Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, 33170-33192 [2016-12057]
Download as PDF
33170
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the notice of proposed rulemaking, at
the address given above. Please refer to
the notice of proposed rulemaking for
detailed information on accessing
information related to the proposal.
Dated: May 19, 2016.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2016–12358 Filed 5–24–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, 64, and 67
[CG Docket No. 16–145 and GN Docket No.
15–178; FCC 16–53]
Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text
Technology
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes amendments to
its rules to facilitate a transition from
outdated text telephone (TTY)
technology to a reliable and
interoperable means of providing realtime text (RTT) communication for
people who are deaf, hard of hearing,
speech disabled, and deaf-blind over
Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks
and services.
DATES: Comments are due July 11, 2016
and Reply Comments are due July 25,
2016.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 16–145, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), through
the Commission’s Web site https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Web
site for submitting comments. For ECFS
filers, in completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing
address, and CG Docket No. 16–145.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzy Rosen Singleton, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202–
510–9446 or email Suzanne.Singleton@
fcc.gov, or Robert Aldrich, Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
202–418–0996 or email Robert.Aldrich@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission’s ECFS. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
This is a summary of the
Commission’s document FCC 16–53,
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text
Technology, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, adopted April 28, 2016,
and released April 29, 2016, in CG
Docket No. 16–145 and GN Docket No.
15–178. The full text of document FCC
16–53 will be available for public
inspection and copying via ECFS, and
during regular business hours at the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Document FCC 16–53 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rightsoffice-headlines. This proceeding shall
be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 16–53 seeks comment
on proposed rule amendments that may
result in modified information
collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice
in the Federal Register inviting the
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C.
3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
2002, the Commission seeks comment
on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107–198; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Introduction
1. In document FCC 16–53, the
Commission proposes amendments to
its rules to facilitate a transition from
outdated text telephone (TTY)
technology to a reliable and
interoperable means of providing realtime text (RTT) communication for
people who are deaf, hard of hearing,
speech disabled, and deaf-blind over
Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks
and services. RTT is a mode of
communication that permits text to be
sent immediately as it is being created.
As a technology designed for today’s IP
environment, and one that allows the
use of off-the-shelf rather than
specialized end user devices, RTT can,
for the first time in our nation’s history,
enable people with disabilities who rely
on text to use text-based
communications services that are fully
integrated with mainstream
communications services and devices
used by the general public. In addition,
RTT’s advanced features, including its
speed, full character set, reliability, and
ease of use, can significantly improve
access to emergency services for people
with disabilities and help reduce
reliance on telecommunications relay
services.
2. In order to facilitate an effective
and seamless transition to RTT, the
Commission proposes to amend its rules
as follows:
• The Commission proposes to
replace its rules governing the
obligations of wireless service providers
and equipment manufacturers to
support TTY technology with rules
defining the obligations of these entities
to support RTT over IP-based wireless
voice services.
• The Commission proposes that, for
wireless service providers’ and
equipment manufacturers’ support of
RTT to be deemed sufficient for
compliance with the Commission’s
rules:
• RTT communications must be
interoperable across networks and
devices, and this may achieved through
adherence to Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) Request for Comments
4103, Real-time Transport Protocol
Payload for Text Conversation (2005)
(RFC 4103), as a ‘‘safe harbor’’ standard
for RTT;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
• RTT communications must be
backward compatible with TTY
technology, until the Commission
determines that such compatibility is no
longer necessary; and
• Wireless services and equipment
capable of sending, receiving and
displaying text must support specific
RTT functions, features, and capabilities
necessary to ensure that people with
disabilities have accessible and effective
text-based communications service.
• The Commission proposes
establishing timelines for
implementation of RTT as follows:
• For Tier I wireless service
providers, and manufacturers that
provide devices for such services,
implementation of RTT would be
required by December 31, 2017.
• For non-Tier I wireless providers,
and manufacturers of equipment used
with such services, the Commission
seeks comment on an appropriate
timeline for implementation of RTT.
• Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to amend its rules
to place comparable responsibilities to
support RTT on providers and
manufacturers of wireline IP services
and equipment that enable consumers to
initiate and receive communications by
voice.
3. The Commission believes that the
above proposals for the migration from
TTY to RTT technology will ensure that
people with disabilities can fully utilize
and benefit from twenty-first century
communications technologies as our
nation migrates from legacy analog
systems to IP-based networks and
services. The Commission seeks
comment on the tentative conclusions,
proposals, and analyses put forth in
document FCC 16–53, as well as on any
alternative approaches.
Background
4. The Commission has adopted
specific rules requiring support for TTY
technology by providers and
manufacturers of telecommunications
and advanced communications services
and devices. See 47 CFR 6.5, 7.5, 14.20,
14.21, 20.18(c), 64.601(a)(1), (b), 64.603,
64.604(a)(3)(v), (c)(5)(iii). On June 12,
2015, AT&T filed a petition requesting
that the Commission initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to authorize the
substitution of RTT for TTY technology,
as an accessibility solution for use with
IP-based voice communications
networks and services.
Limitations of TTY Technology and the
Need for a Rulemaking
5. TTY technology was developed
more than fifty years ago as a means of
enabling people who are deaf, hard of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33171
hearing, and speech disabled to use the
legacy Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN). The record shows the
significant challenges that TTY
technology presents on IP-based
communication networks and platforms,
including its susceptibility to packet
loss, compression techniques that
distort TTY tones, and echo or other
noises that result from the transmission
of the Baudot character string. These
deficiencies can degrade quality,
augment error rates, and hurt the
reliability of telephone
communications. When these
shortcomings occur, synchronization of
the conversation also can be impeded,
and the transmission can become
garbled until it is restored. For TTY
users, this not only is frustrating, but
also can present a dangerous situation
in an emergency, when effective
communication is critical. TTYs are also
criticized for their slow transmission
speed, their dependency on turn-taking,
their use of significant network
bandwidth, their lack of interoperability
with dedicated text devices used in
other countries, and their limited
character set, the latter of which can
make communicating certain
information, such as email and web
addresses, difficult or impossible.
6. The record shows that these
technical and functional limitations of
TTY technology have resulted in a
steady decline in its use in favor of
other forms of text communication that
offer greater ease of use, improved
features, and practicability. This trend is
also revealed in a survey of the
participants in field trials conducted to
assess the user experience of the quality
and interoperability of RTT and
alternatives. Reports by the Interstate
Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS) Fund Administrator, Rolka Loube,
confirm decreasing reliance on TTYs;
over the past 71⁄2 years, its monthly
filings show a drop of nearly 80 percent
in the number of minutes attributed to
TTY-initiated relay calls. Rolka Loube,
TRS Fund Performance Status Report,
https://www.rolkaloube.com/
#!formsreport/c1zvl. TTYs are hardly
ever used with wireless services.
Instead, consumers have opted for
applications that are native to the IP
environment, such as short messaging
services (SMS), instant messaging,
email, IP Relay Service, and various
social media applications.
7. Support for Commission action
comes from the industry, the
consumers, and the Commission’s
federal advisory bodies that have
addressed this matter over the past
several years. Most recently, in October
2015 and February 2016, the
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33172
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Commission’s Disability Advisory
Committee (DAC) submitted two sets of
recommendations that support the
Commission’s exploration into the use
of RTT or other text-based solutions as
a replacement for TTY technology. Prior
to this, in March 2013, the
Commission’s Emergency Access
Advisory Committee (EAAC)
recommended replacing TTY support
requirements with requirements for
direct access to 911 services via IPbased text communications that include
real-time text.
Proposals for RTT Implementation
8. The Commission proposes to
amend its rules to replace the rules
governing the obligations of wireless
providers and manufacturers to support
TTY technology with rules defining the
obligations of these entities to support
RTT over IP-based wireless voice
services. The Commission tentatively
concludes that the technical and
functional limitations of TTYs make this
technology unsuitable as a long-term
means to provide full and effective
access to IP-based wireless telephone
networks, and that there is a need to
provide individuals who rely on text
communication with a superior
accessibility solution for the IP
environment. The Commission further
tentatively concludes that RTT can best
achieve this goal because it can be well
supported in the wireless IP
environment, will facilitate emergency
communications to 911 services, allows
for more natural and simultaneous
interactions on telephone calls, will
largely eliminate the need to purchase
specialized or assistive devices that
connect to mainstream technology, and
may reduce reliance on
telecommunications relay services.
RTT Support by Wireless Providers and
Manufacturers
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Transmission of RTT Over IP-Based
Wireless Services
9. To achieve an effective and timely
transition to RTT, the Commission
proposes to require RTT support at a
specified time in the future, but also
seeks comment on the extent to which
there should be an interim period
preceding such deadline, during which
covered entities would be allowed to
provide either RTT or TTY support on
IP-based wireless services. The
Commission believes that establishing
an RTT requirement is necessary to
ensure that people with disabilities
continue to have effective access to
wireless communications services as
these services make the transition to an
all-IP environment, and seeks comment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
on this approach. To this end, the
Commission proposes the following
revisions to its rules:
• Amend § 20.18(c) to require
wireless IP-based voice service
providers to be capable of transmitting
911 calls from individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or speech
disabled through RTT technology, in
lieu of transmitting 911 calls from TTYs
over IP networks;
• Amend part 64 to require wireless
interconnected voice-over-IP (VoIP)
service providers to support TRS access
through RTT technology, including 711
abbreviated dialing access, in lieu of
supporting TRS access via TTY
technology;
• Amend parts 6 and 7 to require
providers of wireless interconnected
VoIP services subject to these rules to
provide and support RTT, if readily
achievable, in lieu of providing
connectability and compatibility with
TTYs; and
• Amend part 14 to require providers
of wireless VoIP services subject to
these rules to provide and support RTT,
unless this requirement is not
achievable, in lieu of providing
connectability and compatibility with
TTYs.
End User Device Support for RTT
10. The Commission believes that the
availability of RTT-capable end user
devices for users is essential in order to
facilitate the use of RTT for emergency
purposes, fully integrate RTT capability
into the IP environment, and ensure that
RTT users have the same range of device
choices offered to the general public for
voice communications. To this end, the
Commission further proposes to amend
its rules in the following manner to
address the ability of wireless devices
used by consumers to support RTT.
11. Wireless service providers. For
providers of IP-based voice services, the
Commission proposes to:
• Amend § 20.18(c), which requires
the transmission of 911 calls from TTYs,
and parts 6, 7, and 14 to require that, to
the extent a wireless provider issues
design specifications, purchases for
resale to users, or otherwise authorizes
new handsets or other text-capable end
user devices for use with its IP-based
voice services, the provider shall ensure
that such devices have the ability to
send, receive and display RTT.
• If it is not readily achievable (under
parts 6 and 7) or achievable (under part
14) to incorporate RTT capability within
such wireless devices, the wireless
provider shall ensure that such devices
are compatible with RTT-equipped
stand-alone devices or software
applications, ‘‘if readily achievable’’ for
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
equipment subject to parts 6 and 7 of
the rules, and ‘‘unless not achievable’’
for equipment subject to part 14 of the
rules.
12. Manufacturers. For manufacturers
of wireless handsets or other wireless
text-capable end user devices used with
IP-based voice services, the Commission
proposes to amend parts 6, 7, and 14 to
require such manufacturers to:
• Ensure that their devices have the
ability to send, receive, and display
RTT, if readily achievable for equipment
subject to parts 6 and 7 of the rules, and
unless not achievable for equipment
subject to part 14.
• If it is not readily achievable (under
parts 6 and 7) or achievable (under part
14) to incorporate RTT capability within
such devices, ensure that such devices
are compatible with RTT-equipped
stand-alone devices or software
applications, if readily achievable for
equipment subject to parts 6 and 7 of
the rules, and unless not achievable for
equipment subject to part 14 of the
rules.
13. The Commission’s proposal to
create an affirmative requirement for
RTT support is consistent with past
Commission actions and Congressional
mandates to ensure that, as
communications networks evolve to
incorporate new technologies,
accessibility safeguards be amended to
ensure that people with disabilities
continue to have effective access to
communications. The purpose of
section 716, added to the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Act), by the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA),
Public Law 111–260, 124 Stat. 2751
(October 8, 2010), is to ensure that
‘‘advanced communications services’’
(ACS) that incorporate new technologies
are accessible to individuals with
disabilities. 47 U.S.C. 617(a)(1)
(emphasis added). As explained by the
Senate committee report on the CVAA,
the CVAA’s purpose is ‘‘to update the
communications laws’’ to ensure
accessibility, because, since the
previous update in 1996 (when section
255 of the Act was added), ‘‘[i]nternetbased and digital technologies are now
pervasive . . . [and] the extraordinary
benefits of these technological advances
are sometimes not accessible to
individuals with disabilities.’’ S. Rep.
No. 111–386 at 1–2 (2010). Thus, for
example, section 716(d) of the Act
expressly prohibits ACS providers from
‘‘install[ing] network features, functions
or capabilities that impede accessibility
or usability.’’ 47 U.S.C. 617(d). By
requiring wireless providers and
manufacturers, as they deploy IP-based
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
voice services, equipment, and
networks, to implement RTT as a stateof-the-art accessibility technology, the
Commission will ensure not only that
such networks do not impede
accessibility, but that the benefits of
technological advances are accessible to
individuals with disabilities as Congress
intended.
14. The Commission’s proposals are
also intended to avoid repetition of past
failures to build in accessibility at the
outset of technological changes, which
led to long delays in providing access to
new communications technologies for
people with disabilities. For example, in
the mid-1990s, despite the public safety
dangers of leaving people with
disabilities behind as the wireless
industry made its transition from analog
to digital technology, repeated delays
resulted in the lack of access to digital
wireless services by TTY users for over
six years, well past the rise in
popularity of digital technology with the
general public. Similarly, it was not
until 2005 that digital handsets began
integrating hearing aid compatibility,
again despite the introduction of these
handsets in the mid-1990s. Each of
these delays imposed considerable
hardships on people with disabilities,
who remained without digital wireless
access—and without emergency access
via wireless networks—for lengthy
periods of time after these technologies
became available to everyone else.
Additionally, industry efforts that were
needed to eventually achieve such
access—which took place very late in
the design and development process of
building of such phones—proved more
costly and burdensome than would
likely have been the case had
accessibility been incorporated from the
outset.
15. The Commission has noted that
communication networks are rapidly
transitioning away from the historic
provision of time-division multiplexed
(TDM) services running on copper to
new, all-IP multimedia networks using
copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and
fiber as physical infrastructure. As these
changes take place, the Commission
seeks to ensure that its accessibility
rules for IP-based voice networks
achieve the early integration of
accessibility features, so that people
with disabilities can enjoy
communications services as they
emerge, along with the general
population. The Commission believes
that amending its rules to require
support of RTT at this time is likely to
create greater certainty for companies
that have expressed an interest in
deploying RTT, and provide a
supportive regulatory landscape in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
which to do so. With the action taken
today, the Commission expects that
covered entities will have the necessary
incentives to invest and innovate to
improve products employing RTT
functionalities, promoting more
effective access to 911 services and
other communications for individuals
with disabilities.
16. The Commission seeks comment
on its tentative conclusions, proposals,
and analysis, including the costs and
technical feasibility of the proposed rule
amendments, and on any proposed
alternatives. The Commission notes that
in its text-to-911 proceeding, it
determined that significant benefits
could be attained by enabling people
with disabilities to use text to access
emergency services by phone. The
Commission has recognized that as our
nation ages, the number of Americans
who may need alternatives to voice
telephone communications is likely to
increase. The Commission believes that
establishing a requirement to ensure
that RTT is incorporated in wireless IPbased services and devices as these are
designed and developed will reduce the
overall costs of incorporating this access
feature, while ensuring that people with
disabilities are not left behind in the
transition to new technology. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
these assumptions are correct and
generally on the benefits to be derived
from incorporating RTT functionalities
into wireless services and end user
devices, including the benefits that may
accrue for improving access to 911
services.
17. In a joint filing, three technology
research centers, the Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center on
Telecommunications Access, Trace
Research & Development Center at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and
the Gallaudet University Technology
Access Program (Technology Research
Centers), contend that the
implementation of RTT would not add
any hardware costs to support RTT, if
limited to products used for receiving
and displaying RTT that already have a
display large enough to display multiple
lines of text (or software designed to run
on a multi-line display) and a
mechanism for generating text for other
purposes. They and others point out
that many Internet-enabled terminal
devices, including smartphones, tablets,
and VoIP desk phones, already have
such text generation and display
capabilities. Costs also appear to be
minimized if incorporated in the
beginning of the design process. The
Commission seeks comment on the
merits of these assumptions, and on
how they would be affected by the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33173
outcome of the issues raised for
comment in this section regarding the
scope of an equipment capabilities
requirement.
Timelines
18. Larger wireless carriers. The
Commission seeks comment on when its
rules requiring implementation of RTT
should become effective. The
Commission proposes that this be
completed by Tier I wireless service
providers, which offer nationwide
service, no later than December 31,
2017. See 47 CFR 20.19(a)(3)(v) for a
definition of Tier I providers. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the proposed date will afford sufficient
time for this category of providers to
achieve compliance with the rules
proposed in document FCC 16–53.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it would be
preferable to establish a specified
interim period of time—prior to the
deadline set for an RTT requirement—
during which Tier I covered entities
would be allowed to support RTT over
their IP facilities if they are unable to
support TTYs. The Commission asks
parties that believe such interim period
is necessary to explain whether and
how such period would be needed to
afford additional flexibility during the
transition to RTT technology. The
Commission further asks commenters
who disagree with the Commission’s
proposed deadline of December 31,
2017, for Tier I carriers to explain why
additional time would be needed to
achieve deployment of RTT.
19. Smaller wireless carriers. The
Commission proposes that smaller
wireless carriers, to be defined as those
that do not fall into Tier I, be given an
additional period of time to achieve
compliance with the proposed RTT
support requirements beyond the
deployment date proposed for the
larger, Tier I carriers. The Commission
seeks comment on what would be an
appropriate extension of time, as well as
whether the Commission should
distinguish between Tier II (nonnationwide mid-sized commercial
mobile radio service (CMRS) providers
with greater than 500,000 subscribers)
and Tier III carriers (non-nationwide
small CMRS providers with no more
than 500,000 subscribers) in
determining appropriate benchmarks for
these providers. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it would be more appropriate to tie the
obligations of these carriers to the
timing of their transition to IP-based
wireless technologies, such as IMS/
VoLTE or 4G services. Finally, to what
extent would it be appropriate to
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
33174
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
establish an interim transitional period,
akin to what is discussed above for Tier
I carriers, during which such smaller
carriers would be allowed, but not
required, to support RTT in lieu of TTY
technology?
20. End user devices. The
Commission proposes that the timeline
established for RTT support over IPbased wireless services apply as well to
handsets and other text-capable end
user devices for use with such services,
and thus proposes that any such
handsets or devices sold after December
31, 2017, have RTT capability, and
seeks comment on this proposal.
Making this requirement effective at the
same time that wireless services are
required to become RTT-capable would
ensure that sufficient handsets are
available for people with disabilities to
have access to text communications in
real time after the existing orders
waiving service provider requirements
for TTY support expire. Will the
proposed December 2017 deadline for
the Tier I service providers allow
sufficient time to incorporate RTT
capability in end user devices? Is it
more appropriate for the deadline
established for end user devices to
apply to the date on which new devices
are manufactured, rather than first made
available to the general public?
21. In addition to requiring the
inclusion of RTT support on new
terminal devices, consistent with
statutory requirements for
telecommunications access and access
to advanced communications services
and equipment, should there be a
requirement to add RTT capability to
end user devices already in service at
the compliance deadline, at ‘‘natural
opportunities,’’ previously defined by
the Commission to occur upon the
redesign of a product model or service,
new versions of software, upgrades to
existing features or functionalities,
significant rebundling or unbundling of
product and service packages, or any
other significant modification that may
require redesign? Further, to the extent
that it is not achievable under section
716 of the Act or readily achievable
under section 255 of the Act to make an
end user device accessible through RTT,
by what date should such device be
made compatible with a stand-alone
RTT device or app to the extent that
these become available?
22. The Commission also seeks
comment on the period of time, if any,
that over-the-top applications or plugins for RTT should be permitted as an
interim measure to achieve RTT on end
user devices, and if permitted as overthe-top applications, whether
manufacturers and service providers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
should be required to pre-install such
applications on devices before they are
sold to the public. Specifically, the
Commission proposes that the use of an
over-the-top application as an interim
solution, such as that which AT&T is
achieving, will be sufficient to
constitute compliance with the RTT
requirement by December 31, 2017, and
seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. At the same time, the
Commission asks to what extent the
Commission should be concerned that
the many advantages of RTT as a
universal text solution will not be
achieved until RTT is incorporated as a
native function in end user devices, or
at a minimum, pre-installed by the
manufacturer or service provider as a
‘‘default’’ application. The Commission
seeks comment on whether this concern
should guide its final rules, and further
seeks comment on what functionalities
of RTT, and what associated benefits of
RTT, if any, would be unavailable if it
is initially implemented as an over-thetop application rather than as native
functionality. With this in mind, the
Commission asks commenters to
provide specific parameters for and
factual showings justifying any
timelines they propose for transitioning
to native RTT functionality in covered
devices.
Advantages of RTT
23. IP-Based Technology. There is
general agreement among AT&T and
those commenting on its petition that
RTT is an effective alternative to TTY
technology for the IP environment.
Commenters concur that RTT is
designed for today’s packet-switching
environment and offers an expanded
array of features to enable more robust
user conversations, including real-time
editing of text and full-duplex
functionality (i.e., both parties can
communicate simultaneously). Various
commenters state that RTT allows for
the intermixing of speech with text, is
more spectrally efficient than TTY, will
be superior to TTY in every way—
transmission speed, latency, reliability,
features, privacy, conversation form,
and ease of use—will facilitate the
transition to end-to-end Next Generation
911 (NG911), and will meet the needs of
legacy TTY users during the transition.
The Commission tentatively concludes
that deployment of RTT on IP networks
will offer functionality greatly superior
to that of TTY technology, and it seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion.
24. Off-the-Shelf Devices.
Commenters also state that RTT will
allow consumers with disabilities to
make calls using the built-in
functionality of a wide selection of off-
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the-shelf devices, including
smartphones, tablets, computers and
other Internet-enabled devices that have
the ability to send, receive, and display
text. These parties point out that this
can eliminate the high costs and other
challenges involved in finding,
purchasing, and making effective use of
assistive devices such as TTYs. The
Commission tentatively concludes that
the ability to acquire off-the-shelf RTTcapable devices will be beneficial for
text communication users, and seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion.
25. Substitution for
Telecommunications Relay Services.
Section 225 of the Act directs the
Commission to ensure that TRS is
available ‘‘in the most efficient
manner.’’ 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). The
record suggests that, because RTT will
provide greater opportunities for direct,
point-to-point text communication and
can enable text to be intermixed with
voice, it can reduce reliance on relay
services and thereby provide consumers
with greater privacy and independence,
while reducing overall costs for
telecommunications users. For example,
one form of TRS, captioned telephone
relay service (CTS), currently uses
communication assistants (CAs) to
enable people who are hard of hearing
to receive captions of conversation
spoken by other parties to a telephone
call. The Commission expects that RTT
users might not need these services if
they were able to receive RTT over VoIP
phones to supplement incoming voice
conversations for difficult-to-understand
words. Similarly, the Commission
predicts that people with speech
disabilities who can type will be able to
use standard phones capable of
generating RTT to communicate with
other persons who also have VoIP
phones with displays. However, the
Commission notes that these results are
likely to be achieved only to the extent
that RTT capabilities in end user
devices truly become ubiquitous—i.e.,
are enabled by default in all or most
wireless (and eventually wireline)
terminal equipment. To the extent that
RTT is ‘‘supported’’ but not fully
incorporated as a native or default
function of devices—and is merely
available for users to download or
install—commenters suggest that the
universal reach of text as a substitute for
relay services will be less likely to be
achieved, because many individuals
who do not rely on text may not install
this extra functionality. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
these assumptions are correct.
26. Improvement of
Telecommunications Relay Services. In
addition to substituting for TRS in some
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
circumstances, the Commission believes
that RTT can be used to enhance the
ability of TRS to provide functionally
equivalent telephone service. For
example, it would appear that for textbased forms of TRS, RTT can improve
the speed and reliability of
communications in an IP environment.
The Technology Research Centers
further note that individuals may be
able to use RTT to supplement
communications in sign language with
text during video relay service (VRS)
calls, reducing the time needed for CAs
to convey detailed information, such as
addresses and URLs. The Commission
seeks comment on these assertions and
whether there are other ways that RTT
can improve the provision of TRS for its
users.
27. Advantages Over Messaging-Type
Services. Text-based accessibility
solutions include RTT, SMS, instant
messaging and similar chat-type
functions, and email. With the
exception of RTT, each of these
technologies requires parties to
complete their messages and to press
‘‘send,’’ ‘‘enter,’’ or a similar key to
transmit the message to its recipient. By
contrast, when a message is sent in real
time, it is immediately conveyed to and
received by the call recipient as it is
being composed. Several commenters
maintain that RTT is the only type of
text communication that allows a
natural flow of conversation akin to
voice telephone calls, and therefore the
only form that meets the criterion of
functional equivalency. Without the
turn-taking and delays characteristic of
messaging-type communications, these
parties state, RTT gives call recipients
‘‘an opportunity to follow the thoughts
of the sender as they are formed into
words.’’ The Technology Research
Centers note what they consider
additional drawbacks of these
alternatives: The delivery of messages
over SMS is not guaranteed; instant
messaging is not interoperable; and
certain features, such as conference
calling, are not available via instant
messaging across multiple providers.
28. Access to 911 Emergency Services.
Perhaps the most compelling case to be
made in favor of RTT over messagingtype services is in the context of
emergency calls to 911. Recent studies
reveal a preference for RTT in simulated
emergency situations by 100 percent of
participants. According to the
Technology Research Centers, a
principal reason for preferring RTT over
SMS is that the latter can result in
‘‘[c]rossed messages [that] can lead to
misunderstanding and loss of time. . . .
In an emergency situation, a panicked
caller may ask a second or third
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
question if there is no immediate visible
response from the 9–1–1 call-taker. This
can lead to confusion, crossed answers,
and error.’’ In contrast, these groups
explain, RTT enables ‘‘emergency calltakers [to] view the message as it is
being typed and respond, refer,
interrupt, or guide the information being
sent to speed up communication and
make it more helpful to emergency
responders.’’ In this manner, they say,
RTT ‘‘allows for the efficient exchange
of information and a continued sense of
contact,’’ as well as the delivery of even
incomplete messages, which can result
in potentially saving lives in an
emergency.
