Download:
pdf |
pdfFederal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text
Technology
Petition for Rulemaking to Update the
Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text
Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules
Requiring Support of TTY Technology
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CG Docket No. 16-145
GN Docket No. 15-178
REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: December 15, 2016
Released: December 16, 2016
Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O’Rielly
issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading
Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 6
III. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................... 8
A. RTT is an Effective and Efficient Replacement for TTY Technology ............................................ 8
B. Permitting RTT Support in Lieu of TTY Support over IP-Based Wireless Voice Services
and Devices.................................................................................................................................... 11
1. Wireless Service Support for RTT .......................................................................................... 14
2. End User Device Support for RTT .......................................................................................... 19
C. Regulatory Relief ........................................................................................................................... 22
D. Performance Objectives ................................................................................................................. 24
E. Minimum Functionalities of RTT .................................................................................................. 26
1. Interoperability ........................................................................................................................ 27
2. Backward Compatibility with TTY Technology..................................................................... 32
3. Support for 911 Communications............................................................................................ 42
F. Core RTT Features......................................................................................................................... 52
G. Timeline for RTT Implementation................................................................................................. 65
1. Service Providers..................................................................................................................... 66
2. Manufacturers.......................................................................................................................... 69
3. Other Compliance Deadlines and Related Matters.................................................................. 70
H. Education, Outreach, and Notifications ......................................................................................... 72
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ..................................................................... 75
A. Establishing a Deadline to Sunset the Obligation to Ensure RTT is Backward Compatible
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
with TTY Technology.................................................................................................................... 76
B. Requirements for TRS Providers ................................................................................................... 78
C. Other RTT Features ....................................................................................................................... 88
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 90
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act ............................................................................................................. 90
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................... 92
C. Comment Filing Procedure ............................................................................................................ 94
D. Ex Parte Presentations ................................................................................................................... 98
E. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................. 99
F. Accessible Formats ...................................................................................................................... 100
G. Further Information...................................................................................................................... 101
H. Incorporation by Reference.......................................................................................................... 102
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX A – List of Commenting Parties
APPENDIX B – Final Rules
APPENDIX C – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX D – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.
In this Report and Order, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission)
amends its rules to facilitate a transition from text telephone (TTY) technology to real-time text (RTT) as
a reliable and interoperable universal text solution over wireless Internet protocol (IP) enabled networks
for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech disability.1 In the accompanying
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we address application of RTT to telecommunications
relay services (TRS) and seek further comment on a sunset date for TTY support, as well as other matters
pertaining to the deployment of RTT. RTT, which allows text characters to be sent as they are being
created, can be sent simultaneously with voice, and permits the use of off-the-shelf end user devices to
make text telephone calls. By this proceeding, we take a major step toward enabling a universal and
integrated text solution for people with disabilities who rely on text communications in the twenty-first
century.
2.
Since the 1970s, TTY technology has provided the only means for people with
disabilities to send and receive text communications over the public switched telephone network (PSTN).2
To ensure that TTY users have comparable telephone network access as voice users, the Commission’s
rules have required providers and device manufacturers of telecommunications services and advanced
communications services (ACS) to support TTY technology. These rules include:
·
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) providers must be capable of transmitting 911
calls from individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities, through
means other than mobile radio handsets, such as TTY technology;3
1
For purposes of this proceeding, we refer to people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech
disability collectively as “people with disabilities” or “text-reliant users.”
2
TTY technology “employs graphic communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire or radio
communication system.” 47 CFR § 64.601(a)(33). See Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology;
Petition for Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to RealTime Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 6247, 6250, para. 5 (2016) (NPRM).
3
47 CFR § 20.18(c).
2
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
·
Telecommunications and interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service
providers and equipment manufacturers must support TTY connectability and TTY signal
compatibility;4
·
ACS providers and equipment manufacturers that provide voice communication functionality
must support TTY connectability and compatibility;5 and
·
Common carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers must offer their customers
access to PSTN-based TRS, including access through 711 abbreviated dialing via a voice
telephone or TTY.6
3.
Changes to communications networks, particularly ongoing technology transitions from
circuit switched to IP-based networks and from copper to wireless and fiber infrastructure, have affected
the quality and utility of TTY technology, prompting discussions on transitioning to an alternative
advanced communications technology for text communications. For example, as early as 2010, the
Commission’s National Broadband Plan recommended opening a proceeding to implement a standard for
reliable and interoperable RTT.7 The following year, the Commission’s Emergency Access Advisory
Committee (EAAC) recommended that the Commission eventually replace the requirement to support
TTY with IP-based solutions that support RTT,8 a recommendation that the EAAC reaffirmed in March
of 2013.9 The Commission also has considered the need to address the text communications needs of
4
47 U.S.C. § 255; 47 CFR §§ 6.5, 7.5; see also 47 CFR §§ 6.3(b), 7.3(b) (each defining these obligations to include
TTY connectability and TTY signal compatibility).
5
47 U.S.C. § 617; 47 CFR §§ 14.20, 14.21(d) (requiring TTY connectability and compatibility in the same manner
as under Parts 6 and 7 of the Commission’s rules).
6
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 225(c) (requiring common carriers to provide TRS either directly or through a state program),
616 (requiring, among other things, interconnected VoIP service providers to participate in and contribute to the
Interstate TRS Fund); 47 CFR §§ 64.603 (requiring common carriers providing voice telephone service to provide
TRS, including via the 711 dialing code), 64.604(a)(3)(v) (listing the types of calls that TRS providers must provide,
which include calls made using TTYs), 64.601(b) (providing that TRS regulations applicable to common carriers
shall also be applicable to interconnected VoIP service providers). The Commission adopted 711 dialing access and
required common carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers to support 711 dialing so that TRS users could
initiate a relay call by TTY or voice, anywhere in the United States, without having to remember and dial different
7- and 10-digit toll-free numbers when traveling from state to state. 47 CFR §§ 64.601(a)(1) (defining 711 as the
abbreviated dialing code for accessing relay services); Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
Arrangements, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 15188, 15191-92, para. 3 (2000); IP-Enabled Services et al.,
Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275, 11295-96, paras. 42-43 (2007) (VoIP Accessibility and TRS Order)
(extending the obligation to offer 711 abbreviated dialing access for TRS to interconnected VoIP service providers).
7
FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan at 182 (2010), https://transition.fcc.gov/nationalbroadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf (Recommendation 9.10).
8
The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) directed the
establishment of the EAAC to develop recommendations on “the most effective and efficient technologies and
methods by which to enable access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities,” including a
recommendation for the possible phase-out of TTY technology. Pub. L. No. 111-260, § 106(c)(6), 124 Stat. 2751,
2763 (2010) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)(6)); see also EAAC, Report and Recommendations at 28, 31 (2011),
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312161A1.pdf (Recommendation P6.5: Conditional TTY
Waiver; Recommendation T2.2: Removal of TTY Requirement).
9
EAAC, Report on TTY Transition at 4-5 (Mar. 11, 2013),
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-319386A1.doc (EAAC TTY Transition Report)
(recommending the replacement of the TTY support requirements with requirements for direct access to 911
services via IP-based text communications that include RTT).
3
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
people with disabilities in its proceedings on technology transitions10 and Next Generation 911 (NG911)
access.11
4.
The instant proceeding responds to a petition filed by AT&T in June 2015, requesting the
Commission to update its accessibility rules to allow RTT to replace TTY technology over IP-based
networks.12 AT&T’s petition urges that RTT be deemed to meet the Commission’s accessibility
requirements in IP-based networks, provided that implementation of this technology is both backward
compatible with TTY technology and interoperable with RTT on other IP-based networks.13 In October
2015 and February 2016, the Commission’s Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) adopted two sets of
recommendations for the Commission to consider concerning RTT, the first recommending that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking to explore RTT as a text replacement in an IP environment,14 and the
second recommending features and capabilities that RTT technology should have.15
10
See, e.g., Technology Transitions; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access Services; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement
of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Declaratory Ruling, Second Report and Order, and Order
on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 8283, 8339, para. 150 (2016) (Technology Transitions Order) (predicting that
more accessibility features and functionalities will be achievable with next-generation services, and encouraging
service providers to proffer replacement services with such features and functionalities).
11
See, e.g., Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications; Framework
for Next Generation 911 Deployment, Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
29 FCC Rcd 9846, 9847, para. 1 (2014) (T911 Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice) (recognizing
that providing effective text communication for emergency services will expand access for people with disabilities).
12
Petition of AT&T Services, Inc., for Rulemaking, PS Docket No. 11-153 et al. (filed June 12, 2015),
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001079460.pdf (AT&T Petition for Rulemaking). On July 24, 2015, the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), the Wireline
Competition Bureau (WCB), and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) released a public notice seeking
comment on AT&T’s petition. See Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s
Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of
Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 7438 (CGB, PSHSB, WCB, WTB 2015).
13
AT&T Petition for Rulemaking at 5-6. AT&T simultaneously filed a petition requesting that the Commission
temporarily waive the Commission’s requirements to support TTY technology for wireless devices and services on
VoIP networks “during the pendency of the rulemaking and until RTT is fully deployed to allow [AT&T] to offer
VoIP services that do not reliably support TTY.” Petition of AT&T Services, Inc., for Waiver, PS Docket 11-153 et
al. (filed June 12, 2015) https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001079387.pdf (AT&T Petition for Waiver). On October 6,
2015, CGB, PSHSB, WCB, and WTB granted AT&T a temporary waiver of the requirements to support TTY
technology on wireless IP-based networks, subject to certain conditions. Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring
Support of TTY Technology, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10855 (CGB, PSHSB, WTB, WCB 2015) (AT&T TTY-RTT
Transition Waiver Order). Since then, other wireless service providers have requested and received comparable
temporary waivers of the requirements to support TTY technology on wireless IP-based networks. See Petition for
Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 12755 (CGB, PSHSB, WTB, WCB
2015) (granting waiver to Verizon); Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, 30 FCC
Rcd 14404 (CGB PSHSB WTB WCB 2015) (granting waiver to Cellular South, Inc.), modified, Letter Order, 31
FCC Rcd 201 (CGB PSHSB WTB WCB 2016); Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology,
Order, 31 FCC Rcd 3778 (CGB PSHSB WTB WCB 2016) (granting waiver to the Competitive Carriers
Association).
14
Recommendation of the FCC DAC (Oct. 8, 2015) https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC335867A1.pdf (DAC October 2015 Recommendations). The DAC was established on December 2, 2014, to
provide advice and recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of disability issues within the FCC’s
jurisdiction. It consists of a wide range of industry, consumer, and governmental stakeholders. See generally, FCC,
Disability Advisory Committee (Nov. 10, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/general/disability-advisory-committee.
15
Recommendation of the FCC DAC (Feb. 23, 2016), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001486890)
(DAC February 2016 Recommendations).
4
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
5.
On April 28, 2016, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to
amend the Commission’s rules to facilitate an effective and seamless transition from TTY technology to
RTT over wireless IP-based networks and services.16 Recognizing the limitations of TTY technology in
an IP environment and the need to transition to a more advanced text communications solution, we
proposed to require wireless IP-based service providers and manufacturers of IP-based wireless end user
devices to support RTT in lieu of supporting TTY technology.17 Further, we sought comment on
extending RTT support requirements to wireline IP-based services and equipment.18 We asked whether
there are certain minimum functionalities of RTT that must be supported to provide people with
disabilities with text-based telephone service that is as accessible, usable, and otherwise as effective as
voice-based services over IP-based networks.19 For example, we sought feedback on whether we should
recognize a common standard for implementing RTT, and proposed adopting RFC 410320 as a safe harbor
standard to ensure RTT interoperability, while permitting flexibility for service providers to adopt
alternative, compatible methods of providing RTT.21 Next, we sought comment on whether the proposed
minimum features for RTT would be enabled or facilitated by RFC 4103.22 Additionally, we sought
comment on the proposed timelines and transition periods for implementing RTT and the use of a
downloadable RTT application as an interim solution for implementation.23 Finally, we sought comment
on the best means of providing consumer outreach and education to inform the public, including
businesses, government agencies, and individuals with disabilities, about the transition from TTY
technology to RTT.24 In response to the NPRM, 25 parties filed comments and 13 filed reply comments.25
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6.
To facilitate an effective and seamless transition to RTT, we take the following actions:
·
Amend Part 20 of the Commission’s rules to allow CMRS providers to support RTT in lieu
of TTY technology for communications using wireless IP-based voice services;
·
Amend Parts 6, 7, and 14 of the Commission’s rules to allow providers of
telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services provided over wireless IP facilities,
and manufacturers of equipment used with such services to support RTT in lieu of supporting
TTY technology;26
16
See generally NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd 6247.
17
Id. at 6257, para. 15.
18
Id. at 6290, para. 95.
19
Id. at 6270, para. 43.
20
RFC 4103 is defined as the standard Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 4103,
Real-time Transport Protocol Payload for Text Conversation (2005) and its successor protocol as determined by a
telecommunications industry standards setting body, such as IETF or the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions (ATIS). NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6271, n.152; see also G. Hellström, P. Jones, RTP Payload for Text
Conversation (2005), https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt (RFC 4103 Standard).
21
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6273-74, paras. 51-52.
22
Id. at 6271, para. 44.
23
Id. at 6262-64, paras. 25-31.
24
Id. at 6288-89, para. 91.
25
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to comments and reply comments in this Report and Order and FNPRM
refer to comments and reply comments filed in CG Docket No. 16-145 in response to the NPRM. See also infra
Appendix A, List of Commenting Parties.
26
See infra para. 17 (explaining that such obligations are subject to “readily achievable” and “achievable”
limitations).
5
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
·
Amend Part 64 of the Commission’s rules to allow wireless communications support for TRS
access, including access via 711 abbreviated dialing through RTT communications, in lieu of
support through TTY technology;
·
Relieve wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers of all TTY support
obligations, including TTY support on legacy wireless networks, to the extent they support
RTT on IP facilities in accordance with Commission rules;
·
Establish the following criteria defining what constitutes support for RTT:
o
RTT communications must be interoperable across networks and devices, and this
may be achieved through adherence to RFC 4103 as a “safe harbor” standard for
RTT;
o
RTT communications must be backward compatible with TTY technology; and
o
RTT must support 911 communications;
·
Find that RTT is an “electronic messaging service” that is subject to the performance
objectives of Parts 6, 7, and 14 of the Commission’s rules, if readily achievable or unless not
achievable, as applicable;
·
Establish that support for RTT includes support for the ability to initiate and receive calls
with the same telephone numbers as are used for voice communications and simultaneous
voice and text in the same call session. In addition, recognize that the provision of accessible
indicators for call answering and activity, appropriate latency and error rates, and preinstalled and default functionality on end user text capable devices can facilitate making RTT
service functionally equivalent to voice communications;
·
Amend Parts 6, 7, 14, and 20 to permit manufacturers and service providers, to the extent the
latter are responsible for the accessibility of end user devices activated on their IP-based
wireless voice communications networks, to ensure that devices that have the ability to send,
receive, and display text include RTT capability in lieu of supporting TTY technology,
subject to the readily achievable and achievable limitations for Parts 6, 7, and 14, as
applicable;
·
Establish the following timelines for implementation of RTT for entities choosing to support
RTT in lieu of TTY technology:
o
By December 31, 2017, each Tier I CMRS provider and, by June 30, 2020, each nonTier I provider (except resellers) choosing to support RTT in lieu of TTY over IP
facilities shall support RTT either (1) through a downloadable RTT application or
plug-in that supports RTT; or (2) by implementing native RTT functionality into its
core network, offering at least one handset model that supports RTT, and including
the requirement to support RTT in future design specifications for all authorized user
devices specified on or after these dates;
o
Manufacturers that provide devices for CMRS providers’ IP-based voice services and
that choose to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology shall implement RTT in newly
manufactured equipment by December 31, 2018, if readily achievable or unless not
achievable, as applicable;
o
By December 31, 2019, each Tier I CMRS provider and, by June 30, 2021, each nonTier I CMRS provider (including resellers) choosing to support RTT in lieu of TTY
over IP facilities shall support RTT for all new authorized user devices;
o
A carrier is subject to the above timelines except to the extent that it is not achievable
for a particular manufacturer to support RTT on that carrier’s network. A carrier may
rely in good faith on a manufacturer’s representations in this regard;
6
Federal Communications Commission
·
7.
III.
FCC 16-169
Establish consumer outreach and education guidelines to inform the public about the
transition from TTY technology to RTT, including how this technology will work.
In the FNPRM, we seek comment on:
·
Setting an appropriate timeline or trigger for the sunset of service providers’ obligation to
ensure backward compatibility between RTT and TTY technology, and a proposed date of
2021 for this purpose;
·
Integrating RTT into the provision of TRS;
·
Addressing the RTT needs of people with cognitive disabilities and people who are deafblind through the provision of block mode and connectivity with refreshable Braille displays.
DISCUSSION
A.
RTT is an Effective and Efficient Replacement for TTY Technology
8.
Based on the record, we amend our rules governing the obligations of wireless providers
and manufacturers to support TTY technology to permit such providers and manufacturers to instead
provide support for RTT over wireless IP-based networks.27 In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that
the technical and functional limitations of TTY technology, which was developed more than 50 years ago
for a circuit switched environment, make that technology unsuitable for providing full and effective
access to IP-based wireless telephone networks.28 Commenters overwhelmingly agree.29 Further, there is
consensus that TTY technology needs to be replaced with an alternative text technology for IP-based
networks.30 As we stated in the NPRM, using TTY technology on IP-based networks presents significant
challenges to effective communication, including 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.31 These issues can degrade quality, increase error rates, and negatively affect the reliability of
telephone communications.32 Further, TTY technology is only half-duplex, is inefficient, has a limited
27
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6257, para. 15; see also id. at 6264-70, paras. 32-42 (noting the many advantages of
RTT).
28
Id. at 6257, para. 15; see also Id. at 6254-55, paras. 11-12 (describing the limitations of TTYs).
29
See AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T) Comments at 6-7; Competitive Carrier Association (CCA) Reply Comments at
5; Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Comments at 1; CTIA Comments at 3; California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) Comments at 1-3; Rehabilitation Engineering Center on Technology for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing (DHH-RERC), Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Interface and IT Access (UIITARERC), and Omnitor (collectively, “RERCs and Omnitor”) Comments at 4, 24-25; Verizon Comments at 2-3; TMobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) Comments at 1-2; National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA)
Comments at 1.
30
See AT&T Comments at 3-4; Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) Comments at 1; CCA
Comments at 2; CTA Comments at 1; CTIA Comments at 3; Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
Comments at 1; T-Mobile Comments at 5; Verizon Comments at 2; Boulder Regional Telephone Service Authority
(BRETSA) Comments at 1-3; Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) Reply Comments at 2; Telecommunications for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Cerebral Palsy and Deaf
Organization, Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), and National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
(collectively, “Consumer Groups”) Comments at 4-5; CSDVRS, LLC. d/b/a ZVRS (ZVRS) Comments at 1.
31
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6254, para. 11. See 47 CFR § 64.601(7) (defining Baudot as “a seven bit code, only five
of which are information bits”). The definition further notes that Baudot is used by TTYs to communicate with each
other at a 45.5 baud rate. AT&T explains that the Baudot character string uses 1400 and 1800 Hz tones that can
appear as an echo when transmitted over IP networks. AT&T Petition for Rulemaking at 6-7.
32
Id. at 6254, para. 11.
7
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
character set, and often requires a separate assistive device.33 The technical and functional limitations of
TTY technology have resulted in a steady decline in its use in favor of other forms of text
communications.34 Recognizing these limitations, numerous commenters urge the Commission to update
the wireless accessibility requirements and to relieve wireless service providers and manufacturers of
their obligations to continue to support TTY technology.35
9.
The record also supports adoption of our tentative conclusion that RTT is an effective
alternative to TTY technology for the IP-environment.36 RTT is a native IP technology designed for the
packet-switched network environment that allows users to make RTT calls using the built-in functionality
of numerous off-the-shelf devices.37 Commenters confirm that RTT features, including its full duplex
operation, seamless integration of voice and text, international character set, and speed, will greatly
improve the availability, efficiency and reliability of text-based communications sent over IP-based
networks.38 In addition, RTT has the potential to enhance the ability of TRS to provide functionally
equivalent telephone service, while at the same time reducing reliance on some forms of TRS. For
example, instead of using captioned telephone service, some individuals might be able to speak directly to
each other and in real-time clarify what is being said, if necessary, in text.39 The record thus confirms our
tentative conclusions that the deployment of RTT on IP-based networks will offer functionality that is
superior to that of TTY technology, and that it will largely eliminate the need for text-reliant users to
acquire specialized or assistive devices in order to connect to mainstream wireless technologies.40
Further, the DAC unanimously recommended exploration into the use of RTT as a replacement for TTY
technology.41 Finally, all of the major and several smaller wireless service providers already have
committed to deploying this technology.42
33
AT&T Comments at 3-4; see also NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6254, para. 11. One exception to this is the Apple iOS
version 10, which now has built-in TTY functionality. See Apple, Answer or make TTY calls from your iPhone,
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207033 (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
34
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6254-55, paras. 11-12 (citing Consumer Groups Comments on the TTY-RTT Transition
Public Notice at 5); DAC October 2015 Recommendations at 1; AT&T TTY-RTT Transition Waiver Order, 30 FCC
Rcd at 10859, para. 10.
35
See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 3-8; AT&T Comments at 6-7; T-Mobile Comments at 1 (supporting sunset of TTY
rules); TIA Comments at 8-9; CTA Comments at 3 (Commission should not require devices to support both TTY
and RTT); CCA Reply Comments at 5; cf. RERCs and Omnitor Reply Comments at 9 (supporting dropping the
requirements to connect TTYs to phones that support RTT natively on VoIP).
36
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6265, para. 33. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4; ATIS Comments at 3; CTA Comments
at 1; CTIA at 3; Verizon Comments at 2-3 (noting that RTT will facilitate the move to NG911); RERCs and
Omnitor Comments at 4, 16; Consumer Groups Comments at 4-5; Disability and Communications Access Board,
State of Hawaii (DCAB) Comments at 1.
37
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6264-65, paras. 32-34.
38
See AT&T Comments at 4; ATIS Comments at 3.
39
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6266, paras. 35-36. In addition, the RERCs and Omnitor maintain that RTT can
hasten the use of automated speech-to-text because it will allow both parties to a call to see the text output that is
generated. RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 17. This will allow both parties to a call to correct any errors
inadvertently produced by speech recognition technology.
40
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6257, para. 15; see also RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 16; AT&T Reply
Comments at 1; AT&T Comments at 4; ATIS Comments at 3.
41
DAC Oct 2015 Recommendations at 2; DAC Feb 2016 Recommendations at 1-2.
42
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6265, para. 33. See, e.g., AT&T Petition for Rulemaking at 4-5; Verizon Petition for
Waiver, GN Docket No. 15-178, at 2 (filed Oct. 23, 2015), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001330537.pdf; Cellular
South Petition for Waiver, GN Docket No. 15-178, at 2-3 (filed Nov. 23, 2015),
(continued….)
8
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
10.
We also affirm our tentative conclusion that RTT is a superior accessibility technology to
messaging-type text communication services because it provides a more natural and efficient way to meet
the communication needs of consumers with disabilities, especially in the event of an emergency, when
the need for effective and timely communication with a 911 center is at a premium.43 As we noted in the
NPRM, because RTT allows instant transmissions and the improved delivery of messages, it is the text
alternative that is the most functionally equivalent to voice communication.44 Specifically, RTT messages
are immediately conveyed to and received by the recipient as the message is composed, as compared to
all other text-based messaging services, which require parties to press a key to transmit the message.45
This enables the user to see what the other person is typing and begin developing a response before the
entire message has been conveyed, similar to voice conversations.46 This capability also lets a user know
that the other party is indeed responding to the message, which allows for a more direct exchange of
information and avoids confusion, crossed answers, and errors.47 As several commenters explain, these
features are particularly compelling in the context of emergency calls to 911.48 The transition to RTT is
also expected to help facilitate the transition to NG911 – which will allow the transmission of voice, text
and video to public safety answering points (PSAPs) – because broadly supported NG911 standards, such
as i3, specify support standards for RTT communications.49 Further, RTT has built-in redundancy, the
capacity to detect when information is lost, provides a more conversational flow, and avoids the out-ofsequence and delay pitfalls of short message service (SMS) text messaging.50
B.
