Before the 
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
                     Washington, D.C.  20554


In the Matter of                  )
Telecommunications Relay Services  )  CC Docket No. 98-67


                         REPLY COMMENTS 

     Stephen A. Gregory, former Chairman and current member of
the State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Telephone Relay
Advisory Board, current member of the FCC Interstate Relay
Advisory Council, and SHHH-NJ., Inn Advocacy Representative
respectfully submits the following Reply comments to the NPRM in
the above captioned proceeding.
     I have noted the apparent concern may recognize over the
putative definitions of "enhanced" and "improved" Relay services. 
It is of extreme importance to properly identify services which
fall into either category.  For example, at page 21, the NPRM
announces a tentative conclusion that in the absence of further
direction from Congress, the Commission's jurisdiction under the
Title IV of the ADA does not permit the Commission to "mandate
access to enhanced services".  On the other hand, at page 8, the
NPRM also announces a tentative conclusion that the Commission
must reimburse the costs of providing "improved" relay services
through the interstate TRS fund, provided that the Commission has
first issued a determination, through a rulemaking or declaratory
ruling, that a certain service is an "improved" TRS service. 
Clearly, the distinction between "improved" and "enhanced" TRS
services is a distinction that is of the utmost importance to the
community of users who rely upon Relay.  "Enhanced" services are
totally unavailable to the TRS user without an act of Congress. 
On the other hand, "improved" services are obtainable, by law
must be recognized, and are funded through the interstate TRS
fund.  
     
     Why must the Commission make official provision for
"improved" TRS services?  As the NPRM states:
     "In enacting Title IV, Congress directed the Commission
     to ensure that persons with hearing and speech disabilities
     benefit from technological advances.  [See 47 U.S.C., 225
     (d)(2); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485(II), 101 Cong., 2d Sess.
     130 1990) (House Report II)]"

Title IV clearly states that "the Commission shall ensure that
regulations prescribed to implement this section ...don not
discourage or impair the development of improved technology.
     With regard to "audio text services" the NPRM states, at 19:
     "In enacting Title IV, however, Congress
     stated that 'there are some services, such as
     audiotext services, that connect callers to
     recorded information services.'  It is not
     the function of this legislation to facilitate 
     access to these kind (sic) of services."
     See H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 (IV), 101st
     Cong., 2d Sess.  At 66 (1990).

