1 CONSUMER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING1 2 3 4 Friday, November 3rd, 20065 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 P R O C E E D I N G S1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Good morning, everyone,2 it is meeting time. If I can get you to take your3 chairs, we have a very busy agenda today.4 Good morning. Last call. You will have5 other times to chat, folks, let's get rolling,6 please.7 Well, good morning, everyone, I'm Shirley8 Rooker and welcome to this lovely facility. We're9 getting the folks together for the phone line.10 Several people will be on by phone, just get your11 chairs, please.12 SCOTT MARSHALL: 866-624-3038. Sure.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: While we're calling in14 the people who are joining us by phone, we'd like to15 go around the room and everyone tell us who they are16 and where they are from. It is a rather large group.17 And so anyway, I'm Shirley Rooker, I'm the local18 deputy Call For Action director. We're a nonprofit19 group. Welcome.20 I will pass the microphone on each side if21 you would take your microphone and just pass it up to22 3 this end, so that it can start going down, we'd need1 it may be. I don't know, do we have an issue with2 sound? Can we talk to each other without mics --3 ah-hah, we have to have the mics, it's required. Let4 me pass this.5 MAYTAL SELZER: Hi, my name is Maytal6 Selzer, I'm with the Alliance for Public Technology.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You do have name tags in8 your folder, if you would put them out in front of9 you. That's so I will know who I am. That's Joe.10 (Laughter.)11 GREGORY FROHRIEP: Hello, I'm12 Gregory Frohriep, CWD.13 THE AUDIENCE: Your mic is not on.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Push the switch.15 SCOTT MARSHALL: There you go.16 GREGORY FROHRIEP: I'm Gregory Frohriep,17 I'm with CWD.18 SCOTT MARSHALL: Your name tag is coming.19 MR. ORLECK-AIELLO: I am Phil20 Orleck-Aiello, I am here today subbing for my wife, I21 am with TCS.22 4 CLAUDE STOUT: Good morning, I'm Claude1 Stout, and I am with Deaf and Hard of Hearing2 Consumer Advocacy Network, good to see you all this3 morning.4 JOE GORDON: Good morning, I'm Joe Gordon,5 I'm with the League for the Hard of Hearing.6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You can take the7 microphone off, it is easier to pass that way. Thank8 you.9 LINDA WEST: Hi, I'm Linda West, a member10 of the -- from the northwest corner of Montana,11 representing Native American and rural American12 issues.13 BRENDA KELLY-FREY: Good morning. Brenda14 Kelly-Frey, I'm representing the National Association15 for State Relay Administration.16 DAVID BRUGGER: Good morning, David17 Brugger, I'm a private consultant and live in18 Washington, D.C.19 DIXIE ZIEGLER: Good morning, I'm Dixie20 Ziegler with the Hamilton Relay representing21 telecommunication service providers.22 5 SHELLY: Good morning, my name is Shelly.1 LARRY GOLDBERG: Larry Goldberg, WGBH2 National Center.3 REBECCA LADEW: I'm Rebecca Ladew,4 representing STS.5 CHARLES BENTON: Charles Benton of the6 Benton Foundation.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Why don't you take the8 microphone off the stand, it is easier to pass.9 (Laughter.)10 GENE CRICK: Gene Crick, TeleCommunity11 Resource Center.12 WILL REED: Will Reed, with Technology for13 All.14 TONI ACTON: I'm Toni Acton, I represent15 AT&T.16 LAURA FORLANO: Laura Forlano, I represent17 NYC Wireless for an organization that builds and18 promotes public wireless network support in city19 populations and residential.20 DR. HELENA MITCHELL: Helena Mitchell, the21 Center for Advanced Communication Policy in Georgia.22 6 JOHN BREYAULT: John Breyault,1 Telecommunications Research and Action Center.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Good morning.3 JANICE SCHACTER: Janice Schacter, I'm a4 mother of a 12-year old daughter with hearing loss.5 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: Karen Pelz Strauss,6 I'm here representing the communication services for7 the deaf. I have one extra book with me.8 (Laughter.)9 (Applause.)10 JIM TOBIAS: Jim Tobias, Inclusive11 Technologies.12 RICHARD ELLIS: Richard Ellis, Verizon.13 LORETTA POLK: Good morning, I'm Loretta14 Polk.15 VOICE: Consumer governmental affairs16 here.17 SCOTT MARSHALL: I'm Scott Marshal, I will18 be speaking with you in a moment.19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: As you see, we have some20 new faces. Maytal is a new person joining us, we21 have Pennington, is Brenda here?22 7 We welcome all of you, it is delightful to1 see you here this morning. I do have to say, thank2 you, a big thank you to Rich Ellis at Verizon.3 (Applause.)4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: They have provided us5 with the space and audio and visual equipment we have6 and we really appreciate the contribution.7 In addition, CTIA, Dane Snowden, who is8 going to be joining us later. He and CTIA very9 graciously will provide lunch for us, so we will be10 fed.11 (Applause.)12 SHIRLEY ROOKER: A track record of 6 years13 for lunch. We really appreciate that. I will turn14 this over to Scott for meeting logistics.15 SCOTT MARSHALL: Thank you, it is good to16 see you all, I would actually ask Rich Ellis to tell17 you all the important things around here. I should18 tell you I'm also very grateful to both the19 assistants for pulling this together. And also this20 is a wonderful facility, the men's room is larger21 than my apartment.22 8 (Laughter.)1 SCOTT MARSHALL: I almost got lost in2 there.3 (Laughter.)4 RICHARD ELLIS: Thank you, Scott. First5 of all, on behalf of James Earl Jones, let me welcome6 you to Verizon.7 (Laughter.)8 RICHARD ELLIS: We're glad you could be9 here. If there are any loose ends -- if you want to10 see where Scott's huge men's room is, you go out the11 way you came in, go to the right, the men's and the12 women's.13 There are phones in an atrium out here and14 the main lobby, pretty much anywhere you sit, just15 dial 9 to get out.16 Please be aware of the wires on the floor,17 the wires are taped down, but be aware of that and be18 aware the microphones are all on all the time.19 (Laughter.)20 RICHARD ELLIS: Any other questions?21 Bonnie will be happy to help you out (Indicating),22 9 hope you enjoy your day.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Rich, again.2 I have to thank Scott Marshall. I have to tell you3 Scott Marshall is a joy. He's going to kill me4 later.5 (Laughter.)6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: He is such a joy to work7 with, I have to tell you, he is absolutely wonderful.8 I just got through telling --9 (Applause.)10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: And the people at the FCC11 have done so much to facilitate meetings, I believe12 they have done a lot of work. For all of our people13 who have made this meeting possible, we are very14 grateful. Of course, one of the those important15 people to us and her support has meant so much to us16 is Monica. We've always had records from here and17 Monica has been great to work with, the chief of the18 Governmental Affairs Bureau. And I will turn the19 podium over to Monica.20 MONICA DESAI: Thank you, I want a second21 to make sure we have people on the phone.22 10 JOHN RUSCILLI: Yes, you do. John1 Ruscilli with BellSouth.2 DENY MOYNIHAN: Deny Moynihan.3 MONICA DESAI: Thank you for coming to the4 fall CAC meeting and thank you for the kind words5 from Rich Ellis and Verizon Communications for6 providing today's meeting facilities, and thank you7 to Dane Snowden and CTIA for providing lunch.8 This is the last CAC meeting of the9 current two-year term and I want to personally thank10 all of you for your commitment to the committee and11 working with the commission during the past12 two years. The commission has really benefited from13 the comments and your advice and we hope we provided14 useful information to you and your organizations.15 I do expect the commission will be16 chartered, we are in the review stage, hopefully you17 will be hearing something fairly soon. I'll speak18 about Shirley, who has been very busy since we last19 met and I would like to highlight some of our recent20 efforts.21 The Consumer and Governmental Affairs22 11 Bureau, as you all know very well, develop and1 implement the commission's consumer policies,2 including disability access. We serve as the public3 face of the commission through outreach and4 education, as well as through our consumer center,5 which is responsible for responding to consumer6 inquiries and complaints.7 We also maintain collaborative8 partnerships with tribal, state and local9 governments. Just last week as the -- commission10 partnered with the National Congress of American11 Indians and the Tribes of Northwest Indians at the12 latest gathering of the ITI, which is a workshop13 round table focused on public safety and homeland14 security issues, including emergency preparedness.15 Last July we had a similar round table16 workshop event addressing issues such as broadband17 deployment with wireless broadband and structure18 development and a business plan, and the development19 of TV and radio stations in the country.20 Last week we also attended the AARP21 convention in California where we had an exhibit22 12 booth, we answered questions and distributed1 materials on issues such as DTB, broadband, wireless2 phone service, broadcast initiative. We are very3 happy to participate everywhere.4 Also last week we participated in the5 tenth annual Rural Telecommunications Congress, rural6 telecom convenience business owners, federal, state7 and local government agencies and representatives8 from the medicine, distance learning, E government9 communities and public policy officials to discuss10 deployment of advanced telecommunication services11 including broadband.12 This year we also discussed the recently13 announced health care pilot program to networks. At14 the meetings in August, the Federal and State15 Lifeline and Link Up Working Group presented16 preliminary conclusions to improve outreach to17 lifeline and link up to committees on18 telecommunications and consumer affairs.19 After receiving public input, we put on20 outreach efforts across the country without spending21 too much money. The Working Group is looking forward22 13 to further projects, they are preparing sample news1 articles and press releases that will be posted on2 the web. At the annual meetings in Miami,3 resolutions will be adopted and reinforce the needs4 for public and private partnerships, community-based5 organizations, social service agencies, to be sure6 that the lifeline method is not only communicated to7 eligible consumers, but that they can also navigate8 the application process successfully.9 The Bureau took its new program to10 Houston, Texas. This included an event at Houston11 County Community Center. It even focused on issues12 such as DTV, VOIP, and calling cards. We developed a13 partnership to help disseminate consumer information14 to local residents. The team was in Houston. They15 spoke to several hundred high school students at a16 communications magnet school, they toured the17 facility and were met with great enthusiasm. Had a18 great experience there.19 As you are well aware, the disability20 rights office is also housed within the Consumer and21 Governmental Affairs Bureau. The office is currently22 14 overseeing several rule making proceedings. The1 recommendations on their agenda today do address2 these items. Your input does help inform our3 decisions and we do value it greatly.4 The commission recently launched a rule5 making and oversight proceeding on a broad range of6 issues, compensation of providers of TRS from the TRS7 fund. In this proceeding, we're examining options8 for costs for the various forms of TRS, including9 traditional TRS, speech to speech, video relay10 services and IP relay.11 Through the proceeding, the commission is12 exploring issues relating to what costs are13 reasonable for compensation and the costs of coverage14 methodology, and to what extent outreach expenses,15 legal fees, overhead costs and executive compensation16 are compensable from the fund.17 Finally, the notice also seeks comments on18 ways to improve the management and administration of19 the fund, including measures for assessing the20 efficiency of the fund, fraud and abuse and also to21 protect the integrity of the fund.22 15 We address the issue of access to1 emergency services for 911, Internet based forms of2 TRS and IT relay. As the commission has often3 recognized, 911 service is critical to the nation's4 ability to respond to a host of crises -- American5 Sign Language -- for advantage in the event of an6 emergency. We can use a telephone to reach the7 proper authorities and that the first responders will8 be able to accurately locate them.9 Because wireline telephones are generally10 linked to a particular physical address, emergency11 calls face -- including direct TTY telephones --12 public safety answering point where location13 information is automatically displayed. Such direct14 automatic access does not currently exist and15 accordingly, you must develop solutions.16 Relating to this issue the commission is17 hosting an E9-1-1 disability access summit on18 November 15th, 2006 for ways to include emergency19 calling through TRS and active relay.20 The comission also addresses the misuse of21 two -- of active relay and TRS, seeking common an22 16 possible changes to the TRS regulations to curtail1 EMC. In addition we have launched a proceeding of2 how the commission can work with providers in a3 database that may allow customers to use existing4 telephone numbers or other number as a proxy for5 their Internet protocol address. This arrangement6 could potentially provide -- determine automatically7 relay user when a hearing person or another person8 initiates an interface call.9 We also sought comment on whether the10 commit should adopt Internet protocol standards to11 ensure all providers can receive calls from and make12 calls to any consumer, and all ERS consumers can make13 calls through an ERS provider.14 We are also working on closed captioning15 issues. In response to the petition rule making we16 sought comment on the current status of the closed17 captioning rules and ensuring that video programming18 is accessible to deaf and hard of hearing Americans19 and whether additions should be make to the20 effectiveness of those rules and compliance quality21 issues related to closed captioning.22 17 As many of you know the bureau has1 recently received over 600 petitions requesting2 exemption from the requirement that as of January3 1st, all programming be closed captioning.4 Recently the bureau issued orders to 3005 nonprofit programmers who were religious entities,6 most of whom were paying. Because the cases are7 subject to review I can't get into the substance of8 the decisions. And while it is difficult to know9 when the commission will address it, I do hope the10 application is resolved soon and I know many of you11 have expressed your views on this issue and12 appreciate that.13 This fall the commission announced the14 launching of the Public Safety Homeland Security15 Bureau, the events of the September 11th and last16 year's hurricane season instituted the17 infrastructure. The new bureau will build on the18 comission's longstanding commitment to promote public19 safety by facilitating reliable communication20 services in times of emergency.21 On August 3rd the commission adopted an22 18 order to promote access to broadband services for all1 Americans and to encourage -- affirmed its rules for2 access to broadband over power line systems while3 maintaining in safeguards for radio services. The4 commission will take appropriate action to the5 situation.6 The commission recently issued a proposed7 rule making concerning a advanced television on8 existing television service. This is the next step9 in the digital transition which I am sure will be a10 very important topic during the next phase. The11 further notice proposes a new DTV cable allotment.12 Also in September the commission adopted13 an order that establishes a pilot program for health14 care providers, for broadband networks dedicated to15 the provision of health care services. The16 construction of such networks will bring the benefits17 particularly telemedicine services to areas of the18 country where the needs are acute. A couple of weeks19 ago the commission noticed an inquiry of the status20 of competition in the market for the delivery video21 programming as required by Congress. This notice of22 19 inquiry which seeks competition in the video1 programming market is designed to assist the FCC with2 annual video competition. In the annual report the3 FCC assesses the previous year and the effects the4 changes are having on the consumers.5 On September 27th, Chairman Martin6 addressed the issue of obesity among children and7 will be serving on a joint task force with8 representatives from the food, television and9 advertising industries, along with consumer advocacy10 groups and health expects, to work together to11 address this important issue. When the task force12 has completed its work the FCC will submit a report13 on what we have learned and will continue to educate14 American parents.15 CTB is responsible for the commission's16 direct relationship with consumers at the consumer17 center and information about how to file a complaint18 is available on the commission's website and are19 updated regularly.20 As you know, we also have an important21 outreach function which I touched on some. We picked22 20 up outreach through our consumers affairs and1 outreach division which focuses on broad2 issue-oriented and specific consumer education. The3 office of consumer affairs is committed to4 strengthening the local governments. A very5 successful outreach tool. As I talked about before6 we now have about 6,000 names on the registry so the7 numbers keep increasing with every CAC meeting.8 We -- since our last report in June/July9 the registry has focused on subjects such as10 increased -- and the new advisory committee by11 Congress related to emergency communication. And12 finally in cooperation with many other federal13 agencies, airline travel and people with14 disabilities.15 As always I appreciate having the16 opportunity to speak with you. I've enjoyed working17 with the committee since I came on board. I -- a18 certificate which we do have here. Shirley,19 efficient as always, noted that it would take about20 an hour to present them all individually, so we21 brought them and stacked up here. And for those of22 21 you on the phone we will be mailing them to you.1 Before I wrap up I just want to recognize2 the chairperson, Shirley Rooker, who has shared so3 eagerly with this committee for six years and the4 entire time she's only missed only one meeting,5 maybe, that's it. And it's traditional here at the6 commission to present you with a seal, I do hope you7 continue to work with us going forward. Although you8 are not an employee of the commission, you might feel9 like one by now.10 (Laughter.)11 MONICA DESAI: I hope that your CAC12 colleagues will follow the custom of signing their13 names around the seal. So we will make the seal14 available so Shirley can sign it today.15 (Applause.)16 MONICA DESAI: Thank you, it has been a17 pleasure working with you and with you organizing18 this committee. So we appreciate it, thank you.19 (Applause.)20 MONICA DESAI: I know we're on a tight21 schedule.22 22 THE AUDIENCE: Do we need mikes? I have1 the mike. First of all thank you, Monica, for coming2 to all of our meetings and giving us so much3 information about what's going on in your bureau and4 others. I have a two-part question.5 First of all have you seen any trends in6 terms of the types of complaints, changes in7 complaints that have come across in the past year or8 so? The second question is I was wondering if you9 have had any inquiries yet from consumers about the10 DTV transition.11 MONICA DESAI: We certainly had inquiries12 on the DTV transition. There certainly have been an13 increased number of hits to the website, increased14 requests for fact sheets and publications related to15 the transition. So there is, as there should be I16 think, growing general awareness about the17 transition, which is a good thing. I don't know18 about specific information, I do know we are hearing19 more about it. I do know when we do our outreach20 advance, people are more interested in this subject21 as well and we do -- when we go to different spots.22 23 With respect to trends I'd have to take a1 look at the reports. We put them on a website and I2 need to take a look. Anecdotally I really hear and3 pay attention to the trends that sort of come to my4 attention for various other reasons. It may not be5 that -- for example, we sometimes have do not call6 complaints, but that may be stirred up by news7 reports. For example related to press on that issue,8 we've gotten a steady streams of complaints on9 certain -- issues and both in the wireless and10 Wireline contacts, on the site. It is hard to say11 without looking at the report.12 THE AUDIENCE: The first is more factual.13 Right now, at the same time that we're meeting14 there's also meetings of something called the Access15 Board Refresh Committee that is looking at revising16 the guidelines for section 508 of the Rehabilitation17 Act and the Telecommunications Act.18 Up until now there's been no involvement19 by the FCC on that committee and I'm not sure why20 there hasn't been, but since the guidelines will21 effective impact rules that the FCC might need to22 24 revise, I just want to alert you that was going on,1 and have a representative attending those meetings.2 MONICA DESAI: I think we had a meeting3 with the access folks, I'm not sure about4 membership -- I'm not that familiar with the5 technicalities of it, but I do know that we have been6 working with the access order.7 THE AUDIENCE: Our next meeting is next8 week, I just want to alert you to the fact that9 membership is not typically -- it is basically the10 membership is closed, but I believe you can attend if11 you're a federal agency, the agency responsible for12 making the rules.13 The second question that I have is14 actually a question -- you listed -- it has nothing15 to do with my books.16 (Laughter.)17 THE AUDIENCE: Which actually I already18 sold this one I'll have you know, but I do have order19 forms.20 (Laughter.)21 THE AUDIENCE: The next question, is you22 25 mentioned the disability proceedings, one that I1 didn't hear you mention was the Internet Protocol2 Captioned proceedings, I want to know if that's still3 alive?4 MONICA DESAI: I apologize, yes, that is.5 We are certainly not there by any means.6 RICHARD ELLIS: Folks on the phone someone7 has a speaker on, we're getting feedback.8 SCOTT MARSHALL: If every one could speak9 one at a time for the court reporter.10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have no place card,11 but I would like to ask the FCC -- questions about12 when protocols would be deployed. These aren't13 complaints, they are issues for more information, we14 firmly believe that commission should pay for15 initially. There should be more of an interactive16 process -- that's our job, not yours, but we would17 like better information about how we can make that18 happen.19 My question then is could you keep the FCC20 or individuals informed of the developments within21 the emergency advisory process and what issues or22 26 even sessions like the last mile considerations, one1 of our other issues. But if you have an order coming2 out, which is it's a little difficult for us in3 smaller communities to prepare and then it is4 difficult for us to make sure that alerting re:5 distrubution of information gained through the6 channels with those with disabilities and those in7 custodial populations. You see what we're working8 with, any information and perhaps any more access9 information like a channel where we ask a question10 about what's the status of CAP alerts.11 So anyway thank you for any information.12 Similarly you mentioned the tele pilot program. I13 get a lot of questions about that and they are14 trivial questions, what services are covered and what15 can we do. But the fact is I know that Erica has an16 information site coming up soon so the faster we can17 get that information out, the better my18 administrative assistant, who answers the phone will19 love you for it. Thanks.20 MONICA DESAI: I appreciate your comments.21 Certainly the website should be coming up soon,22 27 hopefully very soon. Your comments on alerts for1 federal agencies and how to get the information out2 better is a very good one and it is definitely3 something we can -- I can help facilitate in the4 Department of Homeland Security bureau and maybe we5 can discuss that specifically.6 If you're interested in information on7 proceedings related to communications issues, you8 know, I think -- I'm not sure if at the consumer9 information registry there is a box to check for10 communications issues. If there's not there should11 be. And folks who are particularly interested in12 those issues should be getting alerts through our13 consumer information registry for those types of14 issues. So I will definitely look into that and make15 sure at least that gets taken care of. I definitely16 invite you to get in touch with me or work with Scott17 and we can set up a meeting with the Public Safety18 and Homeland Security bureau for that issue that we19 talked about. Thank you.20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you.21 (Applause.)22 28 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, very much,1 Monica. It is wonderful to hear from you. The2 certificates are behind me, please remember to pick3 them up and for the people on the phone, there is a4 lot of feedback, I hear myself twice and that is5 scary.6 Also I want to repeat that you identify7 yourself for the court reporter so that we can get it8 accurately -- your name, please.9 Do you have any questions about logistics10 or anything like that that we need to move on? If11 not or you can see us at the break.12 Jim Tobias is going to present.13 Jim Tobias.