Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 14568-14570 [05-5736]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14568
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice),
published at 64 FR 7763, February 16,
1999. In the Third Report and Order, the
Commission adopted a number of rules
proposed in the Further Notice, and
addressed most issues raised on
reconsideration of the Second Report
and Order. In addition, in the First
Reconsideration Order, published at 65
FR 47678, August 3, 2000, the
Commission amended portions of the
rules regarding liability for slamming
that had been stayed by the DC Circuit
Court. Finally, in the Third
Reconsideration Order, we addressed
remaining petitions for reconsideration
of the previous orders, and modified
certain rules concerning, amongst other
things, verifications of carrier change
requests and liability for slamming.
In the Reconsideration Order, we
addressed petitions filed by a coalition
of independent local exchange carriers
(LEC Petitioners) seeking
reconsideration of the Commission’s
verification requirement for in-bound
carrier change request calls.
Additionally, we addressed a petition
filed by AT&T seeking clarification of
the decision to apply our slamming
rules to newly-installed lines. Finally,
we addressed a petition filed by
WorldCom (MCI) seeking a finding that
credits made to the consumer before a
slamming complaint has been filed will
be considered ‘‘unpaid’’ when
calculating liability under the slamming
rules, or will be deducted from the
amount owed to the authorized carrier
by a carrier found liable for a slam.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
In the Reconsideration Order, the
Commission promulgates no additional
final rules, and our present action is,
therefore, not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended.
Report to Congress
The Commission will not send a copy
of this Fifth Order on Reconsideration
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act because the Fifth Order on
Reconsideration neither adopts nor
modifies a rule.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201,
206–208, and 258 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
201, 206–208, and 258, and §§ 1.421 and
1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.421 and 1.429, that this Fifth Order on
Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 94–
129 is adopted.
Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 4(j) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C 151, 154(i), and
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:14 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
154(j), and §§ 1.3, 1.43, and 1.429 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.43,
and 1.429, that the petitions for waiver,
emergency partial stay, and
reconsideration filed by the LEC
Petitioners, LEC Commenters, TDS
Telecom and the Nebraska LECs are
denied.
Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 4(j) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and
154(j), and § 1.429 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that AT&T’s
petition for reconsideration or
clarification is granted to the extent
indicated herein.
Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 4(j) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and
154(j), and § 1.429 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that MCI’s petition
for reconsideration is denied.
The Commission’s Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Fifth Order on Reconsideration to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–5737 Filed 3–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 98–67, CG Docket No. 03–
123; DA 05–447]
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Clarification.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission addresses the current
waiver of the telecommunications relay
services (TRS) requirement that TRS
providers (including providers of
captioned telephone service) offer threeway calling functionality as a TRS
mandatory standard. Also in this
document, the Commission clarifies the
manner in which TRS providers may
comply with this rule; as a result, a
waiver of this requirement is no longer
necessary.
DATES: Effective February 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Jackson, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office at (202) 418–2247 (voice),
(202) 418–7898 (TTY), or e-mail at
Dana.Jackson@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
17, 2003, the Commission released a
Second Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration (Second Improved TRS
Order), published at 68 FR 50973,
August 25, 2003, CC Docket No. 98–67
and CG Docket No. 03–123; FCC 03–
112. In the Second Improved TRS Order,
the Commission required that TRS
providers offer three-way calling as a
standard feature of TRS. On February
24, 2004, the Commission released an
order waiving the requirement that TRS
providers offer three-way calling
functionality for one year until February
25, 2005. On November 30, 2004, the
Commission released a Public Notice,
published at 70 FR 2360, January 13,
2005, CC Docket No. 98–67 and CG
Docket No. 03–123; DA 04–3709,
seeking comment on whether TRS
providers (including providers of
captioned telephone service) will be
able to offer the three-way calling
functionality as a TRS mandatory
minimum standard as of the February
24, 2005, waiver expiration date, or
whether it is necessary to extend this
waiver. Also, in that document, the
Commission sought comment on
whether, instead of a waiver, the
requirement might be modified or
clarified, and, if so, how. This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document DA 05–447, released
February 18, 2005. This document does
not contain new or modified
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, it does not contain any new or
modified ‘‘information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The Commission will
not send a copy of this document
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act because the document neither
adopts nor modifies a rule, but clarifies
an existing rule. See 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY). This document can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.
Synopsis
In the Second Improved TRS Order &
NPRM, the Commission required that
TRS providers offer three-way calling as
a standard feature of TRS. See
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Second Report and Order,
Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No.
