Thread Subject: Re: VoIP enabled cell phones

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Pam Ransom
Date: Thu, Dec 21 2006 2:35 PM

All that's being stated is the fact that Section 255 doesn't cover VoIP.
Advisory Council members, through the subcommittee process and its
deliberations will figure out how to best address VoIP in its
recommendations to the Access Board.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] VoIP enabled cell phones


> Why would we want to create separate accessibility rules for VoIP and
> non-VoIP? Just because the FCC has purely historical difficulties
> regulating VoIP doesn't mean that we have to. Frankly, we've been waiting
6
> years for an answer to the VoIP question -- why wait longer when we have
the
> opportunity and are in fact being asked to press forward?
>
> It seems better for everyone if we bite the bullet and create a single
voice
> telephony accessibility framework. It may be that manufacturers and
service
> providers will actually benefit from this simplicity and clarity.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:53 AM
> > To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> > Cc: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] VoIP enabled cell phones
> >
> > You might treat PSTN and VoIP products as separate, with a
> > separate set of
> > rules for each (which may be mostly - but not all- the same).
> > You can then
> > say what rules apply to each (for 508 which covers both) yet
> > make it easy to
> > separate the requirements for 255 (for as long as it only
> > covers one). In
> > the future if congress says that VoIP should be under the
> > same or separate rules we would be all set.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Pam
> > > Ransom
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:47 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] VoIP enabled cell phones
> > >
> > > David - There is always a challenge of working on two completely
> > > different laws in one "refresh', and keeping the parameters
> > of the two
> > > different laws separate.
> > >
> > > Speaking only about Section 255 of the Telecom Act - VoIP is not
> > > covered. In fact the FCC's 255 Report and Order included a Further
> > > Notice of Inquiry asking whether VoIP should be covered by
> > 255 - and
> > > since that time (1999) the FCC hasn't taken any action on
> > that Further
> > > Notice of Inquiry.
> > >
> > > Our subcommittee can certainly discuss and make suggestions
> > about VoIP
> > > in the 255 context, however the Advisory Subcommittee
> > doesn't have the
> > > authority to determine that VoIP is covered by 255, only
> > the FCC has
> > > that authority.
> > >
> > > Pam Ransom
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Baquis David " < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:42 PM
> > > Subject: [teitac-telecom] VoIP enabled cell phones
> > >
> > >
> > > > I received a technical assistance inquiry today from
> > > someone who asked
> > > > if there are TTY-accessible VoIP (Voice of Internet
> > > Protocol) enabled
> > > > cell phones.
> > > >
> > > > Beyond my days in the TTY Forum, I was uncertain if there are new
> > > > wireless VoIP accessibility barriers that I might not be aware of.
> > > > Perhaps the wireless industry can offer expert input on
> > > this. I would
> > > > need a basic primer as to how a regular digital cell
> > phone differs
> > > > from a VoIP cell phone.
> > > >
> > > > Related to that, I wonder if the subcommittee has considered
> > > > recommending whether VoIP should be addressed *explicitly* in the
> > > > refresh. We get that yes/no question about whether VoIP
> > > products are
> > > > covered. We have people who specifically look for the
> > > term, VoIP, in
> > > > the standards.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you can address this point specifically, in your upcoming
> > > > status report to the plenary about your subcommittee
> > > discussions. Some
> > > > people are of the opinion that the standards apply to telecom
> > > > functionality and that it should not matter whether a phone
> > > is analog,
> > > > digital or VoIP - that they are all covered. On the other
> > > hand, others
> > > > are uneasy about appearing to preempt the FCC by saying
> > > VoIP products
> > > > are telecom covered by accessibility regulations, before
> > > they say so.
> > > > We cut VoIP out of the current published telecom technical
> > > assistance
> > > > for that reason. The flip side of this question is how
> > > would you feel
> > > > about refreshed standards that said absolutely nothing
> > > about VoIP. I
> > > > can tell you that it would not serve the needs of federal
> > customers
> > > > who want clarity on that subject of how to know with
> > > confidence that
> > > > the new VoIP system they want to buy is fully accessible.
> > > >
> > > > David Baquis
> > > > Accessibility Specialist
> > > > U.S. Access Board
> > > > 1331 F Street, NW, #1000
> > > > Washington, DC 20004
> > > > 800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice) www.access-board.gov;
> > > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > >
> > > >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University