Absence of VRS in accessibility decision riles disability group

The Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) is criticizing a recent CRTC ruling on access to telecommunications and broadcast services for not mandating video relay service (VRS). Disability groups praise several directives but the provision exonerating companies from a mandatory VRS is not one of them. Released July 21, the decision is the culmination of a fall hearing that examined the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services to persons with disabilities. It ruled out the mandatory provision of a national VRS—which was a key demand of organizations representing the deaf or hard-of-hearing—on the basis that there was “insufficient” evidence to mandate Telephone Service Providers to offer the service. In particular the CRTC was concerned that there was little evidence presented at the hearing to determine the cost of providing VRS, in addition to worries about the size of the individual VRS user market. At the hearing, telecom companies argued that the cost of setting up a national VRS was prohibitive, with some, such as Rogers Communications Inc., estimating that it could cost $100 million per year for an estimated 30,000 users. Rogers also estimated that in 10 years, the cost could shoot up to $1 billion. VRS allows the deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech impaired to make phone calls via an Internet video connection linked to a relay centre. The centre is staffed with sign language interpreters. It enables people with hearing or speech difficulties to communicate with normal people in real time. While generally praising the decision as a positive step, especially the mandatory provision of Internet Protocol Service, which enhances communication for persons with hearing or speech disabilities, Gary Malkowski, special advisor to the CHS’ president, public affairs, said he was very disappointed that the CRTC found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a national VRS connecting all parts of Canada. “I was surprised at the announcement,” he said, adding that several organizations, such as the CHS, Canadian Association of the Deaf, Rogers, Bell Canada, all presented evidence at the hearing. “So I feel they have enough evidence to go ahead and make the decision. I am quite disappointed that they say they have insufficient evidence.” In issuing the ruling, the CRTC said “further investigation” is needed on the feasibility of a VRS and that the Commission will have to assess whether a follow-up proceeding is necessary three years from now, a decision likely to go down well with Rogers Communications Inc., which argued last year that there was a need for a separate hearing on VRS. VRS is currently available in Canada on a regional basis in Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver through a pilot project run by Telus and an American company called Sorenson Communications. It is financed with funds from the CRTC-mandated deferral accounts. The CRTC has also ruled that any Telephone Service Provider that wishes to provide VRS on national or regional basis is welcome to do so upon approval and vetting from the Commission. “That comment being in the announcement bothers me,” said Malkowski, stressing that it may deter telecom companies from initiating VRS. Some of the key stipulations of the decision, which become effective in 2010, can be found below: -Telecommunications companies will provide a new relay service—Internet Protocol Relay Service. -Possible improvements to 9-1-1 emergency services, which include text messaging to 9-1-1. -Broadcasters should improve the quality and control of Closed Captioning (CC), including providing it in digital formats. (The CRTC envisages imposing this in broadcasters conditions of licence during licence renewals) -Wireless service providers should offer one type of wireless mobile handset that meets the needs of the blind, those with mobility or cognitive difficulties. -Decision requires television broadcasters to provide described video through conditions of licence to be imposed during licence renewals. It also imposes conditions to increase awareness and accessibility of described video. -Television broadcasters are required to provide high-quality audio description. -French-language broadcasters will have the same obligations in providing closed captioning or described video.

Absence of VRS in accessibility decision riles disability group

News | 07/30/2009 6:25 pm EDT

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us