Thread Subject: Re: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1Template for 508 in WORD

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul)
Date: Sat, Mar 24 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1Template for 508 in WORD

Regarding the reference to "PSTN" versus "IP" in many of the proposed
requirements, I agree that IP telephones should be treated differently
but am concerned that describing the non-IP systems as "PSTN" will
create a lot of confusion.



The "PSTN" is the Public Switched Telephone Network. If asked to
describe a PSTN telephony endpoint, I imagine that most telecom
specialists would say it was an analog device that complies with the FCC
regulations that govern residential telephones. If we use this
definition, I can't remember the last time I've seen a government
procurement of telecom equipment that falls into this category.



There are at least three different categories of non-IP wired telephones
in common use today:



Residential analog. (This is what most folks would classify as a "PSTN
phone.")



Enterprise analog. (The distinction between these phones and
residential analog sets is that the enterprise sets connect to the PSTN
via a PBX or switch that is owned by the enterprise. An important
electrical distinction is that, unlike enterprise analog telephones,
residential telephones are required to do "automatic loop length
compensation" to account for distance-related differences in electrical
resistance and capacitance in the line between the phone and the
associated central office. Another important distinction is that many
enterprise analog solutions are actually hybrid analog/digital sets.
The audio stream is carried as traditional analog, supplemented by
digital signaling that, for example, controls the phone's display.)



Enterprise digital. (This is what is purchased in the vast majority of
non-IP wired telephony procurements by the government. All audio
transmissions entering or leaving the phone are digitally encoded,
typically using the G.711 algorithm that I described in a previous
message. Signaling and call control is also digital, typically using
protocols that are proprietary to the individual manufacturers.)



Wired residential analog systems, wired enterprise analog systems, and
wired enterprise digital systems are able to transmit Baudot TTY signals
with 100% reliability. IP telephony is different.



Depending on network characteristics, the mechanisms that are used in
order to transport voice signals within IP networks are not always
suitable for transporting Baudot TTY tones. Common sources of
impairment include packet loss and the use of voice-optimized audio
compression algorithms, such as G.729. For this reason, a traditional
TTY device used in conjunction with an IP phone (for example, via an
acoustic coupler) is not always going to be reliable.



The good news is that, although not yet in common use, there are
international standards that describe how to transport text and Baudot
tones reliably on IP networks. In general, these techniques do not use
the same audio encoding and transmission mechanisms that are used for
voice. I agree completely that the availability of these techniques,
coupled with the inherent unreliability of Baudot TTY transmissions via
the "voice channels" of IP telephone networks, makes it essential that
we treat IP telephony as a special case in the Section 508 refresh.



Getting back to the original topic of my message... We need a term
other than PSTN to describe non-IP wired telephony. Ideally, it should
be a term or description that would make sense to someone who is not
knowledgeable about telephone engineering. To start the ball rolling, I
suggest "wired analog and wired non-IP digital" as a substitute for
PSTN. (I deliberately use the word "wired" because wireless devices
have special characteristics that may need to be addressed separately.)



-- Paul Michaelis






_____

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:02 PM
To: 'Brooner Mary-AMB004'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Takemura, Michael'; 'Karen Peltz Strauss'; 'Lori
McGarry'; Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Debbie Cook';
'Fred Lucas'; 'Jasionowski, Tony'; 'Brett, Thomas F'
Cc: 'Creagan Tim'; 'Brenda Battat'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Jim
Tobias'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508
in WORD



Hi Mary,



I just added my notes to the draft that you circulated from DIANE.
I made all my comments in blue so they are easy to find.



I also included a copy with the changes marked with double curly
brackets for those whose screen readers don't announce color changes.





As I mentioned, I can be on the Telecom Call this week and next due to
break and labwork.




