Thread Subject: Re: RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.

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: Paul E. Jones
Date: Tue, Jun 19 2007 2:20 AM

Gregg,



Possibly-as long as (2) does not mandate interfacing some text-capable
"add-on" device to an IP phone using some undefined interface. I can't see
a sustainable market for such a device for many reasons.



Still, I can't walk into a facility and use my own text phone, which is
something I'd love to the privilege to be able to do.



In my view, the most important thing is to not break what we have today and
then to also introduce radically new technologies. Based on what I've been
told, this is what people want. So, to that end, I still get the feeling
that there's too much emphasis on a voice phone. Do users care? Do users
really want to have text display on any phone? Would they use it? Would
they prefer to have alternative capabilities (e.g., soft phones, etc)? My
point is that manufacturers, enterprise IT staff, and carriers have limited
bandwidth to implement, test, and support various options. We ought to only
mandate those things users demand and it surprises me that users would
demand the ability to see text on any phone (even when there is no
keyboard), when new kinds of text devices would likely be a significantly
higher priority.



Paul





From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:32 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.



You concern is a good one.



I thought it was captured though by provision #2 in this text.





(a) Telecommunications terminals and other terminals capable of providing
real-time voice communications which do not themselves provide TTY or other
real-time text conversation functionality shall comply with the following:

1. All analog and TDM-digital wired terminals shall support the
connection of a TTY in the same location and with the permissions for use as
the telephone. This shall be accomplished by providing an RJ-11 jack on the
telephone, or, in the case of an analog telephone, by the use of a Y-adapter
that allows both the analog telephone and the TTY to be plugged into the
same line outlet, or have built in capability to support an RJ11 module that
can provide a connection point for TTYs;
2. Other types of terminals covered by this section shall support the
connection of real-time text capable devices in conjunction with the voice
call capability in the same location and the same permissions for use as the
terminal.
3. Shall be capable of allowing simultaneous speech and text
conversation without interference or its microphone shall be capable of
being turned on and off to allow the user to intermix speech with text use.






Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:21 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.



Gregg,



But, there's nothing in the proposed law that would encourage or require
such a network enablement. The only provisions that I see are ones that
require some change to a phone. In any case, I will not push it since I
know that there is a lot of work required to enable devices that just
"appear" on the network.



Still, I feel like something is missing. An enterprise could text-enable
those phones with multi-line displays, do nothing else, and claim
compliance. How would end users feel about that? It would be a worse
interface than what users have today with TTY devices. TTY devices at least
have a keyboard, but the proposed law will not require that a keyboard be
provided for any deaf user, will it?



Paul





From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:04 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.



Either would seem to be sufficient to meet this. as long as 'hooking up to
the network' would give the same privileges as using the phone.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.

Gregg,



What do you mean by "provide a way to connect a phone that does support text
in parallel"? Does this allow me to bring an IP text device into an office
and be able to use it for communication, or am I going to be forced to
interface my text device with a voice phone? I am not opposed if people
want to interconnect a text device with a phone, but I don't want to be
forced to do that when I have a perfectly good working portable device that
has text and voice capability, my address book, and settings that are
suitable for me. So, what's missing is the ability for me to interface in
some way to the network. Do we want to enable IP text devices to interact
with the system without a voice telephone?



Paul





From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:17 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.





Hi Paul,



Thanks.



Just so people aren't confused - let me state the current language in the
telecom proposal



The current language does no propose that all phones be made into text
phones.



Availability: What is proposed is

1) EITHER support real time text OR provide a way to connect a phone
that does support text in parallel. (This is basically the same as today
with TTY)

2) IF an IP PHONE *already* has a multi-line display - THEN display IP
text that you receive (this is software only)

3) IF an IP PHONE *already* has a keyboard or allows a keyboard
interface - THEN allow the phone to send IP text. (this is software only
again)



Reliability: That all telecom systems support some type of reliable IP text
format. (Standard within the system but different closed systems can use
different technologies)



Interoperability: That all systems and devices that connect to the public
phone system support the standard format for the system to ensure
interoperability.

- for PSTN that is TIA 825

- for IP SIP it would be RFC 4103 (though there is also a proposal
on the list so support BOTH RFC-4103 and RFC-4351)










Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.

Gregg,



I still do not think it is a good idea to require every phone to support
real-times text. Not every phone today supports text, while they certainly
could. Baudot is trivial, the it could be integrated into my wireless phone
very easily. But, that's not what I would want to use!



I think we need to "be careful what we ask for", otherwise what we might
have is a large number of inferior devices and then people asking, "what
more do you want?"" There might be a resistance to consider making other
options available.



Today, not every phone is accessible. But, what is accessible is the phone
network. A user can use his equipment (or provided equipment) and access
the PSTN to communicate with anybody in the world. They key is "network
access", not "phone access". If we wanted to mandate public phones have
integrated RFC 4103 capabilities, fine. Those are closed systems that might
offer no other interface. Or will they? It might be possible to use an
external text device that works wirelessly with the public phone as a
"natural extension" of the phone. (Never discount the possibility that
technology might evolve in the future into something quite different than
what we have today. I am working on just such a new kind of system.
Whether it sees the light of day is another matter, but we should at least
consider how technology is ever-changing and more sophisticated.)



What I would personally want to be able to use is a Pocket PC, Ultra Mobile
PC (UMPC) or other device with communication software installed. I would
like to have a means to access the network, such as via an Ethernet
connection or a wireless access point. (It's not too hard for me to imagine
that a business could establish a VLAN specifically for such purposes: I
have the equipment necessary to do that in my house, so it's not beyond
reach.)



So, I would encourage you to consider the network, not the phone, as the
focal point for accessibility. This will enable users to have a wider
variety of options, including portable PC devices, dedicated textphones,
PCs, or other devices.



Paul





From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:24 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] RFC 4103 reference for real-time text.



TTY is critical on PSTN. It is the only thing that works there.



But it does not work well and is very limiting on IP. Like cellular
phones, (that also can't transport TTY tones natively without destroying
them, the strategy is to convert to a data format where there system
connects to the PSTN.



V.151 is a protocol designed to work between gateways. It is great there.







We need protocols between VoIP phones and between VoIP phones and gateways.




The best I can see is a hybrid approach.





1) Require that all VoIP phones, routers etc support both RFC-4103 and
and RFC-4351 - WHERE THEY CONNECT TO PUBLIC IP SIP SYSTEMS - OR CONNECT TO
OTHER SYSTEMS. (Internally within their own systems where they control
both ends and intermediate routers, they can use anything that meets the
reliability requirements ).

2) PSTN to IP Gateways would also support both but could give
preference to RFC-4351 (offer it first) so that they can save a port for
each call. (if everyone supports both as they should - then RFC-4351 would
work first time.

3) On non public systems (Skype, Vonnage, Corporations Internal
systems, etc) any text transport that meets the requirements is allowed as
long as it is translated into TTY at any PSTN interface and into RFC04103
and 4351 at any external IP SIP interface.





Would this hit the major issues?




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.

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