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: On each side we have to15 have a microphone person in charge. To make sure we16 get did moved to the person who is speaking.17 JIM TOBIAS: Well, I'm equipped, but I'm18 not WI-FI. This is going to be an exercise. What I19 want to talk about briefly is a set of trends and20 technologies that I believe are not only interesting21 on their own, but I hope you don't get hypnotized by22 29 the drama and amusing nature of the technology to the1 extent that we lose focus on the public policy2 implications. But what I want to talk about are some3 trends and then there are implications for the public4 interest.5 I have to do it manually. Okay, so the6 first trend describes images for remote and these are7 for people with visual impairments. The increasing8 extent to which everything we buy in the information9 and communication technology sphere is not a complete10 product in and of itself, but rather a platform that11 the features are determined by the software inherent12 in the product. So for example, your cell phones you13 might not think of as basically software devices, but14 they are, not only the features and services, but15 literally the character sets and the functions that16 you perform with them are all determined by the17 software. And you buy it with an embedded software,18 but you may also have experience with your network19 provider automatically upgrading to software on your20 cell phone and you have changes.21 And when you change your service, like22 30 what number it is associated with, or you add text1 messaging, all are software driven. They want to2 manufacture one version of a product, they don't want3 to have to make an Indonesian cell phone and a4 Chinese cell phone and a UK cell phone -- and what5 happened is that this product becomes -- and this6 product becomes a way of marketing additional7 services to you.8 So you may purchase software on your9 desktop computer and it periodically wakes up and10 reminds you, hey you can get a better version of this11 or upgrades are not available. And it's kind of a12 marketing channel into your environment. So the13 software is designed to be upgraded on hardware14 products and to constantly maintain a relationship15 with the customer.16 And this is very different from say, the17 1950s or 60s style telephone, where all it did was18 ring, that's basically all it could do. Now our19 phones are in kind of constant awareness of what we20 do with them, what we might want to do in the future.21 It is much better and it is a way to improve the22 31 value of the relationship to the companies involved.1 So there is not only a two-way, two-party2 relationship between us as consumers and the3 companies that make and sell these products, but it4 is a very active third party market.5 So for example, on your cell phone you're6 not only buying if you have sense at all, service7 from Verizon -- or service from any of the wonderful8 carriers we have in the United States -- you're also9 able to purchase services from other service10 providers, like Yahoo or Google or ESPN, or whoever11 it is that you want to use that product for.12 So what used to be something that was13 basically inert and had one simple function now14 becomes a electronic mall where you can determine how15 you want to use it and you can find people to provide16 you services on that platform.17 An additional trend, another trend that18 feeds into this is the fact that we now have, using19 the shorthand of "the web," we have an interconnected20 network of information about products and services21 that we use on a -- more and more of us use on an22 32 everyday and even moment to moment basis.1 I don't think I'm the only one in the room2 who feels that their experience of life is truncated3 by not having Internet access at every moment. I've4 seen people get shakes in long elevator rides because5 they can't access their Blackberry at every moment.6 But it is important to understand the7 changes that this evolving network is going through8 right now. And one of the principal changes is it is9 no longer just a repository of information, like a10 shelf in the library and every day you go into the11 library and go to the same shelf and the same book is12 there and you open it up and read and put the book13 back on the shelf.14 More and more, websites are actually15 software applications themselves. So something like16 E-Bay, we're not accessing a website, we're accessing17 a piece of software with a big database behind it18 that anyone can add information to, anyone can add a19 product for sale and E-Bay shows that information.20 And when they complete the auction cycle they21 disappear from the database and are no longer shown.22 33 Or Amazon when a new book is available for sale --1 and other locations. I suggest you run as soon as2 possible and by one just to experiment with the3 application basing of the web mail.4 If I get a portion of your royalties I'd5 know exactly how much that's going to be.6 So Amazon as you know keeps track, to the7 extent you want it to, of not only what you purchased8 in the past, but items that you're interested in,9 that you can put in a wish list. And it reminds you,10 hey, 6 months ago you said you wanted this book and11 it is now available in a used copy, would you like to12 buy it now?13 Again it is an application-oriented14 relationship-managing context that the web and these15 information networks are now capable of and we might16 think of them as inflicting that relationship on us,17 something that we don't want. At any rate the this18 is nature, the technological nature of the service as19 I described.20 So now you can even get, things thought of21 as desktop applications, like word processing and22 34 spreadsheets, are now fully mounted on websites.1 Google -- as you may be aware, everything that you2 might want to have on your desktop, a word processor,3 a spreadsheet, information about your own4 transactions, your own communications are now5 available from any computer as you log into your6 Google account.7 So what are the implications beyond this8 technology? And I'll demonstrate a couple of these9 just to show what they are.10 People have asked me what this thing is11 (Indicating) I will describe it, I brought it to the12 July meeting, it wouldn't work then, it is doing the13 same thing now. It is a cute little gadget that14 stands about a foot tall including its ears, like a15 rounded conical shape, it looks like a bunny, the16 name vastag is Armenian for rabbit. It is a French17 product. It is a wireless device that hooks up18 automatically whenever it is in a WI-FI zone that is19 a relatively open zone and it identifies itself to20 its home network in Paris and all in the world.21 This has a name, Rusty Buddy. If anyone22 35 wants to send a message they can do so by visiting1 the website and what happens is your message goes2 over the web, to the servers in Paris and back out to3 Rusty Buddy.4 What do you make this Vastag do? It has5 ears that move -- these ears you see, the lights6 change color, the ears detect, none were harmed in7 the making of this presentation, they are8 magnetically connected, they are on rotating motors9 and it can also speak. You can send a friend a song10 and have it play out, a birthday wish or what have11 you.12 The accessibility is pretty cool, but it13 is not limited just to accessibility. I see this as14 a phone ringer for someone who is deaf or hard of15 hearing. The ringers you can buy from Radio Shack16 and other locations. The fact that it has a motor,17 for a deaf, blind individual there is kind of a third18 party hobby market for making accessory ears, you can19 imagine all the bling loaded fuzzy ears. What have20 you, that could be informational devices. You can21 set the ears to any position you want and different22 36 positions can have different meanings.1 The point is not that such a device can be2 built, it is that it can be built and sold at such a3 low price, about $100 and there is no cost for the4 service. Here you have a device that is a fully5 functional message translation device, text turns6 into speech, it can also be a multimodal and7 cross-loading device. It's French so they call the8 set of controls a choreography and the choreography9 encompassed, to make a license change and ears. It10 allows you to create any particular application that11 you want and that is kind of the software design or12 software based product.13 I know we have another -- we're short on14 time so I'm just going to briefly go into this15 quickly with you. Many of you may experience -- that16 guy is hideous.17 You may be familiar with web cams that you18 can attach to your laptop, that's not relevant or19 even tolerable -- what's interesting is that you can20 have it capture your face and what you do with your21 face shows up on the screen.22 37 So this is something that -- here we go --1 you can see that as I talk, it's mouth is moving and2 I narrow my eyes and tilt my head back up and down.3 THE AUDIENCE: Explain what's on the4 screen.5 JIM TOBIAS: I have a shark and other6 critters --7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That one looks more8 like you than you do.9 (Laughter.)10 JIM TOBIAS: Thanks. That was a shark and11 a -- what has happened with respect to face and12 gesture recognition software -- okay, now it is13 tracking me. If I narrow my eyes it has a wonderful14 quality -- the purpose is not to demonstrate the raw15 capability -- I don't want to be upstaged forever --16 it is not to demonstrate the raw functionality but17 the capability we have as such a reduced cost and18 such market ubiquity.19 If you look at the world of eye gaze20 technology on behalf of people with communication or21 other kinds of control capability problems, if you22 38 couldn't type, could you control something by moving1 your head around? This is about an $8,000 device2 which reaches almost 0 percent of a contended market3 and drops it down to a $100 device which then4 requires third party development. And I think we5 have some radical transformations that are occurring6 because of that, development costs are much lower7 when you -- with hardware, software.8 The distribution costs are radically lower9 as well. We're not even selling CDs, people are10 coming to the website, downloading software, the11 distribution costs are almost down to zero. The12 marketing costs are similarly lowered, there are so13 many people already on the Internet. We know that's14 not the case, but a growing number of people are.15 And people spend time on the Internet looking for16 products that meet their very, very, specific needs,17 their niche needs. They have to find their market,18 the market is essentially looking for them.19 So these all contribute to a phenomenon20 referred to as the long tail and the graph here is21 sales of a product versus the number of products. So22 39 we all know that a highly popular product like1 vanilla ice cream has huge sales. And a product like2 mocha mint chip would have very, very little sales.3 Because we buy our ice cream at the supermarket,4 there is limited space in the freezer, the5 supermarkets have to focus on sales with high --6 products with high volume sale.7 Information communication technology,8 there is no longer such a need, we have essentially9 an infinite size supermarket. You can reach the10 potential market and find people who want that11 particular variation of a product or service. As12 those information costs and transaction costs drop13 radically, what we find is there's actually more14 money to be made in very, very scarce, rare, tiny15 markets, than there are in huge mainstream services.16 Fewer people will tolerate a generic news17 show. More and more people are looking for what is18 the news of my community of interest, whether it19 might be my ethnic community, what have you. This20 information technology gives us as consumers the21 ability to find those sources because it gives the22 40 producers a very low-cost platform for producing and1 distributing the information services.2 So if this is a technological fact, what3 are the implications of public interest? I apologize4 to the experts in public interest here who probably5 come up with these ideas, but as coming from a6 technology perspective, I think of three types of7 intervention. First nature preserve -- first there8 is an assumption there is a need to do something9 other than let the market determine everything about10 how we're going to get information communication.11 What are the models that we can think of?12 I can first thing of something like a nature13 preserve. We are preserving some resource, we have a14 reserve spectrum for assistive listening assistance15 as we do for emergency communication. There may be16 other kinds of resources that just need an absolute17 regulatory hand to preserve them for the community18 that could not effectively compete in the market. We19 could never get the assistive listening system market20 to outbid a major carrier auctioning off every single21 piece of the electro magnetic spectrum.22 41 There is the kind of market basket1 approach. It basically says what is it that people2 are buying, what are people using? And this is kind3 of a market research oriented review, what is the4 reality of the -- pattern for information technology5 and where are the underserved populations within this6 context? And what are the efficient ways of7 remedying gaps in the market or failures on the8 market on a case-by-case basis.9 The final one is kind of more utopian10 perhaps, where we rely on he market, but we subsidize11 underserved users, we basically say these are the12 services that we think you need in order to be a13 citizen of the United States. And given -- you could14 be a third-grade student, a low income person in an15 urban community, whatever your situation is, how16 could we provide you the wherewithal in the market to17 get what you want?18 I apologize for the flashy technology side19 of it and the under developed theoretical approach, I20 wanted to get across to you some very exciting21 developments in the area of technology that I think22 42 will encourage us to think in innovative ways about1 how we can intervene, how the public sector can2 intervene.3 (Applause.)4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I thought you looked5 really good as a green person.6 Before we take questions, Scott needs to7 speak to our people on the phone, he has some8 information on how you can mute your phone.9 SCOTT MARSHALL: Thanks, Shirley, we have10 a solution on your phone, star 6 will mute your line.11 There is a way to mute all of you from here, but we12 don't want to do that.13 (Laughter.)14 SCOTT MARSHALL: Kindly push star 6, that15 should take care of our feedback problem. So they16 tell me.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: How do they come back in?18 SCOTT MARSHALL: It is a toggle. Do star19 6 again and we will be able to hear it.20 THE AUDIENCE: Thank you very much.21 SCOTT MARSHALL: We also want to ask does22 43 anyone on the phone have a question for Jim? And1 then I will turn it back to you, Shirley.2 Going once, twice.3 You're very resourceful.4 He called me on the cell phone. I wrote5 it down for next time, maybe I'll know how to run a6 meeting after 6 years, we will have it for the7 future, I guarantee you.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, we have a9 couple of questions -- we're still getting feedback.10 THE AUDIENCE: No.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'm still hearing myself.12 THE AUDIENCE: No.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have a couple of14 questions.15 MARY LIGHT: Good morning, Mary Light for16 SHAMU. The information that you were talking about17 in terms of tracking eye gaze and facial movements18 and how it is a very inexpensive technology is an19 interest -- I know there's been a lot of research20 done with eye tracking in the area of computer21 assisted kinds of distance technologies. Do you see22 44 applications in terms of distance communication for1 eye tracking so those details can be better picked up2 on?3 JIM TOBIAS: I think that's an excellent4 question. Some of the bandwidth limitations could be5 reduced if instead of sending the full video image of6 the person signing we sent were kind of not7 cartoonish, but reduced features, maybe exaggerated8 features so that the features most important for9 interpreting like eye position and mouth position10 were exaggerated and others that weren't so important11 were reduced. And I think there are a lot of12 implications.13 My key concern is that we still manage to14 spend most of our R&D dollars on separate15 accessibility oriented research when we could go16 piggybacking on the commercially done research that's17 done, 95 percent of the work. And all that's left is18 for us to adopt and adapt the technology that's19 available on the $100 level.20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: One more question. All21 right.22 45 LARRY GOLDBERG: Larry Goldberg. How easy1 it is to develop applications, I'm wondering what the2 notion is for particular accessibility, I think it is3 something like YouTube which came out of nowhere and4 now has tens of millions of videos. One solution in5 terms of accessibility that may force to you provide6 captioning, the other alternative is to hope that7 some very creative third party developer figures a8 way of getting captions on to them. And achieving9 the accessibility goals and at technologies and how10 could we accomplish these.11 JIM TOBIAS: I don't know if -- there is12 technological side and intervention side. One13 approach would be captioning on the fly.14 If I were a deaf individual who wanted to15 access YouTube and an axillary service that would16 caption the video on the fly, to the extent that's17 technologically feasible -- we don't want to suppress18 the explosive creativity -- we want to effect that19 community with the needs, but we don't want to say20 thou shalt not post a YouTube until you have21 captioned the video to make it legal.22 46 We want to focus on the user needs, that1 is the user of captioning or the user of description2 services, and see if there is a way of having the3 lightest touch regulatorially.4 So one scenario might be the first deaf5 person who wants to view a video on YouTube, only6 then does it get captioned. Once that captioning is7 completed, the video is restored in another version8 on YouTube. So there is captioning for that one time9 only view, now available for the second, third and10 fourth user.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you very much.12 We're going to take a brief break, we'll13 be back at 10:15. There is water for those of you14 who would like water provided to us by Verizon.15 We'll see you in just a few minutes. Thank you.16 (Applause.)17 (Recess.)18 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Guess what folks, the19 time flies when you're having fun. Time to get back20 to work.21 Okay folks, it's work time. It's time to22 47 go to work. Because we do have -- I know1 Commissioner Copps is coming, so we have to make time2 for him on the agenda, with great pleasure. We have3 two panels to talk about. Dixie Ziegler.4 DIXIE ZIEGLER: Right here. (Indicating.)5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'm facing the light and6 people are outlined.7 DIXIE ZIEGLER: Good morning.