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






_____


From: Brooner Mary-AMB004 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:51 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Takemura, Michael; Karen Peltz Strauss; Lori McGarry;
Gregg Vanderheiden; Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
Debbie Cook; Fred Lucas; Gregg Vanderheiden; Jasionowski, Tony; Brett,
Thomas F
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim
Tobias
Subject: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for
508 in WORD

All -



The committee made a request in this week's meeting for me to
circulate our draft template in WORD as it is the medium most are
familiar with. So, this is Draft 1 which was mostly prepared by Diane
Golden. Thank you, DIANE.



Gregg VanderHeiden has a draft with lots of edits. It is on the
Wiki for our subcommittee. I would ask Gregg, if possible to circulate
his contribution in WORD to this group also.



This allows folks to study the document and to edit it. I would
ask, if you want to make editting contributions that you copy the
template, make your edits and identify in the Subject line that it is an
edit.



Thanks, Mary Brooner

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1Template for 508 in WORD

_____

From: Jim Tobias [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:07 AM
To: 'Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul)'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD


I agree with Paul's points here on platform terms and definitions.

I want to push it further to help us clarify the structure of our report.
Looking at all of the flavors of "real-time voice
conversation" (which we should use instead of "voice communication" because
it is clearer and more constrained),
there are obviously too many varieties to put every single one in the body
of the report in the same location. I think
this provision may be a strong argument in favor of the "two tier" approach.

For example, how about this for the revised text of 1194.23(a):

"Products or systems that provide real-time voice conversation shall provide
real-time text conversation, both direct and relayed."

Then the second tier spells out the additional requirements for each
platform.



***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias




_____

From: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul) [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:42 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD


Regarding the reference to "PSTN" versus "IP" in many of the proposed
requirements, I agree that IP telephones should be treated differently but
am concerned that describing the non-IP systems as "PSTN" will create a lot
of confusion.



The "PSTN" is the Public Switched Telephone Network. If asked to describe a
PSTN telephony endpoint, I imagine that most telecom specialists would say
it was an analog device that complies with the FCC regulations that govern
residential telephones. If we use this definition, I can't remember the
last time I've seen a government procurement of telecom equipment that falls
into this category.



There are at least three different categories of non-IP wired telephones in
common use today:



Residential analog. (This is what most folks would classify as a "PSTN
phone.")



Enterprise analog. (The distinction between these phones and residential
analog sets is that the enterprise sets connect to the PSTN via a PBX or
switch that is owned by the enterprise. An important electrical distinction
is that, unlike enterprise analog telephones, residential telephones are
required to do "automatic loop length compensation" to account for
distance-related differences in electrical resistance and capacitance in the
line between the phone and the associated central office. Another important
distinction is that many enterprise analog solutions are actually hybrid
analog/digital sets. The audio stream is carried as traditional analog,
supplemented by digital signaling that, for example, controls the phone's
display.)



Enterprise digital. (This is what is purchased in the vast majority of
non-IP wired telephony procurements by the government. All audio
transmissions entering or leaving the phone are digitally encoded, typically
using the G.711 algorithm that I described in a previous message. Signaling
and call control is also digital, typically using protocols that are
proprietary to the individual manufacturers.)



Wired residential analog systems, wired enterprise analog systems, and wired
enterprise digital systems are able to transmit Baudot TTY signals with 100%
reliability. IP telephony is different.



Depending on network characteristics, the mechanisms that are used in order
to transport voice signals within IP networks are not always suitable for
transporting Baudot TTY tones. Common sources of impairment include packet
loss and the use of voice-optimized audio compression algorithms, such as
G.729. For this reason, a traditional TTY device used in conjunction with
an IP phone (for example, via an acoustic coupler) is not always going to be
reliable.



The good news is that, although not yet in common use, there are
international standards that describe how to transport text and Baudot tones
reliably on IP networks. In general, these techniques do not use the same
audio encoding and transmission mechanisms that are used for voice. I agree
completely that the availability of these techniques, coupled with the
inherent unreliability of Baudot TTY transmissions via the "voice channels"
of IP telephone networks, makes it essential that we treat IP telephony as a
special case in the Section 508 refresh.