98–67 and CG Docket No. 03–123, FCC
03–112; published at 68 FR 50973 and
68 FR 50993, August 25, 2003, (Second
Improved TRS Order & NPRM). We
defined three-way calling to be a TRS
feature that allows more than two
parties to be on the telephone line at the
same time with the communications
assistant (CA). We stated that three-way
calling could be arranged in one of two
ways: first, the TRS consumer may
request that the TRS facility and the CA
set up the call with two other parties, or,
second, one of the parties to the call
may set up the call.
In the August 1, 2003, Captioned
Telephone Order, we recognized
captioned telephone service as a type of
TRS. See Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling, CC
Docket No. 98–67, FCC 03–190;
published at 68 FR 55898, September
29, 2003, (Captioned Telephone Order).
Captioned telephone service is an
enhanced Voice Carry Over (VCO)
service that allows a user, on one
standard telephone line, to both listen to
what the other party is saying and
simultaneously read captions of what
the other party is saying. This way, a
typical user of this service, who has the
ability to speak and some residual
hearing, can both listen to what is said
over the telephone and read captions for
clarification. A CA using specially
developed voice recognition technology
generates the captions. That order did
not waive the requirement that
providers of captioned telephone
service offer three-way calling.
On September 24, 2003, AT&T Corp.
(AT&T) filed a petition seeking waiver
of the deadline for providing three-way
calling, asserting it was not possible for
the TRS facility to set up a three-way
call, subject to clarification regarding
how three-way calling may be provided
in compliance with the Commission’s
regulations. See AT&T Petition for
Limited Reconsideration and for Waiver
at 7–10 (filed Sept. 24, 2003) (AT&T
Waiver Request). The AT&T Waiver
Request was placed on Public Notice
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:14 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
and comments and reply comments
were received in response. All of the
commenters stated that they interpreted
the three-way calling requirement to be
fully satisfied if a TRS facility processes
such a call initiated by an end user
using a LEC’s customer calling service
(CCS) feature. See Three-Way Calling
Waiver Order at paragraph 4 &n.9; 19
FCC Rcd 2993, February 24, 2004.
On December 11, 2003, Ultratec, Inc.
(Ultratec) and Sprint Corporation
(Sprint) filed a joint petition, (see
Petition for Clarification by Ultratec,
Inc. and Sprint Corporation) (filed Dec.
11, 2003) (Joint Petition), seeking
clarification that the three-way calling
requirement either does not apply to
captioned telephone service, such as
CapTel, or, in the alternative, that a TRS
provider complies with this rule
regardless of the actual method used to
set up these calls. CapTel is a
proprietary technology of Ultratec. See
Captioned Telephone Order at
paragraph 4 n. 11.
On February 24, 2004, in response to
these petitions, the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau)
released an order waiving the
requirement that TRS providers offer
three-way calling functionality for one
year, i.e., until February 24, 2005. See
Three-Way Calling Waiver Order at
paragraph 5. The Bureau noted that it
was not technologically possible for a
TRS facility to set up a three-way call.
On November 30, 2004, in
anticipation of the February 24, 2005
expiration date of the three-way calling
waiver as set forth in the Three-Way
Calling Waiver Order, the Commission
released a Public Notice seeking
comment on whether TRS providers
would be able to offer three-way calling
as of the waiver expiration date, or
whether it is necessary to extend the
waiver. See Federal Communications
Commission Seeks Comment on
Expiration of Waiver of Three-Way
Calling Requirement for Providers of
Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS), in CC Docket No. 98–67, CG
Docket No. 03–123, DA 04–3709;
published at 70 FR 2360, January 13,
2005. The Commission also sought
comment on whether, instead of a
waiver, the requirement might be
modified or clarified and, if so, how.
In response to the November 30, 2004,
Public Notice, four comments and two
reply comments were filed. Comments
were filed by AT&T (Dec. 17, 2004); MCI
(Dec. 17, 2004); SBC Communications,
Inc. (SBC) (Dec. 17, 2004); and Ultratec,
Sprint, & Hamilton Relay, Inc.
(Hamilton) (as Joint Commenters) (Dec.
17, 2004). Reply Comments were filed
by Hamilton (Dec. 30, 2004) and by
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14569
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
(TDI) & National Association of the Deaf
(NAD) (as Joint Commenters) (Dec. 30,
2004). All commenters generally agree
that it is still not technologically
possible for a TRS facility to originate or
set up a three-way call. See AT&T
Comments at 3–4; SBC Comments at 2;
Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint
Comments at 3–6; Hamilton Reply
Comments at 2; and TDI & NAD Joint
Reply Comments at 2. MCI, however,
suggests that it can establish a three-way
call, and that the waiver for three-way
calling should be allowed to expire. MCI
Comments at 2.
