Thread Subject: Re: Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Dec 12 2007 11:35 PM

I see what you are looking at.


(and yes - the advertising angle is a difficult one -- as is the 'we'll give
it to you free in exchange for tracking all your traffic and selling that
information (anonymized or not) to others" and also bundling free with pay.
"Pay" is a funny word these days.

But I think those are definitions of Telecom and telecom services. So
those definitions aren't the ones to look at for IP.

Does the "Interconnected VoIP" definition use the word 'for a fee' or does
it just say VoIP connected to PSTN? Don't remember. Karen?




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by
> Sec. 255 Rules
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> > Here is my crack at it. Karen may have a more
> authoritative knowledge on
> > this but here is my understanding.
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> II. Covered Functions
> >>>
> >>> 1. Part 6.11 and 7.11 Information, documentation and training
> >>>
> >>> - "Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure access to
> >>> information and documentation it provides to its customers,
> >>>
> >> if readily
> >>
> >>> achievable. Such information and documentation included
> >>>
> >> user guides,
> >>
> >>> bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and
> >>> product support communications, regarding both the product
> >>>
> >> in general
> >>
> >>> and the accessibility features.."
> >>>
> >>> 2. "An entity that provides both telecommunications
> services and
> >>> non-telecommunications services, however, is subject to
> section 255
> >>> only to the extent that it provides a telecommunications service"
> >>> (September 1999 255 Order, paragraph 80.)
> >>>
> >>> 3. "In connection with multipurpose equipment, we adopt our
> >>> tentative conclusion that CPE is covered by section 255
> only to the
> >>> extent that it provides a telecommunications function."
> (September
> >>> 1999 255 Order, paragraph 87)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OK, this seems to help in the Skype canonical case (assuming that
> >> "telecommunications function" mirrors "telecommunications service"
> >> and only kicks in when a fee to the public is involved) -
> suggesting
> >> that
> >> 255 only applies only at that point to CPE.
> >>
> >> I'm using Skype as the well-known example, but there are plenty of
> >> other software voice products/offerings (e.g.
> >> GoogleTalk, Windows Messenger, Apple's video conferencing,
> >> Ekiga) - all of which are computer to computer and generally free.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think it is the FREE part that triggers it. It is the
> > 'interconnected to PSTN' part.
>
> I appreciate that this must be viewed in terms of
> 'interconnected to PSTN', and I also appreciate your point
> that interconnected VoIP is not covered by the original law
> but rather by more recent FCC ruling.
>
> The "free" bit comes from the first bit of text from Judy,
> which you didn't include in your quote of my missive:
>
> > I. Entities Covered by Section 255
> >
> > 1. Any provider of telecommunications Services (47 CFR 6.1)
> >
> > - Definition of Telecommunications Service is from the 1996
> > Telecom Act - essentially it is "offering
> telecommunications for a fee
> > to the public"
>
> Thus if I am offering telecommunications NOT for a fee (i.e.
> free) to the public, then what I am offering is not a
> "telecommunications service". That would suggest that the FCC
> only regulates things relating to commerce, which makes sense
> from a jurisdictional viewpoint of what the Federal
> government can and cannot do from the point of view of the
> commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Of course, that path can get us into an argument over
> advertising-supported "free" services vs. those that can be
> obtained with zero strings, fees, costs, etc. (e.g. a Linux
> CD containing the Ekiga point-to-point video-chat software,
> working over a free [to the user] Internet connection). And
> again, I recognize that something like Ekiga is VoIP and thus
> not covered by this language anyway. But it is the easiest
> example I can come up with of something that is as "free" as
> one can get.
>
> Maybe if I could come up with some theoretical new wire-based
> technology that modulated audio over power lines - including
> going through transformers, etc., such that they would carry
> over state lines - and then offered it for free, I could come
> closer to non-VOIP telecommunications that, if offered for
> free, would thereby walk the particular path I had been
> thinking things like Ekiga might be walking.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>

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