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: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Dec 13 2007 11:00 AM

I agree with Ellen. I would hate to see us get bogged down in legal
refinements over which we have no control.

Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Task Force" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules


>
> I would like to amplify some key points in Karen's explanation, and
> clarify an issue raised in the chain.
>
> 1. The FCC has not actually ruled on whether any VOIP , interconnected
> or not, is a "telecommunications service" or an "information service".
>
> 2. For 255 there are 4 broad categories of services covered -
> 1)telecommunications services, 2) voice mail 3) interactive menus 4)
> interconnected VOIP. (For SKYPE, because the definition refers to
> originate AND terminate calls, neither SKYPE, SKYPE In or SKYPE OUT meet
> the definition. )
>
> 3. The way I think of our task is to answer the question which of the
> technical standards that we have been discussing should be included in
> the 255 related guidelines. So then the question becomes are there
> services we know fall in those buckets for which the technical standard
> in question would have meaning? I have no problem with discussion of
> some examples so everyone is comfortable with the broad outlines of the
> analysis, but I caution against protracted discussions about what might
> fall in and outside of the bucket. They are ultimately legal
> determinations the FCC will be faced with, and in the meantime companies
> have to make their own calls and proceed accordingly. If we know there
> is stuff in the bucket that the standard would apply to, I would say
> that is enough for us to make our decision on for the guidelines.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
> Strauss
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:10 AM
> To: TEITAC Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules
>
> In response to Gregg and Peter's exchange of e-mails, here is some more
> information:
>
> Under the FCC's new order, Section 255's requirements are extended to
> "providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
> services as
> defined by the Commission and to manufacturers of specially designed
> equipment used to provide those services." The definition of
> interconnected VoIP services is found at 47 CFR Sec 9.3:
>
> An interconnected Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service is a
> service
> that:
> (1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
> (2) Requires a broadband connection from the user's location;
> (3) Requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises
> equipment (CPE); and
> (4) Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the
> public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public
> switched telephone network.
>
> You can see that Gregg is correct that these services must be
> interconnected. However this definition is not tied to whether or not
> there
> is a fee for the service. Nor does the extension of 255's requirements
> to
> providers of voicemail and interactive menu services, as well as the
> manufacturers of equipment that perform those functions, appear to be
> contingent on a fee. As you note, this is different than the definition
> of
> "telecommunications service" which is "the offering of
> telecommunications
> for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
> effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
> facilities
> used."
>
> Gregg is also correct that notwithstanding Skype-in and Skype-out's
> connection to the PSTN, Skype does not appear to be covered by the 255
> VoIP
> Order. Like Gregg, I am not sure why this is the case, but this is
> consistent with my conversations with people at the FCC and on the Hill.
> I
> believe it has to do with the public's expectations. When people use
> VoIP
> phones, they are truly substituting those phones for PSTN-based service.
>
> Skype and Skype-like services have not yet achieved that level - i.e.,
> it
> has been explained to me that when people use these Internet services,
> they
> do not have the same level of expectations that current federal laws
> covering social obligations for the PSTN, whether these require
> emergency
> access, universal service and I suppose, disability access, as they do
> for
> VoIP phones. However, Gregg is right as well that as the popularity of
>
> these Internet-based communication systems increase, those expectations
> will
> rise, and eventually, they will likely be covered by accessibility
> obligations. So . . . understanding that they are not covered for the
> purposes of our current conversation, companies that are developing
> these
> services should have the foresight to begin building in accessibility
> now,
> rather than incur greater costs by having to retrofit later.
>
> Karen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Task Force'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Background on what is covered by Sec. 255 Rules
>
>
>>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