29. The Commission recognizes that,
two years ago, it adopted rules that
could be met through the provision of
SMS-based text-to-911 service. The
Commission’s goal in doing so was to
ensure that, in the near term,
individuals have a direct and familiar
means of contacting 911 via text through
mass market communication devices
that are already available to people with
disabilities and other members of the
general public. The Commission noted
that some commenters were less
supportive of SMS-to-911 because it
does not support the ability to ‘‘send
and receive text simultaneously with
the time that it is typed without having
to press a ‘send’ key.’’ At the same time,
the Commission recognized that many
stakeholders would choose to text to
911 through an interim SMS-based
solution because of its ease of use for
people with disabilities and ubiquity in
mainstream society. It went on to note
that RTT ‘‘provides an instantaneous
exchange, character by character or
word by word,’’ a feature that
commenters to this proceeding say is
critical in an emergency. The record in
the instant proceeding continues to
reflect major concerns by several
commenters about using SMS as a long
term 911 accessibility solution. While
the Commission does not propose to
make any changes to its existing text-to911 rules in this proceeding, it believes
that its proposals to facilitate the wider
availability of RTT for people with
disabilities could have a beneficial
impact on the future evolution of textto-911.
30. The Commission proposes that
RTT will be more effective than
messaging-type services in meeting the
communication needs of consumers
with disabilities, including their
emergency communication needs, and
seeks comment on this proposal. Are
there other text-based communication
solutions that can meet the general
communication needs of this population
as effectively as RTT, and if so, how?
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33175
How would the deployment of RTT or
other text-based solutions impact the
transition to NG911? The Commission
asks commenters to address concerns
about the costs, benefits, and feasibility
of using RTT for accessing 911 services,
and seeks comment on the technical and
operational impact on Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs) receiving
RTT-based 911 calls.
Minimum Functionalities of RTT
31. The DAC recommends that the
Commission ‘‘consider how
telecommunication and advanced
communications services and
equipment that support RTT [can]
provide the users of RTT (either in
isolation or in conjunction with other
media) with access to the same
telecommunication and advanced
communications functions and features
that are provided to voice-based users of
the services and equipment.’’ The
Commission believes that this
formulation captures the objectives of
sections 225, 255, and 716 of the Act,
which are to provide functionally
equivalent communications and to
ensure that telecommunications and
ACS are fully accessible to and usable
by people with disabilities. The
Commission proposes that, in amending
its rules to recognize IP-based text
alternatives and facilitate the transition
away from TTY technology, the
Commission should consider the extent
to which RTT’s features, functions, and
capabilities can provide people with
disabilities with telephone service that
is as accessible, usable, and otherwise as
effective as voice-based services over IP
networks. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposed approach.
32. The Commission tentatively
concludes, proposes, or seeks comment
on the following basic functionalities
that it believes are necessary for a
wireless provider’s implementation of
RTT to be considered compliant with
the rules adopted by the Commission in
this proceeding. The Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which each is
necessary to achieve effective telephone
access for individuals with disabilities,
as well as its costs, other benefits, and
any technical or other challenges that
may be associated with its provision.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on the extent to which each of these
features will be enabled or facilitated
through the use of RFC 4103. RFC 4103,
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt.
Interoperability
33. The Commission tentatively
concludes that people who rely on text
to communicate can only achieve
effective RTT communications across
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
33176
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
multiple platforms and networks if the
communication transmissions carried
across, and the terminal equipment used
with, those platforms and networks are
interoperable with one another. The
Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion. The Commission
notes that there is consensus among
commenters on AT&T’s petition for
rulemaking with respect to the need for
seamless interconnection of RTT
services across networks, service
providers, and devices. Virtually all
commenters agree with AT&T on the
importance of not locking users into a
single network, service provider, or
device, as well as the value of ensuring
that people with disabilities have the
same kinds of choices in a competitive
market as the population in general.
Some commenters note that if service
providers were to adopt proprietary
standards that do not interoperate, RTT
users might not be able to communicate
with other users in emergency
situations.
34. Commission rules reflect a
longstanding commitment to policies
favoring the openness of
telecommunications services across
providers and devices, so that anyone
can make a voice call to anyone else,
regardless of the provider or device they
are using. For example, the Commission
has promulgated a series of rules to
ensure the interconnection of terminal
equipment to the telephone network.
The Commission’s rules also prohibit
telecommunications carriers and ACS
providers from installing network
features, functions, or capabilities that
impede the accessibility or usability of
telecommunications and ACS services.
Further, in the Emerging Wireline Order
and Further Notice, the Commission
tentatively concluded that a carrier
seeking to discontinue an existing retail
communications service in order to
transition to a newer technology must
demonstrate that the replacement
service offered by that carrier, or
alternative services available from other
providers in the affected service area,
provides voice and non-voice device
and service interoperability—including
interoperability with third party
services—as much as or more than the
interoperability provided by the service
to be retired. Technology Transitions,
Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, published at 80
FR 63321, October 19, 2015 (Emerging
Wireline Order and Further Notice). The
Commission believes that preserving
interoperability is equally important in
the transition from TTY to RTT
technology. The Commission further
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
believes that, in the absence of
interoperability, multiple versions of
RTT may need to be supported, not only
by user devices, but also by TRS call
centers and 911 PSAPs—a burden that
could entail a prohibitive expense for
many such entities. The Commission
seeks comment on this analysis.
35. RFC 4103 as a Safe Harbor RTT
Standard The Commission next
considers how best to achieve RTT
interoperability across communication
platforms, networks, and devices. Some
commenters maintain that having a
single standard will ensure that RTT is
a valuable and universally usable
communications medium and that it
will be less expensive for carriers to
develop and deploy a single,
interoperable RTT system now, than to
each develop their own versions of RTT
service and later try to reconfigure these
to be interoperable. Various commenters
point out that the lack of a common
standard sometimes has impeded the
interoperability of communications
technologies needed by people with
disabilities, reporting that the lack of an
international standard for TTY
technology has prevented TTY users
from communicating by text in real-time
with people living or visiting countries
abroad, the lack of a common standard
for instant messaging sometimes
prevents instant messaging users from
being able to contact each other across
platforms, and the lack of a common
VRS standard has impeded full
interconnection for users of this service
since the early 2000s.
36. The Commission agrees with
consumers and researchers that
standards can be especially important to
ensuring interoperability of technologies
needed by people with disabilities, and
that common technical specifications
will allow connectivity to occur
seamlessly from one end of the call to
the other without incurring obstacles
along the way. At the same time, the
Commission acknowledges the need for
its rules to incorporate ‘‘key principles
of flexibility and technology neutrality’’
as recommended by industry
commenters. The Commission
tentatively concludes that a middle
ground between these two approaches
can be achieved by referencing a
technical standard as a safe harbor. The
Commission believes that this approach
will ensure RTT interoperability and
product portability, while at the same
time providing sufficient flexibility for
covered entities adhering to different
internal RTT standards—so long as their
RTT support offers the same functions
and capabilities as the selected
standard, and is interoperable with the
standard’s format where they connect
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with other providers. The Commission
seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion and analysis.
37. To the extent that any commenter
believes that reference to a safe harbor
standard is unnecessary, the
Commission seeks comment on how it
can otherwise ensure that RTT
communications are interoperable, not
just among different implementations of
RTT, but also with legacy
interconnected TTY devices. Likewise,
the Commission asks commenters who
support adoption of a mandatory
technical standard to explain why a safe
harbor, combined with performance
objectives, would be insufficient to
achieve effective and interoperable RTT
communications. Further, will a safe
harbor be sufficient to provide
incentives for manufacturers and
providers to invest in research and
development of RTT functionalities?
38. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission tentatively concludes
that RFC 4103 is the appropriate
standard to which covered entities
should adhere as a safe harbor,
conformity with which should be
deemed to satisfy the Commission’s
interoperability requirements and
certain of the Commission’s
performance objectives for RTT
communications. The Commission
seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. Use of RFC 4103 for RTT
communications is well supported by
the record to date. First, RFC 4103 is a
non-proprietary, freely available
standard that has been widely
referenced by leading standards
organizations. This standard, developed
by the IETF, has been adopted by the
International Telecommunications
Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector, the European
Telecommunications Standards
Institute, 3rd Generation Partnership
Project, a partnership of seven
telecommunications standards
organizations (3GPP), and Groupe
Speciale Mobile Association.
39. Second, RFC 4103 is already being
used or has been widely designated for
implementation by numerous carriers
and other organizations, both domestic
and foreign. Domestically, both AT&T
and Verizon have specified RFC 4103 as
the standard protocol to be
implemented in their IP-based wireless
networks as the successor to TTY
technology, the National Emergency
Number Association has specified RFC
4103 for interoperable use in IP-based
Next Generation emergency text
communications where Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) technology is
used, and the Access Board has
proposed requiring RFC 4103 for federal
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
procurements associated with the
transmission of SIP-based RTT to
achieve compliance with section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act. In addition, RFC
4103 is specified in the SIP Forum’s
interoperability profile for VRS
providers. Some commenters note that
outside the United States, RFC 4103 has
been implemented in text or video relay
services in France, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and Norway.
40. Third, according to commenters,
RFC 4103 has a number of features that
make it particularly suitable for RTT.
According to the Technology Research
Centers, RFC 4103 eliminates the need
to transcode at the borders of a network,
permits a wide range of hardware,
supports the international character set
(Unicode), has built-in redundancy, is
bandwidth efficient, is based on the
same transmission protocol (RTP) as
audio and video, and is supported by
existing open source and commercial
codecs. The Commission seeks
comment on the value of each of these
features and the extent to which they
can contribute to making RFC 4103 a
feasible and flexible means of achieving
RTT interoperability and functionality.
The Commission also seeks comment on
which of the user functionalities
necessary to an effective
communications system, in addition to
interoperability, can be made possible
with adherence to RFC 4103. Further, to
what extent can other RTT standards
‘‘coexist’’ with RFC 4103 in networks,
technologies, and terminal equipment
on which RTT is being used, to allow
RTT to provide a universally accessible
communications environment for
people who are deaf, hard of hearing,
speech disabled, or deaf-blind?
41. Next, the Commission seeks
comment on whether RFC 4103 is
sufficiently flexible to spur innovation
in accessibility solutions. Are there any
non-SIP-based networks for which
implementation of RTT would serve the
public interest, and if so, how could
RTT be implemented on such networks
so as to be interoperable with networks
adhering to RFC 4103? Finally, if any
adverse effects would result from
adopting RFC 4103 as a safe harbor, the
Commission asks commenters to
identify these, and to explain
specifically how such effects could be
mitigated by modifying the standard or
allowing an alternative protocol.
42. In the event that the Commission
decides to adopt RFC 4103 as a safe
harbor for RTT, the Commission seeks
comment on how this standard can be
updated and amended to accommodate
successor non-proprietary RTT
technologies that are developed in the
future. The Technology Research
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Centers point out that the path for
incorporating innovations into RTT can
be the same as that used to update voice
standards and codecs, i.e., by phasing in
new formats and technologies while
continuing to support the existing
technology until its retirement. How can
the Commission design its rules to allow
these capabilities to continue evolving
with technological advances and ensure
the flexibility requested by industry,
while not compromising the
effectiveness of this technology for
people with disabilities?
43. The Commission believes that it
has sufficient authority to adopt RFC
4103 as a safe harbor. Section 716 of the
Act explicitly allows the Commission to
‘‘adopt technical standards as a safe
harbor for such compliance if necessary
to facilitate the manufacturers’ and
service providers’ compliance with
section [716](a) through (c) of the Act.’’
47 U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(D). Additionally,
section 106 of the CVAA expressly
authorizes the Commission ‘‘to
promulgate regulations to implement
the recommendations proposed by the
EAAC, as well as any other regulations,
technical standards, protocols, and
procedures as are necessary to achieve
reliable, interoperable communication
that ensures access by individuals with
disabilities to an Internet protocolenabled emergency network, where
achievable and technically feasible.’’ 47
U.S.C. 615c(g) (emphasis added). The
Commission seeks comment on this
analysis. Further, the Commission asks
commenters who support a mandatory
standard to provide legal authority for
their proposal. CTIA—The Wireless
Association points out that section 716
of the Act does not permit the
Commission’s regulations implementing
that section to mandate technological
standards, except as a safe harbor to
facilitate the manufacturers’ and service
providers’ compliance with section 716
of the Act. At the same time, as noted,
section 106 of the CVAA expressly
authorizes the Commission to adopt
technical standards to ensure access by
people with disabilities to an IP-based
emergency network. In the event that
the Commission deems it necessary to
adopt a mandatory RTT standard, would
the Commission’s specific standardsetting authority under section 106 of
the CVAA, as well as its authority under
47 U.S.C. 225(d), provide sufficient
authority for the Commission to
establish a mandatory technical
standard for RTT, notwithstanding the
standard-setting restriction of section
716 of the Act?
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33177
Backward Compatibility With TTY
Technology
44. The DAC points out that while
TTY usage continues to be in steady
decline, some people who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deaf-blind, or speech
disabled, including senior citizens and
rural residents, continue to rely on
TTYs. In order to ensure that TTYreliant consumers continue to have a
method of communicating during the
transition to RTT technology, the
Commission proposes that, to comply
with the rules adopted in this
proceeding, wireless service providers
must ensure that their RTT technology
is interoperable with TTY technology.
The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Among other things, with this
requirement, the Commission believes it
will remain possible for consumers to
use their TTYs to communicate with a
TRS call center that is set up to receive
RTT calls and for consumers who use
RTT technology to communicate with a
TRS call center that is set up to provide
traditional TTY-based TRS. The
Commission seeks confirmation on
whether it is feasible to use gateways
and RFC 4103 to achieve backward
compatibility, as proposed by the
Technology Research Centers, and if
not, how transcoding between RTT
packets used with IP-based services and
TTY Baudot tones can be achieved, in
accordance with the accuracy criteria
the Commission proposes for RTT. Is it
correct that such interoperability can be
achieved without added costs to TTY
users and PSAPs as suggested by AT&T?
The Commission asks commenters to
discuss the costs, benefits, and technical
feasibility of using any alternative
standards for this purpose.
45. A particular concern regarding
backward compatibility with TTYs is
the fact that TTYs can only send and
display a small subset of Unicode
characters, namely upper-case letters,
numbers, the pound and dollar signs,
and some punctuation marks. Thus,
gateways between RTT systems and
legacy TTYs need to be able to convert
the much larger Unicode set used with
RTT into readable TTY characters. In
general, such character conversion is
called ‘‘transliteration.’’ Thus, accented
characters may be rendered as multiple
¨
characters—e.g., ‘‘a (a umlaut)’’ may
become ‘‘AE.’’ In some cases, words
must be used in the transliteration, but
all Unicode characters can be described
unambiguously, if necessary, by their
Unicode character name. According to
the Unicode Consortium,
transliterations should be standard,
complete, predictable, pronounceable,
and reversible. See Unicode Common
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
33178
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Locale Data Repository, https://
cldr.unicode.org/index/cldr-spec/
transliteration-guidelines. Should the
rules require a standard transliteration
approach or standard table, or should
each entity responsible for offering
gateways between RTT and TTY choose
its own transliteration approach? What
standards should be referenced? If each
gateway may choose its own
transliteration approach, should it meet,
for example, the general transliteration
guidelines formulated by the Unicode
Consortium or other standards body?
Should there be a standard indicator
that a character string is a Unicode
emoji, e.g., ‘‘(* GOLFER *)’’ for Unicode
U+1F3CC? With respect to PSAPs
employing TTYs, what impact might
transliteration have on PSAPs’ ability to
handle the RTT 911 call?
46. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether there are other
assistive devices used with the PSTN,
such as Braille-capable devices used by
people who are deaf-blind, that would
require or benefit from backward
compatibility, and what additional steps
are necessary to achieve this, beyond
the steps necessary to achieve backward
compatibility for TTYs.
47. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on what events or measures
should trigger a sunset of the residual
obligation for wireless networks to be
backward compatible with TTY
technology. In the CVAA, Congress
explicitly asked the EAAC to consider
‘‘the possible phase out of the use of
current-generation TTY technology to
the extent that this technology is
replaced with more effective and
efficient technologies and methods to
enable access to emergency services by
individuals with disabilities.’’ 47 U.S.C.
615c(c)(6). The EAAC recommended
against ‘‘imposing any deadline for
phasing out TTY at the PSAPs until the
analog phone system (PSTN) no longer
exists, either as the backbone or as
peripheral analog legs, unless ALL legs
trap and convert TTY to IP real-time text
and maintain [Voice Carry Over (VCO)]
capability.’’ Since then, however, the
DAC has requested the Commission to
‘‘consider a TTY sunset period when
declining wireline TTY minutes reaches
a certain threshold to be determined,
while addressing the needs of people
who are deaf-blind, speech disabled,
and have cognitive impairments as well
as for relay services and rural access.’’
48. The Commission notes that the
NG911 Now Coalition has set a goal of
transitioning to nationwide NG911 by
the end of 2020. See NG911 Now
Coalition, https://www.ng911now.org/
#about. The Commission seeks
comment on whether this is an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
appropriate benchmark for terminating
the requirement for backward
compatibility, or whether a different
indicator should be used to make this
determination. Would it be more
appropriate for the Commission to set
the end date based on TTY usage falling
below a threshold level? If the latter,
should TTY usage be assessed based on
usage of TTY-based forms of TRS, or a
different indicator? The Commission is
concerned about ensuring that people
with disabilities continue to have a
means of using text to make emergency
and non-emergency calls after a TTY
phase-out and generally seeks comment
on safeguards needed to address these
communications needs.
communications to and from any 911
PSAP served by the network in a
manner that fully complies with all
applicable 911 rules, and seeks
comment on this proposal. Are specific
measures or rule amendments necessary
to ensure that RTT supports legacy 911,
text-to-911, and NG 911 services? Given
that RTT is in an all-IP environment,
and that there may be outages during a
loss of commercial power, or RTT may
be unavailable due to the limited battery
backup inherent in IP-based equipment,
are there additional ways to ensure
continued access to emergency
communications in the event of a power
failure to the same extent this will be
guaranteed for voice telephone users?
Other RTT Functionalities for Wireless
Services
49. In addition to ensuring
interoperability, in this section the
Commission seeks comment on a
number of other features and
capabilities that it believes will be
necessary to ensure that RTT is as
accessible, usable, and effective for
people with disabilities as voice
telephone wireless service is for people
without disabilities.
Latency and Error Rate of Text
Transmittal
52. Based on comments in the record,
the Commission proposes that
compliant RTT must be capable of
transmitting text instantly, so that each
text character appears on the receiving
device at roughly the same time it is
created on the sending device. To
achieve this, the Commission further
proposes requiring that RTT characters
be transmitted within one second of
when they are generated, with no more
than 0.2 percent character error rate,
which equates to approximately a one
percent word error rate. The
Commission believes that this will
allow text to appear character-bycharacter on the recipient’s display
while the sender is typing it, with a
point-to-point transmission latency that
is no greater than that provided for
voice communication. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals, as
well as whether the Commission should
adopt other measures regarding the
latency and error rate for RTT. For
example, is it feasible, and necessary for
effective communication, to provide
users with the ability to edit individual
characters or groups of words in realtime—for example, by backspacing and
retyping?
53. The Commission also notes that,
according to the Technology Research
Centers, any RTT system also can be
programmed to first receive and hold
the sender’s communication while it is
being composed, and to then send the
entire message together when triggered
to do so, in a manner akin to instant
messaging. Is this ‘‘block mode’’ feature
desirable for certain individuals? For
example, would it alert people who are
deaf-blind to incoming messages so that
they know when it is appropriate to
respond? If so, should the Commission
allow or require that this capability be
made available on compliant RTT
technology? If such a feature is
Initiation of Calls Using RTT
50. As a preliminary matter, the
Commission proposes that wireless
service providers and manufacturers be
required to configure their networks and
devices so that RTT communications
can be initiated and received to and
from the same telephone number that
can be used to initiate and receive voice
communications on a given terminal
device. Among other things, the
Commission tentatively concludes that
enabling access to ten digit telephone
numbers is necessary to reach and be
reached by any other person with a
phone number, and to ensure that RTT
users can access 911 services. The
Commission tentatively concludes that a
similar ability is an essential part of the
provision of RTT, and seeks comment
on this tentative conclusion and
proposal, including its costs, benefits
and technical feasibility.
Support for 911 Emergency
Communications
51. As the Commission has previously
stated, ‘‘[t]he ability of consumers to
contact 911 and reach the appropriate
PSAP and for the PSAP to receive
accurate location information for the
caller is of the utmost importance.’’
Emerging Wireline Order and Further
Notice. The Commission proposes that
the implementation of RTT in IP
networks must be capable of
transmitting and receiving RTT
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
permitted or required, should the
Commission require nevertheless that
RTT service revert to the character-bycharacter mode when 911 calls are
detected by the IP network, in order to
ensure the rapid exchange of
information during such calls?
54. The Commission seeks comment
on any other relevant considerations
pertaining to the transmission and
delivery of RTT that may affect its
utility and effectiveness for people with
communication disabilities.
Simultaneous Voice and Text
Capabilities
55. The Commission proposes to
require that, for a manufacturer’s or
service provider’s implementation of
RTT to be considered compliant with
the rules the Commission adopts in this
proceeding, users of RTT must be able
to send and receive both text and voice
simultaneously in both directions over
IP on the same call and via a single
device. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
56. According to the 3GPP Technical
Specification for Global Text
Telephony, which is cited by the DAC,
RTT that is implemented under RFC
4103 allows text to be transported alone
or in combination with other media,
such as voice and video, in the same
call session. The DAC therefore asks the
Commission to consider ‘‘whether
telecommunication and advanced
communications systems can support
the use of RTT simultaneously in
conjunction with the other Real-Time
media supported by the system.’’ The
DAC also recommends that the
Commission consider whether RTT
equipment and services should support,
among other features, the user’s ability
to ‘‘intermix voice and text on the same
call, including, for example, ‘Voice
Carry Over’ and ‘Hearing Carry Over.’ ’’
Such ‘‘carry over’’ modes currently are
available as types of TRS. VCO allows
people who are deaf and hard of hearing
to use their own voices (where possible)
and receive text back during a captioned
telephone or TTY-based relay call,
while HCO generally allows people with
speech disabilities on speech-to-speech
relay calls to hear directly what the
other party says and use the CA to
repeat what the person with the speech
disability says. However, in an RTT
network, can these features also serve as
a mode of direct point-to-point
communications, reducing the need for
reliance on TRS?
57. A coalition of consumer groups
points out that simultaneous voice and
text on the same call also would allow
callers to initiate a call using either text
or voice and to switch to the other mode
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
at any time during the call. Users would
be able to send text in one direction and
speech in the other, speak in parallel
with text for captioned telephony, and
supplement speech for difficult-to-hear
words, addresses, and numbers. Others
report findings that the quality,
intelligibility, speed, and flow of
communications improve when text is
added to voice. Finally, the Technology
Research Centers point out that the
ability to use synchronized voice and
text transmissions can improve
communications on TRS calls. The
Commission seeks comment on these
assertions and the extent to which
synchronized voice and text
transmission is necessary for effective
communication via RTT.
RTT With Video and Other Media
58. Next, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to require that,
where covered service providers
support the transmission of other media,
such as video and data, simultaneously
with voice, they also provide the
capability for the simultaneous
transmission of RTT and such other
media. The Commission notes that in
studies conducted by the Technology
Research Centers, participants generally
expressed the desire to add video to
RTT calls, ‘‘to express feelings, and to
provide for more natural
communication with sign language and
the possibility of lip reading.’’ In
addition, some commenters highlight
the benefits that multimedia capabilities
can have in the TRS context, including
the ability to supplement sign language
communications with text on video
relay calls. By enabling voice, text, and
video to be delivered to users so that
each of these types of media can be
available at the same time, over the
same call session, some parties also
state that RTT can reduce overall
reliance on TRS and also reduce or
eliminate the need for TRS users to
acquire the dedicated terminal
equipment that is often needed to access
these services. They claim that
increasingly, people with and without
disabilities would be able to converse
with each other directly, using
whichever mode of communication—
voice, text, or video—is most suitable
for getting their messages across.
59. To what extent is requiring such
multimedia capabilities necessary to
achieve telephone communications for
text users that are as effective as those
available to voice users? To what extent
can such capabilities enhance the
accuracy and speed of TRS or reduce
overall reliance on conventionally
defined forms of TRS, to ensure that
TRS is available ‘‘in the most efficient
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33179
manner’’? 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). Would
the inclusion of video capability with
RTT be likely to lead to congestion
problems, and how could such
congestion be prevented or alleviated?
For example, if simultaneous voice,
RTT, and video are all available over the
same telephone connection, could the
parties to the call better simulate an inperson communication, which can be
supplemented with RTT as needed, and
thereby eliminate the need for a CA to
serve as a communications bridge
between the parties?
Requirements for TRS Providers
60. The Commission generally seeks
comment on how to integrate RTT into
the provision of TRS. Specifically,
should the Commission amend its TRS
rules to authorize or require TRS
providers to incorporate RTT
capabilities into platforms and terminal
equipment used for certain forms of
TRS, in order to enhance its functional
equivalence? For example, Omnitor AB
asks the Commission to require relay
providers to incorporate RTT into their
systems, so that callers can use RTT
terminals to access TRS with a single
step, using ten digit numbers. The
Commission notes that at present, some
forms of TRS are provided over the
PSTN, while others are made available
via IP networks. In light of the ongoing
migration of communications from the
circuit-switched PSTN to IP-based
technologies, it appears that ultimately
all PSTN-based TRS will be phased out
and all TRS will be IP-based. If this
occurs, should the Commission
authorize or require IP Relay or other
TRS providers to support an RTT mode
between the user and the CA? If so,
what timeline would be appropriate for
implementing such capability? The
Technology Research Centers suggest
this is needed to improve the functional
equivalence of the IP Relay interface, as
well as to facilitate relay service modes,
such as VCO and HCO. Should the
Commission also authorize or require IP
CTS or other TRS providers to support
RTT transmission in any voice channels
they provide and in any off-the-shelf
equipment provided to IP CTS users?
Finally, should the Commission
authorize or require VRS providers to
support an RTT mode between the user
and the CA, so that RTT can be used to
supplement communications in sign
language with text during VRS calls?
What other requirements are
appropriate to assign to RTT or TRS
providers to ensure the compatibility of
their services as the transition to RTT
takes place?
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33180
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Character and Text Capabilities
61. Commenters in this proceeding
point out that one advantage of RTT is
that it allows communications using the
full Unicode character set, as compared
with the more limited character set
available on TTY transmissions. They
point out that besides facilitating
communication in languages other than
English, this capability allows users to
transmit emoticons, graphic symbols
that represent ideas or concepts—
independent of any particular
language—and specific words or
phrases that have become integral to
text communications in our society. In
addition, commenters report that RTT
can be equipped with the ability for
users to control text settings such as font
size and color, to adjust text
conversation windows, and to set up
text presentation.