Getting back to the original topic of my message. We need a term other than
PSTN to describe non-IP wired telephony. Ideally, it should be a term or
description that would make sense to someone who is not knowledgeable about
telephone engineering. To start the ball rolling, I suggest "wired analog
and wired non-IP digital" as a substitute for PSTN. (I deliberately use the
word "wired" because wireless devices have special characteristics that may
need to be addressed separately.)



-- Paul Michaelis






_____

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:02 PM
To: 'Brooner Mary-AMB004'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Takemura, Michael'; 'Karen Peltz Strauss'; 'Lori McGarry';
Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Debbie Cook'; 'Fred Lucas';
'Jasionowski, Tony'; 'Brett, Thomas F'
Cc: 'Creagan Tim'; 'Brenda Battat'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Jim
Tobias'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD



Hi Mary,



I just added my notes to the draft that you circulated from DIANE. I
made all my comments in blue so they are easy to find.



I also included a copy with the changes marked with double curly brackets
for those whose screen readers don't announce color changes.





As I mentioned, I can be on the Telecom Call this week and next due to break
and labwork.




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






_____


From: Brooner Mary-AMB004 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:51 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Takemura,
Michael; Karen Peltz Strauss; Lori McGarry; Gregg Vanderheiden; Michaelis,
Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Debbie Cook; Fred Lucas; Gregg
Vanderheiden; Jasionowski, Tony; Brett, Thomas F
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in WORD

All -



The committee made a request in this week's meeting for me to circulate our
draft template in WORD as it is the medium most are familiar with. So, this
is Draft 1 which was mostly prepared by Diane Golden. Thank you, DIANE.



Gregg VanderHeiden has a draft with lots of edits. It is on the Wiki for our
subcommittee. I would ask Gregg, if possible to circulate his contribution
in WORD to this group also.



This allows folks to study the document and to edit it. I would ask, if you
want to make editting contributions that you copy the template, make your
edits and identify in the Subject line that it is an edit.



Thanks, Mary Brooner

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft1Template for 508 in WORD

I agree with doing general and then specific as two tiers. But we need to
put both tiers into the standard or we don't get interoperability. This is
one place where different solutions for different devices doesn't work.
Different solutions for different networks does though and is necessary.
We just need to have interoperability between them.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:59 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Telecommunications Working Group- Draft
1Template for 508 in WORD




_____


From: Jim Tobias [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:07 AM
To: 'Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul)'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

I agree with Paul's points here on platform terms and definitions.



I want to push it further to help us clarify the structure of our report.
Looking at all of the flavors of "real-time voice

conversation" (which we should use instead of "voice communication" because
it is clearer and more constrained),

there are obviously too many varieties to put every single one in the body
of the report in the same location. I think

this provision may be a strong argument in favor of the "two tier" approach.



For example, how about this for the revised text of 1194.23(a):



"Products or systems that provide real-time voice conversation shall provide
real-time text conversation, both direct and relayed."



Then the second tier spells out the additional requirements for each
platform.





***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias






_____


From: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul) [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:42 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

Regarding the reference to "PSTN" versus "IP" in many of the proposed
requirements, I agree that IP telephones should be treated differently but
am concerned that describing the non-IP systems as "PSTN" will create a lot
of confusion.



The "PSTN" is the Public Switched Telephone Network. If asked to describe a
PSTN telephony endpoint, I imagine that most telecom specialists would say
it was an analog device that complies with the FCC regulations that govern
residential telephones. If we use this definition, I can't remember the
last time I've seen a government procurement of telecom equipment that falls
into this category.



There are at least three different categories of non-IP wired telephones in
common use today:



Residential analog. (This is what most folks would classify as a "PSTN
phone.")



