Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 79683-79696 [E8-30999]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79683-79696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30999]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 08-275]


Telecommunications Relay Services, Speech-to-Speech Services, 
E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission addressed several issues relating to the 
Commission's Internet-based TRS Order, which adopted a system to assign 
users of Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), 
specifically Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet-Protocol (IP) 
Relay, ten-digit numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan 
(NANP).

DATES: Effective December 31, 2008, except for the information 
collection requirements contained in Sec.  64.605 that are not 
effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for the 
information collections in this section.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Dever, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-1578.
    For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document contact 
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order) in CG Docket No. 03-123, 
and WC Docket Nos. 05-196, adopted December 19, 2008, and released 
December 19, 2008. The text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 
(800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-
mail at www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web 
site at https://www.fcc.gov.
    In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a 
copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information 
collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith 
B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to PRA@fcc.gov.
    The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Order contains new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this R&O as required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    In this Order, the Commission assessed the effects of imposing a 
requirement that Internet-based TRS providers institute procedures to 
verify the accuracy of registration information. The Commission took 
steps to minimize the information collection burden for small business 
concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees. For example, 
Internet-based TRS providers may choose their use of verification 
procedures. Indeed, the Commission only required that Internet-based 
TRS providers implement a reasonable means of verifying registration 
and eligibility information that is not unduly burdensome. Moreover, 
the Commission concluded that all Internet-based TRS providers, 
including small entities, will be eligible to receive compensation from 
the Interstate TRS Fund for their reasonable costs of complying with 
the verification requirements adopted in the Order. These measures 
should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with fewer 
than 25 employees.

Synopsis of the Report and Order

    1. In this Order, the Commission addresses several issues relating 
to the Internet-based TRS Order, 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008, which 
adopted a system to assign users of Internet-based Telecommunications 
Relay Service (TRS), specifically Video Relay Service (VRS) and 
Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay, ten-digit numbers linked to the North 
American Numbering Plan (NANP). The Commission determined that the 
numbering system will ensure that VRS and IP Relay users (collectively 
``Internet-based TRS users'') can be called in the same manner that 
voice telephone users are called--using a standard ten-digit telephone 
number--and that emergency calls placed by Internet-based TRS users 
will be routed directly and automatically to appropriate emergency 
services authorities by the Internet-based TRS providers. The 
Commission mandated that the new numbering and emergency call handling 
plan be implemented by December 31, 2008. In an accompanying Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM), 73 FR 41307, July 18, 
2008, the Commission sought comment on additional issues relating to 
the implementation of the ten-digit numbering plan and emergency call

[[Page 79684]]

handling requirements for Internet-based TRS.
    2. The Order addresses issues critical to ensuring a successful 
transition to ten-digit numbering by December 31, 2008. Specifically, 
the Commission addresses 911 implementation issues, the timing for user 
registration, use of toll free numbers for Internet-based TRS service, 
eligibility requirements and verification procedures, assignment of 
telephone numbers, and numbering cost issues. The Commission also 
addresses a petition for reconsideration filed by CSDVRS, GoAmerica, 
Viable, and Snap; a petition for clarification filed by CSDVRS; a 
petition for reconsideration and clarification filed by Sorenson 
regarding 911 and E911 issues; a petition for limited waiver filed by 
Sorenson regarding the use of ``proxy'' and ``alias'' numbers, and a 
petition for clarification filed by NENA and the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) concerning the 
types of information a VRS communications assistant may provide to 
emergency personnel when relaying an emergency VRS call.
    3. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 
requires the creation of a nationwide TRS program to allow persons with 
hearing and speech disabilities access to the nation's telephone 
network. TRS must be available to the extent possible and in the most 
efficient manner, and must offer telephone system access that is 
``functionally equivalent'' to voice telephone services, as reflected 
in the TRS mandatory minimum standards. The functional equivalency 
standard serves as the benchmark in determining the services and 
features TRS providers must offer to consumers. In some circumstances, 
TRS equipment also permits persons with hearing disabilities to 
communicate directly with each other (i.e., point-to-point calls).
    4. When Congress adopted section 225, relay calls were placed using 
a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the Public Switched 
Telephone Network (PSTN). Since then, the Commission has recognized new 
forms of TRS, including Internet-based forms of TRS such as VRS, IP 
Relay, and IP CTS. Because Internet-based relay services have not been 
linked to a uniform telephone numbering scheme and, instead, have used 
shifting (or ``dynamic'') IP addresses, there has been no consistent 
means by which to reach an Internet-based TRS user. Also, because IP 
addresses have not necessarily correlated to an Internet-based TRS 
user's geographic location, there has been no consistent means by which 
an Internet-based TRS provider can directly and automatically route an 
Internet-based TRS emergency call to an appropriate public safety 
answering point (PSAP).
    5. The Internet-based TRS Order addressed both of these issues. 
First, to ensure that voice telephone users can call a VRS or IP Relay 
user simply by dialing a ten-digit number, i.e., in the same manner 
that they would call another voice telephone user, the Commission 
required Internet-based TRS providers to assign NANP telephone numbers 
to persons who use their service. The Commission determined that 
Internet-based TRS users should obtain telephone numbers directly from 
an Internet-based TRS provider, given that such a process is 
functionally equivalent to the process by which voice telephone 
subscribers obtain telephone numbers. The Commission also determined 
that to obtain a telephone number, an Internet-based TRS user must 
register with his or her selected (or ``default'') Internet-based TRS 
provider. In addition, the Commission extended its local number 
portability (LNP) obligations to Internet-based TRS providers, so that 
the full array of obligations relating to the porting of numbers from 
one service provider to another will apply when an Internet-based TRS 
user wishes to port his or her telephone number to a new default 
provider.
    6. To make it possible for providers to route a call from a voice 
telephone user to a VRS or IP Relay user, using the TRS user's ten-
digit telephone number, the Commission adopted a central numbering 
directory mechanism that maps the Internet-based TRS user's ten-digit 
NANP telephone number to the current Internet address of his or her end 
device. The Commission concluded that Internet-based TRS providers 
would provision routing information directly to the central numbering 
directory on behalf of their registered users. The Commission also 
determined that this routing information will be in the form of a 
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). A telephone number assigned for IP 
Relay use will have an associated URI containing a domain name and user 
name, and a telephone number assigned for VRS use will have an 
associated URI containing an IP address and device-specific protocol 
information. The Commission further determined that building, 
maintaining, and operating the central numbering directory would best 
be accomplished by a neutral third party administrator under contract 
with the Commission and compensated through the Interstate TRS Fund 
(Fund). The Commission concluded that, for security reasons, only 
Internet-based TRS providers should be authorized to query the central 
numbering directory for the purpose of obtaining information from the 
numbering directory to complete calls.
    7. Second, to ensure that Internet-based TRS users can make 
emergency calls that will be directly and automatically routed to the 
appropriate PSAP, the Commission required that Internet-based TRS 
providers, prior to the initiation of service, obtain consumer location 
information from each of their registered users. Further, the 
Commission required each Internet-based TRS provider to transmit all 
911 calls to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or 
appropriate local emergency authority that services the caller's 
Registered Location and that has been designated for telecommunications 
carriers under the Commission's part 64 rules. Each such 911 call must 
carry a call back number, the name of the relay provider, the 
communications assistant's (CA's) identification number, and the 
caller's Registered Location. The Commission further instructed that 
such calls must be routed through the use of ANI (or pseudo-ANI, if 
necessary) via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network, and the Registered 
Location must be available from or through the ALI Database. The 
Commission made clear that Internet-based TRS providers may not fulfill 
their 911 obligations by routing 911 calls to ten-digit NPA-NXX numbers 
(so called ``administrative numbers'') of PSAPs where a selective 
router is utilized.
    8. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on fourteen 
different issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-
digit telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS. Specifically, the 
Commission sought comment on: (1) Certain peripheral issues concerning 
the proper handling of 911 calls placed via Internet-based TRS; (2) 
registration period; (3) the eligibility of Internet-based TRS users to 
receive multiple telephone numbers; (4) the use of toll-free numbers; 
(5) what steps the Commission should take, if any, to facilitate 
implementation of standards-based signaling between service providers; 
(6) the assignment of a single telephone number to multiple services; 
(7) multi-line telephone systems; (8) eligibility to obtain Internet-
based TRS telephone numbers; (9) the regulatory treatment of IP CTS; 
(10) additional security measures designed to ensure the integrity of 
the TRS system and