All parties also generally agree that
the three-way calling requirement
should be deemed satisfied if the
provider handles or facilitates a threeway call when arranged by one of the
parties to the call. See, e.g., AT&T
Comments at 3; Ultratec, Sprint, &
Hamilton Joint Comments at 4–6. AT&T
states, for example, that it ‘‘processes
three-way TRS calls established by the
end user through LEC-provided CCS
[custom calling features] or through
bridging via the user’s own premises
equipment,’’ and that ‘‘the most
reasonable interpretation of the Second
Improved TRS Order is that the
Commission requirement is fully
satisfied if a TRS center processes such
three-way calling initiated in that
manner.’’
Ultratec, Sprint, and Hamilton assert
that a captioned telephone provider or
CA is not capable of initiating or setting
up a three-way call. See Ultratec, Sprint,
& Hamilton Joint Comments at 3–4.
They further note that the ‘‘CapTel
technology does not permit CapTel
users to set up three-way calling from
their captioned telephone devices.’’
They assert that the three-way calling
requirement should be interpreted to
mean that the provider must be capable
of handling a three-way call if any of the
parties to the call sets up the call; i.e.,
that the three-way calling requirement is
met if the ‘‘parties to a relay call are able
to participate in a [three-way call], even
if the TRS providers handling these
calls are not able to set up these calls
themselves.’’ They add that ‘‘CapTel
services, as well as other TRS services
provided by Hamilton and Sprint, are
already in compliance with this
interpretation of the * * * three-way
calling standard.’’ See also TDI & NAD
Joint Reply Comments at 2 (agreeing
with Ultratec, Sprint and Hamilton’s
view that the three-way calling
obligation is met when parties to a relay
call are able to participate in a threeway call, even if the TRS provider is not
able to set up the call).
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
14570
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Based upon our review of the prior
orders addressing this issue, and the
comments, we clarify that TRS
providers (including providers of
captioned telephone service) will satisfy
the three-way calling requirement set
forth in the Second Improved TRS Order
& NPRM if they ensure that the TRS
facility or CA facilitates or handles a
three-way call, as the CA would handle
any TRS call, where and to the extent
the three-way call has been arranged by
any one of the parties to the call, e.g.,
using a party’s LEC-provided custom
calling service (CCS), by bridging two
telephone lines via customer terminal
equipment, or by some other means.
Therefore, we clarify that TRS providers
are not required to be able to arrange,
initiate, or set up a three-way call (but
they may do so).
In addition, because providers may
meet the three-way calling requirement
in various ways, we will not further
specify any particular method(s) of
handling such calls, so long as the
provider is able to handle or facilitate a
three-way call, in some manner,
whether initiated by one of the parties
to the call or set up by the provider. We
therefore agree with Sprint that there is
no requirement that a captioned
telephone provider be able to set up a
three-way call, or that the captioned
telephone user be able to initiate a
three-way call, so long as the captioned
telephone provider provides for threeway calling in some manner. See
Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint
Comments at 3–6.
We believe that permitting flexibility
in the manner in which a provider
handles or facilitates three-way calling
is consistent with the ultimate objective
of ensuring that TRS users have access
to this feature. AT&T requests that we
clarify the ‘‘appropriate basis for billing
end users that are parties to the
conference call.’’ AT&T Comments at 4
n.10. In the Second Improved TRS
Order & NPRM we addressed how the
costs of three-way TRS calls may be
recovered from the Interstate TRS Fund.
Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM at
paragraphs 74–75. To the extent AT&T
seeks guidance on how a provider may
recover the costs of providing three-way
calling service generally (i.e., not the
costs of providing the relay service), we
note only that a provider may not
impose charges on a TRS user that are
different than those that would be
charged to a hearing person using voice
telephone service and the three-way
calling feature.
Because we have clarified that a TRS
provider meets the three-way calling
requirement set forth in the Second
Improved TRS Order & NPRM by
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:14 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
handling such calls when initiated or
set up by one of the parties to the call
(or by the provider setting up the call),
the record reflects that waiver of this
requirement is no longer necessary.
Accordingly, the one-year waiver of this
requirement set forth in the Three-Way
Calling Waiver Order will expire,
pursuant to that order, on February 24,
2005.
