Thread Subject: TTYs

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: TTYs

If we're in agreement that agencies can move beyond Baudot/TTY as long as
there is a gateway for
TTY users, how about the next step: setting a sunset date for TTY
compatibility, even via gateway.
For example, if we require a gateway, and the volume on that gateway keeps
dropping (as it will),
couldn't we really say that after it drops below a certain level we begin to
pull the plug?

I understand that this proposal may be contentious.

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Sorry to miss the call. Was presenting.

For IP communication I agree we want to move beyond TTY. (agree
emphatically).

But for PSTN, TTY is the only thing that works. Until there is no longer a
PSTN, (some time I'm afraid) what were we proposing to use for text
conversation on the PSTN if not TTY?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> If we're in agreement that agencies can move beyond
> Baudot/TTY as long as there is a gateway for TTY users, how
> about the next step: setting a sunset date for TTY
> compatibility, even via gateway.
> For example, if we require a gateway, and the volume on that
> gateway keeps dropping (as it will), couldn't we really say
> that after it drops below a certain level we begin to pull the plug?
>
> I understand that this proposal may be contentious.
>
> ******
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> skype jimtobias
> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

pstn tty gateway

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:04 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> Sorry to miss the call. Was presenting.
>
> For IP communication I agree we want to move beyond TTY.
> (agree emphatically).
>
> But for PSTN, TTY is the only thing that works. Until there
> is no longer a PSTN, (some time I'm afraid) what were we
> proposing to use for text conversation on the PSTN if not TTY?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Tobias
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:05 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> > Subject: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
> >
> > If we're in agreement that agencies can move beyond
> Baudot/TTY as long
> > as there is a gateway for TTY users, how about the next
> step: setting
> > a sunset date for TTY compatibility, even via gateway.
> > For example, if we require a gateway, and the volume on
> that gateway
> > keeps dropping (as it will), couldn't we really say that after it
> > drops below a certain level we begin to pull the plug?
> >
> > I understand that this proposal may be contentious.
> >
> > ******
> > Jim Tobias
> > Inclusive Technologies
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> > skype jimtobias
> > +1 908.907.2387 mobile
> >
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Don't understand. The gateway is between two things. usually in these
discussions it is between IP and PSTN. The gateway can keep TTY from
getting on to the IP network (where IP text should be used).

But you still have to use TTY on the PSTN as long as there is a PSTN. No?

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:47 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> pstn tty gateway
>
> ******
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> skype jimtobias
> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:04 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
> >
> > Sorry to miss the call. Was presenting.
> >
> > For IP communication I agree we want to move beyond TTY.
> > (agree emphatically).
> >
> > But for PSTN, TTY is the only thing that works. Until there is no
> > longer a PSTN, (some time I'm afraid) what were we
> proposing to use
> > for text conversation on the PSTN if not TTY?
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
> > > Tobias
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:05 PM
> > > To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
> > >
> > > If we're in agreement that agencies can move beyond
> > Baudot/TTY as long
> > > as there is a gateway for TTY users, how about the next
> > step: setting
> > > a sunset date for TTY compatibility, even via gateway.
> > > For example, if we require a gateway, and the volume on
> > that gateway
> > > keeps dropping (as it will), couldn't we really say that after it
> > > drops below a certain level we begin to pull the plug?
> > >
> > > I understand that this proposal may be contentious.
> > >
> > > ******
> > > Jim Tobias
> > > Inclusive Technologies
> > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> > > skype jimtobias
> > > +1 908.907.2387 mobile
> > >
> > >

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Gregg wrote:
> Don't understand. The gateway is between two things.
> usually in these
> discussions it is between IP and PSTN. The gateway can
> keep TTY from
> getting on to the IP network (where IP text should be used).

Gateway: PSTN TTY on one side; IP text on the other. Gateway must also
accomplish
call supervision and call routing. Agencies could choose to have their own
gateway,
or use a federal-wide or public gateway.

Another wrinkle Paul explained to us yesterday is the fact that there is no
agreement
yet on what IP text protocol to use. If our recommended regs stick to a
functional
description -- saying only that IP text needs to be transported between the
gateway
and the agency's system -- we can ignore the protocol issue. Let's say that
different
agencies select different protocols. Then the gateway can, based on what
"number" is
requested by the TTY user on the outside PSTN, send the IP traffic
consistent with that
agency's choice.