Permitting RTT Support in Lieu of TTY Support over IP-Based Wireless Voice
Services and Devices
11.
In light of the superior qualities of RTT, we adopt rules permitting IP-based wireless
providers and manufacturers (hereinafter covered entities) to support RTT in lieu of supporting TTY
technology.51
12.
As proposed in the NPRM, these rule changes cover only those entities that are involved
in the provision of IP-based wireless voice communication service, and only to the extent that their
(Continued from previous page)
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001342786.pdf; Revised Petition of Competitive Carriers Association for a Waiver,
GN Docket No. 15-178, at 1 (filed Apr. 8, 2016), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001568968.pdf.
43
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6269, para. 42; see also id. at 6257, para. 15.
44
See Id. at 6266-67, paras. 37-38 (describing various reasons why RTT is superior to other messaging-type
services).
45
Id. at 6266-67, para. 37. The RERCs and Omnitor report that in Sweden, where both RTT and text access over
the public switched telephone network have been provided for the past few years, RTT is considered preferable
because of its “smooth and rapid text handling.” RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 20.
46
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6267, para. 38.
47
Id. at 6268, para. 39.
48
See AT&T Comments at 12 (RTT to 911 is more efficient than other message-type services); ATIS Comments at
3 (replacing TTY with RTT will improve access to emergency services); West Safety Services, Inc. (West Safety)
Comments at 2-3 (explaining RTT reduces response time, allows for simultaneous voice and text, and avoids
crossed, out-of-sequence, and delayed messages).
49
See Verizon Comments at 2; National Emergency Number Association (NENA) Comments at 2-3.
50
See West Safety Comments at 2; RERC and Omnitor Comments at 9, 21-23; Microsoft Reply Comments at 5;
Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 6-7; but see BRETSA Comments at 4-11 (agreeing that RTT has benefits,
but also noting that SMS-to-911 remains essential and allows for message delivery during network congestion, or
insufficient signal for a voice call, supports multitasking and prioritization, and block texting).
51
Throughout this Report and Order, the term “covered entities” refers to entities that are subject to Part 6, 7, 14, 20,
or 64 of the Commission’s rules, as applicable to the section in which this term is used.
9
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
services are subject to existing TTY technology support requirements under Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of the
Commission’s rules. Given the relative novelty of RTT, we agree with those commenters who state that it
is not appropriate for these rules to apply to entities who were not already subject to an equivalent
obligation to support TTY technology.52 Commenters also express concerns about extending RTT
support requirements to services and products that are not designed for communications interconnected
with the PSTN and that are not currently compatible with TTY technology.53 Because this order does not
establish specific mandates for wireless providers or manufacturers to support RTT – but rather allows
this as an option – we do not believe it is necessary to address these concerns at this time. However, we
generally note that our objective in this proceeding is to provide people with disabilities the same tools as
individuals using voice communications. More specifically, our priority now is to ensure that RTT
enables equal access to communications services only to the extent that they are wireless services that
enable a customer to transmit and receive voice calls in both directions to and from PSAPs, TRS call
centers, and other PSTN destinations that can be reached through North American Numbering Plan
(NANP) telephone numbers. Accordingly, we expect that providers of interconnected VoIP service and
manufacturers of equipment used with such service, and not providers and manufacturers of noninterconnected VoIP services and equipment, are more likely to exercise the option to support RTT.54
13.
RTT Support over Wireline Networks. In the NPRM, we further sought comment on
whether we should amend our rules to require the implementation of RTT in IP-based wireline voice
networks.55 While several commenters affirmatively support RTT implementation on IP-based wireline
networks,56 a number of commenters urge the Commission to defer any such requirements, variously
claiming that effective alternatives are available to support TTY technology over IP-based wireline voice
services,57 that RTT standards for wireline services have yet to be developed,58 and that unique technical
challenges are involved in implementing RTT over wireline networks.59 Based on the record, we
conclude that it would be premature at this time to address application of RTT to the wireline
environment. However, given RTT’s superiority to TTY technology, we will keep this docket open to
receive further input and conduct continued exploration on the appropriateness of using this technology as
52
See, e.g., Microsoft Reply Comments at 5-6 (asking that the Commission issue a further notice of proposed
rulemaking should it wish to go beyond the scope of current rules for TTY support); Voice on the Net Coalition
(VON) Reply Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 5; CTA Comments at 2-3.
53
See CTA Comments at 2-4; Microsoft Reply Comments at 3; TIA Comments at 12 (rules should not be tied to
whether a device can show text, but rather to devices that enable voice communications that are required to offer
TTY solutions); Verizon Comments at 5-6. We note, however, that the proposals in the NPRM were limited to
providers of voice service and manufacturers of equipment used with such voice services – as is the focus of this
Report and Order. See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6257, para. 15.
54
However, to the extent that a wireless non-interconnected VoIP service provider or equipment manufacturer
supports RTT, it will be relieved of the obligation to support TTY technology. See Appendix B, Final Rules.
55
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6290, para. 95.
56
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 66-68; VTCSecure LLC (VTCSecure) Comments at 1-2 (RTT on wireline
networks would help fulfill congressional objectives of functional equivalence and access); Consumer Groups
Comments at 19; NASNA Comments at 3-4 (Commission should consider tying RTT requirement to timing of IP
transition for geographic areas). AT&T notes that as part of its preparatory work for the transition from legacy to IP
networks, it is conducting a review of accessibility solutions for its customers, and that it “would support a transition
to RTT in conjunction with this IP-transition.” AT&T Comments at 16.
57
American Cable Association (ACA) Comments at 3; AT&T Comments 15; National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Comments at 6; Verizon Comments at 9.
58
ATIS Comments at 15; ACA Comments at 4.
59
NCTA Comments at 5-6; TIA Comments at 11; Verizon Comments at 9.
10
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
an alternative to TTY technology to achieve a universal, integrated text solution for voice service
accessibility on wireline IP-based voice services and end user devices.
1.
Wireless Service Support for RTT
14.
To establish an effective and timely transition to RTT, we amend Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, and
64 of our rules to permit wireless service providers offering IP-based voice communications, in lieu of
supporting TTY technology, as follows:
·
To support 911 access, pursuant to section 20.18 of the rules, through RTT communications;
·
To support RTT over telecommunications services and interconnected VoIP services covered
by Parts 6 and 7 of the Commission’s rules, if readily achievable;
·
To support RTT over interconnected VoIP services covered by Part 14 of the Commission’s
rules, unless not achievable;
·
To support TRS access, pursuant to section 64.603 of the rules, through RTT
communications, including 711 abbreviated dialing access.
15.
For purposes of this transition, “to support” is defined in a new Part 67 of the
Commission’s rules as “to enable users to initiate, send, transmit, receive, and display RTT
communications in accordance with the applicable provisions of this part.”60 For the reasons discussed
below, we find that the Commission has sufficient legal authority to amend the above rule parts to allow
support for RTT in lieu of TTY technology. No commenters dispute that the Commission would be
operating within its jurisdiction to adopt such rules.
16.
With respect to the rules we adopt pertaining to 911 communications, we affirm that our
RTT amendments to section 20.18(c) are within the Commission’s general Title III authority to regulate
wireless service providers. This is consistent with the Commission’s reliance on Title III authority to
obligate wireless providers to transmit 911 calls through a means other than a mobile radio handset, for
example, through TTYs,61 as well as the Commission’s requirements for wireless providers and
interconnected text service providers to support text-to-911 transmissions.62 Authority for the 911-related
rules we adopt today further stems from section 106 of the CVAA, which directs the Commission to
promulgate “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.”63 Finally, the
Commission’s authority to ensure effective telephone access to emergency services under section 251 of
the Act to “designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number for reporting an emergency to
appropriate authorities and requesting assistance,”64 the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act
60
See infra Appendix B, Final Rules.
61
See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18682, para. 10 (1996) (E911 1996 Order) (citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 303(r) as authority for
adopting 47 CFR § 20.18, containing rules to improve the quality and reliability of 911 services provided by CMRS
providers, including the transmission of TTY calls to 911); see also id. at 18680-81, para. 8 (citing 47 U.S.C. §§
151, the universal service obligation to “promote[e] safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communications.”
62
Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, Report and Order, 28
FCC Rcd 7556 (Bounce-Back Order), recon. granted, 28 FCC Rcd 14422 (2013); T911 Second Report and Order
and Third Further Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 9878-80, paras. 71-78.
63
47 U.S.C. § 615c(g). Section 106 also directs the Commission to implement recommendations proposed by the
EAAC, which included proposals for a migration to RTT.
64
47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3) (designating 911 as the universal emergency telephone number in the United States for both
wireline and wireless telephone service).
11
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
of 1999,65 and the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008,66 support our adoption of RTT as a superior
solution for enabling text-reliant users to access 911, given the benefits enumerated above.
17.
We next affirm that it is within the Commission’s authority under sections 255 and 716
of the Communications Act to amend Parts 6, 7, and 14 of the Commission’s rules to permit wireless
telecommunications and interconnected VoIP service providers to support RTT in lieu of supporting TTY
technology.67 Commenters support this approach.68 Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications
service providers and manufacturers of equipment used with such services to ensure that their services
and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.69
Section 716 of the Act requires providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS to
ensure that such services and equipment are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, unless
doing so is not achievable.70 Where accessibility is not readily achievable or achievable, as applicable
under these sections, covered providers and manufacturers must ensure that their services and equipment
are compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment (SCPE)
commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, again, if readily achievable.71 These
“compatibility” requirements further direct that covered products that do not include TTY functionality
must support TTYs, if readily achievable.72 In creating each of these rules, the Commission
acknowledged the possible need to update them as technology evolves.73 Commenters in this proceeding
uniformly agree that the technical and functional limitations of TTY technology make it unsuitable for
65
Pub. L. No. 106-81, 113 Stat. 1286 (Oct. 26, 1999) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 615-615(b)).
66
Pub. L. No. 110-283, 112 Stat. 2620 (Jul. 23, 2008) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §615a-l).
67
47 U.S.C. §§ 255, 617; 47 CFR §§ 6.1, 6.5, 7.1, 7.5, 14.21(d); see also NPRM, 31 FCC at 6294-95, paras. 100110. ACS is defined in the CVAA to include, among other things, both interconnected and non-interconnected
VoIP services. 47 U.S.C. § 153(1); see also 47 CFR § 14.10(c). However, interconnected VoIP service providers
and equipment manufacturers are covered by the accessibility requirements of section 255, rather than section 716,
if their services or devices were subject to prior to October 8, 2010, the day of the CVAA’s enactment. 47 U.S.C. §
617(f); see also Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, et al., Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14571, para. 36 (2011) (ACS Report and Order). Otherwise,
interconnected VoIP service providers and equipment manufacturers are covered by the accessibility requirements
of section 716 pertaining to ACS. In addition, sections 251(a)(2) and 716(d) of the Act generally provide that
telecommunications and ACS providers, respectively, may not install network features, functions, or capabilities that
impede accessibility. 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(2); 617(d).
68
See e.g., AT&T Comments at 8 (supporting the Commission’s approach to modifying Part 14 to avoid a
patchwork of accessibility solutions for IP-voice services); RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 4-6; Consumer
Groups Comments at 4-5.
69
47 U.S.C. § 255(a)-(c); 47 CFR §§ 6.5, 7.5. The Act defines “readily achievable,” as “easily accomplishable and
able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” 47 U.S.C. § 255(a)(2), cross referencing 42 U.S.C. §
12181(9). Commission factors for making this determination are found at 47 CFR §§ 6.3(h), 7.3(h).
70
47 U.S.C. § 617(a), (b); 47 CFR § 14.20 (a)(1), (2). The CVAA, which amended the Act to include this
obligation, defines “achievable” as “with reasonable effort or expense, as determined by the Commission.” 47
U.S.C. § 617. Commission factors for making this determination are found at 47 CFR §§ 14.10(b).
71
47 U.S.C. §§ 255(d), 617(c); 47 CFR §§ 6.5(a)(2), (b)(2), 7.5(a)(2), (b)(2), 14.20(a)(3).
72
47 CFR §§ 6.3(b)(3)-(4), 7.3(b)(3)-(4), 14.21(d)(3)-(4) (requiring a standard non-acoustic connection point for
TTYs and support for all cross-manufacturer non-proprietary standard signals used by TTYs, subject to the
applicable achievability limitations); see also Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(A)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, 16
FCC Rcd 6417, 6433-34, paras. 32-33 (1999) (Section 255 Report and Order).
73
See Section 255 Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6434, para. 35; ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1464748, para. 212.
12
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
providing full and effective access to wireless networks – both IP-based and legacy networks.74
Commenters also recognize RTT as a superior accessibility technology that is effective and efficient in
meeting the communication needs of consumers with disabilities.75 Congress intended for sections 251,
255, and 716 to ensure access by people with disabilities to our nation’s telecommunications and
advanced communications services.76 In keeping with our prior commitment to revise Parts 6, 7, and 14
of our rules to keep abreast of new technologies77 and our finding that RTT is best suited to replace TTY
technology as a means for rendering wireless voice IP services accessible to people who are deaf, hard of
hearing, deaf-blind, or speech-disabled, we believe that sufficient legal authority exists to amend the
Commission’s accessibility rules to permit telecommunications and interconnected VoIP service
providers to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology. We conclude that, given the limitations of TTY
technology in an IP environment, this action is necessary to fulfill the intent of Congress, as expressed
upon the enactment of the CVAA, to “update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals
with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment” as these continue to
undergo a “fundamental transformation.”78
18.
Finally, we conclude that the Commission has sufficient authority under section 225 of
the Act to amend section 64.603 of the Commission’s rules to permit wireless interconnected VoIP
service providers to support TRS access via RTT in lieu of supporting such access via TTY technology.
Section 225 of the Act mandates the establishment of nationwide TRS that are functionally equivalent to
voice telephone services, and directs the Commission to prescribe implementing regulations.79 The
obligation to provide TRS, including the obligation to handle calls through abbreviated 711 dialing
access, applies to common carriers “providing telephone voice transmission services” and interconnected
VoIP service providers.80 Section 225 directs the Commission to ensure that TRS is available “in the
most efficient manner”81 and does not require that TRS be exclusively provided via TTY technology;82
rather, it expressly directs the Commission to “ensure that regulations prescribed to implement this
74
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 6-7; CCA Reply Comments at 5; CTA Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 3;
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 4, 24-25; Verizon Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 1-2; NASNA
Comments at 1.
75
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 16; AT&T Reply Comments at 1; CTIA Reply Comments at 10; West
Safety Comments at 1; Consumer Groups Comments at 4-5; Verizon Comments at 2-3.
76
See, e.g., Section 255 Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6419-21, paras. 1, 4-7 (noting Congress’s interest in
ensuring disability access to telecommunications as a means of achieving full participation in society, including
access to employment and education); S. Rep. No. 111-386 at 1 (2010) (Senate Report); H.R. Rep. No. 111-563 at
19 (2010) (House Report) (stating that the purpose of the CVAA is to “update the communications laws to help
ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better
access video programming”).
77
See Section 255 Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6434, para. 35; ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 1464748, para. 212.
78
Senate Report at 1; see also House Report at 19.
79
47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1), (d)(1); 47 CFR § 64.603; see also 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3) (defining TRS as “telephone
transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who is deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who has a
speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with one or more individuals, in a manner that is
functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate
using voice communication services by wire or radio”).
80
47 U.S.C. § 225(c); 47 CFR §§ 64.601(b), 64.603. “711” is the abbreviated dialing code for accessing a state
program TRS provider (not an IP-based TRS provider) from anywhere in the United States. See 47 CFR §
64.601(a)(1).
81
47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).
82
See id. § 225(a)(3) (defining TRS).
13
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
section encourage . . . the use of existing technology and do not discourage or impair the development of
improved technology.”83 We therefore find we have sufficient authority to amend section 64.603 to
authorize support for RTT in lieu of TTY technology.84 Parties that submitted comments on the
application of RTT in the TRS environment express support for this approach,85 and no commenter
opposes it. To incorporate RTT into the provision of TRS and enable TRS users to reap the benefits of
this superior functionality, we amend our TRS rules to permit common carriers and interconnected VoIP
service providers, to the extent that they offer service over wireless IP networks, to support the
transmission of RTT calls to and from TRS providers, including 711 abbreviated dialing. For the present
time, wireless service providers seeking to comply with the TRS access requirement by supporting RTT
may do so by ensuring that wireless RTT users’ communications with TRS call centers, via 711 dialing or
otherwise, are backward compatible with the TTY technology currently used in such call centers.86 In the
FNPRM, we seek comment on the adoption of requirements for TRS call centers to incorporate RTT
support into their operations.
2.
End User Device Support for RTT
19.
We next amend our rules to ensure that users of the services described above can access
the RTT capabilities of such services. Specifically, we amend section 20.18 to allow new IP-enabled
wireless devices used for voice communications that have the capability to send, receive, and display text
activated for wireless voice services transmitted over IP facilities87 to support RTT in lieu of TTY
communications. In addition, we amend Parts 6, 7, and 14 to provide manufacturers of end user
equipment for use with wireless interconnected VoIP services with the option of supporting RTT
communications in lieu of TTY technology “if readily achievable” or “unless not achievable,” as
applicable.88
20.
Because the record indicates that many existing end user devices may not be capable of
supporting RTT through native functionality and that it may be overly burdensome to retrofit existing
devices to implement such native functionality,89 we do not require service providers and manufacturers
to add RTT capability by recalling or retrofitting end user devices already in service or manufactured
prior to the applicable compliance dates.90 At the same time, the record shows that it may be possible to
“push out” downloadable RTT applications to certain existing text-capable user devices that are in service
prior to our compliance deadlines.91 We encourage covered entities to take this step to the extent
83
Id. § 225(d)(2).
84
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6258, para. 16.
85
See, e.g., Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) Comments at 1, 13-16; Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 2-3;
RERCs and Omnitor Reply Comments at 12-14.
86
See infra section III.E.2 (discussing backward compatibility obligation).
87
Hereinafter we refer to such devices as “text-capable.”
88
See infra paras. 24-25 (explaining the definitions of “readily achievable” and “achievable” under Parts 6, 7, and
14). This Report and Order does not address end user device requirements under Part 64 because there are no
parallel TTY support obligations.
89
See CTA Comments at 7-8 (because building native RTT functionality into a device is a major change in core
functionalities and features, the Commission should refrain from introducing RTT into existing devices
manufactured prior to the compliance date); AT&T Comments at 20; TIA Comments at 8; T-Mobile Comments at
9-10; TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone) Comments at 8-9; Verizon Comments at 7; CCA Reply Comments at 4.
90
See CCA Reply Comments at 5; CTA Comments at 2; TIA Comments at 8; TracFone Comments at 8-9; Verizon
Comments at 7; see also infra section III.G. (providing timelines for providers and manufacturers to meet the new
RTT obligations).
14
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
practicable, to help consumers who use IP-based voice services make the transition to RTT technology
without necessarily incurring the cost of a new device.92
21.
We conclude that the same statutory authorities that provide the Commission with
authority to allow RTT support in lieu of TTY support requirements for wireless services provide
authority to allow support for RTT on end user devices in lieu of support for TTYs. Specifically, for our
amendment of section 20.18, we conclude that the Commission has authority under Title III of the Act, as
well as the more recently enacted 911-specific statutory provisions, to permit CMRS providers, in lieu of
ensuring that handsets support the connection of TTYs, to ensure that handsets support the transmission
of 911 calls through RTT technology.93 For our amendments to Parts 6, 7, and 14, we conclude that the
Commission has authority under sections 255, 716, and 106(g) of the CVAA, to provide that end user
devices used with wireless telecommunications services over IP facilities and interconnected VoIP
services may support RTT in lieu of supporting TTY technology, subject to the “readily achievable” and
“achievable” limitations of those provisions.94
C.
Regulatory Relief
22.
In the NPRM, we proposed to eliminate the obligation for wireless service providers and
manufacturers to support TTY technology as long as they support RTT.95 Service providers and
manufacturers seek clarity on whether consequent relief from their TTY obligations will extend not only
to IP-based wireless offerings, but to all wireless offerings.96 Although this order does not impose a
mandate for RTT, we now affirm that covered entities that support RTT in compliance with the
(Continued from previous page)
91
See CTA Comments at 8, n.21 (to the extent required, manufacturers should be able to meet RTT requirements for
end user devices already in service through the use of downloadable or over-the-top (OTT) applications); RERCs
and Omnitor Comments at 14 (a downloadable application could upgrade older devices that will never obtain native
RTT functionality); Letter from Linda Vandeloop, AVP Federal Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, CG Docket 16-145 et al, Attach. at 12 (filed Sept. 22, 2016) (AT&T’s downloadable RTT
application will support current software versions of the Android (6.0), iOS (9.0), and Windows (10.0) operating
systems) (AT&T September Ex Parte).
92
Cf. AT&T Comments at 20 (allowing a downloadable RTT application may incent service providers to develop an
application for existing VoIP capable end-user devices).
93
See supra para. 16.
94
See supra para. 16. Sections 255 and 716 hold service providers responsible for “services” and hold
manufacturers responsible for “equipment.” 47 U.S.C. §§ 255, 617. An exception to this, as noted by AT&T,
applies when a provider stipulates product specifications, contracts to produce a product or otherwise is extensively
involved in the manufacturing process. In such cases, the provider will hold partial responsibility as a “comanufacturer” for purposes of ensuring compliance with the Commission’s rules governing RTT support for
handsets and the devices if such provider opts to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology. See Section 255 Report
and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6454, para. 90; see also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14587, para. 75. By
contrast, under Part 20, the Commission has made a determination that CMRS providers generally have sufficient
control over the handsets that they sell to subscribers to warrant placing certain handset-related obligations on such
providers. These providers have had a longstanding obligation either to ensure that handsets activated on their
networks provide jacks and transmitters compatible with TTY technology, or to make available some other
transmitting device capable of being operated in conjunction with TTYs, See e.g., Bounce-Back Order, 28 FCC Rcd
at 7603, para. 136 (citing E911 1996 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18682-83, para. 10, 18701, para. 50). Wireless carriers
also are required to ensure that a certain percentage of handsets offered to their customers comply with hearing aid
compatibility requirements under section 20.19. See 47 CFR § 20.19(c)-(d). The approach taken in this proceeding
simply parallels the existing TTY obligation to allow handsets that CMRS providers offer to their subscribers to
support RTT access to 911 in lieu of TTY access.
95
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6258-59, paras. 16-19.
96
AT&T Comments at 6-7; CCA Reply Comments at 5; CTA Comments at 3-4; CTIA Comments at 3; VON Reply
Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 5.
15
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
Commission’s rules will be relieved of their TTY support requirements on all wireless networks and
equipment, including services and devices used for legacy (non-IP) facilities, as of the applicable
compliance dates. We are persuaded by commenters that permitting RTT technology to serve as a
replacement for TTY technology on IP-based wireless networks is the preferable approach for several
reasons, including the declining use of TTYs,97 especially with wireless services.98 As a consequence,
elimination of the TTY support obligation on wireless services is not expected to impose a hardship for
text-reliant consumers. Additionally, we are encouraged by the progress being made to move ahead with
the swift deployment of RTT, as evidenced by periodic reports submitted by wireless providers in receipt
of Commission waivers from the TTY obligations.99 Given this progress, we believe that allowing RTT
to replace TTY technology on all IP-based wireless services will allow companies to devote greater time
and resources to the effective deployment of RTT, instead of continuing to invest in outdated TTY
technology.100
23.
