Selected Telecommunications Devices for

Hearing-Impaired Persons

December 1982

NTIS order #PB83-169292
TECHNOLOGY

AND

HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

DECEMBER 1982

BACKGROUND PAPER #2: SELECTED

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR

HEARING-IMPAIRED PERSONS

Virginia W. Stern, M.A.

Martha Ross Redden, M. S., Ed.D.

Project on the Handicapped in Science, Office of Opportunities

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

~ ‘

- 

‘

- - –

‘ ---- -

~

OTA Background Papers are documents containing information that supplements

formal OTA assessments or is an outcome of internal exploratory planning and evaluation. The material is usually not of immediate policy interest such as is contained

in an OTA Report or Technical Memorandum, nor does it present options for Congress to consider.

I J

- ““ ,), -,,\\’ . . . . +,

‘,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

; ,“ ,.’ Office of Technology Assessment

. > “ .

--: Washington, D.C. 20510 ,,4 ,.. .,F ....

~,, //, ,,, ,,! .
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-600546

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

Technology exerts a powerful influence over the lives of everyone, making life easier,

more fulfilling, but sometimes more painful and frustrating. This statement is especially true for people with disabilities. The appropriate application of technologies to

diminishing the limitations and extending the capabilities of disabled and handicapped

persons is one of the prime social and economic goals of public policy.

The Federal Government is deeply involved in programs that affect the development and use of technologies for disabilities. Congress and other institutions have become

increasingly interested in questions of how well programs that directly or indirectly develop technologies and support their use have been performing. The Senate Committee

on Labor and Human Resources requested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

to conduct a study of technologies for handicapped individuals. That study examined

the specific factors that affect the research and development, evaluation, diffusion and

marketing, delivery, use, and financing of technologies directly related to disabled people.

The problems and processes of the development and use of technologies were analyzed

in the context of societal allocation of resources and the setting of goals for public policy.

The main report of the study Technology and Handicapped People was released in May

of 1982.

This case study is background paper #2 of the study. There will be a number of

case studies published as part of the assessment, and each will be issued separately. The

case studies were commissioned by OTA both to provide information on the specific

technologies and to gain lessons that could be applied to the broader policy aspects of

technology and disability.

Drafts of each case study were reviewed by OTA staff; by members of the advisory

panel to the overall assessment, chaired by Dr. Daisy Tagliacozzo; by members of the

Health Program Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Sidney S. Lee; and by other experts in medicine, disability policy, Government, public interest and consumer rights,

and rehabilitation engineering. We are grateful for their assistance. However, responsibility for the case studies remains with the authors.

& #. “

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

. . . ///
Advisory Panel on Technology and Handicapped People

Daisy Tagliacozzo, Panel Chair

Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Harbor Campus

Miriam K. Bazelon Robert Leopold

Washington, D. C. Department of Psychiatry

Tom Beauchamp Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

Kennedy Institute—Center for Bioethics LeRoy Levitt

Georgetown University Mount Sinai Hospital

Monroe Berkowitz A. Malachi Mixon, III

Bureau of Economic Research Invacare Corp.

Rutgers University Jacquelin Perry

Henrik Blum Rancho Los Amigos Hospital

University of California, Berkeley Barbara W. Sklar

Frank Bowe Mount Zion Hospital

Woodmere, N. Y. William Stason

Jim Gallagher Veterans Administration and Harvard School of

Martha Porter Graham Center Public Health

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Gregg Vanderheiden

Melvin Glasser Trace Research and Development Center

Committee for National Health Insurance University of Wisconsin

Ralf Hotchkiss Michael Zullo

Oakland, Calif. Corporate Partnership Program

John Kimberly

Yale School of Organization and Management

U.S. Council for International Year of

Disabled Persons

Yale University

iv
OTA Staff for Background Paper #2

H. David Banta, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Clyde J. Behney, Health Program Manager

Clyde J. Behney, Project Director

Anne Kesselman Burns, Analyst

Chester Strobel, Analyst

Kerry Britten Kemp, Editor

Virginia Cwalina, Administrative Assistant

Mary E. Harvey, Secretary

Pamela J. Simerly, Secretary

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

Doreen Cullen Donna Young
Acknowledgments

In addition to the advisory panel to the overall project on Technology and Handicapped People, a number

of people provided helpful comments on drafts of this background paper. The case study authors and the staff

of the Office of Technology Assessment would like to give particular thanks to the following individuals:

H. Latham Breunig Bryan R. Luce

Arlington, Va. Office of Research and Demonstrations

Health Care Financing Administration Diane Castle

National Technical Institute for the Deaf Washington, D.C.

Rochester Institute of Technology James C. Marsters

Rochester, N.Y. Pasadena, Calif.

Sy Dubow

The National Center for Law and the Deaf

Washington, D.C.

Sarah Geer

The National Center for Law and the Deaf

Washington, D.C.

Harriet Loeb

Washington, D.C,

Darld Long

National Institute of Handicapped Research

Washington, D.C.

OTA Note

James Reswick

National Institute of Handicapped Research

Washington, D.C.

Reese Robrahn

American Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities

Washington, D.C.

Barry Strassler

Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.

Silver Spring, Md.

Don R. Warren

Wisconsin Foundation for Applied Technology

Madison, Wis.

These case studies are authored works commissioned by OTA. The authors are responsible

for the conclusions of their specific case study. These cases are not statements of official OTA

position, OTA does not make recommendations or endorse particular technologies. During the

various stages of the review and revision process, therefore, OTA encouraged the authors to

present balanced information and to recognize divergent points of view.

vi
Contents

Chapter

1.

2.

3.

4.

Background Information on the Hearing-Impaired Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Background Information on Technology for the Hearing-Impaired Population . . .

The Development and Diffusion of Teletypewriters for Hearing-Impaired People . . . .

Issues and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,

Rate Reduction for Intrastate Long-Distance Calls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telephone Customer Services for TDD Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate Reduction for Interstate Long-Distance Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eligibility for Reduced Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public TDDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cost of TDDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Free TDDs in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ASCII-Baudot Standardization and the Impact of Computer Technology . . . . . . . . . .

New Legislation. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . .

Deaf Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: Personal Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B: Sample Personal Communications by TDD and TDD-Related Services . . .

Appendix C: Sample Printout of a TDD Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . .

Page

1

3

5

9

9

9

10

10

10

11

11

13

13

13

15

16

17

19

vii
1 .

Background Information on the

Hearing-Impaired Population

The hearing-impaired (i.e., hard-of-hearing and

deaf) population of the United States is difficult

to define. A census of the people with hearing impairments, taken in 1970-71, is the only extensive

effort that has been made to date. Subject to errors

resulting from nonresponse, this census still offers the best available figures: 13,362,842 hearingimpaired persons (persons with any degree of

hearing impairment) in the United States, including 1,767,046 deaf persons (35).

A 1978 survey conducted by Bell Laboratories

as part of its planning for products and services

indicated that 16,650,000 people in the United

States are hearing impaired to some degree (2).

That survey found that 4,070,000 of these people have a hearing impairment that affects telephone use: 440,000 people who have a profound

or total hearing loss and cannot use the telephone

without a telecommunications device such as a

teletypewriter (TTY); * 1,630,000 severely hearingimpaired people who use a hearing aid and who

cannot use the telephone without additional

amplification; * * and 2,000,000 less severely

hearing-impaired people who probably do not use

a personal hearing aid, but who can benefit from

additional amplification in the telephone handset.