Gregg wrote:
> But you still have to use TTY on the PSTN as long as there is
> a PSTN. No?

Are you referring to general public practices, or what federal agencies are
doing?
Agencies are obviously free to purchase new analog phone systems, but I
doubt any
are doing this. This distinction (actually, among 3 options: analog, non-IP
digital, and
IP) can be represented in our recommended standards by referring to the
functional
description ("transport text, including protocol conversion if necessary")
at the top
level, then indicating the sufficient techniques for all the platforms.

In the final analysis, a PSTN TTY gateway may be the best way to smooth the
migration
path beyond Baudot, because it allows the last TTY users to continue to use
their
preferred method, but reduces the costs (direct and indirect) of
compatibility with
the growing non-Baudot text world.

(A back-of-the-envelope calculation of total TTY US traffic in the busy hour
shows that
it could easily be accommodated on a very small server indeed. As usual,
there are much
bigger issues on the non-tech side: dialing plans, TRS integration, etc.)

Paul also briefed us on the international scene regarding the many
incompatible TTY
protocols. To be a bit visionary, a gateway could address this by simply
translating
analog-to-analog protocols so the British and French deaf communities could
communicate
more easily.

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Ah,

I see you were starting with the assumption that all Gov would be IP
therefore only need to think about the IP side. That's interesting. There
are government outposts all over the US including ranger stations etc. But
I think that it is likely that all will have IP or it will be something like
a ranger tower and no something we need to address (probably communicate by
radio for example).

So I think for 508 we may indeed be able to forget TTY. Interesting.

We still have 255 though to thing about. And that is everyone's phone. So
for 255 we still have to think of what to do for analog phones (and people
who have them).

I think we should consider guidelines that says

For PSTN products - blah blah blah
For IP based telecom products - IP text etc.


I still would like to find some way of retiring TTYs either now or when
their number gets small enough that they are more trouble to accommodate
than useful. Anyone interested in exploring that technical, logistical
problem contact me offline (don't want to tie up this list). But it would
be very nice to figure out how to retire them now that it is a matter of
attrition - with no viable solution for PSTN. Something that would
eliminate the gateway problem would be very welcome by industry.


RE at IP Text standard.

Actually - there is agreement for SIP based telephony (which is what VoIP is
predominantly). T-140. There are a pair of complementary transport
protocols being discussed. Audio/t140 and Text/140. both are T-140 and
both are sent digital. Audio/t140 just has its packets labeled as audio
even though they are text - for technical reasons.

For this group - I think we can just talk about using T-140 and wait a bit
before we specify the transport protocol.

ALSO we may use the sufficient method here.


Finally, we should also allow any reliable code and transport to be used on
a closed system as long as it is translated to T-140 in the standard
protocol when it hits the open IP network.




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:58 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > Don't understand. The gateway is between two things.
> > usually in these
> > discussions it is between IP and PSTN. The gateway can
> > keep TTY from
> > getting on to the IP network (where IP text should be used).
>
> Gateway: PSTN TTY on one side; IP text on the other. Gateway
> must also accomplish call supervision and call routing.
> Agencies could choose to have their own gateway, or use a
> federal-wide or public gateway.
>
> Another wrinkle Paul explained to us yesterday is the fact
> that there is no agreement yet on what IP text protocol to
> use. If our recommended regs stick to a functional
> description -- saying only that IP text needs to be
> transported between the gateway and the agency's system -- we
> can ignore the protocol issue. Let's say that different
> agencies select different protocols. Then the gateway can,
> based on what "number" is requested by the TTY user on the
> outside PSTN, send the IP traffic consistent with that
> agency's choice.
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > But you still have to use TTY on the PSTN as long as there
> is a PSTN.
> > No?
>
> Are you referring to general public practices, or what
> federal agencies are doing?
> Agencies are obviously free to purchase new analog phone
> systems, but I doubt any are doing this. This distinction
> (actually, among 3 options: analog, non-IP digital, and
> IP) can be represented in our recommended standards by
> referring to the functional description ("transport text,
> including protocol conversion if necessary") at the top
> level, then indicating the sufficient techniques for all the
> platforms.
>
> In the final analysis, a PSTN TTY gateway may be the best way
> to smooth the migration path beyond Baudot, because it allows
> the last TTY users to continue to use their preferred method,
> but reduces the costs (direct and indirect) of compatibility
> with the growing non-Baudot text world.
>
> (A back-of-the-envelope calculation of total TTY US traffic
> in the busy hour shows that it could easily be accommodated
> on a very small server indeed. As usual, there are much
> bigger issues on the non-tech side: dialing plans, TRS
> integration, etc.)
>
> Paul also briefed us on the international scene regarding the
> many incompatible TTY protocols. To be a bit visionary, a
> gateway could address this by simply translating
> analog-to-analog protocols so the British and French deaf
> communities could communicate more easily.
>
> ******
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> skype jimtobias
> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>
>
>