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Why don't we go ahead and9 get started. This is Dixie Ziegler, the Working10 Group chair of the TRS Working Group.11 DIXIE ZIEGLER: It has been a pleasure12 working with the TRS Working Group this year, we have13 accomplished quite a bit. Our group has been very14 active and they have participated with the members in15 all the hard work and we have had a few items we hope16 to pass onto the FCC with all of your support.17 First the E9-1-1 item. She also mentioned18 the summit taking place on E9-1-1 related matters in19 regards to Internet service and relay.20 What the meat of this particular filing21 is, is a letter that was filed by the E9-1-122 48 Coalition, which is a new group of individuals,1 providers, consumers, various organizations who take2 interest in this, the national emergency association3 involved with that group, and several folks here are4 actually a part of this particular E9-1-1 council as5 well. The Working Group was drafted for the FCC and6 thought that if the PAC were also to put their7 support to the cause hopefully it would bring around8 solutions.9 Regarding E9-1-1 and video relay services,10 what we're asking for today is support for this11 particular item. There's really two points, two main12 sections of this letter, one letter, point one13 addresses indirect access to 911 access centers14 through relay services. Relay providers gain access15 to the network to support, to be able to contact16 these services which quite frankly is all technology,17 they are still trying to work through the process to18 put their calls through like it does on a land line19 phone. There is a need to be able to make that20 happen and there's probably steps in the process and21 this letter outlines steps that might be taken and we22 49 think those steps would be analyzed further in the1 E9-1-1 summit Monica mentioned this morning. This2 paper is the guideline for the summit that's3 happening on the 15th.4 The second part of this letter talks about5 direct E9-1-1 access from text pagers, video relay --6 video telephones, all types of devices, PDAS, pagers,7 E-Mail, caption telephone, many of the services8 accessible through relay, making sure that all of9 those devices have accessibility directly to 911 and10 it works in a manner as it works today for land line11 connections.12 So there's information in here about how13 the P sap network might need to be upgraded to accept14 these calls. Again they are going to be discussed at15 the upcoming summit on November 15th at the FCC.16 So this has really become a guideline,17 there are things happening already at the FCC because18 at the end of the letter there is a request for a19 meeting and the request has been granted as Monica20 announced this morning. We've been talking about the21 additional information regarding this -- this topic22 50 is bigger than this letter. Activity has started to1 happen. It is kind of exciting in our ministry, as2 part of the council, they've stepped up and said we3 think there needs to be procedures that all follow in4 contracting at P sap.5 Quite frankly, some have been providers6 for years, it is exciting that they are working with7 us to train operators appropriately and can recognize8 a relay call, and making it easier for P SAP9 operators to recognize a relay call and increase10 training for P SAP operators. So there are a lot of11 really good things that are happening as a result of12 the work that this council initially has been doing.13 And from a great consumer organization like this will14 continue to indicate to the FCC that A, this is an15 important topic and B, the FCC should continue to16 stay on the track they are on, to gather the17 information and begin to act on the recommendations.18 I welcome any questions, thoughts, and19 comments on this particular document.20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We are opening the floor21 to questions or comments. I gather you all want to22 51 submit this as a recommendation?1 DIXIE ZIEGLER: Correct.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have any -- yes,3 Jim.4 JIM TOBIAS: I'd like to speak very5 strongly in adopting these recommendations, those of6 us who participated in the dialogue that brought7 these recommendations about, even, you know, not8 always participating actively. I know I saw an9 amazing attention paid to the detail of every10 stakeholder involved, you know. I don't think I've11 ever seen as diligent an attention to making sure12 that everyone's views surfaced and that those got13 reflected in the final recommendations.14 I feel this is a model of the consultative15 process that this committee was established for and16 therefore we should strongly recommend that it be17 adopted by this committee and that we encourage the18 commission to adopt those recommendations as soon as19 possible.20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have other comments.21 THE AUDIENCE: Do you need to take a22 52 motion?1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Yes. We need a motion.2 If you want to state that in the form of a motion,3 Jim.4 JIM TOBIAS: I move we adopt the5 recommendations.6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: As presented?7 JIM TOBIAS: As presented.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have a second to9 that motion?10 All right, all right. We have a motion on11 the floor that's been seconded. Forwarding to the12 FCC the recommendations of the Working Group. May I13 take a vote? May I see hands for yeses.14 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Opposed?16 It passes.17 I want to say you have done a great job,18 Dixie Ziegler, I have E-mails to prove it.19 DIXIE ZIEGLER: I have a couple of more.20 Continuing on the next item that we have to present21 to you today, before I do that I would like to thank22 53 Jim for his comments. I agree the group is1 pleasantly surprising and has so many different2 agencies involved, really a cross sector of agencies3 addressing these issues and a lot of support from the4 Federal Government which has really been refreshing.5 Moving onto the next item in your packet,6 and that is an item addressing Internet captioned7 telephone funding. If you recall you talked about8 caption telephones several times over the last two9 years in this group. We brought to you an initial10 proceeding on cap tele asking for support from a main11 date, I went back to work after that, had some12 difficulty casting.13 Lastly an item to help develop an NPRM on14 captioned telephone, a mandate that provides15 captioned telephone. And as a part of that initial16 petition that began all of this work, began all for17 the mandate, a part of that petition asked for18 funding for Internet protocol captioned telephone19 service. And so we come forward, our Working Group,20 today to ask for the cap tele -- require the21 Interstate TRS Fund pay for captioned telephone.22 54 They have taken a lead on working on the force and1 this technology. I ask Karen to give you more2 information.3 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: Thank you. You are4 familiar now with captioned telephone. It is a form5 of relay service that enables a service that6 typically -- they don't have to have -- typically7 have residual -- to see to the destination party and8 to hear back over the telephone and read captions of9 what that person is saying. Captions are provided10 through an individual, a relay operator at a remote11 location and revoicing what the responding party is12 saying and that revoicing goes to a computer for13 speech recognition to spit out the captions to the14 telephone users.15 Internet-based captioned telephone pretty16 much works the same way, except that the delivery,17 the transport that's taking place is occurring over18 the Internet and sometimes over the PSTN as well.19 There is actually around six different types of20 captioned based telephone that use PSTN and Internet21 to varying degrees.22 55 For example, one method actually allows to1 you to use any -- I think we may have talked about2 this a little bit at the last meeting, but allows to3 you use any telephone at all whether it is a PSTN4 phone or digital phone, a voip phone to make your5 phone call to the other party. And what we do is6 connect that hand set to a computer with a $15 device7 from perhaps Radio Shack and the captions come back8 over the Internet. It is nice with that device you9 can have access to 911, call forwarding, your phone10 is the same as it always is, but yet you're getting11 your captions back over the Internet.12 There is another kind where you initiate13 the call over the Internet and someone can call you14 back using a PSTN line, so it is PSTN to PSTN, the15 captions come over the Internet. There is a form16 where it is strictly over the Internet where you log17 onto the Internet and dial the destination party from18 the Internet and again the relay operator is19 connected and the captions come back over the20 Internet and you can actually speak over the21 Internet.22 56 The reason this is an important1 technology, many employers, five different reasons2 that it is really critical that this get approved3 soon. As many of you know the FCC has already put4 captioned telephone over PSTN and approved IP relay5 for text based. Some may wonder why do we need this6 approval. I've actually wondered that myself. I7 believe it is a no-brainer and should be approved,8 but unfortunately, although it was put out on public9 comment it still hasn't been resolved.10 The reason this is troublesome is a lot of11 employers are switching their system from analog to12 digital systems. In fact I do represent Ultratech in13 this matter, I want to make that clear, I think many14 of you know my background and I am concerned about15 getting the service out to consumers, there are16 consumers who don't have it and I want them to have17 it.18 I did going to the FCC and had several19 meetings with commissioners and what was interesting20 was we wanted to show them this technology, we wanted21 to compare the analog version and the digital22 57 version, we couldn't show them the analog version1 because the FCC switched to digital.2 We thought that kind of proved our point3 and we should get captioned telephone on the way out,4 but it didn't happen. People who are able to use5 captioned telephone now are starting to lose that6 access as their employers switch over to digital.7 This would allow them to continue using captioned8 telephone.9 Another really important reason this is10 critical is that with IP version you can use a wide11 range of devices. Right now with analog you can only12 use captioned telephone, the actual telephone, which13 is expensive, individuals have to pay for it. With14 this you can use any range of device, desk, laptop15 computers, personal desk assistants, cell phones, any16 wireless device. It is ubiquitous.17 Another important reason it is critical is18 it enables, if you can use a computer, that means you19 can change the font and the size and that makes for20 benefits for people with multiple disabilities as21 well. You can have a braille output device that you22 58 can attach to the computer.1 There are other reasons. It is much2 better for conference calling, it allows people to3 receive calls directly from hearing impaired people.4 Right now if you're using a one line captioned5 telephone, the hearing individual has to dial the6 captioned telephone relay center first and they give7 the number of the recipient to the call. With this8 you can dial directly. You can add or drop captions9 on a call as necessary.10 This is a really important point. I think11 in today's day and age relay services are not cheap,12 they are expensive and what we have found is that13 with Two-Line Captioned telephone you can do this as14 well. An individual can be on the phone and not be15 using captions and all of a sudden they can press a16 button to get those captions, but then when they17 don't need them, they can turn it off. That is a18 cost saving device. You can do this with IP.19 I think I've covered all the benefits.20 There are actually a few more, but those are the21 central benefits, one of the other ones that will22 59 increase competition as well. This will allow1 entrants into the field because you don't need that2 captioned telephone again. What we are proposing in3 this proposal is to have the CAC approve our4 recommendation to the SEC to approve Internet5 protocol captioned telephone as a relay service. It6 would be reimbursable by interstate relay funds.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Now, okay, so we have the8 comments on the second recommendation from the TRS9 Working Group and I will open the floor to10 discussion.11 LARRY GOLDBERG: When you say this12 petition will allow captioning of IT services, you13 can get compensated from the fund, it is allowed or14 available, it is compensated from the fund.15 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: That's right.16 LARRY GOLDBERG: Will patents allow17 competition?18 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: This is a lot -- you19 can use any device and you can use various transport20 modes. I can talk to you about it in more detail, it21 is a complicated question. It is very likely to22 60 increase competition.1 One of the reasons is that this will also2 increase the number of captioned telephone users3 which is going to make it much more valuable, much4 more of an incentive to get involved. Right now the5 numbers have been kept artificially low because the6 states -- most of the states, there are only two who7 don't do this, limit the number of captioned users8 that can join each --9 LARRY GOLDBERG: The number of providers10 are not limited.11 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: There is no12 incentive, because the market, the states gave13 artificially kept down the market.14 LARRY GOLDBERG: If MCI wants to start15 providing this, you couldn't do that today?16 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: There are ways to17 provide real-time captioning services, there are18 other ways to do it besides the way Ultratech is19 doing it.20 LARRY GOLDBERG: Ultratech wouldn't forbid21 that?22 61 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: I'm told over and1 over again there are ways this can be done, that's2 all I can tell you.3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have any other4 questions?5 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: There is a statement6 on the record to that effect by people who analyzing7 this situation.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have a recommendation9 for the TRS Working Group, do I hear a motion that we10 vote on this?11 CLAUDE STOUT: I move.12 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Claude Stout has moved we13 put this up to a vote. Second?14 JANICE SCHACTER: Second.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, motion16 seconded. The recommendation the TRS on the17 captioning is up for a vote, so just show your hands.18 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay, okay, we have two20 abstentions.21 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)22 62 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have two.1 THE AUDIENCE: I didn't see abstentions.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I did.3 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have three5 abstentions. That will be noted on the record.6 I apologize, I did not ask for abstention7 on item 1. Did we have anyone who wanted to abstain8 on item 1?9 All right then, the item has been10 approved. There were three abstentions on this item.11 Okay.12 Thank you very much Dixie Ziegler for the13 work. That ends your presentation, or you have more?14 DIXIE ZIEGLER: I have three more. The15 next item is simply a list of items we thought we16 wanted to do a better job at capturing into the17 record what topics need to be addressed by the next18 TRS work group; hopefully there will be one.19 We wanted to put an item on the record to20 identify them. Some were identified by Monica this21 morning as desirous of initial feedback. That22 63 includes item 1, the IP TRS misuse item, the standard1 numbering system, item number 2, the rate methodology2 items, we do have some comments on, as far as3 encouraging different entities to pay to the TRS4 relay fund, a penalty item to comment on.5 And then the next item we can remove from6 our list, and I will do that before submitting the7 final copy to the FCC. As Gene Crick's group8 discusses later today, we're happy about that and9 appreciate that work of that committee. And the last10 item is a standard CAC assist to consumer.11 Any questions on this item?12 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You're proposing we vote13 on this and send this forward to the next CAC for14 consideration for TRS Working Group?15 DIXIE ZIEGLER: That's correct. However16 you want to handle that.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: There is every reason you18 would want to provide information and input to the19 next CAC. I'm not sure about whether or not we20 should make it a recommendation or just a suggestion.21 Debra, do you have a comment?22 64 DEBRA BERLYN: I would just question how1 we do this, because there are policy implications for2 each of these recommendations. I don't know whether3 there's any -- implied support for this list or it is4 just a list to say these are some topics you may want5 to discuss. I don't think we should formally do it6 as a recommendation for the CAC.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: That would be my sense of8 it too, if that's acceptable to you all, is that we9 informally submit this from the TRS working group10 that you think these things should be passed on and11 considered.12 DIXIE ZIEGLER: That's fine, we are not13 taking positions, you're right.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right, all right.15 So what we will do is see to it that these16 items are forwarded on to the next CAC. Without our17 endorsement.18 THE AUDIENCE: Are we going to pass onto19 the next CAC on the consumer bureau or who are we20 passing on to? I read it --21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'm sorry.22 65 DR. HELENA MITCHELL: Oh, Helena Mitchell.1 I was addressing the last point about not2 doing it formally. But I read it think and it is3 important, I worked for the commission before, if it4 doesn't follow up to the top, it doesn't go any5 place. We need to be able to say a lot of people6 here came to all these meetings and spent time7 working on the proposals and I do think it needs to8 go some place. Maybe they can tell us who else we9 should copy on it, not wait for the next CAC.10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Are you making a motion?11 You're saying you feel we should vote on this, is12 that what you're saying? I'm sorry.13 DR. HELENA MITCHELL: I don't think we14 should pass it onto the next CAC, I think we should15 talk to Monica and Scott and take their advice on16 what should be done in offering some good17 suggestions. Why don't we bring it to Monica's18 attention and since Scott is here, we can ask him to19 do that and these are things we feel are important20 that we pass on the TRS --21 DEBRA BERLYN: There are items on here22 66 that we have not discussed with the CAC, so I don't1 feel comfortable.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I don't feel comfortable3 making it a recommendation to the CAC. If the TRS4 Working Group wants it -- is that what you mean5 Debra?6 DEBRA BERLYN: The working ground not the7 CAC?8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: That's correct.9 DEBRA BERLYN: I don't know what --10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: It would be something11 that the TRS Working Group is suggesting and it's not12 something proposed by the committee.13 DR. HELENA MITCHELL: It says proposed by14 an ad hoc group --15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We're talking about a16 list of items. What are you looking at?17 (Indicating.)18 SHIRLEY ROOKER: No, that's not what we're19 talking about right now, okay? It is not to this20 point. So what we will do then is make that -- you21 have some other points?22 67 DIXIE ZIEGLER: We will forward it to --1 instead of sending it, we will make sure it goes to2 CAC for the next half.3 Next item is an item that Monica discussed4 this morning about a rate -- taking place at the FCC5 this is a cycle --6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: May I interrupt you for a7 second? I don't seem to have that document. I have8 two copies of recommendations of E9-1-11 emergency9 alerts, but I don't have that one. Oh, it's your10 comments, it is formal comments, oh, all right.11 DIXIE ZIEGLER: This particular document12 or -- other things in the written comment cycle13 usually doesn't have that luxury. This is a window14 of opportunity here to file in a proceeding that's15 ongoing at the moment.16 What this particular document does is17 answer some of the questions that were brought up by18 the FCC and an FNPRM methodology, it gives some19 direction, we do not make a recommendation per rate20 methodology that we give guidelines to the FCC to21 make sure they give thought to and consider when22 68 selecting a rate methodology. In this proceeding --1 in the last several years the current rate2 methodology used for the interstate TRS services has3 been severely broken, the rules have changed4 annually, there hasn't been reasons as to why, and5 every party, including the FCC recognizes, that it is6 broken and the FNPRM has been released.7 Really the highlights of this particular8 document is that we certainly want a rate methodology9 to support access to TRS for all of those10 individuals, including hearing people, who use the11 services. We wanted the fundamental items we12 believed to be important including a rate13 methodology, education and outreach funding.14 In December of '03 this group commented to15 the FCC asking that a national outreach campaign for16 TRS be funded. The FCC has not acted on that request17 from this group. That was filed back in '03. We18 asked again in this document that funding be allowed19 for an outreach program and in addition that outreach20 and marketing costs be part of the rate methodology21 that is established by the FCC for interstate TRS22 69 services.1 Other highlights include wanting to make2 sure that a rate methodology supports functional3 equivalency, including some of the things we already4 talked about today, 911 services. And finally we5 want a rate methodology to preserve competition. We6 believe that consumers have benefited being able to7 choose providers and believe a great methodology that8 preserves competition is important. Sorry -- there9 was one more item.10 Finally a rate methodology should maintain11 stable and predictable rates so that there can be12 continued investment by those offering those services13 to continue to add word functionality and achieve the14 goals of the TRS program was designed to accomplish.15 I'll take questions about this particular16 item.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: This is a draft of what18 you're suggesting that we submit. Have we voted on19 this issue before?20 DIXIE ZIEGLER: We have not.21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Well, did we vote on the22 70 recommendations? It says the CAC presents this.1 DIXIE ZIEGLER: This is how we propose to2 send it in. We drafted this hoping it will receive a3 recommendation today and we can submit it on behalf4 of the CAC.5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right, so we have a6 little work to do to discuss it. All right so we7 have the suggestions. On -- this is the form that8 you used. I see it is a draft, but I was a little9 bit confused. Excuse me. The mind is getting old.10 What we need to do at this point is open11 the floor for discussion or questions. Any comments?12 THE AUDIENCE: No response.