Accordingly, we amend our rules to state that any wireless provider or manufacturer
covered under Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, and 64 that supports RTT on IP networks in compliance with the RTT
support provisions adopted in this Report and Order will be relieved of all TTY support requirement on IP
and legacy wireless networks. We conclude that this approach will ensure that people with disabilities
can continue to benefit from technological advances that are available to the general public,101 while
providing industry with much needed regulatory relief – at a time that meeting TTY support obligations is
becoming increasingly difficult in an IP environment.
D.
Performance Objectives
24.
Currently, wireless providers and manufacturers of equipment covered under section 255
must satisfy accessibility performance objectives if readily achievable under Parts 6 and 7 of the
Commission’s rules,102 and if achievable under section 716, pursuant to Part 14 of the Commission’s
rules.103 These performance objectives set forth guidelines to ensure that people with various types of
97
See supra para. 8; NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6254-56, paras. 11-12 (noting that over the past 7½ years, monthly
filings of the TRS Fund Administrator have shown a drop of nearly 80 percent in the number of TRS minutes
attributed to TTY-initiated relay calls, citing surveys to confirm the decreasing use of TTYs in favor of new
technologies in the U.S., and referencing various commenters who confirm that consumers have opted for SMS,
instant messaging, e-mail, IP relay and social media applications in place of using TTYs to communicate over
wireless services).
98
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6255-56, para. 12; see also Verizon Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 7.
99
See, e.g., AT&T October 6, 2016 IP-Voice Accessibility Status Report of AT&T, GN Docket No. 15-178 (filed
Oct. 6, 2016), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1006124486713/10-6-16%20ATT%20RTT%20Compliance%20Report.pdf
(AT&T Oct. Progress Report) (confirming its active efforts and expectation to launch an application to perform RTT
functionality no later than 2017, and a manufacturer embedded RTT solution in mobile devices by 2018); Verizon
Report, GN Docket No. 15-178 (filed Nov. 13, 2016), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001426649.pdf (Verizon Feb.
Progress Report) (confirming its efforts to ensure interoperable and reliable RTT services on new IP-based wireless
networks by the end of 2017); Cellular South Report, GN Docket No. 15-178 (filed June 27, 2016),
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10627136013060/Cellular%20South%20TTY%20RTT%20SemiAnnual%20Progress%20Report%20--%20FINAL%20--%2006-27-16.pdf (Cellular South June Progress Report)
(confirming that it will deploy an RTT solution via an application by December 2017).
100
AT&T Comments at 7 (noting that requiring continued support for TTY technology would be
“counterproductive”).
101
This will, for example, fulfill the underlying statutory objectives of section 716 of the CVAA. See ACS Report
and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14559, para. 1.
102
In Parts 6 and 7, performance objectives are subsumed in the definitions of what it means to be “accessible” and
“compatible.” 47 CFR §§ 6.3, 7.3.
103
47 CFR § 14.21.
16
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
disabilities are capable of independently accessing and using products and services covered by these
parts.104 In the NPRM, we sought comment on our belief that RTT is appropriately classified as an
electronic messaging service, a form of ACS that would be independently covered by the accessibility
provisions of section 716, and therefore subject to these performance objectives.105
25.
The Act defines an electronic messaging service as “a service that provides real-time or
near real-time non-voice messages in text form between individuals over communications networks.”106
Commenters who responded to this inquiry agree that RTT fits within this definition.107 In light of this
support, and because RTT is similar to other examples of two-way interactive electronic messaging
services cited in the legislative history of the CVAA – such as text messaging, instant messaging, and
electronic mail – we conclude that RTT is an electronic messaging service for purposes of section 716.108
Thus, we further conclude that, independent of the rules we adopt in this proceeding with respect to
requirements to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology, because of its status as an electronic messaging
service, services and equipment used for RTT must comply more generally with the performance
objectives contained in Part 14 of our rules unless these are not achievable.
E.
Minimum Functionalities of RTT
26.
As we proposed in the NPRM, we believe that in order to meet the objectives of sections
225, 255, and 716 of the Act, communications services and equipment that support RTT should be as
accessible, usable, and effective for people with disabilities as voice-based services over IP-networks.109
To achieve this goal, we conclude that RTT communications must be interoperable, backward compatible
with TTY technology, and capable of supporting certain basic features and capabilities that are routinely
available to users of wireless voice services.
1.
Interoperability
27.
We adopt the NPRM’s tentative conclusion that effective RTT communications can only
be achieved if the communications transmissions carried across, and the devices used with, various RTTsupporting platforms and networks are interoperable with one another, and we amend our rules to this
effect. As we noted in the NPRM, the Commission’s rules reflect a longstanding commitment to policies
favoring the openness of services across providers and devices and the importance of preserving
interoperability during technology transitions.110 We further conclude that absent interoperability,
104
By way of example, one performance objective requires, among other things, that input, control, and mechanical
functions be operable without reliance on vision, hearing, or speech and with limited manual dexterity and cognitive
skills. 47 CFR §§ 6.3(a)(1), 14.21(b)(1). Another requires that all information necessary to operate and use a
product (e.g., images, sounds, and labels) comply with certain specifications designed to make such information
available in visual and auditory forms. 47 CFR §§ 6.3(a)(2), 14.21(b)(2). Under Part 14, covered entities can
choose to build such accessibility and usability into their services and equipment or can achieve accessibility using
third-party solutions that are available to the consumer at nominal cost. 47 U.S.C. § 617(a)(2), (b)(2).
105
NPRM, FCC Rcd at 6285, para. 81; 47 U.S.C. § 153(1).
106
47 U.S.C. § 153(19); see also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14574-76, paras. 42-45.
107
See Consumer Groups Comments at 16; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 59.
108
See Senate Report at 6; House Report at 23.
109
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd. at 6270, para. 43.
110
Id. at 6272, para. 47 (referencing rules requiring the interconnection of terminal equipment to the telephone
network, prohibiting telecommunications carriers and ACS providers from installing network features, functions, or
capabilities that impede the accessibility of telecommunications and ACS, and requiring carriers discontinuing a
communications service to transition to a newer technology demonstrate that the replacement service provides
interoperability).
17
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
consumers, TRS call centers, and PSAPs would be burdened with having to support multiple versions of
RTT.111
28.
Commenters agree on the importance of and need for interoperability.112 As AT&T
states, “[i]nteroperability across networks and platforms is critical to ensuring that persons who use RTT
can switch carriers, networks, and devices without compromising the functionality of RTT or needing to
acquire a new device;” it also “promote[s] the adoption of common standards and capabilities and
allow[s] RTT users to communicate with other RTT users regardless of their network provider.”113
Likewise, Consumer Groups assert that interoperability is essential to ensuring functional equivalence and
access to all services, in that it can prevent locking users into a single network or service provider, as well
as the use of incompatible proprietary standards.114 The Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) adds that interoperability is essential to the efficient transition to
advanced technologies used for public safety.115 The RERCs and Omnitor also note the importance of
interoperability for emergency services, as well as for having the ability to call and be called by any other
users.116
29.
We agree with these commenters and are further persuaded by parties who speak to the
merits of a common standard in order to achieve interoperability.117 The record supports our tentative
conclusion that a common standard can be used to achieve interoperability while preserving technological
neutrality and flexibility for the covered entities.118 As we explained in the NPRM, this approach provides
industry the flexibility to have individual internal RTT standards, so long as they can support the
minimum functions and capabilities defined by our rules and can interoperate in a format specified in the
common standard (or a mutually agreed alternative) where they connect with other providers’ systems
and transport technologies.119 Commenters broadly support use of a safe harbor standard for this purpose
and generally prefer it to a single mandated standard for RTT as an appropriate means of achieving
interoperability, because it will provide sufficient flexibility for service providers and manufacturers to
111
See id. at 6271-72, paras. 45-47.
112
See, e.g., ATIS Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 12; TracFone Comments at 3 (stressing the importance of
interoperability to resellers due to their reliance on multiple facilities-based networks outside their control); Verizon
Comments at 8; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 28-29. Comments previously filed in response to the AT&T
Petition also reflected a consensus among the parties on the need for a seamless interconnection of RTT services
across networks, service providers, and devices. See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6271-72, paras. 45-47.
113
AT&T Comments at 10.
114
Consumer Groups Comments at 9-10.
115
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) Comments at 4; see also
West Safety Comments at 2-3 (detailing the benefits of end-to-end RTT for enabling improved emergency
communications for consumers and PSAPs).
116
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 28-29.
117
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6273-74, para. 51; see also AT&T Comments at 10; RERCs and Omnitor Comments
at 27-29; Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 3.
118
See, e.g., Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 3-4 (identifying a common standard will help achieve
interoperating while incorporating key principles of flexibility and technology neutrality); AT&T Comments at 4-5
(establishing basic foundations of RTT capabilities, such as interoperability, will provide certainty and predictability
in developing RTT, but still allow industry flexibility to meet consumer and technology demands). For this reason,
we believe that the approach we take effectively responds to CTIA’s request for “flexible, technology-neutral rules”
on RTT. See CTIA Reply Comments at 7.
119
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6273-74, para. 51 & n.176 (Proposal R1v3 for Implementation of Real-Time Text Across
Platforms, GN Docket No. 15-178, at 7 (filed Nov. 17, 2015) (Proposal R1v3)); see also Consumer Groups
Comments at 11.
18
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
adapt to changes in technology and consumer demand.120 Accordingly, we require that entities that
choose to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology must make their services and equipment interoperable
over IP-based wireless networks, which can be met by adherence to a common standard, as discussed
below.
30.
RFC 4103 Safe Harbor Standard. We adopt our tentative conclusion that RFC 4103 is
the appropriate safe harbor standard for compliance with RTT interoperability requirements and certain
performance objectives.121 In the NPRM, we explained that RFC 4103, a non-proprietary, freely available
standard that has been widely referenced by leading standards organizations and has been designated for
RTT implementation by numerous domestic and foreign carriers as well as emergency communications
groups,122 has a number of features that make it particularly suitable as a safe harbor standard for RTT.123
Further, designation of RFC 4103 as a safe harbor permits the use of other standards that can meet our
performance objectives for RTT.124 In addition, our designation of RFC 4103 as a safe harbor does not
preclude subsequent modification of this standard to improve performance or interoperability.125 Rather,
the approach we adopt today provides service providers with sufficient flexibility to develop, use, or
transition to an alternative or updated standard for RTT, as long as it supports end-to-end RTT
communications and the RTT performance requirements that we adopt herein.
31.
Accordingly, as set forth in the rules adopted in this Report and Order, any service or
device that enables the initiation, transmission, reception, and display of RTT communications in
conformity with RFC 4103 will meet the RTT interoperability requirement.126 Because RFC 4103 is
subject to modification, we clarify in the final rules that subsequent versions of RFC 4103 or a successor
protocol may be used by service providers, by mutual agreement.
120
See, e.g., RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 28, 30; Consumer Groups Comments at 10-11; AT&T Comments at
4-5; ATIS Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 12-14; CTA Comments at 4-5 (noting that the CVAA signaled
support for safe harbors); NASNA Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 6-7; CTIA Reply Comments at 6.
121
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6274, para. 53.
122
For example, RFC 4103 has been specified for use by NENA for IP-based next generation emergency text
communications where SIP technology is used. NENA Comments at 3. In addition, the Access Board has proposed
applying this standard for federal procurements to achieve compliance with the requirements on federal agencies to
make their communications services accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at
6275, para. 54. See also 29 U.S.C. § 794d (section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, requiring federal
agencies to procure and use electronic and information technologies that are accessible to people with disabilities).
123
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6274-76, paras. 53-56; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 31-36 (discussing useful
features of RFC 4103, including the ability to keep transcoding low, the ability to convey RTT in the same hardware
as VoIP media, use of the Unicode character set, the provision of built-in redundancy, having bandwidth efficiency,
and use of the same transport used for most VoIP and video calls).
124
In this regard, we note that even those commenters expressing an interest in being able to use other standards to
develop a fully interoperable, end-to-end service recognize the usefulness of the RFC 4103 standard as part of the
solution. See, e.g., CTIA Reply Comments at 6-7 (acknowledging support for RFC 4103 as a safe harbor and
additional standards used for RTT); ATIS Comments at 4 (discussing ATIS standards supporting RTT, which are
based on 3GPP TS 20.163, TS 24.299, and RFC 4103); NENA Comments at 3 (discussing how the i3 standard
incorporates RTT, including RFC 4103); T-Mobile Comments at 7 (believing most carriers will implement RTT as
defined by RFC 4103).
125
See CTIA Comments at 13 (asking the Commission to recognize that implementations conforming to subsequent
versions of RFC 4103 will be deemed compliant); T-Mobile Comments at 6-7; AT&T Comments at 4-5; RERCs
and Omnitor Comments at 30; Consumer Groups Comments at 11. We also note that no alternative standard is
suggested in the record as a safe harbor and that no party suggests that RFC 4103 would be incompatible with other
RTT standards.
126
See Appendix B, Final Rules.
19
Federal Communications Commission
2.
FCC 16-169
Backward Compatibility with TTY Technology
32.
To ensure that TTY-reliant consumers continue to have a method of communicating
during the transition to RTT technology, we proposed in the NPRM to require wireless service providers
to ensure that their RTT technology is backward compatible with TTY technology.127 Commenters
agree.128 As we discussed in the NPRM, a migration to RTT without backward compatibility to TTY
technology could leave certain people who are still reliant on TTYs without communication options,
including persons who cannot afford high speed access, people in rural areas for whom IP service is not
available, and senior citizens who might be reluctant to try new technology.129 As AT&T notes, without
this capability, RTT users would have no accessible means of communicating with friends and family,
businesses, medical providers, or pharmacies that use TTYs, would be unable to use state relay service
call centers, and would be impeded from securing crucial government services.130 Consumer Groups also
note that TTYs are still used by many government agencies and that some places of public
accommodation (e.g., hotels and hospitals) offer only TTYs as their method for text-based
communication.131 Finally, because many PSAPs are still reliant on TTY technology to receive calls from
people with disabilities and it may be a while before they migrate to RTT, enabling RTT users to reach
911 emergency services during the transition period is particularly compelling.132
33.
The NPRM also sought comment on the feasibility of backward compatibility, how it
could be achieved, the possible financial and technical impact on PSAPs, and the appropriate conditions
or timing to sunset the backward compatibility obligation.133 No parties suggest that the costs of carrying
out a backward compatibility requirement would be burdensome, and the record generally supports the
feasibility of implementing this requirement through, for example, the use of gateways and RFC 4103.134
However commenters raised two concerns about backward compatibility, both of which we address
below.
34.
First, some commenters suggest that, to preserve limited network resources, the
requirement for backward compatibility should be limited to 911 calls to PSAPs and 711 calls to state
TRS call centers. Specifically, ATIS and T-Mobile claim that, if subject to a backward compatibility
requirement for all types of calls, carriers would find it necessary to reserve transcoder capacity for every
single call – including voice calls – originating on the PSTN and terminating to a device with RTT
capability.135 According to these parties, such large-scale reservation of transcoder capacity would be
127
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6278, para. 62.
128
See e.g., Verizon Comments at 8 (interoperability and backward compatibility are fundamental requirements); TMobile Comments at 5, 11 (backward compatibility is key for ensuring RTT can reach emergency services and relay
services); ATIS Comments at 5; CTIA Comments at 6; TIA Comments at 8; Hamilton Comments at 2-3; Consumer
Groups Comments at 4, 12-13; CPUC Comments at 5; NASNA Comments at 2-3; RERCs and Omnitor Comments
at 43.
129
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6277, paras. 60.
130
AT&T Comments at 10-11.
131
Consumer Groups Comments at 12.
132
See NASNA Comments at 2-3; NENA Reply Comments at 2; CTIA Comments a 6; AT&T Comments at 10-11
(the complexity of the 911 system may delay PSAPs’ transition away from TTY); APCO Comments at 3-4.
133
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6278-79, paras. 62-63, 65-66.
134
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 24, 41-42; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 7; NENA Comments at 7-8
(each discussing use of gateways for RTT to TTY conversion to achieve backward compatibility); Hamilton
Comments at 8.
135
See ATIS Comments at 5; see also T-Mobile Comments at 5; CCA Reply Comments at 5; T-Mobile Reply
Comments at n.17 (citing ATIS Comments at 5); Letter from Thomas Goode, General Counsel, ATIS to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No. 16-145, at 1 (filed Sept. 15, 2016) (ATIS, CTIA, and NENA Ex Parte).
20
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
necessary because carriers cannot distinguish between PSTN calls originating from TTYs and ordinary
voice calls, and because carriers cannot predict in advance whether an RTT-capable device receiving a
call from the PSTN will accept it as a voice call or will activate the RTT capability to respond in text.136
ATIS and T-Mobile contend that the resulting congestion could cause denial of service for essential 911
and 711 calls placed from RTT devices to PSAPs and state TRS call centers that have not yet converted to
RTT.137 To ensure that congestion does not prevent RTT calls from getting through to these essential
services, they recommend limiting backward compatibility to 911 and 711 calls.
35.
Companies that provide emergency communications networks, as well as companies that
offer service and equipment to PSAPs that commented in this proceeding, take a different view. They
report that they will be able to provide RTT-TTY transcoding specifically for 911 calls, which would
eliminate the congestion concern.138 Hamilton agrees that any potential denial-of-service problem can be
avoided by sending such calls directly to 911 networks and allowing 911 service providers to handle any
necessary transcoding for 911 calls.139 In addition, Hamilton suggests that state TRS call centers could be
set up to receive both RTT and TTY calls, which would minimize – if not eliminate – the need for carrier
transcoders to make TRS calls backward compatible.140 Further, the RERCs and Omnitor assert there is
“a suitable method for invoking a gateway only in calls where there is some likelihood that RTT/TTY
interworking is needed,”141 which could address the concern that transcoders would need to be reserved
for every circuit-switched-to-RTT call. In summary, the record indicates that the denial-of-service
concern raised by ATIS and T-Mobile regarding 911 and TRS calls can be avoided by letting transcoding
of such calls be performed by 911 service providers or TRS providers. As to the potential difficulties in
transcoding other types of calls due to congestion, we believe that ongoing testing should allow service
providers to identify and find TTY-RTT and RTT-TTY solutions to the extent that technical issues
arise.142 We note that as the transition to RTT unfolds, we will monitor this issue, and revisit our
conclusions if necessary.
36.
Second, commenters point out that incompatibilities between RTT and TTY
technologies, namely differences in transmission speed, character sets, and other features, may impact
136
See ATIS Comments at 5; T-Mobile Reply Comments at n.17 (citing ATIS Comments at 5); see also ATIS,
CTIA, and NENA Ex Parte at 1.
137
At the start of the RTT transition, many PSAPs will still have their TTY equipment and will need time to
transition completely. See APCO Comments at 3-4 (PSAPs have obligations to maintain TTY technology and will
need time to conduct public outreach and operational preparations before transitioning); NASNA Comments at 2-3;
NENA Reply Comments at 2; CTIA Comments a 6; AT&T Comments at 10-11.
138
Letter from Mary A. Boyd, VP, Regulatory and Government Affairs, West Safety, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No. 16-145 at 1-2, Attach at 5-7 (filed Sept. 30. 2016) (West Safety Ex Parte); Letter
from Jeffrey A. Wittek, Chief Strategic Officer, Airbus DS Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
CG Docket No. 16-145, at 2-3 (filed Oct. 24, 2016) (Airbus Ex Parte).
139
Letter from David A. O’Connor, Counsel for Hamilton Relay, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG
Docket 16-145, GN Docket 15-178, Attach. at 13 (filed Oct. 24, 2016) (Hamilton Oct. 24, 2016 Ex Parte)
(illustrating as an example a Text Control Center solution).
140
Hamilton Reply Comments at 5.
141
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 41. These commenters point to a 3GPP network specification for this purpose;
see also Gunnar Hellström, Real-Time Text and TTY interworking in IMS/LTE and various technical environments
at 6-7 (2014), https://tap.gallaudet.edu/IPTransition/RealTime%20Text%20and%20TTY%20interworking%20in%20various%20technical%20environments.pdf.
142
See AT&T Reply Comments at 4 (service providers and manufacturers will conduct significant further testing of
their RTT services, including incompatibilities of RTT and TTY, and if such incompatibilities create technical
issues, manufacturers and service providers can work with affected parties, including PSAPs, to resolve such issue
ahead of RTT implementation).
21
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
user experience, particularly if the RTT user is unfamiliar with TTY protocols and etiquette.143 In
conversations between RTT and TTY users, the use of RTT features will be restricted by the limits of the
TTY device.144 This may occur, for example, when individuals who use RTT contact 911 where a PSAP
is not RTT-enabled.145 However, AT&T recommends consumer outreach and education to explain TTYto-RTT transition issues and any incompatibilities between the two services.146 AT&T also states that
service providers will conduct ongoing testing and that any problems caused by incompatibilities that will
require additional intervention will be discovered in time to develop a resolution.147
37.
Given the critical need to ensure the continued ability of RTT users and TTY users to
communicate directly with one another,148 we require that where wireless services and equipment support
RTT in lieu of TTY technology, such services and devices shall be backward compatible with TTYs
connected to other networks. We conclude that this approach is necessary to ensure telephone access for
TTY-reliant callers, and that it may have the ancillary benefit of expediting the adoption of RTTsupported devices, because RTT users will not have to maintain a separate TTY device to communicate
with TTY users.149 With the exception of providing guidance on transliterations between characters,
discussed below, we do not address specific solutions to resolve RTT–TTY incompatibility issues, but
instead allow service providers and other stakeholders the flexibility to develop their own technical
solutions to resolve inconsistencies between the two technologies.150 We stress that public outreach and
consumer education about the transition will play an important role in minimizing any adverse effects that
RTT-TTY incompatibilities might have on users.151
38.
Transliteration. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should require a
standard transliteration approach or standard table for the transliteration of RTT characters that do not
143
See Hamilton Comments at 3-9.
144
See AT&T Comments at 10 & n.12.
145
See APCO Comments at 2-3.
146
AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4; see also APCO Comments at 3 (discussing the opportunity PSAPs had to engage
in public outreach and operational preparations before implementing text-to-911).
147
See AT&T Reply Comments at 4; see also Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission on State Emergency
Communications, and the Municipal Emergency Communications District Association (Texas 911 Entities)
Comments at 3 (highlighting the need for testing of RTT at PSAPs); NENA Reply Comments at 2.
148
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10 (“Interoperability with TTY is . . . essential for RTT users to communicate with
landline TTY users.”).
149
In the NPRM, we further requested comment on whether other assistive devices, besides TTYs, would benefit
from backward compatibility. NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6279, para. 64. The RERCs and Omnitor suggest that there
are TTY-compatible assistive devices, such as Braille displays used by people who are deaf-blind who could benefit
from a backward compatibility requirement. RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 43. Based on this input, and absent
any specific information in the record about the need for other forms of backward compatibility, we do not see the
need for additional rules to achieve compatibility with other assistive devices at this time. Nevertheless, we
encourage covered entities to consult with people with disabilities and their organizational representatives to address
the communications needs of individuals who use assistive devices. Likewise, we invite stakeholders to bring any
such problems to our attention, and to the attention of the Commission’s DAC, should they arise during the TTY to
RTT transition.
150
In this regard, we note that ATIS is currently voting on a standard that will specify RTT implementation,
including guidance on backward compatibility. According to T-Mobile, this will take into consideration industry
challenges associated with implementing an automatic answer feature for incoming TTY calls made to RTT-enabled
devices. See Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel to T-Mobile USA, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
CG Docket No, 16-145, GN Docket No. 15-178 (filed Dec. 7, 2016) at 3 (T-Mobile Dec. 7 Ex Parte Letter).
151
See AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4; See also infra section III.H.