From: judy.harkins@tap.gallaudet.edu
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Maybe Karen could comment as to whether we have another policy dilemma regarding TTY, due to the TElecom Accessibility Enhancement
Act of 1988?

Whoever is responsible for that law might be able to assess the extent to which TTY is used in government. I suspect it is
minimal but there are people calling in on TTY to some agencies, like the social security admin. Also could be true in VR
agencies in states that may adopt 508. These are deaf people in the general population, of limited resources. If TTY is dead in
these agencies as well, that would be a reassuring factor about moving on.

Believe me, I want to move on too... but even setting a timetable should involve some more input from government people about
what is being used. Ditto on the extent to which people are being blocked from using videophones or captel or even commercial IM.

Judy Harkins





------- Original Message -------
>From : Gregg Vanderheiden[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent : 1/9/2007 10:49:29 AM
To : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs

Ah,

I see you were starting with the assumption that all Gov would be IP
therefore only need to think about the IP side. That's interesting. There
are government outposts all over the US including ranger stations etc. But
I think that it is likely that all will have IP or it will be something like
a ranger tower and no something we need to address (probably communicate by
radio for example).

So I think for 508 we may indeed be able to forget TTY. Interesting.

We still have 255 though to thing about. And that is everyone's phone. So
for 255 we still have to think of what to do for analog phones (and people
who have them).

I think we should consider guidelines that says

For PSTN products - blah blah blah
For IP based telecom products - IP text etc.


I still would like to find some way of retiring TTYs either now or when
their number gets small enough that they are more trouble to accommodate
than useful. Anyone interested in exploring that technical, logistical
problem contact me offline (don't want to tie up this list). But it would
be very nice to figure out how to retire them now that it is a matter of
attrition - with no viable solution for PSTN. Something that would
eliminate the gateway problem would be very welcome by industry.


RE at IP Text standard.

Actually - there is agreement for SIP based telephony (which is what VoIP is
predominantly). T-140. There are a pair of complementary transport
protocols being discussed. Audio/t140 and Text/140. both are T-140 and
both are sent digital. Audio/t140 just has its packets labeled as audio
even though they are text - for technical reasons.

For this group - I think we can just talk about using T-140 and wait a bit
before we specify the transport protocol.

ALSO we may use the sufficient method here.


Finally, we should also allow any reliable code and transport to be used on
a closed system as long as it is translated to T-140 in the standard
protocol when it hits the open IP network.




