IP: FCC NOI Section 255 Requirements for IP Telephony

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Press Release with Links to Report and Order
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9075.html
>
> In the Matter of
> Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
> Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications
> Act of 1996
>
> Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and
> Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities
>
> WT Docket No. 96-198
>
>
> REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF INQUIRY
>
>       Adopted:  July 14, 1999; Released:  September 29, 1999
>
>
> a.  Internet Telephony
>
>       177. Internet Protocol telephony ("Internet" or "IP" 
> telephony) services
> enable real-time voice transmission using the Internet Protocol (IP), a
> packet-switched communications protocol.  The services can be provided in
> two basic ways:  computer-to-computer IP telephony conducted through special
> software and hardware at an end user's premises; or phone-to-phone IP
> telephony conducted through "gateways" that enable applications originating
> and/or terminating on the public switched network.  Phone-to-phone IP
> telephony is provided through computer gateways that allow end users to make
> and receive calls using their traditional telephones.  Gateways translate
> the circuit-switched voice signal into IP packets, and vice versa, and
> perform associated signalling, control, and address translation functions.
> The voice communications can then be transmitted along with other data on
> the "public" Internet, or can be routed through intranets or other private
> data networks for improved performance.
>
>       178.  Many commenters urged that we apply the requirements of 
> Section 255
> to Internet telephony ("IP telephony") in general or phone-to-phone IP
> telephony, specifically.   They pointed out that, given the evolutions in
> communications and the rapid pace of technological innovation, we need to
> ensure that as new services and networks are developed they are designed to
> provide access to persons with disabilities.  They noted that it is during
> the development stage that accessibility can be most effectively included.
> We are concerned that consumers who are simply attempting to place or
> receive a call using standard CPE not have their accessibility disappear or
> diminished because the call is being transmitted using a new, developing
> technology.  In addition, commenters stated that if persons with
> disabilities cannot participate in communications over these newly
> developing networks, they risk becoming further marginalized from society.
>
>       179.  We ask commenters to provide any further information as 
> to the extent
> to which phone-to-phone IP telephony services might impact the disability
> community, and the steps, we should take to address any adverse impacts in
> order to fulfill the goals of section 255, or otherwise promote the
> accessibility of this technology.  Commenting parties should offer specific
> suggestions as to the appropriate role for the Commission in guaranteeing
> access and the statutory basis for that role.  For example, commenters
> should address ways in which phone to phone IP telephony may be interpreted
> as falling within the purview of section 255.  Commenters should provide
> specific definitions of the services or equipment to which the statute might
> apply, and the appropriate means of limiting its application to only those
> services and equipment.  Commenters should address the ways, if any, in
> which industry bodies can ensure access without  regulatory action.
> Commenters should also describe the specific access issues or experiences
> that might arise with IP telephony. For example, will TTY tones be
> adequately transmitted in a packet-switched environment?  Will persons with
> speech disabilities whose speech patterns and voice outputs from alternative
> and augmentative communications devices may fall outside of traditional
> voice patterns, face additional communications barriers with packetized
> voice services?
>
>       180.   We further ask commenters to address what efforts 
> manufacturers of
> equipment that performs phone-to-phone IP telephony functions and providers
> of phone-to-phone IP telephony services are currently making to ensure that
> such equipment and services are accessible.  What improvements in
> accessibility may be possible through the use of phone-to-phone IP
> telephony? Are there natural opportunities for incorporating accessibility
> into IP telephony?  can greater accessibility be achieved if requirements
> are adopted early in the development of IP Telephony?  Is it possible that
> greater levels of accessibility will be readily achievable with IP telephony
> than conventional telephony? How will compatibility with assistive
> technology affect the use of  IP telephony?
>
>       181.  Commenters should also address the extent to which IP 
> telephony is
> now, or soon will be, an effective substitute for conventional
> circuit-switched telephony.  As Internet usage grows, phone-to-phone voice
> IP telephony may be used with increasing frequency as an alternative to more
> traditional telephone service.  How extensive is Internet telephony usage
> today?  What is the projected usage of Internet telephony in the near
> future? What is the projected use of various kinds of IP telephony by
> persons with disabilities?
>
>       182. Commenters are asked to describe differences in characteristics
> between computer-based and phone-based IP telephony, and whether such
> differences merit different treatment by the Commission. Given the rapid
> pace of technological change in the telecommunications marketplace, we also
> ask commenters to apprise us of any new technologies that may impact the
> availability of accessible services and equipment.
>
>               b.  Computer Based Equipment
>
>       183.  We also seek comment on another aspect of the network 
> of the future
> -- the movement of telecommunications and information service functions from
> the network, or the terminal equipment which connects directly to the
> network, into computer equipment which does not connect to the network
> directly.  This computer hardware and software is not typically regarded as
> CPE, but may, in fact, deliver the same functions we seek to make
> accessible.  For instance, voicemail, interactive menus, or phone-to-phone
> IP telephony in current network topologies can reside in equipment located
> on the service provider's premises, but such functionalities are also
> available in several forms to end users on their own premises.  For example,
> voicemail can be purchased from a carrier, can be provided via software and
> a private branch exchange (PBX), or can be provided through a computer that
> connects with the PBX, but is not generally regarded as part of the PBX.  It
> is this latter application as to which we seek comment.
>
>       184.  These software applications shift the potential for accessibility
> solutions from the core of the network to the end user's premises.  We
> therefore ask commenters to address whether equipment that provides these
> capabilities, but which does not connect directly into the public network
> (or otherwise directly receive the transmission of the telecommunications),
> should be considered to be CPE subject to the requirements of section 255.
> We note, for example, that this Order does not currently reach a software
> telephone or the personal computer on which it resides, even though it
> performs the same functions as the traditional telephone.
>
>       185.  We ask commenters to address the need to include this 
> computer-based
> equipment as CPE or otherwise apply the provisions of these rules to that
> equipment in order to ensure access.  We also ask commenters to address
> whether failure to bring such equipment within the scope of section 255
> would create a serious gap in coverage that would interfere with our ability
> to effectively implement its provisions.   Commenters should offer
> suggestions as to the appropriate role for the Commission in ensuring access
> for this kind of equipment and the statutory basis for that role.  We also
> ask about the potential for this kind of equipment for improving
> accessibility and its compatibility with assistive technology.  Is it
> possible that greater levels of accessibility will be readily achievable if
> this kind of equipment has accessibility requirements?
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com