62. The Commission seeks comment
on the technical feasibility, costs, and
benefits of requiring that these features
of RTT be supported by a covered
service provider’s implementation of
RTT. How can each of these capabilities
meet the needs of people with specific
disabilities? For example, can the
availability of emoji characters help
people with cognitive disabilities better
communicate with and receive
information from others? How well do
special characters and emojis translate
into voice, and what are the challenges
of and best practices for enabling this
capability? Is it necessary or desirable to
have characters based on Unicode for
them to be accessible to screen readers
used by people who are blind, visually
impaired or deaf-blind? Similarly, to
what extent can the ability to set text
style and text presentation layout
contribute to usability, readability and
comprehension of RTT? Should there be
an option for the user, depending on
preferences and needs, to configure the
display of incoming and outgoing text in
a certain way? Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on the extent to which
these capabilities are affected by the
properties of network transmissions.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Accessibility, Usability, and
Compatibility With Assistive
Technologies
63. The Commission believes that
RTT is appropriately classified as an
‘‘electronic messaging service’’ and that
as such, both RTT services and the
equipment used with them are subject
to the requirements of section 716 of the
Act and part 14 of the Commission’s
rules. 47 CFR 14.10(i). Therefore, the
Commission believes that,
independently of any rules specific to
RTT that are adopted in this proceeding,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
RTT services and end user equipment
used with them must be accessible,
usable, and compatible with assistive
technologies, as defined by part 14, to
the same extent as is currently required
for telecommunications and advanced
communications services and
equipment under the Commission’s
accessibility regulations. See 47 U.S.C.
617(a)–(b); 47 CFR 14.21. The
Commission seeks comment on this
position.
64. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether it is possible to
identify, more specifically than is
currently identified by its part 14 rules,
certain RTT features or functional
capabilities that are needed to meet the
communication needs of individuals
who are deaf-blind, people with
cognitive disabilities, or other specific
segments of the disability community.
For example, should the Commission
require compatibility with certain
assistive technologies used by people
who are deaf-blind, such as refreshable
Braille displays or screen enlargers? In
addition to providing emoji’s, are there
other measures that can be taken or
required to make RTT effective for
people with cognitive disabilities? For
example, should there be a mechanism
for slowing up the receipt of text, or an
option to enable message turn-taking to
make it easier for these individuals to
receive and read incoming messages?
What features should be incorporated
on terminal equipment used by these
individuals to allow easy activation and
operation of RTT functions?
Other Features
65. In addition to the above specific
capabilities, the DAC recommends that
the Commission consider whether
compliant RTT equipment and services
should be required to support the
following telecommunications functions
that are available to voice-based
telephone users:
• The ability to ‘‘transfer a
communication session using the same
procedures used in voice
telecommunication endpoints on the
system’’;
• The ability to ‘‘initiate a multi-party
teleconference using the same
procedures used in voice
telecommunication endpoints on the
system’’;
• The ability to ‘‘use messaging,
automated attendant, and interactive
voice response systems’’; and
• The ability to use caller
identification and similar
telecommunication functions.
The Commission tentatively
concludes that such functions should be
available to RTT users as necessary for
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
effective communication, and it seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion,
including the costs, benefits, and
technical feasibility of supporting these
functions. The Commission also seeks
comment on the extent to which the
availability of each of these functions
may be affected by how a service
provider implements RTT in an IP
network.
66. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to require
that compliant RTT provide the ability
to participate on multiple calls
simultaneously and to leave and access
voice and text mail, both of which are
also telecommunications functions that
must be made accessible to people with
disabilities by federal agencies under
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
See 36 CFR 1194.23, 1194.31(c), (e).
Some commenters explain that when
retrieving messages from voice mail,
text information, including the name of
the caller, return number (from caller
ID), length of the call, time of the call,
and related details could be sent and be
viewable on screens. For interactive
voice response prompts, they report,
instant text of all the choices could be
made available to callers.
Support of RTT Functionalities in
Wireless Devices
Features and Functionalities
67. The Commission proposes to
require that handsets and other end user
devices subject to an RTT support
requirement be required to support each
of the RTT functionalities discussed
above for service providers. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal, including its costs, benefits,
and technical feasibility. To what extent
are these features and functions under
the service provider’s or manufacturer’s
control? Are there other features and
functionalities that should be required
for end user devices to effectively
support RTT? Further, to what extent
can such features and functionalities
and their associated benefits be obtained
if RTT is not fully incorporated as a
native function of end user devices, but
is merely available for users to
download or install as an over-the-top
application? To what extent would it
make a difference if an RTT application
is installed as a ‘‘default’’ app prior to
sale of a handset or end user device?
Device Portability and Interface With
Third-Party Applications
68. In order to ensure that individuals
can use a single device on multiple
networks, to the same extent as is
currently possible with voice
communications, there must be a stable
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
interface between user equipment and
VoIP networks. For example, if
subscribers to one wireless provider
were to lose RTT communication
capability when they insert a subscriber
identity module (SIM) card for another
wireless provider into their
smartphones, then the inter-network
portability achieved for voice users’
smartphones would be unavailable to
RTT users, and the Commission’s rules
may fail to achieve functional
equivalence in this critical respect.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to
require, at a minimum, that covered
service providers enable device
portability for their RTT services to the
same extent as they enable device
portability for voice services. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
69. The Commission also seeks
comment on the extent to which all
necessary functionalities for effective
use of RTT can be made available
through provider-approved devices and
applications, or whether third party
software applications will be needed for
some RTT features and functions. To
what extent will consumers need access
to third party RTT software applications
on user devices to supplement native
RTT capabilities that are integrated into
such devices, in order to achieve
functional equivalence with voice
communications? Should the
Commission require providers to offer
an ‘‘app interface’’ to facilitate access to
third party applications?
70. In the event that the Commission
adopts requirements for device
portability or the enabling of third party
applications, or both, it seeks comment
on the availability or feasibility of a
safe-harbor standard for a user-network
interface that could support the RTT
capabilities of user devices and
applications from multiple
manufacturers and providers.
Alternatively, are there reasonable
performance criteria that could be
applied to ensure that a network-user
interface can support multiple third
party devices and applications?
Minimizing Costs Incurred by
Consumers
71. Last, the Commission seeks
comment on equipment costs to
consumers that may result from the
transition from TTY to RTT technology.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on whether there are measures
it could take in the context of this
proceeding to ensure the affordability of
new terminal equipment or assistive
devices that may be needed as a
consequence of the migration to RTT
technology, and whether such measures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
are appropriate. The Commission
expects that many off-the-shelf VoIP
devices will be usable with RTT—
eliminating altogether the need for
specialized equipment. In addition, the
Commission notes that several states
have programs that distribute
specialized communications equipment
to people, often based on their economic
need. Similarly, the Commission
administers the National Deaf-Blind
Equipment Distribution Program, which
provides funding for certified state
programs to distribute communications
equipment and provide related services
to low income individuals who are deafblind across the United States. 47 CFR
64.610. AARP recommends that carriers
seeking to transition to IP systems be
required to work with governmental
agencies that distribute such assistive
equipment to qualified individuals with
disabilities. The Commission seeks
comment on the appropriateness of this
suggestion, and other ways that the
Commission can alleviate any burdens
that might be associated with acquiring
new equipment or software, particularly
for those who do not qualify for existing
state and federal equipment distribution
programs or for those will need to
replace devices not covered by such
programs.
Consumer Outreach and Notifications
72. To ensure a seamless TTY–RTT
transition, the Commission seeks
comment on the best means of
informing the public, including
businesses, governmental agencies, and
individuals with disabilities who will
be directly affected by the transition,
about the migration from TTY
technology to RTT and the mechanics of
how this technology will work. To be
effective, RTT must be usable by people
with and without disabilities.
Accordingly, the Commission
tentatively concludes that such outreach
should not only focus on people with
disabilities, but also on the general
public that will be communicating with
such individuals, and seeks comment
on this tentative conclusion. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the statutory authority on which it
proposes to rely for the purpose of
regulating the provision of RTT is
sufficient to authorize outreach
requirements with respect to RTT. The
Commission notes that it has previously
used its authority under section 225 of
the Act to require service providers to
conduct outreach about TRS, and now
asks whether it can rely upon such
authority to require outreach on RTT.
See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(3). What are the
most effective methods to provide such
notification, and to what extent should
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33181
covered entities coordinate with
consumer and industry stakeholders to
develop effective messaging and
outreach initiatives? Further, to what
extent should the outreach conducted
by manufacturers and service providers
include outreach to the operators of
public TTYs and Wi-Fi phone
installations?
73. Prior to the adoption of document
FCC 16–53, the Commission’s Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
together with three other bureaus within
the Commission, granted various
wireless carriers temporary waivers of
the Commission’s requirements to
support TTY technology on IP-based
wireless networks subject to certain
conditions. The Commission proposes
that the conditions imposed in the
bureaus’ waiver orders remain in effect
until the full implementation of rules
adopted in this proceeding. These
conditions include a requirement for
waiver recipients to apprise their
customers, through effective and
accessible channels of communication,
that (1) until TTY is sunset, TTY
technology will not be supported for
calls to 911 services over IP-based
wireless services, and (2) there are
alternative PSTN-based and IP-based
accessibility solutions for people with
communication disabilities to reach 911
services. These notices must be
developed in coordination with PSAPs
and national consumer organizations,
and include a listing of text-based
alternatives to 911, including, but not
limited to, TTY capability over the
PSTN, various forms of PSTN-based and
IP-based TRS, and text-to-911 (where
available). The Commission tentatively
concludes that the provision of this
information is necessary to ensure that,
during the transition period, there is no
expectation on the part of consumers
with disabilities that TTY technology
will be supported by IP-based wireless
services, and to ensure that these
consumers know that alternative
accessible telecommunications options
exist, and seeks comment on this belief.
The Commission further proposes that
all information and notifications about
the RTT transition be provided in
accessible formats, such as large print,
Braille, and other appropriate means to
make information accessible to people
with disabilities, and seeks comment on
this proposal. Are any different or
additional notices needed to ensure that
consumers are aware of potential issues
regarding 911 communications during a
TTY–RTT transition?
74. Finally, the Commission
tentatively concludes that, consistent
with the usability requirements of its
rules implementing sections 255 and
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33182
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
716 of the Act (see 47 CFR 6.11(a)(3),
7.11(a)(3)) as well as previous actions by
the Commission to educate consumers
about TRS (see 47 CFR 64.604(c)(2)),
covered entities should be required to
implement a mechanism to provide
information and assistance during
business hours to their consumers
regarding the TTY–RTT transition, and
seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. The Commission seeks
comment on how this can best be
achieved. For example, to what extent
should covered entities be required to
designate staff trained to assist
consumers with the complex issues
related to the TTY–RTT transition? Are
there additional mechanisms for
outreach education and assistance that
should be adopted?
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Other Matters
75. Security Concerns. The
Commission seeks comment on security
risks that may be associated with the
adoption of RTT technology and that
require the Commission’s attention. The
Technology Research Centers point out
the availability of technical methods to
secure SIP calls, both for call control
security and media security. They also
caution against ‘‘blocking of RTT,’’
which they say could occur where
security or IT management personnel
are not aware of the need to support
real-time text. They explain that this can
be remedied by the use of a ‘‘SIP-aware
firewall,’’ which will allow the proper
pass-through of RTT once deployed.
The Commission seeks comment on
these and other security concerns that
should be addressed through this
proceeding, including the costs,
benefits, and technical feasibility of
implementing specific security
measures.
RTT Implementation in IP-Based
Wireline Networks and Equipment
76. The Commission seeks comment
on whether, in addition to requiring the
implementation of RTT by wireless
service providers, the Commission
should amend its rules to require the
implementation of RTT in IP-based
wireline networks. As discussed above,
problems associated with TTY
transmissions are not limited to those
that occur over IP wireless networks.
Because TTYs were not designed for the
IP environment, they have not
performed well in any IP-based system;
in fact, many of the problems associated
with TTY use over IP-enabled wireless
networks—e.g., dropped packets and
data connection stability issues—also
occur in wireline networks. Thus, as an
initial matter, the Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
wireline IP networks can reliably
support TTY communications.
77. Moreover, there is considerable
information in the record that in any
communications environment, TTYs
remain inadequate with respect to their
speed, their limited character set, and
their failure to allow the simultaneous
communication enjoyed by voice
communications users. The Commission
thus next seeks comment on whether
the Commission should amend its rules
at parts 6, 7, 14, and 64, to allow or
require wireline VoIP service providers
to support RTT, as the Commission is
proposing to do for wireless services.
What would be the costs, benefits, and
technical feasibility of such
requirements? The Commission believes
that for RTT to effectively replace TTYs
and allow full integration by people
with disabilities into our nation’s
mainstream communications system,
the ability to access our nation’s
wireline VoIP services using RTT will
be just as important as the ability to
access wireless services, especially if
TTY technology is phased out. Many, if
not most businesses, government
agencies, and retail establishments
continue to rely on wireline services,
and having telephone access to such
enterprises will be necessary for people
with disabilities who rely on text to
maintain their independence, privacy,
and productivity.
78. If the Commission amends its
rules governing wireline services to
incorporate RTT support obligations,
how can the Commission ensure that
end users can readily connect to and use
such RTT capabilities in wireline IP
networks? For example, given that
wireline part 68 customer premise
equipment such as wired and cordless
phones currently cannot readily support
real-time text, would it be feasible and
practical for wireline VoIP service
providers to offer over-the-top RTT
applications downloadable to textcapable devices such as smartphones,
tablets, and computers, that could then
be used to connect to the carrier’s VoIP
service platform? Should wireline VoIP
providers be required to ensure the
compatibility of their services with
third-party RTT applications present in
stand-alone devices or downloaded onto
text-capable devices such as
smartphones, tablets, and computers?
To what extent should wireline VoIP
manufacturers have RTT support
obligations for their equipment that is
otherwise capable of sending, receiving,
and displaying text? To the extent that
IP-based wireline service providers and
manufacturers have an obligation under
the Commission’s rules to support RTT,
should they be required to adhere to the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
same interoperability requirements,
minimum functionalities, and outreach
obligations that the Commission
proposes to require for wireless VoIP
services and end user devices? Finally,
is RFC 4103 an appropriate standard to
reference as the safe harbor for wireline
VoIP services and text-capable end user
equipment to ensure interoperability
and compliance with the rules proposed
for wireless services?
79. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate timing for
incorporation of RTT capabilities into
wireline VoIP services and end user
devices, in the event that rules requiring
such capabilities are adopted, and the
extent to which such timing should be
determined by the manufacture or sell
date of new devices. Similarly, should
requirements for RTT support also be
triggered at ‘‘natural opportunities’’?
The Commission also seeks comment on
whether RTT would be particularly
beneficial in the context of Inmate
Calling Services (ICS), particularly given
the problems ICS users have
encountered in trying to use TTYs, and
whether there are specific issues the
Commission would need to consider in
relation to the use of RTT by inmates.
80. Finally, how should TTY support
obligations be modified as wireline
networks discontinue their circuitswitched services? Should wireline
providers that support RTT on their IP
networks be permitted to cease
supporting TTY technology at all, and if
so, on what timetable? In comments
filed in response to the Emerging
Wireline Order and Further Notice,
AARP has raised concerns about
establishing firm dates for the sunset of
TTY technology, given that a large
number of carriers ‘‘serving millions of
subscribers, may continue to deliver
voice services over legacy facilities for
an extended period.’’ AARP claims that
‘‘[a]dopting hard and fast sunset dates
may lead to customer confusion, and
place undue burdens on some service
providers and their customers’’ and
urges that, if the Commission
establishes a termination date for TTY
technology, it do so only for specific
carriers that have filed for relief under
section 214 of the Act. The Commission
seeks comment on these claims and how
it should consider the needs of
consumers who still use TTYs in
framing rules to address a transition to
wireline implementation of RTT.
Legal Authority
81. The Commission believes that it
has sufficient legal authority to adopt
the proposed rules to specify support for
RTT communications by wireless IPbased services and equipment. The
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Commission also believes that it has
sufficient legal authority, should it so
decide, to amend the Commission’s
rules to similarly specify support of RTT
technology by wireline IP-based services
and equipment. Further, the
Commission believes that it may rely on
the sources of authority identified
above, as well as the specific authorities
discussed below, to require that RTT
provided pursuant to the proposed rule
amendments must meet the
interoperability, minimum
functionality, and outreach
requirements proposed above. The
Commission seeks comment on these
views, as well as whether there are other
sources of authority beyond those
described herein to support the
proposals herein.
Amendment of § 20.18
82. The Commission believes its
proposal to amend § 20.18(c) of its rules
to require wireless VoIP service
providers to ensure that their services,
handsets, and other authorized devices
are capable of transmitting 911 calls
through RTT technology over IP
networks, in lieu of transmitting 911
calls from TTYs, is within the
Commission’s Title III authority to
regulate wireless service providers. Title
III authorizes the Commission, among
other things, to prescribe the nature of
the service to be rendered by licensed
service providers and to modify the
terms of existing licenses where such
action will promote the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. 47 U.S.C.
303(b), (g), 316(a)(1). The Commission
relied on Title III in regulating the
location capabilities of wireless services
and handsets and in adopting the rule
requiring wireless providers to transmit
911 calls from individuals made on nonhandset devices such as TTYs. The
Commission further relied on Title III in
requiring wireless providers to support
text-to-911 service, concluding that Title
III confers broad authority to prescribe
the nature of the emergency service
obligations of wireless providers,
including deployment of text-to-911
capabilities.
83. The Commission further believes
that its RTT-related proposed
amendments to section 20.18 of its rules
are within the Commission’s direct
statutory authority under section 106 of
the CVAA to implement
recommendations proposed by the
EAAC (47 U.S.C. 615c(c)), as well as ‘‘to
promulgate . . . any other regulations,
technical standards, protocols, and
procedures as are necessary to achieve
reliable, interoperable communication
that ensures access by individuals with
disabilities to an Internet protocol-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
enabled emergency network, where
achievable and technically feasible.’’ 47
U.S.C. 615c(g). The Commission relied
on this authority to impose text-to-911
requirements on wireless providers and
interconnected text service providers, as
well as to require bounce-back
messaging when a PSAP is unable to
accept a text calls. The Commission’s
determination rested on two grounds:
(1) That it was a proper exercise of the
agency’s authority to promulgate EAAC
recommendations, and (2) that it was a
lawful exercise of the agency’s CVAA
authority to promulgate certain ‘‘other
regulations.’’ See 47 U.S.C. 615c(g).
84. The EAAC submitted several
recommendations to the Commission
that appear to be particularly relevant to
this proceeding. For example, the EAAC
recommended ‘‘that the FCC adopt
requirements that ensure that the
quality of video, text and voice
communications is sufficient to provide
usability and accessibility to individuals
with disabilities based on industry
standards for the environment.’’ The
EAAC also recommended ‘‘that the FCC
remove the requirement for TTY (analog
real-time text) support for new IP-based
consumer services that implement IPbased text communications that include
at a minimum real time text or, in an
LTE environment, IMS Multimedia
Telephony that includes real-time text.’’
The Commission seeks comment on
whether these or other of the EAAC’s
recommendations, including those
involving the migration to a national IPenabled network,’’ provide an
additional basis for the Commission to
rely on its authority under 47 U.S.C.
615c(g) to adopt the amendments
proposed here. The Commission also
seeks comment generally on the scope
of the Commission’s authority under
section 106 of the CVAA with respect to
adoption of rules governing access to
emergency services via RTT. 47 U.S.C.
615c.
85. The Commission also has been
granted broad authority to ensure
effective telephone access to emergency
services that may be relevant here, given
the suggested importance of RTT as a
means of securing emergency assistance.
This includes, for example, the specific
delegation of responsibility to the
Commission under 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(3)
to ‘‘designate 911 as the universal
emergency telephone number for
reporting an emergency to appropriate
authorities and requesting assistance,’’
the Wireless Communications and
Public Safety Act of 1999 (codified at 47
U.S.C. 615–615b) and the NET 911
Improvement Act of 2008 (codified at 47
U.S.C. 615a). The Commission seeks
comment on the possible relevance of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33183
these sources of authority to this
proceeding.
86. Generally, the Commission
tentatively concludes that the sources of
legal authority for the actions taken in
connection with the above-described
911 initiatives support the initiative the
Commission is launching today, given
the similarities—and despite the
differences—between them. Major
objectives of these 911 initiatives have
been to ensure that (1) CMRS and other
covered wireless providers provide an
interim mobile text solution for this
important constituency during the
transition to NG911, and (2) the needs
of people with disabilities do not get left
behind as technology develops. The
proceeding here addresses a current gap
in the availability of emergency
communications services by people
`
with disabilities vis-a-vis those now
widely available to the population at
large, namely, the disparity in the
opportunity to engage in real-time
communications with emergency
providers. To rectify this deficiency,
RTT offers the opportunity to engage in
text communications on a real-time
basis, which comes much closer to voice
than the currently available text-based
communications vehicles. Analogous to
the earlier 911 initiatives, the abovecited legal authorities support the
Commission’s use of the measures
proposed here to provide people who
are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind,
and speech-disabled with the
opportunity to access real time
communications service in emergency
situations when the need for such
capabilities is most pressing. The
Commission seeks comment on its
tentative conclusion and assessment.
Amendment of Parts 6, 7, and 14
87. The Commission believes that it is
within its authority under sections 251,
255, and 716 of the Act to amend parts
6 and 7 of the Commission’s rules to
require providers of interconnected
wireless VoIP service (as well as
manufacturers of equipment used with
such services) to support RTT, if readily
achievable (under parts 6 and 7), and to
amend part 14 to require wireless
providers of VoIP service (as well as
manufacturers of equipment used with
such services) not subject to parts 6 and
7 to support RTT, unless this
requirement is not achievable (under
part 14). Likewise, given that the
Commission seeks comment above on
whether to provide for support of RTT
on wireline networks, the Commission
notes its belief that the Commission has
sufficient authority under these
provisions to amend its rules to
similarly require providers of wireline
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
33184
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
VoIP services and manufacturers of
equipment used with such services to
support RTT, should the Commission so
decide. The Commission further
believes that these sections provide
sufficient authority to impose
requirements to ensure that RTT is
compatible with assistive technologies
used by people with disabilities, such as
refreshable Braille displays used by
people who are deaf-blind, and seeks
comment on this position.
88. Section 255 of the Act requires
providers of telecommunications service
and manufacturers of
telecommunications and customer
premises equipment to ensure that their
services and equipment are accessible to
and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if readily achievable.
Section 251(a)(2) of the Act provides
that telecommunications carriers may
not install network features, functions,
or capabilities that do not comply with
the guidelines and standards established
pursuant to section 255 of the Act. 47
U.S.C. 251(a)(2). Section 716 of the Act
requires providers of ACS and
manufacturers of equipment used with
ACS to ensure that their services and
equipment are accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities, unless
such requirements are not achievable,
and directs the Commission to
promulgate implementing regulations.
47 U.S.C. 617. ACS, in turn, is defined
to include interconnected and noninterconnected VoIP service, as well as
electronic messaging service and
interoperable video conferencing
service. 47 U.S.C. 153(1). Both sections
255 and 716 of the Act require that, to
the extent that it is not achievable to
make a service accessible and usable,
service providers ‘‘shall ensure that
[their] equipment or service is
compatible with existing peripheral
devices or specialized customer
premises equipment [SCPE] commonly
used by individuals with disabilities to
achieve access,’’ if readily achievable,
under section 255 of the Act, or unless
not achievable, under section 716 of the
Act. 47 U.S.C. 255(d), 617(c). The
Commission seeks comment on whether
these statutory provisions provide
sufficient authority to establish RTT
requirements for wireless and wireline
services and equipment.
89. Congress intended for these
provisions collectively to ensure access
by people with disabilities to our
nation’s telecommunications and
advanced communications services, and
gave the Commission broad authority to
determine how to achieve this objective.
47 U.S.C. 154(i). For example, section
716 of the Act directs the Commission
to prescribe regulations that ‘‘include
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
performance objectives to ensure the
accessibility, usability, and
compatibility of advanced
communications services and the
equipment’’ and ‘‘determine the
obligations under this section of
manufacturers, service providers, and
providers of applications or services
accessed over service provider
networks.’’ 47 U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(A), (C).
Given the limitations of TTY
technology, the Commission believes
that RTT is best suited to replace TTY
technology for rendering voice IP
services accessible to people who are
deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or
speech-disabled. The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis.
Amendment of Part 64
90. The Commission believes that it
has sufficient authority under the Act to
adopt the proposed amendments to part
64 of its rules to require wireless VoIP
service providers to support the
provision of and access to TRS via RTT.
The Commission also believes that the
Commission has sufficient authority
under these provisions to adopt similar
amendments to require wireline VoIP
service providers to support RTT for the
provision of and access to TRS.
91. Section 225 of the Act directs the
Commission to ‘‘ensure that interstate
and intrastate telecommunications relay
services are available, to the extent
possible and in the most efficient
manner, to hearing-impaired and
speech-impaired individuals in the
United States,’’ and further to prescribe
implementing regulations, including
functional requirements and minimum
standards. 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1), (d)(1).
Congress initially placed the obligation
to provide TRS on common carriers
‘‘providing telephone voice
transmission services,’’ either on their
own or through a state-supported TRS
program, in compliance with the
implementing regulations prescribed by
the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 225(c).
Pursuant to the Commission’s ancillary
jurisdiction, the Commission extended
the TRS obligations to interconnected
VoIP providers. Included in the TRS
obligations of carriers and
interconnected VoIP service providers is
the obligation to support access to TRS
call centers, including through
abbreviated 711 dialing access for TRS
calls initiated by TTYs. The
Commission believes that it has
sufficient authority under these
provisions to require VoIP service
providers to support TRS access via
RTT in lieu of requiring support for TTY
technology. Section 225 of the Act does
not require that TRS be provided or
accessed with TTYs. See 47 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
225(a)(3). Further, section 225 of the Act
expressly directs the Commission to
‘‘ensure that regulations prescribed to
implement this section encourage . . .
the use of existing technology and do
not discourage or impair the
development of improved technology.’’
47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2). The Commission
seeks comment on this analysis.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
92. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Commission has
prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in
document FCC 16–53. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments specified
in the DATES section. The Commission
will send a copy of document FCC 16–
53, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). See 5
U.S.C. 603(a).
Need For, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
93. In document FCC 16–53, the
Commission proposes amendments to
its rules to facilitate a transition from
outdated text telephony (TTY)
technology to a reliable and
interoperable means of providing realtime text (RTT) communication over
Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks
and services for people who are deaf,
hard of hearing, speech disabled, and
deaf-blind. Real-time text is a mode of
communication that permits text to be
sent immediately as it is being created.
The Commission’s proposals would
replace existing requirements
mandating support for TTY technology
with rules for wireless IP-based voice
services to support RTT technology
instead. The Commission’s action seeks
to ensure that people who are deaf, hard
of hearing, speech disabled, and deafblind can fully utilize and benefit from
twenty-first century communications
technologies as the United States
migrates from legacy circuit-switched
systems to IP-based networks and
services.
94. The Commission seeks comment
on the following:
• Its proposal to replace the
Commission’s rules that require wireless
service providers and equipment
manufacturers to support TTY
technology with rules defining the
obligations of these entities to support
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
RTT technology over IP-based voice
services.