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do I hear a motion to14 accept this as presented?15 Karen Pelz Strauss makes a motion and --16 GENE CRICK: I don't know if this place is17 specific for this motion, but based upon my colleague18 Larry Goldberg's body language I would like to ask19 Dixie if might be appropriate to include somewhere --20 but it is simply another bullet that we endorse the21 principle that FCC support for TRS and other22 71 assistive services encourages --1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Gene, excuse me, I think2 it's appropriate for to get a second for the initial3 motion and then you can --4 GENE CRICK: I didn't know --5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I thought you were going6 to second it. Linda, you second the initial motion.7 GENE CRICK: You can tell me --8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Good-bye, Gene.9 GENE CRICK: I propose something that says10 that we endorse the principle that FCC support for11 TRS and other assistive services, encourage to the12 greatest degree possible open standards --13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We're going to take a14 pause here, because we are delighted that we have15 been joined by Commissioner Copps. Please join me in16 welcoming the FCC Commissioner Copps.17 (Applause.)18 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS: Good morning.19 THE AUDIENCE: Good morning.20 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS: It is good to21 see you all. Excuse me, I am delighted to be here, I22 72 would have been here earlier, as you know the FCC had1 meeting this morning, but the good news is it didn't2 last all that long so I got to come out here.3 I've really been looking forward to this4 because I think this committee really deserves the5 commendation and the gratitude of all of us at the6 FCC. This has been really a proactive committee,7 it's been a self-lead committee, it's been an8 aggressive committee and it has been an oh, so9 germane committee, focusing on issues that so10 directly impact consumers all across this land of11 ours.12 Your charge and my charge are similar13 because we're both charged with serving the public14 interest and I really commend you on focusing on that15 as you have.16 I've told some of you before that when I17 was Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton18 administration I had administrative responsibility19 and oversight of all of our almost two dozen sector20 advisory committees. So I have a little bit of21 experience in watching advisory committees and I have22 73 always been impressed, just as I am impressed with1 the commitment you folks have brought to your job,2 I've always been impressed with the commitment and3 willingness to sacrifice that people in the private4 sector bring your role as members of advisory5 committees. And we really can't do our job properly6 without that kind of input and that kind of7 perspective and that kind of analysis.8 But I also learned when I was at the9 Department of Commerce we really need to be more10 appreciative and make more use of the advice and11 counsel that we receive from advisory committees like12 this. People -- you folks serve on these committees13 at a cost to yourself, that's at a sacrifice to14 yourself and you devote a lot of energy and brain15 power to forging recommendations and trying to come16 to consensus for things that will advance consumer17 welfare and well-being in the telecommunications18 environment.19 In return for that sacrifice and that20 commitment you deserve a prompt response when you21 forward recommendations. You deserve a considered22 74 treatment by all the commissioners of your1 recommendations and some action. You need to have a2 field at which what you are doing has a chance to3 influence the development of public policy. And I4 think right now the commission has a ways to go to5 impart that kind of feeling to all of you folks.6 I just want to you know from my standpoint7 that I am appreciative of everything that you have8 done. I welcome that and encourage it. But if we're9 going to continue to attract folks, if we're going to10 continue to solicit the participation of the nation's11 best and brightest in the industry and advocacy and12 consumer groups and what else, you have to know going13 in that what you will be saying will be seen, heard,14 listened to will be listened to and considered. I15 intend to do whatever I can to make sure that that16 happens; that goes without saying. I think we've got17 a long way to go, and are playing a little bit fast18 and loose with that kind of approach to advisory19 committees.20 Let me focus on some of the priorities21 that you have addressed and I know you've addressed a22 75 whole bunch of them over the period of the last1 couple of years.2 It is no secret to any of you that my3 number one priority since coming to this commission4 has been the ownership and what have been the effects5 of media consolidation on localism and competition6 and diversity across this great land of ours. And I7 have tried to travel as much as I can across this8 great land of ours to talk to people in local media9 markets to get their reaction to what's going on. I10 have probably been to three to four hearings in the11 last month and there's lots more scheduled, and I'm12 waiting anxiously to learn where the rest of the13 official FCC hearings will be.14 Mr. Adelstein and I have attended a lot of15 hearings around the country, our media is so16 precious, it is how we converse with each other,17 entertain each other. How we govern ourselves is18 influenced by the -- there is no question in my mind19 the most powerful business in the United States of20 America is the media. And if we're smart about it,21 we will encourage a media environment that reflects22 76 and enriches the diversity and genius of all our1 people, no matter where they live. It is important2 that we get that right. If we don't it will dumb us3 all down and we're going to end up worse off than we4 currently are.5 This is about a substantive issue, you6 know, I know you're addressing the substantive. It7 is also about process. All of us are stakeholders,8 nobody owns the airwaves other than the people of the9 United States collectively. All stakeholders have to10 have access to this process, they have to know what's11 going on and know the item is teed up. At the end of12 the day, when we find what direction they want to go13 at the FCC, or where the chairman is going to take14 us, I think they are entitled to know what those15 particularly are, before we vote on them.16 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- I17 think the Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia pretty18 much took us to task for not doing that the last time19 around, that we were not learning our lesson well20 enough. Maybe we need a little more encouragement.21 The hearings, the opportunity to comment, all of22 77 these things are so important. So I commend the work1 that you have done with the consideration and the2 attention that you have given the ownership. I don't3 think there's anything more important that you could4 be addressing.5 I know you've gotten into the closely6 related public interest obligations of DTV7 broadcasters. We have to find a way to reinvigorate8 public interest. I think we have gone too far from9 the opposite direction of where we used to be. It10 used to be every three years if you wanted to renew11 your broadcast license you had to come in and12 demonstrate that you were -- had met a rather13 explicit list of public interest obligations. Now14 you send a postcard every eight years. Unless there15 is a character -- the application will be granted.16 We don't have to go back to something that17 is micro regulatory or super burdensome, we should be18 able to find a way when a license is renewed at the19 FCC that the commission says, this station is serving20 the public interest and we can demonstrate that, but21 there ought to be a few obligations that would help22 78 us make that judgment. So this is important, this1 proceeding has been languishing since 1999 and 2000,2 it just kind of got lost. We managed to get the3 children's TV up, thanks to the work of many people4 in this room, and we did make some positive steps on5 that. The other general obligations are still6 languishing.7 But here is the biggest question of all,8 how does the DV transition effect consumers, what9 does it mean for them? The ability to multicast10 several streams in the community -- what's that mean11 for consumers, how will that enhance competition? We12 have not had that conversation at the FCC, people13 have not stepped up to the plate.14 I appreciate a lot of the work -- I see my15 friend Charles Benton over there and others who have16 worked so hard to bring this to the fore, I17 congratulate you for that. You have done good and18 productive work on VRS and blocking, and that was19 good, you did a lot of work for E9-1-1 for the20 disabled community. It is an important part. And21 what they have to expect from the public airways, I22 79 commend the work you're doing and talking about1 broadband and should that somehow be folded into2 universal services and telecommunications in the 21st3 century if you're not talking about the participation4 of broadband. The big question is one we need to5 address.6 So I'm happy that you're looking at that.7 There is a new study out that's got the United States8 of America, which is has been ranked I think the last9 couple of years by the ITU as 15th or 16th nation in10 the world in broadband, the new study includes11 wireless and the factors in cost and computers, and12 with all that, we' 21. Your country, my country,13 number 21, we're right behind Estonia. And I think14 we have a ways to go because we are the only15 industrial country that doesn't seem to have a16 national strategy in broadband.17 With emergency alerts I know you will talk18 about some recommendations for what we talked about19 earlier including the effectiveness of advisory20 committees, and we need to do that.21 So you leave a proud legacy, I think this22 80 is -- the committee I've watched with a lot of1 admiration over the years. When you tell the2 committees establish your own priorities, make your3 own agenda, use the staff we have to help you, but4 not to control where you're going and I think you5 folks have done a commendable job and I commend your6 chairman, Shirley, for the tremendous job that she7 has done too. So we're proud of the work you've8 done, I want you to know. I am one of five9 commissioners, but there are others, too, who value10 the recommendations and analysis that you do and look11 forward to it and I hope many of the members will be12 back here so we can continue with this work, because13 goodness knows it is nowhere near done.14 I just came to say thanks and if anybody15 has an observation I will take it. But if you want16 to move on, I will understand that too.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We will allow you,18 Commissioner Copps, you have been wonderful attending19 our meetings, we appreciate your support.20 LAURA FORLANO: This is Laura Forlano from21 NYCWireless in New York. Thank you very much for22 81 that interesting overview and support for the work of1 this committee. My question actually has to do with2 wireless networks that I was familiar with.3 I'm wondering, given your focus on media4 ownership, I was kind of thinking about a statement5 that I read in the New York Times about a week ago6 where Starbucks announced they viewed their wireless7 networks as a very important communication channel8 and they see themselves really in the business of9 culture and media rather than coffee and they realize10 wireless network is an important part of their draw.11 Given that statement, I'm wondering --12 given that wireless networks actually penetrate13 physical geography and reach out to public spaces,14 regardless of who is providing them, is there any15 framework in which you could imagine a wireless hot16 spot/page/ portal page as a content channel? And how17 would that fit into the media ownership debates we18 are participating in? Normally Internet and other19 sorts of media are somehow separated in a lot of20 regulatory policies. I'm wondering if you have any21 thought on that at all.22 82 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS: I think in1 the current Washington environment, it would be a2 stretch to get that teed up as a priority. I at the3 commission think we do have to find a way in this4 country to look more holistically at our5 communications and at our media, and will spend a lot6 of time depending -- I spoke about this 15 minutes7 ago, speaking of broadband over power lines. And the8 commission not surprisingly was - that information9 services and changing the classification will somehow10 link to the build out of business plans and all that.11 We studiously avoided talking about what12 is obvious: Telecommunications of the century will13 make the modern communications of the 21st century.14 When you talk about title I they will have a15 difficult time making that transition, I know some of16 the wireless folks are thinking about the matters17 such as indecent speech and some are planning for the18 future and that's one way where there is some coming19 together.20 At some point I would like us to get21 beyond just parsing language in order to create22 83 divisions and do away with obligations and start to1 look more holistically in technology for how we2 communicate as a country. And as you say it is3 pervasive, but it is becoming more pervasive, given4 some special credence to the pervasiveness of5 communications and its impact in the home and impact6 on the kids and all that. So I think the basis is7 there for that discussion, but it is not priority8 number one at the FCC right this minute.9 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay, we have one more10 short question.11 Well, Commissioner Copps, thanks so much12 for being with us this morning.13 (Applause.)14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay, Gene, before I15 interrupted you, you were making a proposed addition16 to the recommendations from TRS Working Group.17 GENE CRICK: Actually after18 conversation -- but not including -- oh.19 Actually after conversation I am assured20 that the competition and open standards which are two21 things I care about will prevail through the22 84 development, wherever possible. With that said, I1 thank you for your time, consideration, and patience2 and let you get back --3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Gene.4 Actually then we're not putting a motion5 on the floor. We had a motion on the floor that has6 been seconded to approve the recommendations of the7 TRS working group. Do I hear -- do we take a motion8 on that? Is there no further discussion?9 DEBRA BERLYN: Debra Berlyn, AARP. Any of10 the recommendations in here will increase the costs11 for consumers for TRS.12 DIXIE ZIEGLER: The TRS as you know is13 paid for through funding source of carriers and14 consumers paid on their bills associated services and15 the fact trying to figure out how to even out the16 funding sources that are less burden on consumers and17 those that should be paying in are paying equitably.18 So no, I do not believe --19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Asked and answered.20 Sorry.21 Cheryl.22 85 MARY LIGHT: Mary Light, alternate.1 I do have one question on page 4 that2 talks about with the outreach recognizing and3 responding to different segments of deaf, hard of4 hearing and speech depending on the individual5 needs -- I apologize to the interpreter. The6 differentiation is generally lacking. What exactly7 -- what is that proposing with that language there8 with responsibilities to the CAs?9 DIXIE ZIEGLER: We are trying to outline10 that if a national outreach program was established11 by the FCC, that they need to take in that there are12 specific target communities within relay that might13 need different outreach approaches. We are trying to14 tell the FCC they need to be mindful of that.15 Does that require that we add a sentence16 or -- Cheryl -- asked and answered, okay.17 We have a motion on the floor, it has been18 seconded. All in favor.19 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Abstaining or opposed?21 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)22 86 DIXIE ZIEGLER: Our last item is in1 regards to, I think an item that we brought to our2 first CAC meeting, asking that a speech to speech3 call be increased from 15 minutes to 20 minutes. At4 the time we brought this item the CAC brought it in5 the petition, and it was determined that the Consumer6 Advisory Committee could not file a petition. So a7 couple of individuals filed the petition on behalf of8 speech to speech users, and this single document is9 in support of that petition filed by Bob Spiegleman,10 saying that the CAC agrees with the system and it11 should be on called and increased from 15 to12 20 minutes.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have discussion of14 this proposal?15 Do we have a motion to accept this16 proposal?17 BRENDA KELLY-FREY: I second.18 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Brenda Kelly-Frey moves19 that we accept it.20 Okay, we'll take a vote, all in favor. A21 show of hands.22 87 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Opposed or abstaining?2 Okay, the motion has been accepted.3 Is that it?4 DIXIE ZIEGLER. Yes, we appreciate all of5 your support and thank our committee who has been6 very hard working.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you. You all have8 really done a great job.9 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: I don't know if it10 has already been said. Dixie Ziegler has been11 absolutely amazing, I think -- all the --12 (Applause.)13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Well said, well said.14 Thank you, Dixie Ziegler.15 Scott and I will confer briefly. So16 please bear with us.17 I do apologize, there was some question as18 to whether I should continue right now -- I'm joking.19 (Laughter.)20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You're hoping. Forget21 it. We're going to move on to our next agenda item,22 88 Denis Moynihan is on the phone, but has had a little1 work done on his throat so Dennis is not going to be2 talking a whole lot today. Instead Charles Benton is3 going to take over the recommendations of the working4 group. Charles, I turn the floor over to you.5 CHARLES BENTON: First, thank you very6 much, Shirley. Dennis, get well quickly.7 DENIS MOYNIHAN: Thank you very much.8 CHARLES BENTON: I think Dixie Ziegler9 provided a model for all working groups for10 effectiveness and follow through. That is in fact11 what our Working Group is doing, is following through12 on the earlier discussion and resolution that was13 passed almost unanimously by the CAC membership. So14 I'd like to read a brief statement that will15 hopefully put this discussion in context. You have16 your packets, the piece on recommendations regarding17 the 2006 biennial regulatory review of the18 commission's media ownership rules. It received a19 vote on from the CAC facing the problems just heard20 about.21 So it has been a year now since this22 89 committee heard from a panel of speakers on the1 importance of the commission's media ownership rules.2 Our markets and our democracy rely on a free flow of3 information to and between consumers and citizens --4 -- sitting next to me was on that panel and will5 respond following my comments.6 The law requires the FCC to promote the7 public interest. Over seven decades it has done so8 by promoting the goals of diversity, localism and9 competition. In addition the commission has10 protected the rights of people with disabilities,11 such as hearing, visual, speech, other types of12 disability to the same opportunities as every one13 else to telecommunicate. These goals which promote14 both consumer choice and values central to freedom of15 speech go to the core of what kinds of16 communications, education and entertainment American17 consumers use. This is about everything which we18 hear and see and read from the media. And TV, radio,19 newspapers and even the emerging media will look --20 what role they will play in citizens' lives and who,21 if anyone, will control them and for what purposes.22 90 Last April and again in July this1 committee considered and adopted nearly unanimously a2 recommendation that the commission adopt a process in3 the 2006 media ownership review that provides a full4 record of the potential impact of media ownership5 concentration and actively engages consumers in the6 proceeding.7 Today we consider a recommendation crafted8 by the media group which asks the FCC to adopt9 ownership rules or create an environment for civic10 discourse where numerous independently owned,11 institutionally distinct media outlets are accessible12 to the public, including persons with disabilities,13 responsive to social needs and reflective of diverse14 social-economic points of view. The overarching goal15 here is to advance the values of the First Amendment,16 which as the Supreme Court stated, "rest on the17 assumption that the widest possible dissemination of18 information from diverse and antagonistic sources is19 essential to the welfare of the public."20 The FCC elaborated on the Supreme Court's21 view: "The greater the ownership of a particular22 91 area the less chance a single person or -- can have1 an inordinate effect in a political editorial or2 similar programming sense on public opinion below the3 regional level."4 Today we ask the FCC to adopt rules that5 number one promote local ownership of outlets. The6 FCC own recently released research proves that7 locally owned stations produce more local news.8 Remember that was delayed, the release of that9 research.10 Number two, rules that can justify with11 the delivery of benefits of competition: innovation,12 better service and low prices. We believe as13 representatives of consumers that these benefits14 should be manifested through increased responsiveness15 to community need and increased diversity in16 programming.17 Number three, for minorities, women and18 people with disabilities. As Mr. Michael Copps has19 said, recent research shows the state of ownership20 for these groups is a national disgrace. Moreover21 the courts in part turned back the commission's 200322 92 media ownership decision because it had not1 sufficiently addressed minority ownership.2 In addition, today's recommendation3 reiterates the CAC's previous call to compile a4 complete record and issues specific rule changes for5 public comment, which we just heard 15 minutes ago6 from Mr. Copps.7 Finally we ask the commission to8 aggressively enforce the media ownership rules.9 Both within and outside the Working Group,10 I want to recognize the leadership of our Working11 Group chair, Denis Moynihan. I do not think it is a12 coincidence that today's recommendation comes from a13 group led by an independent media outlet which14 understands the perils of more concentrated media15 ownership in this country. And that people need easy16 access to independent diverse sources of news and17 information for a true democracy to work.18 So many consumers have contacted our19 committee in support of this recommendation. I would20 like to highlight three letters, first from Shelly.21 Second Cheryl Lenza, the new managing director of the22 93 Office of Communication, United Church of Christ. We1 got a wonderful letter this morning from the Office2 of General Counsel of the United States Conference3 Catholic Bishops with a membership of 69.1 million4 members.5 Who -- was here the editor of our6 Communications Headlines, I hope you all are7 subscribing to it, it's free and it's a wonderful8 service. And also our new president is also here and9 has been enormously helpful in all of this.10 We have also David Hoenig who arranged11 with Scott to make a short statement and Andy12 Schwartzman is here as well to help with the Q and A13 and be responsive to your questions and concerns.14 David is the executive director of the Minority Media15 Telecommunications Council which he co-founded in16 1986, the organization for minority participation in17 broadcasting, cable telephone, wireless industry via18 minority ownership and equal employment opportunity19 and universal telephone service.20 I think Andy needs almost no introduction.21 He has been CEO of the Media Access Project since22 94 1978 and that is a nonprofit interest law firm to1 represent the public in promoting First Amendment2 rights. As the chief legal strategist in efforts to3 oppose the mergers and preserve policy and media4 diversity, he was a leader in the FCC case that ended5 in the remanding of the FCC 2000 media ownership6 decisions. So it is wonderful to have both David and7 Andy here to help us with