[[Page 79685]]

Internet-based TRS equipment and networks; (11) verification of 
registration; (12) application of the anti-slamming rules to protect 
relay consumers against unauthorized default provider changes; (13) the 
extent to which the CPNI rules should apply to Internet-based TRS 
providers; and (14) whether, and to what extent, in connection with the 
compensation of Internet-based TRS providers for their reasonable 
actual costs of complying with the Internet-based TRS Order, the costs 
of acquiring numbers, and porting fees, should be passed on to 
Internet-based TRS users. The Commission received numerous comments on 
these issues.
    9. On August 15, 2008, CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable and Snap filed a 
petition seeking reconsideration and clarification of the Commission's 
Internet-based TRS Order with respect to the obligations of default and 
former default providers to route consumer information. The petitioners 
request that the Commission revise its rule to allow the consumer 
either (1) to continue to use the devices once they have ported their 
number with the understanding that their routing information will 
continue to be provisioned by the original provider that supplied the 
device or (2) to acquire a new device from the new default provider. 
Sorenson filed an opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration and 
the TDI Coalition and Hamilton filed comments in response to the 
Petition for Reconsideration. CSDVRS and GoAmerica filed replies to 
Sorenson's opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration.
    10. On August 15, 2008, CSDVRS also filed a petition seeking 
clarification that the Commission's rules require VRS providers to 
provide fully interoperable relay service. CSDVRS requests that the 
Commission clarify that every VRS provider has an obligation to ensure 
that it is as easy for a VRS user to place outbound calls via competing 
providers as it is to place outbound calls via the user's default 
provider. Sorenson filed an opposition to CSDVRS's Petition for 
Clarification and CSDVRS and GoAmerica filed replies to Sorenson's 
opposition.
    11. On August 18, 2008, Sorenson filed a petition for 
reconsideration and clarification seeking the Commission to: (1) Allow 
the continued use of ``proxy'' numbers; (2) recognize that 911 calls 
must be routed over administrative lines in certain circumstances; and 
(3) clarify the date by which E911 must be fully implemented. The TDI 
Coalition filed an opposition to Sorenson's Petition for 
Reconsideration and the Joint Responders filed a partial opposition. 
AT&T filed reply comments. On September 30, 2008, Sorenson filed a 
petition for limited waiver of the prohibition on the use of ``proxy'' 
and ``alias'' numbers. CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Hamilton Relay, and TDI 
Coalition filed oppositions to Sorenson's petition for limited waiver. 
Sorenson filed a reply to the oppositions.
    12. On October 24, 2008, NENA and APCO filed a request for 
clarification that the Commission's rule governing the non-disclosure 
by a CA of the content of a relayed conversation does not prohibit a 
VRS CA, when relaying an emergency call, from disclosing background 
visual and auditory information to emergency personnel. Sorenson and 
the TDI Coalition filed ex partes in support of this request.