22
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
have a corresponding TTY equivalent.152 We explained that because TTYs can only send and display a
small subset of Unicode characters that are available through RTT technology,153 gateways between RTT
and legacy TTY technologies are needed to convert the much larger Unicode set used with RTT into
readable TTY characters. We also asked whether, in lieu of a standard approach, we should allow each
covered entity to select its own transliteration approach.154
39.
We will allow use of ITU-T Recommendation V.18, which contains a table showing
transliterations from the most commonly used characters in the United States to TTY characters, to serve
as a safe harbor for transliterating RTT to TTY characters.155 While we conclude that this approach,
proposed by the RERCs and Omnitor, may provide one effective means of transliterating characters
between the two technologies, we also will permit covered entities to choose their own transliteration
approach, so long as it can effectively convey the meaning of characters sent to the receiving party. We
further encourage use of a standard missing-symbol signal,156 as well as consumer outreach and education,
to help minimize inconsistencies that users may experience as a result of differences between the two
character sets.157 We believe that this safe harbor approach will help prevent communication failures
without burdening providers or increasing delays in transmission. This approach should also help address
concerns about PSAP confusion from inconsistent gateway transliterations of RTT text through TTY
technology, until such time as TTYs are phased out and PSAPs are compatible with RTT technology.158
40.
Sunset of Backward Compatibility Obligation. In the NPRM, we sought comment on
what events or measures should trigger a sunset of the obligation for RTT to be backward compatible
with TTY technology.159 Commenters agree that this obligation should sunset, but vary as to an
appropriate deadline. Consumer Groups and the RERCs and Omnitor suggest that as long as consumers
still need to connect to the PSTN, TTY technology will need to be supported, as it is the only text-based
technology available to people with disabilities that works on the PSTN.160 The CPUC supports allowing
the number of TTY users to diminish through attrition rather than adopting a firm sunset date.161
Hamilton suggests setting the sunset date no earlier than 2025, the date the Commission has determined to
sunset certain other device compatibility requirements on the traditional PSTN, including analog-only
152
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6278-79, para. 63.
153
TTYs are capable of transmitting only upper-case letters, numbers, the pound and dollar signs, and some
punctuation marks, while RTT technology can transmit and display characters in multiple languages, as well as the
vast array of symbols available on computer keyboards. NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6278-79, para. 63; see also id. at
6265, para. 33.
154
Id. at 6278-79, para. 63.
155
See ITU-T Recommendation V.18, Table A.2 at 25-26, https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=TREC-V.18-200011-I!!PDF-E&type=items (last visited Nov. 2, 2016); NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6278-79, para. 63,
nn.214-16 (citing the Unicode Common Local Data Repository, http://cldr.unicode.org/index/cldrspec/transliteration-guidelines); RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 42; see also EAAC, Proposed Procedures for the
TTY as a Text Terminal in Legacy 9-1-1 PSAPs without IP Connection at 10 (June 14, 2013),
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-321704A1.pdf (TTY PSAP Procedures Report).
156
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 42 (recommending an apostrophe (‘) to indicate that something is missing
in the conversation).
157
See AT&T Reply Comments at 4.
158
See West Safety Comments at 4-5.
159
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6279, para. 65.
160
Consumer Groups Comments at 12-13; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 43-45 (further recommending that
concerted efforts be made to maintain connections with remaining TTY users as this technology is phased out).
161
CPUC Comments at 8.
23
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
captioned telephones.162
41.
Public safety organizations and industry stakeholders suggest various triggering events to
sunset TTY obligations based on, e.g., ensuring that remaining users of TTY technology are able to
access 911;163 regional capabilities;164 the ability of PSAPs to receive RTT;165 the implementation of
RTT;166 or market penetration of IP-based services or of RTT-capable handsets.167 Based on the
information provided in the record, and given the uncertainty as to how soon RTT will be universally
available and familiar to users of wireline and wireless services, we conclude that it is premature at this
time to set a date by which the TTY backward compatibility obligation should expire. In the
accompanying FNPRM we seek further comment on the appropriate deadline or event to sunset the
backward compatibility obligation.168
3.
Support for 911 Communications
42.
The record confirms that RTT’s ability to function more like voice communication than
TTY – in particular its ability to transmit text as it is created – is especially beneficial in emergency
situations when the need for real-time communications is most pressing.169 Commenters also report that
RTT is more reliable than TTYs in an IP environment, allows PSAP call-takers to act on incomplete
messages from persons in distress, and by permitting a timely exchange of information, ensures that
callers are assured continued contact with a source of help until all necessary communications are
completed.170 The use of RTT is also consistent with the Commission’s findings that significant benefits
can be attained by enabling people with disabilities to use text to access emergency services by phone.171
43.
For the reasons discussed above, CMRS providers transmitting over an IP network that
choose to enable the transmission and receipt of communications via RTT – in lieu of TTY technology –
to and from any PSAP served by their network, must do so in a manner that fully complies with all
162
Hamilton Reply Comments at 2 (citing Technology Transitions Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8341-42, paras. 158-59).
163
NANSA Comments at 2-3.
164
BRETSA proposes that a provider should be allowed to terminate TTY support upon demonstrating that it does
not offer exchange telephone service but does offer SMS text-to-911, RTT, or other alternatives to TTY technology.
BRETSA Reply Comments at 3. Other 911 providers recommend other triggers for a sunset. See e.g., West Safety
Comments at 4 (asking to limit the period for backwards compatibility as much as practicable); NENA Reply
Comments at 3 (recommending a sunset in 2020 at the very latest).
165
AT&T Comments at 10; CTIA Comments at 6.
166
TIA Comments at 8.
167
T-Mobile Comments at 12. Alternatively, T-Mobile advocates setting a date certain. Id.
168
See infra section IV.A.
169
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6293, para. 105. Commenters explicitly recognize and support amending our rules to
enable RTT calls for 911 purposes. See, e.g., APCO Comments at 5; AT&T Comments at 12; CTA Comments at 1;
Verizon Comments at 2-3 (deployment of RTT for 911 access will facilitate the move to NG911); CTIA Reply
Comments at 4, 6; T-Mobile Comments at 5; RERC and Omnitor Comments at 8-9, 46-47; NENA Comments at 13; NASNA Comments at 2-3; Consumer Groups Comments at 9, 14; West Safety Comments at 1.
170
See e.g., BRETSA Comments at 9; West Safety Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 2; Consumer Groups
Reply Comments at 6-7; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 9, 22.
171
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6261, para. 23 (citing T911 Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice, 29 FCC
Rcd at 9856-57, para. 20). In this regard, the Commission determined, in part, that the annual economic benefits of
reporting cardiac emergencies to 911 calls via text outweighed the costs of obligating wireless providers to transmit
text-to-911 calls. The Commission employed this analysis while recognizing that public safety interests are not
driven solely by economic considerations. T911 Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice, 29 FCC Rcd
at 9857, para. 22.
24
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
applicable 911 rules.172 The record shows that the use of RTT for emergency communications is
technically and economically feasible in the IP environment.173 Specifically, the record indicates that
there are a variety of existing options for configuring PSAP systems to receive RTT calls and that many
PSAPs have installed or will soon install capabilities that will permit them to accept and effectively
process RTT calls.174 Given the existing capability to support these multiple options for delivery of RTT
to PSAPs, we do not find any compelling reason to delay the applicable compliance dates for delivering
calls made using RTT to 911 authorities in compliance with the RTT support rules adopted herein.
Accordingly, to the extent RTT is the accessibility method chosen, the rules we adopt today require that
RTT be delivered without RTT-TTY conversion to PSAPs that are able to receive RTT after the dates
specified for compliance by CMRS providers in this Report and Order.
44.
Finally, no commenter has suggested that the costs or burdens associated with achieving
RTT would be unduly burdensome, and the Commission has previously concluded that the benefits of
implementing 911 capabilities outweigh the costs.175 To ease any associated implementation burdens, we
do not prescribe how 911 calls via RTT should reach a PSAP, but rather encourage wireless service
providers and 911 authorities to consult with one another to resolve outstanding technical issues without
undue delay. For instance, if a PSAP is capable of receiving RTT communications through an enhanced
TCC,176 the approach that we adopt provides a service provider the flexibility to comply with our RTT
requirement through such a manner as specified by the PSAP.
45.
The Texas 9-1-1 Entities request that wireless providers be required to begin delivering
RTT calls to a PSAP in an RTT format (i.e., without converting the call to a TTY format) within six
months after a request from the responsible 911 authority.177 Likewise, West Safety requests that “the
Commission secure a commitment from wireless providers to transport RTT to PSAPs after receiving a
valid ‘RTT-ready’ PSAP request.”178 In response, AT&T maintains that PSAPs should be capable of
meeting certain prerequisites necessary to receive RTT communications before service providers are
172
See supra para. 16; infra Appendix B.
173
AT&T Comments at 12-13 (stating that it expects its RTT offerings, including its OTT application, to meet the
Commission’s 911 location accuracy requirements); AT&T Oct. 6, 2016 Progress Report at 4 (stating that AT&T
has not encountered any insurmountable obstacles to deploying network support for RTT in accordance with its
previously stated timetable); Airbus Ex Parte at 2 (noting its expectation that its embedded base will be 100% RTTenabled within two to three years through the NG911 transition).
174
Airbus Ex Parte at 2; Comtech Ex Parte at 1, Attach. at 3, 8-9; West Safety Ex Parte at 1-2, Attach. at 5. For
example, West Safety reports that text control centers (TCCs) used to support SMS-based text-to-911 may be
enhanced with minimal modification to support RTT communications. Wireless service providers would then be
able to route emergency RTT communications to a TCC gateway, which would route the 911 RTT call to the
appropriate PSAP and either configure it to be received by the PSAP’s TTY or deliver it as RTT if the PSAP is
RTT-capable. West Safety Ex Parte at 1-2, Attach. at 5-8; see also Comtech Ex Parte Attach. at 8, 11. A TCC is an
aggregation point for text messages to be transmitted to PSAPs. See T911 Second Report and Order and Third
Further Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 9866, n.118. An enhanced TCC would include Emergency Services Routing Proxy
(ESRP) functionality that would enable the routing of the 911 RTT to a TTY gateway, Web gateway, or directly to
an ESInet (for an i3 integrated text-capable PSAP). See West Safety Ex Parte at 4.
175
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6261, para. 23 & n.80; see also supra para. 42; West Safety Comments at 3 (asserting
that “the cost and operational burden imposed on PSAPs who add RTT to their existing SMS text-to-911 systems is
expected to be incremental because RTT uses the same infrastructure and dedicated connectivity of SMS text-to911”).
176
See, e.g., West Safety Ex Parte Attach. at 6; see also Comtech Ex Parte Attach. at 8.
177
Texas 911 Entities Comments at 4-5 (urging that this be required to avoid the unintended consequences of
unnecessary RTT-TTY conversions).
178
West Safety Comments at 5.
25
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
required to deliver these calls.179 We agree with AT&T, and amend our rules to require that once a PSAP
is so capable, the requested service provider must begin delivering RTT communications in an RTT
format within six months after such request is made – to the extent the provider has selected RTT as it
accessible text communication method.180 This timing is consistent with the Commission’s action in the
text-to-911 proceeding, where the Commission determined that six months is an appropriate period of
time to obligate wireless carriers to support delivery of text-to-911 communications after receiving a
request from an individual PSAP.181 So long as a PSAP has taken the necessary measures to support
RTT, the record does not contain any justification for delaying the corresponding obligation of wireless
carriers to transport RTT communications to that PSAP. In the event that there are compelling reasons
why this would not be feasible, a service provider may apply for a waiver from this requirement.
46.
Legacy PSAPs and Gateways. As explained above, wireless service providers must
ensure that RTT is backward compatible with TTY technology so that wireless RTT users can place and
receive calls to and from the residual base of TTY users, including “legacy” PSAPs that have yet to
convert their call-taking systems to NG911 or other means of supporting RTT communications. Many
commenters agree that transcoding gateways offer an effective, feasible, and available means to allow
TTY users to reach RTT-enabled PSAPs and RTT users to reach legacy PSAPs.182 T-Mobile, however,
claims that this obligation would shift certain burdens now borne by PSAPs onto wireless carriers by
requiring carriers to support such gateways to ensure that 911 calls are delivered to PSAPs via the
relevant selective router and, at the same time support TTY (Baudot) media, Automatic Number
Identification (ANI), and Automatic Location Identification (ALI).183 We disagree. The components of
911 call delivery referenced by T-Mobile are all basic 911 elements that carriers have been required to
provide when transmitting calls from TTYs under section 20.18 of our rules.184 Thus, we do not believe
that requiring the delivery of RTT 911 calls with these elements would involve any burden shifting.
47.
179
T-Mobile also claims that wireless carriers should not be held responsible for RTT-to-
AT&T Reply Comments at 7.
180
AT&T claims that “RTT-RTT communications [with PSAPs] would require a PSAP with NG-911 capabilities
and an originating wireless carrier with a direct SIP IP connection to the NG-911 network.” AT&T Reply
Comments at 7. However, various 911 providers maintain that RTT-RTT communications with PSAPs are currently
feasible through a variety of configurations. West Safety Ex Parte at 1-2, Attach. at 5-8; Comtech Ex Parte at 1,
Attach. at 3, 8-9, 11; Airbus Ex Parte at 1-2. In this order, we do not dictate the manner in which RTT-RTT
communications must be transmitted to PSAPs, so long as they are otherwise in compliance with the rules adopted
herein.
181
T911 Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 9870-72, paras. 47-51. Because our
text-to-911 rules are technology neutral, the six-month period applies regardless of whether SMS or RTT is
provided. Id. at 9867-68, para. 44. Similar to our text-to-911 rules, when a PSAP has taken the necessary measures,
it may then make a “valid request” for CMRS providers to deliver 911 texts to it. See, e.g., 47 CFR §
20.18(q)(10)(iii). A “valid PSAP request” means that: (1) the requesting PSAP is, and certifies that it is, technically
ready to receive 911 RTT messages; (2) the appropriate local or state 911 service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to accept and, by extension, the covered RTT service provider to provide, RTT-to911 service; and (3) the requesting PSAP has notified the covered RTT service provider that it is technically ready to
receive 911 RTT messages. Id. We note that for purposes of RTT messages to 911, a PSAP’s “valid request”
would apply only to CMRS voice providers and not to interconnected text providers, which are also “covered text
providers” pursuant to Section 20.18(q)(1). See id. § 20.18(q)(1).
182
See, e.g., RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 24; NENA Comments at 7-8 (explaining that legacy PSAPs can be
adequately supported via gateway functions, even if carrier gateways may be necessary for five years or more in
some cases).
183
T-Mobile Reply Comments at 7, n.23 (citing NENA Comments at 8).
184
See 47 CFR § 20.18(b) (delivery of 911 calls to PSAPs), (c) (provision of 911 access from TTYs), (d) (delivery
of ANI), (e)-(j) (delivery of ALI).
26
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
TTY conversion of 911 calls because the gateways for such conversions “will be placed either at the
PSAP/ESInet connection point or at the border with the legacy network selective router — in other words,
at interworking points that are not within the control of wireless carriers, but are instead controlled by
various government agencies or their vendors.”185 As noted above, providers of 911 services commenting
in this proceeding affirm the feasibility of accepting RTT, as well as an eagerness to make this happen, in
light of the expected benefits for 911 communications.186 Given this record and the lack of a basis to
conclude that carriers will not be able to transmit and receive communications via RTT to and from any
PSAP, including PSAPs that have not yet converted to RTT technology, we reject T-Mobile’s argument.
48.
Some commenters note that despite the use of gateways, a mixed RTT-TTY environment
may present challenges for PSAPs because of the differences between these technologies.187 In this
regard the Texas 911 Entities note that testing of RTT prior to deployment is essential to ensure a
seamless transition, and urge that the results of testing by early-adopting PSAPs be made available to
other jurisdictions.188 We agree that such testing, as well as training of call-takers, will expedite the
process of preparing PSAPs and their employees to handle RTT calls in a transitional environment.
Therefore, to assist state and local 911 authorities in planning their testing and training activities, we
encourage carriers to inform these authorities of their timetables for transitioning from TTY to RTT. We
also encourage state and local governments to conduct such testing and training in consultation with
consumers, and to share the results with other jurisdictions, to facilitate the transition.189
49.
Location Accuracy. The Commission has recognized that the ability of a PSAP to
receive accurate location information for callers is of the “utmost importance.”190 Commenters raise two
concerns about the use of RTT to achieve location accuracy. First, one commenter asks whether and how
service providers should deliver accurate location information for RTT 911 calls originating on Wi-Fi
facilities.191 Second, commenters are split on the feasibility of having downloadable RTT applications
185
T-Mobile Reply Comments at 7.
186
See West Safety Ex Parte at 1-2, Attach. at 5-8; Comtech Ex Parte at 1, Attach. at 3, 8-9, 11; Airbus Ex Parte at
1-2.
187
NENA Reply Comments at 3; Comtech Ex Parte at Attach. at 10; West Safety Comments at 4-5. For example,
commenters note that TTY technology has limited characters and a slower transmission speed. Comtech Ex Parte at
Attach. at 10; West Safety Comments at 4-5. APCO expresses concern that PSAPs without IP connectivity could
have difficulty if they receive an influx of RTT-to-TTY 911 messages from the general public. Letter from Jeffrey
S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, APCO, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No. 16-145 (filed Dec. 7, 2016)
(APCO Dec. 7 Ex Parte). Although we do not believe such an influx is likely, we agree with APCO that any
limitations that might be associated with reaching 911 via RTT-to-TTY should be incorporated into consumer
outreach and education. See supra Section III.H. In addition, as suggested by APCO, we seek comment in the
FNPRM regarding how to address contingencies in the event that PSAPs without IP connectivity are adversely
affected by such an influx. See infra Section IV.A.
188
See Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2-3 (encouraging that tests be performed and results be made available six
months prior to December 31, 2017); see also NENA Reply Comments at 2 (supports testing); Consumer Groups
Comments at 14 (support testing); NASNA Ex Parte at 1 (Sept. 26, 2016) (noting that Minnesota now has a
statewide Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet), which can serve as a pilot project for other states to evaluate
RTT delivery).
189
See, e.g., RERC and Omnitor Comments at 25 (suggesting the NENA Accessibility Group as a key stakeholder
for training coordination purposes).
190
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9488, para. 225 (cited in NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at
6280, para. 69).
191
Texas 911 Entities Comments at 5-6 (explaining the different approaches taken to ascertain the location of the
caller by different providers, and noting that some will try to locate the Wi-Fi network location, while others will
simply route to the registered address of the caller).
27
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
retrieve location information and populate an ALI record, with some parties claiming this is not
possible,192 and others reporting the feasibility of having an RTT app capture location information.193
50.
Under the Commission’s rules, wireless CMRS providers supporting TTY calling to 911
must ensure that location information is provided in accordance with the applicable requirements of
section 20.18, and there is no basis in the record to treat RTT calls differently.194 Given the importance of
this feature and that support for RTT replaces our existing requirements for TTY support, we conclude
that RTT 911 calls should be subject to the same location information requirements as TTY 911 calls, and
we amend our rules accordingly. However, given concerns raised about the feasibility of achieving
compliance with this requirement via RTT provided through a downloadable application, we will
entertain requests for waivers from this requirement that allege that this is not technically feasible.195
Such requests will be more favorably viewed if they are supported with evidence documenting such lack
of technical feasibility rather than mere assertions of infeasibility.
51.
NSI Devices. AT&T has expressed concerns that its downloadable 911 application will
not be able to fully comply with all applicable 911 rules, including 911 support for non-service initialized
(NSI) devices.196 T-Mobile adds that attempts to accommodate NSI calls to 911 via RTT may present a
security risk, by creating an open data connection that potentially can be exploited.197 Rather than resolve
these concerns here, given that the Commission has an open proceeding to sunset or revise rules for 911
calling from NSI devices, we defer consideration of the use of NSI devices for RTT calling to 911 to that
proceeding.198
F.
Core RTT Features
52.
In addition to seeking comment on interoperability and backward compatibility, the
NPRM sought comment on a number of other features and capabilities to determine whether to define
these as required elements of RTT support by wireless service providers that seek to comply with
accessibility rules by supporting RTT in lieu of TTY technology.199 Specifically, we asked whether such
features and capabilities are necessary to ensure that RTT is as accessible, usable, and effective for people
with disabilities as wireless voice telephone service is for people without disabilities, and also inquired
about the feasibility of providing these features and capabilities by the proposed deadlines.200 A number
of commenters agree that RTT capabilities should provide users with certain essential or “core” telephone
features that are available to voice users.201 However, other commenters, while acknowledging the need
for text-reliant users to have access to certain core functions, urge the Commission to be more flexible at
this nascent stage of RTT development, and instead to address specific RTT features and functionalities
192
NENA Comments at 5. NENA also raises concerns about what they refer to as the “less-accurate location
information” provided by SMS-based texts to 911, and state that “[t]o repeat the limitations of the interim platform
[SMS] would be a tragedy.” Id.
193
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12 (“AT&T expects its RTT offerings, including its OTT application, to meet
Commission 911 location accuracy requirements.”).
194
See 47 CFR § 20.18(d)-(l).
195
See id. §§ 1.43, 1.925.
196
AT&T Comments at 12-13.
197
T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6.
198
911 Call-Forwarding Requirements for Non-Service-Initialized Phones, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30
FCC Rcd 3449 (2015) (NSI Phones NPRM).
199
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6280-86, paras. 67-84.
200
Id.
201
See, e.g., Consumer Groups Comments at 9; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 25.
28
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
under the rubric of the performance objectives of sections 255 and 716, as implemented in Parts 6, 7, and
14 of the Commission’s rules, which are required to be met to the extent they are “readily achievable” or
“achievable.”202 Below we discuss RTT features that can enable an effective and universally integrated
text communication service and that are needed to take the place of TTY technology and provide an
effective communication alternative to voice communications. We define two of these – initiating and
receiving calls via the same ten-digit numbers used for voice calls and simultaneous voice and text – that
will be required for entities seeking to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology.
53.
Initiating and Receiving Calls Using RTT. In the NPRM, we proposed that for wireless
service providers and manufacturers to meet their accessibility obligations by supporting RTT, their
networks and devices must be configured so that RTT communications can be initiated to and received
from the same telephone number that can be used to initiate and receive voice communications on a given
terminal device.203 The record generally supports this technology-neutral performance criterion.
Specifically, we agree with Consumer Groups that the ability to initiate RTT communications through
ten-digit telephone numbers will encourage and promote seamless integration of RTT.204 We further
agree that enabling access to ten-digit 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.205 No commenters question
the feasibility of providing this feature, or suggest that it would be overly burdensome.206 Accordingly,
we adopt this proposal.
54.
Accessible Indicators. The NPRM asked commenters to identify what features should be
incorporated on terminal equipment used by people with disabilities to allow easy activation and
operation of RTT functions.207 In response, the RERCs and Omnitor point out the importance of
incorporating visual indicators on RTT systems that correspond to basic audio signals in order to receive
RTT calls. As an example, they recommend a visual sound bar that can display the volume of the
received audio or a simple spot of light that flickers to signal audio activity.208 They explain that this
would align with how TTY users today are able to see a status light that indicates ring and busy tones and
when the other party transmits audio feed.209 We agree that without an accessible indicator that a call is
being received, text-reliant users will not have communications equivalent to voice service, which
produces an audio ring or other sounds to alert people who can hear.210 While generally supportive of this
202
CTA Comments at 2 (the Commission should not adopt technical mandates but instead adopt achievable
performance objectives); AT&T Comments at 9 (asking the Commission not to impose requirements that go beyond
the performance objectives in Parts 6, 7, and 14 of the Commission’s rules); CTIA Comments at 9 (Commission
should codify a basic performance objective so that new wireless services and equipment shall, if achievable,
provide RTT capabilities to provide access to core functions and features that are provided to voice based users).
203
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6280, para. 68.
204
Consumer Groups Comments at 13-14.