• Its tentative conclusions that the
technical and functional limitations of
TTYs make this technology unsuitable
as a long-term means to provide full and
effective access to IP-based wireless
telephone networks, that there is a need
to provide individuals who rely on text
communication with a superior
accessibility solution for the IP
environment, and that RTT can best
achieve this goal because it can be well
supported in the wireless IP
environment, will facilitate emergency
communications to 911 services, allows
for more natural and simultaneous
interactions on telephone calls, will
largely eliminate the need to purchase
specialized or assistive devices that
connect to mainstream technology, and
may reduce reliance on
telecommunications relay services.
• Its proposal to make the above
amendments effective by December 31,
2017, for large wireless service
providers and manufacturers of user
devices authorized for their services, its
proposal to give additional time for
compliance by smaller service providers
and manufacturers of user devices
authorized for their services, and the
amount of additional time that would be
appropriate.
• Its tentative conclusions that
deployment of RTT on IP networks will
offer functionality greatly superior to
that of TTY technology; that the ability
to acquire off-the-shelf RTT-capable
devices will be beneficial for text
communication users; and that RTT will
be more effective than messaging-type
services such as short messaging
services (SMS) in meeting the
communication needs of consumers
with disabilities, including their
emergency communication needs.
• Its tentative conclusion that for
effective RTT communications across
multiple platforms and networks, such
communications and the associated
terminal equipment must be
interoperable with one another.
• Its proposal to adopt a standard
developed by the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), RFC 4103, as a safe
harbor technical standard, adherence to
which will be deemed to satisfy the
interoperability requirement for RTT
communications.
• Its proposal that service providers
should be required to make their RTT
services interoperable with TTY
technology supported by circuitswitched networks, and when that
requirement should sunset.
• Its proposal to require that wireless
providers and equipment manufacturers
implementing RTT support the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
following telecommunications
functions:
• Use of the same North American
Numbering Plan numbers used for
voice, to initiate and receive calls;
• 911 emergency communications in
full compliance with all applicable 911
rules;
• transmission of characters within
one second of when they are generated,
with no more than a 0.2 percent
character error rate, which equates to
approximately a one percent word error
rate;
• simultaneous voice and text
transmission;
• TRS access;
• a comprehensive character set and
the ability to control text settings such
as font size and color, to adjust text
conversation windows, and to set up
text presentation;
• compliance with the Commission’s
existing accessibility regulations for
‘‘electronic messaging services’’; and
• other calling features such as call
transfer, teleconferencing, caller
identification, voice and text mail, and
interactive voice response systems.
• Its proposal to require wireless
service providers implementing RTT to
enable device portability for their RTT
services to the same extent as for voice
services and whether to require such
providers to enable the use of third
party RTT software applications on user
devices to supplement the native RTT
capabilities.
• Measures that may be needed to
ensure the affordability of new terminal
equipment or assistive devices that may
be needed as a consequence of the
migration to RTT technology.
• Its proposal to require wireless
service providers to notify their
customers about the inability to use
TTYs with IP-based services and about
alternative means of reaching 911
services.
• The best means of informing the
public, including businesses,
governmental agencies, and individuals
with disabilities who will be directly
affected by the transition, about the
migration from TTY technology to RTT
and the mechanics of how this
technology will work.
• Security risks that may be
associated with the adoption of RTT
technology and that require the
Commission’s attention.
• Whether to require the
implementation of RTT in IP-based
wireline networks, including:
• Whether to require wireline voiceover-IP (VoIP) service providers to
support RTT, as the Commission is
proposing to do for wireless services;
• How to ensure that end users can
readily connect to and use RTT
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33185
capabilities in wireline networks, and
whether it would be feasible and
practical for wireline VoIP service
providers to offer downloadable overthe-top RTT software applications;
• Whether to require VoIP providers
to ensure the compatibility of their
services with third-party RTT software
applications downloaded onto textcapable devices such as smartphones,
tablets, and computers;
• The extent to which wireline VoIP
manufacturers should have RTT support
obligations for their equipment that is
otherwise capable of sending, receiving,
and displaying text;
• Whether IP-based wireline service
providers and manufacturers should be
required to adhere to the same
interoperability requirements, minimum
functionalities, and outreach obligations
as those proposed for wireless VoIP
services and end user devices;
• Whether RFC 4103 is an
appropriate standard to reference as the
safe harbor for wireline VoIP services
and end user equipment to ensure
interoperability and compliance with
the rules proposed for wireless services;
and
• The appropriate timing for
incorporation of RTT capabilities into
wireline VoIP services and end user
devices.
Legal Basis
95. The proposed action is authorized
under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 225, 255, 303,
316, and 716 of the Act, section 6 of the
Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999, and section 106 of
the CVAA; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
225, 255, 303, 316, 615a–1, 615c, 617.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities Impacted
96. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
97. The majority of the Commission’s
proposals in document FCC 16–53 will
affect obligations on
telecommunications carriers and
providers, VoIP service providers,
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33186
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
wireline and wireless service providers,
ACS providers, and telecommunications
equipment and software manufacturers.
Other entities, however, that choose to
object to the substitution of RTT for
TTY technology under the
Commission’s new proposed rules may
be economically impacted by the
proposals in document FCC 16–53.
98. A small business is an
independent business having less than
500 employees. Nationwide, there are a
total of approximately 28.2 million
small businesses, according to the SBA.
Affected small entities as defined by
industry are as follows.
Wireline Providers
99. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The Census Bureau defines
this industry as comprising
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
3,188 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms
had employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.
100. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local
exchange service are small entities.
101. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,307
carriers reported that they were
incumbent local exchange service
providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 301 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small entities.
102. The Commission has included
small incumbent LECs in this present
RFA analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. The
Commission has therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA
analysis, although the Commission
emphasizes that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
103. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is for the category
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of either
competitive local exchange services or
competitive access provider services. Of
these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have more than 1,500 employees. In
addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 72 carriers have reported that
they are Other Local Service Providers.
Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer
employees and two have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
other local service providers are small
entities.
104. Interexchange Carriers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 359 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the
provision of interexchange service. Of
these, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 42 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of IXCs are small entities.
105. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to Other Toll
Carriers. This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
operator service providers, prepaid
calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 284 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of other toll carriage. Of
these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and five have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most
Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
Wireless Providers
106. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007,
the Census Bureau has placed wireless
firms within this new, broad, economic
census category. The Census Bureau
defines this industry as comprising
‘‘establishments engaged in operating
and maintaining switching and
transmission facilities to provide
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services.’’ Under the present and
prior categories, the SBA has deemed a
wireless business to be small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. For the
category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), census data for 2007 show
that there were 1,383 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368
firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees. Since all firms with fewer
than 1,500 employees are considered
small, given the total employment in the
sector, the Commission estimates that
the vast majority of wireless firms are
small entities.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Cable Service Providers
107. Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation). The Commission has
developed its own small business size
standards for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission’s
rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one
serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers
nationwide. Industry data indicate that
there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this
total, all but nine cable operators
nationwide are small under the 400,000subscriber size standard. In addition,
under the Commission’s rate regulation
rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600
cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
3,900 cable systems have fewer than
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems
have 15,000 or more subscribers. Thus,
under this standard, the Commission
estimates that most cable systems are
small entities.
All Other Telecommunications
108. All Other Telecommunications.
The Census Bureau defines this industry
as including ‘‘establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
industry.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category; that size standard is $32.5
million or less in average annual
receipts. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were 2,383 firms in
this category that operated for the entire
year. Of these, 2,346 firms had annual
receipts of under $25 million.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of these firms
are small entities.
109. TRS Providers. These services
can be included within the broad
economic category of All Other
Telecommunications. Seven providers
currently receive compensation from the
Interstate Telecommunications Relay
Service (TRS) Fund for providing TRS:
ASL Services Holdings, LLC; CSDVRS,
LLC; Convo Communications, LLC;
Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Purple
Communications, Inc.; Sprint
Communications, Inc. (Sprint); and
Sorenson Communications, Inc.
However, because Sprint’s primary
business fits within the definition of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite), Sprint is not
considered to be within the category of
All Other Telecommunications. As a
result, six of the authorized TRS
providers can be included within the
broad economic census category of All
Other Telecommunications. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for All Other
Telecommunications, which consists of
all such firms with gross annual receipts
of $32.5 million or less. Under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, approximately
half of the TRS providers can be
considered small.
Manufacturers of Equipment To Provide
VoIP
110. Entities manufacturing
equipment used to provide
interconnected VoIP, noninterconnected VoIP, or both are
generally found in one of two Census
Bureau categories, ‘‘Electronic
Computer Manufacturing’’ or
‘‘Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.’’
While the Commission recognizes that
the manufacturers of equipment used to
provide interconnected VoIP will
continue to be regulated under section
255 of the Act rather than under section
716 of the Act, the Commission includes
here an analysis of the possible
significant economic impact of the
Commission’s proposed rules on
manufacturers of equipment used to
provide both interconnected and noninterconnected VoIP because it was not
possible to separate available data on
these two manufacturing categories for
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33187
VoIP equipment. In light of this
situation, the estimates below are in all
likelihood overstating the number of
small entities that manufacture
equipment used to provide
interconnected VoIP and which are
subject to the proposed section 716
rules. However, in the absence of more
accurate data, the Commission presents
these figures to provide as thorough an
analysis of the impact on small entities
as it can at this time, with the
understanding that it will modify its
analysis as more accurate data becomes
available in this proceeding.
111. Electronic Computer
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category to include ‘‘. . .
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing and/or assembling
electronic computers, such as
mainframes, personal computers,
workstations, laptops, and computer
servers. Computers can be analog,
digital, or hybrid. Digital computers, the
most common type, are devices that do
all of the following: (1) Store the
processing program or programs and the
data immediately necessary for the
execution of the program; (2) can be
freely programmed in accordance with
the requirements of the user; (3) perform
arithmetical computations specified by
the user; and (4) execute, without
human intervention, a processing
program that requires the computer to
modify its execution by logical decision
during the processing run. Analog
computers are capable of simulating
mathematical models and contain at
least analog, control, and processing
elements. The manufacture of
computers includes the assembly of or
integration of processors, co-processors,
memory, storage, and input/output
devices into a user-programmable final
product. The manufacture of computers
includes the assembly or integration of
processors, coprocessors, memory,
storage, and input/output devices into a
user-programmable final product.’’ In
this category, the SBA has deemed an
electronic computer manufacturing
business to be small if it has fewer than
1,000 employees. According to Census
Bureau data for 2007, there were 425
establishments in this category that
operated that year. Of these, 419 had
less 1,000 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of these establishments are small
entities.
112. Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category to comprise
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing wire telephone and data
communications equipment.’’ The
Census Bureau further states: ‘‘These
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33188
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
products may be stand alone or boardlevel components of a larger system.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are central office
switching equipment, cordless
telephones (except cellular), PBX
equipment, telephones, telephone
answering machines, LAN modems,
multi-user modems, and other data
communications equipment, such as
bridges, routers, and gateways.’’
113. In this category, the SBA has
deemed a telephone apparatus
manufacturing business to be small if it
has fewer than 1,000 employees. For
this category of manufacturers, Census
data for 2007 show that there were 398
such establishments that operated that
year. Of those 398 establishments, 393
(approximately 99%) had fewer than
1,000 employees and, thus, would be
deemed small under the applicable SBA
size standard. Accordingly, the majority
of establishments in this category can be
considered small under that standard.
On this basis, the Commission
continues to estimate that
approximately 99% or more of the
manufacturers of equipment used to
provide VoIP in this category are small
entities.
114. Computer Terminal
Manufacturing. This category
‘‘comprises establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing computer
terminals. Computer terminals are
input/output devices that connect with
a central computer for processing.’’ The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category of
manufacturing; that size standard is
1,000 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
43 establishments in this category that
operated that year. Of this total, all 43
had less than 500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of these
establishments are small entities.
Manufacturers of Equipment To Provide
Electronic Messaging
115. Entities that manufacture
equipment (other than software) used to
provide electronic messaging services
are generally found in one of three
Census Bureau categories: ‘‘Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Electronic Computer
Manufacturing,’’ or ‘‘Telephone
Apparatus Manufacturing.’’
116. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this industry as comprising
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made
by the establishments are: Transmitting
and receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has established a
size standard for this industry that
classifies any business in this industry
as small if it has 750 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that in that year 939 such
businesses operated. Of that number,
912 businesses operated with less than
500 employees. Based on this data, the
Commission concludes that a majority
of businesses in this industry are small
by the SBA standard.
117. Electronic Computer
Manufacturing. This category
‘‘comprises establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing and/or
assembling electronic computers, such
as mainframes, personal computers,
workstations, laptops, and computer
servers. Computers can be analog,
digital, or hybrid. Digital computers, the
most common type, are devices that do
all of the following: (1) Store the
processing program or programs and the
data immediately necessary for the
execution of the program; (2) can be
freely programmed in accordance with
the requirements of the user; (3) perform
arithmetical computations specified by
the user; and (4) execute, without
human intervention, a processing
program that requires the computer to
modify its execution by logical decision
during the processing run. Analog
computers are capable of simulating
mathematical models and contain at
least analog, control, and programming
elements. The manufacture of
computers includes the assembly or
integration of processors, coprocessors,
memory, storage, and input/output
devices into a user-programmable final
product.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category of manufacturing; that size
standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 425 establishments in
this category that operated that year. Of
these, 419 had less 1,000 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of these
establishments are small entities.
Manufacturers of Equipment To Provide
Interoperable Video Conferencing
Services
118. Other Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. Entities that
manufacture equipment used to provide
interoperable and other video
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
conferencing services are generally
found in the Census Bureau category:
‘‘Other Communications Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ The Census Bureau
defines this category to include: ‘‘. . .
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing communications
equipment (except telephone apparatus,
and radio and television broadcast, and
wireless communications equipment).’’
In this category, the SBA has deemed a
business manufacturing other
communications equipment to be small
if it has fewer than 750 employees. For
this category of manufacturers, Census
data for 2007 show that there were 452
such establishments that operated that
year. Of those 452 establishments, all
452 (100%) had fewer than 1,000
employees and 448 of those 452
(approximately 99%) had fewer than
500 employees. Between these two
figures, the Commission estimates that
about 450 establishments
(approximately 99.6%) had fewer than
750 employees and, thus, would be
considered small under the applicable
SBA size standard. Accordingly, the
majority of establishments in this
category can be considered small under
that standard. On this basis,
Commission estimates that
approximately 99.6% or more of the
manufacturers of equipment used to
provide interoperable and other video
conferencing services are small entities.
Manufacturers of Software
119. Entities that publish software
used to provide interconnected VoIP,
non-interconnected VoIP, electronic
messaging services, or interoperable
video conferencing services are found in
the Census Bureau category ‘‘Software
Publishers.’’
120. Software Publishers. This
category ‘‘comprises establishments
primarily engaged in computer software
publishing or publishing and
reproduction. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
computer software publishing or
publishing and reproduction.
Establishments in this industry carry
out operations necessary for producing
and distributing computer software,
such as designing, providing
documentation, assisting in installation,
and providing support services to
software purchasers. These
establishments may design, develop,
and publish, or publish only.’’ The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for software publishers, which
consists of all such firms with gross
annual receipts of $38.5 million or less.
For this category, census data for 2007
show that there were 5,313 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of those
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
firms, a total of 4,956 had gross annual
receipts less than $25 million. Thus, a
majority of software publishers
potentially affected by the proposals in
document FCC 16–53 can be considered
small.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
121. Although document FCC 16–53
proposes to require support for RTT in
lieu of TTY technologies in all IP-based
wireless services, and seeks comment
on whether to require the
implementation of RTT in IP-based
wireline networks, document FCC 16–
53, for the most part, does not propose
or seek comment on new or modified
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. However,
document FCC 16–53 seeks comment on
the best means of informing the public,
including businesses, governmental
agencies, and individuals with
disabilities who will be directly affected
by the transition, about the migration
from TTY technology to RTT and the
mechanics of how this technology will
work.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
122. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.’’
123. Document FCC 16–53 proposes
rules intended to replace obsolete TTY
technology with RTT to ensure
consumer access to IP services via
wireless text-based communications and
seeks comment on whether to do the
same for wireline text-based
communications. RTT technology may
simplify the accessibility obligations of
small businesses, because RTT allows
calls to be made using the built-in
functionality of a wide selection of offthe shelf devices, and thus may alleviate
the high costs and challenges faced by
small businesses and customers in
locating dedicated external assistive
devices, such as specialty phones.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
Additionally, with the proposal to phase
out TTY technology, the burden is
reduced for small entities and
emergency call centers to maintain such
technology in the long term.
124. The Commission proposes an
implementation deadline for RTT
technology of December 31, 2017, for
the wireless providers that offer
nationwide service, and manufacturers
of end user devices authorized for their
services, and to reduce the burden and
relieve possible adverse economic
impact on small entities, seeks comment
on an appropriate deadline for all other
wireless providers and equipment
manufacturers. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment from
providers of wireline VoIP services,
including small entities, on the
appropriate timing for incorporation of
RTT capabilities into wireline VoIP
services and end user devices.
125. In document FCC 16–53, while
the Commission proposes a ‘‘safe
harbor’’ technical standard to ensure
RTT interoperability, it proposes to
allow service providers and carriers to
use alternative protocols for RTT,
provided that they are interoperable.
Further, throughout the item, flexibility
is integrated in the proposed
requirements in order to take into
consideration the limitations of small
businesses. For instance, the proposed
requirement that equipment
manufacturers supporting RTT offer
certain functions as native features on
VoIP-enabled terminal devices that can
send, receive, and display text is subject
to the condition that such features be
achievable. As such, the Commission
anticipates that these proposals will
have little to no impact on small entities
that are eligible to claim that the
requirement is not achievable.
126. The Commission believes that
any requirement for service providers
and manufacturers to implement
outreach and notification to consumers
about the transition from TTY to RTT
will not require significant additional
resources for small entities, and in any
event would be outweighed by the need
for consumers to understand the
changes in the services and associated
equipment that they will be receiving.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals
127. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 225, 255,
301, 303(r), 316, 403, 715, and 716 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and section 106 of the CVAA,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r),
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33189
316, 403, 615c, 616, 617, document FCC
16–53 IS ADOPTED.
The Commission’s Consumer
Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of document FCC 16–53, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 6
Individuals with disabilities, Access
to telecommunication service and
equipment, and Customer premise
equipment.
47 CFR Part 7
Individuals with disabilities, Access
to voice mail and interactive menu
services and equipment.
47 CFR Part 14
Individuals with disabilities, Access
to advanced communication services
and equipment.
47 CFR Part 20
Commercial mobile services,
Individuals with disabilities, Access to
911 services.
47 CFR Part 64
Telecommunications relay services,
Individuals with disabilities.
47 CFR Part 67
Real-time text, Individuals with
disabilities.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 6, 7, 14, 20, 64, and 67 as follows:
PART 6—ACCESS TO
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
AND CUSTOMER PREMISES
EQUIPMENT BY PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 6
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 251, 255,
and 303(r).
2. Amend § 6.3 by adding paragraphs
(a)(3), (b)(5), (m), and (n) to read as
follows:
■
§ 6.3
Definitions.
(a) * * *
(3) Real-Time Text. Effective
December 31, 2017, for wireless VoIP
services and text-capable user devices
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33190
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
used with such services, the service or
device supports real-time text
communications, in accordance with 47
CFR part 67.
(b) * * *
(5) Wireless VoIP Exemption. Wireless
VoIP services and equipment used with
such services are not required to
provide TTY connectability and TTY
signal compatibility if such services and
equipment support real-time text, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) The term real-time text shall have
the meaning set forth in § 67.1 of this
chapter.
(n) The term text-capable user device
means customer premises equipment
that is able to send, receive, and display
text.
PART 7—ACCESS TO VOICEMAIL AND
INTERACTIVE MENU SERVICES AND
EQUIPMENT BY PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES
3. The authority citation for part 7
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 154(j), 208,
and 255.
4. Amend § 7.3 by adding paragraphs
(a)(3), (b)(5), (n), and (o) to read as
follows:
■
§ 7.3
Definitions.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) * * *
(3) Real-Time Text. Effective
December 31, 2017, for wireless VoIP
services and text-capable user devices
used with such services, the service or
equipment supports real-time text
communications, in accordance with 47
CFR part 67.
(b) * * *
(5) Wireless VoIP Exemption. Wireless
VoIP services and equipment are not
required to provide TTY connectability
and TTY signal compatibility if such
services and equipment support realtime text, in accordance with 47 CFR
part 67.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) The term real-time text shall have
the meaning set forth in § 67.1 of this
chapter.
(o) The term text-capable user device
means customer premises equipment
that is able to send, receive, and display
text.
PART 14—ACCESS TO ADVANCED
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND
EQUIPMENT BY PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES
5. The authority citation for part 14
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 255, 303,
403, 503, 617, 618, 619 unless otherwise
noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
6. Amend § 14.10 by adding
paragraphs (w) and (x) to read as
follows:
■
§ 14.10
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(w) The term real-time text shall have
the meaning set forth in § 67.1 of this
chapter.
(x) The term text-capable user device
means end user equipment that is able
to send, receive, and display text.
■ 7. Amend § 14.21 by adding
paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 14.21
Performance Objectives.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Real-Time Text. Effective July 31,
2017, for wireless VoIP services and
text-capable user devices used with
such services, the service or device
supports real-time text communications,
in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(5) Wireless VoIP Exemption. Wireless
VoIP services and equipment are not
required to provide TTY connectability
and TTY signal compatibility if such
services and equipment support realtime text, in accordance with 47 CFR
part 67.
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
SERVICES
8. The authority citation for part 20
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i),
157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303,
303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316,
316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c.
9. Amend § 20.18 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 20.18
911 Service.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Access to 911 services. (1) Except
as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, CMRS providers subject to this
section must be capable of transmitting
911 calls from individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, speech-disabled, and
deaf-blind through the use of Text
Telephone Devices (TTY), except that
CMRS providers transmitting over IP
facilities are not subject to this
requirement if the CMRS provider
supports real-time text communications,
in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
(2) Notwithstanding any other
limitation of coverage in this section,
the requirements of this paragraph (c)(2)
apply to providers of digital mobile
service in the United States to the extent
that they offer terrestrial mobile service
that enables two-way real-time voice
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
communications among members of the
public or a substantial portion of the
public. Effective December 31, 2017,
such service providers transmitting over
IP facilities shall support 911 access via
real-time text communications for
individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, speech-disabled, and deafblind, in accordance with 47 CFR part
67.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
10. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k),
403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat.
56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, unless otherwise
noted.
11. Amend § 64.601 by revising
paragraphs (a)(13), (a)(15), and (a)(42),
and adding paragraph (a)(46), to read as
follows:
■
§ 64.601 Definitions and provisions of
general applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(a)(13) Hearing carry over (HCO). A
form of TRS where the person with the
speech disability is able to listen to the
other end user and, in reply, the CA
speaks the text as typed by the person
with the speech disability. The CA does
not type any conversation. Two-line
HCO is an HCO service that allows TRS
users to use one telephone line for
hearing and the other for sending TTY
messages. HCO-to-TTY allows a relay
conversation to take place between an
HCO user and a TTY user. HCO-to-RTT
is an HCO service that allows a relay
conversation to take place between an
HCO user and an RTT user. HCO-toHCO allows a relay conversation to take
place between two HCO users.
*
*
*
*
*
(15) Internet-based TRS (iTRS). A
telecommunications relay service (TRS)
in which an individual with a hearing
or a speech disability connects to a TRS
communications assistant using an
Internet Protocol-enabled device via the
Internet, rather than the public switched
telephone network. Except as
authorized or required by the
Commission, Internet-based TRS does
not include the use of a text telephone
(TTY) or real-time text (RTT) over an
interconnected voice over Internet
Protocol service.
*
*
*
*
*
(42) Voice carry over (VCO). A form
of TRS where the person with the
hearing disability is able to speak
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
directly to the other end user. The CA
types the response back to the person
with the hearing disability. The CA does
not voice the conversation. Two-line
VCO is a VCO service that allows TRS
users to use one telephone line for
voicing and the other for receiving TTY
messages. A VCO-to-TTY TRS call
allows a relay conversation to take place
between a VCO user and a TTY user.
VCO-to-RTT is a VCO service that
allows a relay conversation to take place
between a VCO user and an RTT user.
VCO-to-VCO allows a relay conversation
to take place between two VCO users.
*
*
*
*
*
(46) Real-Time Text (RTT). The term
real-time text shall have the meaning set
forth in § 67.1 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Amend § 64.603 by revising the
introductory text to read as follows:
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 64.603
Provision of services.
Each common carrier providing
telephone voice transmission services
shall provide, in compliance with the
regulations prescribed herein,
throughout the area in which it offers
services, telecommunications relay
services, individually, through
designees, through a competitively
selected vendor, or in concert with other
carriers, including relay services
accessed via RTT communications.
Interstate Spanish language relay service
shall be provided. Speech-to-speech
relay service also shall be provided,
except that speech-to-speech relay
service need not be provided by IP
Relay providers, VRS providers,
captioned telephone relay service
providers, and IP CTS providers. In
addition, each common carrier
providing telephone voice transmission
services shall provide access via the 711
dialing code to all relay services as a toll
free call. Wireless VoIP service
providers are not required to provide
such access to TTY users if they provide
711 dialing code access by supporting
real-time text communications, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
Effective [insert date], wireless VoIP
service providers shall provide 711
dialing code access by supporting realtime text communications, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Amend § 64.604 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vii) to read as
follows:
§ 64.604
Mandatory minimum standards.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) CAs answering and placing a TTYor RTT-based TRS call or VRS call shall
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
stay with the call for a minimum of ten
minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) TRS shall transmit conversations
between TTY or RTT callers and voice
callers in real time.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Add part 67 to read as follows:
PART 67—REAL-TIME TEXT
Sec.
67.1
67.2
Definitions.
Service Provider and Manufacturer
Obligations; Minimum Functionalities.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 225, 251,
255, 301, 303, 307, 309, 316, 615c, 616, 617.
§ 67.1
Definitions.
(a) ‘‘Authorized user device’’ means a
handset or other end user device that is
authorized by the provider of a covered
service for use with that service and is
able to send, receive, and display text.
(b) ‘‘Covered service’’ means a VoIP or
other service that is permitted or
required to support RTT pursuant to
parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of this chapter.
(c) ‘‘RFC 4103’’ means standard
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Realtime Transport Protocol Payload for
Text Conversation (2005) and any
successor protocol published by the
IETF. RFC 4103 is available at: https://
www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt.
(d) ‘‘RFC 4103-conforming’’ service or
user device means a covered service or
authorized user device that enables
initiation, sending, transmission,
reception, and display of RTT
communications in conformity with
RFC 4103.
(e) ‘‘RFC 4103–TTY gateway’’ means
a gateway that is able to reliably and
accurately transcode communications
between:
(1) RFC 4103-conforming services and
devices and;
(2) Circuit-switched networks that
support communications between TTYs.
(f) ‘‘Real-time text (RTT)’’ or ‘‘RTT
communications’’ means text
communications that are transmitted
over Internet Protocol (IP) networks
immediately as they are typed, e.g., on
a character-by-character basis.
