BIS Implementing the revised EU Electronic Communications Framework (December 2010)

DAART ( Deaf Access to Alternative Relay in Telecommunications) Campaign is a campaigning group of individual consumers who may or may not have any representation with deaf or hard of hearing organisations and would like to add their voice to see alternative relay services available here in the UK.

This group came into formation in September 2010 and to date there are over 400 members and this list is growing daily.

This response from DAART [See Fotonote 1] to the BIS “Implementing the revised EU Electronic Communications Framework” (September 2010), will focus on Question 10. Section – Equivalence for Disabled Users.

The terms “deaf” and “deaf people” for the purpose of this response, will refer to all of the following groups of disabled user: deaf people with speech, Deaf who use BSL, deafened, deaf-blind and hard of hearing people.

Section 189.

We fully support Section 1 of the Article 23a of the Universal Service Directive, because currently not all deaf users needs are met. The current relay service is only appropriate for a small proportion of deaf people, leaving the rest with no, or insufficient, access to telephone services. Therefore it is imperative to provide these people with functional equivalent access to a variety of high quality electronic relay services, giving all deaf individuals access, equivalence and real choice.

Section 190.

Regarding the ‘text relay services’ referred to in this section, we would like to point out that there is currently only one text relay service in the UK2, which as already stipulated above does not meet the needs of the majority of deaf users. With regards to the current General Conditions (GC), particularly GC 15, deaf users have extremely poor access to Text Relay services from mobile phones and no online access. Therefore, there are concerns that the current General Conditions, particularly GC15, are weak, unenforceable and lacks equivalence. Any changes to access for deaf people need to address both the communication needs of individual groups to ensure that real access is provided and an understanding of how people use new technologies to aid communication, both socially and economically, as well as practically.

Section 191.

We can understand why it may be necessary to include Equivalency in the General Conditions to ensure that people with disability have equivalent access to the telephone and internet provision. However, we believe that this will lead to minimal services especially the provision of relay services. [See Fotonote 2] Therefore it is necessary to safeguard this by ensuring that the telecommunication providers provide functional equivalent and high quality relay services with real choice for deaf people. This can only be done by these providers contributing at least 0.5% of their total income into an independent Telecommunications Relay Fund. This would require some changes to the Communications Act to allow this to be set up.

Once established, this will provide deaf people with functional equivalent and high quality relay services together real consumer choice and equality of access. Not only that, the fund will encourage new innovatory technologies to be developed.

Our experience of almost 20 years of Text Relay Services under the USO has resulted in the provision of a minimal service with no incentives to incorporate new technologies or innovative developments. Therefore we do not want to see a repeat of this with new relay services. However as we understand that the Universal Service Fund (USF) was not evoked at the time that BT was to provide a text relay service under USO due to its monopolistic position within the UK at the beginning.

Under Universal Service OFCOM can designate a number of USPs which may include relay service providers together with the setting up of an USF. We are not convinced that the USF will provide our consumers with functional equivalent and high quality relay services and offers our consumers with restricted choice. Unfortunately we believe that the USF will NOT encourage new innovatory technologies to be developed.

We have concerns that if Ofcom decides to designate a few providers it may lead to the said providers contracting out to one relay provider. This will severely restrict choice to the end user and there would be no motivation to improve the quality of the service.

Section 192.

As we are advocating for an independent TRF, we fully understand the need for OFCOM to carry out public consultation on this. However, our main concern is the additional delay that this would incur; many deaf users have long been denied appropriate access to telephone services and this is an issue which needs to be resolved quickly. Deaf people have a right to equal access in line with their hearing peers as part of equality laws. We suggest that the consultation process is carried out efficiently and within the shortest time frame possible. It is also imperative that the consultation process incorporates the full range of user needs.

Section 193.

In the past, the availability of suitable terminal equipment as distributed by social services and/or Access to Work has often been a lengthy and painful process; some users having to wait up to two years before receiving the equipment necessary to communicate at work or with their families and social network. Deaf blind users, in particular, have had very bad experiences due to the lack of access and provision of highly specialized terminal equipment which were available only at high cost. We wish to avoid the mistakes of the past and so we advocate that the distribution of appropriate terminal equipment should be via the TRF.

Conclusion

In conclusion, DAART does agree that the Telecommunications Relay Fund comprising 0.5% of the total income of all telecommunications service providers. We believe that this source of funding has many advantages as outlined in appendix below and would allow a range of equivalent services to be developed which meet the varying communication needs of deaf people, whether deaf with speech, BSL users, hard of hearing, deaf-blind or deafened, in the full range of communication activities currently enjoyed by non-disabled users: at work, at home, on the road, communicating with families and loved ones, communicating for work purposes, as well as the more mundane and practical uses for telecommunications. We would like to offer our services to the eAccessibility forum as an advisory body in such matters.

APPENDIX

The advantages of having a TRF within General conditions are:

Funds become available on a yearly basis for companies who wish to provide specialist relay services to be able to tender bids.

There would be healthy competition among service providers to demonstrate quality of service, value for money and who use the latest improved technology to be more effective and efficient to secure tenders.

Removes the burden from Government to fund services through various departments.

There will be a variety of relay services available catering for the diverse range of disabled people to ensure they receive functionally equivalent access.

It does not place the burden on one company that has the SMP.

DAART has also undertaken a SWOT analysis of the proposed routes and measured this against our key principles. We hope this would draw attention to the potential pitfalls which we hope BIS would consider when drawing their conclusions. This is shown below.

Items highlighted in red indicates that it would not meet DAART Key Principles for fully funded accessible relay services 24/7/365 as shown below.

Key Principles

• Be available 24/7/365
• Be real time equivalent
• Meet appropriate quality standards
• Be available to users at no cost other than the cost of a standard call.
• Meet the varying communication needs of deaf people, whether deaf with speech, BSL users, hard of hearing, deaf-blind or deafened.
• Be capable of taking advantage of new developments in technology.
• Treat Captioned Telephony, Video Relay Services (VRS) and Text Relay with equal importance to ensure that all sections of the deaf and hard of hearing community benefits from functional equivalent access to telecommunications.
• Enable the full participation of all deaf users through the provision of appropriate software and terminal equipment to access different types of relay services.
• Provide number portability.
• Provide real choice for consumers through open competition between “same type” relay providers.
• Use standard protocols to ensure interoperability across platforms and networks.
• Provide equivalence to all standard telephony platforms including the provision of mobile phone solutions software communication packages

Damian Barry – DAART
David Rose – DAART
Christopher Jones – Independent Consultant and member of DAART

John Sexton
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills
Communications Regulatory Policy Team
Fourth Floor, 1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Tel:  0207 215 4439
Fax:  0207 215 5442
Email  ecommsframework@bis.gsi.gov.uk

Footnotes:

1. DAART (Deaf Access to Alternative Relay in Telecommunications Campaign Group) is a consumer group of deaf, deafened, deaf blind, hard of hearing and hearing people who wish to see an equivalent access to the telephone using a range of relay services which meet individual needs. These relay services include Captioned Telephone Relay Service (CTRS) for hard of hearing, deafened and deaf people with speech, and Video Relay Service (VRS) for Deaf people whose first language is British Sign Language (BSL).
2. 2 The Text Relay which is provided by BT under their USO.