for TDD users which is equal to that available to users of voice telephones. By requiring all carriers to offer relay services, the legislation will ensure uniformity of service across the states. In addition, because some states may have smaller populations of persons with severe speech or hearing impairments, they may not have had sufficient incentive to begin their own relay programs. The coordinated, nationwide system envisioned by the ADA would allow for regionally based relay centers to handle calls from more than one state, thus reducing overall costs. Operational costs could be shared, including costs associated with facilities, labor, administration, publicity, and research.

MINIMUM STANDARDS

Under the pending legislation, relay services will be available twenty four hours each day, seven days a week, without restrictions on the type, length, or number of calls made by any relay user. Moreover, under the Act, relay users are assured

confidentiality of their calls.

They are also given the promise

that the rates they pay for any relayed call will be no greater than the rates charged for a direct dial call with the same points of origination and termination.

Although the legislation

pending does not so specify, the Senate Report also makes clear that the blockage rate for relayed calls should be no higher than the blockage rate for voice telephone users under industry standards. We urge as well the inclusion of language in the Conference Report that requires relay systems to accept and relay calls originating from TDDS that use either the ASCII or Baudot

format.

The Senate Report to the ADA emphasizes that relay service centers are to be staffed by professional operators. These operators must be thoroughly familiar with the culture and language of the hearing impaired community. Moreover, operators should be sufficiently skilled in typing, spelling, and grammar in order to facilitate the flow of communication between the relay users.

The Senate Report also discusses "the unique and specialized. needs of the population that will be utilizing telecommunications relay services", and recommends that the FCC obtain input from these populations in a formal manner. Specifically, the Senate recommends the establishment of an advisory committee made up of relay service consumers and telephone carriers that would advise the FCC on the development and continued operation of the relay systems. We cannot state strongly enough the need for such a committee. Deaf and speech impaired users of relay systems have first hand knowledge of their relay needs. Any system approved or designed by the FCC must incorporate the opinions and advice of these individuals.

MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY

At the same time that the ADA mandates these minimum requirements, the Act affords considerable flexibility to both common carriers and states that set up their own relay systems. For example, under the Act, states that already have relay programs may continue operating those programs. The state need

10

only meet the standards and guidelines promulgated by the FCC pursuant to this law, in order to receive certification

>

permitting it to maintain and oversee its own relay system.

Moreover, the ADA grants common carriers sufficient flexibility to provide relay services in the most efficient and effective manner they see possible. For example, it allows state regulators to designate an entity to provide relay service to customers in their states. Thus all the companies in a given state might contract with a single entity to provide relay services on a statewide basis. This approach was adopted in New York, where all loca. telephone companies are required by the New York Public Service Commission to provide relay services. companies contracted with AT&T for the provision of relay services on a statewide basis.

Those

In addition, the Act leaves to the discretion of the common carriers the means by which relay systems may be funded. Financing for state systems which are already in place has been obtained through a variety of methods. Many states have chosen to add a nominal surcharge to the monthly telephone bills of their telephone subscribers.9 Other states, such as Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, appropriate money to finance their programs through

Alabama - $.20, with a $.25 cap; Colorado $.10 cap: Hawaii $.18: Illinois $.03; Connecticut - $.05; Louisiana $.05; Michigan $.10; North Carolina - $.25; Oklahoma - $.05; Oregon $.10: South Dakota - $.10; Utah - $.03-.07; Washington, - $.08. In Arizona, telephone bills are increased .6%, and in California, .5% each month to pay for their relay systems.

11

general revenues. Still other states assess the relay costs to the telephone companies, who treat them as normal operating expenses and recover them in their general rates. Two such states that finance relay systems in this way are New York and Delaware.

It is important to remember that relay services are beneficial to all members of our society, not just those with hearing or speech impairments. Relay communication is a two-way process between both TDD and voice telephone users. In any event, telecommunications relay services are much less expensive than available alternatives. Unless relay services are provided, society must incur the costs associated with isolating people with disabilities from the rest of the population. These costs include the costs of lost productivity, unemployment and underemployment, and diminished markets for certain goods and

services.

By not restricting the type of relay services that may be provided to those that rely on TDDS, the ADA also leaves the door open to new technologies that might further facilitate telephone communication for individuals with hearing and speech impairments. Indeed, technological advances are likely to lower the costs of relay services in the future. As technology develops to automate relay functions through, for example, voice synthesis and speech-to-text conversion, costs can be expected to decrease significantly. The advent of these technologies may allow calls to be relayed without human intervention.

12

TIME FOR COMPLIANCE

As originally passed by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the ADA would have required telephone companies to begin relay operations within two years after enactment of the ADA. As passed by the Senate Committee, the ADA would also allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to grant an extension of up to one additional year to any telephone company that could prove it would suffer an undue burden if required to meet the two year deadline.

By floor amendment, the Senate extended the time for carrier compliance from two to three years. Given the fact that the Senate has provided all carriers with an additional year by which to begin operations, we see no purpose in also leaving in the ADA the one year waiver provision. The technology needed to begin

relay operations already exists. In comments to an earlier proceeding before the FCC, AT&T made clear that the carrier industry already has the technical equipment, standards, and knowhow necessary to begin a nationwide relay system. Moreover, our experiences with the various state programs illustrate that a relay system can be set up from start to finish - within a period of one to two years. The FCC is required to issue regulations setting forth minimum standards and guidelines for relay services within one year; this leaves more than enough time for all carriers to start up relay operations under the new

Senate floor amendment.

For the above reasons, we urge the committee to delete that