205
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6280, para. 68; Consumer Groups Comments at 14; cf. CTIA Comments at 9-10, n.23
(the telephone numbering requirement is a sufficiently broad performance objective providing guidance without
restricting flexibility); see also NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6280, para. 68 (citing the DAC’s February 2016
Recommendations at 4, which had requested the Commission to consider inclusion of this feature).
206
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 45 (“RFC 4103 based RTT is well integrated with the wireless system and
phone numbers can be used.”).
207
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6285, para. 82.
208
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 69.
209
Id.
210
That is, we agree with Consumer Groups’ argument that the ability to receive RTT from the same telephone
number is an important element to integrate seamlessly RTT communications into consumers’ devices and to ensure
the accessibility solution is usable by text-reliant users. See Consumer Groups Comments at 13-14.
29
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
feature, AT&T requests that a requirement for an incoming RTT indicator become effective only upon the
compliance deadlines set for manufacturers and providers to make RTT a native function in devices.211
Given the importance of this feature for individuals who cannot hear and individuals who can neither hear
nor see, we recommend that device manufacturers and service providers incorporate accessible indicators
in their RTT implementation to alert users to the receipt of, and audio activity on, an RTT call.212
55.
Simultaneous voice and text. We adopt our proposal that users of RTT must be able to
send and receive both text and voice simultaneously in both directions over IP on the same call session
and via a single device.213 The record supports a finding that providing the ability to send and receive
simultaneous voice and text is feasible,214 is supported by RFC 4103,215 and is an essential feature of
RTT.216 Simultaneous voice and text also can allow for more robust exchanges between RTT users and
PSAPs.217 Further, it can be particularly beneficial to people for whom speech is their primary mode of
communication, but who find it necessary to augment speech with text, such as older adults who have
progressive hearing loss, many of whom currently rely on relay services to make telephone calls.218
Finally, this feature can prove to be life-saving in emergencies, when a person in distress may want to
type out an emergency’s exact location to a 911 call taker to ensure accuracy, or when a person is no
longer able to speak. We note as well that currently, TTY users have the ability to use both voice and text
in the same call session, and so requiring this for RTT implementation will ensure that people with
disabilities do not lose access to services they have had, should their providers opt to support RTT in lieu
of TTY technology. Accordingly, an essential element of RTT support for entities choosing to support
RTT over TTY technology will be the ability of users to have simultaneous voice and text capability on
the same call session as of the compliance deadlines for CMRS providers opting to provide RTT support
for all new authorized user devices activated on their networks.
211
See Letter from Linda Vandeloop, AVP Regulatory Affairs, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG
Docket No, 16-145, GN Docket No. 15-178 at 1 (filed Dec. 1, 2016) (AT&T Dec. 1 Ex Parte Letter).
212
In addition to visual alerts, particularly on mobile devices, alerts that vibrate may be appropriate as a userselectable alternative to alert users who are deaf-blind to the receipt of an RTT call.
213
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6281, para. 73.
214
See, e.g., West Safety Ex Parte at 1-2 (noting that RTT 911 calls can be routed in a way that would allow both
voice and data to be transmitted to PSAPs utilizing existing network elements for SMS text-to-911).
215
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6282, para. 74; AT&T Petition for Rulemaking at 9.
216
AT&T Comments at 9 (simultaneous voice and text capabilities and backward compatibility are among the
minimum functionality requirements to ensure RTT replaces the functions of and allows for the transition from
TTY); RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 53-54; Consumer Groups Comments at 15. While CTIA asks the
Commission to avoid mandating capabilities for RTT such as simultaneous voice and text, CTIA Reply Comments
at 2, 11, we believe that this feature goes to the very heart of enabling millions of Americans who use their voices
and have some residual hearing – but enough hearing loss to need text support – to benefit from RTT.
217
See West Safety Comments at 2; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 23; Consumer Groups Reply Comments at
6-7.
218
As noted by the RERCs and Omnitor, the “hassle-free use of simultaneous text and speech” is also preferable to
the turn-taking that is required when individuals use voice carry over (VCO) and hearing carry over (HCO), two
features that are available through TRS. VCO allows a person who can speak, but not hear, to talk for herself during
a relay call, but use the relay operator to convey in text what the other party is saying. Conversely, HCO allows a
caller who can hear, but not speak, to use the relay operator to verbalize what the caller types, but hear directly what
the other party to a relay call responds. In many circumstances, RTT can more efficiently and effectively address
the objectives of these types of relay services by allowing point-to-point direct simultaneous exchanges of voice and
text. See RERCs and Omnitor at Comments at 20, 53-55 (noting that with RTT, users need not alternate between
the callers and the communications assistant); see also NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6282, para. 74.
30
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
56.
Latency and Error Rate of Text Transmittal. In the Notice, we proposed that, when
transmitted character by character, RTT 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.219
To achieve this, we further proposed that RTT characters be transmitted within one second of when
generated, with no more than 0.2 percent character error rate for a point-to-point transmission latency that
is no greater than that provided for voice communications.220 The RERCs and Omnitor recommend that
RTT implementations using RFC 4103 as a safe harbor or other standards transmit at most 300
milliseconds after text has been generated.221 T-Mobile generally agrees that it is preferable to refer to the
latency standard contained in RFC 4103, if used as a safe harbor, but urges that the Commission not
specify an absolute maximum latency period that is independent of industry standards.222
57.
We continue to believe that ensuring a latency and error rate that is functionally
equivalent to the real-time nature of voice telephone communications is important to making real-time
text effective for text-reliant users. Commenters generally support a latency requirement, although they
suggest that it be limited to RTT communications over a service provider’s managed network.223 We
recommend that industry and consumer stakeholders work together to determine appropriate latency and
error rate parameters. We believe that this approach will provide much needed flexibility for industry,
while minimizing delays and errors that could impede effective communication for people with
disabilities.
58.
Device Functionality. A significant advantage to RTT is that it will allow text-reliant
users to select off-the-shelf IP-based wireless devices offered to the general public for their telephone
communications.224 In particular, by providing for the early integration of RTT features into IP-based
wireless voice services and devices, people with disabilities will be able to enjoy new wireless services on
devices as they emerge for the general public, and will no longer have to go through the burdens and
expense of having to locate and purchase specialized text-capable devices, such as TTYs. Integrating
RTT early on also is likely to eliminate higher costs that that could be associated with having to
incorporate accessibility features at a later stage of a technology’s development.
59.
The extent to which RTT is successful as a replacement for TTY and as an alternative to
voice communications, however, will turn in large part on its ease of use by not only text-reliant users,
but also members of the general public with whom they are likely to converse. It is for this reason that
various commenters have urged inclusion of RTT as a pre-installed feature of end-user devices that is
enabled by a default function. For example, the RERCs and Omnitor maintain that if RTT is provided as
an optional downloadable app, “only a fraction of all users would have RTT capabilities, and the major
219
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd 6281, para. 70.
220
See id.; see also Consumer Groups Comments at 14-15; AT&T Comments at 11; NASNA Comments at 3.
221
See Letter from Christian Vogler, Ph.D., Director, DHH-RERC; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, Ph.D., Director,
UIITA-RERC, and Gunnar Hellström, Omnitor, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No, 16-145, GN
Docket No. 15-178 at 2 (filed Nov. 8, 2016).
222
See T-Mobile Dec. 7 Ex Parte Letter at 2-3. T-Mobile explains that because RFC 4103 does not set standards for
the time of delivery of a call end-to-end, “it would not be reasonable for the Commission to establish such a
mandate, since a carrier does not necessarily control the entire end-to-end path.” T-Mobile also recommends that
the Commission not set a maximum buffering time of 300 milliseconds – as suggested by the RERCs and Omnitor –
because this is only recommended, but not mandated by RFC 4103. In cases of congestion, T-Mobile points out that
RFC 4103 acknowledges that buffering up to five seconds may be necessary – which could cause “unpleasant delays
in transmission” but would “still be conveyed in the session with some usability.”
223
See AT&T Comments at 11; CTIA Comments at 7. Cf. VON Reply Comments at 2; Microsoft Reply Comments
at 4. It is our understanding that this component is addressed through the safe harbor standard RFC 4103, which sets
a maximum typing-to-transmission latency.
224
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 4, 14; Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 6.
31
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
promise of RTT – the ability for any person with or without a disability to call anyone else via RTT . . .
would be lost.”225 In contrast, if RTT is incorporated in a manner that makes it immediately available to
potential users, e.g., through a pre-installed app or via native functionality, commenters suggest that it is
more likely that RTT will become known and be used by people with disabilities and senior citizens226 –
and thereby fulfill the objective of providing a universally integrated text solution for people with
disabilities in the IP environment. Such pre-installed functionality would eliminate the need for textreliant users to have to take extra steps (e.g., find and install an available RTT application) above what the
general public must take to make and answer telephone calls.227 It would also eliminate problems that
could occur if smartphone users who do not have a disability are reluctant to download or activate an RTT
app. If such individuals are not be able to answer an RTT call – or to place such a call to a text-reliant
user – this could hinder communication between those with disabilities and those without.
60.
Making RTT readily and easily available through a native or pre-installed functionality
on end user devices can also be of particular importance in emergencies. For example, if callers need to
seek help using devices that are not their own, and on which an RTT application may not be present, the
consequent delay in securing emergency assistance in another manner may result in their lives being
endangered. Further, the record indicates that these apps may not be equivalent to native functionality,
and do not have the same potentially life-saving features of RTT.228
61.
Similarly, we are concerned that some of the advantages of RTT as a universal text
solution might not be realized if RTT is not enabled by default.229 Some commenters maintain that a
default feature is important to ensuring that the advantages of RTT as a universal text solution are
achieved and that users of RTT have an accessible means to call and be called by everyone else. For
example, the Consumer Groups claim that implementing RTT by default will help prevent the accidental
blocking of RTT calls in the event that a recipient does not know how to enable RTT.230 Likewise, the
RERCs and Omnitor state that default-activated RTT will allow users who need RTT to have calls with
anybody else in the same way voice callers can call anyone else.231 AT&T generally agrees with the
concept of enabling RTT by default, but suggests the Commission defer adopting rules in favor of the
ATIS standards setting process, which is addressing this issue in collaboration with disability rights
225
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 15; see also Consumer Groups Comments at 8; T-Mobile Comments at 8
(noting that on its network, a native implementation will be more secure and lower risk).
226
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 14-15.
227
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 15; NASNA Comments at 2; CTA Comments at 6-7 (many downloadable
applications that run OTT are connected to third party Wi-Fi access points with unknown service quality, out of the
control of the service provider). While CTIA suggests that people with disabilities are accustomed to accessing
different functionalities whether offered natively or through downloadable applications, CTIA Reply Comments at
11, it is our objective for RTT capabilities to become universal in IP-based communications, an objective that we
believe would be difficult to realize if individuals have to become aware of and download apps to use this feature.
228
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 14-15; RERCs and Omnitor Reply Comments at 7 (users of a
downloadable RTT application must use a different way to call and use address books); Microsoft Reply Comments
at 4 (accessing 911 using an OTT application raises reliability, location accuracy, and call back issues); NENA
Comments at 4-5 (expressing concern over how an OTT application would provide certain emergency services, such
as location information); CTIA Comments at 16 (downloadable application may not be able to support all of the
proposed requirements detailed in the NPRM).
229
See NPRM 31 FCC Rcd at 6264, 6266, paras. 31, 35 (discussing the extent to which RTT must be enabled by
default in all or most wireless terminal equipment for RTT to be a viable substitute for some forms of relay
services); id. at 6286, para. 85 (inquiring to what extent it would “make a difference if an RTT application is
installed as a “default” app prior to sale of a handset or end user device”).
230
Consumer Groups Comments at 16; see also RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 14.
231
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 14-15.
32
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
groups.232 CTIA similarly suggests the Commission should provide for flexibility in introducing this new
communication service.233
62.
In order to achieve functional equivalency, it is important for text-reliant users to be able
to make and receive communications in RTT with off-the-shelf devices the same way voice users have
this capability.234 While the record indicates that some service providers and manufacturers cannot
immediately offer RTT support as an app and others cannot do so via built-in native functionality in end
user devices,235 we strongly encourage covered entities seeking to meet their accessibility obligations by
supporting RTT in lieu of TTY technology to take measures that facilitate, rather than discourage RTT
use. While we do not impose mandates for RTT to be pre-installed or accessed through a default function
at this time, we note that the success of RTT’s deployment and use may turn on its ease of use, and that
its swift adoption is likely to expedite the date for phasing out requirements for TTY support, including
the requirement for RTT to be backward compatible with TTYs. To achieve this end, we encourage
collaboration among industry and consumer stakeholders to reach agreement on the appropriate features
and technical aspects of RTT implementation.
63.
Calling Features. In the NPRM, in addition to the above elements of RTT, we sought
comment on a number of calling features that could enhance RTT’s effectiveness as a universally
integrated text solution that enables communications equivalent to voice service. For example, we asked
about the ability for users to control text settings, such as font size and color.236 We also tentatively
concluded that certain calling features that are commonly available to voice telephone users, are
necessary to ensure that RTT is as accessible, usable, and effective for people with disabilities as wireless
voice communications service is for people without disabilities, including the ability to transfer calls,
enable multi-party teleconferencing, and utilize automated attendant, interactive voice response systems,
and caller identification features.237 Some commenters urge inclusion of these features,238 while others
raise concerns that technical and practical challenges would prevent their timely implementation.239 T232
AT&T Reply Comments at 6-7 (noting that pending ATIS standard “Real Time Text Mobile Device Behavior
Specification” would allow the receipt of RTT without user action, as well as the ability of users to select whether to
use RTT when they make a call); see also Letter from David A. O’Connor, Counsel to Hamilton Relay Inc., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No. 16-145, GN Docket No. 15-178, at 2 (filed Sept. 8, 2016)
(Hamilton Sept. 8, 2016 Ex Parte).
233
CTIA Reply Comments at 10.
234
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 4, 14; Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 6. We acknowledge that
future versions of downloadable apps may be able to provide the same functionality as an embedded RTT solution.
AT&T Comments at 20.
235
See CTA Comments at 7-8; TIA Comments at 6-7; AT&T Comments at 18; T-Mobile Comments at 10.
236
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd 6284, paras. 79-80.
237
Id. at 6285, para. 83.
238
Consumer Groups Comments at 16-17; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 58-60 (noting that having the option
to change character settings is “essential to meet the accessibility requirements of people who are blind or visually
impaired, as well as older adults with declining vision” and that “there is no inherent technical limitation that would
prevent RTT interfaces from implementing such controls”); See generally Proposal R1v3 at 11 (user and character
settings may help people who have vision impairments or other disabilities). The need for these calling features to
achieve functional equivalence with voice communications was also pointed out by various Commission advisory
committees. See e.g., DAC February 2016 Recommendations at 3-4; see also EAAC TTY Transition Report at 2223 (recommending that all telecommunications functions available to voice-based users be made available to users
of RTT).
239
See e.g., AT&T Comments at 16-17, 20, n.29 (requiring voicemail software to be retrofitted could potentially
delay RTT implementation); AT&T Reply Comments at 8 (asserting that it is premature to require specific user and
character settings in the first generation of RTT); CTIA Comments at 10 (requiring support for emoji or similar
(continued….)
33
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
Mobile points out that a flexible approach to handset and network implementation that relies on “openended achievability evaluations at the time of initial specification or redesign” is preferable to rules that
set out such specifics.240
64.
Given that the deployment of RTT is still in its infancy in the U.S., we acknowledge the
need for flexibility in its implementation, and agree that specific calling requirements at this time could
delay or undermine its deployment.241 Accordingly, rather than mandate specific features or capabilities,
we note more generally the overarching goal of enabling RTT to serve as a universally integrated
accessibility solution that is functionally equivalent to voice communications. In this regard, we find the
record persuasive that consideration of the above calling features may be relevant as wireless voice
communications service providers and equipment manufacturers work to identify and eliminate barriers to
accessibility and usability during the design and development phases of their RTT products and
services.242 We also remind companies that Parts 6 and 7 of the rules require inclusion of people with
disabilities in market research, product design, testing, pilot demonstrations, and product trials whenever
these activities are conducted by entities covered by these sections.243 Additionally, these rule parts
require covered entities to work cooperatively with disability-related organizations, and make reasonable
efforts to validate unproven access solutions through testing with such organizations or people with
disabilities.244 Further, we remind companies that they have an obligation to keep records of their efforts
to implement Parts 6, 7, and 14, including information about their efforts to consult with people with
disabilities regarding RTT accessibility features.245
(Continued from previous page)
characters is too prescriptive and difficult to reconcile with backward compatibility); ATIS Comments at 6 (adding
functions like voicemail and conferencing could delay service providers’ ability to implement and deploy RTT);
CCA Reply Comments at 5-6; CTIA Reply Comments at 11. However, the RERCs and Omnitor contend that there
is no inherent technical reason why some of these features, such as call transfer and multi-party calls, could not be
available for RTT when using RFC 4103. RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 60-63; RERCs and Omnitor Reply
Comments at 7-9. Because we do not mandate the provision of these features at this time, we do not make a
determination as to their feasibility or achievability, but rather simply acknowledge their importance for a
universally integrated text solution in an IP environment.
240
Letter from Kristine Laudadio Devine, Counsel to T-Mobile USA Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG
Docket No. 16-145, GN Docket No. 15-178, at 3 (filed Dec. 2, 2016).
241
See T-Mobile Dec. 7 Ex Parte Letter at 3; AT&T Dec. 1 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (noting as well that sometimes
requirements for specific features, such as TTY support, can become outdated). In the NPRM, we also sought
comment on whether we should require service providers to allow consumers to port RTT-capable wireless devices
to other providers to the same extent as they can port devices that provide voice services. NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at
6286, para. 86. Consumer Groups affirm that device portability is “a critical aspect of functional equivalence.”
Consumer Groups at 17-18. However, because there is no parallel obligation for voice devices at this time, we
refrain from mandating a porting requirement for devices that provide RTT. We further acknowledge points made
in the record that device unlocking may affect the ability of a device to retain all of its features when it is migrated to
a network using a different base technology. See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 16-17; Verizon Comments at 8-9;
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 29, 62. At the same time, to the extent that voice service capabilities of CMRS
handsets are portable, we strongly encourage industry to achieve the same for RTT-capable devices, given that there
is no evidence in the record to suggest that the mere inclusion of RTT on a device should inhibit it from being
unlocked and transferred to the same extent as voice-capable devices.
242
The approach we adopt here – i.e., to limit certain RTT features to what is achievable or readily achievable - has
support in the record. See generally, CTIA Comments at 9; CCA Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 3-4.
243
See 47 CFR §§ 6.7(b); 7.7(b).
244
Id. §§ 6.7(b)(3)-(4); 7.7(b)(3)-(4). See also RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 59 (recommending the
involvement of deaf-blind users in the design of RTT interfaces).
245
See e.g., 47 CFR § 14.31(a).
34
Federal Communications Commission
G.
FCC 16-169
Timeline for RTT Implementation
65.
In the NPRM, we sought comment on when our rules requiring implementation of RTT
should become effective.246 We now adopt the compliance deadlines below, in response to comments in
the record.
1.
Service Providers
66.
At present all Commission waivers from the TTY support obligations expire on
December 31, 2017, or upon the effective date of rules providing for alternative IP-based wireless
accessibility solutions, whichever is earlier.247 To the extent that a service provider prefers to support
RTT access in lieu of TTY technology and does not wish to seek an extension of the current waiver, it can
meet the following compliance timelines, which will supersede the December 31, 2017 deadline: By
December 31, 2017, each Tier I service provider must either (1) offer a downloadable application or plugin that supports RTT or (2) comply with the following: (i) implement in its core network the capability to
support RTT; (ii) offer at least one new handset that supports native RTT functionality, and (iii) for all
authorized end user devices specified on or after that date, include in future design specifications the
requirement to support RTT.248 For all other (non-Tier I) carriers opting to provide RTT support, such
compliance must be achieved by June 30, 2020. A carrier must meet these obligations except to the
extent that it is not achievable for a particular manufacturer to support RTT on that carrier’s network.249
67.
By December 31, 2019, each Tier I service provider opting to support RTT in lieu of
TTY technology must provide such support for all new authorized user devices activated on its networks.
Non-Tier I service providers (including resellers) that opt to support RTT must do so for all new
authorized user devices activated on their networks by June 30, 2021. A carrier must meet these
obligations except to the extent that it is not achievable for a particular manufacturer to support RTT on
that carrier’s network. A carrier may rely in good faith on a manufacturer’s representations that it has
complied with its obligations under sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act.
68.
These deadlines, which are supported in the record,250 are set in order to accommodate
variances in manufacturer product lifecycles, while still ensuring that devices with native RTT
246
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6262-64, paras. 25-31. Among other things, we proposed to require Tier I wireless
service providers to complete initial implementation of RTT no later than December 31, 2017, to allow additional
time for RTT implementation by all other wireless carriers, and to require RTT capability in certain devices sold for
use with IP-based wireless services after December 31, 2017. We also sought comment on whether to require the
addition of RTT support to end user devices already in service at “natural opportunities,” and whether to allow the
use of a downloadable RTT application to constitute compliance with the RTT requirement as an interim solution
until native RTT functionality can be built-in or added to handsets and end user devices.
247
See e.g., AT&T TTY-RTT Transition Waiver Order at 1; see generally supra note 13.
248
For purposes of this rule, “Tier I service providers” refers to CMRS providers offering nationwide service.
249
However, Mobile Virtual Network Operators and other CMRS resellers are not subject to either of these initial
deadlines, as they may not be able to support RTT to the extent necessary until after the technology has been
implemented by both Tier I and non-Tier I facilities-based CMRS providers. See Letter from Mary Brooner, MB
Consulting, LLC, Consultant to TracFone Wireless, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No. 16145, GN Docket No. 15-178, at 1-2 (filed Dec. 8, 2016).
250
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 16 (supporting a year-end 2017 compliance date if compliance is set to current
industry standards); AT&T Oct. Progress Report at 1-2 (indicating AT&T has reached agreements with its network
vendors for the software upgrades needed to support its downloadable RTT application). ATIS Comments at 6
(supporting the use of downloadable RTT applications as an interim solution for compliance with the December
2017 deadline); CCA Comments at 4-6; Consumer Groups Comments at 5; RWA Comments at 2-3; T-Mobile Dec 7
Ex Parte Letter; Verizon Feb. Progress Report at 5 (indicating Verizon plans to complete development and testing of
RTT technology by the end of 2017).
35
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
functionality are available by a date certain.251 Among other things, they allow CMRS providers that do
not fall into Tier I with additional time to comply with the RTT support requirements because they serve
small subscriber populations, have fewer device options, often acquire the latest handset models much
later than Tier I providers, and have limited influence on the technical ecosystem and standards setting.252
We expect that handsets offered pursuant to these timelines will be compatible with at least the current
versions of the operating systems available on text-capable handsets offered for sale by the service
providers.
2.
Manufacturers
69.
In the NPRM, we proposed that handsets or other text-capable end user devices sold after
December 31, 2017, should have RTT capability.253 We sought comment on this proposal and whether
the deadline should more appropriately be based on the date when new devices are manufactured.254 In
response to TIA’s assertion that manufacturers generally have control over the point of manufacture, but
not the point of sale or distribution channels, we conclude that the compliance date for manufacturers
wishing to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology should be based on the date after which new
equipment is manufactured.255 We agree that sales are often made through wireless service providers or
retail establishments that are not under the control of the manufacturers.256 The record also supports
setting the compliance date for manufacturers as December 31, 2018.257 Therefore, we require
manufacturers opting to provide RTT support, in lieu of supporting TTY technology, to provide RTT
functionality in handsets and other text-capable end user devices for wireless IP-based voice services,
subject to the readily achievable or achievable limitation, as applicable, for all devices manufactured on
or after December 31, 2018.
3.
Other Compliance Deadlines and Related Matters
70.