questions and concerns.8 We finished the fine tuning of the9 resolution before we heard from Jim Tobias and he has10 an amendment, and maybe we can get this amendment on11 the table too so that -- maybe we could add your12 points and have a full record of what we want and13 couldn't do with the timing. Maybe you could make14 your amendment.15 JIM TOBIAS: Do you need a motion?16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: It is not appropriate to17 do that until you have a motion. So we should18 continue our discussion and you have some other19 person who wants to speak to that.20 VOICE: That's right, okay. Let's finish21 the introduction here.22 95 DAVID HOENIG: Thank you very much. It is1 a privilege to be here.2 I want to first point out that the3 commission in 1982 recognized that the primary reason4 for having policies that foster female ownership is5 that they benefit consumers, the listeners of the6 stations, not the entrepreneurs. They are going to7 be exposed to the and information that they wouldn't8 normally receive if we had homogenous ownership.9 The practice and implementation of the10 principle has been much more daunting, unfortunately.11 By 1995 all of the minority ownership policies12 previously in effect had either been suspended,13 repealed or no longer enforced. Consequently --14 aided unfortunately in many instances by the15 consequences of ownership deregulation -- we have16 seen both the number of owners and the number of17 stations and asset value of minority owned stations18 to be decreased -- in some cases it is not really19 particular clear on this or decreasing relative to20 other media.21 What can be done about this?22 96 It is not because the commission hasn't1 tried to ramp up proposals that there's been no2 action. One of the proposals that you have before3 you, the matter of minority ownership in 1992, that4 proposal came out of the commission in a notice of5 proposed rule making in '92, was rolled into another6 rule making in '95, another one in 2002, another one7 in 2003. And here it is again for the fifth time8 with no action.9 All of the recommendations before you10 here, as well as the 14 recommendations presented by11 the diversity competition supporters which I12 represent -- 29 national organizations -- as well as13 the recommendations, I think there are 44, of which14 17 deals with this subject, developed by the SEC15 diversity committee, have been pending for between 216 and 14 years.17 So this is really a much-needed and long18 overdue initiative to bring to bear the expertise,19 experience and moral goodwill of this body to stand20 with those who feel it is important for the21 commission not just to say that diversity is22 97 important, but to do something about it. These are1 very modest steps, they are primarily deregulatory2 and enforcement based steps, they enjoy the support3 of many in the industry, in some cases they generated4 no opposition whatsoever, and all of them are pending5 before the commission now.6 I should add 14 proposals, including these7 that were before the commission in the multiple8 ownership rule making, the commission failed to9 mention the existence of them in the Third Circuit10 Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that said comment11 had to be taken. And we're still waiting for the12 commission to put out notices to describe and ramp up13 proposals. There is still a lot of work to be done,14 which underscores the need for a wide body of15 representatives of consumers, the beneficiaries of16 the proposals to be heard in support. And I am very17 happy you put this in your agenda.18 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Did you have someone else19 speaking on it?20 ANDREW SCHWARTZMAN: A few more words.21 This is Andrew Schwartzman. In light of what has22 98 already been said I really don't have anything to add1 to what's already been said.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay.3 VOICE: Good you're here.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Wait a minute, did you5 have a comment or question?6 VOICE: I have a question, not so much7 about your proposal. Captioning is mentioned in the8 proposal, my only cause of concern is you listed a9 variety of religious organizations. In light of the10 commission's recent exclusion of captioning for11 religious organizations, how do we make sure that12 when we open it up to diversity in ownership -- and13 my comment is how do we ensure to make sure that14 captioning is really strongly considered as part of15 that?16 VOICE: It is a wonderful question and17 that question was going to be or is, I think will be18 addressed almost immediately.19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Let's move on.20 Jim Tobias: What you're doing is21 comments. This should not be appropriately be done22 99 after we have a motion?1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You're offering it as an2 amendment?3 THE AUDIENCE: We need a mike.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Take it off the cradle,5 it is much easier to pass.6 ANN MARIE MICKELSON: I have a couple of7 brief comments. Our position for those interested in8 reading through what we affectionately call the -- up9 has been submitted into the record. It is on the10 website and I will not go into the detail of that.11 We cannot support the general gist of the12 recommendation, but I --13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I don't mean to be rude,14 but I think we need to wait for your comments until15 after --16 ANN MARIE MICKELSON: Actually I just17 would like, this is quick.18 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay.19 ANN MARIE MICKELSON: Having said that I20 do want to recognize all the efforts put forth by21 David Hoenig and his group. Our dissent is not that22 100 -- discussions to promote minority, female and1 persons with disabilities.2 Rolled into Mr. Tobias's recommendation is3 the -- -the title should be corrected to say 2006, it4 is now quadrennial review.5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We still need to make a6 motion. We need to have a motion from the floor on7 the proposal by the Media Ownership Working Group.8 Laura?9 And do we have a second? Karen Strauss10 seconds it.11 Now we open the floor for discussion.12 Ann, we'll move your comments to discussion. But Jim13 Tobias, you have some comments.14 JIM TOBIAS: I propose two friendly15 amendments to this and I will identify those and give16 a minute of background. The first would be at the17 bottom of page 2, under the diversity, first18 reference under recommendation, simply change19 ownership opportunities for minorities and women to20 ownership opportunities for minorities, women and21 people with disabilities.22 101 And the second reference is similar; down1 at the bottom of page 3 under Roman Numeral II --2 bottom of page 2.3 That we add after women, "and people with4 disability." Minorities, women and people with5 disabilities. Thank you.6 JIM TOBIAS: Down at the bottom of page 37 location and type of broadcast stations owned by --8 instead of "minorities and women," minorities, women9 and people with disabilities.10 I see gaps in our current media ecology11 with respect to people with disabilities. We dealt12 with some of them and I just want to refocus us a13 little bit here. The first is to make sure that the14 media content is accessible. And I think we may have15 another amendment offered with respect to that.16 The second is how people with disabilities17 are portrayed in the media in general. And I know18 there is a longstanding concern from many people with19 disabilities that insufficient attention has been20 paid in that direction.21 The third is, is content that is of22 102 special interest to people with disabilities1 available as broadly as it should be. There are2 there programs that address specific needs or3 cultural environments of people with disabilities,4 are those available as well? I think the answer is5 no. All three: accessible media, portrayal of6 people with disability in the media and content. I'm7 not usually in favor of using what I think of as8 identity politics as a heavy club to make9 improvements in those areas, but in this case I think10 it is justified and I can't let pass the specific11 recent comments, hateful disrespectful comments by12 Rush Limbaugh.13 And third is ownership.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right, so we have two15 proposed changes to the media ownership rules. One16 is the under diversity that we make it include people17 with disabilities and then on page 3 under a complete18 record that is also stations owned by minorities,19 women and people with disabilities. So with have20 those two. Do I have a --21 THE AUDIENCE: Second.22 103 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right.1 VOICE: This is just a real short comment.2 But I noticed of all the statistics they gathered3 they have no mention of any Native American owned,4 ownership. But I back everything, I just want to5 bring it to their attention as they are gathering the6 statistics, they have women, Hispanics, Asian,7 African-American, non Hispanic, white. Our Native8 people are forgotten.9 VOICE: If I may comment on that point.10 The statistics are the studies only for full power TV11 stations. Unfortunately there is no full power TV12 station owned by Native Americans, zero. The system13 is flawed in that fact.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Joel?15 JOEL SNYDER: I offer a second.16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Actually -- okay.17 Skip to the amendment. We have an18 amendment proposed and seconded. Do we have a vote?19 Could we see all hands in favor?20 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Opposed or abstaining.22 104 SCOTT MARSHALL: Is it Joel's?1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: It is Jim's.2 SCOTT MARSHALL: Sorry.3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: What about the other4 discussion, Joel?5 JOEL SNYDER: I have another friendly6 amendment to offer just 2 words on page 2, Roman7 Numeral I, the introductory paragraph to add after8 including the last sentence there following including9 appropriate quality captioning to include the words10 "and description following quality captioning."11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: So he is proposing12 competition and diversity, the first paragraph, the13 last sentence be restated to include appropriate14 quality captioning and description. Do I have a15 second for that motion?16 THE AUDIENCE: Claude Stout.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have more people18 seconding this motion.19 At any rate the motion has been made and20 seconded. Let's take a vote on the addition of the21 words and description. Show of hands.22 105 THE AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Against or abstaining?2 ANN MARIE MICKELSON: Against.3 JOEL SNYDER: That was?4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Ann.5 Anyone else?6 Okay, all right. We are -- I'd like to7 ask a question. Could you explain to me on the last8 page when it says commission freeze on all media9 ownership rule making, what does that mean?10 JOEL SNYDER: Where are you?11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: The last page at the very12 top, the sentence CAC urges the commission freeze all13 media ownership rule making. What impact does that14 have on broadcasters?15 VOICE: It is the -- Senator Boxer has16 written to the Federal Communications Commission17 asking about whether there are studies which the FCC18 has conducted which have not been released. Issues19 were raised and an Inspector General investigation20 has been started. The division asks that the FCC21 hold off any action until completion of the Inspector22 106 General's investigation.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I understand what it2 says, I'm asking what it means. I'm just trying to3 understand what scope you mean by this statement.4 BRENDA: This is Brenda. We haven't been5 introduced so it is clear for the CART.6 ANDREW SCHWARTZMAN: Andrew Schwartzman7 speaking.8 The FCC ownership rules is independent of9 the license renewal process which continues under the10 presently operative rule. So this will not affect11 the license renewals which are going forward on a12 regular basis.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Is that commonly14 understood? I read it and I didn't understand it.15 Does anyone think that needs clarification?16 (No response from audience.)17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: No? Okay. Thank you for18 asking that question.19 We have a motion -- we have an amended20 motion, two amendments to the recommendations and any21 other discussion?22 107 JOEL SNYDER: I have a question.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Yes.2 LARRY GOLDBERG: Janice brought up the3 question of the support by the religious4 organizations, these two who have the asked for the5 captioning rule and the other -- I wonder whether6 they are aware that this recommendation which looks7 for multiplicity also says that captioning should be8 a requirement of a licensee so they wouldn't get the9 benefit of the diversity ownership and --10 GLORIA FASONNY: Gloria Fasonny speaking.11 Both the organizations are fully aware of the12 recommendation and the implications.13 VOICE: I feel great with this team here,14 it is fabulous.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have any more16 comments or questions?17 And on the phone, I'm sorry if I've18 ignored you. You cannot throw things at me, so19 that's what you get. Remember how you get to being a20 voice person, star 6.21 STEVE JACOBS: Steve Jacobs, no comments22 108 or questions.1 VOICE: This is Greg, maybe some of you2 may know and maybe you haven't heard about this, but3 there are other religious programs, if I understand4 it correctly of what's being said here today, that5 some of them have been excluded from providing6 specific captioning services, but have brought on7 interpreting, for example. Are there some others8 that are required that they have to provide9 captioning, am I understanding this correctly? I10 just need clarification.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Can we answer that,12 Karen?13 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: Karen Strauss. The14 FCC's rules require captioning on all stations, all15 television programs. Religious organization are not16 automatically exempt.17 What occurred recently, the FCC decided to18 exempt after receiving -- actually around 60019 requests and granted around 300 requests for20 exemption. Those requests were submitted at the time21 by individual programmers that claim that providing22 109 captioning would impose an undue burden.1 So if there is no categorical exemption2 within the rules -- I want to add that this action3 the FCC took, which may be talked about a little bit4 more later, was taken without notice of the public.5 That's why it was so upsetting to community. But the6 Benton Foundation and -- they are very outspoken in7 opposition to granting categorical exemptions for8 religious programmers and especially granting9 exemptions without notice and comments to the public.10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay. Do we have any11 other comments or questions before we take a vote?12 We have a motion on the floor to accept13 the media ownership rules, recommendations as amended14 to amendments. And I guess it's time we take a vote15 with another question or comments.16 VOICE: -- Insert of the word quadrennial.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: That's right, that's18 technical.19 We have a motion to -- the quadrennial20 services, the recommendation the motion has been made21 and seconded and two amendments have been made and22 110 seconded. A show of hands as approving these as1 amended.2 AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Abstaining or voting no?4 AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)5 SCOTT MARSHALL: Get on the record who you6 are.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'm sorry.8 VOICE: Dissenting.9 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have one dissenting.10 I think we have completed our agenda. I would11 suggest we have a few minutes. Where is lunch going12 to be set up?13 VOICE: Right here.14 VOICE: It's in the hallway.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Please, I do want for16 committee members only. I'm sorry I cannot invite17 others to partake in lunch, but there are some18 restaurants in the area and there is a snack bar19 around the corner, if chips and a soda will do you.20 Do you have a comment or question?21 VOICE: A quick head count -- if you want22 111 committee members to eat first.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I also want to remind2 you, this is an excellent opportunity to come up and3 get your certificates. I am truly sorry.4 SCOTT MARSHALL: And to sign the seal.5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: My seal, that's right.6 Please. And I really do apologize, I am simply,7 logistically do not have time to recognize this by8 giving it to you individually. Please forgive us and9 enjoy your lunch. Sign the seal, sign the seal,10 that's the key. You don't get lunch. Thank you.11 (LUNCHEON RECESS.)12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 112 AFTERNOON SESSION1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We really do need to get2 started. Rich has something he wants to amend.3 RICHARD ELLIS: I want to amend my vote on4 speech to speech, I have spoken with the mother ship.5 (Laughter.)6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right, thank you,7 Rich.8 DEBRA BERLYN: Thank you, Shirley, I don't9 have a formal report from the Competition Working10 Group, but I just wanted to take a minute seeing this11 is our last meeting to thank the members of the12 Competition Working Group for all the time you've put13 into our discussions and just talk about a couple of14 things that we did do.15 We don't have any recommendations for the16 CAC to consider. It was probably about halfway17 through our life when we realized that we were going18 to perhaps serve a better purpose in sharing19 information and educating rather than coming up with20 consensus positions on competition.21 The first year responses are, the panel22 113 which I think provided folks with a picture of what1 was going on in competition, and then over the years2 we've had various discussions within the working3 group on some topics of interest. Some have spilled4 over into other working groups as well. So I just5 want to take a minute to thank the members of that6 working group for the time and effort they have put7 in.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Deb. We are9 going to move into the formal part of our program.10 The first thing that we are going to do is to go with11 the report and recommendations of the Disability12 Working Group, which has been so ably chaired by13 Claude Stout.14 CLAUDE STOUT: Next slide, please.15 Now first of all I would like to have16 special recognition given to the members of the17 Disability Access Working Group. Without them we18 wouldn't be able to have gotten this wonderful report19 out. So this is what we would like you to review20 today.21 You can see several -- the lists of the22 114 different members of the committee on the slide and I1 would like to thank them for their expertise, their2 ideas, recommendations. It's not any one of us who3 has been the lead expert, it's everyone lending all4 their skills together to create this wonderful5 report. So thank you very much for your work on the6 disability access committee.7 The interpreter has asked for a little bit8 of water, a little technical difficulty.9 (Laughter.)10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'll talk about something11 that wasn't a difficulty, that was enjoying lunch,12 and Dane thank you for making it possible and CTIA.13 (Applause.)14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: And thank you, he15 personally went out and started the gas heater. But16 Dane Snowden many of you know from the FCC, and we17 appreciate his contributions for lunch, and Rich,18 again thank you for the facility and the heat, if19 you'd just get it to us, thank you.20 CLAUDE STOUT: All right, well let me go21 ahead with our report. The report covers five22 115 separate issues -- sorry, really there are six, TV1 captioning, effective communication, web captioning2 interoperability, Internet enabled services,3 captioning of high definition television programming,4 and finally hearing aid compatibility with cell5 phones.6 Next slide, please.7 The first issue we'd like to address is TV8 captioning, and previous CAC meetings mentioned their9 experiences with TV captioning problems. We10 experienced many different kinds of problems,11 sometimes the captions are missing and sometimes the12 captions are garbled. Often I may be watching a13 great movie and it is going fine until 10 minutes or14 30 minutes before the end of the movie and all of a15 sudden the captions disappear. Here we are16 frustrated, wanting to know what's happening next and17 being very much involved with the movie but unable to18 know what has happened.19 Thus far -- excuse me, next slide, please.20 There are six different consumer advocacy21 organizations, for and by people with disabilities,22 116 deaf in particular. We have filed a petition with1 the FCC in 2004.2 The petition that was filed two years ago3 included a basic message to the FCC that they had4 done a good job thus far. In 1998 they put on the5 books there would be a phase-in schedule for6 captioning, in Spanish language programming and7 likewise for pre-rule programming. As of January8 1st, 2006 all new television programming was to be9 100 percent captioned.10 Now Spanish programming is not yet at the11 100 percent level, they are currently at a 30 percent12 level. In 2007 or 2008 that percentage will go up to13 75 percent. At any rate, we the consumers told the14 FCC this is all wonderful, we are getting captioning15 and we've been getting different levels for an16 eight-year time period, but it's high time the FCC17 look at their rules and see where they can monitor18 the captioning that's out there in the industry,19 where they need to see whether they are able to20 enforce their rules to see where problems exist.21 And where individual consumers had filed22 117 complaints with programmers or with the FCC or video1 distributors -- for example a cable company or a2 satellite program offering, we file complaints but we3 were not hearing back from them. Frequently it's4 because those complaints simply went to a general5 complaint center, not to some place that dealt with6 captioning. As a result we weren't getting replies7 and we therefore have filed with the FCC office.8 When we filed our complaints with the FCC9 the system currently in place would be that they10 would respond to complaints after 140 -- within11 145 days. Now understand, that's more than 4 months,12 it is about four and a half months, excuse me, my13 math is off, that's nearly 5 months of waiting.14 That's not good for consumers, it is not even a good15 business practice to wait 5 or 6 months. So we came16 up with some other ideas that could be used.17 In the petition we said that we felt if18 you file a complaint you should be able to file it on19 a very easy to use form, and either the program20 distributors could get it or the television station21 could get it or the captioning center could get it.22 118 We would simply ask that a database be put together1 of all