Enterprise analog. (The distinction between these phones and residential
analog sets is that the enterprise sets connect to the PSTN via a PBX or
switch that is owned by the enterprise. An important electrical distinction
is that, unlike enterprise analog telephones, residential telephones are
required to do "automatic loop length compensation" to account for
distance-related differences in electrical resistance and capacitance in the
line between the phone and the associated central office. Another important
distinction is that many enterprise analog solutions are actually hybrid
analog/digital sets. The audio stream is carried as traditional analog,
supplemented by digital signaling that, for example, controls the phone's
display.)



Enterprise digital. (This is what is purchased in the vast majority of
non-IP wired telephony procurements by the government. All audio
transmissions entering or leaving the phone are digitally encoded, typically
using the G.711 algorithm that I described in a previous message. Signaling
and call control is also digital, typically using protocols that are
proprietary to the individual manufacturers.)



Wired residential analog systems, wired enterprise analog systems, and wired
enterprise digital systems are able to transmit Baudot TTY signals with 100%
reliability. IP telephony is different.



Depending on network characteristics, the mechanisms that are used in order
to transport voice signals within IP networks are not always suitable for
transporting Baudot TTY tones. Common sources of impairment include packet
loss and the use of voice-optimized audio compression algorithms, such as
G.729. For this reason, a traditional TTY device used in conjunction with
an IP phone (for example, via an acoustic coupler) is not always going to be
reliable.



The good news is that, although not yet in common use, there are
international standards that describe how to transport text and Baudot tones
reliably on IP networks. In general, these techniques do not use the same
audio encoding and transmission mechanisms that are used for voice. I agree
completely that the availability of these techniques, coupled with the
inherent unreliability of Baudot TTY transmissions via the "voice channels"
of IP telephone networks, makes it essential that we treat IP telephony as a
special case in the Section 508 refresh.



Getting back to the original topic of my message. We need a term other than
PSTN to describe non-IP wired telephony. Ideally, it should be a term or
description that would make sense to someone who is not knowledgeable about
telephone engineering. To start the ball rolling, I suggest "wired analog
and wired non-IP digital" as a substitute for PSTN. (I deliberately use the
word "wired" because wireless devices have special characteristics that may
need to be addressed separately.)



-- Paul Michaelis








_____


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:02 PM
To: 'Brooner Mary-AMB004'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Takemura, Michael'; 'Karen Peltz Strauss'; 'Lori McGarry';
Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Debbie Cook'; 'Fred Lucas';
'Jasionowski, Tony'; 'Brett, Thomas F'
Cc: 'Creagan Tim'; 'Brenda Battat'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Jim
Tobias'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

Hi Mary,



I just added my notes to the draft that you circulated from DIANE. I
made all my comments in blue so they are easy to find.



I also included a copy with the changes marked with double curly brackets
for those whose screen readers don't announce color changes.





As I mentioned, I can be on the Telecom Call this week and next due to break
and labwork.




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






_____


From: Brooner Mary-AMB004 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:51 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Takemura,
Michael; Karen Peltz Strauss; Lori McGarry; Gregg Vanderheiden; Michaelis,
Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Debbie Cook; Fred Lucas; Gregg
Vanderheiden; Jasionowski, Tony; Brett, Thomas F
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in WORD

All -



The committee made a request in this week's meeting for me to circulate our
draft template in WORD as it is the medium most are familiar with. So, this
is Draft 1 which was mostly prepared by Diane Golden. Thank you, DIANE.



Gregg VanderHeiden has a draft with lots of edits. It is on the Wiki for our
subcommittee. I would ask Gregg, if possible to circulate his contribution
in WORD to this group also.



This allows folks to study the document and to edit it. I would ask, if you
want to make editting contributions that you copy the template, make your
edits and identify in the Subject line that it is an edit.



Thanks, Mary Brooner

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft1Template for 508 in WORD

These are good thoughts.



Couple more to help bring clarity.