A. 911 Issues

    13. 911 Calls and the Call Completion Rule. The Commission's rules 
require Internet-based TRS providers to use a system that ensures that 
the provider will answer an incoming emergency call before other non-
emergency calls, i.e., that the provider will prioritize emergency 
calls and move them to the top of the queue. In the Further NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on whether, as an additional step to ensure 
the prompt handling of emergency calls, the call completion rule should 
be modified so that if an Internet-based TRS provider's CA is handling 
a non-emergency relay call and identifies an incoming 911 call that 
would be placed in queue, the CA may terminate the existing call to 
answer the 911 call immediately. As the Commission noted, under the 
current call completion rule, a CA may not terminate an ongoing call 
for any reason, including to answer a 911 call that would otherwise 
wait in a queue for the next available CA.
    14. Based on the record, the Commission concludes that it should 
not modify the call completion rule to allow CAs to terminate an 
existing call in order to answer a 911 call. As several providers note, 
allowing CAs to terminate a non-emergency call is inconsistent with the 
principle of functional equivalency and the role of the CA as a dial 
tone. Moreover, the assumption that the CA would be terminating a call 
to answer a call that is more urgent may, in fact, not always be true. 
As Sprint Nextel notes, a call between a patient and her doctor might 
be terminated to answer an emergency call that presents less life-
threatening issues. Further, several providers note that there is 
little evidence in the record to demonstrate that 911 calls made to 
Internet-based TRS providers have been substantially delayed, or that 
there is otherwise any compelling reason to modify the current call 
completion rule, particularly in view of the requirement that providers 
prioritize incoming 911 calls. For these reasons, the Commission 
declines to modify our rules to permit CAs to terminate existing calls 
to answer 911 calls. The Commission will revisit this issue in the 
future, however, if it receives information that, notwithstanding the 
emergency call prioritization rule, emergency callers have had to wait 
more than a minimal amount of time to reach a CA.
    15. Prioritization of ``Call Backs'' If 911 Call is Disconnected. 
As noted above, in the Interim Emergency Call Handling Order, the 
Commission required providers to implement a system to ensure that 
incoming emergency calls are answered before other non-emergency calls 
so that an emergency caller does not have to wait in a queue for the 
next available CA. The interim rules also require the CA to give the 
emergency personnel, at the beginning of the call, the CA's callback 
number so that the emergency personnel can call back the CA if the call 
gets disconnected. The latter rule was superseded by the Internet-based 
TRS Order, which requires, effective December 31, 2008, that the CA 
give the emergency personnel the caller's ten-digit number, rather than 
the CA's call back number.
    16. As the Commission stated in the recent VRS Numbering Waiver 
Order, the requirement that VRS providers implement a system to ensure 
that all incoming emergency calls are prioritized and do not have to 
wait in a queue also applies to callbacks from the emergency services 
personnel. Therefore, the Commission again reminds providers that they 
must ensure not only that incoming 911 calls are prioritized, but also 
that callbacks from the emergency services personnel to the consumer 
via the consumer's ten-digit number are answered by the provider before 
non-emergency calls.
    17. Relay of Visual and Auditory Information to Emergency 
Personnel. Recognizing the Commission's commitment to adapt the 
Commission's rules to ``ensure that people with disabilities who desire 
to use interconnected'' IP-enabled services ``obtain access to E911 
services,'' NENA and APCO request clarification that VRS CAs may, 
``when reasonably necessary, * * * provide visual information to a 9-1-
1 telecommunicator that will protect the life of the caller and/or 
others, including first responders.'' Authorizing such actions would 
``allow interpreters to step in and describe a

[[Page 79686]]

situation accurately when the deaf user is unable to do so.'' NENA and 
APCO further ask that the Commission clarify that VRS CAs may retain 
records of what they see and hear during an emergency call.
    18. The Commission agrees in part and so clarifies. The 
Commission's rules (and the statute) generally prohibit a CA from 
``intentionally altering a relayed conversation'' and from ``keeping 
records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration of a 
call.'' The Commission reads these provisions to preserve the content 
and privacy of the ``relayed conversation,'' but background visual and 
auditory information regarding an emergency that a CA may see and hear 
during a VRS call is not part of the ``conversation.'' Thus relaying 
background visual and auditory information to emergency personnel 
regarding an ongoing emergency does not contravene the statutory and 
regulatory protections for ``relayed conversations.'' Bolstering the 
Commission's interpretation is the Commission's recognition that just 
as emergency personnel garner important information from the sounds 
they hear during an emergency call with a hearing user (the crackling 
of a fire, the explosion of a gunshot), emergency personnel may get 
functionally equivalent information from the sights a CA sees during an 
emergency call with a VRS user (the flames of a fire, the brandishing 
of a gun). Allowing a VRS CA to relay visual and auditory information 
regarding an ongoing emergency to emergency personnel should help 
protect the safety and lives of VRS users and emergency responders. 
Thus the Commission clarifies that, consistent with the Commission's 
rules and the Act, a CA may relay background visual and auditory 
information regarding an ongoing emergency to assist emergency 
personnel in responding to an emergency VRS call. Moreover, because of 
the importance of quick action in the face of an ongoing emergency, the 
Commission clarifies that VRS CAs may retain a record of background 
visual and auditory information regarding an emergency for a reasonable 
time after an emergency call has terminated for the sole purpose of 
providing that information to emergency personnel should they call 
back.