From this statement, the Commission tentatively concludes at page
21 (paragraph 45), that it's jurisdiction under Title IV of the
ADA does not permit the Commission to mandate access to
"computer-driven voice-menu systems."  Expressing some doubt over
it's tentative conclusion, the Commission asks commenters to
discuss the Commission's legal authority to require access to
such services through TRS.
     This reply urges the commission to note the difference
between "audiotext" services which provide information only and
no interaction from the party calling in (such as the daily
horoscope), and "computer-driven voice-menu systems" which allow
callers to interact and conduct telecommunications business.  In
1990 when "computer-driven voice-menu systems" were hardly in
use, can the Commission truly say that Congress did in fact
intend to withhold such service from those with hearing loss? 
Or, in the alternative, did Congress merely wish to defer to the
then-projected slow typing speed anticipated for CA's , and thus
withhold access to "audiotext services" with perhaps interminable
and rapidly-voiced recorded messages?  (Note that when the
Commission firs considered a CA typing speed standard, it footed
it's proposal in 35 words per minute.  As we all know today,
typical CA's transliterate at an average typing speed of 60 words
per minute.)  To answer this most pertinent question, the
Commission is urged to carefully study the House Report and other
underlying authority to discern whether Congress was, in fact,
thoughtfully and distinctively contemplating that functional
equivalency should exclude "computer-driven voice-menu systems"
when it wrote "audiotext services".  If there is no clear
authority specifically excluding "computer-driven voice-menu
systems", the Commission should look for a firm definition of
"audiotext services" in the authorities.  Most definitely, the
Commission must be very careful to NOT withhold from those with
hearing loss any telecommunication service that is available to
the general public, unless there is clear statutory authority
granting the Commission jurisdiction to do so.  The question is
not whether Congressional mandate grants the Commission
"jurisdiction to require access" (NPRM, at 21) to computer-drive
voice menu systems, as the NPRM concludes.  Rather, the true
question is whether Congress intended to grant the Commission
"jurisdiction to withhold access" from it's definition of
"functional equivalency".  An example provides guidance.
     When the Commission considered the competing issues of "call
privacy" versus "conversation content" and CA obligation to
report illegal activity, it employed a rationale which, in
effect, resolved to not repeal the limited law enforcement
exceptions to privacy in Section 705(a) of the Communications Act
by making implications about the ADA when there was no
demonstration of Congressional intent in the ADA to vacate
section 705(a).  The instant issue poses the question:  will the
Commission repeal the "functional equivalency" intent of the ADA
by making implications about computer-driven voice-menu systems
not supported by Congressional record?
     When the Commission considered the issue of call privacy, an
ADA mandate, versus CA obligation to report illegal content, a
mandate of Section 705(a) of the Communications Act, the
Commission ruled that the only exceptions to privacy were only
those "associated with specific incidents of possible law
violations."  Pgh 14. CC Docket No. 90-571.  In reaching it's
conclusion, the Commission determined that the ADA "privacy"
mandate did not take precedence over the Communications Act
provisions, which permit divulging call content under certain
conditions.  The Commission applied case law and was "guided by
the principle that 'repeals (of federal statues) by implication
are not favored and will not be found unless an intent to repeal
is clear and manifest."  Rodriguez v. U.S., 480 U.S. 522, 524
(1987).  See also Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1018
(1984).  Thus, the Commission found there was no clear
congressional intent in the ADA to repeal Section 705(a) of the
Communications Act.
     Turning to the issue at hand, and arguing a similar
rationale, the ADA mandates functional equivalency and demands
that the Commission provide for new technology.  Only if there is
clear and convincing language divulging congressional intent,
should the Commission act to withhold a service, no inferences
allowed!  "Repeal" of the functional-equivalency-ADA-standard by
"implication" aborts the statutory mandate and must be avoided.
     In conclusion, only a thorough search of the authorities
would reveal Congressional intent as to computer-driven voice-
menu systems, and the final Rule-making decision should clearly
point out the authorities upon which the Commission relies.  If
the underlying authorities are not clear and specific to define
computer-generated voice-menu systems as "enhanced", the
Commission is respectfully urged to reverse it's tentative
conclusion, issue a determination that relaying "computer-driven
voice-menu" systems constitutes an "improvement" to TRS, which
providers must make a available.  
     With regard to actually handling the "relaying" of either
the "computer-driven voice-mail" system or "audio text" messages,
I support the commission's conclusion to amend it's rules and
permit the CA to summarize, upon receiving instructions from the
TRS user.

     OTHER ISSUES ARISE WITH REGARD TO THE CATEGORIZATION OF TRS 
                 SERVICES AS ENHANCED OR IMPROVED

     Beyond the important issue of the "relay" of computer-driven
voice-menu systems, the Commission is urged to plan for the
future.  "Non-relay" telecommunications technology is expanding
at an exponential rate.  And, "relay" telecommunication has
already morphed from sol-baudot transmission to rapid-transit at
more than twice the former speed, with conversation-interrupt
capability.  Other technological developments are appearing in
the Relay market-place on almost a monthly basis.  
     Looking ahead, will the Commission consider these future
developments in Relay to be "enhancements" or "improvements"? 
Again, the distinction is critical:  "Improvements" can be
recognized by the Commission and made available to the public,
but not so with "enhancements", which can be made available only
after Congressional action.  Study provides guidance to the
Commission.
     The words "'enhanced' services" first appears in a footnote
(n20) to paragraph 19 of Fcc 91-213, In the Matter of
Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, July 26, 1991 Released; Adopted July
11, 1991.  Paragraph 19 states:
          "19. In order to maintain the functional
          equivalency standard mandated by the 
          ADA, we modify the proposed rules to
          require that CAs are prohibited from 
          failing to fulfill the obligations of
          common carriers by refusing single or
          sequential calls or limiting the length
          of calls utilizing relay services.  n19
          For the same reason, we require TRS
          be capable of handling any type of call
          will be placed on the carriers.  n20
          Questions will be addressed on a case
          by case basis."  Emphasis added. Op. Cit.