The Bell Laboratories survey also indicated that

there are 8,000 people, not hearing impaired but

with severe speech problems, who might use a

telecommunications device. This figure is unquestionably low, because the nonvocal group of the

disabled population, those who hear but cannot

speak owing to neurological or motor impairment

or surgery or an accident, are the most recently

*TTY was formerly used as the generic term for telecommunications devices for the deaf. The acronym currently used for all

telecommunications devices for the deaf, including teletypewriters

(TTYs), cathode ray tubes (CRTs), and light-emitting diodes (LEDs]

is TDD.

● ‘Many telephones manufactured in the last 5 to 10 years are not

compatible with the “telephone switch” on hearing aids, which has

created a new barrier for hearing-impaired people.

defined and possibly still the most poorly identified of all the handicapped groups.

The Office of Demographic Studies, located

at Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., was

formed to organize the 1970-71 census of the deaf,

and it has continued publishing statistics, notably

the results of its annual survey of hearingimpaired youth receiving education in special

schools and programs. The Office of Demographic Studies and the National Center for

Health Statistics make prevalence estimates based

on the census and on new information from the

annual survey of schools. Current estimates show

14.5 million persons with any type of hearing

disorder and 2 million severely hearing-impaired

persons who could be termed “deaf” (24).

Approximately 300,000 deaf persons were born

deaf or lost their hearing before the age of 3 and

thus are considered “prelingually” deaf. Traditionally, it was said that these children could not

be educated in the regular school system, because

they lacked a language base from which they

could be taught to speak and read. With the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), more

deaf and hearing-impaired youngsters are being

educated within the regular public school system.

Whether or not such education is effective for all

prelingually deaf children is an issue hotly debated

in the education community. However, the result

of the “mainstreaming” trend is that fewer deaf

children are being educated in State schools and

special classes; the fewer deaf children there are

in these school systems, the less likely they are

to be reached by the Annual Survey of the Office

of Demographic Studies, and the less complete is

the information available.

Approximately 600,000 deaf persons became

deaf before entering the work force and thus are

considered “prevocationally” deaf. Some of these

persons had a progressive hearing loss that did

not manifest itself completely until young adult1
2 ● Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

hood, and others were deafened from disease or accident in childhood or adolescence. Although the

rubella epidemic of 1964-65 as it affected pregnant women is a main cause of deafness in deaf

youth who became 18 in 1982, “cause not determined” is still the most common cause of deafness

in all age groups (24).

At least three-quarters of the hearing-impaired

population of the country may have some hearing loss due to aging. As the population of the

country over 60 increases, the incidence of hearing impairment increases dramatically. Most individuals who lose their hearing in adulthood do

not consider themselves part of the deaf community and do not take advantage of its information

and services. Many technological devices can be

of considerable benefit both to the traditional deaf

community and to gradually deafened older

Americans.
2

Background Information on Technology

for the Hearing-Impaired Population

It is ironic that although the telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, who as a

teacher of deaf students was constantly searching

for ways to overcome barriers to human communication, as telephone lines were extended throughout the country, and commerce became more and

more dependent on them, deaf individuals were

closed out of the telephone network. Deaf people, able to communicate only during face-to-face

encounters or by written correspondence, began

to be unable to reach help in emergencies, were

isolated from significant information about community and educational services, and were severely limited in seeking new employment. Bell’s invention, opening channels of communication for

the population at large to an unprecedented

degree, effectively isolated a substantial portion

of the population—those whom Bell most wanted

to help.

Over the past 20 years, however, the range of

technological aids available to deaf and hearingimpaired individuals has increased greatly. Significant advances in the microminiaturization of electronic circuits and concurrent developments in

digital signal processing have improved the quality and diversity of sensory aids.

Conventional hearing aids, which are now

lightweight and unobtrusive, are the most widely

used sensory aids. Related to personal hearing aids

are various types of auditory trainers for classroom use, h&h-gain telephone handsets, and special extension headphones for TV and radio. The

problems with hearing aids, especially in fitting

children and elderly persons, are not so much in

the technology as in determining the correct prescription, assessing the aid’s performance, and

educating the user. Hearing aids are still very expensive when compared to the cost of advanced

pocket calculators and other mass-produced electronic devices in general use.

Auditory speech-processing aids (devices that

raise or lower the frequency of the speech signal)

and tactile and visual aids are in use in schools

and clinics as speech-training aids. Such aids are

generally not portable devices (although miniaturized versions are being developed). They are often

effective in structured training settings, although

there are problems in generalizing their use to that

in everyday situations.

Auditory loops had been used for a number of

years in special schools for the hearing impaired

and in some regular school classes where there

were hearing-impaired students. Loops became

more widespread and convenient when Desmond

Carron, a Maryland engineer, designed and built

the first portable loop for his deaf daughter in the

late 1960’s, The portable audio loop, a wire loop

connected to an amplifier and to the speaker’s

microphone, is easily transported and set up in

any meeting room. Persons with hearing aids set

their aids on the “T” or telephone switch and

receive a much clearer and more direct signal, free

of background noise. With the support of William

Paschell and others in the Washington, D. C.,

Area Group for the Hard of Hearing, loops are

now used in houses of worship, classrooms, theaters, recreation centers, senior citizen centers, and

some places of employment in the Washington

area and elsewhere.

More recently, infrared amplification systems

have been successful in theaters (including the

Eisenhower Theater in the Kennedy Center in

Washington, D. C.) and in large houses of worship. A hearing aid is not necessary to use an infrared amplification system; hearing-impaired

members of the audience borrow or rent a receiver

headset that brings them clear, strong sound directly from the stage. The system is particularly

helpful to individuals with a mild hearing loss who

often miss some words from the stage.

A variety of warning and alert systems that

convert noises into visual or tactile signals are

available to deaf individuals for use at home every

day. These systems include flashing-light doorbell

3
4 ● Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

signals, vibrating alarm clocks, baby cry signals,

smoke detectors, and burglar alarms.

The most recent technological development for

deaf individuals is captioned television. Although

captioned films for use by schools and social

groups for the deaf and open captioning on late

evening TV news from WGBH in Boston had been

available for some time, closed captions on television (which appear on the screen when the viewer uses a special adapter, but do not appear to

other viewers) were first offered in early 1980.

Research and development of the closed-captioning concept was financed by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, with the support of the

Public Broadcasting System and two national networks. In addition to early evening news, 20 to

36 hours per week of prime-time television programs are currently captioned. Deaf viewers who

can afford to can buy either a captioning adapter

to attach to a television set or a set that has the

adapter built into it, both sold by Sears.

Video telephones have been tried on a limited

scale. They would be of value to the hearing-impaired as a communication aid for lip reading,

signing, or reading the printed word, but the costs

of a videotelephone network are prohibitively

high. Computerization of typed information into

nearly instantaneous yet remote readout is now

beginning to appear and is in use by a deaf member of the British Parliament. It has also been used

in the U.S. Supreme Court (April 1982).

Research continues on cochlear prostheses,

which electrically stimulate the ear by means of

an implant. A few initial efforts have been made,

but practical results are not widespread.

Electric mail systems have been adopted for use

by deaf users of telecommunications devices for

the deaf (TDDs) through two demonstration projects funded by the U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare. * These systems have

been actively used by a small group of deaf people but have not reached the general deaf population.