B. Registration Period

    19. In the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission required that 
every Internet-based TRS provider offer its users the capability to 
register with that provider as the ``default provider'' and provide or 
port for that user a NANP telephone number. In addition, the Commission 
required Internet-based TRS providers to obtain registration 
information from all new users and assign all new users a NANP 
telephone number. The Commission explained that requiring users to 
register and assigning them NANP telephone numbers has benefits that 
include facilitating the effective provision of 911 service. In the 
Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the length of the 
registration period during which Internet-based TRS providers will 
register existing users, obtain their initial Registered Location, and 
provide the users new ten-digit NANP telephone numbers. The Commission 
also sought comment on whether there should be a cut-off date for 
users' registration with a default provider.
    20. The Commission received a number of comments on this issue. 
AT&T proposes a three-month registration period and a three-month 
permissive calling period. During these periods, AT&T recommends 
education and outreach efforts. AT&T recommends that at the end of the 
permissive calling period, Internet-based TRS providers cease 
completing the non-emergency calls of unregistered Internet-based TRS 
users. The TDI Coalition recommends a six-month period conditioned on 
the Commission undertaking periodic review of actual registrations 
resulting from outreach and education efforts of the Commission and 
Internet-based TRS providers. CSDVRS recommends a 12-month registration 
period with the requirement that each VRS provider submit its number of 
new registrations on a quarterly basis to the Commission. CSDVRS also 
recommends procedures to be put in place after the cut-off date in 
which callers will be routed to customer service to become registered.
    21. Several commenters recommend no cut-off of calling capabilities 
for unregistered users. NENA claims that education of Internet-based 
TRS users is preferable to cutting off service. Sorenson also does not 
recommend a cut-off period. Rather, Sorenson recommends promoting 
registration and education about the benefits of signing up with a 
default provider, but not refusing service to individuals who choose 
not to register. GoAmerica recommends that registration should be 
required to obtain a ten-digit number, but not required to use 
Internet-based TRS service, i.e., users should not be forced to 
register if they do not want to. GoAmerica further comments that 
mandatory registration is ``contrary to functional equivalence'' as 
hearing people do not have to register.
    22. As the Commission stated in the Internet-based TRS Order, 
registration is essential to the assignment and use of NANP telephone 
numbers and has important public safety benefits. The Commission 
disagrees with GoAmerica that registration is contrary to functional 
equivalency. For traditional voice communications services, users 
``register'' when they sign up for service by providing their name and 
address, and in the case of interconnected VoIP, registration is 
mandatory. The Commission repeats that Internet-based TRS providers 
must register eligible new users before providing them service. For 
example, any newly-provisioned user (i.e., a user being sent a new 
device, or application software download) must be given a NANP 
telephone number. The Commission also adopts AT&T's recommendation to 
provide, for eligible existing users, a three-month registration period 
followed by a three-month permissive calling period; during this six-
month period Internet-based TRS providers will engage in consumer 
education and outreach efforts.
    23. As noted by AT&T, the permissive calling period is comparable 
to the permissive calling period that is used in area code relief 
situations to provide flexibility as consumers adapt to the new 
numbering scheme. Accordingly, Internet-based TRS users may place and 
receive calls via the method used before December 31, 2008 during the 
three-month registration and three-month permissive calling periods. 
Once an Internet-based TRS user obtains a NANP telephone number, the 
user may still be reached by his or her ``proxy'' or ``alias'' number, 
but the Internet-based TRS provider will provide a message notifying 
the caller of the user's new NANP telephone number and advising the 
caller that after June 30, 2009, the user may only be reached by the 
NANP telephone number.
    24. Providers should have no trouble getting most of their users 
with hearing and speech disabilities registered by the three-month 
target deadline, but the permissive calling period provides flexibility 
for a transition period in case, for some reason, some users need more 
time to register. Moreover, during the permissive calling period, 
Internet-based TRS providers can continue to engage in targeted 
education and outreach. As discussed in our Internet-based TRS Order, 
registration is necessary for Internet-based TRS providers to associate 
an Internet-based TRS user's telephone number with his or her IP 
address to allow for the routing and completion of calls. Moreover, 
mandatory registration is critical to the

[[Page 79687]]

effective handling of 911 calls. Specifically, registration allows 
Internet-based TRS providers to provide first responders with location 
information for emergency calls placed over Internet-based TRS. The TDI 
Coalition agrees that registration is necessary for users to benefit 
from effective 911 call handling. In addition, mandatory registration 
will facilitate the implementation of appropriate network security 
measures by reducing access to the Internet-based TRS providers' 
databases and therefore, limit the exposure of the databases to abuses, 
such as hacking. In order to ensure that Internet-based TRS users can 
realize the benefits of the numbering system adopted in the Internet-
based TRS Order, registration must be mandatory with a definitive cut-
off date by which Internet-based TRS providers may not complete the 
non-emergency calls of unregistered users.
    25. The Commission establishes the following registration schedule: 
The registration period will begin on December 31, 2008, the 
implementation date of the new ten-digit numbering system. The three-
month registration period will end on March 31, 2009, and the 
permissive calling period will end on June 30, 2009. At the end of the 
permissive calling period, existing Internet-based TRS users who have 
not registered with a default provider will be treated like new 
Internet-based TRS users. Internet-based TRS providers must register 
these eligible users before they may make non-emergency calls, in 
accordance with the E911 goals set forth in the Internet-based TRS 
Order. The Commission encourages all Internet-based TRS providers to 
register their eligible users during the three-month registration 
period, but acknowledge that there may be a need for additional time 
and therefore, allow a three-month permissive calling period. The 
Commission also encourages Internet-based TRS providers to keep it 
apprised of the status of customer registrations during the 
registration period through ex parte filings in these dockets.
    26. Some providers have stated that they are unable to distinguish 
a new user from an ``existing'' user who is dialing around the default 
provider with which he or she is registered. The Commission notes that, 
as a new user is ``an individual that has not previously utilized VRS 
or IP Relay,'' someone to whom the provider has already issued a proxy 
number, for example, or someone who has been issued a device that is in 
contact with a provider's server, would not fall into the category of a 
``new'' user. In support of mandatory registration for new users as of 
December 31, 2008, the Commission permits providers to request a user's 
ten-digit NANP number, which can be used to verify whether the user is 
registered with another provider. Such verification can be made with a 
simple query to the Numbering Directory using the ten-digit number. 
This interim solution will be available to providers as of December 31, 
2008. However, the Commission may consider enhancing this method with 
the capability to do a reverse directory lookup of identifying 
information in the incoming call against the URIs of registered users, 
or the Commission may adopt some other solution if operational 
experience and the record in this proceeding indicate that another 
method would be preferable. In any event, if a provider is unable to 
discern whether someone attempting to use its service is an existing 
user, then it should treat such user as a new user.
    27. The TDI Coalition recommends that once users register with a 
default provider, they should be able to place relay calls immediately, 
at least on a temporary basis, through, for example, the assignment of 
a temporary ``guest'' or application number/identification system. 
Similar to the TDI Coalition, Sorenson claims that providers must be 
prepared to assign a user a NANP number within an acceptable period of 
time (e.g., three days, but no longer than a week). The Commission 
believes that under our registration and permissive calling plan, there 
should be no delay problems for existing Internet-based TRS users, as 
they may continue to place calls without a ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate number until the end of the permissive calling period. For 
new users, the Commission agrees with the TDI Coalition and concludes 
that to the extent technically feasible, Internet-based TRS providers 
must allow newly registered users to place calls immediately.
    28. Sorenson Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification. 
Sorenson raises two issues in its Petition for Reconsideration and 
Clarification related to registration and routing of 911 calls. First, 
Sorenson requests that the Commission clarify that its new rules 
applicable to E911 Service, which are effective December 31, 2008, only 
apply to 911 calls of registered users. Because the new rules require 
providers to make available certain information that they can obtain 
only from registered users, such as Registered Location information, 
the Commission hereby amends the new rules to apply to 911 calls placed 
by registered users. Sorenson also requests permission to route 911 
calls to the administrative lines of PSAPs in certain cases, such as 
when a user's Registered Location is in a geographic area not served by 
a Wireline E911 Network, or when a non-default provider is handling a 
911 call but does not have access to the 911 caller's Registered 
Location or other relevant information. The Commission recognizes that 
in certain circumstances such as these, the new rules may not be fully 
applicable. Therefore, the Commission amends our emergency calling 
rules to specify that the new rules only apply to 911 calls placed by 
users whose Registered Location is in a geographic area served by a 
Wireline E911 Network and is available to the provider handling the 
call.
    29. Sorenson Petition for Limited Waiver. Finally, Sorenson 
requests that the Commission grant it a one-year waiver of the 
Commission's prohibition on the use of ``proxy'' or ``alias'' numbers 
after December 31, 2008. Sorenson claims a waiver is necessary to avoid 
user disruption associated with the transition to NANP numbers by 
allowing Sorenson users to continue receiving calls dialed using proxy 
numbers. There is strong opposition in the record to Sorenson's 
petition. Contrary to Sorenson's position, the TDI Coalition claims 
that continued use of proxy numbers will actually create more confusion 
for users. Specifically, the TDI Coalition argues that many proxy 
numbers are duplicates of NANP numbers and therefore, using proxy 
numbers once NANP numbers are assigned could cause confusion for users 
and interoperability problems for Internet-based TRS providers. Parties 
also highlight that callers using proxy numbers will not have their 
location information automatically transmitted to the appropriate PSAP 
or receive emergency callbacks through alternative VRS providers in the 
case of a disconnect. Moreover, commenters argue that granting 
Sorenson's petition would allow Sorenson to continue to maintain its 
closed directory system to the detriment of other competing VRS 
providers. There is consensus among the commenters that any customer 
confusion that may arise by the termination of ``proxy'' and ``alias'' 
numbers with the assignment of ten-digit NANP numbers can be adequately 
addressed by a message provided by Sorenson that notifies that caller 
of the new NANP number of the called party. As stated above, an 
Internet-based TRS user may be reached by his or her ``proxy'' or 
``alias'' number until the end of the permissive calling period. 
Additionally, the Commission