(g) ‘‘Support RTT’’ or ‘‘support RTT
communications’’ means to enable users
to initiate, send, transmit, receive, and
display RTT communications in
accordance with the applicable
provisions of this part.
§ 67.2 Service Provider and Manufacturer
Obligations; minimum functionalities.
(a) Service Provider Obligations. A
provider of a covered service shall
ensure that its service and all authorized
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33191
user devices using its service support
RTT in compliance with this section.
(b) Manufacturer Obligations. A
manufacturer shall ensure that its
authorized user devices support RTT in
compliance with this section.
(c) RTT–RTT Interoperability.
Covered services and authorized user
devices shall be interoperable with
other services and devices that support
RTT in accordance with this part. RFC
4103-conforming services and user
devices shall be deemed to comply with
this paragraph (c). Other covered
services or authorized user devices shall
be deemed to comply if RTT
communications between such service
or user device and an RFC 4103conforming service or user device are
reliably and accurately transcoded
(1) To and from RFC 4103, or
(2) To and from an internetworking
protocol mutually agreed-upon with the
owner of the network serving the RFC
4103-conforming service or device.
(d) RTT–TTY Interoperability.
Covered services and authorized user
devices shall be interoperable with
TTYs connected to other networks.
Covered services and authorized user
devices shall be deemed to comply with
this paragraph (d) if communications to
and from such TTYs:
(1) Pass through an RFC 4103–TTY
gateway, or
(2) Are reliably and accurately
transcoded to and from an
internetworking protocol mutually
agreed-upon with the owner of the
network serving the TTY.
(e) Device Portability. Authorized user
devices shall be portable among service
providers for RTT communications to
the same extent as for voice
communications.
(f) Features and Capabilities. Covered
services and authorized user devices
shall enable the user to:
(1) Initiate and receive RTT calls to
and from the same telephone numbers
for which they initiate and receive voice
calls;
(2) Transmit and receive RTT
communications to and from any 911
public safety answering point (PSAP) in
the United States;
(3) Transmit text instantly, so that
each text character appears on the
receiving device within one second of
when it is generated on the sending
device, with no more than 0.2 percent
character error rate;
(4) Send and receive text and voice
simultaneously in both directions on the
same call using a single device;
(5) Transfer RTT calls and initiate
conference calls using the same
procedures used for voice
communication;
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
33192
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(6) Use RTT to communicate with and
retrieve messages from messaging,
automated attendant, and interactive
voice response systems; and
(7) Transmit caller identification and
conduct similar telecommunication
functions with RTT communications.
[FR Doc. 2016–12057 Filed 5–24–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 4, 23, and 52
[FAR Case 2015–024; Docket No. 2015–
0024, Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000–AN20
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Public
Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Reduction Goals—
Representation (FAR Case 2015–024)
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to create
an annual representation within the
System for Award Management for
vendors to indicate if and where they
publicly disclose greenhouse gas
emissions and greenhouse gas reduction
goals or targets. This information will
help the Government assess supplier
greenhouse gas management practices
and assist agencies in developing
strategies to engage with contractors to
reduce supply chain emissions, as
directed in the Executive Order on
Planning for Federal Sustainability in
the Next Decade.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat Division at one of the
addresses shown below on or before
July 25, 2016 to be considered in the
formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to FAR Case 2015–024 by any
of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2015–024’’.
Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2015–
024’’. Follow the instructions provided
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 May 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
on the screen. Please include your
name, company name (if any), and
‘‘FAR Case 2015–024’’ on your attached
document.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F
Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20405–0001.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2015–024:
Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Reduction Goals—
Representation’’ in all correspondence
related to this case. Comments received
generally will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal and/or business
confidential information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
please check www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting (except
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, at
703–795–6328 for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the Regulatory Secretariat Division at
202–501–4755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
President Obama has made
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reduction a priority. In 2015, the
Administration announced a new target
to reduce Federal Government
emissions by 40 percent below 2008
levels by 2025. Through Executive
Order (E.O.) 13693, Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade
(published at 80 FR 15871, on March 19,
2015), the President established a
strategy to reduce GHG emissions across
Federal operations and the supply
chain, including specific actions to
better understand and manage the
implications of supply chain emissions.
To that end, E.O. 13693 requires the
seven largest procuring agencies to
implement procurements that take into
consideration contractor GHG emissions
and directs the Council on
Environmental Quality to release an
annual inventory of major suppliers that
includes information on whether those
suppliers publicly disclose GHG
emissions and GHG reduction targets.
E.O. 13693 supersedes E.O.s 13423 and
13514.
In order to identify opportunities to
reduce supply chain emissions, develop
and implement procurements that
incorporate consideration of those
emissions, and develop an accurate
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
annual inventory that includes
contractor GHG management practices,
greater insight into the scope of GHG
management by companies seeking to
do business with the Federal
Government is needed. This information
will help the Government assess
supplier GHG management practices
and assist agencies in developing
strategies to engage with contractors to
reduce supply chain emissions as
directed in E.O. 13693.
Public disclosure of GHG emissions
and reduction goals or targets has
become standard practice in many
industries, and companies are
increasingly asking their own suppliers
about their GHG management practices.
Performing a GHG inventory provides
insight into operations, spurs
innovation, and helps identify
opportunities for efficiency and savings
that can result in both environmental
and financial benefits. By asking
suppliers whether or not they publicly
report emissions and reduction targets,
the Federal Government will have
accurate, up-to-date information on its
suppliers. An annual representation will
promote transparency and demonstrate
the Federal Government’s commitment
to reducing supply chain emissions.
Furthermore, by promoting GHG
management and emissions reductions
in its supply chain, the Federal
Government will encourage supplier
innovation, greater efficiency, and cost
savings, benefitting both the
Government and suppliers and adding
value to the procurement process.
II. Discussion and Analysis
Accordingly, DoD, GSA, and NASA
are proposing to revise the FAR to add
an annual representation within the
System for Award Management (SAM)
for offerors to indicate if and where they
publicly disclose GHG emissions and
GHG reduction goals or targets. This
representation would be mandatory
only for vendors who received $7.5
million or more in Federal contract
awards in the preceding Federal fiscal
year. The representation would be
voluntary for all other vendors.
Additionally, as long as the vendor’s
emissions are reported publicly—either
by the entity itself or rolled up into the
public emissions report of a parent
company—the emissions would be
considered publicly reported.
In addition to adding the new
representation at FAR 52.223–ZZ,
Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Reduction Goals—
Representation, this rule proposes to—
• Revise the definition of
‘‘greenhouse gases’’ at FAR 23.001 to
add nitrogen trifluoride, in accordance
E:\FR\FM\25MYP1.SGM
25MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33170-33192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12057]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, 64, and 67
[CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178; FCC 16-53]
Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text Technology
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes amendments to its
rules to facilitate a transition from outdated text telephone (TTY)
technology to a reliable and interoperable means of providing real-time
text (RTT) communication for people who are deaf, hard of hearing,
speech disabled, and deaf-blind over Internet Protocol (IP) enabled
networks and services.
DATES: Comments are due July 11, 2016 and Reply Comments are due July
25, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 16-145,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Filers should follow the instructions provided on
the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing
the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S.
Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 16-145.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzy Rosen Singleton, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-510-9446 or email
Suzanne.Singleton@fcc.gov, or Robert Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, at 202-418-0996 or email Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 16-53,
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, adopted April 28, 2016, and released April 29, 2016, in CG
Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178. The full text of document
FCC 16-53 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS,
and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. Document FCC 16-53 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rights-office-headlines. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules. To request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 16-53 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
[[Page 33171]]
2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
Introduction
1. In document FCC 16-53, the Commission proposes amendments to its
rules to facilitate a transition from outdated text telephone (TTY)
technology to a reliable and interoperable means of providing real-time
text (RTT) communication for people who are deaf, hard of hearing,
speech disabled, and deaf-blind over Internet Protocol (IP) enabled
networks and services. RTT is a mode of communication that permits text
to be sent immediately as it is being created. As a technology designed
for today's IP environment, and one that allows the use of off-the-
shelf rather than specialized end user devices, RTT can, for the first
time in our nation's history, enable people with disabilities who rely
on text to use text-based communications services that are fully
integrated with mainstream communications services and devices used by
the general public. In addition, RTT's advanced features, including its
speed, full character set, reliability, and ease of use, can
significantly improve access to emergency services for people with
disabilities and help reduce reliance on telecommunications relay
services.
2. In order to facilitate an effective and seamless transition to
RTT, the Commission proposes to amend its rules as follows:
The Commission proposes to replace its rules governing the
obligations of wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers
to support TTY technology with rules defining the obligations of these
entities to support RTT over IP-based wireless voice services.
The Commission proposes that, for wireless service
providers' and equipment manufacturers' support of RTT to be deemed
sufficient for compliance with the Commission's rules:
RTT communications must be interoperable across networks
and devices, and this may achieved through adherence to Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments 4103, Real-time
Transport Protocol Payload for Text Conversation (2005) (RFC 4103), as
a ``safe harbor'' standard for RTT;
RTT communications must be backward compatible with TTY
technology, until the Commission determines that such compatibility is
no longer necessary; and
Wireless services and equipment capable of sending,
receiving and displaying text must support specific RTT functions,
features, and capabilities necessary to ensure that people with
disabilities have accessible and effective text-based communications
service.
The Commission proposes establishing timelines for
implementation of RTT as follows:
For Tier I wireless service providers, and manufacturers
that provide devices for such services, implementation of RTT would be
required by December 31, 2017.
For non-Tier I wireless providers, and manufacturers of
equipment used with such services, the Commission seeks comment on an
appropriate timeline for implementation of RTT.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to amend
its rules to place comparable responsibilities to support RTT on
providers and manufacturers of wireline IP services and equipment that
enable consumers to initiate and receive communications by voice.
3. The Commission believes that the above proposals for the
migration from TTY to RTT technology will ensure that people with
disabilities can fully utilize and benefit from twenty-first century
communications technologies as our nation migrates from legacy analog
systems to IP-based networks and services. The Commission seeks comment
on the tentative conclusions, proposals, and analyses put forth in
document FCC 16-53, as well as on any alternative approaches.
Background
4. The Commission has adopted specific rules requiring support for
TTY technology by providers and manufacturers of telecommunications and
advanced communications services and devices. See 47 CFR 6.5, 7.5,
14.20, 14.21, 20.18(c), 64.601(a)(1), (b), 64.603, 64.604(a)(3)(v),
(c)(5)(iii). On June 12, 2015, AT&T filed a petition requesting that
the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to authorize the
substitution of RTT for TTY technology, as an accessibility solution
for use with IP-based voice communications networks and services.
Limitations of TTY Technology and the Need for a Rulemaking
5. TTY technology was developed more than fifty years ago as a
means of enabling people who are deaf, hard of hearing, and speech
disabled to use the legacy Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).
The record shows the significant challenges that TTY technology
presents on IP-based communication networks and platforms, including
its susceptibility to packet loss, compression techniques that distort
TTY tones, and echo or other noises that result from the transmission
of the Baudot character string. These deficiencies can degrade quality,
augment error rates, and hurt the reliability of telephone
communications. When these shortcomings occur, synchronization of the
conversation also can be impeded, and the transmission can become
garbled until it is restored. For TTY users, this not only is
frustrating, but also can present a dangerous situation in an
emergency, when effective communication is critical. TTYs are also
criticized for their slow transmission speed, their dependency on turn-
taking, their use of significant network bandwidth, their lack of
interoperability with dedicated text devices used in other countries,
and their limited character set, the latter of which can make
communicating certain information, such as email and web addresses,
difficult or impossible.
6. The record shows that these technical and functional limitations
of TTY technology have resulted in a steady decline in its use in favor
of other forms of text communication that offer greater ease of use,
improved features, and practicability. This trend is also revealed in a
survey of the participants in field trials conducted to assess the user
experience of the quality and interoperability of RTT and alternatives.
Reports by the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund
Administrator, Rolka Loube, confirm decreasing reliance on TTYs; over
the past 7\1/2\ years, its monthly filings show a drop of nearly 80
percent in the number of minutes attributed to TTY-initiated relay
calls. Rolka Loube, TRS Fund Performance Status Report, https://www.rolkaloube.com/#!formsreport/c1zvl. TTYs are hardly ever used with
wireless services. Instead, consumers have opted for applications that
are native to the IP environment, such as short messaging services
(SMS), instant messaging, email, IP Relay Service, and various social
media applications.
7. Support for Commission action comes from the industry, the
consumers, and the Commission's federal advisory bodies that have
addressed this matter over the past several years. Most recently, in
October 2015 and February 2016, the
[[Page 33172]]
Commission's Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) submitted two sets of
recommendations that support the Commission's exploration into the use
of RTT or other text-based solutions as a replacement for TTY
technology. Prior to this, in March 2013, the Commission's Emergency
Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) recommended replacing TTY support
requirements with requirements for direct access to 911 services via
IP-based text communications that include real-time text.
Proposals for RTT Implementation
8. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to replace the rules
governing the obligations of wireless providers and manufacturers to
support TTY technology with rules defining the obligations of these
entities to support RTT over IP-based wireless voice services. The
Commission tentatively concludes that the technical and functional
limitations of TTYs make this technology unsuitable as a long-term
means to provide full and effective access to IP-based wireless
telephone networks, and that there is a need to provide individuals who
rely on text communication with a superior accessibility solution for
the IP environment. The Commission further tentatively concludes that
RTT can best achieve this goal because it can be well supported in the
wireless IP environment, will facilitate emergency communications to
911 services, allows for more natural and simultaneous interactions on
telephone calls, will largely eliminate the need to purchase
specialized or assistive devices that connect to mainstream technology,
and may reduce reliance on telecommunications relay services.
RTT Support by Wireless Providers and Manufacturers
Transmission of RTT Over IP-Based Wireless Services
9. To achieve an effective and timely transition to RTT, the
Commission proposes to require RTT support at a specified time in the
future, but also seeks comment on the extent to which there should be
an interim period preceding such deadline, during which covered
entities would be allowed to provide either RTT or TTY support on IP-
based wireless services. The Commission believes that establishing an
RTT requirement is necessary to ensure that people with disabilities
continue to have effective access to wireless communications services
as these services make the transition to an all-IP environment, and
seeks comment on this approach. To this end, the Commission proposes
the following revisions to its rules:
Amend Sec. 20.18(c) to require wireless IP-based voice
service providers to be capable of transmitting 911 calls from
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or speech
disabled through RTT technology, in lieu of transmitting 911 calls from
TTYs over IP networks;
Amend part 64 to require wireless interconnected voice-
over-IP (VoIP) service providers to support TRS access through RTT
technology, including 711 abbreviated dialing access, in lieu of
supporting TRS access via TTY technology;
Amend parts 6 and 7 to require providers of wireless
interconnected VoIP services subject to these rules to provide and
support RTT, if readily achievable, in lieu of providing connectability
and compatibility with TTYs; and
Amend part 14 to require providers of wireless VoIP
services subject to these rules to provide and support RTT, unless this
requirement is not achievable, in lieu of providing connectability and
compatibility with TTYs.
End User Device Support for RTT
10. The Commission believes that the availability of RTT-capable
end user devices for users is essential in order to facilitate the use
of RTT for emergency purposes, fully integrate RTT capability into the
IP environment, and ensure that RTT users have the same range of device
choices offered to the general public for voice communications. To this
end, the Commission further proposes to amend its rules in the
following manner to address the ability of wireless devices used by
consumers to support RTT.
11. Wireless service providers. For providers of IP-based voice
services, the Commission proposes to:
Amend Sec. 20.18(c), which requires the transmission of
911 calls from TTYs, and parts 6, 7, and 14 to require that, to the
extent a wireless provider issues design specifications, purchases for
resale to users, or otherwise authorizes new handsets or other text-
capable end user devices for use with its IP-based voice services, the
provider shall ensure that such devices have the ability to send,
receive and display RTT.
If it is not readily achievable (under parts 6 and 7) or
achievable (under part 14) to incorporate RTT capability within such
wireless devices, the wireless provider shall ensure that such devices
are compatible with RTT-equipped stand-alone devices or software
applications, ``if readily achievable'' for equipment subject to parts
6 and 7 of the rules, and ``unless not achievable'' for equipment
subject to part 14 of the rules.
12. Manufacturers. For manufacturers of wireless handsets or other
wireless text-capable end user devices used with IP-based voice
services, the Commission proposes to amend parts 6, 7, and 14 to
require such manufacturers to:
Ensure that their devices have the ability to send,
receive, and display RTT, if readily achievable for equipment subject
to parts 6 and 7 of the rules, and unless not achievable for equipment
subject to part 14.
If it is not readily achievable (under parts 6 and 7) or
achievable (under part 14) to incorporate RTT capability within such
devices, ensure that such devices are compatible with RTT-equipped
stand-alone devices or software applications, if readily achievable for
equipment subject to parts 6 and 7 of the rules, and unless not
achievable for equipment subject to part 14 of the rules.
13. The Commission's proposal to create an affirmative requirement
for RTT support is consistent with past Commission actions and
Congressional mandates to ensure that, as communications networks
evolve to incorporate new technologies, accessibility safeguards be
amended to ensure that people with disabilities continue to have
effective access to communications. The purpose of section 716, added
to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), by the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(CVAA), Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (October 8, 2010), is to
ensure that ``advanced communications services'' (ACS) that incorporate
new technologies are accessible to individuals with disabilities. 47
U.S.C. 617(a)(1) (emphasis added). As explained by the Senate committee
report on the CVAA, the CVAA's purpose is ``to update the
communications laws'' to ensure accessibility, because, since the
previous update in 1996 (when section 255 of the Act was added),
``[i]nternet-based and digital technologies are now pervasive . . .
[and] the extraordinary benefits of these technological advances are
sometimes not accessible to individuals with disabilities.'' S. Rep.
No. 111-386 at 1-2 (2010). Thus, for example, section 716(d) of the Act
expressly prohibits ACS providers from ``install[ing] network features,
functions or capabilities that impede accessibility or usability.'' 47
U.S.C. 617(d). By requiring wireless providers and manufacturers, as
they deploy IP-based
[[Page 33173]]
voice services, equipment, and networks, to implement RTT as a state-
of-the-art accessibility technology, the Commission will ensure not
only that such networks do not impede accessibility, but that the
benefits of technological advances are accessible to individuals with
disabilities as Congress intended.
14. The Commission's proposals are also intended to avoid
repetition of past failures to build in accessibility at the outset of
technological changes, which led to long delays in providing access to
new communications technologies for people with disabilities. For
example, in the mid-1990s, despite the public safety dangers of leaving
people with disabilities behind as the wireless industry made its
transition from analog to digital technology, repeated delays resulted
in the lack of access to digital wireless services by TTY users for
over six years, well past the rise in popularity of digital technology
with the general public. Similarly, it was not until 2005 that digital
handsets began integrating hearing aid compatibility, again despite the
introduction of these handsets in the mid-1990s. Each of these delays
imposed considerable hardships on people with disabilities, who
remained without digital wireless access--and without emergency access
via wireless networks--for lengthy periods of time after these
technologies became available to everyone else. Additionally, industry
efforts that were needed to eventually achieve such access--which took
place very late in the design and development process of building of
such phones--proved more costly and burdensome than would likely have
been the case had accessibility been incorporated from the outset.
15. The Commission has noted that communication networks are
rapidly transitioning away from the historic provision of time-division
multiplexed (TDM) services running on copper to new, all-IP multimedia
networks using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and fiber as physical
infrastructure. As these changes take place, the Commission seeks to
ensure that its accessibility rules for IP-based voice networks achieve
the early integration of accessibility features, so that people with
disabilities can enjoy communications services as they emerge, along
with the general population. The Commission believes that amending its
rules to require support of RTT at this time is likely to create
greater certainty for companies that have expressed an interest in
deploying RTT, and provide a supportive regulatory landscape in which
to do so. With the action taken today, the Commission expects that
covered entities will have the necessary incentives to invest and
innovate to improve products employing RTT functionalities, promoting
more effective access to 911 services and other communications for
individuals with disabilities.
16. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusions,
proposals, and analysis, including the costs and technical feasibility
of the proposed rule amendments, and on any proposed alternatives. The
Commission notes that in its text-to-911 proceeding, it determined that
significant benefits could be attained by enabling people with
disabilities to use text to access emergency services by phone. The
Commission has recognized that as our nation ages, the number of
Americans who may need alternatives to voice telephone communications
is likely to increase. The Commission believes that establishing a
requirement to ensure that RTT is incorporated in wireless IP-based
services and devices as these are designed and developed will reduce
the overall costs of incorporating this access feature, while ensuring
that people with disabilities are not left behind in the transition to
new technology. The Commission seeks comment on whether these
assumptions are correct and generally on the benefits to be derived
from incorporating RTT functionalities into wireless services and end
user devices, including the benefits that may accrue for improving
access to 911 services.
17. In a joint filing, three technology research centers, the
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications
Access, Trace Research & Development Center at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, and the Gallaudet University Technology Access
Program (Technology Research Centers), contend that the implementation
of RTT would not add any hardware costs to support RTT, if limited to
products used for receiving and displaying RTT that already have a
display large enough to display multiple lines of text (or software
designed to run on a multi-line display) and a mechanism for generating
text for other purposes. They and others point out that many Internet-
enabled terminal devices, including smartphones, tablets, and VoIP desk
phones, already have such text generation and display capabilities.
Costs also appear to be minimized if incorporated in the beginning of
the design process. The Commission seeks comment on the merits of these
assumptions, and on how they would be affected by the outcome of the
issues raised for comment in this section regarding the scope of an
equipment capabilities requirement.
Timelines
18. Larger wireless carriers. The Commission seeks comment on when
its rules requiring implementation of RTT should become effective. The
Commission proposes that this be completed by Tier I wireless service
providers, which offer nationwide service, no later than December 31,
2017. See 47 CFR 20.19(a)(3)(v) for a definition of Tier I providers.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed date will afford
sufficient time for this category of providers to achieve compliance
with the rules proposed in document FCC 16-53. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it would be preferable to establish
a specified interim period of time--prior to the deadline set for an
RTT requirement--during which Tier I covered entities would be allowed
to support RTT over their IP facilities if they are unable to support
TTYs. The Commission asks parties that believe such interim period is
necessary to explain whether and how such period would be needed to
afford additional flexibility during the transition to RTT technology.
The Commission further asks commenters who disagree with the
Commission's proposed deadline of December 31, 2017, for Tier I
carriers to explain why additional time would be needed to achieve
deployment of RTT.
19. Smaller wireless carriers. The Commission proposes that smaller
wireless carriers, to be defined as those that do not fall into Tier I,
be given an additional period of time to achieve compliance with the
proposed RTT support requirements beyond the deployment date proposed
for the larger, Tier I carriers. The Commission seeks comment on what
would be an appropriate extension of time, as well as whether the
Commission should distinguish between Tier II (non-nationwide mid-sized
commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers with greater than
500,000 subscribers) and Tier III carriers (non-nationwide small CMRS
providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers) in determining
appropriate benchmarks for these providers. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it would be more appropriate to tie
the obligations of these carriers to the timing of their transition to
IP-based wireless technologies, such as IMS/VoLTE or 4G services.
Finally, to what extent would it be appropriate to
[[Page 33174]]
establish an interim transitional period, akin to what is discussed
above for Tier I carriers, during which such smaller carriers would be
allowed, but not required, to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology?
20. End user devices. The Commission proposes that the timeline
established for RTT support over IP-based wireless services apply as
well to handsets and other text-capable end user devices for use with
such services, and thus proposes that any such handsets or devices sold
after December 31, 2017, have RTT capability, and seeks comment on this
proposal. Making this requirement effective at the same time that
wireless services are required to become RTT-capable would ensure that
sufficient handsets are available for people with disabilities to have
access to text communications in real time after the existing orders
waiving service provider requirements for TTY support expire. Will the
proposed December 2017 deadline for the Tier I service providers allow
sufficient time to incorporate RTT capability in end user devices? Is
it more appropriate for the deadline established for end user devices
to apply to the date on which new devices are manufactured, rather than
first made available to the general public?
21. In addition to requiring the inclusion of RTT support on new
terminal devices, consistent with statutory requirements for
telecommunications access and access to advanced communications
services and equipment, should there be a requirement to add RTT
capability to end user devices already in service at the compliance
deadline, at ``natural opportunities,'' previously defined by the
Commission to occur upon the redesign of a product model or service,
new versions of software, upgrades to existing features or
functionalities, significant rebundling or unbundling of product and
service packages, or any other significant modification that may
require redesign? Further, to the extent that it is not achievable
under section 716 of the Act or readily achievable under section 255 of
the Act to make an end user device accessible through RTT, by what date
should such device be made compatible with a stand-alone RTT device or
app to the extent that these become available?
22. The Commission also seeks comment on the period of time, if
any, that over-the-top applications or plug-ins for RTT should be
permitted as an interim measure to achieve RTT on end user devices, and
if permitted as over-the-top applications, whether manufacturers and
service providers should be required to pre-install such applications
on devices before they are sold to the public. Specifically, the
Commission proposes that the use of an over-the-top application as an
interim solution, such as that which AT&T is achieving, will be
sufficient to constitute compliance with the RTT requirement by
December 31, 2017, and seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. At
the same time, the Commission asks to what extent the Commission should
be concerned that the many advantages of RTT as a universal text
solution will not be achieved until RTT is incorporated as a native
function in end user devices, or at a minimum, pre-installed by the
manufacturer or service provider as a ``default'' application. The
Commission seeks comment on whether this concern should guide its final
rules, and further seeks comment on what functionalities of RTT, and
what associated benefits of RTT, if any, would be unavailable if it is
initially implemented as an over-the-top application rather than as
native functionality. With this in mind, the Commission asks commenters
to provide specific parameters for and factual showings justifying any
timelines they propose for transitioning to native RTT functionality in
covered devices.
Advantages of RTT
23. IP-Based Technology. There is general agreement among AT&T and
those commenting on its petition that RTT is an effective alternative
to TTY technology for the IP environment. Commenters concur that RTT is
designed for today's packet-switching environment and offers an
expanded array of features to enable more robust user conversations,
including real-time editing of text and full-duplex functionality
(i.e., both parties can communicate simultaneously). Various commenters
state that RTT allows for the intermixing of speech with text, is more
spectrally efficient than TTY, will be superior to TTY in every way--
transmission speed, latency, reliability, features, privacy,
conversation form, and ease of use--will facilitate the transition to
end-to-end Next Generation 911 (NG911), and will meet the needs of
legacy TTY users during the transition. The Commission tentatively
concludes that deployment of RTT on IP networks will offer
functionality greatly superior to that of TTY technology, and it seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion.
24. Off-the-Shelf Devices. Commenters also state that RTT will
allow consumers with disabilities to make calls using the built-in
functionality of a wide selection of off-the-shelf devices, including
smartphones, tablets, computers and other Internet-enabled devices that
have the ability to send, receive, and display text. These parties
point out that this can eliminate the high costs and other challenges
involved in finding, purchasing, and making effective use of assistive
devices such as TTYs. The Commission tentatively concludes that the
ability to acquire off-the-shelf RTT-capable devices will be beneficial
for text communication users, and seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion.