If a system is closed (e.g. an enterprise, a cellular, or even house system)
then it can have its own rules for how it transports text etc. however
when it connects to a public system it needs to be in one of the standard
forms. There are only two public systems - PSTN and IP. Hence the
terminology. Cellular systems that currently connect to the PSTN can
transport text as they wish but must convert to PSTN text (in the US that's
TIA 825 Baudot).



Systems that connect to the IP networks would/should/must use T140. If
connecting to SIP IP then RFC 4103.



If the phone itself is capable of generating and displaying text then it
does so in either

a) its proprietary form (if the phone connects to a closed system that
only connects to the public system later) (e.g. the format the cellular
phone uses to send and receive real-time text over the cellular system)

b) TIA 825 baudot if it is connected directly to the PSTN

c) RFC 4103 if it connects directly to the IP SIP public phone system.





The remaining question is what type of connection a phone has to have for a
text terminal if the phone itself does not support text input and display.

Maybe

a) if it connects directly to PSTN then it should allow connection of a
TTY.

b) If it connect directly to an IP SIP network then it should allow
connection of and IP SIP text terminal

c) ALL OTHER phones - ???????





It is (c) that is the tough one we need to figure out. .




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michaelis, Paul
R. (Paul)
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 6:42 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Creagan Tim
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Telecommunications Working Group- Draft
1Template for 508 in WORD

Regarding the reference to "PSTN" versus "IP" in many of the proposed
requirements, I agree that IP telephones should be treated differently but
am concerned that describing the non-IP systems as "PSTN" will create a lot
of confusion.



The "PSTN" is the Public Switched Telephone Network. If asked to describe a
PSTN telephony endpoint, I imagine that most telecom specialists would say
it was an analog device that complies with the FCC regulations that govern
residential telephones. If we use this definition, I can't remember the
last time I've seen a government procurement of telecom equipment that falls
into this category.



There are at least three different categories of non-IP wired telephones in
common use today:



Residential analog. (This is what most folks would classify as a "PSTN
phone.")



Enterprise analog. (The distinction between these phones and residential
analog sets is that the enterprise sets connect to the PSTN via a PBX or
switch that is owned by the enterprise. An important electrical distinction
is that, unlike enterprise analog telephones, residential telephones are
required to do "automatic loop length compensation" to account for
distance-related differences in electrical resistance and capacitance in the
line between the phone and the associated central office. Another important
distinction is that many enterprise analog solutions are actually hybrid
analog/digital sets. The audio stream is carried as traditional analog,
supplemented by digital signaling that, for example, controls the phone's
display.)



Enterprise digital. (This is what is purchased in the vast majority of
non-IP wired telephony procurements by the government. All audio
transmissions entering or leaving the phone are digitally encoded, typically
using the G.711 algorithm that I described in a previous message. Signaling
and call control is also digital, typically using protocols that are
proprietary to the individual manufacturers.)



Wired residential analog systems, wired enterprise analog systems, and wired
enterprise digital systems are able to transmit Baudot TTY signals with 100%
reliability. IP telephony is different.



Depending on network characteristics, the mechanisms that are used in order
to transport voice signals within IP networks are not always suitable for
transporting Baudot TTY tones. Common sources of impairment include packet
loss and the use of voice-optimized audio compression algorithms, such as
G.729. For this reason, a traditional TTY device used in conjunction with
an IP phone (for example, via an acoustic coupler) is not always going to be
reliable.



The good news is that, although not yet in common use, there are
international standards that describe how to transport text and Baudot tones
reliably on IP networks. In general, these techniques do not use the same
audio encoding and transmission mechanisms that are used for voice. I agree
completely that the availability of these techniques, coupled with the
inherent unreliability of Baudot TTY transmissions via the "voice channels"
of IP telephone networks, makes it essential that we treat IP telephony as a
special case in the Section 508 refresh.