[[Page 79688]]

concluded that Internet-based TRS providers must provide a message 
notifying callers that after June 30, 2009, the user may only be 
reached by his or her NANP telephone number. Accordingly, consistent 
with the record in this proceeding, the Commission denies Sorenson's 
petition for limited waiver.
    30. Sua Sponte Clarification and Reconsideration. The Commission 
also clarifies, on its own motion, that all users of Internet-based TRS 
must be assigned ten-digit, geographically appropriate numbers, meaning 
numbers within their local rate centers. In our June 24, 2008 Internet-
based TRS Order, the Commission noted that in ``unusual and limited 
circumstances,'' Internet-based TRS providers could encounter 
difficulty obtaining truly local telephone numbers for their users. The 
Commission suggested that in such circumstances, Internet-based TRS 
providers could ``temporarily employ suitable workarounds,'' such as 
assigning a user a telephone number reasonably close to the user's rate 
center or using remote call forwarding, but only until a geographically 
appropriate number became available. First, the Commission clarifies 
that under no circumstances should a toll-free number be assigned to a 
user as such a workaround. As the Commission states below, toll-free 
numbers must always route to a user's ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate number. The Commission clarifies this because it is 
concerned that the assignment of a toll-free number as a user's primary 
identifier could degrade the provision of E911 service to that user--a 
concern made more acute by the short time that providers, users, and 
the database administrator have to implement the new numbering system. 
Second, the Commission reconsiders its prior suggestion that Internet-
based TRS providers can use workarounds in instances where they cannot 
obtain geographically appropriate numbers, such as assigning a non-
local but ``close'' telephone number or using remote call forwarding. 
The Commission anticipates that the instances in which geographically 
appropriate numbers will be unavailable from wholesale carriers will be 
rare, but in those rare instances the Commission now requires Internet-
based TRS providers to bring the situation to its attention, and the 
Commission will work with the carriers in that area and other entities 
to resolve it so that all users of Internet-based TRS service will have 
truly local geographically appropriate ten-digit numbers. To be clear, 
Internet-based TRS providers must assign to each user a locally rated, 
ten-digit, geographically appropriate number. The Commission delegates 
to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority necessary to work with 
the Internet-based TRS providers, the carriers, and the numbering 
administrators to resolve any such situations.