25. Substitution for Telecommunications Relay Services. Section 225
of the Act directs the Commission to ensure that TRS is available ``in
the most efficient manner.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). The record suggests
that, because RTT will provide greater opportunities for direct, point-
to-point text communication and can enable text to be intermixed with
voice, it can reduce reliance on relay services and thereby provide
consumers with greater privacy and independence, while reducing overall
costs for telecommunications users. For example, one form of TRS,
captioned telephone relay service (CTS), currently uses communication
assistants (CAs) to enable people who are hard of hearing to receive
captions of conversation spoken by other parties to a telephone call.
The Commission expects that RTT users might not need these services if
they were able to receive RTT over VoIP phones to supplement incoming
voice conversations for difficult-to-understand words. Similarly, the
Commission predicts that people with speech disabilities who can type
will be able to use standard phones capable of generating RTT to
communicate with other persons who also have VoIP phones with displays.
However, the Commission notes that these results are likely to be
achieved only to the extent that RTT capabilities in end user devices
truly become ubiquitous--i.e., are enabled by default in all or most
wireless (and eventually wireline) terminal equipment. To the extent
that RTT is ``supported'' but not fully incorporated as a native or
default function of devices--and is merely available for users to
download or install--commenters suggest that the universal reach of
text as a substitute for relay services will be less likely to be
achieved, because many individuals who do not rely on text may not
install this extra functionality. The Commission seeks comment on
whether these assumptions are correct.
26. Improvement of Telecommunications Relay Services. In addition
to substituting for TRS in some
[[Page 33175]]
circumstances, the Commission believes that RTT can be used to enhance
the ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone
service. For example, it would appear that for text-based forms of TRS,
RTT can improve the speed and reliability of communications in an IP
environment. The Technology Research Centers further note that
individuals may be able to use RTT to supplement communications in sign
language with text during video relay service (VRS) calls, reducing the
time needed for CAs to convey detailed information, such as addresses
and URLs. The Commission seeks comment on these assertions and whether
there are other ways that RTT can improve the provision of TRS for its
users.
27. Advantages Over Messaging-Type Services. Text-based
accessibility solutions include RTT, SMS, instant messaging and similar
chat-type functions, and email. With the exception of RTT, each of
these technologies requires parties to complete their messages and to
press ``send,'' ``enter,'' or a similar key to transmit the message to
its recipient. By contrast, when a message is sent in real time, it is
immediately conveyed to and received by the call recipient as it is
being composed. Several commenters maintain that RTT is the only type
of text communication that allows a natural flow of conversation akin
to voice telephone calls, and therefore the only form that meets the
criterion of functional equivalency. Without the turn-taking and delays
characteristic of messaging-type communications, these parties state,
RTT gives call recipients ``an opportunity to follow the thoughts of
the sender as they are formed into words.'' The Technology Research
Centers note what they consider additional drawbacks of these
alternatives: The delivery of messages over SMS is not guaranteed;
instant messaging is not interoperable; and certain features, such as
conference calling, are not available via instant messaging across
multiple providers.
28. Access to 911 Emergency Services. Perhaps the most compelling
case to be made in favor of RTT over messaging-type services is in the
context of emergency calls to 911. Recent studies reveal a preference
for RTT in simulated emergency situations by 100 percent of
participants. According to the Technology Research Centers, a principal
reason for preferring RTT over SMS is that the latter can result in
``[c]rossed messages [that] can lead to misunderstanding and loss of
time. . . . In an emergency situation, a panicked caller may ask a
second or third question if there is no immediate visible response from
the 9-1-1 call-taker. This can lead to confusion, crossed answers, and
error.'' In contrast, these groups explain, RTT enables ``emergency
call-takers [to] view the message as it is being typed and respond,
refer, interrupt, or guide the information being sent to speed up
communication and make it more helpful to emergency responders.'' In
this manner, they say, RTT ``allows for the efficient exchange of
information and a continued sense of contact,'' as well as the delivery
of even incomplete messages, which can result in potentially saving
lives in an emergency.
29. The Commission recognizes that, two years ago, it adopted rules
that could be met through the provision of SMS-based text-to-911
service. The Commission's goal in doing so was to ensure that, in the
near term, individuals have a direct and familiar means of contacting
911 via text through mass market communication devices that are already
available to people with disabilities and other members of the general
public. The Commission noted that some commenters were less supportive
of SMS-to-911 because it does not support the ability to ``send and
receive text simultaneously with the time that it is typed without
having to press a `send' key.'' At the same time, the Commission
recognized that many stakeholders would choose to text to 911 through
an interim SMS-based solution because of its ease of use for people
with disabilities and ubiquity in mainstream society. It went on to
note that RTT ``provides an instantaneous exchange, character by
character or word by word,'' a feature that commenters to this
proceeding say is critical in an emergency. The record in the instant
proceeding continues to reflect major concerns by several commenters
about using SMS as a long term 911 accessibility solution. While the
Commission does not propose to make any changes to its existing text-
to-911 rules in this proceeding, it believes that its proposals to
facilitate the wider availability of RTT for people with disabilities
could have a beneficial impact on the future evolution of text-to-911.
30. The Commission proposes that RTT will be more effective than
messaging-type services in meeting the communication needs of consumers
with disabilities, including their emergency communication needs, and
seeks comment on this proposal. Are there other text-based
communication solutions that can meet the general communication needs
of this population as effectively as RTT, and if so, how? How would the
deployment of RTT or other text-based solutions impact the transition
to NG911? The Commission asks commenters to address concerns about the
costs, benefits, and feasibility of using RTT for accessing 911
services, and seeks comment on the technical and operational impact on
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) receiving RTT-based 911 calls.
Minimum Functionalities of RTT
31. The DAC recommends that the Commission ``consider how
telecommunication and advanced communications services and equipment
that support RTT [can] provide the users of RTT (either in isolation or
in conjunction with other media) with access to the same
telecommunication and advanced communications functions and features
that are provided to voice-based users of the services and equipment.''
The Commission believes that this formulation captures the objectives
of sections 225, 255, and 716 of the Act, which are to provide
functionally equivalent communications and to ensure that
telecommunications and ACS are fully accessible to and usable by people
with disabilities. The Commission proposes that, in amending its rules
to recognize IP-based text alternatives and facilitate the transition
away from TTY technology, the Commission should consider the extent to
which RTT's features, functions, and capabilities can provide people
with disabilities with telephone service that is as accessible, usable,
and otherwise as effective as voice-based services over IP networks.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposed approach.
32. The Commission tentatively concludes, proposes, or seeks
comment on the following basic functionalities that it believes are
necessary for a wireless provider's implementation of RTT to be
considered compliant with the rules adopted by the Commission in this
proceeding. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which each is
necessary to achieve effective telephone access for individuals with
disabilities, as well as its costs, other benefits, and any technical
or other challenges that may be associated with its provision. Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which each of these
features will be enabled or facilitated through the use of RFC 4103.
RFC 4103, https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt.
Interoperability
33. The Commission tentatively concludes that people who rely on
text to communicate can only achieve effective RTT communications
across
[[Page 33176]]
multiple platforms and networks if the communication transmissions
carried across, and the terminal equipment used with, those platforms
and networks are interoperable with one another. The Commission seeks
comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission notes that there
is consensus among commenters on AT&T's petition for rulemaking with
respect to the need for seamless interconnection of RTT services across
networks, service providers, and devices. Virtually all commenters
agree with AT&T on the importance of not locking users into a single
network, service provider, or device, as well as the value of ensuring
that people with disabilities have the same kinds of choices in a
competitive market as the population in general. Some commenters note
that if service providers were to adopt proprietary standards that do
not interoperate, RTT users might not be able to communicate with other
users in emergency situations.
34. Commission rules reflect a longstanding commitment to policies
favoring the openness of telecommunications services across providers
and devices, so that anyone can make a voice call to anyone else,
regardless of the provider or device they are using. For example, the
Commission has promulgated a series of rules to ensure the
interconnection of terminal equipment to the telephone network. The
Commission's rules also prohibit telecommunications carriers and ACS
providers from installing network features, functions, or capabilities
that impede the accessibility or usability of telecommunications and
ACS services. Further, in the Emerging Wireline Order and Further
Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that a carrier seeking to
discontinue an existing retail communications service in order to
transition to a newer technology must demonstrate that the replacement
service offered by that carrier, or alternative services available from
other providers in the affected service area, provides voice and non-
voice device and service interoperability--including interoperability
with third party services--as much as or more than the interoperability
provided by the service to be retired. Technology Transitions, Report
and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, published at 80 FR 63321, October 19, 2015 (Emerging
Wireline Order and Further Notice). The Commission believes that
preserving interoperability is equally important in the transition from
TTY to RTT technology. The Commission further believes that, in the
absence of interoperability, multiple versions of RTT may need to be
supported, not only by user devices, but also by TRS call centers and
911 PSAPs--a burden that could entail a prohibitive expense for many
such entities. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis.
35. RFC 4103 as a Safe Harbor RTT Standard The Commission next
considers how best to achieve RTT interoperability across communication
platforms, networks, and devices. Some commenters maintain that having
a single standard will ensure that RTT is a valuable and universally
usable communications medium and that it will be less expensive for
carriers to develop and deploy a single, interoperable RTT system now,
than to each develop their own versions of RTT service and later try to
reconfigure these to be interoperable. Various commenters point out
that the lack of a common standard sometimes has impeded the
interoperability of communications technologies needed by people with
disabilities, reporting that the lack of an international standard for
TTY technology has prevented TTY users from communicating by text in
real-time with people living or visiting countries abroad, the lack of
a common standard for instant messaging sometimes prevents instant
messaging users from being able to contact each other across platforms,
and the lack of a common VRS standard has impeded full interconnection
for users of this service since the early 2000s.
36. The Commission agrees with consumers and researchers that
standards can be especially important to ensuring interoperability of
technologies needed by people with disabilities, and that common
technical specifications will allow connectivity to occur seamlessly
from one end of the call to the other without incurring obstacles along
the way. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges the need for its
rules to incorporate ``key principles of flexibility and technology
neutrality'' as recommended by industry commenters. The Commission
tentatively concludes that a middle ground between these two approaches
can be achieved by referencing a technical standard as a safe harbor.
The Commission believes that this approach will ensure RTT
interoperability and product portability, while at the same time
providing sufficient flexibility for covered entities adhering to
different internal RTT standards--so long as their RTT support offers
the same functions and capabilities as the selected standard, and is
interoperable with the standard's format where they connect with other
providers. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion
and analysis.
37. To the extent that any commenter believes that reference to a
safe harbor standard is unnecessary, the Commission seeks comment on
how it can otherwise ensure that RTT communications are interoperable,
not just among different implementations of RTT, but also with legacy
interconnected TTY devices. Likewise, the Commission asks commenters
who support adoption of a mandatory technical standard to explain why a
safe harbor, combined with performance objectives, would be
insufficient to achieve effective and interoperable RTT communications.
Further, will a safe harbor be sufficient to provide incentives for
manufacturers and providers to invest in research and development of
RTT functionalities?
38. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission tentatively
concludes that RFC 4103 is the appropriate standard to which covered
entities should adhere as a safe harbor, conformity with which should
be deemed to satisfy the Commission's interoperability requirements and
certain of the Commission's performance objectives for RTT
communications. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. Use of RFC 4103 for RTT communications is well supported by
the record to date. First, RFC 4103 is a non-proprietary, freely
available standard that has been widely referenced by leading standards
organizations. This standard, developed by the IETF, has been adopted
by the International Telecommunications Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector, the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, a partnership of seven
telecommunications standards organizations (3GPP), and Groupe Speciale
Mobile Association.
39. Second, RFC 4103 is already being used or has been widely
designated for implementation by numerous carriers and other
organizations, both domestic and foreign. Domestically, both AT&T and
Verizon have specified RFC 4103 as the standard protocol to be
implemented in their IP-based wireless networks as the successor to TTY
technology, the National Emergency Number Association has specified RFC
4103 for interoperable use in IP-based Next Generation emergency text
communications where Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) technology is
used, and the Access Board has proposed requiring RFC 4103 for federal
[[Page 33177]]
procurements associated with the transmission of SIP-based RTT to
achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. In
addition, RFC 4103 is specified in the SIP Forum's interoperability
profile for VRS providers. Some commenters note that outside the United
States, RFC 4103 has been implemented in text or video relay services
in France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway.
40. Third, according to commenters, RFC 4103 has a number of
features that make it particularly suitable for RTT. According to the
Technology Research Centers, RFC 4103 eliminates the need to transcode
at the borders of a network, permits a wide range of hardware, supports
the international character set (Unicode), has built-in redundancy, is
bandwidth efficient, is based on the same transmission protocol (RTP)
as audio and video, and is supported by existing open source and
commercial codecs. The Commission seeks comment on the value of each of
these features and the extent to which they can contribute to making
RFC 4103 a feasible and flexible means of achieving RTT
interoperability and functionality. The Commission also seeks comment
on which of the user functionalities necessary to an effective
communications system, in addition to interoperability, can be made
possible with adherence to RFC 4103. Further, to what extent can other
RTT standards ``coexist'' with RFC 4103 in networks, technologies, and
terminal equipment on which RTT is being used, to allow RTT to provide
a universally accessible communications environment for people who are
deaf, hard of hearing, speech disabled, or deaf-blind?
41. Next, the Commission seeks comment on whether RFC 4103 is
sufficiently flexible to spur innovation in accessibility solutions.
Are there any non-SIP-based networks for which implementation of RTT
would serve the public interest, and if so, how could RTT be
implemented on such networks so as to be interoperable with networks
adhering to RFC 4103? Finally, if any adverse effects would result from
adopting RFC 4103 as a safe harbor, the Commission asks commenters to
identify these, and to explain specifically how such effects could be
mitigated by modifying the standard or allowing an alternative
protocol.
42. In the event that the Commission decides to adopt RFC 4103 as a
safe harbor for RTT, the Commission seeks comment on how this standard
can be updated and amended to accommodate successor non-proprietary RTT
technologies that are developed in the future. The Technology Research
Centers point out that the path for incorporating innovations into RTT
can be the same as that used to update voice standards and codecs,
i.e., by phasing in new formats and technologies while continuing to
support the existing technology until its retirement. How can the
Commission design its rules to allow these capabilities to continue
evolving with technological advances and ensure the flexibility
requested by industry, while not compromising the effectiveness of this
technology for people with disabilities?
43. The Commission believes that it has sufficient authority to
adopt RFC 4103 as a safe harbor. Section 716 of the Act explicitly
allows the Commission to ``adopt technical standards as a safe harbor
for such compliance if necessary to facilitate the manufacturers' and
service providers' compliance with section [716](a) through (c) of the
Act.'' 47 U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(D). Additionally, section 106 of the CVAA
expressly authorizes the Commission ``to promulgate regulations to
implement the recommendations proposed by the EAAC, as well as any
other regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures as
are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that
ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet
protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically
feasible.'' 47 U.S.C. 615c(g) (emphasis added). The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis. Further, the Commission asks commenters who
support a mandatory standard to provide legal authority for their
proposal. CTIA--The Wireless Association points out that section 716 of
the Act does not permit the Commission's regulations implementing that
section to mandate technological standards, except as a safe harbor to
facilitate the manufacturers' and service providers' compliance with
section 716 of the Act. At the same time, as noted, section 106 of the
CVAA expressly authorizes the Commission to adopt technical standards
to ensure access by people with disabilities to an IP-based emergency
network. In the event that the Commission deems it necessary to adopt a
mandatory RTT standard, would the Commission's specific standard-
setting authority under section 106 of the CVAA, as well as its
authority under 47 U.S.C. 225(d), provide sufficient authority for the
Commission to establish a mandatory technical standard for RTT,
notwithstanding the standard-setting restriction of section 716 of the
Act?
Backward Compatibility With TTY Technology
44. The DAC points out that while TTY usage continues to be in
steady decline, some people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind,
or speech disabled, including senior citizens and rural residents,
continue to rely on TTYs. In order to ensure that TTY-reliant consumers
continue to have a method of communicating during the transition to RTT
technology, the Commission proposes that, to comply with the rules
adopted in this proceeding, wireless service providers must ensure that
their RTT technology is interoperable with TTY technology. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Among other things, with
this requirement, the Commission believes it will remain possible for
consumers to use their TTYs to communicate with a TRS call center that
is set up to receive RTT calls and for consumers who use RTT technology
to communicate with a TRS call center that is set up to provide
traditional TTY-based TRS. The Commission seeks confirmation on whether
it is feasible to use gateways and RFC 4103 to achieve backward
compatibility, as proposed by the Technology Research Centers, and if
not, how transcoding between RTT packets used with IP-based services
and TTY Baudot tones can be achieved, in accordance with the accuracy
criteria the Commission proposes for RTT. Is it correct that such
interoperability can be achieved without added costs to TTY users and
PSAPs as suggested by AT&T? The Commission asks commenters to discuss
the costs, benefits, and technical feasibility of using any alternative
standards for this purpose.
45. A particular concern regarding backward compatibility with TTYs
is the fact that TTYs can only send and display a small subset of
Unicode characters, namely upper-case letters, numbers, the pound and
dollar signs, and some punctuation marks. Thus, gateways between RTT
systems and legacy TTYs need to be able to convert the much larger
Unicode set used with RTT into readable TTY characters. In general,
such character conversion is called ``transliteration.'' Thus, accented
characters may be rendered as multiple characters--e.g., ``[auml] (a
umlaut)'' may become ``AE.'' In some cases, words must be used in the
transliteration, but all Unicode characters can be described
unambiguously, if necessary, by their Unicode character name. According
to the Unicode Consortium, transliterations should be standard,
complete, predictable, pronounceable, and reversible. See Unicode
Common
[[Page 33178]]
Locale Data Repository, https://cldr.unicode.org/index/cldr-spec/transliteration-guidelines. Should the rules require a standard
transliteration approach or standard table, or should each entity
responsible for offering gateways between RTT and TTY choose its own
transliteration approach? What standards should be referenced? If each
gateway may choose its own transliteration approach, should it meet,
for example, the general transliteration guidelines formulated by the
Unicode Consortium or other standards body? Should there be a standard
indicator that a character string is a Unicode emoji, e.g., ``(* GOLFER
*)'' for Unicode U+1F3CC? With respect to PSAPs employing TTYs, what
impact might transliteration have on PSAPs' ability to handle the RTT
911 call?
46. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other
assistive devices used with the PSTN, such as Braille-capable devices
used by people who are deaf-blind, that would require or benefit from
backward compatibility, and what additional steps are necessary to
achieve this, beyond the steps necessary to achieve backward
compatibility for TTYs.
47. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what events or
measures should trigger a sunset of the residual obligation for
wireless networks to be backward compatible with TTY technology. In the
CVAA, Congress explicitly asked the EAAC to consider ``the possible
phase out of the use of current-generation TTY technology to the extent
that this technology is replaced with more effective and efficient
technologies and methods to enable access to emergency services by
individuals with disabilities.'' 47 U.S.C. 615c(c)(6). The EAAC
recommended against ``imposing any deadline for phasing out TTY at the
PSAPs until the analog phone system (PSTN) no longer exists, either as
the backbone or as peripheral analog legs, unless ALL legs trap and
convert TTY to IP real-time text and maintain [Voice Carry Over (VCO)]
capability.'' Since then, however, the DAC has requested the Commission
to ``consider a TTY sunset period when declining wireline TTY minutes
reaches a certain threshold to be determined, while addressing the
needs of people who are deaf-blind, speech disabled, and have cognitive
impairments as well as for relay services and rural access.''
48. The Commission notes that the NG911 Now Coalition has set a
goal of transitioning to nationwide NG911 by the end of 2020. See NG911
Now Coalition, https://www.ng911now.org/#about. The Commission seeks
comment on whether this is an appropriate benchmark for terminating the
requirement for backward compatibility, or whether a different
indicator should be used to make this determination. Would it be more
appropriate for the Commission to set the end date based on TTY usage
falling below a threshold level? If the latter, should TTY usage be
assessed based on usage of TTY-based forms of TRS, or a different
indicator? The Commission is concerned about ensuring that people with
disabilities continue to have a means of using text to make emergency
and non-emergency calls after a TTY phase-out and generally seeks
comment on safeguards needed to address these communications needs.
Other RTT Functionalities for Wireless Services
49. In addition to ensuring interoperability, in this section the
Commission seeks comment on a number of other features and capabilities
that it believes will be necessary to ensure that RTT is as accessible,
usable, and effective for people with disabilities as voice telephone
wireless service is for people without disabilities.
Initiation of Calls Using RTT
50. As a preliminary matter, the Commission proposes that wireless
service providers and manufacturers be required to configure their
networks and devices so that RTT communications can be initiated and
received to and from the same telephone number that can be used to
initiate and receive voice communications on a given terminal device.
Among other things, the Commission tentatively concludes that enabling
access to ten digit telephone numbers is necessary to reach and be
reached by any other person with a phone number, and to ensure that RTT
users can access 911 services. The Commission tentatively concludes
that a similar ability is an essential part of the provision of RTT,
and seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and proposal, including
its costs, benefits and technical feasibility.
Support for 911 Emergency Communications
51. As the Commission has previously stated, ``[t]he ability of
consumers to contact 911 and reach the appropriate PSAP and for the
PSAP to receive accurate location information for the caller is of the
utmost importance.'' Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice. The
Commission proposes that the implementation of RTT in IP networks must
be capable of transmitting and receiving RTT communications to and from
any 911 PSAP served by the network in a manner that fully complies with
all applicable 911 rules, and seeks comment on this proposal. Are
specific measures or rule amendments necessary to ensure that RTT
supports legacy 911, text-to-911, and NG 911 services? Given that RTT
is in an all-IP environment, and that there may be outages during a
loss of commercial power, or RTT may be unavailable due to the limited
battery backup inherent in IP-based equipment, are there additional
ways to ensure continued access to emergency communications in the
event of a power failure to the same extent this will be guaranteed for
voice telephone users?
Latency and Error Rate of Text Transmittal
52. Based on comments in the record, the Commission proposes that
compliant RTT must be capable of transmitting text instantly, so that
each text character appears on the receiving device at roughly the same
time it is created on the sending device. To achieve this, the
Commission further proposes requiring that RTT characters be
transmitted within one second of when they are generated, with no more
than 0.2 percent character error rate, which equates to approximately a
one percent word error rate. The Commission believes that this will
allow text to appear character-by-character on the recipient's display
while the sender is typing it, with a point-to-point transmission
latency that is no greater than that provided for voice communication.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as well as whether the
Commission should adopt other measures regarding the latency and error
rate for RTT. For example, is it feasible, and necessary for effective
communication, to provide users with the ability to edit individual
characters or groups of words in real-time--for example, by backspacing
and retyping?
53. The Commission also notes that, according to the Technology
Research Centers, any RTT system also can be programmed to first
receive and hold the sender's communication while it is being composed,
and to then send the entire message together when triggered to do so,
in a manner akin to instant messaging. Is this ``block mode'' feature
desirable for certain individuals? For example, would it alert people
who are deaf-blind to incoming messages so that they know when it is
appropriate to respond? If so, should the Commission allow or require
that this capability be made available on compliant RTT technology? If
such a feature is
[[Page 33179]]
permitted or required, should the Commission require nevertheless that
RTT service revert to the character-by-character mode when 911 calls
are detected by the IP network, in order to ensure the rapid exchange
of information during such calls?
54. The Commission seeks comment on any other relevant
considerations pertaining to the transmission and delivery of RTT that
may affect its utility and effectiveness for people with communication
disabilities.
Simultaneous Voice and Text Capabilities
55. The Commission proposes to require that, for a manufacturer's
or service provider's implementation of RTT to be considered compliant
with the rules the Commission adopts in this proceeding, users of RTT
must be able to send and receive both text and voice simultaneously in
both directions over IP on the same call and via a single device. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
56. According to the 3GPP Technical Specification for Global Text
Telephony, which is cited by the DAC, RTT that is implemented under RFC
4103 allows text to be transported alone or in combination with other
media, such as voice and video, in the same call session. The DAC
therefore asks the Commission to consider ``whether telecommunication
and advanced communications systems can support the use of RTT
simultaneously in conjunction with the other Real-Time media supported
by the system.'' The DAC also recommends that the Commission consider
whether RTT equipment and services should support, among other
features, the user's ability to ``intermix voice and text on the same
call, including, for example, `Voice Carry Over' and `Hearing Carry
Over.' '' Such ``carry over'' modes currently are available as types of
TRS. VCO allows people who are deaf and hard of hearing to use their
own voices (where possible) and receive text back during a captioned
telephone or TTY-based relay call, while HCO generally allows people
with speech disabilities on speech-to-speech relay calls to hear
directly what the other party says and use the CA to repeat what the
person with the speech disability says. However, in an RTT network, can
these features also serve as a mode of direct point-to-point
communications, reducing the need for reliance on TRS?
57. A coalition of consumer groups points out that simultaneous
voice and text on the same call also would allow callers to initiate a
call using either text or voice and to switch to the other mode at any
time during the call. Users would be able to send text in one direction
and speech in the other, speak in parallel with text for captioned
telephony, and supplement speech for difficult-to-hear words,
addresses, and numbers. Others report findings that the quality,
intelligibility, speed, and flow of communications improve when text is
added to voice. Finally, the Technology Research Centers point out that
the ability to use synchronized voice and text transmissions can
improve communications on TRS calls. The Commission seeks comment on
these assertions and the extent to which synchronized voice and text
transmission is necessary for effective communication via RTT.
RTT With Video and Other Media
58. Next, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require that,
where covered service providers support the transmission of other
media, such as video and data, simultaneously with voice, they also
provide the capability for the simultaneous transmission of RTT and
such other media. The Commission notes that in studies conducted by the
Technology Research Centers, participants generally expressed the
desire to add video to RTT calls, ``to express feelings, and to provide
for more natural communication with sign language and the possibility
of lip reading.'' In addition, some commenters highlight the benefits
that multimedia capabilities can have in the TRS context, including the
ability to supplement sign language communications with text on video
relay calls. By enabling voice, text, and video to be delivered to
users so that each of these types of media can be available at the same
time, over the same call session, some parties also state that RTT can
reduce overall reliance on TRS and also reduce or eliminate the need
for TRS users to acquire the dedicated terminal equipment that is often
needed to access these services. They claim that increasingly, people
with and without disabilities would be able to converse with each other
directly, using whichever mode of communication--voice, text, or
video--is most suitable for getting their messages across.
59. To what extent is requiring such multimedia capabilities
necessary to achieve telephone communications for text users that are
as effective as those available to voice users? To what extent can such
capabilities enhance the accuracy and speed of TRS or reduce overall
reliance on conventionally defined forms of TRS, to ensure that TRS is
available ``in the most efficient manner''? 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). Would
the inclusion of video capability with RTT be likely to lead to
congestion problems, and how could such congestion be prevented or
alleviated? For example, if simultaneous voice, RTT, and video are all
available over the same telephone connection, could the parties to the
call better simulate an in-person communication, which can be
supplemented with RTT as needed, and thereby eliminate the need for a
CA to serve as a communications bridge between the parties?
