Deaf Consumers, TRS Providers Debate 10-Digit Plan Specifics

Relay providers should have a standard system for accepting 911 calls when all TRS operators are busy, said the National Emergency Number Association. “A TRS user should never be forced, through his or her own initiative, to hang up and dial 9-1-1 using a different TRS providers because the caller could not obtain help from the provider of choice,” NENA said. Nor should a TRS provider abruptly disconnect a TRS call to answer a 911 call, it said. The FCC should require providers to forward 911 calls to an alternate provider if they don’t answer in a set period, it said. The FCC should clarify that a provider never purposely should delay answering 911 calls so they are routed elsewhere, and that providers must ensure calls aren’t dropped during a reroute, it said.

Forcing providers to terminate non-911 calls in favor of emergency calls clashes with the Americans with Disabilities Act principle of functional equivalency, relay providers GoAmerica and CSDVRS said separately. “The telephone network does not shed calls to accept 911 traffic,” GoAmerica said. “Relay providers should not be under different rules.” There’s no need to prioritize 911 calls, AT&T said. “There is insufficient evidence… to demonstrate that 911 calls made to Internet-based TRS providers are substantially delayed,” it said. Terminating non-911 calls could cause other problems, Sprint Nextel said. When such a policy becomes public, “using 911 to reach a provider… may for some become the preferred dialing method even if there is no emergency,” it said.

The FCC should give relay users CPNI protections “that are virtually identical to those enjoyed by users of voice telephone services,” Sorenson said. The rules need “only minor modifications,” designed to “accommodate the unique nature of TRS,” it said. If applied, the CPNI rules “should replace the Commission’s existing directives governing the use of TRS customer or call database information,” which are “vague and confusing,” Sorenson said. Sorenson has challenged those rules -- which cover marketing and lobbying -- in federal appeals court (CD July 3 p6).

Regardless of customer privacy rules, TRS providers should send full call details to the TRS fund administrator, said the National Exchange Carrier Association, the administrator. The FCC should clarify that doing so violates no agency rules, it said. “The Administrator has historically used call record data to ensure that calls placed via TRS, and minute data submitted for compensation, are in fact valid, thereby protecting the Fund from waste, fraud and abuse.”

TRS providers should never need to seek consumer consent before passing information to public safety in an emergency, NENA said. And the FCC should clarify that video relay providers may provide visual information they observe to a 911 operator, it said.

Adopting slamming rules for TRS got wide support. The rules, now applied to voice users, would protect relay users from unauthorized default provider changes. “Relay users deserve similar [slamming] protection” to hearing users, Sorenson said. The National Association of the Deaf and four other consumer groups back Sorenson’s idea for implementing slamming rules, they said. However, the groups don’t support “any requirement for third party verification of customer change orders” or allowing “preferred TRS provider freezes,” they said. The FCC should set the base penalty for TRS slamming at $4,000, GoAmerica said.

Parties disagreed on whether the FCC should impose a cutoff date for relay users to register a default provider. Users should get three months, AT&T said. Emergency and functional equivalency goals of the 10-digit TRS order won’t “be fulfilled until all Internet-based TRS users are registered and associated with a ten-digit number,” it said. Deaf consumer groups agreed, but proposed a six-month deadline.

Others opposed a cutoff date. Education encourages registration more effectively than a deadline does, NENA said. Ensuring TRS users register is “essential,” but “it would be a tragic outcome of this proceeding if a TRS user tried to use their service to dial 9-1-1 only to find their service had been cut off,” it said. To account for non- registrants, TRS providers should be able to route 911 calls based on both a caller’s registered location and a location manually entered by the TRS calling assistant, it said. Sorenson opposed a termination date, but said the FCC could revisit the issue “if the need arises due to changes in circumstances.”

TRS funds shouldn’t go for providers’ number assignment and portability costs, AT&T said. Instead, TRS providers should recover costs from users, it said. That would be functionally equivalent, it said, because voice phone users usually pay for assignment and ports. TRS users shouldn’t pay more than voice users, it added. Sprint agreed. “The costs associated with providing services should be paid by the cost causer,” it said. Sorenson and GoAmerica disagreed. Requiring users to pay “will hinder the consumers’ ability or desire to acquire numbers or to switch providers,” GoAmerica said.

Parties disagreed on what to do with toll-free numbers that providers previously distributed to relay users. “Toll free numbers go beyond functional equivalence,” since they are an enhanced service, GoAmerica said. “All Internet based TRS users who are assigned numbers must be assigned geographically appropriate numbers.” TRS users wanting to keep toll-free numbers should have to pay for them, Sprint said. Wireline and wireless customers shouldn’t have to subsidize the service, it said. Charging for toll-free service will encourage users to get geographically relevant 10-digit numbers, AT&T said. Users shouldn’t have to pay, Sorenson said. “Providers should be responsible for the costs associated with users’ numbers.”

Relay users should be able to get more than one phone number, commenters said. Relay users should be eligible “in the same way that telephone users are currently eligible for multiple numbers,” said deaf groups. The ADA requires TRS calls to be functionally equivalent to non-TRS calls, it said. AT&T also supported multiple numbers, saying FCC numbering rules and other efforts “have successfully reduced the immediate risk of number exhaust.”