the TV industry contacts where the name of the2 person that would be the appropriate complaint person3 or for a specific TV station, the specific TV4 programmer or whoever, would be the point of contact,5 that that person's name should be listed so that we6 would know who to contact.7 And if we didn't get a response, where we8 could follow up later. And where we could have9 second and third contacts to see exactly what was10 going on and we could send a letter to say "Excuse11 me, I filed this complaint; what happened? I have12 not heard back from you, what have you decided to do,13 what is your response, what is your resolution to14 this problem?"15 We would like to have an ongoing dialogue16 with industry and with the FCC to make sure these17 problems are resolved. We expect the FCC to enforce18 the rules and we would like the FCC to do a better19 job at their enforcement and with industry and to20 include penalties for those who do not follow the21 rules.22 119 We believe that if we established a system1 of penalties, then industry and TV stations would2 respond better. Without some form of penalty in the3 enforcement there is not sufficient compliance with4 the rules.5 These are the rationales we have placed in6 our television captioning petition.7 I would like to talk about two other areas8 that are somewhat unrelated. The August 7th decision9 that the FCC made where they announced -- really it10 was rather a lengthy decision, but I will try and11 encapsulate it. They sent out a public notice to the12 broadcasters to let them know that they needed to pay13 attention to the need to have emergency broadcast14 information made accessible. They didn't say that15 captioning per se was necessary, but that visual16 information was required, so anything that was in17 audio had to be put in some visual form, so if there18 was some catastrophe, that information had to be19 presented visually.20 The FCC disseminated that public notice in21 July, then on August 7th the FCC disseminated what22 120 they called a clarification notice, and basically1 they told the television distributors that if you2 currently provide real-time captioning for emergency3 information broadcasts, that they would now4 understand, that the FCC was assuming that there5 might be situations that might arise when they would6 be unable to reach captioning agencies to provide7 captions. And the FCC wanted broadcasters to know8 that they understood that situation and what did they9 call that? We feel that that would have a ripple10 effect, and we feel that decision was based on some11 wrong assumptions.12 TV distributors thus far, TV producers who13 have had to provide real-time captioning, those -- in14 this clarification memo the FCC said we are not going15 to second guess what the broadcasters have done, and16 those companies who perhaps did not have a contract17 with captioners would not be able to get those18 captioning services, and the FCC said they were not19 going to second-guess their motives.20 I know the interpreters are having some21 difficulty with interpreting for me, but let me go22 121 on.1 We the consumers are very upset because2 the FCC went ahead and disseminated that3 clarification notice, without following the proper4 process, whether or not they would be acceptable to5 the industry. We don't know because there was no6 process in place, there was no feedback opportunity7 with the FCC.8 The third area of concern that I'd like to9 bring up with you is related to the permanent waivers10 that TV programmers received regarding their need to11 provide captioning. You may have heard a little bit12 about this this morning, where there was a group of13 programs that received waivers of their captioning14 requirements. When the FCC made that decision they15 did not mention religious broadcasts, in particular;16 they mentioned non-profit organizations. They17 exempted a large number of non-profit organizations18 from their captioning obligations. That was a formal19 decisions rendered for two organization, one was20 ANGLERS and the other was New Beginnings.21 From 1999 to 2005 the FCC posted a total22 122 of approximately 70 petitions from programmers who1 were requesting exemptions from their captioning2 obligations. Out of those 70, 67 were turned down,3 they were turned down in their request for an4 exemption, three were granted exemptions, my5 understanding is that these were temporary. The6 reason they turned down the 67 requests was they7 asked them to do their homework, essentially, they8 asked the companies to provide rationale for why they9 were asking for the exemption, whether it was for10 high costs or budget issues or whatever. So the11 companies had to go out and find a range of12 captioning estimates. If they did not do a good job13 of calculating what their revenue was as opposed to14 the cost to cover their captioning, then the FCC did15 not grant their petition.16 You know there are many ways to skin a17 cat. If the FCC turned down three requests, but they18 did grant three temporary waivers to give these19 companies time to get themselves together in order to20 comply with the captioning requirements. Because on21 January 1st of 2006, as we came to the level of the22 123 benchmark which said all new television programming1 was to receive captions, there suddenly was this huge2 batch of requests for waivers, over 500 waivers, as3 was mentioned this morning.4 What's more, and what's also sad, is that5 FCC decided to grant 297 of them. 297 of those6 petitions were given permanent waivers. The FCC7 chose to handle those requests in a different way8 than they have done in the past. This was an9 entirely new process that received no review from the10 consumers. We the consumers were not given an11 opportunity to provide feedback on the process the12 FCC was proposing.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Wait just a minute. They14 need to mute you on the phone, press star 6, please,15 because we're getting terrible feedback here. Did16 you hear that? I said here three times. Thank you17 very much. We'll continue.18 CLAUDE STOUT: Those 290 some waivers,19 most of them -- most of those decisions were not20 posted as a public notice. The documentation for21 those waivers were simply put in the FCC reference22 124 room, that's all they did.1 We were greatly upset, all the consumer2 groups were greatly upset. We believed the FCC3 should play fair. From 1999 to 2005 we played by the4 rules and we fully expected the FCC would play by5 their own rules as well, just as we had been doing.6 Next slide, please.7 Let me explain a little bit about the two8 decisions that have caused such dismay. These two --9 there are two filings in two different areas, one has10 to do with emergency access to -- access to emergency11 information and the other has to do with closed12 captioning waivers. The consumer groups have13 basically asked the FCC to have the access to14 emergency captioning -- emergency information15 clarification -- we have asked them to withdraw that16 clarification and to reclarify the video programmers'17 requirements on required access to emergency18 information and that they should use captioning to19 make emergency programming information visible to20 people with hearing loss.21 Regarding the exemptions with the22 125 nonprofit groups -- well, let me go back a moment.1 The 200 some odd waivers that were2 granted, one more thing that really upset us was that3 each of those waiver petitions were not given an4 individual analysis for undue burden. We know for a5 fact that some of those petitioners came from6 programmers who had very large financial resources,7 production resources, that they had assets in the8 millions of dollars. One group in Florida had9 $11 million worth of assets.10 Now, in order to maintain $11 million in11 assets, you must have a healthy budget process,12 there's no way you can have that much -- that level13 of resource without good processes. Now we have14 filed a petition for review or an application for15 review on this issue and we have asked the FCC to16 rescind their orders. In all 297 cases we have asked17 them to rescind the orders that they have given on18 waivers and then to review each case for undue --19 with an individual analysis of the facts.20 We feel that each petitioner needs to be21 very carefully analyzed. We have also asked that the22 126 FCC make sure that consumers -- government agencies1 and bureaus and divisions post information about2 the -- when the petitions arrive and before they make3 a decision.4 Next slide, please.5 I would like to first allow you an6 opportunity to ask questions before I review our7 proposed action items for this. Are there any8 questions about the petition or the emergency9 information access issue or about the waivers given10 for closed captioning to the nonprofit organizations?11 Are there any questions at all?12 No questions, all right. I will go ahead13 with our three proposed action items.14 Item A, the Consumer Advisory Committee15 support TDI et al. petition for rule making on TV16 captioning quality issues and commends the FCC for17 its recent proceeding on this petition. The CAC18 respectfully requests that the FCC take formal action19 soon on the petition. That's because the petition20 was filed several years ago and the formal process21 began a year ago, and we respectfully ask that the22 127 FCC immediately take formal action because we are1 currently in the third year of this process. I would2 like to move that the CAC adopt this motion.3 JOEL SNYDER: I second it.4 CLAUDE STOUT: Any discussion or questions5 on this issue?6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We will vote on each of7 your items separately; is that correct? So we are8 now --9 CLAUDE STOUT: I think Gloria has10 something she would like to say.11 LORETTA POLK: I'm with NCTA and a member12 of the Disability Access Working Group and I want to13 commend Claude and other members of the committee for14 their hard work on the various proposals in the15 report. However there is one aspect of the report,16 the captioning standards issues, that unfortunately17 we cannot support at this time. NCTA has gone on18 record in the proceeding with details as to our19 concerns here, basically they go to the fact that we20 don't think that creating a whole new regulatory21 regime which would require extensive monitoring and22 128 reporting and record keeping of the thousands and1 thousands of programming currently captioned on cable2 networks is a way to proceed. And we would like to3 continue the dialogue that we've had with members of4 the applicants of the deaf community, but we can't at5 this time support the petition and we've gone on6 record in the proceeding.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have several comments.8 I saw Karen first, then I saw Larry, Charles, then9 Janice.10 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: When the FCC issued11 its rules back in 1988 on captioning it declined to12 require standards of captioning quality because13 captioning was fairly new, and there were only a14 couple of providers and for the most part the15 providers were national and they provided a solid16 level of high level captioning. As consumers, we17 have said to the FCC we fully expected a huge18 proliferation of captioning agencies and were19 concerned when this occurred, the quality would20 decline, and in fact unfortunately that has happened.21 The price has come down, but the quality has as well.22 129 As a consequence, if any of you sit at your TV and1 turn on captions you are more frequently seeing2 garbled, dropping off, missing captions. It has3 become a really serious problem. I want to give you4 some background; that's the reason the consumers are5 going forward to the FCC and saying, please set some6 standards of quality, it doesn't have to be micro7 managing, but set some parameters, some guidelines.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Karen.9 Larry?10 LARRY GOLDBERG: I just wanted to note11 that the recommendation simply asked for action, not12 positive, negative or anything. Would NCTA oppose13 any action at all?14 LORETTA POLK: No. We can't -- the report15 as written supports the petition as drafted and we16 have some issues with the way the petition is drafted17 and the whole regulatory regime.18 JOEL SNYDER: They are asking to the19 commission act, because they have been sitting on it.20 LORETTA POLK: It says supports the TDI21 petition for rule making and then calls for FCC22 130 action.1 JOEL SNYDER: Two separate issues.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: The discussion was3 between Larry Goldberg and Loretta Polk.4 Charles?5 CHARLES BENTON: I have to remember who I6 am, thank you.7 I'd like to voice my support for the8 disability act and the recommendations on closing9 captioning. For 28 million Americans who are deaf10 and hard of hearing closed captioning provides a11 critical link to news, education, entertainment,12 enabling those individuals to be a part of mainstream13 society. For individuals whose native languages are14 not English it improves comprehension and fluency.15 For children it has helped them to read and improve16 literacy skills. It allows others to watch TV in17 restaurants, fitness centers and other public places18 where it is hard to listen.19 In July 2000 the FCC acted to ensure the20 visually impaired could more effectively benefit from21 visual description. Two years later a federal court22 131 struck down the rules, nonetheless some broadcasters1 continue to provide video strippings during2 programming and more should do the same to be fully3 accessible through the provision of closing4 captioning. And it is a fine example when properly5 enforced of how public obligations -- how6 broadcasters can be making a tangible and positive7 difference in people's lives.8 Hundreds of frustrated letters have9 streamed to the FCC offices in the last month since10 it was made easier for nonprofit organization to opt11 out. I believe our vote today magnifies the voices12 of these concerns and congratulate Claude for this13 amazing account.14 JANICE SCHACTER: When people talk about15 how it is possible to fix captioning without16 regulations, I want to give a personal perspective.17 I think we need to put a person to it.18 First off the problem is there are no19 regulations so there is no knowledge of when you can20 caption live and when you can't caption live. As the21 networks are moving toward everything being captioned22 132 live, shows that are filmed well in advance are being1 captioned live because of their fear of the ending2 being disclosed. So even though they have the show3 well finished in advance and edited, they are4 captioning it live and therefore the error rate is5 greater than if it was not live.6 In addition for pre-programmed shows,7 where there should be a zero tolerance for anything,8 any error rate, there are still errors. Some9 networks or stations don't even have someone in10 charge of captioning to complain to. Lifetime11 Network for example has all the old shows they feel12 don't need to be captioned and they don't caption,13 that's generalities.14 Our family -- I have a 12-year old15 daughter who is hard of hearing. This was one16 particular show, a reality show, they are working on17 it. I spent a year and over 60 phone calls trying to18 get this corrected. The reality show told me that my19 standards were too high. They spelled words like20 "Bordeaux" as two animals, BOAR and DOE. My child21 learned negative spelling in 20 minutes trying to22 133 understand why the region of France was spelled by1 two animals. I called Mark Burnett Productions and I2 called every single person straight down the line and3 I was put off. I kept a phone log of over 50 to 604 phone calls and I couldn't get this accomplished.5 Let me tell you something, if I who live6 in New York, who has been called by the New York7 times as a pushy mom, and am on the New York CAC8 committee can't get this fixed, how is any person in9 America supposed to get this fixed?10 So please understand I am the voice of11 every person with a hearing loss that can't get this12 fixed. This isn't just something making up stuff and13 whining. I decided I had to put my money behind this14 because I couldn't come to this meeting unless I had15 tried, and I could not do more. I met with16 commissioners, I met with every single person, I met17 with networks, I'm not sure what else I could have18 done.19 If you have a suggestion, I would like to20 know. I called the Trump organization, used school21 conducts, his assistant's daughter goes to my22 134 daughters school, I'm willing to do that.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Joel, Ann and then we're2 closing.3 JOEL SNYDER: This is Joel Snyder from the4 National Captioning Institute. That's a tough act to5 follow. Well, the National Captioning Institute has6 invented closed captioning, ever since that time I7 know we've been strong supporters of excellence in8 captioning and the highest standards. I'm a member9 of this Working Group and applaud Claude and all the10 colleagues and are totally supportive of this11 recommendation.12 And as I say, these standards, I would13 simply suggest that the details be worked out14 ultimately by the FCC, not in the petition. That's15 my understanding more of course in the recommendation16 where --I think that's where a lot of consideration17 has to be placed ultimately. Enforcement has to be18 based on sampling and a pattern of abuse, as many of19 you know, captioning quality and what is ultimately20 received by the end user, those garbled transmissions21 and those errors can happen anywhere along the line22 135 from the captioner to the end user's actual1 television set. So that it is a complicated process2 in other words. And I think ultimately when a system3 is developed, if a system is developed for tracking4 captioning quality, that pattern of abuse has got to5 be tracked carefully and any sort of fines or6 whatever, penalties have got to be based on a pattern7 of abuse as opposed it a per instance type of thing.8 And a measurement period needs to be set quarterly,9 if not shorter than that, and has to be tracked10 carefully and understood in the transmission process11 that captioning involves.12 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Joel.13 ANN MARIE MICKELSON: I want to thank Joel14 for identifying some of the problems down the chain.15 I want to express to Janice -- and of course my16 mother is hard of hearing so I'm not ignorant of her17 constant complaints. We have supported streamlining18 the complaint process. If I call a station and say19 what went on with the show last night, it is not easy20 to get a response, even as a representative of the21 National Association of Broadcasters. I would22 136 imagine for the average consumer it is very1 frustrating, I can think we are on record saying2 there has to be an easier, streamline way and we are3 willing to sit down and work this through with other4 video programming providers and with the FCC to see5 what's the reasonable way to improve the process.6 And to reiterate what Joel said, that has7 to be a measured way to judge quality and captioning8 standards as we just saw in a demonstrated -- simple9 isolated instances. Low quality of captioning,10 that's a different question . That's something the11 FCC has to take a comprehensive look on, rather than12 holding one to a 97, 98, 99 percent standard. If you13 asked people in the room, I think you would get14 different captioning quality standards, 10 different15 answers. We look forward to working with the16 captioning --17 My final point is when these rules went18 into effect in 1997, I think when we ramped up to19 2006 and hit 100 percent captioning requirements,20 everyone assumed we would be in a technologically21 advanced state where we would have voice recognition22 137 software to do this. Unfortunately this is done by1 real-time captioning, and human error cannot be2 discounted, and that's an issue we struggle with3 every day.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We are really running out5 of time.6 JOEL SNYDER: I have no problem in7 understanding human error. My problem is that8 captioning live should be live, shows like Martha9 Stewart, where the words are not given in advance to10 build a dictionary. I have tried, it was the entire11 series and it got worse and worse. The captioners12 dropped sentences, so when you looked at the script13 you couldn't see the spelling errors because the14 sentence was just gone. That started to happen, it15 was multiple shows and over and over, I followed one16 show to have a consistency.