Research on machine recognition of speech has

gone on for many years, although still with only

limited success. It may be possible to develop a

system that will automatically recognize all essential features of running speech and display them

in an easily understandable form.** An ideal system would generate a typewritten message directly

from the acoustic wave form, Limited speech recognition devices for single-word spoken commands have been developed and may prove useful

to telephone users. It is highly unlikely that an

accurate system operating on running speech from

any speaker will be developed in the near future,

but systems with limited message sets are being

developed now (27).

The development and diffusion of TDDs that

allow deaf persons to use the telephone have been

different from all the other technological advances

mentioned above. The new network was developed on the basis of existing technology, including the phone system, teletypewriters, and modems. *** It has allowed deaf persons to use the

telephone, which has become a necessity of American life. The imagination and persistence of a few

individuals got the movement started; the “enthusiasm on the part of the deaf participants was the

propelling force behind the concept of telecommunications for the deaf” (45).

● Now the Department of Health and Human Services.

● ‘Real-time graphic display, a system of video captioning based

on stenography, is a recent development. A real-time graphic display

device, consisting of a stenotype machine and video display screen,

was used Mar. 25, 1982, at the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a deaf

attorney to read the questions raised by the justices. The device,

developed by Translation Systems, Inc., of Rockville, Md., costs

approximately $73,000. It requires the services of a skilled

stenographer, who enters phonetic symbols into a computer that

translates them into conventional English and displays the results

in print on a television screen. A similar translating system is currently being used by the National Captioning Institute to provide

live, closed captions for the ABC Evening News.

* **A modem (modulator/demodulator) converts TDD electrical

impulses into telephone transmittable form.
3

The Development and Diffusion;

of Teletypewriters for

Hearing-Impaired People

In 1963, Robert Weitbrecht, a physicist with a

profound hearing loss, hiked up Mount Lassen in

California. As Weitbrecht exclaimed about the

beauty of his surroundings to his hiking companion, his voice was overheard by another hiker on

the trail, Ed McKeown, whose wife is deaf. The

speech of deaf individuals varies, but it usually

has a distinctive quality that is easily recognized

by a person with a deaf family member. McKeown

introduced himself and the two exchanged names.

Weitbrecht mentioned that he had technical interests and education and that he was a radio ham

and operated a radio teletypewriter (TTY).

Some months later, Weitbrecht received a letter from James Marsters. Marsters, a deaf orthodontist from Pasadena, had heard about Weitbrecht via the McKeowns and the social network

of deaf persons in northern California. Marsters,

who had developed a whole set of strategies to

run his office efficiently, was deeply frustrated at

being unable to use the telephone. Marsters was

using his expertise in electronics to explore ways

that deaf individuals might communicate with

each other by radio or telephone, and his friends

in the Bay Area network had suggested to him

that Weitbrecht might be a good coinventor.

After more correspondence, Marsters purchased a Western Union 32ASR TTY. He continued to encourage Weitbrecht, and in November

1963, Weitbrecht invented an acoustic coupler

modem* that permitted him to communicate with

Marsters over the voice-grade telephone lines by

typing from his TTY to a similar unit in Marsters’

home. The two men used the telephone because

a radio system would have required a Federal

Communications Commission license, which

Marsters lacked. Also, both men reasoned that

if a communications system were to be useful to

‘Couplers existed before Weitbrecht invented his model. His patent hinged on eliminating echo on the line.

the entire deaf population, it would have to be

based on the telephone. Although relatively few

deaf people could make direct use of the telephone, many of them owned telephones so that

their children, other relatives, or neighbors, could

make calls for them in times of emergency. A

commercial TTY network already existed, but its

costs were prohibitive for private individuals.

As the TTY communications went back and

forth between Weitbrecht’s home in Redwood

City and Marsters’ in Pasadena, tests and modifications were made to overcome telephone line

echo problems. Finally, an echo-suppressing tone

burst was achieved. This meant that the modem

reliably converted TTY signals into tones that

could be carried by the voice band of the telephone line. All this time, in the tradition of homeworkshop inventors, Marsters and Weitbrecht

were donating their time and the money for parts.

Neither private industry, the Federal Government,

nor academia was interested in deaf people’s need

for telephone communications.

On June 23, 1964, the new equipment was demonstrated in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the biennial

convention of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, an international organization

of parents, teachers, and deaf adults who advocate use of lipreading, speech, and residual hearing. Latham Breunig, a deaf statistician present

at the convention, wrote (5):

It was . . . an exciting and thrilling experience.

There, between two rooms in the Hotel Utah,

these deaf people were, for the first time, able to

make unassisted telephone calls over the regular

voice grade telephone network by means of a

teletypewriter in each room. This feat was made

possible by the development of an appropriate

coupler or modem, interfaced between the TTY

and the telephone.

5

{-–.1 - ~ – ,[ I
6 . Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-impaired persons

Marsters encouraged Weitbrecht to apply for

a patent. The R. H. Weitbrecht Co. was founded

in 1965. Marsters enlisted the additional capital

and business expertise of a third deaf man, Andrew Saks. In 1967, Weitbrecht, Marsters, and

Saks formed the Applied Communications Corp.,

which replaced the Weitbrecht Co.

Until 1967, the TTY communications system

grew slowly. The acoustic coupler, known as the

Phonetype @

, had to be debugged under various

conditions. The first working TTY units were installed in Los Angeles, New York City, Indianapolis, and San Francisco, followed soon after by

installations in St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

Used TTYs were not readily available, and newly

manufactured ones were too expensive for individuals and families to buy. Surplus TTYs could

not be released by the American Telephone &

Telegraph Co. (AT&T) until it settled a Carterfone lawsuit, which it did not do until 1967.

To make a TTY call, a person making a call

places an ordinary telephone handset on the

acoustic coupler modem and dials the telephone.

When the call is answered, the caller types the

message, stopping to type “GA” (“go ahead”)

when a response is expected. The acoustic coupler

modem transforms the electrical signals into two

sounds of different frequencies, which are then

transmitted over the telephone line. At the other

end of the line, the signal is received by another

modem.

In the 1960’s, the surplus TTYs looked as if they

belonged in a turn-of-the-century Western Union

office: they were made of sheet metal and stood

about 4 ft high; they were noisy and shaky in use;

and they took up a lot of space. But they worked.

As the surplus machines became available, scattered people created a network of deaf people who

could communicate with each other, and that network grew.

In 1967, surplus TTYs were made available to

deaf persons through an agreement between

AT&T and the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. By the end of 1968, there were

174 TTY stations for deaf people operating around

the country; by 1970, there were 870.

Because the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf was not set up to be an equipment vendor, Marsters recommended that it set

up a separate organization involving the National

Association of the Deaf and any other organizations for the deaf, to pick up, distribute, and service the surplus TTY equipment. In 1968, the nonprofit corporation called Teletypewriters for the

Deaf, Inc. (TDI), was created by Latham and

Nancy Breunig of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, along with Jess Smith of the National

Association of the Deaf. TDI appointed deaf persons all over the country to be its authorized

agents, picking up surplus machines from AT&T

outlets, reconditioning them, and placing them

in the homes of deaf people. The system grew to

approximately 12,000 TTYs by 1975. Keeping accurate records to fulfill its agreement with AT&T,

TDI was able to publish a list of stations, which

continues to serve as a telephone directory for the

deaf community and for those businesses that

make a special effort to serve deaf individuals.

In 1973, the agreement between AT&T and the

Alexander Graham Bell Association for providing

TTYs to deaf people was replaced by a similar

agreement between AT&T and TDI. Western

Union also released a substantial number of machines at that time. Maintaining itself through

membership dues and contributions, TDI was also

able to establish, through a grant from the Lilly

Endowment, a revolving fund to make loans to

local groups for equipment acquisition, enabling

the surplus equipment to be distributed throughout the country as needed.

