Thread Subject: Re: VoIP enabled cell phones
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: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Dec 21 2006 3:55 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jagbell: "Re: VoIP enabled cell phones"
- Previous message in thread: BLACKLER, ELLEN (SBCSI): "Re: VoIP enabled cell phones"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Ellen is right - the FCC could decide that 255 covers VoIP - just like they
decided that 2 other information services (voice mail and IVR services) are
covered under 255. VoIP was not under consideration by the 1996 because it
did not exist back then.
----- Original Message -----
From: "BLACKLER, ELLEN (SBCSI)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "Pam Ransom" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] VoIP enabled cell phones
> In the Telecom Act, section 255 applies explicitly to
> "telecommunications services", which do not include VOIP. The FCC has
> not yet determined that VOIP is a telecommunication service. If they
> make such a determination, then 255 would apply. The FCC could also
> determine they can extend accessibility requirements to VOIP using some
> other jurisdictional basis as they did with voicemail, which is also not
> a telecommunication service. But they have not done that yet either.
> Or congress could do it with a change in law.
> Regardless, AT&T would support development of standards for
> accessibility for VOIP. They would be immediately relevant for 508 and
> they would be useful for the FCC in considering the issue. I think it
> would be easier for the FCC to consider it if they had something
> concrete before them. Having said that, it seems to me there are
> technical reasons that different standards might be necessary for VOIP
> versus traditional telephony - not because consumers needs are
> different, but because the way the needs are achieved might be different
> for the different platforms.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:13 PM
> To: 'Pam Ransom'; 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] VoIP enabled cell phones
> Pam wrote:
>> All that's being stated is the fact that Section 255 doesn't
>> cover VoIP.
> This raises a question for me. Was VoIP excluded from consideration in
> text of the Telecom Act, or only by how the FCC chose to regulate? So,
> example, could the FCC now rule that 255 *does* apply to VoIP, with or
> without making a large decision about VoIP? I know it's a different
> of fish, but I remember Judge Green ruling that, for the sake of
> accessibility only (TRS), that the Baby Bells could carry telephone
> across LATA boundaries, something they were forbidden to do for other
> purposes. Sorry if this makes no sense.
- Next message in Thread: Jagbell: "Re: VoIP enabled cell phones"
- Previous message in Thread: BLACKLER, ELLEN (SBCSI): "Re: VoIP enabled cell phones"