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: Jagbell
Date: Thu, Dec 21 2006 5:00 PM

I agree. The goal of this group is to converge items where possible
and not to perpetuate artificial distinctions. People will
understand the issues if we simplify the rules. As it is now, these
artificial distinctions only confuse people.

Janice


On Dec 21, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Karen Peltz Strauss wrote:

> 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
>> the
>> text of the Telecom Act, or only by how the FCC chose to
>> regulate? So,
>> for
>> 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
>> kettle
>> of fish, but I remember Judge Green ruling that, for the sake of
>> accessibility only (TRS), that the Baby Bells could carry telephone
>> traffic
>> across LATA boundaries, something they were forbidden to do for other
>> purposes. Sorry if this makes no sense.
>>
>>

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