*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 39186*
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 APPROVING  IN  PART,  DISSENTING  IN  PART 
 Re:  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  Disabilities,  CC  Docket  Nos.  90-  571  and  98-  67,  CG  Docket  No.  03-  123. 


 Congress  directed  this  Commission  in  section  225  of  the  Act  to  ensure  that  telecommunications  services  are  available  to  hearing-  impaired  and  speech-  impaired  Americans. 
 To  implement  this  directive,  the  FCC  established  the  Telecommunications  Relay  Service  (TRS)  program,  which  requires  telephone  companies  to  provide  relay  services  throughout  the  area  in 
 which  they  offer  service  so  that  persons  with  disabilities  will  have  access  to  telecommunications  services.  Without  federal  and  state  TRS  services,  millions  of  Americans  would  be  left  out  of  the 
 communications  revolution  that  is  reshaping  our  economy  and  society. 
 This  Order  makes  two  promises  of  future  action  that  are  particularly  notable.  First,  the  Order  commits  our  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau  to  launch  a  “comprehensive  outreach 
 plan”  to  make  the  availability  of  TRS  services  more  widely  known,  not  only  to  Americans  with  disabilities  but  to  the  public-  at-  large.  Outside  parties  have  repeatedly  told  us,  and  our  own 
 Consumer  Advisory  Council  has  concurred,  that  we  must  improve  our  efforts  to  inform  and  educate  the  public  about  the  availability  of  TRS.  Our  commitment  to  take  on  this  challenge  is  an 
 important  promise  that  we  must  live  up  to. 
 In  this  Order,  we  also  commit  to  sponsor  the  applications  of  TRS  service  providers  that  seek  priority  status  for  restoration  in  emergency  situations.  Obtaining  that  status  would  be  an 
 important  step  towards  ensuring  that  Americans  with  disabilities  have  access  to  communications  services  in  times  of  crisis. 


 I  cannot  support  this  Order,  however,  to  the  extent  that  it  declares  all  non-  shared  language  TRS  services  to  be  “value-  added”  and  ineligible  for  funding,  particularly  in  the  case  of  Video 
 Relay  Services  (VRS).  Our  country  is  growing  increasingly  multi-  ethnic  and  multi-  cultural.  A  study  by  the  Pew  Hispanic  Center  reports  that  40%  of  the  40  million  Latinos  in  this  country  –  or 
 15.5  million  people  –  speak  and  understand  “just  a  little”  or  “no”  English.  I  believe  the  FCC  and  communications  policy  has  got  to  keep  up  with  this  change  and  be  more  responsive  to  these 
 communities. 
 I  also  must  dissent  in  part  with  respect  to  our  treatment  of  cost  recovery  issues  for  VRS.  VRS  is  an  increasingly  important  tool  for  those  portions  of  the  deaf  community  who  rely  on 
 American  Sign  Language  (ASL).  This  includes  individuals  who  cannot  type  on  a  TTY  phone  easily,  such  as  children  and  senior  citizens,  and  those  who  do  not  speak  English.  VRS  allows 
 ASL  and  hearing  individuals  to  have  real  time  conversations  that  more  closely  mirror  the  speed  and  natural  flow  of  voice-  to-  voice  conversations. 


 In  June  2003,  the  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau  reduced  our  TRS  Administrator’s  proposed  VRS  compensation  rate  by  almost  fifty-  percent.  That  action  left  many 
 VRS  providers  with  no  choice  but  to  cut  service  or  employees,  elicited  an  outcry  from  many 
1
 members  of  the  deaf  and  heard  of  hearing  community,  and  raised  legitimate  questions  of  substance  and  process.  This  Order  falls  short  in  addressing  these  concerns  and  issues. 
 It  is  absolutely  critical  that  the  Commission  provide  oversight  to  ensure  that  our  VRS  compensation  rate  is  limited  to  “reasonable  costs,”  the  standard  articulated  in  our  rules.  We  also 
 have  an  obligation,  however,  to  ensure  that  providers  have  adequate  notice  of  how  we  will  apply  this  standard,  so  that  they  can  plan  their  operations  accordingly. 


 I  am  pleased  that  the  Further  Notice  attached  to  this  Order  seeks  comment  on  how  we  can  improve  our  rules  and  process  for  setting  the  VRS  compensation  rate.  That  is  movement  in  the 
 right  direction.  More  broadly,  the  Further  Notice  also  opens  an  important  dialogue  about  whether  VRS  and  Internet  Protocol  (IP)  Relay  Services  should  now  qualify  as  mandatory 
 services.  The  rapid  increase  in  usage  of  VRS  demonstrates  the  value  of  this  service  and  hastens  the  day  when  this  Commission  will  need  to  address  technical  issues  about  emergency  call 
 handling  and  the  speed  of  answer  for  VRS  calls. 
 I  look  forward  to  working  with  my  colleagues,  members  of  the  TRS  Advisory  Committee,  and  the  many  members  of  the  disabilities  community  on  these  issues  as  we  move 
 forward. 
2