The philosophy underlying all these activities

was “by and for the deaf. ” Although a few nondeaf groups with an interest in service (e.g., Telephone Pioneers, an organization of retired Bell

System employees) volunteered in some locations

to help with reconditioning TTY units, information about availability of equipment and advantages of different models was disseminated completely within the deaf community, through

booths at conventions of deaf organizations and

small advertisements in journals about deafness.

New models of acoustic couplers, developed in

New Jersey and Texas in 1969, were competitive

in price with the original Phonetype@ that had

been patented by Applied Communications

Corp. l All these couplers interfaced a telephone

IRobert H. Weitbrecht. U.S. Reissue Patent Re 27,595, Mar. 6,

1973 (based on Robert H. Weitbrecht original U.S. Patent 3,507,997

filed Aug. 22, 1966, and issued Apr. 21, 1970).
Ch. 3—The Development and Diffusion of Teletypewriters for Hearing-Impaired People ● 7

and a TTY that typed out hard copy on a roll of

paper. Some deaf persons and their families

bought modern terminals that were quieter and

less bulky than the surplus models. Still, these new

terminals were not portable, and they were too

expensive for most deaf people.

In 1972-73, telecommunications terminals were

introduced that utilized soft copy, or transitory

readout, on a television screen or on a marquee

display with a light-emitting diode showing above

the keyboard. New brands at that time included

TVPhone@ by Phonics Corp., MCM by Micon

Industries, and Magsat by Magsat Corp. * These

devices offered certain advantages over the standard TTY models: they were much smaller and

lighter, portable, and quiet. TDD (telecommunications device for the deaf) was the new term

coined to include the old and the new models.

Portable TDDs are small enough to store in a

drawer or carry in a briefcase. Many deaf users

still prefer a paper printout, but portable machines

offer flexibility for family and business communication. Several portable devices are now available

with built-in or optional miniature printers.

Even though a variety of TDDs were available

on the market by the early 1970’s, the devices all

had to be able to interface with one another. In

1973, TDI issued recommended standards for coupler manufacturers in an attempt to ensure compatibility among the various types of equipment.

TDI agents organized to develop training programs, operating standards, service manuals, and

user handbooks. The TDI biennial convention,

begun in 1974, became an important technical and

social exchange for the deaf individuals who

served as agents. By 1975, the number of TDD

stations nationwide had grown to about 12,000.

In 1977, the implementation of sections 503 and

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 began to affect the public perception of the telecommunications needs of deaf people. Paralleling the increased civil rights activity of all disabled individuals, representatives of the deaf community met

with Federal and State legislators and staff from

AT&T to review the needs of handicapped persons. A number of legislators installed TDDs in

● Phonics, Micon, and Magsat were no longer in business by 1982.

their offices; every time this occurred, the installation was well publicized in the newsletters of deaf

organizations. TDDs were placed in police and

emergency facilities, vocational rehabilitation offices, telephone companies, and in some public

transportation systems. The theme “by and for

the deaf” fit in well with the recognition of the

need of handicapped individuals for independent

living.

In 1977, surplus TTYs became scarce again, and

the cost of new equipment, including the coupler,

rose. The TTYs generally used the 5-level Baudot

code Weitbrecht had employed in his original device. The 8-level code, called the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII),

had been in existence for some years in computer

systems, and Weitbrecht knew of this code when

he developed the Weitbrecht device in 1964. In

1964, computers were new, and personal computers had not been envisioned as a common household item. Weitbrecht and Marsters were looking for a simple-to-operate, low-cost device for

ordinary communication between two deaf people, or between a deaf and a hearing person, over

a telephone line. In 1981, Weitbrecht recalled his

thinking about the Baudot code in 1964 (45):

There were thousands of Baudot TTYs available . . . a great surplus waiting to be used.

There was also compatible equipment: Kleinschmidt, Creed, Olivetti, and others, all compatible with Baudot code. [It was] an opportunity to

get equipment and train the deaf without great

expense. TTY machines had been surplused for

many years to radio amateurs, I knew there were

surplus machines ready to be put to use.

Thus, Weitbrecht built the device using the Baudot code. As other couplers appeared on the market, the Weitbrecht/Baudot 5-level code device

was accepted in practice as the standard to preserve compatibility among all such couplers and

modems; however, users of Baudot-code TDDs

could not converse with ASCII-based computers.

By 1977, the cost of computers had come down,

and the development of the microcomputer began

to make some technically minded members of the

deaf community wonder if the push for compatibility of all equipment in the TDI system was not

a mixed blessing. Approximately 27,000 stations

existed at that time; the system was flourishing.
-. ._— . . . . . . . .

8 ● Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

But some concerned people realized that as the

system expanded, it would become increasingly

obsolete with the advance of technology.

Estimates varied widely, but by 1981, there

were between 50,000 and 100,000 stations. At

least 10 small companies had been involved in the

manufacture of TDDs. Many of these small companies were started by a deaf person or included

a deaf person in their management. To some extent, all these companies infringed or Weitbrecht’s

patent rights and paid him no royalties. Weitbrecht never contested the patent infringement.

Applied Communications Corp. and Weitbrecht

chose not to use their funds and energies to pursue a lawsuit.

It has been said that approximately 20 years

elapse before a technological device for disabled

individuals develops from an idea into a widely

available aid.z Seventeen years after the first TTY

call, from Redwood City to Pasadena, Calif.,

TDDs are being distributed free by the telephone

company, through a surcharge on all telephone

bills, to deaf residents of California. The initial

distribution site, Fremont, Calif., is not far from

Weitbrecht’s home workshop. This history of this

development in California will be discussed in the

subsequent chapter.

‘Robert Mare, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a speech at the Helen Keller Centennial, Boston, June 1980.
4.

Issues and Concerns

RATE REDUCTION FOR INTRASTATE LONG= DISTANCE CALLS

Social pressure on deaf individuals to purchase

a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)

grew as the network increased. TDDs installed in

government agencies, retail chains, airlines, and

a stockbroker’s office in the mid-1970’s increased

the demand for TDDs and made them much more

useful. As deaf people made more long-distance

calls on their TDDs, it became evident that longdistance TDD calls are very expensive. Although

Baudot-code TDDs can transmit a maximum of

60 words per minute, the average user rarely types

faster than 45 words per minute; thus, a TDD call

can easily take four times longer, and cost considerably more, than its spoken equivalent. According to Harry Levitt, a professor of communications science at City University of New

York, the average person talks 150 words per

minute, although New Yorkers often talk as fast

as 200 words per minute (25).

Deaf individuals and groups began to lobby at

the State and Federal levels to reduce the longdistance tariffs for TDD users. The National

Center for Law and the Deaf, a public law service with some Federal and some private funding,

has stated that the primary argument in favor of

a rate reduction for TDD users is that charges for

long-distance calls should be based on the value

of service rather than on the cost of service. When

the value of a call made by a deaf TDD user is

exactly the same as the value of a call made by

a hearing person, the cost of the call is approximately four times greater for the TDD user (30).

In 1977, the Connecticut Public Utilities Control Authority issued an order (docket No.

77-0250, Dec. 16, 1977) allowing a 75 percent

reduction in the telephone bills of deaf individuals

using TDDs for intrastate long-distance calls.