Note 20 quoted above is the first location where the word,
"enhanced" is used.  Therein is provided the clue to
understanding the definition of what constitutes an "enhanced"
service.  Note 20 reads:
          "n20 The provision of "enhanced"
          services offered by common carriers
          is not required under this provision,
          but provision of such services is
          encouraged if technically feasible...
          Op. Cit. Quotations as in original,
          underlining added.

     It does not take a careful reading of the footnote to
discern the clear meaning that "enhanced" services are those
services "offered by common carriers".  Enhanced services would
be such items as 3-way calling and other such bells and whistles. 
The footnote is clear, the words "enhanced services" are not
related to Relay services at all!  "Enhanced services" are those
offered to the general hearing public by common carriers!  It
would seem to be an error for the Commission to now apply the
words "enhanced services" to Relay services, since the original
intent of the term was to identify "common carrier services"
...not "relay services"!  With this understanding, it is clear to
see that the Commission must needs be very, very stingy in
classifying any future Relay technology as an "enhancement" to
Relay.  As the Commission stated in it's very first NPRM for
Relay, "no regulation set forth in its rules is intended to
discourage or impair the development of improved technology that
fosters the availability of telecommunications services to the
disabled."  CC Docket 90-571, at pgh 24.  If the Commission sets
forth an artificial lingo of "enhanced" and "improved"
unsupported by the record, virtually any change in Relay could be
arbitrarily considered either "enhanced" or "improved".  Because
of 1)the vital importance of advancing Relay with new technology,
and 2)the ADA mandate that the Commission ensure the deployment
of new technology, the term "enhanced" with it's restrictive
connotation must be rejected by the Commission and outright
banned.  Quite simply, there is no statutory evidence that any
change in Relay technology should be classified as not mandated
by the ADA, other than "audiotext services that connect callers
to recorded information services" (NPRM, page 19, at pgh. 42). 
Moreover, there is no statutory authority to refer to ANY relay
service as an "enhanced" service.
AN IMPROVEMENT TO RELAY THE COMMISSION SHOULD CLASSIFY AS
IMPROVED BY DECLARATORY RULING

     Clearly, we already have an improved technology which is
generally out in the market place helping more people than either
of the Commission's proposed "improved" services.  Increased
transmission speeds and conversation interrupt-capability is
today helping a greater number of people than the STS or VRI
improvements that are proposed for recognition.  fully supporting
the Commissions proposed improvements, I urge the Commission to
formally recognize "today's" relay transmission technology, by
declaratory ruling, in it's final rule making.
     Again, looking ahead, it is totally obvious that double
speed transmissions and conversation-interruption capability must
eventually be declared a TRS improvement by the Commission.  85%
of the TTY's sold in the last 6 years are set up for this
technology.  Eight states currently provide these improved
capabilities, with more states to come online before the
Commission adopts it's final rules.  Moreover, with increasing
frequency, relay-users that live outside these 8 states are using
the faster states' relay services for interstate calls (rather
than their own state's slow-relay service) because they prefer
the faster solution and interrupt capability.  By failure to act,
the Commission promotes the condition where Alaska relay users
must call Georgia Relay (or D.C., or NJ, or one of the other
jurisdictions with faster transmission) for their interstate
calls when the Alaska user desires to utilize the modern/faster
transmission and interrupt features built into her TTY?  Since
the faster transmission and interrupt are such desirable
features, offering great improvements in efficiency, no doubt the 


Commission will eventually designate them as "improved service
available for cost recovery".  The question before the Commission
today is "why not do so now"?

                         Respectfully submitted,


                         Stephen A. Gregory
                         Member, Interstate Relay Advisory Board
                         515 Lakeview Avenue
                         Pitman, NJ 08071-1874