Requirements for TRS Providers
60. The Commission generally seeks comment on how to integrate RTT
into the provision of TRS. Specifically, should the Commission amend
its TRS rules to authorize or require TRS providers to incorporate RTT
capabilities into platforms and terminal equipment used for certain
forms of TRS, in order to enhance its functional equivalence? For
example, Omnitor AB asks the Commission to require relay providers to
incorporate RTT into their systems, so that callers can use RTT
terminals to access TRS with a single step, using ten digit numbers.
The Commission notes that at present, some forms of TRS are provided
over the PSTN, while others are made available via IP networks. In
light of the ongoing migration of communications from the circuit-
switched PSTN to IP-based technologies, it appears that ultimately all
PSTN-based TRS will be phased out and all TRS will be IP-based. If this
occurs, should the Commission authorize or require IP Relay or other
TRS providers to support an RTT mode between the user and the CA? If
so, what timeline would be appropriate for implementing such
capability? The Technology Research Centers suggest this is needed to
improve the functional equivalence of the IP Relay interface, as well
as to facilitate relay service modes, such as VCO and HCO. Should the
Commission also authorize or require IP CTS or other TRS providers to
support RTT transmission in any voice channels they provide and in any
off-the-shelf equipment provided to IP CTS users? Finally, should the
Commission authorize or require VRS providers to support an RTT mode
between the user and the CA, so that RTT can be used to supplement
communications in sign language with text during VRS calls? What other
requirements are appropriate to assign to RTT or TRS providers to
ensure the compatibility of their services as the transition to RTT
takes place?
[[Page 33180]]
Character and Text Capabilities
61. Commenters in this proceeding point out that one advantage of
RTT is that it allows communications using the full Unicode character
set, as compared with the more limited character set available on TTY
transmissions. They point out that besides facilitating communication
in languages other than English, this capability allows users to
transmit emoticons, graphic symbols that represent ideas or concepts--
independent of any particular language--and specific words or phrases
that have become integral to text communications in our society. In
addition, commenters report that RTT can be equipped with the ability
for users to control text settings such as font size and color, to
adjust text conversation windows, and to set up text presentation.
62. The Commission seeks comment on the technical feasibility,
costs, and benefits of requiring that these features of RTT be
supported by a covered service provider's implementation of RTT. How
can each of these capabilities meet the needs of people with specific
disabilities? For example, can the availability of emoji characters
help people with cognitive disabilities better communicate with and
receive information from others? How well do special characters and
emojis translate into voice, and what are the challenges of and best
practices for enabling this capability? Is it necessary or desirable to
have characters based on Unicode for them to be accessible to screen
readers used by people who are blind, visually impaired or deaf-blind?
Similarly, to what extent can the ability to set text style and text
presentation layout contribute to usability, readability and
comprehension of RTT? Should there be an option for the user, depending
on preferences and needs, to configure the display of incoming and
outgoing text in a certain way? Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on the extent to which these capabilities are affected by the
properties of network transmissions.
Accessibility, Usability, and Compatibility With Assistive Technologies
63. The Commission believes that RTT is appropriately classified as
an ``electronic messaging service'' and that as such, both RTT services
and the equipment used with them are subject to the requirements of
section 716 of the Act and part 14 of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR
14.10(i). Therefore, the Commission believes that, independently of any
rules specific to RTT that are adopted in this proceeding, RTT services
and end user equipment used with them must be accessible, usable, and
compatible with assistive technologies, as defined by part 14, to the
same extent as is currently required for telecommunications and
advanced communications services and equipment under the Commission's
accessibility regulations. See 47 U.S.C. 617(a)-(b); 47 CFR 14.21. The
Commission seeks comment on this position.
64. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it is possible to
identify, more specifically than is currently identified by its part 14
rules, certain RTT features or functional capabilities that are needed
to meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf-blind,
people with cognitive disabilities, or other specific segments of the
disability community. For example, should the Commission require
compatibility with certain assistive technologies used by people who
are deaf-blind, such as refreshable Braille displays or screen
enlargers? In addition to providing emoji's, are there other measures
that can be taken or required to make RTT effective for people with
cognitive disabilities? For example, should there be a mechanism for
slowing up the receipt of text, or an option to enable message turn-
taking to make it easier for these individuals to receive and read
incoming messages? What features should be incorporated on terminal
equipment used by these individuals to allow easy activation and
operation of RTT functions?
Other Features
65. In addition to the above specific capabilities, the DAC
recommends that the Commission consider whether compliant RTT equipment
and services should be required to support the following
telecommunications functions that are available to voice-based
telephone users:
The ability to ``transfer a communication session using
the same procedures used in voice telecommunication endpoints on the
system'';
The ability to ``initiate a multi-party teleconference
using the same procedures used in voice telecommunication endpoints on
the system'';
The ability to ``use messaging, automated attendant, and
interactive voice response systems''; and
The ability to use caller identification and similar
telecommunication functions.
The Commission tentatively concludes that such functions should be
available to RTT users as necessary for effective communication, and it
seeks comment on this tentative conclusion, including the costs,
benefits, and technical feasibility of supporting these functions. The
Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which the availability
of each of these functions may be affected by how a service provider
implements RTT in an IP network.
66. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
require that compliant RTT provide the ability to participate on
multiple calls simultaneously and to leave and access voice and text
mail, both of which are also telecommunications functions that must be
made accessible to people with disabilities by federal agencies under
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. See 36 CFR 1194.23, 1194.31(c),
(e). Some commenters explain that when retrieving messages from voice
mail, text information, including the name of the caller, return number
(from caller ID), length of the call, time of the call, and related
details could be sent and be viewable on screens. For interactive voice
response prompts, they report, instant text of all the choices could be
made available to callers.
Support of RTT Functionalities in Wireless Devices
Features and Functionalities
67. The Commission proposes to require that handsets and other end
user devices subject to an RTT support requirement be required to
support each of the RTT functionalities discussed above for service
providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including its
costs, benefits, and technical feasibility. To what extent are these
features and functions under the service provider's or manufacturer's
control? Are there other features and functionalities that should be
required for end user devices to effectively support RTT? Further, to
what extent can such features and functionalities and their associated
benefits be obtained if RTT is not fully incorporated as a native
function of end user devices, but is merely available for users to
download or install as an over-the-top application? To what extent
would it make a difference if an RTT application is installed as a
``default'' app prior to sale of a handset or end user device?
Device Portability and Interface With Third-Party Applications
68. In order to ensure that individuals can use a single device on
multiple networks, to the same extent as is currently possible with
voice communications, there must be a stable
[[Page 33181]]
interface between user equipment and VoIP networks. For example, if
subscribers to one wireless provider were to lose RTT communication
capability when they insert a subscriber identity module (SIM) card for
another wireless provider into their smartphones, then the inter-
network portability achieved for voice users' smartphones would be
unavailable to RTT users, and the Commission's rules may fail to
achieve functional equivalence in this critical respect. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to require, at a minimum, that covered service
providers enable device portability for their RTT services to the same
extent as they enable device portability for voice services. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
69. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which all
necessary functionalities for effective use of RTT can be made
available through provider-approved devices and applications, or
whether third party software applications will be needed for some RTT
features and functions. To what extent will consumers need access to
third party RTT software applications on user devices to supplement
native RTT capabilities that are integrated into such devices, in order
to achieve functional equivalence with voice communications? Should the
Commission require providers to offer an ``app interface'' to
facilitate access to third party applications?
70. In the event that the Commission adopts requirements for device
portability or the enabling of third party applications, or both, it
seeks comment on the availability or feasibility of a safe-harbor
standard for a user-network interface that could support the RTT
capabilities of user devices and applications from multiple
manufacturers and providers. Alternatively, are there reasonable
performance criteria that could be applied to ensure that a network-
user interface can support multiple third party devices and
applications?
Minimizing Costs Incurred by Consumers
71. Last, the Commission seeks comment on equipment costs to
consumers that may result from the transition from TTY to RTT
technology. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether there
are measures it could take in the context of this proceeding to ensure
the affordability of new terminal equipment or assistive devices that
may be needed as a consequence of the migration to RTT technology, and
whether such measures are appropriate. The Commission expects that many
off-the-shelf VoIP devices will be usable with RTT--eliminating
altogether the need for specialized equipment. In addition, the
Commission notes that several states have programs that distribute
specialized communications equipment to people, often based on their
economic need. Similarly, the Commission administers the National Deaf-
Blind Equipment Distribution Program, which provides funding for
certified state programs to distribute communications equipment and
provide related services to low income individuals who are deaf-blind
across the United States. 47 CFR 64.610. AARP recommends that carriers
seeking to transition to IP systems be required to work with
governmental agencies that distribute such assistive equipment to
qualified individuals with disabilities. The Commission seeks comment
on the appropriateness of this suggestion, and other ways that the
Commission can alleviate any burdens that might be associated with
acquiring new equipment or software, particularly for those who do not
qualify for existing state and federal equipment distribution programs
or for those will need to replace devices not covered by such programs.
Consumer Outreach and Notifications
72. To ensure a seamless TTY-RTT transition, the Commission seeks
comment on the best means of informing the public, including
businesses, governmental agencies, and individuals with disabilities
who will be directly affected by the transition, about the migration
from TTY technology to RTT and the mechanics of how this technology
will work. To be effective, RTT must be usable by people with and
without disabilities. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes
that such outreach should not only focus on people with disabilities,
but also on the general public that will be communicating with such
individuals, and seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. The
Commission seeks comment on whether the statutory authority on which it
proposes to rely for the purpose of regulating the provision of RTT is
sufficient to authorize outreach requirements with respect to RTT. The
Commission notes that it has previously used its authority under
section 225 of the Act to require service providers to conduct outreach
about TRS, and now asks whether it can rely upon such authority to
require outreach on RTT. See 47 CFR 64.604(c)(3). What are the most
effective methods to provide such notification, and to what extent
should covered entities coordinate with consumer and industry
stakeholders to develop effective messaging and outreach initiatives?
Further, to what extent should the outreach conducted by manufacturers
and service providers include outreach to the operators of public TTYs
and Wi-Fi phone installations?
73. Prior to the adoption of document FCC 16-53, the Commission's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, together with three other
bureaus within the Commission, granted various wireless carriers
temporary waivers of the Commission's requirements to support TTY
technology on IP-based wireless networks subject to certain conditions.
The Commission proposes that the conditions imposed in the bureaus'
waiver orders remain in effect until the full implementation of rules
adopted in this proceeding. These conditions include a requirement for
waiver recipients to apprise their customers, through effective and
accessible channels of communication, that (1) until TTY is sunset, TTY
technology will not be supported for calls to 911 services over IP-
based wireless services, and (2) there are alternative PSTN-based and
IP-based accessibility solutions for people with communication
disabilities to reach 911 services. These notices must be developed in
coordination with PSAPs and national consumer organizations, and
include a listing of text-based alternatives to 911, including, but not
limited to, TTY capability over the PSTN, various forms of PSTN-based
and IP-based TRS, and text-to-911 (where available). The Commission
tentatively concludes that the provision of this information is
necessary to ensure that, during the transition period, there is no
expectation on the part of consumers with disabilities that TTY
technology will be supported by IP-based wireless services, and to
ensure that these consumers know that alternative accessible
telecommunications options exist, and seeks comment on this belief. The
Commission further proposes that all information and notifications
about the RTT transition be provided in accessible formats, such as
large print, Braille, and other appropriate means to make information
accessible to people with disabilities, and seeks comment on this
proposal. Are any different or additional notices needed to ensure that
consumers are aware of potential issues regarding 911 communications
during a TTY-RTT transition?
74. Finally, the Commission tentatively concludes that, consistent
with the usability requirements of its rules implementing sections 255
and
[[Page 33182]]
716 of the Act (see 47 CFR 6.11(a)(3), 7.11(a)(3)) as well as previous
actions by the Commission to educate consumers about TRS (see 47 CFR
64.604(c)(2)), covered entities should be required to implement a
mechanism to provide information and assistance during business hours
to their consumers regarding the TTY-RTT transition, and seeks comment
on this tentative conclusion. The Commission seeks comment on how this
can best be achieved. For example, to what extent should covered
entities be required to designate staff trained to assist consumers
with the complex issues related to the TTY-RTT transition? Are there
additional mechanisms for outreach education and assistance that should
be adopted?
Other Matters
75. Security Concerns. The Commission seeks comment on security
risks that may be associated with the adoption of RTT technology and
that require the Commission's attention. The Technology Research
Centers point out the availability of technical methods to secure SIP
calls, both for call control security and media security. They also
caution against ``blocking of RTT,'' which they say could occur where
security or IT management personnel are not aware of the need to
support real-time text. They explain that this can be remedied by the
use of a ``SIP-aware firewall,'' which will allow the proper pass-
through of RTT once deployed. The Commission seeks comment on these and
other security concerns that should be addressed through this
proceeding, including the costs, benefits, and technical feasibility of
implementing specific security measures.
RTT Implementation in IP-Based Wireline Networks and Equipment
76. The Commission seeks comment on whether, in addition to
requiring the implementation of RTT by wireless service providers, the
Commission should amend its rules to require the implementation of RTT
in IP-based wireline networks. As discussed above, problems associated
with TTY transmissions are not limited to those that occur over IP
wireless networks. Because TTYs were not designed for the IP
environment, they have not performed well in any IP-based system; in
fact, many of the problems associated with TTY use over IP-enabled
wireless networks--e.g., dropped packets and data connection stability
issues--also occur in wireline networks. Thus, as an initial matter,
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which wireline IP
networks can reliably support TTY communications.
77. Moreover, there is considerable information in the record that
in any communications environment, TTYs remain inadequate with respect
to their speed, their limited character set, and their failure to allow
the simultaneous communication enjoyed by voice communications users.
The Commission thus next seeks comment on whether the Commission should
amend its rules at parts 6, 7, 14, and 64, to allow or require wireline
VoIP service providers to support RTT, as the Commission is proposing
to do for wireless services. What would be the costs, benefits, and
technical feasibility of such requirements? The Commission believes
that for RTT to effectively replace TTYs and allow full integration by
people with disabilities into our nation's mainstream communications
system, the ability to access our nation's wireline VoIP services using
RTT will be just as important as the ability to access wireless
services, especially if TTY technology is phased out. Many, if not most
businesses, government agencies, and retail establishments continue to
rely on wireline services, and having telephone access to such
enterprises will be necessary for people with disabilities who rely on
text to maintain their independence, privacy, and productivity.
78. If the Commission amends its rules governing wireline services
to incorporate RTT support obligations, how can the Commission ensure
that end users can readily connect to and use such RTT capabilities in
wireline IP networks? For example, given that wireline part 68 customer
premise equipment such as wired and cordless phones currently cannot
readily support real-time text, would it be feasible and practical for
wireline VoIP service providers to offer over-the-top RTT applications
downloadable to text-capable devices such as smartphones, tablets, and
computers, that could then be used to connect to the carrier's VoIP
service platform? Should wireline VoIP providers be required to ensure
the compatibility of their services with third-party RTT applications
present in stand-alone devices or downloaded onto text-capable devices
such as smartphones, tablets, and computers? To what extent should
wireline VoIP manufacturers have RTT support obligations for their
equipment that is otherwise capable of sending, receiving, and
displaying text? To the extent that IP-based wireline service providers
and manufacturers have an obligation under the Commission's rules to
support RTT, should they be required to adhere to the same
interoperability requirements, minimum functionalities, and outreach
obligations that the Commission proposes to require for wireless VoIP
services and end user devices? Finally, is RFC 4103 an appropriate
standard to reference as the safe harbor for wireline VoIP services and
text-capable end user equipment to ensure interoperability and
compliance with the rules proposed for wireless services?
79. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate timing for
incorporation of RTT capabilities into wireline VoIP services and end
user devices, in the event that rules requiring such capabilities are
adopted, and the extent to which such timing should be determined by
the manufacture or sell date of new devices. Similarly, should
requirements for RTT support also be triggered at ``natural
opportunities''? The Commission also seeks comment on whether RTT would
be particularly beneficial in the context of Inmate Calling Services
(ICS), particularly given the problems ICS users have encountered in
trying to use TTYs, and whether there are specific issues the
Commission would need to consider in relation to the use of RTT by
inmates.
80. Finally, how should TTY support obligations be modified as
wireline networks discontinue their circuit-switched services? Should
wireline providers that support RTT on their IP networks be permitted
to cease supporting TTY technology at all, and if so, on what
timetable? In comments filed in response to the Emerging Wireline Order
and Further Notice, AARP has raised concerns about establishing firm
dates for the sunset of TTY technology, given that a large number of
carriers ``serving millions of subscribers, may continue to deliver
voice services over legacy facilities for an extended period.'' AARP
claims that ``[a]dopting hard and fast sunset dates may lead to
customer confusion, and place undue burdens on some service providers
and their customers'' and urges that, if the Commission establishes a
termination date for TTY technology, it do so only for specific
carriers that have filed for relief under section 214 of the Act. The
Commission seeks comment on these claims and how it should consider the
needs of consumers who still use TTYs in framing rules to address a
transition to wireline implementation of RTT.
Legal Authority
81. The Commission believes that it has sufficient legal authority
to adopt the proposed rules to specify support for RTT communications
by wireless IP-based services and equipment. The
[[Page 33183]]
Commission also believes that it has sufficient legal authority, should
it so decide, to amend the Commission's rules to similarly specify
support of RTT technology by wireline IP-based services and equipment.
Further, the Commission believes that it may rely on the sources of
authority identified above, as well as the specific authorities
discussed below, to require that RTT provided pursuant to the proposed
rule amendments must meet the interoperability, minimum functionality,
and outreach requirements proposed above. The Commission seeks comment
on these views, as well as whether there are other sources of authority
beyond those described herein to support the proposals herein.
Amendment of Sec. 20.18
82. The Commission believes its proposal to amend Sec. 20.18(c) of
its rules to require wireless VoIP service providers to ensure that
their services, handsets, and other authorized devices are capable of
transmitting 911 calls through RTT technology over IP networks, in lieu
of transmitting 911 calls from TTYs, is within the Commission's Title
III authority to regulate wireless service providers. Title III
authorizes the Commission, among other things, to prescribe the nature
of the service to be rendered by licensed service providers and to
modify the terms of existing licenses where such action will promote
the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 47 U.S.C. 303(b), (g),
316(a)(1). The Commission relied on Title III in regulating the
location capabilities of wireless services and handsets and in adopting
the rule requiring wireless providers to transmit 911 calls from
individuals made on non-handset devices such as TTYs. The Commission
further relied on Title III in requiring wireless providers to support
text-to-911 service, concluding that Title III confers broad authority
to prescribe the nature of the emergency service obligations of
wireless providers, including deployment of text-to-911 capabilities.
83. The Commission further believes that its RTT-related proposed
amendments to section 20.18 of its rules are within the Commission's
direct statutory authority under section 106 of the CVAA to implement
recommendations proposed by the EAAC (47 U.S.C. 615c(c)), as well as
``to promulgate . . . any other regulations, technical standards,
protocols, and procedures as are necessary to achieve reliable,
interoperable communication that ensures access by individuals with
disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, where
achievable and technically feasible.'' 47 U.S.C. 615c(g). The
Commission relied on this authority to impose text-to-911 requirements
on wireless providers and interconnected text service providers, as
well as to require bounce-back messaging when a PSAP is unable to
accept a text calls. The Commission's determination rested on two
grounds: (1) That it was a proper exercise of the agency's authority to
promulgate EAAC recommendations, and (2) that it was a lawful exercise
of the agency's CVAA authority to promulgate certain ``other
regulations.'' See 47 U.S.C. 615c(g).
84. The EAAC submitted several recommendations to the Commission
that appear to be particularly relevant to this proceeding. For
example, the EAAC recommended ``that the FCC adopt requirements that
ensure that the quality of video, text and voice communications is
sufficient to provide usability and accessibility to individuals with
disabilities based on industry standards for the environment.'' The
EAAC also recommended ``that the FCC remove the requirement for TTY
(analog real-time text) support for new IP-based consumer services that
implement IP-based text communications that include at a minimum real
time text or, in an LTE environment, IMS Multimedia Telephony that
includes real-time text.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether
these or other of the EAAC's recommendations, including those involving
the migration to a national IP-enabled network,'' provide an additional
basis for the Commission to rely on its authority under 47 U.S.C.
615c(g) to adopt the amendments proposed here. The Commission also
seeks comment generally on the scope of the Commission's authority
under section 106 of the CVAA with respect to adoption of rules
governing access to emergency services via RTT. 47 U.S.C. 615c.
85. The Commission also has been granted broad authority to ensure
effective telephone access to emergency services that may be relevant
here, given the suggested importance of RTT as a means of securing
emergency assistance. This includes, for example, the specific
delegation of responsibility to the Commission under 47 U.S.C.
251(e)(3) to ``designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone
number for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities and
requesting assistance,'' the Wireless Communications and Public Safety
Act of 1999 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 615-615b) and the NET 911
Improvement Act of 2008 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 615a). The Commission
seeks comment on the possible relevance of these sources of authority
to this proceeding.
86. Generally, the Commission tentatively concludes that the
sources of legal authority for the actions taken in connection with the
above-described 911 initiatives support the initiative the Commission
is launching today, given the similarities--and despite the
differences--between them. Major objectives of these 911 initiatives
have been to ensure that (1) CMRS and other covered wireless providers
provide an interim mobile text solution for this important constituency
during the transition to NG911, and (2) the needs of people with
disabilities do not get left behind as technology develops. The
proceeding here addresses a current gap in the availability of
emergency communications services by people with disabilities vis-
[agrave]-vis those now widely available to the population at large,
namely, the disparity in the opportunity to engage in real-time
communications with emergency providers. To rectify this deficiency,
RTT offers the opportunity to engage in text communications on a real-
time basis, which comes much closer to voice than the currently
available text-based communications vehicles. Analogous to the earlier
911 initiatives, the above-cited legal authorities support the
Commission's use of the measures proposed here to provide people who
are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and speech-disabled with the
opportunity to access real time communications service in emergency
situations when the need for such capabilities is most pressing. The
Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion and assessment.
Amendment of Parts 6, 7, and 14
87. The Commission believes that it is within its authority under
sections 251, 255, and 716 of the Act to amend parts 6 and 7 of the
Commission's rules to require providers of interconnected wireless VoIP
service (as well as manufacturers of equipment used with such services)
to support RTT, if readily achievable (under parts 6 and 7), and to
amend part 14 to require wireless providers of VoIP service (as well as
manufacturers of equipment used with such services) not subject to
parts 6 and 7 to support RTT, unless this requirement is not achievable
(under part 14). Likewise, given that the Commission seeks comment
above on whether to provide for support of RTT on wireline networks,
the Commission notes its belief that the Commission has sufficient
authority under these provisions to amend its rules to similarly
require providers of wireline
[[Page 33184]]
VoIP services and manufacturers of equipment used with such services to
support RTT, should the Commission so decide. The Commission further
believes that these sections provide sufficient authority to impose
requirements to ensure that RTT is compatible with assistive
technologies used by people with disabilities, such as refreshable
Braille displays used by people who are deaf-blind, and seeks comment
on this position.
88. Section 255 of the Act requires providers of telecommunications
service and manufacturers of telecommunications and customer premises
equipment to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
Section 251(a)(2) of the Act provides that telecommunications carriers
may not install network features, functions, or capabilities that do
not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to
section 255 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 251(a)(2). Section 716 of the Act
requires providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used with ACS
to ensure that their services and equipment are accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, unless such requirements are
not achievable, and directs the Commission to promulgate implementing
regulations. 47 U.S.C. 617. ACS, in turn, is defined to include
interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP service, as well as
electronic messaging service and interoperable video conferencing
service. 47 U.S.C. 153(1). Both sections 255 and 716 of the Act require
that, to the extent that it is not achievable to make a service
accessible and usable, service providers ``shall ensure that [their]
equipment or service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or
specialized customer premises equipment [SCPE] commonly used by
individuals with disabilities to achieve access,'' if readily
achievable, under section 255 of the Act, or unless not achievable,
under section 716 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 255(d), 617(c). The Commission
seeks comment on whether these statutory provisions provide sufficient
authority to establish RTT requirements for wireless and wireline
services and equipment.
89. Congress intended for these provisions collectively to ensure
access by people with disabilities to our nation's telecommunications
and advanced communications services, and gave the Commission broad
authority to determine how to achieve this objective. 47 U.S.C. 154(i).
For example, section 716 of the Act directs the Commission to prescribe
regulations that ``include performance objectives to ensure the
accessibility, usability, and compatibility of advanced communications
services and the equipment'' and ``determine the obligations under this
section of manufacturers, service providers, and providers of
applications or services accessed over service provider networks.'' 47
U.S.C. 617(e)(1)(A), (C). Given the limitations of TTY technology, the
Commission believes that RTT is best suited to replace TTY technology
for rendering voice IP services accessible to people who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deaf-blind, or speech-disabled. The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis.
Amendment of Part 64
90. The Commission believes that it has sufficient authority under
the Act to adopt the proposed amendments to part 64 of its rules to
require wireless VoIP service providers to support the provision of and
access to TRS via RTT. The Commission also believes that the Commission
has sufficient authority under these provisions to adopt similar
amendments to require wireline VoIP service providers to support RTT
for the provision of and access to TRS.
91. Section 225 of the Act directs the Commission to ``ensure that
interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services are
available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to
hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United
States,'' and further to prescribe implementing regulations, including
functional requirements and minimum standards. 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1),
(d)(1). Congress initially placed the obligation to provide TRS on
common carriers ``providing telephone voice transmission services,''
either on their own or through a state-supported TRS program, in
compliance with the implementing regulations prescribed by the
Commission. 47 U.S.C. 225(c). Pursuant to the Commission's ancillary
jurisdiction, the Commission extended the TRS obligations to
interconnected VoIP providers. Included in the TRS obligations of
carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers is the obligation to
support access to TRS call centers, including through abbreviated 711
dialing access for TRS calls initiated by TTYs. The Commission believes
that it has sufficient authority under these provisions to require VoIP
service providers to support TRS access via RTT in lieu of requiring
support for TTY technology. Section 225 of the Act does not require
that TRS be provided or accessed with TTYs. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
Further, section 225 of the Act expressly directs the Commission to
``ensure that regulations prescribed to implement this section
encourage . . . the use of existing technology and do not discourage or
impair the development of improved technology.'' 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2).
The Commission seeks comment on this analysis.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
92. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document
FCC 16-53. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified in the DATES section. The Commission
will send a copy of document FCC 16-53, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
93. In document FCC 16-53, the Commission proposes amendments to
its rules to facilitate a transition from outdated text telephony (TTY)
technology to a reliable and interoperable means of providing real-time
text (RTT) communication over Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks
and services for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, speech disabled,
and deaf-blind. Real-time text is a mode of communication that permits
text to be sent immediately as it is being created. The Commission's
proposals would replace existing requirements mandating support for TTY
technology with rules for wireless IP-based voice services to support
RTT technology instead. The Commission's action seeks to ensure that
people who are deaf, hard of hearing, speech disabled, and deaf-blind
can fully utilize and benefit from twenty-first century communications
technologies as the United States migrates from legacy circuit-switched
systems to IP-based networks and services.