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [ mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:58 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > Don't understand. The gateway is between two things.
> > usually in these
> > discussions it is between IP and PSTN. The gateway can
> > keep TTY from
> > getting on to the IP network (where IP text should be used).
>
> Gateway: PSTN TTY on one side; IP text on the other. Gateway
> must also accomplish call supervision and call routing.
> Agencies could choose to have their own gateway, or use a
> federal-wide or public gateway.
>
> Another wrinkle Paul explained to us yesterday is the fact
> that there is no agreement yet on what IP text protocol to
> use. If our recommended regs stick to a functional
> description -- saying only that IP text needs to be
> transported between the gateway and the agency's system -- we
> can ignore the protocol issue. Let's say that different
> agencies select different protocols. Then the gateway can,
> based on what "number" is requested by the TTY user on the
> outside PSTN, send the IP traffic consistent with that
> agency's choice.
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > But you still have to use TTY on the PSTN as long as there
> is a PSTN.
> > No?
>
> Are you referring to general public practices, or what
> federal agencies are doing?
> Agencies are obviously free to purchase new analog phone
> systems, but I doubt any are doing this. This distinction
> (actually, among 3 options: analog, non-IP digital, and
> IP) can be represented in our recommended standards by
> referring to the functional description ("transport text,
> including protocol conversion if necessary") at the top
> level, then indicating the sufficient techniques for all the
> platforms.
>
> In the final analysis, a PSTN TTY gateway may be the best way
> to smooth the migration path beyond Baudot, because it allows
> the last TTY users to continue to use their preferred method,
> but reduces the costs (direct and indirect) of compatibility
> with the growing non-Baudot text world.
>
> (A back-of-the-envelope calculation of total TTY US traffic
> in the busy hour shows that it could easily be accommodated
> on a very small server indeed. As usual, there are much
> bigger issues on the non-tech side: dialing plans, TRS
> integration, etc.)
>
> Paul also briefed us on the international scene regarding the
> many incompatible TTY protocols. To be a bit visionary, a
> gateway could address this by simply translating
> analog-to-analog protocols so the British and French deaf
> communities could communicate more easily.
>
> ******
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> skype jimtobias
> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>
>
>

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: TTYs

It has been my experience that when a DHH user requests permission to
use IP the answer is generally no. To use IP would require opening of
one or more ports in order for VR or VOIP to work. We can recommend to
the Access Board certain changes that should be adopted but until the
'security' issues are addressed with the firewall the implementation of
these technologies will not occur. VR that is currently used requires
that an agency purchase a DSL line. If the agency allows VR on their
network it is only available for outgoing calls. Incoming calls are
prohibited.

As it seems to be now...the elimination of the TTY within the government
will be a long time.

Tom Brett,
2026061206
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:47 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs


Maybe Karen could comment as to whether we have another policy dilemma
regarding TTY, due to the TElecom Accessibility Enhancement
Act of 1988?

Whoever is responsible for that law might be able to assess the extent
to which TTY is used in government. I suspect it is
minimal but there are people calling in on TTY to some agencies, like
the social security admin. Also could be true in VR
agencies in states that may adopt 508. These are deaf people in the
general population, of limited resources. If TTY is dead in
these agencies as well, that would be a reassuring factor about moving
on.

Believe me, I want to move on too... but even setting a timetable
should involve some more input from government people about
what is being used. Ditto on the extent to which people are being
blocked from using videophones or captel or even commercial IM.

Judy Harkins





------- Original Message -------
>From : Gregg Vanderheiden[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent : 1/9/2007 10:49:29 AM
To : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs

Ah,

I see you were starting with the assumption that all Gov would be IP
therefore only need to think about the IP side. That's interesting.
There
are government outposts all over the US including ranger stations etc.
But
I think that it is likely that all will have IP or it will be something
like
a ranger tower and no something we need to address (probably communicate
by
radio for example).

So I think for 508 we may indeed be able to forget TTY. Interesting.

We still have 255 though to thing about. And that is everyone's phone.
So
for 255 we still have to think of what to do for analog phones (and
people
who have them).

I think we should consider guidelines that says

For PSTN products - blah blah blah
For IP based telecom products - IP text etc.


I still would like to find some way of retiring TTYs either now or when
their number gets small enough that they are more trouble to accommodate
than useful. Anyone interested in exploring that technical, logistical
problem contact me offline (don't want to tie up this list). But it
would
be very nice to figure out how to retire them now that it is a matter of
attrition - with no viable solution for PSTN. Something that would
eliminate the gateway problem would be very welcome by industry.


RE at IP Text standard.

Actually - there is agreement for SIP based telephony (which is what
VoIP is
predominantly). T-140. There are a pair of complementary transport
protocols being discussed. Audio/t140 and Text/140. both are T-140
and
both are sent digital. Audio/t140 just has its packets labeled as audio
even though they are text - for technical reasons.

For this group - I think we can just talk about using T-140 and wait a
bit
before we specify the transport protocol.

ALSO we may use the sufficient method here.