Natural Opportunities. Although all compliance timelines contained in this section are
prospective only, in that they do not require covered entities to retrofit “in-service” devices, pursuant to
Parts 6, 7, and 14, entities covered under sections 255 and 716 are required to meet accessibility
251
See T-Mobile Comments at 9-10 (recommending a phase-in schedule to deploy RTT-capable handsets that
recognizes device lifecycles); Consumer Groups Comments at 7 (devices sold after the RTT implementation date
must have RTT capabilities to ensure such devices actually are available to consumers).
252
See Consumer Groups Comments at 6; RWA Comments at 2-3; CCA Comments at 4-6; see also NPRM, 31 FCC
Rcd at 6263, para. 27. For wireless service providers other than CMRS providers that are subject to RTT support
requirements under one or more provisions of Parts 6, 7, 14, and 64, the same implementation deadlines apply to
such providers as are applicable to smaller CMRS providers.
253
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6263, para. 28.
254
Id.
255
See TIA Comments at 8.
256
As noted above, wireless service providers, regardless of their size or designation as CMRS providers, that are
extensively involved in the manufacturing process such as by “providing product specifications” or “contracting to
. . . make or produce a product” are also required to comply with manufacturer obligations for both handsets and
other end user devices used with their IP-based voice services, in accordance with the timelines set forth in this
section. See supra note 94.
257
See RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 14 (advocating a date certain where all phones manufactured after that
date provide native RTT implementation); CTA Comments at 7 (suggesting December 31, 2018, as the earliest
compliance date for the manufacture of RTT compliant devices); TIA Comments at 6-7 (recommending the
Commission adopt a flexible deadline for implementation that is a minimum of 12 months beyond what is required
for Tier I wireless service providers); AT&T Comments at 18-19 (requiring compliance for devices manufactured
after a date certain that allows like treatment of like devices, reduces consumer confusion, and meets industry
expectations).
36
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
obligations as natural opportunities occur, i.e., “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.”258 As
discussed earlier, we encourage covered entities, to the extent practicable, to “push out” downloadable
apps or upgrades to operating systems to any in-service handsets that can support those apps or upgrades
after each applicable compliance deadline.259
71.
Relief from TTY support obligations. As discussed above, we clarify that a wireless
service provider or manufacturer in compliance with the RTT obligations adopted in this Report and
Order will be relieved of its TTY support obligations on all wireless networks and equipment, including
services and devices used for legacy (non-IP) facilities.260 We sought comment in the NPRM on whether
TTY support obligations should terminate on the applicable compliance deadline or whether additional
flexibility should be provided to allow relief from TTY support obligations prior to the applicable RTT
compliance deadline.261 In the ordinary course, this relief will occur as of the applicable implementation
deadline of the covered entity’s initial RTT support requirement. However, to provide an incentive for
early implementation of RTT, we will allow for simultaneous relief. Therefore, a provider or
manufacturer that achieves early compliance with the RTT support requirements will be relieved of these
obligations as of the date upon which such provider or manufacturer achieves such compliance. We
further provide that, for those carriers currently subject to a limited waiver of their TTY support
requirements that would expire prior to their earliest applicable RTT compliance date, we extend the
waiver to that date.262
H.
Education, Outreach, and Notifications
72.
Technology transitions generate the need for consumer education.263 In this section, we
establish guidelines for informing the public about the transition from TTY technology to RTT and the
mechanics of how RTT technology will work, as proposed in the NPRM.264 These guidelines are
designed to facilitate a seamless transition from TTY technology to RTT by ensuring that the public has
the information it needs to effectively utilize RTT as a universally integrated text solution in the IP
environment.265 We note that these guidelines are recommendations rather than requirements because we
understand that industry stakeholders plan to effectively inform the public about the upcoming transition.
We also choose guidelines over mandates to provide service providers and manufacturers with flexibility
in conducting their consumer outreach and education, and because we believe that service providers and
258
See 47 CFR §§ 6.7, 7.7, 14.20; see also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14609, para. 124; Section 255
Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6447, para. 71; see also NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6262, para. 29.
259
See NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6263-64, para. 29-31; cf. RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 14 (downloadable
applications are a reasonable solution for devices already in existence that cannot be appropriately updated for
native RTT functionality); AT&T Comments at 19-20 (downloadable RTT applications may be the only way to
provide RTT on existing devices).
260
See supra para. 22; see also NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6252-53, para. 9.
261
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6262-63, paras. 26-27.
262
For example, under the terms of the limited waiver granted to the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
members, the waiver relief would expire either December 31, 2017, or upon the effective date of these rules,
whichever is earlier. CCA Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Order, 31 FCC Rcd
3778, para. 1 (CGB PSHSB WTB WCB 2016). For the reasons discussed above, we now provide that the limited
waiver relief for these carriers is extended until their first RTT compliance date of June 30, 2020.
263
See Technology Transitions Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8349, para. 180.
264
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6288-6290, paras. 91-93.
265
See AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4 (outreach and education will help with user experience in RTT to TTY
transition); Consumer Groups Comments at 18-19; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 65.
37
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
manufacturers have strong business incentives to ensure consumers are well informed about the
introduction of this new technology.266
73.
Outreach Guidelines. We encourage consumer outreach and education efforts to include
(1) the development and dissemination of educational materials that contain information pertinent to the
nature, purpose and timelines of the RTT transition; (2) Internet postings, in an accessible format, of
information about the TTY to RTT transition on the websites of covered entities; (3) the creation of a
telephone hotline and online interactive and accessible service that can answer consumer questions about
RTT;267 and (4) appropriate training of staff to effectively respond to consumer questions.268 All
consumer outreach and education needs to be provided in a manner that is accessible to individuals with
disabilities.269 Accessible formats include, but are not limited to, large print, Braille, videos in American
Sign Language and that are captioned and video described, e-mails to consumers who have opted to
receive notices in this manner, and printed materials.270 We encourage service providers and
manufacturers to coordinate with consumer, public safety, and industry stakeholders to develop and
distribute education and outreach materials.271 We further direct the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) to implement an outreach plan to complement industry’s efforts to
fully inform the public about RTT.
74.
The Commission also adopts its proposal to have the notice conditions imposed in the
Bureau’s waiver orders remain in effect until the full implementation of the rules adopted in this
proceeding.272 The continued provision of this information is necessary to ensure consumers with
disabilities do not expect that TTY technology will be supported by IP-based wireless services when
266
See Technology Transitions Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8349, para. 181; see also APCO Comments at 3 (noting that
PSAPs need time to conduct public outreach and operational preparation in for the TTY to RTT transition); AT&T
Reply Comments at 3-4; CTIA Comments at 19 (the Commission does not need to mandate specific outreach and
education, because RTT will be included in the wireless industry’s general outreach efforts); NENA Comments at
10 (NENA commits to using its consumer education experience to aid in public education efforts); CTIA Reply
Comments at 14-15.
267
Alternatively, covered entities may want to consider coordinating to provide regional or national services that can
answer questions about the transition, to which its websites can provide a link.
268
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6288-90, paras. 91-93; see also Technology Transitions Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8349, para.
181 (describing similar requirements for discontinuance of service notices). To the extent that telephone hotlines are
utilized, we recommend that these be available during regular business hours to answer questions regarding the RTT
transition. NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6289-90, para. 93. Service providers and manufacturers should also make such
materials available in languages other than English, particularly in areas where the service provider or manufacturer
regularly uses a language other than English in its communications with its customers. Consumer Groups Comments
at 18-19; see also 47 CFR § 11.21 (requiring emergency alert plans to include information on actions taken by
Emergency Alert System (EAS) participants to ensure timely access to EAS alert content by non-English speaking
populations).
269
47 CFR §§ 6.11, 7.11, 14.20(d) (requiring information and documentation about covered services and equipment
to be available and accessible to individuals with disabilities); Consumer Groups Comments at 18-19.
270
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6289, para. 92; Consumer Groups Comments at 18-19.
271
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6289, paras. 91-92; AT&T Reply Comments at 4; CTIA Reply Comments at 14-15;
Hamilton Comments at 9; NENA Comments at 10-11.
272
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6289, para. 92. 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).
38
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
calling 911 services, to educate consumers about the availability of RTT, including its limitations when
communicating with PSAPs that have only TTY capability,273 and to ensure these consumers know
alternative accessible telecommunications options exist for this purpose.274 These notifications should
also be provided in formats that are fully accessible to consumers with disabilities.275
IV.
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
75.
In this FNPRM, we seek further comment on an appropriate timeline to sunset the RTTTTY backward compatibility requirement, requiring TRS providers to integrate RTT into TRS operations,
and the need for certain RTT features to address the communications needs of people with cognitive
disabilities or people who are deaf-blind.
A.
Establishing a Deadline to Sunset the Obligation to Ensure RTT is Backward
Compatible with TTY Technology
76.
In the Report and Order, we conclude that it is premature to establish a deadline to sunset
the obligation to ensure that services and equipment that support RTT is backward compatible with TTY
technology, until we have gathered additional information about the deployment and effectiveness of the
transition from TTY to RTT technology.276 We believe that collecting such information will be useful for
a Commission determination as to when TTY users have transitioned to RTT to a point that warrants
elimination of the backward compatibility requirement. To this end, we seek comment on the type of data
and metrics that can be used to monitor the availability, adoption, and acceptance of RTT services and
devices. For example, would it be useful to gather data on the total number of end user devices
supporting RTT that are made available for sale? Would it also be helpful to track the adoption of RTT
on services and devices used by PSAPs, government entities, and businesses? To assess the impact of
RTT on PSAPs without IP connectivity, should we track the frequency of RTT-to-TTY 911 calls, and
how should we address contingencies if there is an adverse impact?277 To what extent can service
providers also gather data on RTT usage by consumers? Next, we seek input on when and how such data
should be reported. We currently require wireless service providers who have been granted waivers of
our TTY obligations to report to the Commission semi-annually on the progress of their RTT
implementation efforts.278 Should we require similar reports of wireless and wireline service providers
and manufacturers? Should certain actions, such as the grant of a waiver, trigger a reporting requirement?
Alternatively, should any reporting requirement be postponed until after the requirements for the wireline
transition have been adopted? Are there other reports collected by the Commission through which we
should collect this or similar information on RTT?
77.
We note that by 2021, Tier I wireless service providers will have had the opportunity to
support RTT on their IP-based networks for three years, manufacturers will have been producing RTTcompliant equipment for two years, and smaller wireless service providers will have supported RTT on
their network for at least 18 months.279 For these reasons, and because by such date, we expect to have
data sufficient to assess adoption of RTT technology, we propose to set a sunset date for RTT-TTY
backward compatibility of 2021 unless the Commission finds a reason to extend this deadline. We seek
273
See APCO Dec. 7 Ex Parte at 2 (advocating consumer education regarding limitation of RTT-to-TTY 911
communications).
274
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6289, para. 92; cf. RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 65.
275
Consumer Groups Comments at 18-19.
276
We noted that commenters’ opinions on an appropriate sunset date varied considerably. See supra paras. 40-41.
277
See APCO Ex Parte at 2 (citing potential burden of RTT-to-TTY influx on PSAPs without IP connectivity).
278
See supra note 99 (listing providers subject to this reporting obligation, and describing various progress reports
received to date that shed light on progress made on the implementation of RTT).
279
See supra section III.G.
39
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
comment on this proposal, and whether there is a different point in time when it would be appropriate for
the Commission to reassess the need for covered entities to continue supporting TTY technology via
backward compatibility on their IP-based voice service networks. For example, should our reassessment
be tied in any way to the implementation of the deployment of RTT technology over wireline networks,
or should this reassessment take place after the sunset of the PSTN and the transition of all consumers to
IP-based wireless and wireline networks?
B.
Requirements for TRS Providers
78.
In the Report and Order, we allow wireless service providers to support TRS access
through RTT technology, including via 711 abbreviated dialing access, in lieu of supporting TRS through
TTY technology.280 We further clarify that wireless service providers transmitting such calls may comply
with these RTT support requirements by ensuring that such communications are backward compatible
with the TTY technology currently used in such call centers.281 This approach is designed to ensure that
RTT users can place and receive TRS calls through state TRS program call centers even when such
centers are not equipped to receive RTT calls.
79.
Some forms of TRS are provided over the PSTN,282 while others are made available via
283
IP networks. In the NPRM preceding the Report and Order, we expressed our belief that RTT can be
used to enhance the ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service, and sought
comment on how to integrate RTT into the provision of TRS.284 For the traditional form of TTY-based
TRS, such integration would enable state program call centers to receive RTT calls directly, without
having them converted to TTY communications.285 Further, we sought comment in the NPRM on
whether and how we should amend our TRS rules to authorize or require other forms of TRS to
incorporate RTT capabilities into platforms and terminal equipment used with these services.286
80.
Comments in the record express a variety of views as to the manner in which RTT should
be integrated into TRS operations. Some TRS providers suggest that the Commission should allow, but
not require, Internet-based TRS providers to support RTT voluntarily.287 Others suggest that RTT should
not become a substitute for TRS, but rather an add-on feature.288 While agreeing that RTT should “not be
viewed as a wholesale substitution for other forms of TRS,” Hamilton Relay, a provider of state-based
280
See supra para. 18.
281
See supra para. 18
282
PSTN forms of TRS include TTY-based service, speech-to-speech service (STS), and captioned telephone
service (CTS). See 47 CFR §§ 64.601(a)(30) (defining STS), (a)(33) (defining TTY); Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling,
18 FCC Rcd 16121 (2003) (CTS Declaratory Ruling) (recognizing CTS as a form of TRS).
283
IP-based forms of TRS include video relay service (VRS), IP captioned telephone service (IP CTS), and IP relay
service (IP Relay). See 47 CFR §§ 64.601(a)(16) (defining IP CTS), (17) (defining IP Relay), (40) (defining VRS).
284
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6283, para. 78.
285
See supra para. 36 (noting that differences in speed and character sets can create incompatibilities in RTT to TTY
communications).
286
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6283-84, para. 78. We also sought comment on the following: whether we should
authorize or require IP Relay or other TRS providers to support an RTT mode between the user and the
communications assistant (CA); whether we should 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;
and whether we should 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. Id.
287
See e.g., ZVRS Reply Comments at 2-3.
288
See Sorenson Comments at 7; Hamilton Comments at 13-15; Hamilton Reply Comments at 10.
40
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
TRS, maintains that TRS providers should enable their technology to allow for direct RTT calling.289
Likewise, Consumer Groups urge the Commission to require TRS providers to support RTT, claiming
that the effective integration of RTT into TRS is essential to RTT’s widespread accessibility and larger
integration into the mainstream telecommunications ecosystem.290 The RERCs and Omnitor similarly
support incorporating RTT into TRS to achieve telephone service that is functionally equivalent to voice
communication services, and suggest that requiring interoperability between wireless RTT and TRS will
allow consumers to use the same equipment for user-to-user calls, VRS calls, and text relay calls and to
select the appropriate type of relay service, depending on the situation.291
81.
The record in this proceeding contains extensive information about the benefits of RTT.
As noted in the Report and Order, commenters report that the deployment of RTT on wireless IP
networks will offer various functionalities that are superior to those available with TTY technology,
including full duplex operation, seamless integration of voice and text, the international character set, and
faster transmission speeds.292 In addition, we note that RTT will greatly improve the availability,
efficiency and reliability of text-based communications sent over IP-based networks.293 It would appear,
therefore, that integrating RTT into TRS operations similarly would benefit text-reliant users. Moreover,
by allowing TRS users to benefit from improved communications technologies, it would fulfill a
congressional directive to the Commission to ensure that TRS regulations “encourage . . . the use of
existing technology and do not discourage or impair the development of improved technology.”294 In
other words, taking this action will ensure that TRS users are able to benefit from evolving technologies
in what will eventually be an all-IP environment.
82.
However, before adopting rules governing the provision of RTT as an integrated
component of TRS, we seek additional comment on the costs, benefits, and technical feasibility of
enabling this feature for various forms of TRS, for both TRS providers and TRS users. For example,
what changes would be needed in TRS equipment (e.g., hardware, software, or applications) to support
RTT between an IP-based TRS user and the CA or between the parties to the call? Will adoption of an
RTT mandate require TRS providers or users to purchase new TRS equipment or updates to TRS
equipment software? To what extent will providers have to modify their call routing and handling
features?
83.
Additionally, we seek comment on whether the incorporation of RTT into the provision
of TRS operations should be mandated or only allowed.295 Along these lines, we seek comment on the
appropriate regulatory treatment for RTT in the TRS context. Specifically, given that RTT is a text-based
form of communication – as is TTY-based TRS and IP Relay, should this feature be subject to the same
regulatory treatment that applies to TTY-based TRS, or would it be more appropriate to consider this akin
to IP Relay for purposes of the Commission’s TRS rules? For example, should we require RTT-based
TRS providers to meet the same mandatory minimum standards as currently applied to TTY-based TRS,
289
Hamilton Reply Comments at 4-5, 10.
290
Consumer Groups Reply Comments at 2-3.
291
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 18-20.
292
See supra section III.A.
293
See supra para. 9.
294
47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(2).
295
At present, only TTY-based TRS and speech-to-speech relay services are mandated under the Commission’s
rules. While the costs of calls made over IP-based forms of TRS – namely VRS, IP CTS and IP Relay – can be
compensated from the TRS Fund, these forms of TRS are not mandated. See 47 CFR §§ 64.603 (mandating TTYbased service and STS), 64.606(a)(2) (providing for certification of Internet-based TRS to receive compensation
from the Interstate TRS Fund); CTS Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd at 16121, para. 1 (recognizing CTS as a form
of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund).
41
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
such as call release functionality? 296 To what extent should such providers be required to handle
emergency calls, and should they adhere to the Commission’s rules for TTY-based TRS or IP Relay TRS
for this purpose? Are there certain mandatory minimum standards that should not be applicable to RTT
technology?
84.
Given that TTY-based TRS is a mandated service for common carriers, if we require the
provision of RTT-TRS, at what point in the future should providers be relieved of their obligations to
provide and support TTY-based TRS? Should wireline IP-based voice service providers and equipment
manufacturers be required to support RTT before TRS providers are required to support RTT?
85.
At the same time that we recognize that RTT has the potential to improve TRS for certain
RTT users who choose to communicate directly in text with another party, we agree with commenters that
RTT should augment and complement, rather than supplant TRS,297 and seek comment on this belief.
Specifically, we acknowledge that some forms of TRS, such as video relay service and speech-to-speech
service, may fulfill the needs of people with disabilities who are not text-reliant users. In particular, VRS
makes relay service functionally equivalent to conventional telephone service for individuals whose first
language is American Sign Language.298 TRS is also needed in circumstances where the party at the other
end of the call is communicating by voice and is not equipped to use other means of communication. We
therefore believe that the addition of RTT as a TRS option should not diminish the ability of individuals
who are reliant on these other forms of TRS to continue having access to those services. We seek
comment on this assumption.
86.
Finally, we seek input on the mechanisms that are needed to ensure that the provision of
RTT-TRS by IP-based providers effectively meets the communication needs of TRS users. Should the
Commission require TRS providers to support RTT to enable text-based communication between the CA
and the text-reliant user; between the CA and the other party to the call; or between both parties to the
call? Are there technical challenges associated with supporting RTT in situations where the parties to the
call are connected through an IP-based TRS provider? Should we require IP CTS providers to support
RTT transmission in any voice channels they provide and in any off-the-shelf equipment provided to IP
CTS users? Would the use of conversation windows help an IP CTS user distinguish between a direct
RTT communication received from the other party and text generated by an IP CTS relay operator? Are
there technical standards we should adopt for the provision of RTT by IP-based TRS providers? We seek
comment specifically on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of requiring IP-based TRS providers to
incorporate RTT capability into the provision of their services and on other related matters. Finally, we
seek comment on the appropriate timeline for adopting RTT requirements for IP-based TRS providers.
87.
Impact of RTT on TRS. In the NPRM, we assumed that because RTT will provide greater
opportunities for direct, point-to-point text communications and can enable text to be intermixed with
voice, it can reduce reliance on relay services to the extent RTT capabilities in end user devices become
ubiquitous as a universal text solution.299 We similarly noted that RTT could enhance the ability of TRS
to provide functionally equivalent telephone service for those individuals who continue to rely on TRS as
their communication method.300 AT&T agrees that it is important to review the potential impacts of RTT
on TRS, and specifically to assess the need to adjust the TRS Fund supporting these services as this
296
See, e.g., 47 CFR 64.604(a)(vi)(A).
297
See supra note 288.
298
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5153, para. 23
(2000).
299
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6266, para. 35.
300
Id. at 6266, para. 36.
42
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
impact becomes clearer.301 We seek comment on the best methodology to determine the extent to which
RTT reduces reliance on TRS. Additionally, how can we best determine the extent to which the
introduction of RTT increases TRS use among some consumers because it enhances the ability of TRS to
provide functionally equivalent telephone service? Should any data collected on the effect that RTT has
on TRS wait until wireline networks transition from TTY technology to RTT? What other information
should the Commission consider in determining whether the availability and use of RTT necessitates
changes to the TRS program or its funding?
C.
Other RTT Features
88.
Compatibility with Refreshable Braille Displays. In the NPRM, we sought comment on
whether it is possible to identify certain RTT features or functional capabilities that are necessary to meet
the communication needs of individuals who are deaf-blind, people with cognitive disabilities, or other
specific segments of the disability community.302 The RERCs and Omnitor suggest that slowing down an
RTT text display is necessary for refreshable Braille displays.303 They also suggest enabling Braille
display users to suspend incoming text when the user is typing, because receiving text while typing on a
Braille keyboard could cause confusion.304 We seek comment on whether these and similar features can
enhance service providers’ and manufacturers’ ability to meet Part 6, 7, and 14 performance objectives
for individuals who use refreshable Braille displays, including people who are deaf-blind. We also seek
further comment on the technical and practical challenges of supporting compatibility with refreshable
Braille displays and similar assistive technologies. What current steps are being taken to examine these
issues? Is there a potential timeline for resolving concerns to support the use of refreshable Braille
displays with RTT?
89.
Block Mode. In the NPRM, we stressed that RTT’s character-by-character transmission
mode is one of the characteristics that makes it the most effective replacement for TTY technology.305
However, we also inquired whether it would be desirable to make “block mode” available with RTT as an
optional mode that could be selected by RTT users.306 Block mode allows the user to hold onto a text
communication while it is being composed, and then send it in its entirety, in a manner akin to SMS or
text messaging. This enables the user to edit individual characters and groups of words before sending a
message. Some commenters agree that block mode is a desirable option that would enhance effective
communication for certain individuals and in certain situations.307 For example, although the
instantaneous nature of RTT is typically beneficial in emergency situations, NENA reports that there may
be times when using block mode is preferable for a 911 operator who wishes to transmit instructions all at
once, without concern that an individual will act on an incomplete transmission.308 The ability to send
communications in a block mode also may be useful for consumers with mobility or cognitive
301
See AT&T Dec. 1 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
302
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6285, para. 82.
303
RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 59.
304
Id.
305
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 6266-68, paras. 37-39.
306
Id. at 6281, para. 71.
307
See AT&T Comments at 9, n.9 (consumers should be able to adjust their RTT settings, including default settings,
in the manner that suits their preferred method of communication); RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 51-52; West
Safety Comments at 6.
308
NENA Reply Comments at 5; see also West Safety Comments at 6 (stating that PSAPS should have the
discretion to provide complete instructions prior to transmittal to avoid possible misunderstandings).
43
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
disabilities.309 Finally, some commenters report that enabling block mode may address problems feature
phone users have in conveying messages on a character-by-character basis.310 We seek further comment
on the extent to which offering a block mode option will enhance service providers’ and manufacturers’
ability to meet Part 6, 7, and 14 performance objectives for people with certain types of disabilities.
V.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
90.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA),311 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix D.
91.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the RFA, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on
small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this item. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix D.
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 on the FNPRM provided on or before the dates
indicated. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.312 In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Registrar.313
B.