Getting back to the original topic of my message. We need a term other than
PSTN to describe non-IP wired telephony. Ideally, it should be a term or
description that would make sense to someone who is not knowledgeable about
telephone engineering. To start the ball rolling, I suggest "wired analog
and wired non-IP digital" as a substitute for PSTN. (I deliberately use the
word "wired" because wireless devices have special characteristics that may
need to be addressed separately.)



-- Paul Michaelis








_____


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:02 PM
To: 'Brooner Mary-AMB004'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Takemura, Michael'; 'Karen Peltz Strauss'; 'Lori McGarry';
Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Debbie Cook'; 'Fred Lucas';
'Jasionowski, Tony'; 'Brett, Thomas F'
Cc: 'Creagan Tim'; 'Brenda Battat'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Jim
Tobias'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

Hi Mary,



I just added my notes to the draft that you circulated from DIANE. I
made all my comments in blue so they are easy to find.



I also included a copy with the changes marked with double curly brackets
for those whose screen readers don't announce color changes.





As I mentioned, I can be on the Telecom Call this week and next due to break
and labwork.




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






_____


From: Brooner Mary-AMB004 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:51 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Takemura,
Michael; Karen Peltz Strauss; Lori McGarry; Gregg Vanderheiden; Michaelis,
Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Debbie Cook; Fred Lucas; Gregg
Vanderheiden; Jasionowski, Tony; Brett, Thomas F
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in WORD

All -



The committee made a request in this week's meeting for me to circulate our
draft template in WORD as it is the medium most are familiar with. So, this
is Draft 1 which was mostly prepared by Diane Golden. Thank you, DIANE.



Gregg VanderHeiden has a draft with lots of edits. It is on the Wiki for our
subcommittee. I would ask Gregg, if possible to circulate his contribution
in WORD to this group also.



This allows folks to study the document and to edit it. I would ask, if you
want to make editting contributions that you copy the template, make your
edits and identify in the Subject line that it is an edit.



Thanks, Mary Brooner

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft1Template for 508 in WORD

This is good.



The second tier though has to appear in the standard. Otherwise there is
no interoperability - and no standing to require anything.

( Tiers that are outside of the standard can be "sufficient options" but
cannot be required. And for interoperability in networks the pieces need
to use the same or transcode into the same - so a requirement is needed)




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:59 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Telecommunications Working Group- Draft
1Template for 508 in WORD




_____


From: Jim Tobias [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:07 AM
To: 'Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul)'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

I agree with Paul's points here on platform terms and definitions.



I want to push it further to help us clarify the structure of our report.
Looking at all of the flavors of "real-time voice

conversation" (which we should use instead of "voice communication" because
it is clearer and more constrained),

there are obviously too many varieties to put every single one in the body
of the report in the same location. I think

this provision may be a strong argument in favor of the "two tier" approach.



For example, how about this for the revised text of 1194.23(a):



"Products or systems that provide real-time voice conversation shall provide
real-time text conversation, both direct and relayed."



Then the second tier spells out the additional requirements for each
platform.





***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias






_____


From: Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul) [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:42 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

Regarding the reference to "PSTN" versus "IP" in many of the proposed
requirements, I agree that IP telephones should be treated differently but
am concerned that describing the non-IP systems as "PSTN" will create a lot
of confusion.



The "PSTN" is the Public Switched Telephone Network. If asked to describe a
PSTN telephony endpoint, I imagine that most telecom specialists would say
it was an analog device that complies with the FCC regulations that govern
residential telephones. If we use this definition, I can't remember the
last time I've seen a government procurement of telecom equipment that falls
into this category.



There are at least three different categories of non-IP wired telephones in
common use today:



Residential analog. (This is what most folks would classify as a "PSTN
phone.")