C. Use of Toll Free Numbers for Internet-Based TRS

    31. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the use 
of toll free numbers for Internet-based TRS, including any impact the 
use of such numbers may have on the provision of 911 service. AT&T 
claims that Internet-based TRS users should be discouraged from using 
toll free numbers, and those users who elect to retain their toll free 
numbers should be required to pay for their use. AT&T also advocates 
transitioning away from toll free numbers due to concerns about the 
ability of 911 databases to effectively route 911 calls when associated 
with a toll free number because, by design, toll free numbers operate 
as inbound numbers only. GoAmerica claims that toll free numbers go 
beyond functional equivalency, and recommends that all Internet-based 
TRS users who are assigned toll free numbers be assigned geographically 
appropriate numbers. GoAmerica argues that, should an Internet-based 
TRS user want a toll free number, the user should be able to get one, 
and, like AT&T, GoAmerica recognizes that toll free numbers do not work 
with E911 systems.
    32. The TDI Coalition encourages the use of geographically 
appropriate numbers and argues that if a provider offers toll free 
numbers, ``such offering must be no more than an optional alternative 
to geographic numbers.'' The TDI Coalition also argues that mechanisms 
can be put in place to facilitate the provisioning of 911 services 
through the use of pseudo-ANI, similar to VoIP 911. Sorenson also 
believes that Internet-based TRS users should be able to obtain toll 
free numbers, should not have to surrender their toll free numbers--
i.e., they should be able to have a geographically appropriate number 
and a toll free number, provided both numbers are assigned by the same 
provider. Sorenson argues that the providers should be responsible for 
the costs of the users' numbers and should be permitted to submit costs 
to the Interstate TRS Fund in connection with only one number (toll 
free or geographic) per device.
    33. CSDVRS recommends that VRS providers be allowed, but not 
required, to issue toll free numbers and that users should be able to 
obtain toll free numbers from any provider, not just the default 
provider. With respect to 911 service, CSDVRS states that since toll 
free numbers do not have access to 911 services, devices assigned only 
a toll free number will need to carry clear disclaimers about their 911 
limitations.
    34. The Commission concludes, for the reasons discussed above in 
connection with registration, that Internet-based TRS users should 
transition away from the exclusive use of toll free numbers to ten-
digit, geographically appropriate numbers, in accordance with our 
numbering system. Important to this finding is that ten-digit NANP 
numbers will ensure that emergency calls will be routed directly and 
automatically to the appropriate PSAP. Accordingly, similar to the 
Commission's registration plan, Internet-based TRS users are allowed a 
three-month period to transition to ten-digit, geographically 
appropriate numbers, with an additional three-month permissive calling 
period for unregistered users. At the end of the permissive calling 
period, the Commission requires Internet-based TRS providers to have 
assigned ten-digit, geographically appropriate numbers to all current 
holders of toll free numbers who wish to continue using those toll free 
numbers. An Internet-based TRS user may retain a current toll free 
number or obtain a new toll free number so long as that toll free 
number is directed to the ten-digit, geographically appropriate number. 
As discussed below, voice telephone users are responsible for the costs 
of obtaining and using their individual toll free numbers and 
therefore, functional equivalency does not require that the use of toll 
free numbers in connection with Internet-based TRS should be 
compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund.

D. Eligibility Requirements and Verification Procedures

    35. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on who 
should be eligible to obtain telephone numbers. Specifically, the 
Commission sought comment on the need for eligibility requirements or 
verification procedures when telephone numbers are assigned; e.g., must 
the recipient have a hearing or speech disability and therefore need to 
use TRS to access the telephone system and, if so, should the recipient 
be required to verify that fact, or can a number be assigned to a voice 
telephone user who may desire to

[[Page 79689]]

communicate directly (video-to-video) with a TRS user? The Commission 
also sought comment on related issues, including the effect of 
particular proposals on the Interstate TRS Fund, potential number 
exhaustion concerns, possible other means by which the Commission or 
providers can facilitate the provision of ``point-to-point'' Internet-
based calls, and the scope of section 225 with regard to these 
questions.
    36. Eligibility To Obtain Ten-Digit Numbers. The Commission 
concludes that, at this time, only individuals with a hearing or speech 
disability will be eligible to obtain ten-digit telephone numbers under 
the numbering system adopted in the Internet-based TRS Order. Although 
several commenters request that the Commission also allow hearing 
persons to obtain ten-digit numbers from Internet-based TRS providers 
for the purpose of enabling point-to-point video communications (i.e., 
non-relay calls) between a hearing person and an individual with a 
hearing or speech disability, the Commission declines to do so at this 
time.
    37. While the Commission recognizes the potential benefits of 
facilitating direct communication between TRS users and voice telephone 
users, the Commission nevertheless limits the assignment of ten-digit 
numbers to persons with hearing and speech disabilities at this time. 
First, the Commission is cognizant of the limitations imposed by 
section 225, which instructs the Commission to prescribe regulations 
governing the provision of ``telecommunications relay services,'' and 
specifically authorizes the recovery of costs ``caused by * * * 
telecommunications relay services.'' Direct point-to-point calling is 
not a ``telecommunications relay service'' under section 225. In 
addition, the assignment of telephone numbers to voice telephone users 
for the purpose of point-to-point calls raises cost recovery issues. 
The Commission must ensure that costs specific to facilitating such 
calls are excluded from those costs for which providers may seek 
compensation from the Fund (and also are not included in those costs 
that determine the compensation rate). For example, costs associated 
with assigning a telephone number to a hearing person to facilitate 
direct calls, including costs related to obtaining the number, record-
keeping, and technical support activities, would not be compensable 
from the Fund. The Commission therefore finds that further evaluation 
is needed of the specific costs that would be associated with both 
assigning numbers to voice telephone users for the purpose of making 
point-to-point calls, and with the processing of such calls, in order 
to establish safeguards to ensure that such costs would not be borne by 
the Fund. Finally, the Commission's paramount concern at this time is 
to ensure that it facilitates calls to Internet-based TRS users with 
hearing or speech disabilities and provide these users with automatic 
911 access consistent with the functional equivalency mandate. For 
these reasons, the Commission concludes that only individuals with a 
hearing or speech disability will be eligible to obtain ten-digit 
telephone numbers under the numbering system adopted by the Commission 
at this time.
    38. Eligibility and Verification Procedures. The Commission also 
sought comment on what safeguards should apply, such as eligibility 
requirements and/or verifications, when a user registers with a default 
provider and is assigned a ten-digit telephone number. In addition, the 
Commission sought comment on how providers might verify the accuracy of 
initial registration information in order to curb IP Relay fraud. 
Commenters generally support registration verification as a means of 
ensuring that registration information provided by users is accurate 
and preventing the improper use of Internet-based TRS, particularly IP 
Relay. At the same time, commenters emphasize that registration 
verification procedures should not unduly burden Internet-based TRS 
users in the process of obtaining ten-digit numbers.
    39. To verify the accuracy of initial registration information and 
to help ensure that VRS and IP Relay are used only for their intended 
purpose, Internet-based TRS providers must institute procedures to 
verify the accuracy of registration information, including the 
consumer's name and mailing address, before issuing the consumer a ten-
digit telephone number. In addition, to ensure that registered users 
are aware of the eligibility limitations set forth above, the 
verification procedures must include a self certification component 
requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically recognized 
hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS.
    40. In taking these actions, the Commission does not mandate the 
use of any particular verification procedures. Instead, the Commission 
requires only that Internet-based TRS providers implement a reasonable 
means of verifying registration and eligibility information that is not 
unduly burdensome. Such means may include, for example: (1) Sending a 
postcard to the mailing address provided by the consumer, for return to 
the default Internet-based TRS provider; (2) in-person or on camera ID 
checks during registration; or (3) other verification processes similar 
to those performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions 
(such as banks and credit card companies). Such registration should be 
accompanied by consumer education and outreach efforts designed to 
inform Internet-based TRS consumers of the importance of providing 
accurate registration information. The Commission expects that these 
measures will reduce the misuse of Internet-based TRS by those who may 
take advantage of the anonymity currently afforded users, particularly 
IP Relay users, without unduly burdening legitimate Internet-based TRS 
consumers seeking to obtain ten-digit telephone numbers. The consumer 
education and outreach materials also should make clear that: (1) The 
consumer may obtain a telephone number from, and register with, his or 
her provider of choice (notwithstanding any prior relationship the 
consumer may have had with another provider); (2) the consumer may 
change default providers at any time and, in doing so, retain his or 
her telephone number by porting the number to the new default provider; 
(3) the consumer may make calls through, and receive calls from, any 
provider (and the consumer is not limited to making or receiving calls 
through his or her default provider); and (4) the provider cannot 
condition the ongoing use or possession of equipment, or the receipt of 
different or upgraded equipment, on the consumer continuing to use the 
provider as its default provider.
    41. As stated above, these requirements will apply to those users 
who have registered and obtained a ten-digit number beginning December 
31, 2008, except for the information collection requirements contained 
in section 64.605 that have not been approved by OMB and, as such, the 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date for the information collection requirements 
contained in this section. Such requirements subject to OMB approval 
include the outreach and education obligations set forth in the above 
paragraph, as well as the verification and self-certification 
requirements. Because these requirements are subject to OMB approval, 
the Commission does not require providers to implement these provisions 
until they have received such approval and are in effect. Once the 
verification and self-certification requirements become effective,