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
92.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The Report and Order adopts new
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).314 The new
information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA.315 OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In
addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,316 the Commission
previously sought comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”317
93.
The FNPRM seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in new or
modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or 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 PRA.318 In addition, pursuant to
309
See TIA Comments at 10; CTIA Comments at 10; CTA Comments at 5-6; RERCs and Omnitor Comments at 51
(noting that some individuals may have tremors or other disabilities that require that they clean up text before
sending it); see also supra note 104 (explaining the relevance of the performance objectives for people with vision,
mobility and cognitive disabilities to RTT).
310
See TIA Comments at 10; CTA Comments at 5-6.
311
5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.
312
Id. § 603(a).
313
Id. § 603(a).
314
Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520).
315
44 U.S.C. § 3507(d).
316
Pub. L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002); see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
317
NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd 6297, para. 118.
318
44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520.
44
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,319 we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
C.
Comment Filing Procedure
94.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,320 interested parties may
file comments and reply comments regarding the FNPRM on or before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. All comments are to reference CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15178.
95.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing
the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.321
96.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of
each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
97.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
·
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. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building.
·
Commercial 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 must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
D.
Ex Parte Presentations
98.
This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with
the Commission's ex parte rules.322 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 presentations 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 rule 1.1206(b).323 In
319
Id. § 3506(c)(4).
320
47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419.
321
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).
322
47 CFR §§ 1.1200–1.1216.
323
Id. § 1.1206(b).
45
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f)324 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.
E.
Congressional Review Act
99.
The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.325
F.
Accessible Formats
100.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2275 (videophone), or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
G.
Further Information
101.
For further information regarding the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, contact Michael Scott, CGB, Disability Rights Office, (202) 418-1264, e-mail
[email protected], Suzy Rosen Singleton, CGB, Disability Rights Office, (202) 510-9446, e-mail
[email protected], or Bob Aldrich, CGB, (202) 418-0996, [email protected].
H.
Incorporation by Reference
102.
The Office of Federal Register (OFR) recently revised its regulations to require that
agencies must discuss in the preamble of a proposed rule ways that the materials the agency proposes to
incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those
materials reasonably available to interested parties. In addition, the preamble of the proposed rule must
summarize the material.
103.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Realtime Transport Protocol Payload for Text Conversation (2005) provides technical specifications for
carrying real-time text conversation session contents in RTP packets on Internal Protocol-based
communications networks. This document is available for download at the Internet Engineering Task
Force website at http://ietf.org or directly at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt, and is available for
inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., S.W., Reference Information
Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.
VI.
ORDERING CLAUSES
104.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that 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, this Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED and the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED
as set forth in Appendix B.
105.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report and Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30
days after publication of a summary in the Federal Register, except as otherwise specified.
106.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any such rule amendments that contain new or
modified information collection requirements SHALL BE EFFECTIVE on the date specified in a notice
324
Id. § 1.49(f).
325
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
46
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
published in the Federal Register announcing Office of Management and Budget approval of the
information collection requirements of such rules pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
107.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
108.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
47
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
APPENDIX A
List of Commenting Parties
Comments
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS)
American Cable Association (ACA)
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO)
AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)
Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
Consumer Technology Association (CTA)
CTIA
Disability and Communication Access Board, State of Hawaii (DCAB)
Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton)
Jordan Frentress
National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA)
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
NENA: The 911 Association (NENA)
New Mexico Commission for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons (NMCDHH)
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the
Rehabilitation Engineer Research Center on Universal Interface and IT Access, and Omnitor (RERCs and
Omnitor)
Sorenson Communications, Inc. and its affiliate CaptionCall, LLC (Sorenson)
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc.,
Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization, Hearing Loss Association of America, and National Association of
the Deaf (Consumer Groups)
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
The Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications, and the
Municipal Emergency Communication Districts Association (Texas 9-1-1 Entities)
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)
TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone)
Verizon
VTCSecure LLC (VTCSecure)
West Safety Services, Inc. (West Safety)
Reply Comments
AT&T
CCA
Consumer Groups
CSDVRS, LLC. d/b/a ZVRS (ZVRS)
CTIA
Hamilton
Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft)
NENA
RERCs and Omnitor
Rural Wireless Association, Inc. (RWA)
Sorenson
T-Mobile
The Voice on the Net Coalition (VON)
48
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
APPENDIX B
Final Rules
PART 6—ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT AND CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT BY PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
1. Revise the authority citation for part 6 to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 208, 255, and 303(r).
2. Amend § 6.3 by:
a. Adding new paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(5), (m), and (n).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 6.3 Definitions.
(a) The term accessible shall mean that:
*****
(3) Real-Time Text. Voice communication services subject to this part that are provided over wireless IP
facilities and handsets and other text-capable end user devices used with such service that do not
themselves provide TTY functionality, may provide TTY connectability and signal compatibility pursuant
to paragraphs (b)(3) and (4), or support real-time text communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part
67.
(b) * * *
*****
(5) TTY Support Exemption. Voice communication services subject to this part that are provided over
wireless IP facilities 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 section 67.1 of this chapter.
(n) The term text-capable end 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
1. Revise the authority citation for part 7 to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 208, 255, and 303(r).
2. Amend § 7.3 by adding new paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(5), (n), and (o).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 7.3 Definitions.
49
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
(a) The term accessible shall mean that:
*****
(3) Real-Time Text. Voice communication services subject to this part that are provided over wireless IP
facilities and handsets and other text-capable end user devices used with such service that do not
themselves provide TTY functionality, may provide TTY connectability and signal compatibility pursuant
to paragraphs (b)(3) and (4), or support real-time text communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part
67.
(b) * * *
*****
(5) TTY Support Exemption. Voice communication services subject to this part that are offered over
wireless IP facilities 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.
* * * *(n) The term real-time text shall have the meaning set forth in section 67.1 of this chapter.
(o) The term text-capable end 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
1. 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.
2. Amend § 14.10 by adding new 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 end user device means end user equipment that is able to send, receive, and
display text.
3. Amend § 14.21 by adding new paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(5).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 14.21 Performance Objectives.
*****
(b) Accessible. The term accessible shall mean that:
*****
(3) Real-Time Text. Wireless interconnected VoIP services subject to this part and text-capable end user
devices used with such services that do not themselves provide TTY functionality, may provide TTY
connectability and signal compatibility pursuant to paragraphs (d)(3) and (4), or support real-time text
communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67.
50
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
*****
(d) * * *
*****
(5) TTY Support Exemption. Interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP services subject to this part
that are provided over wireless IP facilities 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
1. 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, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c.
2. Amend § 20.18 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 20.18 911 Service.
*****
(c) Access to 911 services.
1) CMRS providers subject to this section must be capable of transmitting 911 calls from individuals with
speech or hearing disabilities through means other than mobile radio handsets, e.g., through the use of
Text Telephone Devices (TTY). CMRS providers that provide voice communications over IP facilities
are not required to support 911 access via TTYs if they provide 911 access via real-time text (RTT)
communications, in accordance with 47 CFR Part 67, except that RTT support is not required to the
extent that it is not achievable for a particular manufacturer to support RTT on the provider’s network.
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. Revise the authority citation for part 64 to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, 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.
2. Amend § 64.601 by:
a. revising paragraph (a)(15); and
b. adding a new paragraph (a)(46).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
§ 64.601 Definitions and provisions of general applicability.
*****
(a) * * *
51
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
*****
(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 Protocolenabled 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
RTT over an interconnected voice over Internet Protocol service.
*****
(46) Real-Time Text (RTT). The term real-time text shall have the meaning set forth in § 67.1 of this
chapter.
3. Amend § 64.603 to read as follows:
§ 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. 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. CMRS providers subject to this 711 access
requirement are not required to provide 711 dialing code access to TTY users if they provide 711 dialing
code access via real-time text communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67. A common carrier
shall be considered to be in compliance with this section:
(a) * * *
PART 67 – REAL-TIME TEXT
1. Add a new Part 67 to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 225, 251, 255, 301, 303, 307, 309, 316, 615c, 616, 617.
§ 67.1 Definitions.
(a) “Authorized end 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) “CMRS provider” shall mean a CMRS provider as defined in § 20.18(c) of this chapter.
(c) “Covered service” means a service that meets accessibility requirements by supporting RTT pursuant
to Part 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of the Commission’s rules.
(d) “RFC 4103” means standard Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC)
4103, Real-time Transport Protocol Payload for Text Conversation (2005) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 67.3 of this part).
(e) “RFC 4103-conforming” service or user device means a covered service or authorized end user device
that enables initiation, sending, transmission, reception, and display of RTT communications in
conformity with RFC 4103.
(f) “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.
52
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
(g) “Real-time text (RTT)” or “RTT communications” means text communications that are transmitted
over Internet Protocol (IP) networks immediately as they are created, e.g., on a character-by-character
basis.
(h) “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 Minimum Functionalities of RTT.
(a) RTT-RTT Interoperability. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be interoperable
with other services and devices that support RTT in accordance with this part. A service or authorized
end user device shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph (a) if:
(1) It is an RFC-4103-conforming end user device;
(2) RTT communications between such service or end user device and an RFC 4103-conforming service
or end user device are reliably and accurately transcoded –
(i) to and from RFC 4103, or
(ii) to and from an internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon with the owner of the network serving
the RFC 4103-conforming service or device.
(b) RTT-TTY Interoperability. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be interoperable
with TTYs connected to other networks. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be
deemed to comply with this paragraph (b) 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.
(c) Features and Capabilities. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall enable the user to:
(1) initiate and receive RTT calls to and from the same telephone numbers for which voice calls can be
initiated and received;
(2) transmit and receive RTT communications to and from any 911 public safety answering point (PSAP)
in the United States; and
(3) send and receive text and voice simultaneously in both directions on the same call using a single
device.
§ 67.3 Incorporation by Reference
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 4103, Real-time Transport
Protocol Payload for Text Conversation (2005) is incorporated by reference in this part. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This document is available for download at the Internet Engineering
Task Force website at http://ietf.org or directly at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4103.txt, and is available for
inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., S.W., Reference Information
Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.
53
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the
Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) into the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice).2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice,
including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3 The Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.4
A.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2.
In the Report and Order, the Commission takes specific steps to amend 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. In response to
various proposals made in the Notice adopted earlier this year, the Commission adopts rules to:
·
Permit commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to support RTT in lieu of TTY
technology for communications using wireless IP-based voice services;
·
Allow providers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services provided over
wireless IP facilities and manufacturers of equipment used with such services to support
RTT in lieu of supporting TTY technology, “if readily achievable” or “unless not
achievable”;
·
Relieve wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers of all TTY support
obligations to the extent they support RTT on IP facilities in accordance with Commission
rules;
·
·
Establish the following criteria defining what constitutes support for RTT:
o
RTT communications must be interoperable across networks and devices, and this
may be achieved through adherence to RFC 4103, as a “safe harbor” standard for
RTT;
o
RTT communications must be backward compatible with TTY technology;
o
RTT must support 911 communications and 711 relay communications; and
Establish that support for RTT includes support for the ability to initiate and receive calls
with the same telephone numbers as are used for voice communications and simultaneous
voice and text in the same call session;
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). The SBREFA
was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).
2
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology; Petition for Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules
for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology and Petition for Waiver of Rules
Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 6247 (2016).
3
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4
See Id. § 604(b).
54
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
·
Recognize that the provision of accessible indicators for call answering and activity,
appropriate latency and error rates, and pre-installed and default functionality on devices can
facilitate making RTT service functionally equivalent to voice communications;
·
Permit manufacturers and service providers, to the extent the latter are responsible for the
accessibility of end user devices activated on their IP-based wireless voice communications
networks, to ensure that devices that have the ability to send, receive, and display text include
RTT capability in lieu of supporting TTY technology, subject to the readily achievable and
achievable limitations for Parts 6, 7, and 14, as applicable;
·
Find that RTT is an “electronic messaging service” that is subject to the performance
objectives of Parts 6, 7, and 14 of the Commission’s rules, if readily achievable or unless not
achievable, as applicable.
·
·
Establish the following timelines for implementation of RTT:
o
By December 31, 2017, each Tier I CMRS provider and, by June 30, 2020, each nonTier I provider choosing to support RTT in lieu of TTY over IP facilities shall
support RTT either (1) through a downloadable RTT application or plug-in that
supports RTT; or (2) by implementing native RTT functionality into its core network,
offering at least one handset model that supports RTT, and including the requirement
to support RTT in future design specifications for all authorized user devices
specified on or after these dates;
o
By December 31, 2018, manufacturers that provide devices for CMRS providers’ IPbased voice services and that choose to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology shall
implement RTT in newly manufactured equipment, if readily achievable or unless
not achievable, as applicable.
o
By December 31, 2019, each Tier I CMRS provider and, by June 30, 2021, each nonTier I CMRS provider choosing to support RTT in lieu of TTY over IP facilities shall
support RTT for all new authorized user devices;
o
A carrier is subject to the above timelines except to the extent that it is not achievable
for a particular manufacturer to support RTT on that carrier’s network, in which case
a carrier may rely in good faith on a manufacturer’s representations in this regard;
and
Establish consumer outreach, education, and notice guidelines to inform the public about
the transition from TTY Technology to RTT, including how this technology will work.
B.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA.
3.
No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
C.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Impacted
4.
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.5 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6 In addition, the term “small business” has the
5
See Id. § 603(b)(3).
6
Id. § 601(6).
55
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 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.8
5.
The majority of the rules adopted in the Report and Order will affect obligations on
telecommunications carriers and providers, VoIP service providers, wireline and wireless service
providers, advanced communications services (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 amended rules may be economically impacted by the Report and
Order.
6.
A small business is an independent business having less than 500 employees.
Nationwide, there are approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.9 Affected
small entities as defined by industry are as follows.
1.
Wireline Providers
7.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as
“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 communications 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.”10 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.11 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.12 Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
8.
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.13 The U.S. Census Bureau defines
this industry as “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 communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single
7
See Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
8
See 15 U.S.C. § 632(l).
9
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions (June 2016),
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf.
10
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
11
See 13 CFR § 120.201, NAICS Code 517110.
12
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
13
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
56
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
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.”14 Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees.15 According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were
incumbent local exchange service providers.16 Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.17 Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most providers of local exchange service are small entities.
9.
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.18 The U.S.
Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications 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.”19 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.20 According to Commission data,21 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers.22 Of these 1,307 carriers, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.23
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
small entities.
10.
We have 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
14
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
15
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
16
Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Trends in Telephone Service, tbl. 5.3 (Sept. 2010), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC301823A1.pdf (Trends in Telephone Service).
17
See id.
18
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
19
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
20
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
21
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
22
See id.
23
See id.
57
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
field of operation.”24 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.25 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize
that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
11.
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.26 The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as “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 communications 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.”27 Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees.28 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.29 Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more
than 1,500 employees.30 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.31 In addition, 72 carriers have
reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.32 Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer employees
and two have more than 1,500 employees.33 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.
12.
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
24
5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
25
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission (filed May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small
business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” 15 U.S.C. § 632(a); 5
U.S.C. § 601(3). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a
national basis. 13 CFR § 121.102(b).
26
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
27
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
28
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
29
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
30
See id.
31
See id.
32
See id.
33
See id.
58
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.34 The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as
“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 communications 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.”35 Census data for 2012 shows that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.36
According to Commission data, 359 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
interexchange service.37 Of these, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more
than 1,500 employees.38 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange
carriers are small entities.
13.
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.39 According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.40 Of these, an
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees.41 Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
2.
Wireless Providers
14.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau
has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.42 The Census Bureau
defines this industry as comprising “establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and
transmission facilities to provide 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.”43 Under the present and prior categories,
34
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
35
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
36
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
37
Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
38
See id.
39
See 13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
40
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
41
See id.
42
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except
Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012%20NAICS%20Search
(last visited Apr. 28, 2016).
43
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite),
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search (last visited
Apr. 28, 2016).
59
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.44 For the
category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), census data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000
employees.45 Since all firms with fewer than 1,500 employees are considered small, given the total
employment in the sector, we estimate that the vast majority of wireless firms are small entities.
3.
Cable Service Providers
15.
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.46 Industry data
indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States.47 Of this total, all but
nine cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size standard.48 In addition,
under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers.49 Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide.50 Of this total, 3,900
cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more
subscribers.51 Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
4.
All Other Telecommunications
16.
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.”52 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.53 For this category, census data for 2012,
there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual
44
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517210 (2012 NAICS). The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13
CFR § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
45
U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 517210,”
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table.
46
47 CFR § 76.901(e).
47
Data contained in the Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), August 15, 2015
(COALS Data). See https://apps.fcc.gov/coals/.
48
See SNL KAGAN at
https://snl.cominteractiveXtopcableMSOsaspx?period2015Q1&sortcol=subscribersbasic&sortorder=desc.
49
47 CFR § 76.901(c).
50
COALS Data.
51
Id.
52
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517919 All Other Telecommunications,
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?.
53
See 13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517919.
60
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
receipts of under $25 million.54 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small
entities.
17.
TRS Providers. TRS providers are generally classified within the broad 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. Six of the authorized TRS
providers can be included within the broad economic census category of All Other Telecommunications.55
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.56 For this category, census data for
2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400
had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million.57 Under this category and the associated small
business size standard, approximately half of the TRS providers can be considered small.
5.
Equipment Manufacturers
a.
Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide VoIP
18.
Entities manufacturing equipment used to provide interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP), non-interconnected VoIP, or both are generally found in one of two Census Bureau
categories, “Electronic Computer Manufacturing”58 or “Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.”59 While
the Commission recognizes that the manufacturers of equipment used to provide interconnected VoIP will
continue to be regulated under section 255 rather than under section 716,60 we include here an analysis of
the possible significant economic impact of our proposed rules on manufacturers of equipment used to
provide both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP. However, in the absence of more accurate
data, we present these figures to provide as thorough an analysis of the impact on small entities as we can
at this time.
19.
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)
54
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census, Information: Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size: Table
4, “Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS Code 517919,”
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
55
Because Sprint’s primary business is wireless telecommunications, it fits within the definition of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). As a result, Sprint is not considered to be within the category of All
Other Telecommunications.
56
See 13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 517919.
57
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
58
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing”;
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334111&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
59
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/nd334210.htm.
60
See 47 U.S.C. § 617(f) (stating that the requirements of section 716 shall not apply to any equipment or services,
including interconnected VoIP service, subject to section 255 as of the date of enactment of section 716 and such
equipment and services shall instead remain subject to the requirements of section 255); see also 47 CFR § 14.2(c).
61
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
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 userprogrammable 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.”61 In this category, the SBA has deemed an electronic computer manufacturing business to be
small if it has fewer than 1,000 employees.62 Census data for 2007 indicate that 366 establishments in this
category operated throughout that year. Of that number, 362 operated with less 1,000 employees.63
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments are small entities.
20.
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (wireline). The Census Bureau defines this
category to comprise “establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
communications equipment.”64 The Census Bureau further states: “These products may be standalone 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.”65 In this category the SBA deems a telephone
apparatus manufacturing business to be small if it has 1,000 or fewer employees.66 For this category of
manufacturers, Census data for 2012 showed that there were 266 such establishments that operated for
that entire year.67 Of those, 262 had fewer than 1,000 employees.68 Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of establishments in this industry can be considered small. 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.
21.
Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing. This
U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing computer terminals and other
computer peripheral equipment (except storage devices).69 The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category of manufacturing: that size standard is 1,250 employees. 70 Economic Census
61
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing”;
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334111&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
62
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 334111.
63
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
64
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing,
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
65
Id.
66
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334210.
67
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table,
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
68
Id.
69
Https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naicsrch.
70
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334118.
62
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
data for 2012 indicate that 626 establishments were operational throughout that year. Of that number, 527
establishments operated with less than 1,000 employees.71 Thus, we conclude that a majority of Computer
Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing establishments are small entities.
b.
Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide Electronic Messaging
22.
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.”72
23.
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.”73 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.74
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that year. Of that
number, 819 establishments operated with less than 500 employees.75 Based on this data, we conclude
that a majority of businesses in this industry are small by the SBA standard.
c.
Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide Interoperable Video
Conferencing Services
24.
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. “This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone
apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples of
such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems manufacturing, Intercom systems and
equipment manufacturing, and signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing.”76 The
SBA has established a size standard for this industry as 750 employees or less.77 Census data for 2012
show that 383 establishments operated in that year. Of that number, 379 operated with less than 500
employees.78 Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of Other Communications Equipment
Manufacturers are small.
71
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2prodType=
table.
72
The categories “Electronic Computer Manufacturing” and “Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing” are discussed
above under the heading “Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide VoIP.”
73
U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, Definition of NAICS Code 334220. See
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd.naics/naicsrch (last visited Oct. 28, 2015).
74
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 334220.
75
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
76
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 334290 - Other communications equipment manufacturing,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
77
See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334290.
78
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
63
Federal Communications Commission
d.
FCC 16-169
Manufacturers of Software
25.
Software Publishers. 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.” “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.”79 The SBA has
established a size standard for this industry of annual receipts of $38.5 million per year.80 Census data for
2012 indicate that 5,079 firms operated in that year. Of that number, 4,697 firms had annual receipts of
$25 million or less.81 Based on that data, we conclude that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
D.
Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and other Compliance
Requirements
26.
The rule changes adopted in the Report and Order to permit support for RTT in lieu of
TTY Technologies in all IP-based wireless services do not modify reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. However, the Report and Order requires that notice conditions imposed on
waiver recipients remain in effect until the full implementation of the rules adopted in the Report and
Order. The waiver recipients must continue 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 public switched telephone
network (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 waiver recipients must also file a report every six months regarding their progress toward
and the status of the availability of new IP-based accessibility solutions, such as RTT.82 The only entities
that will be affected by this requirement are those entities that have previously petitioned for and received
or will receive a waiver of the TTY obligations. We believe the only burden associated with the reporting
requirement will be the time required to continue to prepare and send out notifications to customers and to
complete the progress and status report every six months.
E.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant
Alternatives Considered
27. 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
79
U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, Definition of NAICS Code 511210,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
80
See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 511210.
81
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
82
See e.g., Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10855 (CGB,
PSHSB, WTB, WCB 2015) (granting waiver to AT&T); Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY
Technology, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 12755 (CGB, PSHSB, WTB, WCB 2015) (granting waiver to Verizon); Petition
for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, 30 FCC Rcd 14404 (CGB PSHSB WTB WCB 2015)
(granting waiver to Cellular South, Inc.), modified, Letter Order, 31 FCC Rcd 201 (CGB PSHSB WTB WCB 2016);
Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 3778 (CGB PSHSB WTB
WCB 2016) (granting waiver to the Competitive Carriers Association).
64
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
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 and reporting requirements under the rule for
such 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 such small entities.”83
28. In amending our rules, we believe that we have minimized the effect on small entities while
facilitating an effective and seamless transition from TTY technology to RTT. The Commission had
considered other possible proposals and sought comment on the requirements and the analysis presented.
The requirements adopted by the Commission to provide notices to customers and file reports with the
Commission apply only to entities that have specifically sought waivers of the TTY obligations. Further,
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 such as cellphones,
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, in phasing out TTY
technology, the burden is reduced for small entities and emergency call centers to maintain such
technology in the long term.
29. The Commission also establishes a phased timeline for implementation of RTT technology.
In response to comments in the proceeding and to reduce the burden and relieve possible adverse
economic impact on small entities, by December 31, 2017, each Tier I CMRS provider and, by June 30,
2020, each non-Tier I provider may choose to support RTT in lieu of TTY over IP facilities. The
Commission establishes a second period for each Tier I CMRS provider and non-Tier I CMRS provider
choosing to support RTT in lieu of TTY over IP facilities to be required to support RTT for all new
authorized user devices. Tier I CMRS providers must meet this requirement by December 31, 2019, and
non-Tier I providers must meet this requirement by June 30, 2021. Manufacturers that provide devices
for CMRS providers’ IP-based voice services and that choose to support RTT in lieu of TTY technology
shall implement RTT in newly manufactured equipment by December 31, 2018, if readily achievable or
unless not achievable, as applicable.