Finally, we should also allow any reliable code and transport to be used
on
a closed system as long as it is translated to T-140 in the standard
protocol when it hits the open IP network.




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [ mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:58 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > Don't understand. The gateway is between two things.
> > usually in these
> > discussions it is between IP and PSTN. The gateway can
> > keep TTY from
> > getting on to the IP network (where IP text should be used).
>
> Gateway: PSTN TTY on one side; IP text on the other. Gateway
> must also accomplish call supervision and call routing.
> Agencies could choose to have their own gateway, or use a
> federal-wide or public gateway.
>
> Another wrinkle Paul explained to us yesterday is the fact
> that there is no agreement yet on what IP text protocol to
> use. If our recommended regs stick to a functional
> description -- saying only that IP text needs to be
> transported between the gateway and the agency's system -- we
> can ignore the protocol issue. Let's say that different
> agencies select different protocols. Then the gateway can,
> based on what "number" is requested by the TTY user on the
> outside PSTN, send the IP traffic consistent with that
> agency's choice.
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > But you still have to use TTY on the PSTN as long as there
> is a PSTN.
> > No?
>
> Are you referring to general public practices, or what
> federal agencies are doing?
> Agencies are obviously free to purchase new analog phone
> systems, but I doubt any are doing this. This distinction
> (actually, among 3 options: analog, non-IP digital, and
> IP) can be represented in our recommended standards by
> referring to the functional description ("transport text,
> including protocol conversion if necessary") at the top
> level, then indicating the sufficient techniques for all the
> platforms.
>
> In the final analysis, a PSTN TTY gateway may be the best way
> to smooth the migration path beyond Baudot, because it allows
> the last TTY users to continue to use their preferred method,
> but reduces the costs (direct and indirect) of compatibility
> with the growing non-Baudot text world.
>
> (A back-of-the-envelope calculation of total TTY US traffic
> in the busy hour shows that it could easily be accommodated
> on a very small server indeed. As usual, there are much
> bigger issues on the non-tech side: dialing plans, TRS
> integration, etc.)
>
> Paul also briefed us on the international scene regarding the
> many incompatible TTY protocols. To be a bit visionary, a
> gateway could address this by simply translating
> analog-to-analog protocols so the British and French deaf
> communities could communicate more easily.
>
> ******
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> skype jimtobias
> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Judy Harkins wrote, regarding TTYs:

> Believe me, I want to move on too... but even setting a
> timetable should involve some more input from government
> people about what is being used. Ditto on the extent to
> which people are being blocked from using videophones or
> captel or even commercial IM.

I agree, and input from all the other stakeholders is needed as well.
I continue to believe that there is a vast, unharvested bounty of
opinion to transcend the Baudot TTY. It will clearly happen, in
a planned or unplanned way; planned would be faster, cheaper,
and better for all. But is there the will to explore the barriers
and drive the migration?

Gregg wrote, also regarding TTYs:

> I still would like to find some way of retiring TTYs either
> now or when their number gets small enough that they are more
> trouble to accommodate than useful.

We're already there. The total cost of accommodating Baudot,
including compatibility testing of all new telecom products,
is greater than the cost of subsidizing a mainstream text product
and service for every current TTY user. The problem is, that
would be a measure of total "social cost" and we may not be good
enough at arranging policies to reduce resistance from those who
either objectively benefit from the status quo or for whom the
transition would be extra, unwelcome work.

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Tom Brett wrote:

> It has been my experience that when a DHH user requests
> permission to use IP the answer is generally no. To use IP
> would require opening of one or more ports in order for VR or
> VOIP to work.

So, do federal employees use TTYs with each other? Is
there no instant messaging going on in the federal world?
I ask because my experience with ICT companies is that they
use IM all the time, often built into a suite of IP communication
tools, and they have some pretty demanding security policies.

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

The DHH that I have had contact with all use TTYs. I was successful in
having VRS installed but it is on a separate DSL line at $200 per month.
When I attempted to have VRS installed on the network I was told that
there is too much of a security risk in opening the firewalls.

I am aware that some agency have a form of IM but it is not widely
used...then again IM would not be a firewall issue because it would be
all within the network,.

For the Deaf Fed employees who use VR their set allows only outgoing
calls.

I would say TTY is the primary way of communicating with most government
agencies.