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, we have a18 motion on the floor.19 TV captioning proposal from the Disability20 Working Group. I would like to see a show of hands21 in favor of accepting.22 138 Opposed? All right, thank you very much.1 CLAUDE STOUT: Before we go it on the next2 item from the --3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Excuse me, I just wanted4 to clarify for Scott, there were two votes5 dissenting.6 Do you want to abstain or dissent -- no7 vote, okay, thank you.8 All right, we have the section on9 effective communication.10 CLAUDE STOUT: There is one more action11 item under the captioning issue, it is currently on12 the slide. Why don't you read it from the slide.13 The Consumer Advisory Committee14 respectfully requests that the FCC consider its15 recent action on captioning conceptions and emergency16 information broadcasts and implement the following17 remedial action, 1, the FCC rescind the ANGLERS order18 and all 297 grants of exemption based on it and19 require the consumer governmental affairs bureau20 individually review each undue burden petition to21 determine whether an undue burden will result.22 139 The bureau is also instructed to place all1 current and future petitions on public notice.2 Two, the FCC withdraw the August 7th, 20063 clarification notice and reclarify that video4 programming producer/distributors otherwise required5 to provide and those who are providing real-time6 captioning of their live news programming must use7 captioning to make their emergency programming8 visually accessible to people with hearing loss.9 So moved.10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have made a motion on11 the floor. A second? Janice.12 Discussion?13 Okay, we'll see a vote. All those in14 favor?15 Opposed? One opposed, Ann opposed.16 An abstention, Loretta is abstaining. I'm17 sorry, Dane.18 VOICE: Abstention.19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: And Shelly. All right.20 CLAUDE STOUT: The Disability Access21 Working Group has proposed a definition for effective22 140 communication. If you recall maybe one or two1 meetings ago there was a general acceptance of the2 definition of intercommunication assistance, VRS and3 traditional relay services. We the CAC did4 acknowledge that members of the CAC understood that5 people have different sorts of disabilities that have6 different needs and that different accommodations7 need to be made in order to meet those different8 needs.9 To go one step further in that process.10 The FCC has been the most recognizable federal agency11 as far as producing disability access procedures.12 And we need to applaud them for that. We want to be13 able to function on an equal basis with everyone in14 the mainstream.15 Now, we would like to clarify what we mean16 by effective communication. This language was17 developed by Judy Viera who did a wonderful job, we18 -- some discussion with the TRS Working Group and we19 have now taken on the discussion as well. We would20 like to define effective communication as a three-21 prong definition.22 141 One, the ability of two or more parties to1 participate fully and equally in a conversation or2 event. Secondly, each is able to communicate both3 clearly and accurately through use of appropriate4 auxiliary aids and services. And thirdly, primary5 consideration is given to requests of individuals6 with disabilities for the types of aids and services.7 What the Disability Access Working Group8 is asking from you all is to endorse this definition.9 This definition incorporates a philosophy and10 approach that the FCC can use in exercising their11 work, both inside the FCC and in dialogue with their12 sister federal agencies.13 For example, if Joe, who is hard of14 hearing, if he goes to a meeting perhaps and they15 bring in a sign language interpreter for him, that's16 not the need that he has and we would not therefore17 call that effective communication. The reason that18 would happen would be that they didn't check with Joe19 to ask what he wanted and to get his feedback as to20 what he needed in order to participate in that21 meeting.22 142 It's -- the principle is that a business1 or federal agency should ask the consumer first what2 it is that they need. Before you hire a captioner,3 you would need to ask the person if perhaps they need4 captioning or maybe it is an assistive listening5 device. The idea is to understand that they need to6 meet the need of the consumer and take care of the7 need at the site.8 For me, I am deaf and I would not be able9 to use an assistive listening device. I could watch10 the CART writer, but my real preference is to watch a11 sign language interpreter, the other advantage is12 they can voice for me. Other disability people out13 in the mainstream and in the marketplace that you14 meet on the street, they might have a hard time15 determining what accommodation needs are for any16 specific communication.17 We would like people who are paying for18 these devices and making the decisions to make sure19 they contact us the consumer first, before making the20 decision as to what accomodation will be put in21 place, it is really a need for communication. This22 143 philosophy that we have explained in this definition1 is to make sure the communication takes place with2 the person with the disability, not just telling the3 person with the disability what they need, but4 getting feedback from them and input from them as to5 what is needed. Then that way we can invite dialogue6 between both the provider and the person receiving7 the accommodation, not just ordering or prescribing8 resources, but incorporating a dialogue, so that we9 have the appropriate resources in place.10 For example, here I'm not the only person11 with a disability, I can chat with any of you, I am12 giving a presentation now and the reason that is13 possible is because there's an interpreter there who14 can understand what I say and communicate it to you15 and understand what you say and communicate it to me.16 Without that you would not be able to understand me17 and I would not be able to understand you. That's18 what the purpose of this definition is, to make sure19 there is effective communication taking place.20 Are there any questions?21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I think we're going to22 144 take a -- we'll get a motion to accept this as a1 recommendation, is that a motion? Do I hear a motion2 that we accept?3 JIM TOBIAS: I move.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Janice Schacter is5 seconding the motion. Now we're opening it for6 discussion. Judy is using video relay and is going7 to join us, she has been working very hard on this8 issue. Their arriving at this definition was ab9 effective use of communication because they did a lot10 of back and forth in discussing it, so they put a lot11 of time in it.12 I'm not sure Judy has joined us. I don't13 think so, I'm sorry. She isn't -- Dane you have a14 comment?15 K. DANE SNOWDEN: Is the motion or16 proposal to have the FCC adopt the definition and17 then work with other agencies, or what exactly is the18 motion?19 CLAUDE STOUT: Here's the motion in its20 entirety.21 VOICE: That answers my question, thank22 145 you.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay. Do we have other2 questions or comments?3 AUDIENCE: (No response.)4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We'll take a vote. All5 in favor of the motion.6 AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have abstentions or8 a no?9 VOICE: Ann is abstaining.10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right, item number 3,11 Claude.12 CLAUDE STOUT: The remainder of the report13 does not ask for any action on the part of the CAC,14 but it does list four items and these are items for15 your information and consideration. I'm hoping that16 in future CAC meetings and future meetings of this17 group or the Disability Access Working Group they18 will be able to address these four issues in their19 deliberations. The members of the Working Group did20 a lot of work on these items and I would like to ask21 Larry Goldberg to give a summary of the deliberations22 146 that took place regarding webcasting1 interoperability.2 If we could keep these to three minutes3 apiece.4 LARRY GOLDBERG: A few meetings ago I did5 a demonstration on how captions can be carried on6 online video content. The progress has been slow but7 sure. The technology is getting better and better.8 I should mention captioning has been available online9 for a number of years starting with PBS's Nova10 program, but it only makes sense, that's where it was11 invented by NCI -- it continues to grow over the12 years and as much as we might want to consider FCC13 action, in fact the development of the technology,14 the processes and delivery, if you read the report --15 I would be certain to say within one year the tools16 would be ready.17 In light of the fact that regulation is18 still a very controversial issue, we're not likely to19 ask for a recommendation right now. I'm glad we had20 a chance to lay out all the issues, especially21 regarding programs with captioning, which is a22 147 relatively simple technique for getting captions on1 online media. That's a basic summary of where we2 stand and where we're going to be in a very short3 time. Even in the past few weeks, Google has been4 putting captions in online media and you will see5 more of it as the months go on.6 Shirley, "Prime Suspect" starts next month7 with captions.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: If you don't know what9 he's talking about, I'm not going to tell you.10 (Laughter.)11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: That's the most important12 information I've gotten today. For those of you who13 are mystery fans, Helen Mirren's "Prime Suspect"14 starts in November. You didn't know you would get a15 scoop here, did you?16 Pardon me, it is late in the afternoon.17 We have -- I don't think this is an item for vote,18 because we're not making any recommendations, so it19 is an information item.20 CLAUDE STOUT: The next topic is we would21 like to have Steve Jacobs talk to us about -- give us22 148 his summary regarding Internet protocol enabled1 services.2 STEVE JACOBS: I apologize.3 (Laughter.)4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you.5 STEVE JACOBS: This is Steve Jacobs and I6 just thought I would mention, I have moved my7 microphone and I had my phone on mute. At any rate8 IT enabled services can provide significant benefits9 for millions of people, including people with10 disabilities.11 The transporting of a wide variety of12 services over a multitude of platforms has become13 commonplace. Often it is difficult, even impossible14 to determine where a particular product or service15 begins and where it ends. Unfortunately, separating16 IP enabled services into telecommunications and17 information service categories based on their18 underlying technology results in uneven playing19 fields for both companies and consumer, since20 different rules to cover identical services have to21 be provided over different transmission protocols.22 149 We understand the importance and benefits1 to the market forces, and we believe the commission2 should focus on function and not form in determining3 a regulatory framework for disability access.4 To the extent that IT enabled services are5 used to achieve communications that are functional or6 similar to or provide a substitute for those to7 provide traditional services, services as well as the8 products used with them should have -- for9 accessibility. They should hold true, regardless to10 form, be it text, video or voice or the transmission11 media, wireless or satellite communication travel.12 More specifically TTY compatibility and13 accessibility. There are a number of TTY14 compatibility issues. First a direct connection of15 an internal analog device like TTY may be16 unavailable. Even if connection can be made, there17 are still concerns about the extent to which TTY18 transmission can be effectively carried over IT19 enabled services. Just product -- and talk to analog20 voice product -- with analog product.21 Within the IT environment there also needs22 150 to be a common protocol that is equally designed,1 there needs to be coordination of many2 standard- setting activities directed as the problem.3 Unless -- IXC interoperability and international4 harmonization.5 Hearing Aid Compatibility act of 19886 requires all telephones to be compatible with hearing7 aids, the FCC has very strict rules requiring wire8 lines and some wireless telephones to be hearing aid9 compatible. New equipment must similarly be10 acceptable by people who use hearing aids and11 cochlear implants. Simply hook up a spring indicator12 to alert them to incoming calls, IT needs to be13 constructed -- or vibrating signals, personal14 communication devices.15 Speech quality. Speech compression us16 commonly used an IT transmission. People who are17 hard of hearing, especially those with hearing loss,18 often find it difficult to understand speech that has19 been greatly compressed. Hard of hearing people --20 my speech quality is low and it can present a21 problem, people have a difficult time. This equips22 151 people with speech disabilities, as well as people1 who are deaf and hard of hearing, or voice carry over2 or hearing carry over.3 711 relay. Verizon Technology produced a4 substitute, its critical IT provider similarly5 provides a 711 relay, it is not the benefit provided6 by national numbers will disappear. IT enabled7 services, both usable for people with disabilities,8 just as it is critical to require access to IT9 enabled services to ensure people with disabilities10 are able to use the services.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Jim, I hate to interrupt12 you. I just did and apologize, but do you think you13 could give a synopsis of this? They are rather14 lengthy and we really need to move on. I do15 apologize.16 JIM TOBIAS: The next topic is17 interoperability. And basically if one vendor serves18 us with products not compatible with another vendor's19 for the same type of service, there is a problem.20 And the last thing, and this will take about21 30 seconds, telecommunication services versus22 152 information services. IT services based on1 functionality.2 IT services today -- video and data3 capability make it increasingly difficult --4 artificial services that the categories based5 underlying technology can -- disability issue. It6 also is uneven playing field for a company and there7 is no -- to be taking this information, passed on to8 consumers advisory committee for further9 conversation. So no formal action is needed at this10 time.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you. Sorry to rush12 you through it. I think you've done an excellent job13 summarizing.14 We don't really need to take a vote on it15 and we can move on to the other topic I guess, which16 is captioning.17 Claude Stout? There are two more topics,18 I should have said next, not only one.19 CLAUDE STOUT: I apologize for stealing20 several minutes from the next working session. Ron,21 could you talk about captioning of HD television22 153 programs?1 RON JONES: Before I start have to take a2 quick census. I would like to know how many of you3 have an HDTV and in addition to the HDTV, you4 subscribe to the HD standard to activate the special5 HD channels. How many of you?6 AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)7 RON JONES: Maybe about half. You8 understand what I'm talking about. What starts to9 happen with the HD broadcasting is they are not10 necessarily coming in captions. January 2006 there11 was supposed to be 100 percent captioning. And a12 couple of legal -- to take advantage -- the access13 Working Group --14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Can I interrupt. -- I15 think Steve's phone is still on mute.16 STEVE JACOBS: Let me do a star 6.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thanks, Steve.18 RON JONES: Thank you, Steve. And so the19 Access Working Group writes a letter and that letter20 to Richard Stenger for certification for broadcast21 for an exception, even though the current net -- held22 154 to the standard of the -- network. NPRM if FCC would1 come out and really the public inference -- and2 tomorrow we would have 100 percent captioning on HD3 broadcasting.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Ron.5 CLAUDE STOUT: The final item, Janice6 Schacter will be talking about hearing aid7 compatibility.8 JANICE SCHACTER: Hearing aid compatible9 phones, as some of you may or may not be aware, there10 are essentially two networks of phones, CDMA and CGSM11 networks, and depending on which cell phone carrier12 and the network only covers certain regions --13 Verizon are CDMA networks, which primarily covers14 United States and parts of South America.15 And jump in if I get this incorrect. And16 T-Mobile and Cingular covers the United States,17 Europe and other parts and there are other parts of18 the world as well.19 The problem is hearing aid compatibility.20 For hearing aid compatibility, the FCC requirement is21 the minimum threshold is M3, M4 -- that's M3T3 with22 155 the high -- sorry, M3T3 with the high of M4T4. The1 problem is what the M stands for is microphone2 interference when you're speaking to a person and3 you're hearing them. And the T part is for telecoil.4 The problem is currently, the CDMA network is able to5 achieve the higher standards of M4T4. The GSM6 network is not able to achieve that standard. The7 question is are they able to, and are resources being8 devoted to it, or are they just achieving a lower9 threshold? I can't answer that question. It is10 something we would like the FCC to delve into.11 Now the reason is -- and to let you know12 what the impact of this, it is not only that13 employer -- employees or people who work can't travel14 overseas to Europe, we need to be able to travel and15 have cell phone coverage around the world in the same16 way everyone else does.17 It also affects for example, back to my18 family, if I have T-Mobile and I want to buy a cell19 phone for my daughter and use the children's rate20 that T-Mobile so graciously offers of 9.95, I can't21 do that because it doesn't work for her hearing aids.22 156 I have to, instead of getting a 9.95 a month plan1 have to go to Verizon or Sprint and go 49.95 and go2 out of network and I can't have in network minutes.3 Not only can't I get -- somebody with4 hearing loss can't get in network coverage, but they5 are also restricted to two different carriers. We6 would like the FCC to look into are they devoting7 enough resources. I hope that's clear. If you're8 not really sure, you can Google me, I had a letter in9 the New York Times on this issue.10 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you.11 CLAUDE STOUT: That concluded the report12 from the Disability Working Group and again I would13 like to thank everyone on the CAC for the actions14 you've taken on our items. Thank you very much.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Claude, for16 being an outstanding chair of the working group.17 (Applause.)18 VOICE: On behalf of T-Mobile, I spoke to19 Janice earlier, we are very well aware of your20 concern regarding achieving the M4T4 rating which you21 just described. I just want to mention that T-Mobile22 157 is fully in compliance with the FCC rules which do1 mention, currently the threshold rating M3, T3.2 There were always been challenges with the GSM3 technology, it is a technical issue. We are very4 much involved, in terms of your question about5 devotion of resources, very much involved with an6 entity called the heck incubator, which was comprised7 of carriers and other consumer groups, Hearing Loss8 Association of America and Gallaudet University, to9 talk about that technical issue.10 Then to try to find a way to bring on the11 GSM side the M4 T4 rated handsets to the market is an12 issue, a technical issue. It is a very challenging13 one, but please know we're working diligently on it,14 thank you.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: And I think Dane wants to16 make one final comment, thank you.17 K. DANE SNOWDEN: I will be quick, I thank18 Janice for the presentation and Claude for his19 leadership as the chair of this committee as well. I20 think four or five people sent the article to me, I21 didn't want to read it four or five times, I read it22 158 the one time. As Shelly was saying, this is an issue1 that involves -- it is a matter of physics, is what2 it really comes down to. That is coupled with I3 think the FCC the FDA and technologists have to come4 together to figure out this issue. It's not a lack5 of will, it's a lack of technology and that's where6 we are today.7 I think that the idea of having parties8 sit down together is a good one and we support that9 idea wholeheartedly. It is a carrier issue, a10 manufacturer issue, it is a government issue and most11 importantly it is a physics issue. And my disclaimer12 is I'm not a technologist nor am I a physicist. I13 leave it at that.14 Thank you for outstanding work on the15 entire committee.16 JANICE SCHACTER: Just so you know,17 Shelly, I'm on that incubator, I've been invited to18 join that. Dane reminded me it is important because19 it does involve hearing aid manufacturers. I would20 implore that the FCC work with the FDA to work on the21 interference of hearing aids and it has to bring the22 159 two together. If we sit down at the table we can1 resolve some of the issues.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We turn the floor over to3 John Morris of the -- actually I don't think we4 called it a working group, it is an ad hoc group on5 effectiveness and communications. I will turn the6 phone over -- I will let John have it.7 JOHN MORRIS: It is a working group of8 three people, Charles Benton, Debra and me. I didn't9 do a lot of chairing to keep them -- so the three of10 us really stem from a conversation that this group11 had the last time we met, where there were some12 people expressing some frustration about questions13 like whether our recommendations were really reaching14 the people they needed to reach, or whether people at15 the commission were paying attention to the16 recommendations.17 And just a small group of us decided to18 try to sit down and see if there were some specific19 suggestions that we could make to the commission20 about how to improve the effectiveness and relevance21 and the visibility of this committee. So the three22 160 of us got together with also Gloria and Kevin from1 the Benton Foundation and we were able to consult2 with Scott Marshall and Shirley to get their input.3 Although this proposal is really from the three of4 us.5 These are suggestions about things that we6 think if the FCC appoints a new Consumer Advisory7 Committee, which we strongly support, there are four8 specific things that we think could help improve our9 effectiveness. Before getting to those specific10 questions, let me make very, very clear that nothing11 that we are suggesting is a criticism in the least of12 the work that the CGB bureau and Scott has been13 doing.14 We are in a sense trying to further15 empower the bureau to help us get our messages to the16 right people and in the commission. The specific17 frustrations that some people had and let me just18 interject to say that in this recommendation, we19 tried to do two things. We've tried to be as polite20 as possible, in other words, and not express21 frustration on any particular issues.22 161 And what we also have tried to make clear1 is that some of the concerns are not necessarily2 concerns that everyone in this room has. And as we3 are not trying to have a vote to say is everybody4 frustrated, so we're only trying to convey that some5 people have some of these concerns. We're not trying6 to get consensus on the concerns, but we hope we can7 get consensus on the suggestions.8 And the concerns that some people have had9 are the inability or lack of feedback from the10 commission and the commission staff about whether11 they understood our recommendations, whether they12 think our recommendations were on point or perhaps13 they think we missed an aspect of the problem and14 that we might benefit from thinking about the problem15 more. But we don't really have a good way to get16 feedback from the commission.17 We also really don't have a good way for18 the committee members here and the public at large to19 know the status of the proceedings. Certainly20 individually, individual members might be very active21 in a particular proceeding before the commission, so22 162 we might know what's going on in the proceeding, but1 the committee as a whole might not really be aware of2 what's going on in a particular proceeding.3 The final frustration is that, and I4 understand from Scott and Shirley it has happened in5 the past in this term of this committee, I've not6 felt that we've gotten much guidance from the7 commission itself, about what issues would the8 commission like us to think about, are there9 particular problems that the commission knows it's10 going to be phasing in in 6 months, it might benefit11 from some consideration.12 So we have four proposals. I will quickly13 run through them and point out the highlights and14 then we can open it up for questions and comments.15 One is an easy proposal to enhance the CAC's website.16 There is a website and Scott and his staff get all of17 our recommendations up on to the website after18 they've been -- after they've been passed or19 approved. And frankly, we're suggesting some tweaks20 to that website such that in addition to the lengthy21 recommendations, there could be a short summary that22 163 places the recommendation in context and summarizes1 the recommendation.2 And there might be a status of the3 proceeding that the recommendation is in just to4 report back, and again, to provide information both5 back to us about what's happening in the proceeding6 that we've weighed in, but also provide information7 to the public at large.8 As a nut and bolt in this specific9 recommendation, our vision had been that perhaps the10 working group chairperson would be the one to draft11 the brief summary of the piece. And so it wouldn't12 have to be a summary approved by the commission, it13 could be really -- it could be the CAC speaking, so14 Dixie Ziegler would be able to summarize the15 recommendations that the TRS group made earlier16 today. That's one recommendation, an improved17 enhanced website.18 Another second recommendation, I think19 probably the most important recommendation, but20 perhaps the one that will ruffle the most feathers is21 to have -- create and have the commission adopt a22 164 system of follow up inquiry, so that after we have1 submitted a recommendation, for example, let's say a2 few weeks before our next meeting, the commission or3 our committee could send out an inquiry back to the4 person who received a recommendation or the bureau5 which received the recommendation and basically asked6 them, what's happened with our recommendation? I7 mean, have you moved forward? It is really an8 attempt to create a little bit of a dialogue with the9 staff and the commissioners themselves about what10 we've recommended.11 Now, just as an acknowledgement, there are12 some proceedings that we may weigh in on that are13 restricted proceedings that are limited in terms of14 the ex parte communications, the rules that the15 commission may not be able to give us much feedback16 in some proceedings. But in a lot of proceedings we17 would be able to get substantive feedback on our18 recommendations. So that's the second19 recommendation, kind of a system for follow up20 inquiries.21 The third recommendation is really a22 165 recognition that the chairman of the commission, now1 Kevin Martin, the chairman, whoever it is, is really2 the one who is able to set the agenda for the3 commission and really is able to guide the commission4 and pursue a particular agenda.5 And so, as useful as it is to have Monica6 or a representative come talk to us at the beginning7 of each meeting, we also would welcome, like and8 request to have a representative of the chairman's9 office come and talk to us as well, just so we can10 have a little more direct interaction with the office11 that really is studying the agenda for the12 commission.13 And then the final recommendation is kind14 of a more formalized request to the commission, to15 give us guidance about what issues would be most16 relevant for us to work on, because there may well be17 consumer issues that are cropping up, but that none18 of us really realize will be coming up in a few19 months' time.20 The fourth and final recommendation21 doesn't ask for that kind of guidance and it does22 166 make clear that the CAC would benefit from guidance1 from an individual commissioner. So even if the2 entire commission as a whole chooses not to provide3 us guidance, it would be useful to hear from an4 individual commissioner that he or she thinks5 something is worth us looking into. And then6 obviously we as a committee can decide what we're7 going to spend our time on, but getting that kind of8 guidance I think -- we think would be very helpful.9 So those are the four proposals and I open10 it up for questions.