Over the next 4 years, similar reductions were

adopted in 42 other States. States varied in their

certification requirements for deaf users: some required an affidavit from a physician or an audiologist; others asked the user to take an oath that

he or she was deaf. A few States certified both

deaf and hearing people in the same household.

The National Center for Law and the Deaf continues to advise deaf consumer groups throughout

the country on strategies for obtaining reduced

intrastate rates for TDD users.

TELEPHONE CUSTOMER SERVICES FOR TDD USERS

In addition to rate reduction, there were other

issues that concerned TDD users. Certain telephone services, such as business office assistance

and 911 emergency numbers, are included in the

monthly service charge, but deaf users could not

take advantage of them. In 1981, an 800 number

was established that TDD users can call to get information and assistance from an operator: information on numbers not in the telephone directory; and assistance with credit card calls, collect

and person-to-person calls, and calls from hotel

telephones. The National Center for Law and the

Deaf has also worked with consumer groups to

persuade local utility companies to install TDDs

in their customer information departments so consumers can ask questions about billing services

and communicate during power outages.

9
— — .

10 . Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

RATE REDUCTION FOR INTERSTATE LONG-DISTANCE CALLS

The 4 years of effort to obtain reduced intrastate rates culminated on August 21, 1981,

when, in recognition of the International Year of

Disabled Persons, the American Telephone &

Telegraph Co. (AT&T) filed a petition with the

Federal Communications Commission to reduce

interstate rates for hearing-impaired TDD users.

The tariff, which became effective October 30,

1981, reduced rates 35 percent for daytime longdistance interstate calls and 60 percent for evening long-distance interstate calls; late-night and

weekend rates remained the same.

One hundred five years after Bell invented the

telephone, the deaf population, those Bell wanted

ELIGIBILITY FOR REDUCED RATES

The certification process for interstate rate

reductions for TDD users has not yet been decided, AT&T has suggested “friendly certification”

for hearing- or speech-impaired TDD users who

are already certified for intrastate reductions.

However, some States have extended reduced

rates to hearing persons who communicate with

hearing-impaired TDD users (e.g., the hearing

child of a deaf parent in another city, or the hearing staff of an agency that regularly communicates

PUBLIC TDDs

Deaf consumer groups advocate placing TDDs

in public places—shopping centers, libraries,

transportation terminals—for use like conventional pay phones. The converted teletypewriter

(TTY) machines are impossible to carry about,

Many of the newer TDDs are portable, but they

are not light enough to be carried comfortably all

the time. In case of an emergency on the road,

to bring into the mainstream of society through

improved communication, was officially invited

by the direct descendant of Bell’s own company

to participate fully in the Nation’s telephone

linkage. According to W. E. Albert, Administrator of Rates and Tariffs, AT&T filed the tariff

for calls “placed by residence customers who have

been certified as requiring a visual means of communication to use Long Distance Message Telecommunications Service , . . to help to promote

a fuller and more active participation in our telecommunications-oriented society” (1). Barry

Strassler, Executive Director of Teletypewriters

for the Deaf, Inc., the association of TDD users,

said, “This is the Milestone!” (38).

with deaf clients throughout the State over a

TDD). The AT&T tariff applies only to hearingand speech-impaired TDD users, but benefits

hearing people in the same household. For States

that do not have intrastate reductions, the deaf

community will have to work with the telephone

company to advertise the interstate reductions and

certification process, because the telephone companies cannot identify deaf people from their

records.

or a change of plans, the deaf TDD user has no

access to a communication device. Although a few

public TDDs have been put in places where there

is a large deaf population (e.g., on the campuses

of schools and colleges for the deaf), the access

of deaf people to public telecommunications service remains extremely limited.
Ch. 4—Issues and Concerns ● 11

COST OF TDDS

TDDs are still very expensive. The reconditioned TTYs cost about $300 installed, with additional fees for paper supplies and servicing, plus

the cost of the coupler ($250). For the past several

years, reconditioned TTYs have been almost impossible to obtain and can usually be purchased

only from someone who is acquiring more modern equipment.

A 1981 catalog of rehabilitative devices describes 10 portable TDDs made by different companies, with prices ranging from $300 to $700, accessories not included. One ultraportable model,

with somewhat limited use, sells for $200 (43). A

new Baudot model, the Minicom”, introduced by

Ultratec in 1982, is lightweight and sells for $259.

All these devices are beyond the budget of many

deaf families.

Recognizing that deaf TDD users would have

to purchase an expensive device before they had

access to the telephone lines, some States

(Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, and a few

others) lease TDDs for a monthly fee ($15 to $36

per month). Some States rent with an option to

buy. Hearing-impaired persons who use an amplifying handset on their telephone pay $0.75 per

month for this service in some communities, and

$1.50 per month in others; there seems to be no

standard charge. Some telephone companies will

sell the amplifier to the customer for a $40 charge,

but it is difficult for the customers to find out

about this. As other adaptive devices, it is not

always easy for TDD users to know what is available and what is the most economical way to obtain it.

DISTRIBUTION OF FREE TDDS IN CALIFORNIA

An important step in distributing TDD units

for access to the telephone system was taken in

California in the fall of 1981. In 1979, owing to

the work of deaf consumer groups (particularly

GLAD, the Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness), the California legislature passed a bill requiring the telephone companies to distribute free

TDD equipment to certified hearing-impaired customers who could not use a standard telephone

(California SB 597). Governor Jerry Brown signed

the bill into law, and the California Public Utilities

Commission was charged with implementing it.

In September 1980, the Public Utilities Commission began hearings to work out the practical

aspects of implementing this law that applies to

California’s 40,000 deaf residents. Almost all

TDDs owned by deaf Californians employed the

5-level Baudot code. TDDs were manufactured

by a number of small companies, many of which

were located in California and therefore had a

financial interest in specifications for the devices.

The issue of the modem code for TDDs was as

significant in the hearings as was that of the

system by which TDDs would be distributed.

Groups participating in the California hearings

had different goals. The conflict was an example

of the recurrent conflict between those with investments in “old” technology and advocates of

“new” technology whose stand would inadvertently make existing technology obsolescent

and necessitate the retraining of users. The

telephone companies wanted to implement the law

in the most economical and expeditious fashion.

The manufacturers of TDDs were competing for

the potentially lucrative equipment contracts from

the telephone companies. In general, the manufacturers wanted to stick with the 5-level Baudot

code, because changing over to the 8-level

American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) would be expensive. They also

feared competition from larger manufacturers

who had not served the deaf market before. The

deaf consumer groups were concerned about small

matters: hard or soft copy, red or green letters

in the light-emitting-diode readouts.

Other interested groups were also represented,

SRI International, a California-based consulting

firm, had just completed a 3-year grant project,
12 ● Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

totaling $375,000, that the National Institute of

Handicapped Research, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, funded to develop an ultraportable hand-held TDD terminal. (A

prototype was made and tested with representatives of the deaf community; although the prototype was smaller than any other standard

typewriter-keyboard TDD, it was expensive and

never came to production. ) The SRI team, which

included technology-minded deaf members, was

very concerned that deaf people, by using the

Baudot code, would become isolated from the

rapidly expanding world of computer communications. One objective of the SRI project was to

develop a device that could be used with both

Baudot and ASCII systems and thus bridge the

gap between the two. SRI believed firmly that the

Baudot system was obsolete and that communication systems for deaf people should be planned

with the future in mind.