Tom Brett,
2026061206
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:34 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs

Tom Brett wrote:

> It has been my experience that when a DHH user requests
> permission to use IP the answer is generally no. To use IP
> would require opening of one or more ports in order for VR or
> VOIP to work.

So, do federal employees use TTYs with each other? Is
there no instant messaging going on in the federal world?
I ask because my experience with ICT companies is that they
use IM all the time, often built into a suite of IP communication
tools, and they have some pretty demanding security policies.

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Unfortunately, no federal agency effectively followed up on implementation
of the sections of the Telecommunications Accessibility Enhancement Act that
dealt with widespread TTY accessibility. As you know, this Act led to the
federal relay, a TTY logo, and a federal TTY directory. It also directed
GSA, in consultation with the Access Board, the Interagency Committee on
Computer Support of Handicapped Employees, and affected federal agencies, to
issue rules to make the federal telecom system fully accessible to people
with speech and hearing disabilities. I do not believe rules achieving
this are in place (at least I could not find any). They existed a long time
ago, and then were withdrawn and never replaced. There may, however, be a
federal TTY directory somewhere - GSA would be the agency to ask.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs


>
> Maybe Karen could comment as to whether we have another policy dilemma
> regarding TTY, due to the TElecom Accessibility Enhancement
> Act of 1988?
>
> Whoever is responsible for that law might be able to assess the extent to
> which TTY is used in government. I suspect it is
> minimal but there are people calling in on TTY to some agencies, like the
> social security admin. Also could be true in VR
> agencies in states that may adopt 508. These are deaf people in the
> general population, of limited resources. If TTY is dead in
> these agencies as well, that would be a reassuring factor about moving on.
>
> Believe me, I want to move on too... but even setting a timetable should
> involve some more input from government people about
> what is being used. Ditto on the extent to which people are being blocked
> from using videophones or captel or even commercial IM.
>
> Judy Harkins
>
>
>
>
>
> ------- Original Message -------
>>From : Gregg Vanderheiden[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent : 1/9/2007 10:49:29 AM
> To : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Cc :
> Subject : RE: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>
> Ah,
>
> I see you were starting with the assumption that all Gov would be IP
> therefore only need to think about the IP side. That's interesting.
> There
> are government outposts all over the US including ranger stations etc.
> But
> I think that it is likely that all will have IP or it will be something
> like
> a ranger tower and no something we need to address (probably communicate
> by
> radio for example).
>
> So I think for 508 we may indeed be able to forget TTY. Interesting.
>
> We still have 255 though to thing about. And that is everyone's phone.
> So
> for 255 we still have to think of what to do for analog phones (and people
> who have them).
>
> I think we should consider guidelines that says
>
> For PSTN products - blah blah blah
> For IP based telecom products - IP text etc.
>
>
> I still would like to find some way of retiring TTYs either now or when
> their number gets small enough that they are more trouble to accommodate
> than useful. Anyone interested in exploring that technical, logistical
> problem contact me offline (don't want to tie up this list). But it would
> be very nice to figure out how to retire them now that it is a matter of
> attrition - with no viable solution for PSTN. Something that would
> eliminate the gateway problem would be very welcome by industry.
>
>
> RE at IP Text standard.
>
> Actually - there is agreement for SIP based telephony (which is what VoIP
> is
> predominantly). T-140. There are a pair of complementary transport
> protocols being discussed. Audio/t140 and Text/140. both are T-140 and
> both are sent digital. Audio/t140 just has its packets labeled as audio
> even though they are text - for technical reasons.
>
> For this group - I think we can just talk about using T-140 and wait a bit
> before we specify the transport protocol.
>
> ALSO we may use the sufficient method here.
>
>
> Finally, we should also allow any reliable code and transport to be used
> on
> a closed system as long as it is translated to T-140 in the standard
> protocol when it hits the open IP network.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [ mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Jim Tobias
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:58 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
>>
>> Gregg wrote:
>> > Don't understand. The gateway is between two things.
>> > usually in these
>> > discussions it is between IP and PSTN. The gateway can
>> > keep TTY from
>> > getting on to the IP network (where IP text should be used).
>>
>> Gateway: PSTN TTY on one side; IP text on the other. Gateway
>> must also accomplish call supervision and call routing.
>> Agencies could choose to have their own gateway, or use a
>> federal-wide or public gateway.
>>
>> Another wrinkle Paul explained to us yesterday is the fact
>> that there is no agreement yet on what IP text protocol to
>> use. If our recommended regs stick to a functional
>> description -- saying only that IP text needs to be
>> transported between the gateway and the agency's system -- we
>> can ignore the protocol issue. Let's say that different
>> agencies select different protocols. Then the gateway can,
>> based on what "number" is requested by the TTY user on the
>> outside PSTN, send the IP traffic consistent with that
>> agency's choice.
>>
>> Gregg wrote:
>> > But you still have to use TTY on the PSTN as long as there
>> is a PSTN.
>> > No?
>>
>> Are you referring to general public practices, or what
>> federal agencies are doing?
>> Agencies are obviously free to purchase new analog phone
>> systems, but I doubt any are doing this. This distinction
>> (actually, among 3 options: analog, non-IP digital, and
>> IP) can be represented in our recommended standards by
>> referring to the functional description ("transport text,
>> including protocol conversion if necessary") at the top
>> level, then indicating the sufficient techniques for all the
>> platforms.
>>
>> In the final analysis, a PSTN TTY gateway may be the best way
>> to smooth the migration path beyond Baudot, because it allows
>> the last TTY users to continue to use their preferred method,
>> but reduces the costs (direct and indirect) of compatibility
>> with the growing non-Baudot text world.
>>
>> (A back-of-the-envelope calculation of total TTY US traffic
>> in the busy hour shows that it could easily be accommodated
>> on a very small server indeed. As usual, there are much
>> bigger issues on the non-tech side: dialing plans, TRS
>> integration, etc.)
>>
>> Paul also briefed us on the international scene regarding the
>> many incompatible TTY protocols. To be a bit visionary, a
>> gateway could address this by simply translating
>> analog-to-analog protocols so the British and French deaf
>> communities could communicate more easily.
>>
>> ******
>> Jim Tobias
>> Inclusive Technologies
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
>> skype jimtobias
>> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>>
>>
>>

