakthrough in communications
opportunities for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing people,
late-deafened, and deaf-blind. The NAD anticipates further innovations
for wireless devices such as pagers and cell phones, which will make
real-time communication easy and compelling. The NAD, too, is concerned
that this sort of innovation won't happen if each provider uses a
different protocol.

TDI endorses the position taken by the Council of Representatives at the
National Association of the Deaf Conference on the instant messaging
interoperability issue. TDI calls for review and appropriate action to
make instant messaging interoperable as well as accessible to all people
with or without disabilities. Said TDI Executive Director Claude Stout,
"We have various options to pick certain carriers for long distance
and/or local phone service, and make calls to others that are with
similar or different carriers. Thus, we must experience the same kind of
flexibility and opportunities in instant messaging."

The NAD has a very active listserve, the Telecom Advocacy Network
(NAD-TAN), chaired by Pamela Y. Holmes. Herewith are comments by NAD-TAN
members on the subject of instant messaging accessibility:

> On the business side of instant messaging I feel this method of
> communication has become a valuable tool for me, as a deaf individual.
> I find it to be effective, and more importantly, functionally
> equivalent to what people with normal hearing experience over the
> telephone. I use it to talk with business associates on a daily basis.
> This allows me to multi-task and stay competitive in the business
> world, without using the relay service.

*--TAN Member from California*

> "Instant messaging has become a valuable tool for Wynd Communications,
> which offers telecommunications products for people who are deaf or
> hearing, because we have a growing number of customers who use it to
> communicate directly with us. Equally important, we offer two-way
> interactive messaging services that include Chat capability with TTYs
> and other pagers. Our customers want to be able to use this feature
> with AOL, ICQ, and other instant messaging services. In addition, as
> an individual who is deaf, I want to be able to use Instant Messaging
> with anyone, regardless of which company is their ISP, just as I can
> use email with anyone. This includes my sister in Australia, my
> neighbor down the street, and my daughter several hundred miles away."
>
> *--TAN member from California.*
>
> "Instant messaging has become a valuable tool for me, as a deaf
> individual. I use it to conduct a wide variety of business activities
> and meetings. The traditional telephone is not practical for me. The
> use of IM has made my work much more effective and I become more
> productive. IM is a valuable tool for my business." *--TAN member from
> Georgia.*
>
> Instant messaging has become a valuable tool for me, as a deaf
> individual. I use it to communicate with colleagues at work, both
> within my organization and without. IM fills the gap between emails
> and pagers. Email is for messages on which I can wait a day or two for
> a response. Pagers are for messages on which I require an immediate
> response. With IM, I can leave a message on the person\'s computer
> screen. If the person is not at his/her computer, I know that s/he
> will see the message when s/he returns to the computer. IM also serves
> as a replacement to clunky, cumbersome TTYs. With TTYs, I need to look
> up the number to be dialed, sit there while waiting for the line to be
> answered, navigate the front desk or receptionist who answers the
> call, sit even longer while being transferred, then patiently wait my
> turn to type when the other party is typing. And, this is if all goes
> pretty smoothly\--if I don\'t encounter any unanswered calls or busy
> signals. If I\'m trying to reach a non-TTY user, I need to reach the
> Relay service first, adding a few more minutes to the ordeal as the
> operator explains to the called party how to use Relay. On the other
> hand, with IM, I can simply click on the name of the person I wish to
> talk to, type my opening line and send it to that person\'s computer.

That person can respond when s/he returns to the computer, or when s/he
is ready. Once engaged, both parties can type their messages
simultaneously\--no need to wait for a \'Go Ahead\' from the other
party! Further, IM is useful for group (three or more) chats. While
technically possible with TTYs, the process is just too cumbersome to be
worthwhile. With IM, all I have to do is click on the names of all the
people I want to invite to a chat session. I conduct regular, weekly
meetings utilizing this method with my staff, who are spread all over
the nation. This is far better than setting up a voice conference call
where I, as a Deaf person, have to contend with the lag time of a sign
language interpreter and all that it entails. With IM being such a
valuable tool, it is consternating that there are several different
protocols used for IM, all being incompatible with the others. This is
akin to having several different standards for emails or phone calls. If
this were the case in America today, businesses would be at a
competitive disadvantage with those overseas. IM most certainly will
evolve to be another medium of communication---both among deaf and
hearing people. With a fragmented IM-user community, not only would the
effect be to frustrate people attempting to communicate with others, but
it would serve to isolate people and businesses from one another. In
this way, the Digital Divide would be perpetuated. Therefore, I ask the
FCC to immediately move to establish standards and protocols for
universal IM-ability. The FCC has shown itself in recent years to be
extremely concerned about ensuring that technology have-nots, Deaf
people, and other disabled people do not get left behind in the
technological revolution. This IM issue is simply another piece of the
same picture that needs to be put into alignment. Thank you for your
consideration on this all-important matter, the issue of IM
compatibility! *--TAN member hailing from the great State of South
Dakota!*

> \"The public switched telephone network (PSTN) did not arrive at its
> present state of ubiquitousness by means of fragmentation and use of
> proprietary protocols and frequencies by competing carriers. Given the
> present growth rate of wireless communications, one can only conclude
> that wireless communication may one day surpass traditional telephony
> in popularity and usage. It is critical that early in its evolution
> wireless be made as open and universally accessible as the current
> PSTN."

*--TAN member from Texas.*

"I use it to quickly reach another person who is available online. It\'s
a great way to share information with people, regardless of hearing
loss. It offers advantages that current TTYs and relay services can\'t.
I can send information from my computer by cutting and pasting it to the
instant message or as an email that the person can review and respond to
by IM. I can also save and store conversations for review later. *--TAN
member from Virginia.*

> "Instant messaging affords me with the ability to confer individually
> with as well as on a group basis with a number of business associates.
> This effectively eliminates any need for intermediaries, i.e., sign
> language interpreters, telecommunications relay services, and the
> like, thus affording direct communication in an efficient and
> effective manner. While I can understand corporate security concerns
> surrounding the usage of instant messaging, one needs to also
> recognize the fact that voice telephony over the Internet is fast
> becoming a way of life, even in the corporate world. Recognition must
> be given to the fact that instant messaging and the ability to
> conference over the Internet provides us with functional equivalence
> to voice telephony. *--TAN member from Maryland.*

As you can see, it is of particular importance that people who are deaf,
late-deafened, hard of hearing and deaf-blind be able to take advantage
of the many advantages that instant messaging has to offer for seamless,
instantaneous, and barrier-free communications. Attention must also be
given to universal design and the importance of planning for access
right from the start.

Taking the above conference resolution and NAD-TAN comments into
account, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) in partnership with
TDI respectfully requests your consideration and support in this matter,
which is of utmost importance to 28 million deaf and hard of hearing
Americans nationwide.

Sincerely,

Nancy J. Bloch

Executive Director

cc: NAD Board of Directors

Pam Holmes, Chair, NAD-TAN

Claude Stout, Executive Director, TDI