30. In addition, the Commission is permitting rather than requiring service providers to support
RTT. With regards to implementing RTT, while the Commission adopts a “safe harbor” technical
standard to ensure RTT interoperability, it also allows service providers to use alternative protocols for
RTT, provided that they are interoperable. Further, throughout the item, flexibility is integrated into the
criteria for RTT support in order to take into consideration the limitations of small businesses. For
example, a service provider choosing to support RTT rather than TTY is not required to support RTT on
new authorized end user devices to the extent that is not achievable for a particular manufacturer to
support RTT on that provider’s network. As such, the Commission anticipates that the requirements will
have little to no impact on small entities that are eligible to rely on the claim that supporting RTT on a
particular device is not achievable.
31. The Commission also determined to establish outreach and education guidelines to encourage
rather than require service providers and manufacturers to implement efforts to notify consumers about
the transition from TTY technology to RTT, and to allow small entities to determine the extent of
resources they allocate to inform consumers of the changes in the services and associated equipment they
will be receiving.
83
F.
Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission’s
Proposals
32.
None.
5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(4).
65
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
APPENDIX D
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA),1 the Commission has
prepared this 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 this Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice). 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 Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this Further Notice, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the
Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3
A.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2.
In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks to continue the 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 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.
·
·
·
·
B.
The Commission seeks comment on :
Setting an appropriate timeline or trigger for the sunset of service providers’ obligation to
ensure backward compatibility between RTT and TTY technology, and a proposal of a date
of 2021 for this purpose;
Integrating RTT into the provision of TRS; and
Addressing the RTT needs of people with cognitive disabilities and people who are deafblind through the provision of block mode transmission and through connectivity with
refreshable Braille displays.
Legal Basis
3.
The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 225, 251, 255, 303, 316, and
716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 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.
C.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
4.
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.4 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see id.. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3
See id.
4
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
66
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”5 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.6 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.7
5.
The majority of the proposals in the Further Notice will affect obligations on
telecommunications carriers and providers, VoIP service providers, wireline and wireless service
providers, advanced communications services (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 this Further Notice.
6.
A small business is an independent business having less than 500 employees.
Nationwide, there are approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.8 Affected
small entities as defined by industry are as follows.
1.
Wireline Providers
7.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as
“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 communications 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.”9 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.10 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.11 Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
8.
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.12 The U.S. Census Bureau defines
5
Id. § 601(6).
6
See id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
7
See 15 U.S.C. § 632(l).
8
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions (June 2016),
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf.
9
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
10
See 13 CFR § 120.201, NAICS Code 517110.
11
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
12
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
67
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
this industry as “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 communications 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.”13 Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees.14 According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were
incumbent local exchange service providers.15 Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.16 Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most providers of local exchange service are small entities.
9.
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.17 The U.S.
Census Bureau defines this industry as “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 communications 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.”18 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.19 According to Commission data,20 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers.21 Of these 1,307 carriers, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.22
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
small entities.
13
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
14
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
15
Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Trends in Telephone Service, tbl. 5.3 (Sept. 2010), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC301823A1.pdf (Trends in Telephone Service).
16
See id.
17
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
18
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
19
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
20
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
21
See id.
22
See id.
68
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
10.
We have 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.”23 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.24 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize
that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
11.
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.25 The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as “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 communications 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.”26 Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees.27 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.28 Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more
than 1,500 employees.29 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.30 In addition, 72 carriers have
reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.31 Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer employees
and two have more than 1,500 employees.32 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.
23
5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
24
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission (filed May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small
business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” 15 U.S.C. § 632(a); 5
U.S.C. § 601(3). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a
national basis. 13 CFR § 121.102(b).
25
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
26
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
27
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
28
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
29
See id.
30
See id.
31
See id.
32
See id.
69
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
12.
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.33 The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as
“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 communications 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.”34 Census data for 2012 shows that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.35
According to Commission data, 359 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
interexchange service.36 Of these, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more
than 1,500 employees.37 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange
carriers are small entities.
13.
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.38 According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.39 Of these, an
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees.40 Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
2.
Wireless Providers
14.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau
has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.41 The Census Bureau
defines this industry as comprising “establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and
transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging
33
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
34
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
35
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?
pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ2&prodType=table.
36
Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
37
See id.
38
See 13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517110.
39
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
40
See id.
41
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except
Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012%20NAICS%20Search
(last visited Apr. 28, 2016).
70
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.”42 Under the present and prior categories,
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.43 For the
category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), census data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000
employees.44 Since all firms with fewer than 1,500 employees are considered small, given the total
employment in the sector, we estimate that the vast majority of wireless firms are small entities.
3.
Cable Service Providers
15.
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.45 Industry data
indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States.46 Of this total, all but
nine cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size standard.47 In addition,
under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers.48 Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide.49 Of this total, 3,900
cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more
subscribers.50 Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
4.
All Other Telecommunications
16.
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.”51 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.52 For this category, census data for 2012,
42
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite),
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search (last visited
Apr. 28, 2016).
43
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517210 (2012 NAICS). The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13
CFR § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
44
U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 517210,”
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table.
45
47 CFR § 76.901(e).
46
Data contained in the Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), August 15, 2015
(COALS Data). See https://apps.fcc.gov/coals/.
47
See SNL KAGAN at
https://snl.cominteractiveXtopcableMSOsaspx?period2015Q1&sortcol=subscribersbasic&sortorder=desc.
48
47 CFR § 76.901(c).
49
COALS Data.
50
Id.
51
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517919 All Other Telecommunications,
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?.
52
See 13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS code 517919.
71
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual
receipts of under $25 million.53 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small
entities.
17.
TRS Providers. TRS providers are generally classified within the broad 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. Six of the authorized TRS
providers can be included within the broad economic census category of All Other Telecommunications.54
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.55 For this category, census data for
2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400
had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million.56 Under this category and the associated small
business size standard, approximately half of the TRS providers can be considered small.
5.
Equipment Manufacturers
a.
Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide VoIP
18.
Entities manufacturing equipment used to provide interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP), non-interconnected VoIP, or both are generally found in one of two Census Bureau
categories, “Electronic Computer Manufacturing”57 or “Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.”58 While
the Commission recognizes that the manufacturers of equipment used to provide interconnected VoIP will
continue to be regulated under section 255 rather than under section 716,59 we include here an analysis of
the possible significant economic impact of our proposed rules on manufacturers of equipment used to
provide both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP. However, in the absence of more accurate
data, we present these figures to provide as thorough an analysis of the impact on small entities as we can
at this time.
19.
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,
53
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census, Information: Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size: Table
4, “Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS Code 517919,”
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
54
Because Sprint’s primary business is wireless telecommunications, it fits within the definition of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). As a result, Sprint is not considered to be within the category of All
Other Telecommunications.
55
See 13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 517919.
56
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
57
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing”;
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334111&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
58
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/nd334210.htm.
59
See 47 U.S.C. § 617(f) (stating that the requirements of section 716 shall not apply to any equipment or services,
including interconnected VoIP service, subject to section 255 as of the date of enactment of section 716 and such
equipment and services shall instead remain subject to the requirements of section 255); see also 47 CFR § 14.2(c).
72
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
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 userprogrammable 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.”60 In this category, the SBA has deemed an electronic computer manufacturing business to be
small if it has fewer than 1,000 employees.61 Census data for 2007 indicate that 366 establishments in this
category operated throughout that year. Of that number, 362 operated with less 1,000 employees.62
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments are small entities.
20.
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (wireline). The Census Bureau defines this
category to comprise “establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
communications equipment.”63 The Census Bureau further states: “These products may be standalone 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.”64 In this category the SBA deems a telephone
apparatus manufacturing business to be small if it has 1,000 or fewer employees.65 For this category of
manufacturers, Census data for 2012 showed that there were 266 such establishments that operated for
that entire year.66 Of those, 262 had fewer than 1,000 employees.67 Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of establishments in this industry can be considered small. 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.
21.
Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing. This
U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing computer terminals and other
computer peripheral equipment (except storage devices).68 The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category of manufacturing: that size standard is 1,250 employees. 69 Economic Census
60
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing”;
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334111&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
61
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 334111.
62
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
63
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing,
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
64
Id.
65
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334210.
66
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table,
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
67
Id.
68
Https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naicsrch.
69
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334118.
73
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
data for 2012 indicate that 626 establishments were operational throughout that year. Of that number, 527
establishments operated with less than 1,000 employees.70 Thus, we conclude that a majority of Computer
Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing establishments are small entities.
b.
Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide Electronic Messaging
22.
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.”71
23.
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.”72 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.73
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that year. Of that
number, 819 establishments operated with less than 500 employees.74 Based on this data, we conclude
that a majority of businesses in this industry are small by the SBA standard.
c.
Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide Interoperable Video
Conferencing Services
24.
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. “This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone
apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples of
such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems manufacturing, Intercom systems and
equipment manufacturing, and signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing.”75 The
SBA has established a size standard for this industry as 750 employees or less.76 Census data for 2012
show that 383 establishments operated in that year. Of that number, 379 operated with less than 500
employees.77 Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of Other Communications Equipment
Manufacturers are small.
70
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2prodType=
table.
71
The categories “Electronic Computer Manufacturing” and “Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing” are discussed
above under the heading “Manufacturers of Equipment to Provide VoIP.”
72
U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, Definition of NAICS Code 334220. See
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd.naics/naicsrch (last visited Oct. 28, 2015).
73
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 334220.
74
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
75
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 334290 - Other communications equipment manufacturing,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
76
See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334290.
77
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table.
74
Federal Communications Commission
d.
FCC 16-169
Manufacturers of Software
25.
Software Publishers. 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.” “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.”78 The SBA has
established a size standard for this industry of annual receipts of $38.5 million per year.79 Census data for
2012 indicate that 5,079 firms operated in that year. Of that number, 4,697 firms had annual receipts of
$25 million or less.80 Based on that data, we conclude that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
D.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
26.
The Further Notice seeks comment on integrating RTT into the provision of TRS,
requiring certain additional features and capabilities of RTT, and the appropriate timeline to sunset the
requirement for backward compatibility of RTT with TTY technology. With the following exception,
these proposals do not include new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements. Specifically, the Further Notice seeks comment on the type of data that should be collected
to help the Commission determine the extent to which RTT reduces reliance on telecommunications relay
services (TRS) or alternatively the extent to which the introduction of RTT increases TRS use among
some consumers because it has enhanced the ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone
service.
E.
Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
27.
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.”
28.
In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the type of data and metrics
that can be used to monitor the availability, adoption, and acceptance of RTT services and devices. This
information is intended to help the Commission determine when TTY users have transitioned to RTT to a
point that would warrant elimination of the requirement for RTT to be backward compatibility with TTY.
While the collection of data may initially burden small businesses, the eventual sunset of the obligation to
ensure that RTT is backward compatibility with TTY will in the long run reduce the burden for small
entities and emergency call centers to maintain TTY technology and backward compatibility capability.
29.
The Commission also seeks comments on the costs, benefits, feasibility, and appropriate
timeline for requiring IP-based TRS providers to incorporate RTT capability into the provision of their
78
U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, Definition of NAICS Code 511210,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
79
See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 511210.
80
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
75
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
services. The information requested will inform the Commission of concerns with the transition and
appropriate timelines for all entities, which will allow the Commission to consider rules and
implementation deadlines that minimize burdens and relieve possible adverse economic impact on small
entities. The Commission’s gathering of information to determine the effect of RTT on TRS services and
the TRS Fund will allow the Commission to consider changes to the rules that may minimize burdens and
relieve possible adverse economic impact on small entities.
30.
In the Further Notice, the Commission also seeks comment on identifying certain RTT
features or functional capabilities, such as compatibility with refreshable braille displays and block mode
transmission, that are necessary to meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf-blind,
people with cognitive disabilities, or other specific segments of the disability community. In seeking
comments on feasibility, we seek to integrate flexibility into the requirements to take into consideration
the limitations of small businesses. Because the Commission will require implementation of these
features only if achievable, the Commission anticipates that there will be little to no impact on small
entities that would claim the requirement is not achievable.
F.
Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Commission’s
Proposals
31.
None.
76
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re:
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145; Petition for
Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY
Technology, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
When our nation’s telecommunications system was first established, it was created without
considering the needs of people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. As a consequence, people who are
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and have speech disabilities were left out. It was only when three deaf men –
Weitbrecht, Saks and Marsters – came up with the idea of using teletype machines to couple with
telephones that the TTY was born in the 1960s. These individuals did what the telephone companies did
not. They made telephone communication possible for people who could not hear or speak.
But the TTY has only served as a band-aid for a telecommunications system that remains largely
inaccessible to people with hearing and speech disabilities. It is an antiquated technology that uses a long
discarded protocol, and has considerable limitations – both in terms of its speed and reliability. In
addition, it only works on specialized equipment, keeping its users in telephone silos – apart from the
mainstream telephone network that the rest of us use.
Real-time text, as a native IP technology designed for the packet-switched network environment,
has been recognized internationally as an effective replacement for TTY technology. The universal
availability of real-time text in virtually any off-the-shelf end user wireless device will allow both people
with disabilities and people without disabilities to adopt this solution seamlessly and ubiquitously.
We now have the opportunity – as we design our new communications system that is based on
Internet-protocol – to finally make our nation’s communications systems accessible to everyone.
In some places, this item sets out basic requirements for how to do this. In others, it offers strong
guidance on how to achieve this in a way that will ensure that people with disabilities have the same
access as voice telephone users.
It is now up to industry to get this right. It will be critical to work with consumers on this – to
confer with people with disabilities about their needs, and the features that are essential to making realtime text a successful alternative to TTYs and voice services. We understand that a lot of industryconsumer collaboration has already occurred on bringing us to this point. Let’s make it to the finish line.
I would like to thank many individuals and consumer organizations who contributed to this
proceeding, many of whom have representatives here today. In particular, I’d like to recognize the
National Association of the Deaf, Telecommunications for the Deaf, the Hearing Loss Association of
America, Communication Service for the Deaf, the Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard
of Hearing Persons, Gregg Vanderheiden of the Trace Center and, finally, Gallaudet University who is
represented by their President Bobbi Cordano and Christian Vogler.
Thank you to the wireless service providers, who have engaged on this issue, and who already
have made significant progress on the deployment of real-time text. Their leadership has brought us to
this point.
Finally, thank you to the Commission staff for their work on this item. Frankly, I’m disappointed
that this particular item did not go further. But I could not be prouder of what our Disability Rights
Office and FCC team have accomplished over the past four years to make communications technology
more accessible to people with disabilities. We prioritized text-to-911availability, improved accessibility
of emergency information on “second screen” devices, adopted closed captioning quality standards,
expanded hearing aid compatibility obligations to cover modern wireless devices, utilized and promoted
greater use of customer support via American Sign Language on videophones, made our deaf-blind
77
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
equipment distribution program permanent, established a Disability Advisory Committee, and sought to
highlight the need for more video-described programing. Special thanks to Karen Peltz Strauss and CGB
Directors Alison Kutler and Kris Monteith for their leadership, which made this progress possible.
78
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re:
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145; Petition for
Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY
Technology, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
So, there we were: Bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, visitors up by one. Our home team was up
at bat. Those of us watching from the stands were really hoping for a grand slam, but as fate would have
it, the third base player was the only one who made it to home plate. Today, we fall short of a grand slam
that seemed so much within reach just a few days ago, but I am relieved to be able to say that we are still
in the game.
President Cordano, I am admittedly disappointed that all of our runners failed to cross home
plate, but like you, Mr. Claude Stout, those present and countless others, I remain hopeful that the path
laid out before us is sufficiently clear to achieve the goal of a twenty-first century universal and integrated
text solution for people with disabilities. Real-time text promises a future where everyone can seamlessly
connect with friends, family and emergency services without specialized equipment. It is a future where a
father who is deaf can easily and reliably keep in touch with his daughter during her semester abroad, or a
speech disabled homeowner can quickly secure the services of the plumber of his choice, or a hard of
hearing grandmother can simultaneously speak to and text her grandson during their weekly call.
Our action today will no doubt have a positive ripple effect worldwide – for we are trendsetters,
both domestically and internationally, and it is no understatement to say that with this item we are poised
to open up a world of possibilities for members of our communities who in too many ways remain
separated from mainstream society.
So yes, this is a momentous occasion, but I trust we will all agree, it represents just the first of
many steps we must take, and now, if you will forgive me for continuing with the sports analogies, we
will pass the baton to the wireless service providers and manufacturers, to get us all to the finish line. I
know you are committed to making real-time text work, and I thank you for that. But I am also looking to
you, relying on you, urging you, to provide the necessary support for real-time text, in order for it to
fulfill its promise. Continue to work with consumer groups to ensure that the needs of the communities
they represent are met by implementing features and capabilities that support successful deployment and
broad adoption of real-time text. This is your chance to show us that you, that the market, can
successfully address these issues without a mandate from us to do so.
And to the consumer advocates, who worked tirelessly over the past 15 years to get to this
historic moment, I say thank you for your persistence, perseverance and passion. You have much to be
proud of today. To Alison Kutler, Karen Peltz Strauss and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau staff, who spent countless hours writing and re-writing this item, you are indeed first in class.
Your unwavering commitment to advancing policies that tangibly and positively impact the lives of
Americans with disabilities is truly inspiring.
79
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re:
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145; Petition for
Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY
Technology, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
The digital world is fast becoming a more accessible and inclusive place. Already we have
augmented reality tools that help blind travelers navigate physical reality. We have applications with
screen reading functionality that enables the blind to read printed documents and signage. In the not too
distant future, we will have gloves with wireless sensors that can translate sign language into text and
speech in real time. This is exciting—and life-altering—stuff.
Now back to the present. Somehow, someway, text telephony technology, or TTY, is still a
prominent feature of our access policies. But let’s be honest: it’s a relic. TTY was first widely deployed
in the 1970’s to help deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-disabled individuals send and receive person-toperson text over telephone lines. There was a time when it was revolutionary—but that date has long
since passed. The machines lack the slim functionality and sleek features of today’s smartphones. They
are bulky and cumbersome and ill-suited for transmission over modern IP networks. They belong under
glass—in a museum dedicated to analog antiquity.
Today we take a step in that direction by updating our rules to allow the deployment of RealTime Text in place of TTY over wireless IP-enabled networks. This is a step toward the future. That’s
because Real-Time Text enables character by character text transmission without the need for specialized
hardware. For those who choose to move forward, we require Real-Time Text to be interoperable across
networks and devices as well as backward-compatible with TTY systems. Real-Time Text will also need
to support 911 communications and simultaneous voice and text features. I hope in time Real-Time Text
is universally available as a native function. But for now, transition to this technology will transition our
accessibility policies to the future. And that’s something we should all support.
80
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re:
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145; Petition for
Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY
Technology, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
This past spring, I had the chance to visit Gallaudet University and learn how real-time text
(RTT) can improve the lives of people with hearing and speech disabilities. I met with Dr. Christian
Vogler, the Director of Gallaudet’s Technology Access Program, as well as Research Associate Paula
Tucker and Senior Research Engineer Norman Williams. They showed me how superior RTT
technologies are to the clunky and antiquated TTY systems that have been in use for decades.
One of RTT’s advantages is that text is transmitted instantaneously. You don’t need to type out
an entire message and then press “send” or use an intermediary to communicate. Dr. Vogler explained
that this allows for a more natural conversation, since you can see and anticipate what the other person is
trying to say. You also can communicate much more quickly and efficiently. This is particularly
important when it comes to public safety, since 911 exchanges that would take minutes using a legacy
technology can be completed in seconds using RTT.
RTT has other benefits as well. It is based on the Internet Protocol, or IP, which means it is a
highly adaptable digital technology. It is interoperable across networks and devices, which means that
consumers do not need to find or, in some cases, purchase specialized equipment. And it is far more
reliable than legacy offerings, which means those who use it can have comfort that it’ll work in a moment
of need.
In fact, there’s really only one problem: FCC rules have not kept up with the pace of
technological change. Despite RTT’s clear consumer benefits, our rules have required carriers to
continue to support legacy TTY systems. This has not only delayed the deployment of RTT, but has also
held back the deployment of other services that consumers want—like Wi-Fi calling and Voice over
LTE—because carriers found that they could not offer those services while meeting the FCC’s TTY
requirement.
Thankfully, this changes today. Our Order gives carriers the flexibility to invest in and deploy
RTT instead of TTY. This, in turn, will enable consumers—particularly those with hearing and speech
disabilities—to take advantage of the benefits of advanced IP technologies.
I want to thank my colleagues for working in good faith to find common ground on this item, and
I want to express my gratitude to the advocates in the hearing and speech disability community for the
work you have done to advance this cause.
81
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL P. O'RIELLY
Re:
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145; Petition for
Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY
Technology, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
The wireless industry and the disabilities community have high expectations for Real-Time Text
(RTT), and our action today removes an obstacle to or facilitates its development and deployment,
depending on your perspective, by amending existing Commission rules pertaining to teletypewriters.
Whether it will ultimately be successful will be up to consumers, but, going forward, wireless providers
and manufacturers can choose – but are not required – to implement RTT. If these entities decide to offer
RTT, then they no longer need to support outdated and rarely used TTY technology on their respective
wireless networks.
TTY is a system from a bygone era that is incompatible with IP networks and has been long
superseded by commercially available solutions tailored to a world of mobile devices, the Internet and
applications. While it is about time that the Commission’s antiquated rules are modified and updated, I
am pleased that the move to alternative technologies is being done here without imposing further
technology mandates. Although it appears that the wireless industry is united and committed to moving
forward with RTT, the Commission should not be in the business of dictating technology choices and
picking winners and losers. Instead, such decisions should be driven by the free market and industry
innovation. To argue that disability needs cannot be addressed without mandates and force ignores the
modern reality of technology advancement and the interest of many in serving a desirable group of
consumers.
Similarly, the Commission should not mandate the design of service offerings. Although those
entities choosing to offer RTT in lieu of TTY do need to provide some basic functionalities, many other
attributes, including whether RTT should be offered natively or as an application, latency and error rates,
and character and text capabilities, are better left as recommendations and not requirements. RTT is a
brand new system that has yet to be deployed. By allowing flexibility in functionality, RTT should be
able to develop in a manner that will provide the greatest benefits to all American consumers as
expeditiously as possible. Under this structure, industry will be able to work with the disabilities
community and others to hopefully reach RTT’s full potential.
These improvements from what was in the notice allow me to support this item. But there are
still some things I am not enamored with. For instance, I would have preferred that manufacturers have
no requirements in this area. Wireless providers should be able to work with manufacturers to obtain the
necessary handsets without Commission involvement. In this case, however, manufacturers already fall
under the accessibility and TTY requirements, so it makes some sense to include the changes contained
within.
Additionally, some wireless providers have expressed concern about the use of RTT on nonservice initialized (NSI) devices, which this item punts to the NSI 911 proceeding. As I have stated
before, it is time for the Commission to resolve the NSI 911 issue once and for all. The Commission also
needs to consider how RTT affects our text-to-911 requirement. Not surprisingly, there has been a lack of
adoption by localities and PSAPs in which only one out of every five counties have operational text-to911.1 Specifically, we should examine whether our text-to-911 mandate should be pursued or altered
1
See Adam Bender, Text-to-911 Adoption Low Amid Local Cost Concerns, Comm. Daily, Nov. 30, 2016.
82
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 16-169
given that Commission finding here that RTT communications to 911 are superior to SMS. And this
means that we need to contemplate how RTT fits into the overall paradigm of NG911 and whether PSAPs
should be required to support both technologies.
I thank the Chairman, my fellow commissioners, and staff for their efforts on this item and
greatly appreciate the work that the wireless industry and disabilities community have done and will do to
effectuate RTT.
83
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | 163219.doc |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2016-12-27 |