The expiration of this waiver will not
affect the current three-way calling
waiver for IP Relay and VRS. See
Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM at
paragraph 76.
Federal Communications Commission.
Jay Keithley,
Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–5736 Filed 3–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 05–556; MB Docket No. 04–301, RM–
10969; MB Docket No. 04–302, RM–11020;
MB Docket No. 04–303, RM–11025; MB
Docket No. 04–304, RM–11021; MB Docket
No. 04–306, RM–10754; MB Docket No. 04–
307, RM–10982; MB Docket No. 04–308,
RM–10973; MB Docket No. 04–309, RM–
10974]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Kerman,
CA, Lockney, TX, Lone Wolf, OK,
Quanah, TX, Orchard Mesa, CO, Rising
Star, TX, Twentynine Palms, CA,
Waterford, CA
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document adds eight
new allotments in Kerman, California,
Lockney, Texas, Lone Wolf, Oklahoma,
Quanah, Texas, Orchard Mesa,
Colorado, Rising Star, Texas,
Twentynine Palms, California, and
Waterford, California. The Audio
Division, at the request of Linda A.
Davidson, allots Channel 224A at
Kerman, California, as the community’s
third local aural transmission service.
Channel 224A can be allotted to Kerman
in compliance with the Commission’s
minimum distance separation
requirements with a site restriction of
13.8 kilometers (8.6 miles) west to avoid
a short-spacing to the license sites of FM
Station KZFO, Channel 224B, Clovis,
California and FM Station KMJO,
Channel 224B1, Marina, California. The
reference coordinates for Channel 224A
at Kerman are 36–40–37 North Latitude
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and 120–12–08 West Longitude.
Supplementary Information, infra.
DATES: Effective April 18, 2005. The
window period for filing applications
for these allotments will not be opened
at this time. Instead, the issue of
opening these allotments for auction
will be addressed by the Commission in
a subsequent order.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket Nos. 04–301, 04–
302, 04–303, 04–304, 04–306, 04–307,
04–308, 04–309, adopted March 2, 2005
and released March 4, 2005. The full
text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying
during regular business hours at the
FCC’s Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1–
800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission
will send a copy of this Report and
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).
The Audio Division, at the request of
Charles Crawford, allots Channel 271C3
at Lockney, Texas, as the community’s
first local aural transmission service.
Channel 271C3 can be allotted to
Lockney in compliance with the
Commission’s minimum distance
separation requirements with a site
restriction of 6.7 kilometers (4.2 miles)
southeast to avoid a short-spacing to the
vacant allotment site of Channel 269A at
Turkey, Texas and the license site of FM
Station KATP, Channel 270C1,
Amarillo, Texas and Station KZII–FM,
Channel 273C3, Clovis, New Mexico.
The reference coordinates for Channel
271C3 at Lockney are 34–05–00 North
Latitude and 101–23–15 West
Longitude.
The Audio Division, at the request of
Charles Crawford, allots Channel 224A
at Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, as the
community’s first local aural
transmission service. Channel 224A can
be allotted to Lone Wolf in compliance
with the Commission’s minimum
distance separation requirements with a
site restriction of 7.8 kilometers (4.8
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14568-14570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5736]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123; DA 05-447]
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses the current waiver
of the telecommunications relay services (TRS) requirement that TRS
providers (including providers of captioned telephone service) offer
three-way calling functionality as a TRS mandatory standard. Also in
this document, the Commission clarifies the manner in which TRS
providers may comply with this rule; as a result, a waiver of this
requirement is no longer necessary.
DATES: Effective February 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Jackson, Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-2247 (voice),
(202) 418-7898 (TTY), or e-mail at Dana.Jackson@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 17, 2003, the Commission released a
Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration (Second Improved TRS
Order), published at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 2003, CC Docket No. 98-67
and CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 03-112. In the Second Improved TRS Order,
the Commission required that TRS providers offer three-way calling as a
standard feature of TRS. On February 24, 2004, the Commission released
an order waiving the requirement that TRS providers offer three-way
calling functionality for one year until February 25, 2005. On November
30, 2004, the Commission released a Public Notice, published at 70 FR
2360, January 13, 2005, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123;
DA 04-3709, seeking comment on whether TRS providers (including
providers of captioned telephone service) will be able to offer the
three-way calling functionality as a TRS mandatory minimum standard as
of the February 24, 2005, waiver expiration date, or whether it is
necessary to extend this waiver. Also, in that document, the Commission
sought comment on whether, instead of a waiver, the requirement might
be modified or clarified, and, if so, how. This is a summary of the
Commission's document DA 05-447, released February 18, 2005. This
document does not contain new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified
``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The
Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act because the document neither adopts nor
modifies a rule, but clarifies an existing rule. See 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A). To request materials in accessible formats for people
with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable
[[Page 14569]]
Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.