94. The Commission seeks comment on the following:
Its proposal to replace the Commission's rules that
require wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers to
support TTY technology with rules defining the obligations of these
entities to support
[[Page 33185]]
RTT technology over IP-based voice services.
Its tentative conclusions that the technical and
functional limitations of TTYs make this technology unsuitable as a
long-term means to provide full and effective access to IP-based
wireless telephone networks, that there is a need to provide
individuals who rely on text communication with a superior
accessibility solution for the IP environment, and that RTT can best
achieve this goal because it can be well supported in the wireless IP
environment, will facilitate emergency communications to 911 services,
allows for more natural and simultaneous interactions on telephone
calls, will largely eliminate the need to purchase specialized or
assistive devices that connect to mainstream technology, and may reduce
reliance on telecommunications relay services.
Its proposal to make the above amendments effective by
December 31, 2017, for large wireless service providers and
manufacturers of user devices authorized for their services, its
proposal to give additional time for compliance by smaller service
providers and manufacturers of user devices authorized for their
services, and the amount of additional time that would be appropriate.
Its tentative conclusions that deployment of RTT on IP
networks will offer functionality greatly superior to that of TTY
technology; that the ability to acquire off-the-shelf RTT-capable
devices will be beneficial for text communication users; and that RTT
will be more effective than messaging-type services such as short
messaging services (SMS) in meeting the communication needs of
consumers with disabilities, including their emergency communication
needs.
Its tentative conclusion that for effective RTT
communications across multiple platforms and networks, such
communications and the associated terminal equipment must be
interoperable with one another.
Its proposal to adopt a standard developed by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 4103, as a safe harbor technical
standard, adherence to which will be deemed to satisfy the
interoperability requirement for RTT communications.
Its proposal that service providers should be required to
make their RTT services interoperable with TTY technology supported by
circuit-switched networks, and when that requirement should sunset.
Its proposal to require that wireless providers and
equipment manufacturers implementing RTT support the following
telecommunications functions:
Use of the same North American Numbering Plan numbers used
for voice, to initiate and receive calls;
911 emergency communications in full compliance with all
applicable 911 rules;
transmission of characters within one second of when they
are generated, with no more than a 0.2 percent character error rate,
which equates to approximately a one percent word error rate;
simultaneous voice and text transmission;
TRS access;
a comprehensive character set and the ability to control
text settings such as font size and color, to adjust text conversation
windows, and to set up text presentation;
compliance with the Commission's existing accessibility
regulations for ``electronic messaging services''; and
other calling features such as call transfer,
teleconferencing, caller identification, voice and text mail, and
interactive voice response systems.
Its proposal to require wireless service providers
implementing RTT to enable device portability for their RTT services to
the same extent as for voice services and whether to require such
providers to enable the use of third party RTT software applications on
user devices to supplement the native RTT capabilities.
Measures that may be needed to ensure the affordability of
new terminal equipment or assistive devices that may be needed as a
consequence of the migration to RTT technology.
Its proposal to require wireless service providers to
notify their customers about the inability to use TTYs with IP-based
services and about alternative means of reaching 911 services.
The best means of informing the public, including
businesses, governmental agencies, and individuals with disabilities
who will be directly affected by the transition, about the migration
from TTY technology to RTT and the mechanics of how this technology
will work.
Security risks that may be associated with the adoption of
RTT technology and that require the Commission's attention.
Whether to require the implementation of RTT in IP-based
wireline networks, including:
Whether to require wireline voice-over-IP (VoIP) service
providers to support RTT, as the Commission is proposing to do for
wireless services;
How to ensure that end users can readily connect to and
use RTT capabilities in wireline networks, and whether it would be
feasible and practical for wireline VoIP service providers to offer
downloadable over-the-top RTT software applications;
Whether to require VoIP providers to ensure the
compatibility of their services with third-party RTT software
applications downloaded onto text-capable devices such as smartphones,
tablets, and computers;
The extent to which wireline VoIP manufacturers should
have RTT support obligations for their equipment that is otherwise
capable of sending, receiving, and displaying text;
Whether IP-based wireline service providers and
manufacturers should be required to adhere to the same interoperability
requirements, minimum functionalities, and outreach obligations as
those proposed for wireless VoIP services and end user devices;
Whether RFC 4103 is an appropriate standard to reference
as the safe harbor for wireline VoIP services and end user equipment to
ensure interoperability and compliance with the rules proposed for
wireless services; and
The appropriate timing for incorporation of RTT
capabilities into wireline VoIP services and end user devices.
Legal Basis
95. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i),
225, 255, 303, 316, and 716 of the Act, section 6 of the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, and section 106 of the
CVAA; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 225, 255, 303, 316, 615a-1, 615c,
617.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Impacted
96. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
97. The majority of the Commission's proposals in document FCC 16-
53 will affect obligations on telecommunications carriers and
providers, VoIP service providers,
[[Page 33186]]
wireline and wireless service providers, ACS providers, and
telecommunications equipment and software manufacturers. Other
entities, however, that choose to object to the substitution of RTT for
TTY technology under the Commission's new proposed rules may be
economically impacted by the proposals in document FCC 16-53.
98. A small business is an independent business having less than
500 employees. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2
million small businesses, according to the SBA. Affected small entities
as defined by industry are as follows.
Wireline Providers
99. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The Census Bureau defines
this industry as comprising ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound and video using wired telecommunications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.
100. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported
that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small
entities.
101. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission
data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange
service providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small entities.
102. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.''
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although
the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on
Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
103. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they
are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and other local service providers are small entities.
104. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 359 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
IXCs are small entities.
105. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll
carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
five have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
Wireless Providers
106. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
broad, economic census category. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as comprising ``establishments engaged in operating and
maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide
[[Page 33187]]
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as
cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and
wireless video services.'' Under the present and prior categories, the
SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite), census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees. Since all firms with fewer than
1,500 employees are considered small, given the total employment in the
sector, the Commission estimates that the vast majority of wireless
firms are small entities.
Cable Service Providers
107. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers. Thus, under this standard, the
Commission estimates that most cable systems are small entities.
All Other Telecommunications
108. All Other Telecommunications. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as including ``establishments primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry
also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite
terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is
$32.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census
Bureau data for 2007, there were 2,383 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,346 firms had annual receipts
of under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of these firms are small entities.
109. TRS Providers. These services can be included within the broad
economic category of All Other Telecommunications. Seven providers
currently receive compensation from the Interstate Telecommunications
Relay Service (TRS) Fund for providing TRS: ASL Services Holdings, LLC;
CSDVRS, LLC; Convo Communications, LLC; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Purple
Communications, Inc.; Sprint Communications, Inc. (Sprint); and
Sorenson Communications, Inc. However, because Sprint's primary
business fits within the definition of Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), Sprint is not considered to be within the
category of All Other Telecommunications. As a result, six of the
authorized TRS providers can be included within the broad economic
census category of All Other Telecommunications. The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for All Other Telecommunications, which
consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million
or less. Under this category and the associated small business size
standard, approximately half of the TRS providers can be considered
small.
Manufacturers of Equipment To Provide VoIP
110. Entities manufacturing equipment used to provide
interconnected VoIP, non-interconnected VoIP, or both are generally
found in one of two Census Bureau categories, ``Electronic Computer
Manufacturing'' or ``Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.'' While the
Commission recognizes that the manufacturers of equipment used to
provide interconnected VoIP will continue to be regulated under section
255 of the Act rather than under section 716 of the Act, the Commission
includes here an analysis of the possible significant economic impact
of the Commission's proposed rules on manufacturers of equipment used
to provide both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP because it
was not possible to separate available data on these two manufacturing
categories for VoIP equipment. In light of this situation, the
estimates below are in all likelihood overstating the number of small
entities that manufacture equipment used to provide interconnected VoIP
and which are subject to the proposed section 716 rules. However, in
the absence of more accurate data, the Commission presents these
figures to provide as thorough an analysis of the impact on small
entities as it can at this time, with the understanding that it will
modify its analysis as more accurate data becomes available in this
proceeding.
111. Electronic Computer Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines
this category to include ``. . . establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing and/or assembling electronic computers, such as
mainframes, personal computers, workstations, laptops, and computer
servers. Computers can be analog, digital, or hybrid. Digital
computers, the most common type, are devices that do all of the
following: (1) Store the processing program or programs and the data
immediately necessary for the execution of the program; (2) can be
freely programmed in accordance with the requirements of the user; (3)
perform arithmetical computations specified by the user; and (4)
execute, without human intervention, a processing program that requires
the computer to modify its execution by logical decision during the
processing run. Analog computers are capable of simulating mathematical
models and contain at least analog, control, and processing elements.
The manufacture of computers includes the assembly of or integration of
processors, co-processors, memory, storage, and input/output devices
into a user-programmable final product. The manufacture of computers
includes the assembly or integration of processors, coprocessors,
memory, storage, and input/output devices into a user-programmable
final product.'' In this category, the SBA has deemed an electronic
computer manufacturing business to be small if it has fewer than 1,000
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 425
establishments in this category that operated that year. Of these, 419
had less 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
the majority of these establishments are small entities.
112. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines
this category to comprise ``establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing wire telephone and data communications equipment.'' The
Census Bureau further states: ``These
[[Page 33188]]
products may be stand alone or board-level components of a larger
system. Examples of products made by these establishments are central
office switching equipment, cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX
equipment, telephones, telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-
user modems, and other data communications equipment, such as bridges,
routers, and gateways.''
113. In this category, the SBA has deemed a telephone apparatus
manufacturing business to be small if it has fewer than 1,000
employees. For this category of manufacturers, Census data for 2007
show that there were 398 such establishments that operated that year.
Of those 398 establishments, 393 (approximately 99%) had fewer than
1,000 employees and, thus, would be deemed small under the applicable
SBA size standard. Accordingly, the majority of establishments in this
category can be considered small under that standard. On this basis,
the Commission continues to estimate that approximately 99% or more of
the manufacturers of equipment used to provide VoIP in this category
are small entities.
114. Computer Terminal Manufacturing. This category ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing computer terminals.
Computer terminals are input/output devices that connect with a central
computer for processing.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007,
there were 43 establishments in this category that operated that year.
Of this total, all 43 had less than 500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are
small entities.
Manufacturers of Equipment To Provide Electronic Messaging
115. Entities that manufacture equipment (other than software) used
to provide electronic messaging services are generally found in one of
three Census Bureau categories: ``Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing,'' ``Electronic
Computer Manufacturing,'' or ``Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.''
116. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this industry as
comprising ``establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio
and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by the establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and
television studio and broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has established
a size standard for this industry that classifies any business in this
industry as small if it has 750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data
for 2007 indicate that in that year 939 such businesses operated. Of
that number, 912 businesses operated with less than 500 employees.
Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of
businesses in this industry are small by the SBA standard.
117. Electronic Computer Manufacturing. This category ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing and/or assembling
electronic computers, such as mainframes, personal computers,
workstations, laptops, and computer servers. Computers can be analog,
digital, or hybrid. Digital computers, the most common type, are
devices that do all of the following: (1) Store the processing program
or programs and the data immediately necessary for the execution of the
program; (2) can be freely programmed in accordance with the
requirements of the user; (3) perform arithmetical computations
specified by the user; and (4) execute, without human intervention, a
processing program that requires the computer to modify its execution
by logical decision during the processing run. Analog computers are
capable of simulating mathematical models and contain at least analog,
control, and programming elements. The manufacture of computers
includes the assembly or integration of processors, coprocessors,
memory, storage, and input/output devices into a user-programmable
final product.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or
fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
425 establishments in this category that operated that year. Of these,
419 had less 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of these establishments are small entities.
Manufacturers of Equipment To Provide Interoperable Video Conferencing
Services
118. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. Entities that
manufacture equipment used to provide interoperable and other video
conferencing services are generally found in the Census Bureau
category: ``Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.'' The Census
Bureau defines this category to include: ``. . . establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except
telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless
communications equipment).'' In this category, the SBA has deemed a
business manufacturing other communications equipment to be small if it
has fewer than 750 employees. For this category of manufacturers,
Census data for 2007 show that there were 452 such establishments that
operated that year. Of those 452 establishments, all 452 (100%) had
fewer than 1,000 employees and 448 of those 452 (approximately 99%) had
fewer than 500 employees. Between these two figures, the Commission
estimates that about 450 establishments (approximately 99.6%) had fewer
than 750 employees and, thus, would be considered small under the
applicable SBA size standard. Accordingly, the majority of
establishments in this category can be considered small under that
standard. On this basis, Commission estimates that approximately 99.6%
or more of the manufacturers of equipment used to provide interoperable
and other video conferencing services are small entities.
Manufacturers of Software
119. Entities that publish software used to provide interconnected
VoIP, non-interconnected VoIP, electronic messaging services, or
interoperable video conferencing services are found in the Census
Bureau category ``Software Publishers.''
120. Software Publishers. This category ``comprises establishments
primarily engaged in computer software publishing or publishing and
reproduction. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged
in computer software publishing or publishing and reproduction.
Establishments in this industry carry out operations necessary for
producing and distributing computer software, such as designing,
providing documentation, assisting in installation, and providing
support services to software purchasers. These establishments may
design, develop, and publish, or publish only.'' The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for software publishers, which consists
of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $38.5 million or less.
For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 5,313
firms that operated for the entire year. Of those
[[Page 33189]]
firms, a total of 4,956 had gross annual receipts less than $25
million. Thus, a majority of software publishers potentially affected
by the proposals in document FCC 16-53 can be considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
121. Although document FCC 16-53 proposes to require support for
RTT in lieu of TTY technologies in all IP-based wireless services, and
seeks comment on whether to require the implementation of RTT in IP-
based wireline networks, document FCC 16-53, for the most part, does
not propose or seek comment on new or modified reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. However, document FCC
16-53 seeks comment on the best means of informing the public,
including businesses, governmental agencies, and individuals with
disabilities who will be directly affected by the transition, about the
migration from TTY technology to RTT and the mechanics of how this
technology will work.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
122. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
123. Document FCC 16-53 proposes rules intended to replace obsolete
TTY technology with RTT to ensure consumer access to IP services via
wireless text-based communications and seeks comment on whether to do
the same for wireline text-based communications. RTT technology may
simplify the accessibility obligations of small businesses, because RTT
allows calls to be made using the built-in functionality of a wide
selection of off-the shelf devices, and thus may alleviate the high
costs and challenges faced by small businesses and customers in
locating dedicated external assistive devices, such as specialty
phones. Additionally, with the proposal to phase out TTY technology,
the burden is reduced for small entities and emergency call centers to
maintain such technology in the long term.
124. The Commission proposes an implementation deadline for RTT
technology of December 31, 2017, for the wireless providers that offer
nationwide service, and manufacturers of end user devices authorized
for their services, and to reduce the burden and relieve possible
adverse economic impact on small entities, seeks comment on an
appropriate deadline for all other wireless providers and equipment
manufacturers. In addition, the Commission seeks comment from providers
of wireline VoIP services, including small entities, on the appropriate
timing for incorporation of RTT capabilities into wireline VoIP
services and end user devices.
125. In document FCC 16-53, while the Commission proposes a ``safe
harbor'' technical standard to ensure RTT interoperability, it proposes
to allow service providers and carriers to use alternative protocols
for RTT, provided that they are interoperable. Further, throughout the
item, flexibility is integrated in the proposed requirements in order
to take into consideration the limitations of small businesses. For
instance, the proposed requirement that equipment manufacturers
supporting RTT offer certain functions as native features on VoIP-
enabled terminal devices that can send, receive, and display text is
subject to the condition that such features be achievable. As such, the
Commission anticipates that these proposals will have little to no
impact on small entities that are eligible to claim that the
requirement is not achievable.
126. The Commission believes that any requirement for service
providers and manufacturers to implement outreach and notification to
consumers about the transition from TTY to RTT will not require
significant additional resources for small entities, and in any event
would be outweighed by the need for consumers to understand the changes
in the services and associated equipment that they will be receiving.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals
127. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r), 316, 403, 715,
and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 106
of the CVAA, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r), 316, 403, 615c,
616, 617, document FCC 16-53 IS ADOPTED.
The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information
Center, SHALL SEND a copy of document FCC 16-53, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 6
Individuals with disabilities, Access to telecommunication service
and equipment, and Customer premise equipment.
47 CFR Part 7
Individuals with disabilities, Access to voice mail and interactive
menu services and equipment.
47 CFR Part 14
Individuals with disabilities, Access to advanced communication
services and equipment.
47 CFR Part 20
Commercial mobile services, Individuals with disabilities, Access
to 911 services.
47 CFR Part 64
Telecommunications relay services, Individuals with disabilities.
47 CFR Part 67
Real-time text, Individuals with disabilities.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 6, 7, 14, 20,
64, and 67 as follows:
PART 6--ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT AND CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT BY PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 251, 255, and 303(r).
0
2. Amend Sec. 6.3 by adding paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(5), (m), and (n) to
read as follows:
Sec. 6.3 Definitions.
(a) * * *
(3) Real-Time Text. Effective December 31, 2017, for wireless VoIP
services and text-capable user devices
[[Page 33190]]
used with such services, the service or device supports real-time text
communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
(b) * * *
(5) Wireless VoIP Exemption. Wireless VoIP services and equipment
used with such services are not required to provide TTY connectability
and TTY signal compatibility if such services and equipment support
real-time text, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
* * * * *
(m) The term real-time text shall have the meaning set forth in
Sec. 67.1 of this chapter.
(n) The term text-capable user device means customer premises
equipment that is able to send, receive, and display text.
PART 7--ACCESS TO VOICEMAIL AND INTERACTIVE MENU SERVICES AND
EQUIPMENT BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 255.
0
4. Amend Sec. 7.3 by adding paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(5), (n), and (o) to
read as follows:
Sec. 7.3 Definitions.
(a) * * *
(3) Real-Time Text. Effective December 31, 2017, for wireless VoIP
services and text-capable user devices used with such services, the
service or equipment supports real-time text communications, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
(b) * * *
(5) Wireless VoIP Exemption. Wireless VoIP services and equipment
are not required to provide TTY connectability and TTY signal
compatibility if such services and equipment support real-time text, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
* * * * *
(n) The term real-time text shall have the meaning set forth in
Sec. 67.1 of this chapter.
(o) The term text-capable user device means customer premises
equipment that is able to send, receive, and display text.
PART 14--ACCESS TO ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT
BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
0
5. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 255, 303, 403, 503, 617, 618, 619
unless otherwise noted.
0
6. Amend Sec. 14.10 by adding paragraphs (w) and (x) to read as
follows:
Sec. 14.10 Definitions.
* * * * *
(w) The term real-time text shall have the meaning set forth in
Sec. 67.1 of this chapter.
(x) The term text-capable user device means end user equipment that
is able to send, receive, and display text.
0
7. Amend Sec. 14.21 by adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 14.21 Performance Objectives.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Real-Time Text. Effective July 31, 2017, for wireless VoIP
services and text-capable user devices used with such services, the
service or device supports real-time text communications, in accordance
with 47 CFR part 67.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Wireless VoIP Exemption. Wireless VoIP services and equipment
are not required to provide TTY connectability and TTY signal
compatibility if such services and equipment support real-time text, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
8. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214,
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c.
0
9. Amend Sec. 20.18 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(c) Access to 911 services. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, CMRS providers subject to this section must be
capable of transmitting 911 calls from individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, speech-disabled, and deaf-blind through the use of Text
Telephone Devices (TTY), except that CMRS providers transmitting over
IP facilities are not subject to this requirement if the CMRS provider
supports real-time text communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part
67.
(2) Notwithstanding any other limitation of coverage in this
section, the requirements of this paragraph (c)(2) apply to providers
of digital mobile service in the United States to the extent that they
offer terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice
communications among members of the public or a substantial portion of
the public. Effective December 31, 2017, such service providers
transmitting over IP facilities shall support 911 access via real-time
text communications for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing,
speech-disabled, and deaf-blind, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
* * * * *
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
10. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless
otherwise noted.
0
11. Amend Sec. 64.601 by revising paragraphs (a)(13), (a)(15), and
(a)(42), and adding paragraph (a)(46), to read as follows:
Sec. 64.601 Definitions and provisions of general applicability.
* * * * *
(a)(13) Hearing carry over (HCO). A form of TRS where the person
with the speech disability is able to listen to the other end user and,
in reply, the CA speaks the text as typed by the person with the speech
disability. The CA does not type any conversation. Two-line HCO is an
HCO service that allows TRS users to use one telephone line for hearing
and the other for sending TTY messages. HCO-to-TTY allows a relay
conversation to take place between an HCO user and a TTY user. HCO-to-
RTT is an HCO service that allows a relay conversation to take place
between an HCO user and an RTT user. HCO-to-HCO allows a relay
conversation to take place between two HCO users.
* * * * *
(15) Internet-based TRS (iTRS). A telecommunications relay service
(TRS) in which an individual with a hearing or a speech disability
connects to a TRS communications assistant using an Internet Protocol-
enabled device via the Internet, rather than the public switched
telephone network. Except as authorized or required by the Commission,
Internet-based TRS does not include the use of a text telephone (TTY)
or real-time text (RTT) over an interconnected voice over Internet
Protocol service.
* * * * *
(42) Voice carry over (VCO). A form of TRS where the person with
the hearing disability is able to speak
[[Page 33191]]
directly to the other end user. The CA types the response back to the
person with the hearing disability. The CA does not voice the
conversation. Two-line VCO is a VCO service that allows TRS users to
use one telephone line for voicing and the other for receiving TTY
messages. A VCO-to-TTY TRS call allows a relay conversation to take
place between a VCO user and a TTY user. VCO-to-RTT is a VCO service
that allows a relay conversation to take place between a VCO user and
an RTT user. VCO-to-VCO allows a relay conversation to take place
between two VCO users.
* * * * *
(46) Real-Time Text (RTT). The term real-time text shall have the
meaning set forth in Sec. 67.1 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 64.603 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.603 Provision of services.
Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services
shall provide, in compliance with the regulations prescribed herein,
throughout the area in which it offers services, telecommunications
relay services, individually, through designees, through a
competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers,
including relay services accessed via RTT communications. Interstate
Spanish language relay service shall be provided. Speech-to-speech
relay service also shall be provided, except that speech-to-speech
relay service need not be provided by IP Relay providers, VRS
providers, captioned telephone relay service providers, and IP CTS
providers. In addition, each common carrier providing telephone voice
transmission services shall provide access via the 711 dialing code to
all relay services as a toll free call. Wireless VoIP service providers
are not required to provide such access to TTY users if they provide
711 dialing code access by supporting real-time text communications, in
accordance with 47 CFR part 67. Effective [insert date], wireless VoIP
service providers shall provide 711 dialing code access by supporting
real-time text communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 64.604 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) CAs answering and placing a TTY- or RTT-based TRS call or VRS
call shall stay with the call for a minimum of ten minutes.
* * * * *
(vii) TRS shall transmit conversations between TTY or RTT callers
and voice callers in real time.
* * * * *
0
14. Add part 67 to read as follows:
PART 67--REAL-TIME TEXT
Sec.
67.1 Definitions.
67.2 Service Provider and Manufacturer Obligations; Minimum
Functionalities.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 225, 251, 255, 301, 303, 307,
309, 316, 615c, 616, 617.
Sec. 67.1 Definitions.
(a) ``Authorized user device'' means a handset or other end user
device that is authorized by the provider of a covered service for use
with that service and is able to send, receive, and display text.
(b) ``Covered service'' means a VoIP or other service that is
permitted or required to support RTT pursuant to parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or
64 of this chapter.
(c) ``RFC 4103'' means standard Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport Protocol
Payload for Text Conversation (2005) and any successor protocol
published by the IETF. RFC 4103 is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt.
(d) ``RFC 4103-conforming'' service or user device means a covered
service or authorized user device that enables initiation, sending,
transmission, reception, and display of RTT communications in
conformity with RFC 4103.
(e) ``RFC 4103-TTY gateway'' means a gateway that is able to
reliably and accurately transcode communications between:
(1) RFC 4103-conforming services and devices and;
(2) Circuit-switched networks that support communications between
TTYs.
(f) ``Real-time text (RTT)'' or ``RTT communications'' means text
communications that are transmitted over Internet Protocol (IP)
networks immediately as they are typed, e.g., on a character-by-
character basis.
(g) ``Support RTT'' or ``support RTT communications'' means to
enable users to initiate, send, transmit, receive, and display RTT
communications in accordance with the applicable provisions of this
part.
Sec. 67.2 Service Provider and Manufacturer Obligations; minimum
functionalities.
(a) Service Provider Obligations. A provider of a covered service
shall ensure that its service and all authorized user devices using its
service support RTT in compliance with this section.
(b) Manufacturer Obligations. A manufacturer shall ensure that its
authorized user devices support RTT in compliance with this section.
(c) RTT-RTT Interoperability. Covered services and authorized user
devices shall be interoperable with other services and devices that
support RTT in accordance with this part. RFC 4103-conforming services
and user devices shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph (c).
Other covered services or authorized user devices shall be deemed to
comply if RTT communications between such service or user device and an
RFC 4103-conforming service or user device are reliably and accurately
transcoded
(1) To and from RFC 4103, or
(2) To and from an internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon
with the owner of the network serving the RFC 4103-conforming service
or device.
(d) RTT-TTY Interoperability. Covered services and authorized user
devices shall be interoperable with TTYs connected to other networks.
Covered services and authorized user devices shall be deemed to comply
with this paragraph (d) if communications to and from such TTYs:
(1) Pass through an RFC 4103-TTY gateway, or
(2) Are reliably and accurately transcoded to and from an
internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon with the owner of the
network serving the TTY.
(e) Device Portability. Authorized user devices shall be portable
among service providers for RTT communications to the same extent as
for voice communications.
(f) Features and Capabilities. Covered services and authorized user
devices shall enable the user to:
(1) Initiate and receive RTT calls to and from the same telephone
numbers for which they initiate and receive voice calls;
(2) Transmit and receive RTT communications to and from any 911
public safety answering point (PSAP) in the United States;
(3) Transmit text instantly, so that each text character appears on
the receiving device within one second of when it is generated on the
sending device, with no more than 0.2 percent character error rate;
(4) Send and receive text and voice simultaneously in both
directions on the same call using a single device;
(5) Transfer RTT calls and initiate conference calls using the same
procedures used for voice communication;
[[Page 33192]]
(6) Use RTT to communicate with and retrieve messages from
messaging, automated attendant, and interactive voice response systems;
and
(7) Transmit caller identification and conduct similar
telecommunication functions with RTT communications.
[FR Doc. 2016-12057 Filed 5-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P