Ed’s Telecom Alert

Good People,

Click to this all important NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) on text to 911.   

Text to 911

This quote is kinda self-explanatory: 

"..we [FCC] seek to accelerate the development and deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911) technology that will enable the public to send emergency communications to 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) via text, photos, videos, and data and enhance the information available to PSAPs and first responders for assessing and responding to emergencies."

That, I tell you, is simply GREAT!  Text, photos, videos, and data?  Hurzzah!  

"While continuing to ensure reliable voice-based 911 service will always be essential as we migrate to NG911, adding these non-voice capabilities to our 911 system will significantly improve emergency response, save lives, and reduce property damage. "

No kidding! I know many of us can think of instances.  One example was my own experience; about 15 years ago when I lived in Austin, I witnessed a man beating up a woman on street.  I got home and called police via 911 (supposed to be available then) a few times, and gave up and went to my neighbor to make the 911 call.   By the time they got to the location, nothing there.    To this day I wondered if the woman survived or not.   

".. these 21st century communications technologies will provide PSAPs with better information that can be synthesized with existing databases to enable emergency responders to assess and respond to emergencies more quickly and effectively.  Not only will PSAPs be able to receive text messages, photos, and video clips from the public, but also NG911 can provide them with the tools they need to quickly process and analyze the incoming information." 

Good thinking; clearly this is needed.   

"In this Notice, we provide a procedural history, together with technical background, regarding three broad classes of text-capable communications, namely Short Message Service (SMS), IP-based messaging, and Real-Time Text (RTT), comparing their characteristics, strengths, and limitations in supporting emergency communications. This description relies largely on current industry standards, early prototypes, and the record in this proceeding."

"..long-term implementation of NG911, with particular focus on IP-based alternatives for delivering text, photos, videos, and other data to 911 that would leverage the increasing percentage of mobile devices that have the ability to access the Internet." 

The FCC identified problematic area with this remark:

"With over 6,800 PSAPs in the United States, spanning a wide range of sizes and resources, individual PSAPs are likely to have highly varying timetables for developing the technical and operational capability to handle incoming texts in the short term, as well as texts and other media in the longer-term implementation of NG911.  While there are significant public safety benefits to enabling the public to send texts and other media to 911 in areas where PSAPs are capable of receiving and processing them, we seek to avoid imposing unnecessary costs on providers to implement NG911 in areas where PSAPs have not yet achieved such capability."

6,800 PSAPs; whew!

"Given that text-to-911 and other NG911 capabilities will likely not be simultaneously deployed nationwide, consumers may be uncertain where non-voice communication with 911 is available.  Even where text-to-911 or other NG911 applications are available, the specific capabilities and operational characteristics of these applications may vary.  We therefore seek comment on how to best educate consumers about the availability and limitations of text-to-911 and other NG911 solutions, particularly during the transition from legacy 911 to full implementation of NG911, without imposing an undue burden on providers."

Maybe that's where we Deaf/HH can comment?

The rest of document goes into specific outline of various technical, service, operation, etc.   The very least reading all of them will certainly give you insight.  What I did was simply highlight important ones; there are more important comments so read on, dear readers.

 eyes open & thumbs up

Ed Bosson

Long Link: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0922/FCC-11-134A1.pdf

Folks,

We all know cochlear implant is controversial.  I acknowledge that it worked very well for many people, and I also am aware that it did not work too well for many people as well.    As the cochlear technology keeps improving, it should present less problem; however, I do not think we're there yet.    It really is dependent on the individual's past history and nature of his/her losing hearing of whether this works or not.  I won't go into this, though, as this is a recall blog.   

This is a recall to a specific cochlear implant model.

Cochlear Recall Article

Quotable quotes:

"Bionic ear maker Cochlear has been forced to begin a global recall of the world’s thinnest hearing implants after some stopped working."

Model type:

"The company has begun recalling its entire Nucleus CI500 range, which makes up the bulk of its sales, from shelves after a rise in the number of faults with the CI512 model."

"While Cochlear believes the faults are unlikely to cause any health problems for people with defective implants, they are offering replacement models for re-implantation."

"Cochlear chief executive Chris Roberts said he was unable to say how many of the “very reliable” titanium-based devices were faulty."

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long LInk: http://www.suntimes.com/business/7627305-420/bionic-ear-maker-cochlear-recalls-hearing-implants.html

Folks,

Check this out.

SprintLandLine

"The service, which will offer unlimited domestic calling for $19.99 per month, lets home or small business customers use a landline phone to connect to Sprint’s wireless network."

Landline to connect to wireless network?  Cool!  But note this:

"Verizon Wireless launched a service highly similar to Sprint Phone Connect back in February. Verizon calls its offering Home Phone Connect and it, too, offers unlimited calling for $20 a month by using a device similar to the one from Axesstel that is free with a two-year contract."