After hearing all points of view, the California Public Utilities Commission staff recommended retaining the Baudot system, and the administrative law judge followed their recommendation in setting the standard. In an unusual turn

of events, however, the commissioners reversed

this decision and recommended that all free TDDs

had to have dual capacity, that is, to be compatible with both Baudot and ASCII systems. Two

California manufacturers, Krown Research,

which makes the Portaprinter”, and Plantronics,

which makes the VU-Phone@, received the first

contract to produce the devices. * They agreed on

standardized modems to comply with the ruling

of the California Public Utilities Commission. A

trust fund was established to pay for the distribution of TDDs. In October 1980, telephone customers in California began to pay a 15¢ surcharge

on their monthly telephone bills. That surcharge

goes to the trust fund for TDDs.

Distribution of free TDDs by the telephone

company also began in October 1980, in Fremont,

Calif., where there is a substantial deaf community. The distribution of free TDDs will continue

in other areas of the State and should be completed by 1984. Customers will receive a free TDD

regardless of whether they already own one. Consumer organizations in different California communities are working with the telephone companies to arrange to identify eligible consumers.

There is also the question of possible loss or disappearance of equipment to consider. For example,

when a deaf person moves, does the person take

the free TDD along?

Although the California decision may seem like

the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, there

are some members of the deaf community who

do not support the free distribution of equipment.

They are willing to make the purchase of a TDD

a medical deduction on their income tax.** They

agree that low-income deaf people should be provided with TDDs at reduced cost, but they don’t

want gifts. They worry about other consumers’

reaction to having to pay for the devices with a

surcharge on every month’s phone bill, or about

the stereotyping of all hearing-impaired people as

“poor.” (The charge on the telephone bills now

reads “SB 597-TDD, ” which puts the responsibility on the State legislature, At one point it was

suggested that the charge be titled “DEAF,” an

acronym for Deaf Equipment Acquisition Fund,

but that idea was rejected. )

As of July 1982, 4,000 units had been placed

in California—fewer than expected. Many deaf

people have no telephone or perhaps do not wish

to reveal their poor language or typing skills. The

trust fund has accumulated enough money that

the surcharge may be reduced.

*VU-Phone is not currently being manufactured.

**The Internal Revenue Service began allowing a medical deduction for TDDs in 1971.
————

Ch. 4—Issues and Options ● 1 3

ASCII= BAUDOT STANDARDIZATION AND THE IMPACT

OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

The issue of standardizing modems is important. When deaf persons have dual-capacity

devices, they will have access to additional less

expensive communication systems, such as the

Deafnet Electronic Mail system. * Also, the cost

of TDDs might come down as has the cost of

many pocket computers and other small electronic

devices. The Superphone”, made by Ultratec in

Wisconsin, offers a dual-capacity model, and one

can also buy a converter to permit a TDD to accept calls from both Baudot and ASCII units.

Costs will go down significantly when the TDDs

are planned to coordinate with the computer

● Deaf net lost funding in January 1982 and is currently operating

on a much smaller scale.

NEW LEGISLATION

The California TDD distribution plan may be

affected by decisions based on the Federal Communications Commission Computer Inquiry II.

The provisions that are expected to take effect on

January 1, 1983, would cause AT&T to separate

its role as operator of the telephone network from

its role as a supplier of end-use or terminal equipment. When that occurs, there could be a conflict in the California subsidiaries of AT&T that

DEAF POLITICS

Because the TDD system was so much a grassroots movement, one “by and for the deaf, ” it has

not been immune to divisions within the deaf

community. The original impetus for the development of the device and its diffusion was dependent on at least four deaf men—Weitbrecht, Marsters, Saks, and Breunig—who were educated

orally (i. e., to lipread and speak and to function

with speech in their professional and personal

lives). Marsters and Breunig were among the

founders of the Oral Deaf Adults Section of the

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

market that is growing among nondeaf persons.

The prize-winning entry in a 1981 national contest on the use of personal computers to aid the

handicapped consisted of a Radio Shack pocket

computer with a coupler and a miniprinter to

make an ultraportable TDD that could also be

used as a computer—all with off-the-shelf items

(26).

An issue that will arise as more deaf persons

use TDDs that can access the 4 million ASCIIcompatible stations is the possibility of tariff

fraud. The deaf caller with reduced interstate rates

or the nondeaf person calling from the residence

of a deaf TDD owner would be indistinguishable

from a profitmaking data caller.

are distributing free TDD equipment. The California distribution system may be only a transitional

one; distribution of TDD terminals financed by

a customer-subsidized trust fund could be considered a cross-subsidy. The full impact on the

deaf of Computer Inquiry II and legislation being drafted in the U.S. House and Senate cannot

be determined at this time.

The Oral Deaf Adults Section was begun in 1964

when the first TTY was demonstrated, and its

growth paralleled that of the TTY system. The

desire of these deaf individuals to communicate

with each other from different parts of the country reinforced their work on the TTY system. In

order that the whole deaf population of the United

States be eventually included in the system, they

included from the first representatives from the

National Association of the Deaf, a much larger

consumer organization of deaf persons who advocate the civil rights and vocational oppor-
— ——

14 . Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

tunities of deaf people. The National Association

of the Deaf recommends the use of sign language

in education and employment.

Federal agencies did not encourage the original

developers of the system. However, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI), established

good rapport with AT&T and was able to use the

connection to support the system’s growth. Much

later (1977’), the National Institute of Handicapped

Research gave SRI International the grant to

develop an ultraportable TDD; although the deaf

community was consulted by SRI International

in evaluating the prototype, deaf persons were apparently not consulted by the Federal agency

when the grant was awarded. Considering that

a group of deaf persons had developed the whole

TDD system from two devices to a nationwide

network, some people might say that deaf/deaf

and deaf/hearing politics played a role in the decisions about Federal support.

TDI disseminates information about TDDs and

has become increasingly social and political. Some

deaf persons have suggested that it is now appropriate for AT&T to assume this organization’s

distribution and directory services. In at least one

State, AT&T distributes equipment to deaf people through its subsidiaries. TDD users are listed

in some regular telephone directories with a TDD

symbol by their names. This method of listing

may become more inclusive than the directory

published by TDI, which does not contain the

names of all TDD owners but only of those who

pay dues to the organization.

Despite the tensions of deaf politics, almost

everyone involved in the development of TDDs

agrees that the growth of the TDD system has progressed smoothly in contrast to other developments in the deaf community, particularly those

regarding the education of deaf children.
——-—. .

Appendix A.— Personal Communications

The authors of this background paper engaged in

personal conversations, either face to face, by

telephone, or by a telecommunications device for the

deaf (TDD), with a great many of the individuals involved in the development of the deaf telecommunications network. Research interviews conducted on a

TDD including a hard-copy printout are especially successful because they include a complete record of the

conversation, which is then available for reference. In

the following list of persons interviewed, the names

of those who are hearing impaired are marked with

an asterisk (*). The date of the conversation is included

in each entry.

Bliss, J., President, Telesensory Systems, Inc., Palo

Alto, Calif., Oct. 21, 1981.

*Breunig, L., Founder and first President, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., currently a consultant in Arlington, Va., October 1981.

Castle, D., Telephone Communications Lab, National

Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester, N. Y.,

Aug. 19, 1981.

Chamberlain, W., Public Relations & Media, C&P

Telephone Co., Washington, D.C, Nov. 3, 1981.

*DePietro, L., National Academy of Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., October 1981.

D UBO W, S., National Center for Law and the Deaf,

Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., Oct. 22,

1981.

Engelke, R., President, Ultratec, Inc., Madison, Wis.

(manufactures Superphone? VIP, and Minicom@

TDDs), October 1982.