Synopsis
In the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM, the Commission required
that TRS providers offer three-way calling as a standard feature of
TRS. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Second
Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 03-112;
published at 68 FR 50973 and 68 FR 50993, August 25, 2003, (Second
Improved TRS Order & NPRM). We defined three-way calling to be a TRS
feature that allows more than two parties to be on the telephone line
at the same time with the communications assistant (CA). We stated that
three-way calling could be arranged in one of two ways: first, the TRS
consumer may request that the TRS facility and the CA set up the call
with two other parties, or, second, one of the parties to the call may
set up the call.
In the August 1, 2003, Captioned Telephone Order, we recognized
captioned telephone service as a type of TRS. See Telecommunications
Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 98-
67, FCC 03-190; published at 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003,
(Captioned Telephone Order). Captioned telephone service is an enhanced
Voice Carry Over (VCO) service that allows a user, on one standard
telephone line, to both listen to what the other party is saying and
simultaneously read captions of what the other party is saying. This
way, a typical user of this service, who has the ability to speak and
some residual hearing, can both listen to what is said over the
telephone and read captions for clarification. A CA using specially
developed voice recognition technology generates the captions. That
order did not waive the requirement that providers of captioned
telephone service offer three-way calling.
On September 24, 2003, AT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed a petition seeking
waiver of the deadline for providing three-way calling, asserting it
was not possible for the TRS facility to set up a three-way call,
subject to clarification regarding how three-way calling may be
provided in compliance with the Commission's regulations. See AT&T
Petition for Limited Reconsideration and for Waiver at 7-10 (filed
Sept. 24, 2003) (AT&T Waiver Request). The AT&T Waiver Request was
placed on Public Notice and comments and reply comments were received
in response. All of the commenters stated that they interpreted the
three-way calling requirement to be fully satisfied if a TRS facility
processes such a call initiated by an end user using a LEC's customer
calling service (CCS) feature. See Three-Way Calling Waiver Order at
paragraph 4 &n.9; 19 FCC Rcd 2993, February 24, 2004.
On December 11, 2003, Ultratec, Inc. (Ultratec) and Sprint
Corporation (Sprint) filed a joint petition, (see Petition for
Clarification by Ultratec, Inc. and Sprint Corporation) (filed Dec. 11,
2003) (Joint Petition), seeking clarification that the three-way
calling requirement either does not apply to captioned telephone
service, such as CapTel, or, in the alternative, that a TRS provider
complies with this rule regardless of the actual method used to set up
these calls. CapTel is a proprietary technology of Ultratec. See
Captioned Telephone Order at paragraph 4 n. 11.
On February 24, 2004, in response to these petitions, the Consumer
& Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) released an order waiving the
requirement that TRS providers offer three-way calling functionality
for one year, i.e., until February 24, 2005. See Three-Way Calling
Waiver Order at paragraph 5. The Bureau noted that it was not
technologically possible for a TRS facility to set up a three-way call.
On November 30, 2004, in anticipation of the February 24, 2005
expiration date of the three-way calling waiver as set forth in the
Three-Way Calling Waiver Order, the Commission released a Public Notice
seeking comment on whether TRS providers would be able to offer three-
way calling as of the waiver expiration date, or whether it is
necessary to extend the waiver. See Federal Communications Commission
Seeks Comment on Expiration of Waiver of Three-Way Calling Requirement
for Providers of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), in CC Docket
No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, DA 04-3709; published at 70 FR 2360,
January 13, 2005. The Commission also sought comment on whether,
instead of a waiver, the requirement might be modified or clarified
and, if so, how.
In response to the November 30, 2004, Public Notice, four comments
and two reply comments were filed. Comments were filed by AT&T (Dec.
17, 2004); MCI (Dec. 17, 2004); SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) (Dec.