Enterprise analog. (The distinction between these phones and residential
analog sets is that the enterprise sets connect to the PSTN via a PBX or
switch that is owned by the enterprise. An important electrical distinction
is that, unlike enterprise analog telephones, residential telephones are
required to do "automatic loop length compensation" to account for
distance-related differences in electrical resistance and capacitance in the
line between the phone and the associated central office. Another important
distinction is that many enterprise analog solutions are actually hybrid
analog/digital sets. The audio stream is carried as traditional analog,
supplemented by digital signaling that, for example, controls the phone's
display.)



Enterprise digital. (This is what is purchased in the vast majority of
non-IP wired telephony procurements by the government. All audio
transmissions entering or leaving the phone are digitally encoded, typically
using the G.711 algorithm that I described in a previous message. Signaling
and call control is also digital, typically using protocols that are
proprietary to the individual manufacturers.)



Wired residential analog systems, wired enterprise analog systems, and wired
enterprise digital systems are able to transmit Baudot TTY signals with 100%
reliability. IP telephony is different.



Depending on network characteristics, the mechanisms that are used in order
to transport voice signals within IP networks are not always suitable for
transporting Baudot TTY tones. Common sources of impairment include packet
loss and the use of voice-optimized audio compression algorithms, such as
G.729. For this reason, a traditional TTY device used in conjunction with
an IP phone (for example, via an acoustic coupler) is not always going to be
reliable.



The good news is that, although not yet in common use, there are
international standards that describe how to transport text and Baudot tones
reliably on IP networks. In general, these techniques do not use the same
audio encoding and transmission mechanisms that are used for voice. I agree
completely that the availability of these techniques, coupled with the
inherent unreliability of Baudot TTY transmissions via the "voice channels"
of IP telephone networks, makes it essential that we treat IP telephony as a
special case in the Section 508 refresh.



Getting back to the original topic of my message. We need a term other than
PSTN to describe non-IP wired telephony. Ideally, it should be a term or
description that would make sense to someone who is not knowledgeable about
telephone engineering. To start the ball rolling, I suggest "wired analog
and wired non-IP digital" as a substitute for PSTN. (I deliberately use the
word "wired" because wireless devices have special characteristics that may
need to be addressed separately.)



-- Paul Michaelis








_____


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 2:02 PM
To: 'Brooner Mary-AMB004'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Takemura, Michael'; 'Karen Peltz Strauss'; 'Lori McGarry';
Michaelis, Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Debbie Cook'; 'Fred Lucas';
'Jasionowski, Tony'; 'Brett, Thomas F'
Cc: 'Creagan Tim'; 'Brenda Battat'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Jim
Tobias'
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in
WORD

Hi Mary,



I just added my notes to the draft that you circulated from DIANE. I
made all my comments in blue so they are easy to find.



I also included a copy with the changes marked with double curly brackets
for those whose screen readers don't announce color changes.





As I mentioned, I can be on the Telecom Call this week and next due to break
and labwork.




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






_____


From: Brooner Mary-AMB004 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:51 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Takemura,
Michael; Karen Peltz Strauss; Lori McGarry; Gregg Vanderheiden; Michaelis,
Paul R. (Paul); = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Debbie Cook; Fred Lucas; Gregg
Vanderheiden; Jasionowski, Tony; Brett, Thomas F
Cc: Creagan Tim; Brenda Battat; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Jim Tobias
Subject: Telecommunications Working Group- Draft 1 Template for 508 in WORD

All -



The committee made a request in this week's meeting for me to circulate our
draft template in WORD as it is the medium most are familiar with. So, this
is Draft 1 which was mostly prepared by Diane Golden. Thank you, DIANE.



Gregg VanderHeiden has a draft with lots of edits. It is on the Wiki for our
subcommittee. I would ask Gregg, if possible to circulate his contribution
in WORD to this group also.



This allows folks to study the document and to edit it. I would ask, if you
want to make editting contributions that you copy the template, make your
edits and identify in the Subject line that it is an edit.



Thanks, Mary Brooner