the Commission from permitting carriers "to impose a fixed monthly charge on residential customers to recover the costs of providing interstate telecommunications relay services." We believe this restriction on FCC flexibility is ill-advised.

We believe that the primary incentive for efficiency and innovation in the provision of relay service is the requirement that the service provider satisfy the end user through a central agency implementing and administering the service-both initially through a competitive bidding process and periodically as contracts expire and are re-bid, that the best relay service possible is being provided consistent with the funding that is available. If, however, each interstate carrier is required to provide relay service and is unable, as a practical matter, to recover its full cost of providing the service, economic incentives will pressure the carrier to shift its focus from one of providing quality service to one of providing the minimum service possible in order to cut costs.

As the subcommittee is aware, the long distance business today is highly competitive. Any carrier that undertook the additional costs of providing relay service in such a market would find its self at a cost disadvantage with its competitors. Moreover, many of AT&T's competitors have chosen not to market their services to those they deem less profitable. As a result, about 90 percent of zero and low long distance users are AT&T customers, because AT&T's competitors do not promote their services to such customers. If these carriers cannot fully recover the costs of mandated relay service, they will have every incentive to discourage disabled persons from using their networks, thereby shifting such costs to AT&T, the carrier which is committed to serving all Americans.

It is unrealistic to assume that interstate carriers can recover the cost of providing relay service in their charges for other competitive services. The competition for all interstate services will not permit a carrier to increase arbitrarily the prices of its services. Moreover, because AT&T has chosen to serve all telephone users and serves a disproportionate share of disabled customers, AT&T would incur the overwhelming proportion of such costs.

We believe the proper funding approach should be similar to that adopted in those States that have implemented successful relay services, i.e., broad-based funding across the general population. Such funding ensures that those that benefit from the implementation of telecommunications relay service, e.g., all potential users of telephone service, share in its costs, and that no one party is forced to shoulder a disproportionate burden.

For these reasons, AT&T recommends that the FCC be accorded flexibility similar to that accorded the States to exercise its authority and determine the appropriate funding vehicle for the interstate portion of a nationwide relay system. Such flexibility was recommended by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh when he testified before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources:

Establishment of a telecommunications relay service is clearly a vital step toward full integration of deaf persons into the mainstream. Legislation addressing_this issue, though, should take into account the ongoing Federal Communications Commission inquiry mandated by the Telecommunications Accessibility Act, and preserve the degree of freedom for the FCC to use its expertise in determining which specific requirements will result in the most efficient and cost-effective system. (Testimony of June 22, 1989 (emphasis added).)

The FCC has pending a rulemaking proceeding in which it is evaluating methods of providing and funding telecommunications relay services. AT&T agrees with the Attorney General that the Commission should be granted the maximum degree of freedom to design, fund, and implement an efficient, cost-effective and innovative relay system, and recommends that language restricting such freedom be removed from Title IV.

In closing, AT&T strongly supports the goal of a nationwide relay system, and wants to ensure that such a system will provide the quality service which the hearing and speech impaired expect and deserve.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Ms. Karen Strauss, here from the National Center for Law and the Deaf.

STATEMENT OF KAREN PELTZ STRAUSS

Ms. STRAUSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Center for Law and the Deaf is a public service of Gallaudet University. We

have provided legal services for deaf and hearing-impaired people throughout the country since 1975.

Earlier, Dr. Jordan pointed out the critical need for nationwide relay services. Without relay services, deaf and speech-impaired people have been forced to depend on others in order to make simple telephone calls that you and I consider a part-a regular part of our daily lives.

No close telephone access for these individuals can be so burdensome, and lack of such access as caused these individuals social and economic isolation from their community.

The need for federally mandated relay services becomes clear when one takes a look at the State relay programs that now exist. There was a lot mentioned today about the State programs, and I would like to show you that most of these programs are understaffed and underfunded.

As a consequence, many of the programs impose severe restrictions on telephone use by their users. To date, there are only 17 States, far fewer than half of all States, with formal relay pro-. grams are actually up and running.

Relay systems are hopefully scheduled to begin in approximately 10 more States within the next few years; and still other States, including Florida, Michigan, Rhode Island, are considering legislative or regulatory measures to develop statewide relay services.

Unfortunately, as I said, most of the State programs that exist fall short of meeting the basic telephone needs of their hearing-impaired residents. Many of the State programs, including New York, California, Illinois, and Louisiana, and Alabama, do not allow interstate calls through relays.

One can imagine the hardship that this imposes on deaf people. Many other relay programs have imposed restrictions on the number of lanes and types of calls that can be relayed in their States.

For example, the relay program in Arkansas limits users to a period of 15 minutes per call, and disallows personal telephone calls. In Kansas, calls are only accepted for relaying Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and are not accepted at all on State holidays.