[[Page 79690]]

however, providers will be required to verify the accuracy of any 
registration information that was obtained prior to the effective date, 
as well as obtain self-certifications from users who acquired ten-digit 
numbers, in compliance with these requirements.

E. Assignment of Telephone Numbers

    42. In the Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the 
Consumer Groups' claim that functional equivalency requires that deaf 
and hard-of-hearing users have one ten-digit, NANP number for multiple 
devices. The Commission also sought comment on whether, if such a 
system were in place, the cost of the additional functionalities should 
be passed on to the Internet-based TRS user. In their comments in 
response to the Further NPRM, the Consumer Groups clarified their 
position and stated that functional equivalency does not require that a 
user must have the option of using the same telephone number with 
multiple types of TRS services, but rather, that some type of call 
forwarding would be sufficient. With respect to the cost of the call 
forwarding service, the Consumer Groups urge the Commission to consider 
their opinion that the functionality of call forwarding is commonly 
included in services provided to telephone users at no charge and that 
the additional administrative costs to assess and collect such a fee, 
which they believe will be nominal, will exceed the cost of providing 
the functionality.
    43. AT&T believes that the Commission should not mandate a single 
telephone number for multiple services. AT&T believes that Internet-
based TRS providers can implement call forwarding and other services to 
offer a one-number solution to users who have registered with that 
provider as their default provider. CSDVRS recommends that providers be 
allowed, but not required, to offer such a functionality as it is an 
enhanced functionality rather than a functionally equivalent feature. 
GoAmerica shares the same view as CSDVRS, but argues that it may be 
problematic to have the same number assigned for different services 
that have different technologies, platforms and endpoints. Sorenson 
recommends deferring the issue to focus resources on the immediate 
challenges of implementing the new numbering system. Similarly, NeuStar 
argues that, ``[a]s technology evolves, it may be possible for a single 
[telephone number] to be associated with multiple services in an IP 
environment, but that time is not here yet.''
    44. Assignment of numbers for multiple types of service. The 
Commission agrees that functional equivalency does not require that an 
Internet-based TRS user be assigned a single ten-digit, NANP number for 
multiple types of services. Given the short timeframe to implement our 
numbering system and the importance of public safety, the Commission 
determines that a ten-digit, geographically appropriate number will be 
associated with the URI of one user, for one type of service, e.g., IP 
Relay or VRS. Nothing in this Order is intended to restrict an 
Internet-based TRS provider from offering a feature that would 
automatically forward an incoming call for the user at one service 
(e.g., VRS) to the user at another service (e.g., IP Relay) in those 
cases where the user has obtained numbers for both services from the 
same provider if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. 
However, a provider that is not a default provider may not be able to 
replicate the same feature based on the information available in the 
Numbering Directory. As the Commission garners experience with the 
numbering system, the Commission will be better able to analyze 
possible solutions to allow a single number to be associated with 
multiple types of services consistent with the emergency handling and 
interoperability rules.
    45. Assignment of telephone numbers for multiple URIs for the same 
type of service. The Commission does not place limits at this time on 
the quantity of telephone numbers that an Internet-based TRS user may 
obtain from Internet-based TRS providers. For example, a VRS user may 
obtain different numbers for VRS devices at different locations such as 
home and office. This meets basic functional equivalency and provides 
more reliable E911 location information. Nothing in this Order is 
intended to restrict an Internet-based TRS provider that has 
provisioned a user with multiple numbers for the same service from 
offering call-forwarding-type features that automatically forward an 
incoming call for the user at a URI associated with one telephone 
number to the user at a URI associated with another telephone number if 
it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. The Commission 
notes, however, that an Internet-based TRS provider that is not the 
default provider of these numbers may not be able to replicate the same 
feature based on the information in the Numbering Directory. Consistent 
with the Commission's rules, each provider of Internet-based TRS is 
required to obtain from each registered Internet-based TRS user the 
physical location at which the service will be first utilized for each 
number and to provide the user one or more methods for updating the 
physical location for each number.
    46. Assignment of telephone numbers for multiple URIs at the same 
location. Because the Commission does not place limits at this time on 
the quantity of telephone numbers that an Internet-based TRS user may 
obtain from Internet-based TRS providers, a user may also obtain 
numbers for different devices on the same premises, such as multiple 
VRS devices in the home. Although the central Numbering Directory does 
not permit a single telephone number to be shared by multiple devices 
at the same location, nothing in this Order restricts an Internet-based 
TRS provider or an independent equipment supplier from developing and 
implementing a solution that provides a ``multiple extensions'' feature 
if it does not result in additional costs to the Fund. As the 
Commission garners experience with our numbering system, the Commission 
will be better able to analyze possible solutions to allow a single 
number to be associated with multiple devices consistent with emergency 
handling and interoperability rules.
    47. Assignment of telephone numbers for a single URI. Given the 
short timeframe to implement our numbering system and the importance of 
public safety, the Commission finds that if multiple ten-digit, 
geographically appropriate telephone numbers are associated with a 
single URI, they must all be provided by a single Internet-based TRS 
provider. Thus, only one Internet-based TRS provider is responsible for 
managing the Registered Location information associated with that URI. 
This requirement will reduce the likelihood of conflicting Registered 
Location information for the same URI.
    48. Recapturing unused numbers. Because the Commission anticipates 
that providers will not encourage consumers to obtain more telephone 
numbers than they actually intend to use, the Commission declines to 
put into effect a means to recapture unused numbers at this time, but 
will monitor the situation and reserve the right to do so at a later 
date.