17, 2004); and Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) (as
Joint Commenters) (Dec. 17, 2004). Reply Comments were filed by
Hamilton (Dec. 30, 2004) and by Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
(TDI) & National Association of the Deaf (NAD) (as Joint Commenters)
(Dec. 30, 2004). All commenters generally agree that it is still not
technologically possible for a TRS facility to originate or set up a
three-way call. See AT&T Comments at 3-4; SBC Comments at 2; Ultratec,
Sprint, & Hamilton Joint Comments at 3-6; Hamilton Reply Comments at 2;
and TDI & NAD Joint Reply Comments at 2. MCI, however, suggests that it
can establish a three-way call, and that the waiver for three-way
calling should be allowed to expire. MCI Comments at 2.
All parties also generally agree that the three-way calling
requirement should be deemed satisfied if the provider handles or
facilitates a three-way call when arranged by one of the parties to the
call. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3; Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint
Comments at 4-6. AT&T states, for example, that it ``processes three-
way TRS calls established by the end user through LEC-provided CCS
[custom calling features] or through bridging via the user's own
premises equipment,'' and that ``the most reasonable interpretation of
the Second Improved TRS Order is that the Commission requirement is
fully satisfied if a TRS center processes such three-way calling
initiated in that manner.''
Ultratec, Sprint, and Hamilton assert that a captioned telephone
provider or CA is not capable of initiating or setting up a three-way
call. See Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint Comments at 3-4. They
further note that the ``CapTel technology does not permit CapTel users
to set up three-way calling from their captioned telephone devices.''
They assert that the three-way calling requirement should be
interpreted to mean that the provider must be capable of handling a
three-way call if any of the parties to the call sets up the call;
i.e., that the three-way calling requirement is met if the ``parties to
a relay call are able to participate in a [three-way call], even if the
TRS providers handling these calls are not able to set up these calls
themselves.'' They add that ``CapTel services, as well as other TRS
services provided by Hamilton and Sprint, are already in compliance
with this interpretation of the * * * three-way calling standard.'' See
also TDI & NAD Joint Reply Comments at 2 (agreeing with Ultratec,
Sprint and Hamilton's view that the three-way calling obligation is met
when parties to a relay call are able to participate in a three-way
call, even if the TRS provider is not able to set up the call).
[[Page 14570]]
Based upon our review of the prior orders addressing this issue,
and the comments, we clarify that TRS providers (including providers of
captioned telephone service) will satisfy the three-way calling
requirement set forth in the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM if they
ensure that the TRS facility or CA facilitates or handles a three-way
call, as the CA would handle any TRS call, where and to the extent the
three-way call has been arranged by any one of the parties to the call,
e.g., using a party's LEC-provided custom calling service (CCS), by
bridging two telephone lines via customer terminal equipment, or by
some other means. Therefore, we clarify that TRS providers are not
required to be able to arrange, initiate, or set up a three-way call
(but they may do so).
In addition, because providers may meet the three-way calling
requirement in various ways, we will not further specify any particular
method(s) of handling such calls, so long as the provider is able to
handle or facilitate a three-way call, in some manner, whether
initiated by one of the parties to the call or set up by the provider.
We therefore agree with Sprint that there is no requirement that a
captioned telephone provider be able to set up a three-way call, or
that the captioned telephone user be able to initiate a three-way call,
so long as the captioned telephone provider provides for three-way
calling in some manner. See Ultratec, Sprint, & Hamilton Joint Comments
at 3-6.
We believe that permitting flexibility in the manner in which a
provider handles or facilitates three-way calling is consistent with
the ultimate objective of ensuring that TRS users have access to this
feature. AT&T requests that we clarify the ``appropriate basis for
billing end users that are parties to the conference call.'' AT&T
Comments at 4 n.10. In the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM we
addressed how the costs of three-way TRS calls may be recovered from
the Interstate TRS Fund. Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM at paragraphs
74-75. To the extent AT&T seeks guidance on how a provider may recover
the costs of providing three-way calling service generally (i.e., not
the costs of providing the relay service), we note only that a provider
may not impose charges on a TRS user that are different than those that
would be charged to a hearing person using voice telephone service and
the three-way calling feature.
Because we have clarified that a TRS provider meets the three-way
calling requirement set forth in the Second Improved TRS Order & NPRM
by handling such calls when initiated or set up by one of the parties
to the call (or by the provider setting up the call), the record
reflects that waiver of this requirement is no longer necessary.
Accordingly, the one-year waiver of this requirement set forth in the
Three-Way Calling Waiver Order will expire, pursuant to that order, on
February 24, 2005.
The expiration of this waiver will not affect the current three-way
calling waiver for IP Relay and VRS. See Second Improved TRS Order &
NPRM at paragraph 76.
Federal Communications Commission.
Jay Keithley,
Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-5736 Filed 3-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