Massachusetts places a 10 minute limit on personal calls, and a 20 minute limit on business calls; and New Hampshire limits the number of calls that may be relayed by any one person to five per day, with a limit of 15 minutes per call.

Even those relay programs that don't impose specific restrictions on their residents, suffer from delays and blockage rates far in excess of that to which voice users are accustomed.

In many of these States, it is not uncommon for a relay user to call the relay line and either get a busy signal, or have a long delay before they can actually make a call.

Other sections of the ADA will not mean very much for deaf people if they do not have equal access to the telephone. For example, Title I proposes to prohibit discrimination on the basis of employment. This section offers hope to deaf people that they can one day receive equal opportunity in the business world.

Yet, this promise of equality is meaningless for a deaf entrepreneur who is told that he can only use the telephone a few times a

36-873 0-91-16

day during certain hours of the day. The economic hardship that such an individual would face would put into serious question his ability to run a business as successfully as his hearing colleague. Another section of the ADA promises equality in a provision of State and local government services, yet we all know what it is like to try and call a local city office and be put on hold for an indeterminate amount of time.

What happens when the relay operator tells the deaf relay user that they must hang up, because their 15 minutes is up. In effect, that individual has been cut off from that city service that is otherwise guaranteed by the ADA.

The same situation could occur when there are times to purchase theatre tickets for a desirable showing. A person can call up, and be put on hold, and be told by the relay operator to hang up before she has gotten any tickets

Yet, the ADA again promises equality of access to theatres and other public accommodations. Despite the many shortcomings of all of these State programs, there has been an overwhelming response to the relay services where they can be available.

As you pointed out earlier, the numbers in California are approaching 245,000 calls per month. In New York, the figures are projected at 100,000 calls per month, and in Minnesota, 20,000 to 30,000 calls per month are typically relayed.

The relay section of the ADA will ensure that nationwide relay services truly provide equal access to the telephone network. I disagree in part with some statements made earlier by Gail Garfield Schwartz that FCC standards are not necessary.

I think that the past experience that we have seen with State programs, showing how inadequate they have been, demonstrate the need for detailed standards to ensure minimum guidelines for all relay systems.

Under the legislation, relay services would be made available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without any restriction on the type, length, or number of calls made by any relay users.

As I said, the FCC will issue minimum standards and guidelines under the ADA, and it is critical that deaf and speech-impaired relay users partake in this decisionmaking process.

At the same time that the ADA mandates these minimum requirements, the act gives telephone companies a great deal of flexibility in determining how to establish and fund their systems. In addition, States that already have systems or plans to begin a system in the near future, can continue to operate and govern those systems as long as they meet minimum FCC guidelines and standards.

In conclusion, this is not the first occasion on which this subcommittee has considered the issue of telecommunications access for disabled people. On at least two prior occasions, the Telecommunications for the Disabled Act of 1982, and the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, this subcommittee has acted to expand telephone accessibility for hearing-impaired persons.

In passing the 1982 Act, this committee explained that one of the most frustrating aspects of hearing impairments and deafness is the inability to use the telecommunications media on which modern life has grown so dependent.

At that time, the committee declared a national policy, that all persons, including the disabled, should have available the best telecommunications service that is feasible.

The establishment of nationwide relay services will finally take the giant step towards achieving this goal. The access to full telephone service that the ADA guaranteed will give deaf and speechimpaired individuals a fair chance to enjoy the opportunities created by other sections of the ADA.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the relay provision. I encourage this subcommittee to do whatever is necessary to ensure that this dream for equal telephone access comes true. Thank you.

[Testimony resumes on p. 42.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Strauss follows:]

Statement of Gallaudet University and
The National Center for Law and the Deafl

Before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance of the

House Committee on Energy and Commerce

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to express our views on The Americans with Disabilities Act. Gallaudet University and the National Center for Law and the Deaf2 wish to express our overwhelming support for this legislation. We believe that this legislation, and, in particular, Title IV of the Act, requiring intra- and interstate relay services, is long overdue and will vastly improve the lives of deaf, hearing impaired, and speech impaired Americans.

In 1934, the Communications Act set forth a mandate that access to telecommunication services at reasonable charges be made available "so far as possible to all the people of the United States. However, this promise of

49 U.S.C. § 151.

universal service has excluded hearing impaired citizens for the past five decades. Without equal access to the telephone, individuals with hearing and speech impairments have been denied the opportunity to fully participate in the mainstream of

1 Prepared by Karen Peltz Strauss, Supervising Attorney of the National Center for Law and the Deaf, with the assistance of Bob Richardson and Angela Campbell, Attorneys with the Institute for Public Representation.

2 Gallaudet University is the only four year liberal arts university for deaf students in the world. The National Center for Law and the Deaf is a public service of Gallaudet University that has provided legal services to hearing impaired individuals throughout the country since 1975.