F. Numbering Costs

    49. In the Internet-based TRS Order, the Commission concluded that 
Internet-based TRS providers may seek compensation from the Fund for 
their reasonable actual costs of complying with the requirements 
adopted in that order. The Order further concluded that

[[Page 79691]]

costs recoverable from the Fund may include those directly related to: 
(1) Ensuring that database information is properly and timely updated 
and maintained; (2) processing and transmitting calls made to ten-digit 
numbers assigned pursuant to the Internet-based TRS Order; (3) routing 
emergency calls to an appropriate PSAP; (4) other implementation tasks 
directly related to facilitating ten-digit numbering and emergency call 
handling; and (5) consumer outreach and education related to the 
requirements and services adopted in the Internet-based TRS Order.
    50. At the same time, the Commission stated that those numbering 
costs compensable from the Fund did not include ``those costs directly 
related to consumers' acquiring a ten-digit number or to the costs 
associated with number portability.'' Noting that voice telephone users 
generally bear these costs, the Commission sought comment on ``whether 
Internet-based TRS users acquiring ten-digit numbers should also bear 
these costs. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether 
other specific costs associated with numbering should, consistent with 
costs paid by voice telephone users, be passed on to consumers, 
``including, for example, E911 charges.'' As explained more fully 
below, the Commission concludes that certain costs, which typically are 
borne by consumers of voice communication services, are not compensable 
from the Fund and, at the election of each provider and subject to 
Commission approval (as explained below), may be passed on to Internet-
based TRS users who are registered with that provider. These costs 
include: (1) Costs associated with an Internet-based TRS consumer's 
acquisition of a ten-digit geographic telephone number, (2) costs 
associated with an Internet-based TRS consumer's acquisition and usage 
of a toll free telephone number; and (3) any E911 charges that may be 
imposed on Interstate TRS providers under a state or local E911 funding 
mechanism. The Commission also addresses below number portability 
costs.
    51. Costs Relating to the Acquisition of a Ten-Digit Geographic 
Number. Section 225 states that the Commission's regulations shall 
``require that users of [TRS] pay rates no greater than the rates paid 
for functionally equivalent voice communication services with respect 
to such factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and the 
distance from point of origination to point of termination.'' As noted 
in the Further Notice, Congress therefore contemplated that TRS 
consumers would pay certain costs associated with making a call, just 
not the additional costs that are attributable to the use of a relay 
service to facilitate the call. Because number acquisition costs are 
not attributable to the use of relay to facilitate a call, and because 
the record reflects that these costs generally are borne by users of 
voice communication services, the Commission finds, consistent with 
section 225 and the functional equivalency mandate, that number 
acquisition costs are not compensable from the Fund. Therefore, a 
provider that assigns a telephone number to a consumer may pass the 
costs on to that consumer. However, to ensure that only these customer-
specific, actually incurred costs are passed on, the Commission 
requires that any Internet-based TRS provider wishing to pass on 
numbering-related costs to its users first obtain Commission approval. 
The Commission delegates to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau the authority to rule on such requests.
    52. Commenters' arguments that costs of obtaining ten-digit 
telephone numbers should not be borne by consumers are insufficient to 
justify treating Internet-based TRS users differently than users of 
voice communication services with respect to passing through number 
assignment costs to end users. First, some commenters contend that 
number assignment costs are ``generally small'' and, as such, do not 
justify the administrative expense that would be involved in recovering 
them from consumers. The Commission disagrees. Internet-based TRS 
providers reasonably may take into consideration the administrative 
cost of billing consumers in determining whether to pass certain 
numbering costs on to consumers and, if so, how much to charge. The 
fact that providers may incur administrative expenses, however, does 
not justify treating Internet-based TRS users differently from users of 
voice communication services.
    53. Second, the Commission disagrees with the contention that it 
should allow costs associated with acquiring numbers to be reimbursed 
by the Fund to the extent that anticipated ``cost savings'' resulting 
from the Internet-based TRS Order (associated with a possible future 
reduction in IP relay fraud) can be expected to ``outweigh'' the cost 
of acquiring numbers. Potential ``cost savings'' to the Fund resulting 
from a reduction in IP Relay fraud similarly does not provide a basis 
for treating Internet-based TRS users differently in this context, 
given that the approach the Commission adopts here is consistent with 
the language and functional equivalency objective of section 225.
    54. Finally, GoAmerica asserts that it is ``discriminatory'' to 
charge deaf and hard of hearing persons for telephone numbers because 
Internet-based TRS users already ``pay more for the ability to 
communicate than hearing persons.'' In particular, GoAmerica suggests 
that Internet-based TRS users must incur the cost of high speed 
Internet access, in addition to the cost of a regular telephone line, 
in order to have both TTY access and access to VRS. The record, 
however, does not support this claim. The record reflects that hearing 
consumers who use interconnected VoIP services may pay as much, if not 
more, than Internet-based TRS users for service costs that may include 
number assignment charges, other associated fees, and broadband 
Internet access. The Commission therefore finds that Internet-based TRS 
consumers' costs t