From: Baquis David
Date: Fri, Jan 12 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Yes, there is a federal TTY directory: http://fts.gsa.gov/frs/ttydir.htm

However, it is reactive, not proactive, when it comes to updates.
Therefore many of the listings are out of date.

David

David Baquis
Accessibility Specialist
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street, NW, #1000
Washington, DC 20004
800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice)
www.access-board.gov; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


1. Re: TTYs (Karen Peltz Strauss)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:37:53 -0500
From: "Karen Peltz Strauss" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs
To: "TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID: <076f01c7343e$ccce3030$9865fea9@PELTZSTRAUSS>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

Unfortunately, no federal agency effectively followed up on
implementation
of the sections of the Telecommunications Accessibility Enhancement Act
that
dealt with widespread TTY accessibility. As you know, this Act led to
the
federal relay, a TTY logo, and a federal TTY directory. It also
directed
GSA, in consultation with the Access Board, the Interagency Committee on

Computer Support of Handicapped Employees, and affected federal
agencies, to
issue rules to make the federal telecom system fully accessible to
people
with speech and hearing disabilities. I do not believe rules achieving

this are in place (at least I could not find any). They existed a long
time
ago, and then were withdrawn and never replaced. There may, however, be
a
federal TTY directory somewhere - GSA would be the agency to ask.

Karen

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: TTYs

Thanks, David. The directory you pointed to is the TTY numbers for
agencies, not individual federal employees who use TTYs. Does anyone
keep track of federals who use TTYs, such as DHHIG? It'd be really
valuable to have those listings, and even more valuable to survey
DHHIG members for their current practices and preferences....

Jim Tobias

-----Original Message-----
From: Baquis David [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:44 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] TTYs

Yes, there is a federal TTY directory: http://fts.gsa.gov/frs/ttydir.htm

However, it is reactive, not proactive, when it comes to updates.
Therefore many of the listings are out of date.

David

David Baquis
Accessibility Specialist
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street, NW, #1000
Washington, DC 20004
800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice)
www.access-board.gov; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =