**DA 01-1555**

**Released: June 29, 2001**

CONSUMER INFORMATION BUREAU SEEKS ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THE PROVISION OF
IMPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE

**CC DOCKET No. 98-67**

**Pleading Cycle Established**

**Comments Due: July 30, 2001**

**Replies Due: August 20, 2001**

By this Public Notice, the Consumer Information Bureau (Bureau) solicits
additional comment on the provision of improved Telecommunications Relay
Service (TRS).[^1] Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requires the Commission to promulgate regulations on TRS, to make
available to Americans with hearing or speech disabilities
telecommunications services that are functionally equivalent to those
available to individuals without disabilities.[^2] In its *First Report
and Order on TRS*, the Commission established minimum operational,
technical, and functional standards to fulfill this mandate.[^3] Last
year, the Commission released additional minimal standards to supplement
these earlier standards. Specifically, in its *Improved TRS Order and
FNPRM*, the Commission both expanded the scope of eligible services that
would be classified to receive reimbursement as relay services, and
established new criteria for relay providers to improve the quality of
relay services.[^4] Among other things, the *Improved TRS Order and
FNPRM* added speech-to-speech (STS) and interstate Spanish relay as
required relay offerings, and permitted the recovery of video relay
service (VRS) costs through the interstate TRS funding mechanism. The
Order encouraged, but did not require the provision of VRS at the
present time.

The *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM* took note of the fact that new
technologies are continually challenging the Commission to determine the
most appropriate means of achieving functionally equivalent relay
service.[^5] The Commission stated that the language of the ADA requires
that it encourage, consistent with section 7(a) of the Act, the use of
existing technology and that it not discourage or impair the development
of improved technology.[^6] To that end, the *Improved TRS Order and
FNPRM* solicited comment on a number of new relay features and
technologies that could facilitate the provision of functionally
equivalent TRS, including use of the Internet for relay services.[^7] A
large number of parties submitted comments on this issue, representing
the telecommunications industry, state government organizations,
disabilities advocacy groups, and individuals with disabilities.[^8]

On December 22, 2000, WorldCom filed a Petition for Clarification of the
*Improved TRS Order and FNPRM*.[^9] WorldCom seeks clarification that
its connection to TRS via the Internet (IP Relay) is eligible for
reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund.[^10] WorldCom notes that it
has been providing limited IP Relay Service since November of 2000.[^11]
WorldCom\'s IP Relay Service carries the first leg of a TRS call,
between the caller and the CA, over the Internet. The second leg, from
the CA to the point of destination, is carried by the public switched
telephone network. WorldCom describes its service as follows:

> 1\. A user establishes a local connection to an Internet service
> provider (ISP) using a computer, web phone, personal digital
> assistant, or any other IP-capable device.
>
> 2\. The user points his/her web browser to the Internet address \--
> \"www.IPRelay.com,\" and clicks on the relay operator icon.
>
> 3\. When the call reaches WorldCom\'s Internet platform, a java
> \[program\] is launched, which then automatically establishes a
> connection, via an 800 number, to WorldCom\'s relay center.
>
> 4\. The call is immediately routed to a \[CA\], and a regular relay
> session is initiated.[^12]

On May 8, 2001, representatives from WorldCom met with Commission staff
to further discuss WorldCom's petition.[^13] Additionally, on May 18,
2000, representatives from Communications Services for the Deaf made a
presentation to Commission staff on its for a similar IP-based relay
service.[^14] Although the information gathered at these meetings,
together with the formal comments submitted in response to both the
*Improved TRS Order and FNPRM* and the informal comments submitted in
response to the WorldCom petition have provided the Commission with
basic information about IP Relay, it has become clear that additional
information is needed before the Commission can issue a final order on
this subject. Accordingly, we request comment on the following issues:

*Benefits.* WorldCom states that its IP Relay service provides customers
with many benefits, including the ability to make multiple calls
simultaneously, make conference calls, and view websites while calling.
Eventually, according to WorldCom, IP Relay will allow computer-to-TTY
calls without intervention by a CA, and will provide additional
features, such as graphics, text, and video. Some of these services may
be software-based, and made available through free computer downloads,
without a need for new hardware. We ask that commenters address the
desirability of these and other potential benefits of IP Relay. We also
ask commenters to alert us to any potential disadvantages of handling
TRS calls via IP Relay.

*Cost Recovery.* WorldCom has requested that the Commission require
reimbursement of IP Relay from the interstate TRS Fund for all calls,
whether interstate or intrastate. We note that WorldCom states that
there is no way of determining the origin of IP Relay calls, because
Internet addresses have no geographical correlates. Is this an
appropriate way to reimburse IP Relay providers? Is there a mechanism in
place, or can a mechanism be developed, by which a provider can
determine the geographic location of the originator of a call? We seek
information on the best means of recovering the costs associated with IP
Relay. Is there an effective method to estimate the percentage of calls
associated with intrastate versus interstate usage, and divide
reimbursement accordingly? If such a method exists, would it be utilized
on a call by call basis, or would it employ a formula that divides the
calls proportionally? Who would ascertain the correct distribution of IP
Relay funds? Should computer-to-TTY calls without intervention by a CA
be considered reimbursable from the TRS fund? Are there other relay call
types (e.g., other protocol conversions) that should not be
reimbursable?

In the *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM,* the Commission ruled that video
relay providers could recover all of their costs from the interstate TRS
Fund, regardless of the origin and destination of their VRS calls. The
Commission did this in order to aggregate demand for this new service in
a few relay centers, and to encourage the development of this new
service. The Commission stressed that this funding scheme was temporary,
and that it intended to revert to traditional funding when VRS advances
to the point where such funding can be required.[^15] We seek comment on
whether a similar cost recovery scheme should be applied to IP Relay,
initially allowing cost recovery for all reimbursable calls from the
interstate TRS Fund, until such time that IP Relay technology matures?
How do the costs associated with IP Relay compare with the costs
associated with text-based relay, STS, and VRS? Does the average length
of a call handled over IP Relay differ significantly from calls handled
entirely over the public switched network?

*Minimum Standards*. To what extent should IP Relay be subject to the
same minimum standards as current TRS? For example, our rules currently
require that CAs be able to type at least sixty words per minute, and
that 85% of all calls be answered within ten seconds.[^16] How will
varied access (*e.g.*, dial-up, cable, DSL) used to complete the first
leg of a relay call to the Internet affect compliance with our call
answering standards? Similarly, our rules require that relay users be
able to choose their preferred carriers for long distance calls. If IP
Relay providers do not have access to the caller's automatic number
identification (ANI), will they be able to offer callers their carrier
of choice? To what extent can IP Relay offer hearing carry-over, voice
carry-over, speech-to-speech, or VRS? In order to provide these
services, would additional software be needed by the IP Relay Center or
by consumers? What is the likelihood that such software would be made
available to consumers without charge? Further, we note that we require
TRS centers to be able to provide a caller\'s ANI to Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs)[^17] in the event that a TRS customer wishes to
make an emergency call to 911. Because IP Relay centers may not have
access to the caller\'s ANI, we wish to explore the critical issue of
the customer\'s ability to make 911 calls through IP Relay. We request
comment on whether this requirement should apply to IP Relay, and what
technical problems might arise from such a requirement, as well as
potential solutions to any such problems. Commenters are invited to
address whether these and other minimum standards should apply to IP
Relay, and whether any standards should be relaxed, eliminated, or
delayed for IP Relay. Conversely, we ask commenters to address whether
there are specific standards that do not apply to traditional relay, but
which should apply only to IP Relay. Commenters are specifically
requested to explain why any suggested alteration, addition, or deletion
of particular standards would be justified by the technical capabilities
or requirements of IP Relay.

*IP Capabilities.* WorldCom states that its IP Relay system is currently
handling only calls initiated by text. Is IP Relay capable of handling
calls initiated by voice users as well? This would allow persons without
hearing disabilities to initiate calls by voice to persons with hearing
disabilities, and would allow persons with speech disabilities to
initiate calls via IP Relay. We request comment on whether initiation of
IP Relay calls by voice, either over the public switched telephone
network or over Internet telephony, is technically feasible. If so,
should we require IP Relay to make voice initiation of IP Relay calls
available? Similarly, we seek information on the extent to which IP
Relay can accomplish protocol conversions, such as TTY-format to IP,
American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) to IP, and
TTY-format to ASCII.

*Security.* We seek comment on the extent to which relay user
information will remain secure in an IP Relay platform. Commenters are
asked to address the measures that providers should be required to take
in order to ensure the privacy of both (1) calls made by IP Relay
consumers, and (2) caller profiles of these consumers.

*Outreach.* We seek comment on the need for an outreach program to
inform consumers of the availability of IP Relay. What should such a
program entail? Should our outreach requirements for IP Relay be
different from our requirements for other forms of TRS? For example,
would it be appropriate to mandate an Internet outreach and information
program? If we determine that national outreach is needed, should we
establish a separate outreach program, or make IP Relay outreach a part
of the current TRS outreach requirement? To what extent should expenses
associated with outreach activities be reimbursable from the interstate
fund?