I still have landline as I do occasionally use landline for TTY Relay Service and to communicate with relatives as our Internet does have high speed broadband Internet.   This is something I may check into if it is really cheaper and reliable.  Any of you used that?  If so, your feedback, please?    

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: http://www.telecompetitor.com/sprint-targets-landline-voice-customers-with-new-wireless-offering/

Folks..

Don’t y’all hate these acronyms?     RERC stands for Rehabilition Engineering Research Center, and IT = Information Technology Access, and TA = Telecommunications Access

What caught my eyes is that TA is from Gallaudet University. 

RERC Link: https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/42511rerc2.pdf

(Note: I am having problem with Word Press in adding the link to one word, so my apologies until that is fixed, you all will have to put up with long link.)

Quotable quotes:

"Gallaudet and the Trace Center have collaborated on research and development related to cross-disability access to telecommunication since 1995."

hmm – good to know. 

"We agree that the meaning of the term “manufacturer” should be the same as in the rules implementing section 255 as “an entity that makes or produces a product.” However, it should be made clear that many “products” will be software only. Such Advanced Communication software products must be clearly covered."

Uh, yeah good idea to include that.   More and more future "advanced communication software" likely will become the standard especially with advent of tablets, and mobile devices that relay on these software. 

"..if a manufacturer requires, prefers, or incentivizes (e.g., by providing increased speed) a purchaser to use a particular third-party application in order to use all the features or get all of the benefits of the device/service, then the manufacturer, rather than the user is making the choice and the manufacturer should be responsible. Finally, if the manufacturer markets its device or service in conjunction with the third-party add- on or identifies the third-party application as a reason to purchase its product, the manufacturer should be responsible."

Lot of statements similar to above quote on the responsibility of manufacturers that that they should be held responsible for full accessibility.  

The comments also indicate that ALL products/softwares should be tied to telephone number so everyone else can call each other and suggests to the FCC on wording for that. 

Comments offer rewording on various issues: one example:

"Instead of excluding “blog posts, online publishing, or messages posted on social networking websites” the commission should use language like “information that is posted to a location where it is expected to be found and read by many people over an extended period of time, rather than information directed to specific individuals or expected to be read and responded to or acted upon immediately after posting”

Now to "video conference service" comments by RERC.

"Video conferencing service should be interpreted to include the broadest range possible because none of the listed services is likely to exist in its current form in 20 years, but the legislation will still need to be meaningful. The definition should be wide in order to prevent new technologies from defining themselves out of the requirements."

AMEN!  One only have to look back at Baudot Syndrome (locked to TTY machines and not able to grow out of it to a newer technologies).

"We agree with the consumer groups that VRS services are covered – the video leg of the VRS meets the definition. Further, individuals who are deaf have unfortunately not been given a get-out-of-jail-free card for other types of disabilities, nor from the effects of aging. To say that a system for the deaf should be exempt from other types of accessibility would be to deny the human condition or to claim that deaf people are exempt from it."

YES!  In other words, VRS to be integrated into mainstream video conference for everyone including hearing persons.  

The next comment touches on "Interoperability".  RERC had right idea.  Read the following comments and breathe a sigh of relief and hope that the FCC agrees.

"The fact that video relay service wasn’t always interoperable from the beginning was an unfortunate anomaly. All progress in this area is toward interoperable VRS, including both interoperability among VRS services and interoperability with the public communication system. Purely for economic reasons, it is important that deaf people be able to make point-to-point calls with each other and with other members of the public, (rather than having to always rely on publicly funded relay services because of incompatible videophones)."

"It makes no sense to build next-generation emergency systems that need to support a variety of different incompatible video communication systems in order to be able to accept emergency calls from different deaf callers. Nor should we have an emergency system that is different from the system used for mainstream video communication calls. Videophone interoperability is particularly essential in a disaster, because the emergency systems will be overwhelmed and people who are deaf will need to turn to anyone who can help them. So their video systems need to work with mainstream video systems as well as that of other deaf people – point to point. Video communication services, therefore, should be required to be interoperable with each other and with other ACS (mainstream and special)."

Duh, that’s really no brainer.  

Other comments focused on "waiver" and how the FCC should and should not allow waiver for manufacturers/providers to "get away from it".   

One example of above is the following comment:

"We agree with the Commission that there should not be a blanket exemption for small business. There are many ways that accessibility can be incorporated even in the work of a small business."

Love that!    Often small business will try to "get away with it" by saying they’re a small company and cannot meet the disability access criteria.  Duh, with this rule if passed, they can’t use that.  

I just realized that I’m half way.    If you’re intrigued, read the link.  Sometimes not easy to read and understand, but good suggestions from RERC. 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Link: https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/42511rerc2.pdf