Fylstra, D., Software Engineer, SRI International,

Menlo Park, Calif., Director of project funded by

the Rehabilitative Services Administration to

develop an ultraportable TDD, Oct. 20, 1981.

Karchmer, M., Director, Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., October

1981.

Levitt, H., Graduate School of Communications, City

University of New York, New York, N. Y., Winner

of the Johns Hopkins University First National

Search on Personal Computing To Aid the Handicapped, October 1981.

*Marsters, J., D. D. S., Pasadena, Calif., Cofounder of

Applied Communications Corp., with Andrew Saks

and Robert Weitbrecht, Nov. 12, 1981.

*Miller, W. F., Jr., President, Oral Deaf Adults Section, Alexander Graham Bell Association for the

Deaf, Poughkeepsie, N. Y., Oct. 23, 1981.

Peacock, F., General Manager, Network Operations,

C&P Telephone Co., Washington, D. C., Oct. 24,

1981.

Proscia, V., Innovative Rehabilitation Technology,

Inc., Los Altos, Calif., Oct. 21, 1981.

*Ross, M., Department of Communication Sciences,

University of Connecticut, Storrs, Corm., October

1981.

*Stone, H., Self Help for Hard of Hearing Persons,

Inc., Washington, D. C., Oct. 21, 1981.

‘Strassler, B., Executive Director, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., Silver Spring, Md., Oct.

20, 1981.

Traub, J., Acting Director of Technology, National

Institute of Handicapped Research, Washington,

D. C., Oct. 21, 1982.

Vanderheiden, G., Director, Trace Research and Development Center, Madison, Wis., Oct. 20, 1981.

Warren, D. R., President, Clinical Convenience Products, Inc., Madison, Wis., Sept. 15, 1981.

*Weitbrecht, R., Inventor of echo-suppressing acoustic

coupler which made the TTY system for the deaf

possible, Redwood City, Calif., Oct. 28, 1981.

Withrow, F., Director of Division of Educational Technology, U.S. IXpartrnent of Education, Washington, D. C., formerly Director of the Division of

Educational Services of the Bureau of Education of

the Handicapped, Oct. 21, 1982.

15
Appendix B.—Sample Personal Communications

by TDD and TDD-Related Services

The following are samples of telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD) conversations that actually

took place during 1 week in December 1981, All of

these interactions are unremarkable, except for the fact

that the persons who initiated the telephone calls, and

in some cases the persons who received them, were

deaf.

A recent college graduate, seeking employment advice, called the author’s office to request an

interview.

A woman telephoned METRO Information to verify

changes in the bus schedule after new subway stops

had opened.

A high school senior from Washington, D. C., telephoned an adult friend in California to discuss colIege choices and ask for a letter of recommendation.

An employee of the Department of Commerce called

his office early on a snowy morning to ask whether

or not “liberal leave policy” was in effect.

A young couple, expecting their first child, telephoned an interpreter, who, in turn, called the

obstetrician to confirm an appointment. When the

child is due, the couple plans to telephone the

hospital (which also has a TDD) to announce that

they are on their way.

A guest called her hostess to discuss how much food

and how many folding chairs she should bring to

the potluck supper on Saturday night.

● A Pennsylvania State college student was issued a

TDD by the college for use in her dormitory room

and was allowed to bring the TDD home on Christmas vacation. The first thing she did when she got

home was to call her boyfriend to arrange plans for

New Year’s Eve.

TDD communication opportunities are expanded by

volunteer, private, or State-supported answering services that handle simultaneous two-way calls between

TDD users and non-TDD users. Such service allows

a TDD user to make any of the types of calls listed

above even if the person being called does not have

a TDD. There is some loss of privacy and spontaneity, and if the call is long distance, the caller loses the

cost advantage of direct dialing.

The Micro-Dan service of the Greater Los Angeles

Council on Deafness (GLAD) offers 24-hr information on job opportunities, local emergency numbers,

news, and other listings to deaf TDD users.

Telecommunication Exchange for the Deaf, Inc., of

Great Falls, Va., offers 24-hr service and stresses

that, up to 11 p.m., social calls are as important as

emergency calls. This service is completely staffed

by volunteers.

16
Appendix Cm —Sample Printout of a

TDD Communication

(October 1981)

LATHAM ON.i. GA

HI , ITS JINNY STERN. Do YOU HAVE TIME NOW IF I ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT

TTY HISTORYX X HISTORY Q GA

YES, FIRE AWAY. BUT DO YOU HAVE OLD COPIES OF THE TDI DIRECTORY

THERE USED To BE THUMBNAIL HISTORIES BUT THESE WERE DROPPED ABOUT TWO

YEARS AGO. GA

YSXX YES, LUCKILY I FOUND A 1977 DIRECTORY WHICH HAS A GOOD DEATXX

DETAILED HISTORY AND I HAVE JUST STUDIED IT. I REALLY WANTED TO ASK

QUESTIONS ABOUT PERSONALITIES NOW THAT I HAVE THE ACCURATE DATES.

FOR INSTANCE, DID YOU MEET BOB WEITBRECHT AT THE UTAH ODS XX ODAS

MEETING IN 1964 OR HAD YOU KNOWN EACH OTHER BEFORE Q HOW DID THE

NETWORK GET STARTED IN TERMS OF FINDING ONE ANOTHER Q

GA

JIM MARSTERS WAS WITH HIS FAMILY AT A RESORT IN CALIFORNIA WHEN SOMEONE

HEARD A CHARACTERISTIC DEAF VOICE. THIS MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT 1962 .

SO JIM INTRODUCE HIMELF TO BOB AND THEY GOT TOGETHER

BOB WAS A

RADIO AMATEUR-- HE HAD HAD ENOUGH HEARING EARLIER TO PASS THE FCC

LICENSE FOR TRANSMITTING. JIM WS FASCINATED. BUT DEAF PEOPLE CANNOT

ORDINARILY PASS THE FCC LICENSE TO JIM CONCEIVED THE IDE XX IDEA

OF USING THE REGULAR TELEPHONE. THE STANDARD TTY NETWORK AT THAT TIME

WAS BUSINESS ORIENTED AND DIRECT WIRE AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE

INSOFAR AS DEAF PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED

SO OUT OF THAT MEETING CAME

THE CONCEPT OF COUPLERS FOR DEAF PEOPLE ALTHOUGH COUPLERS OR MODEMS

WERE AT THAT TIME KNOWN.

unfortunate)’ BCB CHOSE TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING FREQEUNCIES THA T

WOULD LOCK US INTO A UNIQUE NETWORK.

THE FIRST PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION WAS AT THE A G BELL CO NVEN TION IN UTA H

IN 1964. GA

OK FINE. WASN’T THAT THE YEAR ODAS WAS FouNDED ALSO Q GA

YES IT WAS A BUSY AND MOMENTOUS CONVENTION GA

WAIT A MINUTE.. . . SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION. DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU

ORGANIZED INTO A CONSUMER GROUP HELPED THE DEVELOPMENT AT THAT POINT

IN TIME Q GA

ACTUALLY THE GROWTH OF ODAS AND OF TTYS FOR THE DEAF MORE OR LESS PARALLED

EACH OTHER. FOR THE NEXT YEARS 1964-68 THE TTY SYSTEM WAS BEIN G

DEBUGGED AND ANYWAY TTY MACHINES WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE SINCE

WAS LOCKED INTO THE CARTERPHONE CASE LAWSUIT

AT & T

SO COULD NOT HELP. ODAS

MORE OR LESS GREW INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TTY EFFORT. IT WAS INTERESTING

THAT THE FOUNDERS OF THE TTY MOVEMENT WERE ALSO ALL ODAS MEMBERS--

CHARTER MEMBERS. GA

WHAT WAS THAT SUIT’ Q I MISSED THAT. G A

AT&T WAS INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT CALLED THE CAREXX CARTERPHONE CASE

RELATIVE TO INFORMATION BEING PICKED UP OFF A RADIO AND TRANSMITTED

OVER THE TELEPHONE LINES AND VICE VRSA. AT&5 XX AT&T LOST THE

SUIT SO IN 1967 SURPLUS TTY BECAME AVAILABLE .