We seek comment on these questions, and on any other features or
considerations that may be associated with IP Relay. Comments will be
considered in reaching our decision on whether to classify IP Relay as a
part of TRS, and whether and how to regulate the performance and
reimburse the costs of IP Relay.

### Procedural Matters

Parties interested in filing comments on WorldCom's petition and/or the
associated issues in this Notice may do so on or before July 30, 2001.
Reply comments are due on or before August 20, 2001. Comments already
submitted in response to WorldCom's petition will be considered in this
docket. All comments shall reference the docket number of this
proceeding. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed
through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. In completing the transmittal
screen, commenters should include their full name, postal service
mailing address, and the docket number of this proceeding. Parties who
choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each
filing with the Commission's Secretary (Magalie Roman Salas, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street,
S.W., Washington D.C. 20554) and a diskette copy to the Commission's
copy contractor (International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS),
CY-B400, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20554). In addition, parties must submit a paper copy
and diskette to Dana Jackson, Disabilities Rights Office, Consumer
Information Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 4-C746, 445
12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20554. Filings and comments are
also available for inspection and copying in the Reference Information
Center, Federal Communications Commission, Room CY-A257, 445 12^th^
Street, S.W., Washington D.C. or may be purchased from ITS.

Pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section
1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose
proceeding in which *ex parte* communications are permitted subject to
disclosure.

For further information, contact Dana Jackson, (202) 418-2247 (voice),
(202) 418-7898 (TTY).

This document is available to individuals with disabilities requiring
accessible formats (electronic ASCII text, Braille, large print, and
audio) by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 (voice), (202)
418-7365 (TTY), or by sending an email to <access@fcc.gov>.

[^1]: Petition for Clarification of WorldCom, Inc, CC Docket. 90-571
    (filed Dec. 22, 2001) (WorldCom Petition). The Commission initially
    sought comment on Internet protocol relay (IP Relay) service in the
    *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM.* This Public Notice seeks to
    supplement the record received in response to the *FNPRM* concerning
    IP Relay. *See* Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 98-67, 15 FCC Rcd 5140 (rel. Mar 6, 2000)
    (*Improved TRS Order and FNPRM).*

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §225(d). TRS enables persons with hearing and speech
    disabilities to communicate by telephone with persons who may or may
    not have such disabilities. Currently, there are three types of TRS:
    text-to-voice, which uses relay operators called communications
    assistants (CAs) to read text telephone (TTY) text to a person using
    a conventional voice phone and to type responses back to the TTY
    user; video relay service (VRS), which uses CAs/interpreters and
    video equipment to interpret between users of American Sign Language
    and conventional voice callers; and speech-to-speech relay, which
    uses specially trained CAs to facilitate conversations between
    individuals who have speech disabilities and other individuals.

[^3]: 47 C.F. R. §64.604; Telecommunications 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 (1991) (*First Report and
    Order on TRS).*

[^4]: See *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM.*

[^5]: *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM*, ¶4.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. §225(d)(2).

[^7]: *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM, ¶138.*

[^8]: *See Improved* *TRS Order and FNPRM,* CC Docket No. 90-571, for
    comments filed in response to the *FNPRM.* Additionally, in
    conjunction with this proceeding, on November 21, 2000, AT&T
    presented information concerning IP Relay to Commission Staff. Since
    then, AT&T has also initiated an IP Relay Service.

[^9]: WorldCom Petition.

[^10]: The Commission has thus far received 62 comments in response to
    WorldCom's Petition. All comments have supported WorldCom's position
    to allow interstate reimbursement for IP Relay. *See e.g.*, Comments
    of the National Association of the Deaf Telecommunications Advocacy
    Network (filed March 13, 2001). In addition, the Commission received
    several comments on the issue of IP Relay in response to a further
    notice of proposed rulemaking released during the past year. *See
    Improved TRS Order and FNPRM* and Telecommunications Relay Services
    for Individuals and Speech-to Speech Services for Individuals with
    Hearing and Speech Disabilities, *Order on Reconsideration*, FCC
    00-200, CC Docket No. 98-67 (rel. June 5, 2000).

[^11]: *Id*. at 4. WorldCom notes that it has received no reimbursement
    for the provision of this IP Relay Service.

[^12]: *Id*. at 2.

[^13]: *See ex parte* letter from Larry Fenster, WorldCom, to Magalie
    Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated May 9,
    2001.

[^14]: *See ex parte* letter from Philip W. Bravin, Communications
    Services for the Deaf, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated May 23, 2001.

[^15]: *Improved TRS and Order and FNPRM* ¶¶ 24-27.

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1),(b)(1).

[^17]: A PSAP contacts police, fire, or ambulance service when it
    receives calls through its emergency service number.