17
References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17%

Albert, W. E., Administrator of Rates and Tariffs,

AT&T Long Lines, Transmittal No. 13822 to the

Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission, Aug. 21, 1981.

Bell Laboratories, “Survey of Sensory and Mobility Impairments and Telephone-Related Impairments” (unpublished), Murray Hill, N. J., 1978.

Bliss, J., President Telesensory Systems, Inc., Palo

Alto, Calif., personal communication, Oct. 21,

1981.

Boothroyd, A., ‘Technology and Deafness, ” Volta

Review 77:27, January 1975.

Breunig, L., “Evolution of the Teleprinter System

for Deaf People in the United States and the Teletypewriters for the Deaf, Inc., Organization, ” Proceedings of the VIIth Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf, Washington, D. C., Aug. 7,

1975,

Breunig, L., Founder and first President, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., Arlington, Va.,

personal communication, October 1981.

Brown, J, W., and Redden, M., A Research

Agenda on Science and T~hnology for the Handicapped (Washington, D. C.: American Association

for the Advancement of Science, 1979).

Caligiuri, F. A., “The Telephone and the Deaf”

(leaflet), n.d.

Castle, D., “Signaling Devices for Hearing Impaired People” (leaflet) (Rochester, N. Y.: National

Technical Institute for the Deaf, 1978).

Castle, D., “Telecommunications and the Hearing

Impaired, ” Volta Review 83:275, September 1981.

Castle, D., “Telephone Communication for the

Hearing Impaired: Methods and Equipment, ” J

Acad. Rehab. Audiol. 11:91, April 1978.

Castle, D., Telephone Communications Lab, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester,

N. Y., personal communication, Aug. 19, 1981.

Cerf, V., “The Electronic Mailbox: A New Communication Tool for the Hearing Impaired, ” Amer.

Ann. ~af 123(6):768, October 1978.

Chamberlain, W., Public Relations and Media,

C&P Telephone Co., Washington, D. C., personal

communication, Nov. 3, 1981.

Davis, H., and Silverman, S. R., Hearing and

ZXafness, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston, 1978).

DePietro, L., National Academy of Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., personal communication,

October 1981.

DUBOW, S., National Center for Law and the Deaf,

18,

19.

20.

21,

22,

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., personal

communication, Oct. 22, 1981.

Engelke, R., President, Ultratec, Inc., Madison,

Wis., personal communication, October 1982.

Fellendorf, G., Bibliography on Dafness (a listing

of articles in Volta Review and Amer. Ann, ZXaf)

(Washington, D. C,: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, updated yearly).

First National Conference of Agents of Teletypewriters for the Deaf, Inc., Proceedings, Washington, D. C., November 1971.

Fylstra, D., Software Engineer, SRI International,

Menlo Park, Calif., personal communication, Oct.

20, 1981.

Fylstra, D. J., and Ross, W, C., A Communication Dvice for the Daf or Mute Person, prepared

for the Office of Technology, National Institute

of Handicapped Research, U.S. Department of Education, by SRI International, Menlo Park, Calif.,

1980.

Grignetti, M., Myer, T., Nickerson, R,, et al.,

Computer Aided Telecommunications for the

~a~ report No. 3738 (Cambridge, Mass.: Bolt,

Beranek & Newman, December 1977).

Karchmer, M., Director, Office of Demographic

Studies, Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C.,

personal communication, October 1981.

Levitt, H., Graduate School of Communications,

City University of New York, New York, N. Y.,

personal communication, October 1981.

Levitt, H., “A Pocket Telecommunicator for the

Deaf” (unpublished paper), winner of the Johns

Hopkins University First National Search on Personal Computing To Aid the Handicapped, 1981.

Levitt, H., Pickett, J. M., and Houde, R., Sensory

Aids for the Hearing Impaired (New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Press, 1980).

Marsters, J., Pasadena, Calif., personal communication, Nov. 12, 1981.

Miller, W. F., Jr., President, Oral Deaf Adults Section, Alexander Graham Bell Association for the

Deaf, Poughkeepsie, N. Y., personal communication, Oct. 23, 1981.

National Center for Law and the Deaf, Strategies

for Obtaining Reduced Intrastate Rates for TDD

Users (Washington, D. C.: June 1981).

Paschell, W. , “Audio Loops Are Multiplying”

(leaflet) (Washington, D. C.: The Washington Aea

Group for the Hard of Hearing, April 1980).

Peacock, F., General Manager, Network Opera19
20 ● Background Paper #2: Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

tions, C&P Telephone Co., Washington, D. C.,

personal communication, Oct. 24, 1981.

Proscia, V., Innovative Rehabilitation Technology, Inc., Los Altos, Calif., personal communication, Oct. 21, 1981.

Ross, M., Department of Communication Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Corm.,

personal communication, October 1981.

Schein, J. D., and Delk, M. T., Deafness Research

and Training Center, New York University, The

Deaf Population of the United States (Silver

Spring, Md.: National Association of the Deaf,

1974).

Schein, J. D., and Hamilton, R. N., Deafness

Research and Training Center, New York University, Impact 1980: Telecommunications and

Dafness (Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of the Deaf, 1980).

Stone, H., Self Help for Hard of Hearing Persons,

Inc., Washington, D. C., personal communication,

Oct. 21, 1981.

Strassler, B., Executive Director, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., Silver Spring, Md., personal communication, Oct. 20, 1981.

Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., International Telephone Directory of the IXaf (Silver

Spring, Md.: 1981 and earlier editions). [Updated

yearly; The 1977 Directory contains a history of

telecommunications for the deaf; interestingly,

later editions do not include these details. ]

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Traub, J., Acting Director of Technology, National Institute of Handicapped Research, Washington, D. C., personal communication, Oct. 21,

1982.

Unger, B., “Bringing the Disabled User Into the

Design Process: Improving New Technology for

the Disabled, ” in Science, Technology, and the

Handicapped (Washington, D. C,: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1976).

Vanderheiden, G., Director, Trace Research and

Development Center, Madison, Wis., personal

communication, Oct. 20, 1981.

Vanderheiden, G. C., and Thompson, C. J. (eds.),

Rehabilitation Aids Resource Book, vol. I

(Madison, Wis.: Trace Research and Development

Center, University of Wisconsin/Madison, 1981).

Warren, D. R., President, Clinical Convenience

Products, Inc., Madison, Wis., personal communication, Sept. 15, 1981.

Weitbrecht, R., Redwood City, Calif., personal

communication, Oct. 28, 1981.

Weitbrecht, R. H., “Teletypewriting Over Telephone Lines” (unpublished paper), November

1965.

Withrow, F., Director of Division of Educational

Technology, U.S. Department of Education,

Washington, D. C., formerly Director of the Division of Educational Services of the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped, personal communication, Oct. 21, 1982.