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Before we do that, we12 should get a motion that recommend these proposals to13 the FCC. All right, now we will open it up for14 discussion.15 Larry?16 LARRY GOLDBERG: I was pleased to see17 these recommendations in my packet today and I was18 thrilled to see them because they directly reflect19 some of my own concerns. And in short, I believe20 very strongly that every one of these will make it a21 much more effectively commission and that it is taken22 167 seriously.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I had an editorial2 change. The fourth paragraph -- on page two, last3 line, take out the who.4 Jim Tobias?5 JIM TOBIAS: Yeah, I want to echo Larry6 Goldberg's comments. I think what we see in these7 recommendations is really those of us who are8 familiar with transitions to E government, these are9 straight down the middle of the road. A 19th century10 regulatory model, using raw materials of wood and11 stone. We have opportunity now to get much flatter,12 much more open dialogue going between government13 agencies and the citizens, whether the citizens are14 members of a committee like this one or members of15 the public.16 Why is it that we can vote for, you know,17 what kind of hat should be worn by a bowl queen, but18 we can't seem to get a survey or simple polling done19 for interests of significance. I strongly support20 these recommendations.21 Charles?22 168 CHARLES BENTON: I can't let this moment1 go by without congratulating and thanking John for2 planning this, writing this really terrific document.3 You did a great job on this and you reflected all the4 things we said, and more. And it just is a wonderful5 piece of work, thank you very much.6 JOEL SNYDER: I second that.7 (Applause.)8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Any other comments?9 KAREN PELZ STRAUSS: To have more of a10 presence from the FCC at these meetings, Scott is11 here and Greg is back there. And we have a couple of12 interpreters, but I still think it would be important13 to have active presence at every meeting. We don't14 have meetings that often, we have them what, 2 or 315 times a year. And for example, at least today, at16 least 50 percent of our issues involve disability17 access.18 I think it would be good to have the chief19 of the disability rights office here or at least20 somebody fairly high up on disability access and21 consumer access. I think it is hard sometimes, when22 169 we're saying things and putting them on the record,1 but for those of us who have worked at the agency, we2 don't have the time working at an agency to go over3 transcripts. I think it is different when people are4 actually in the room interacting with all of these5 individuals.6 And if all of these people are coming7 here, look at how much time and resources are being8 given to the agency. I think it is incumbent to the9 agency to give back. I don't know if you want to add10 that to as another recommendation, but --11 AUDIENCE: Yes, let's do it.12 If you can amend number 4.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I will say one comment,14 we have had a lot of presence from the FCC at our15 meetings. Today we don't particularly have a lot of16 presence, I suspect for a couple of reasons, because17 we are off site and in our agenda, we didn't invite18 them. But we've often had a number of members.19 JOEL SNYDER: The commissioners -- what20 happens --21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'm just making the22 170 statement.1 JOEL SNYDER: It is very helpful to have2 the commissioners come in, they come in, make a3 statement and leave.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I'm not talking about5 them, the members who have given lots of their time6 to come and talk to us.7 JOEL SNYDER: I haven't seen people from8 the disability rights office throughout the day, no,9 never, not a part of the time I've been with this10 committee and the same with the front office of CGB,11 that's a bureau who will be making these decisions by12 and large, but they are the focal point and it's13 different when they come and talk at us rather than14 with us and that's really what I'm talking about.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Um-hum, okay. All right.16 We have one more comment.17 CLAUDE STOUT: You know when we were18 talking about the media issue --19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Just a minute, I'm sorry.20 JOEL SNYDER: I wanted to offer a possible21 amendment.22 171 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Sorry, Claude.1 JOEL SNYDER: Put some language in number2 4 and like the rest of the recommendation, it is not3 to point fingers, it is meant to enhance the4 effectiveness so we can maintain that tone, I think5 we might want to add something in that says the6 appropriate staff attend meetings or participate in7 dialogue on an ongoing basis.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have to put it in the9 form of some proposal, so would you frame it for us?10 Or John, do you want to do that?11 JOHN BREYAULT: Not to disrupt our agenda,12 but if one if us writes out a couple of sentences and13 we could add to this --14 JOEL SNYDER: Let's do that during the15 break.16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: That's a great idea. If17 Claude has a comment -- that's okay with you, Claude?18 Why don't we take a break, come back in 15 minutes,19 pick up on this with a sentence or two to add to the20 amendment and we'll see you here at 3 o'clock. And21 don't forget to sign the seal, that's the order of22 172 the day.1 (Recess.)2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have one more order of3 business.4 We've got a motion on the floor and we've5 had discussion and we're going to have an amendment6 that has been written by John.7 JOHN BREYAULT: The proposal is to create8 a fifth recommendation. We're inserting number 3 to9 number 4, number 4 will be number 5. I will read it10 to you, the heading would be attendance by relevant11 commission staff members at CAC meetings.12 And then there are two sentences that13 follow this. "To enhance the value of the CAC and14 increase the dialogue between the CAC and the15 commission staff members with particular expertise on16 topics under discussion by the CAC should attend CAC17 meetings. For example, when the CAC addresses a18 disabilities rights issue, the appropriate staffer19 from the Disabilities Rights Office and/or other20 relevant bureaus or offices should attend."21 That's the end of the additional language22 173 that somebody is proposing. I will propose -- I'll1 move the amendment.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have a second?3 DEBRA BERLYN: I second.4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Any discussion?5 We will put the entire motion -- do we6 have comments or -- I think it has been amended and7 we have -- I guess we have to vote on the amendment.8 May I see a show of hands who approves the amendment?9 Now, for the entire paper, I don't think10 you need the rereading of that statement. You've11 already accepted it.12 May I see a hands for the ad hoc group.13 (Indicating.) Any dissenting or no?14 Okay.15 JOEL SNYDER: He's on his way back in.16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I think you've been17 wonderful and of course Scott has been fabulous and18 thanks to Rich and our facilities and our audio and19 visual equipment and to Dane for providing an20 excellent lunch. I understand he stayed up all night21 last night doing it. We're very appreciative.22 174 On a personal note, I've decided that and1 I believe the group will be rechartered, I help so,2 that would be my recommendation to the FCC. But I3 think I've enjoyed 6 years of chairing the group and4 it is time to move on. I would like to stay with the5 group if I get selected. I would like to thank all6 of you and threaten you if you didn't sign my seal.7 Just in time we've got the man himself8 here. Gene, we will turn the floor over to you.9 GENE CRICK: Thank you. It is a pleasure10 to be here, anybody here from out of town?11 My name is Gene Crick, I will run this as12 effectively as I can, so if you have a little summary13 of what we're talking about, it will make it as14 effective as possible.15 We have three recommendations coming under16 the working group, we have copies that have been17 provided in advance. I am going -- they are there, I18 don't need to lip sync them for you.19 The first one is emergency services,20 emergency telecommunication services and emergency21 alert systems, both of which are particularly timely22 175 for those of us in underserved areas. In this1 particular case, as we know in Texas, as it happens,2 when Hurricane Katrina hit, my colleague to my right,3 Will Reed, worked out an arrangement in dealing with4 the impact, it was massive.5 And the arrangement was he would work6 16-hour days dealing with relief efforts and I would7 take the credit. To me, this is a happy day, I8 entered community communications. We learned a great9 deal, I'll summarize it by saying two things. One, I10 am firmly convinced that we communities ourselves11 need to take a great deal of leadership for12 preparedness and telecommunications channels. I13 don't mean that we should do this -- I mean that we14 shouldn't expect any agency, federal or otherwise, to15 provide the answers and bring them to us. Instead we16 should ask for answers, we should support efforts and17 we should develop plans, largely based on models,18 very important to me, on models that we work together19 to develop on how a community can become aware,20 prepared and respond when emergency conditions arise.21 They obviously can be anything that you22 176 would consider on an emergency, a crisis situation,1 whether a hostile act or some pandemic or a natural2 event, weather events such as we faced with the3 hurricanes. The point is do we have communications4 plans in place that will enable emergency management.5 And a particular concern of mine that I mentioned6 earlier in the day that will enable us to notify and7 support everyone, because a lot of people -- we sit8 here in an IT enriched world, that's not the case9 with a lot of people who are directly and powerfully10 affected by some condition.11 So this affects primarily two dockets12 before the commission, and is for the most part13 simply an affirmation of the importance and an14 application to the commission to be sure that they15 consider and include community level participants16 that we look at both ends of the system.17 After Katrina, I looked at how Emergency18 Alert System messages were handled. I learned a19 great deal. I learned a great deal about what is not20 in place and not prepared. I understand the nature21 of government process with many, many priorities and22 177 many things to do, but that said, I'll make my second1 point. And that is those of you who as I have a2 foundation in faith, I implore you to, well, frankly,3 pray that we don't need anything from the Department4 of Homeland Security and FEMA right away. They are5 wonderful people, but it is a big task and the6 consumers need to hold up our end of the deal. We7 need to ask and we need to work.8 So this recommendation offers that view to9 the commission, again affirming that this is a10 priority, that we hope the commission will take not11 only action -- the commission by no means is ignoring12 this issue, that the commission and the staff will13 help us as we work to develop some models we can14 share, because one of the things that we encountered15 was that smaller communities with less technology16 capacity, not surprisingly, are going to have a more17 difficult time being ready. We can help, we being18 every one of us working together. So I offer this19 recommendation, so unless there are questions, that's20 all I really need to say on that one.21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay, you're -- we're22 178 talking about the one sheet emergency alerts in1 crisis telecommunications?2 GENE CRICK: Yes, ma'am.3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do I have the correct4 thing here? Okay, it's the first one which refers to5 the two docket numbers, the FCC docket numbers.6 GENE CRICK: Right.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Are you making that in8 the form of a motion or --9 GENE CRICK: I would like to make that as10 a motion.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Linda, all right. And12 discussion.13 K. DANE SNOWDEN: How does this relate to14 the WARN Act?15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Dane is asking, Gene, how16 this works relative to the WARN Act.17 GENE CRICK: The order of June 26th calls18 for this. One of the things that President Bush19 calls for is a common alerting protocol, standardized20 format which was a tradition until RSS, but a21 standardized format by which every community knows22 179 what messages will be coming, how they will be coming1 and the device and means to receive them, to2 authenticate them and redistribute the information3 appropriately within the community. And so this4 is -- I've spent a great deal of time with the5 protocol and this is founded in the executive order.6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Do we have any other7 comments or questions or concerns?8 Larry.9 LARRY GOLDBERG: My organization in Helena10 and making sure they are accessible to people with11 disabilities, that's been a lot of the discussion12 nationally as well. I wonder if that automatically13 fits into your recommendation or something should be14 added.15 GENE CRICK: I consider it absolutely16 intrinsic because the notion of notification schemes17 that ignore people with special needs is terrible and18 incomplete and it's not just the ones that we know of19 so familiarly here. It goes a little beyond that.20 I am speaking mostly of the intent, it is21 straightforward language, we can add anything you22 180 want for clarification, but I think also intrinsic to1 this is the notion that we should be looking at2 broadband access, at least to areas for3 redistribution.4 I think we should be looking at issues5 like nursing home populations, these are folks in a6 special needs position. I have sympathy for a7 nursing home operator, think about the challenge that8 those people face. On the one hand, they recognize9 that evacuating a population and the medical risk for10 that very population and we don't like to use the L11 word in public, but there is some liability attached12 to that.13 The flip side, if they fail to evacuate,14 that can be a terrible outcome, too. What we need is15 to decide what's the standard, what's the best16 prevailing standard in government. And others can17 participate in advance to determine the best response18 to that.19 And there's even -- this is one, another20 learning experience, it seems they just keep coming,21 issues of emergencies with people to use an example,22 181 renal failure, kidney problems, evacuation and1 ongoing relief is not the same for people who need2 dialysis 3 or 4 times a day as it is for others who3 simply need shelter and food. And yet while there4 are 500,000 people in that condition throughout the5 country, they will be widely distributed. That's a6 case where we need to do some shared planning. Can7 we as the CAC do that? Those are issues I would like8 to see --9 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay, so we're moving10 ahead with this recommendation, right?11 Okay, do we have other discussion?12 We will put the motion to the vote. The13 recommendation for the rural and populations working14 group. Show of hands in support of the15 recommendation?16 Opposed? No opposed, all right.17 GENE CRICK: The second one is even18 simpler than the first. And this one I'm proud to19 say I don't think I'm offending a soul at the FCC, it20 is simple, I am suggesting that we augment the21 current FCC information resources, electronic22 182 information resources by adding an RSS feed. And for1 those of who you don't wear propellers on your hat,2 that is a simple XML procedure. All it means when3 the electronic format comes out and goes to the4 website and may also go out through the consumer5 information registry, which is a nice project via6 E-mail, it also is rounded to an RSS feed.7 And the RSS feed is simply, it is most8 analogous to -- there it is not a push, you don't get9 any information unless you say that interests you,10 but it's available. And if you want to put it on a11 comparative basis, I checked as many other agencies12 and cabinet level departments as I could, and it13 seems that they all have RSS feeds with the -- I'm14 sure there will be an exception, I just didn't happen15 to encounter one in 51 cases.16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Is there any17 discussion -- this is a recommendation, do you want18 to propose that as a recommendation?19 GENE CRICK: I do.20 SHIRLEY ROOKER: And second.21 JOHN MORRIS: I second.22 183 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All in favor? Opposed?1 And it passes.2 Moving right along.3 GENE CRICK: First I want to thank the4 Academy.5 (Laughter.)6 GENE CRICK: Two items I want to bring7 forward. They do not call for a recommendation they8 relate to the working group, and I think deserve it.9 Related to Katrina, as I mentioned, I can't take the10 credit, my colleague has been working in Houston.11 And since Hurricane Katrina, Houston has -- simply12 because it represents on a large scale a fully13 publicly adopted community telecommunications14 project.15 And a part of the importance is that it16 represents the support, endorsement and leadership of17 government and of economics and of the public and18 private sector and nonprofit. Any time you have a19 new initiative that includes both our nonprofit20 groups and AT&T, you know -- if you will give a quick21 moment, Will can explain that.22 184 WILL REED: I have with me some brochures1 about the project that was really an outgrowth of a2 committee in Houston. Like Gene said, public sector,3 private, business, health care, non-profits, et4 cetera. And its a 600-square mile project. My5 nonprofit technology has a small research project, 46 square kilometers, that was being leased for research7 at Rice University. It is kind of a catalyst for the8 committee that got started and now they have adopted9 the city and is to announce it in 3 or 4 weeks. If10 you are interested in that, we do have some brochures11 to describe the committee's work that then led into12 the municipal project.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you very much,14 Will. They will be available, you will have copies15 of the brochure.16 GENE CRICK: And Will will be available17 after the meeting, I'm sure.18 The next item, my friend and colleague19 Linda has a suggestion to offer it for initial20 consideration about -- Linda --21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Just let me say we passed22 185 this around, did everyone get a copy? And we will1 E-mail it to the people on the phone.2 LINDA WEST: Thanks. Just a short word I3 want to tell everybody how much I appreciated working4 with all of you the last two years, I definitely5 learned a lot. As Gene said, this does not call for6 any action, it's a topic that is of great interest to7 me and I wanted to share it so we can get it on the8 record.9 The FCC commissioners are currently10 considering a bill keep in its intercarrier11 compensation docket a possible national compensatory12 mechanism to replace -- I'm sorry -- to replace the13 existing access charge and reciprocal compensation14 systems.15 Before making any final decision, the FCC,16 CAC would like them to consider the following17 information. The proposal was formulated on the18 premise that competing companies in the same area are19 incurring costs to provide service. The FCC20 commissioners realized this is not the case given the21 differences in technologies and embedded incumbent22 186 structures -- service providing service to Indian1 reservations, rural America and sparsely populated2 areas to obtain federal subsidies to pick up the3 slack.4 Please note that these areas are also5 historically the most economically challenged areas6 of the country. The consumers of rural incumbent7 companies appreciate the efforts to support8 affordable service in rural areas. However, they9 realize a federal subsidy is a fickle mistress, here10 today, gone tomorrow. This deters rural service11 providers from formulating any long range investment12 and upgrade plans.13 In spite of the uncertainty outlined above14 regarding switched access, reciprocal compensation15 and universal service subsidies, it has been my16 experience that these rural companies continue to17 maintain their systems and provide their customers18 with access to the latest in modern technology.19 These companies may not take the risk of providing20 these advance services if they have to depend on a21 federal subsidy subject to political whims for an22 187 increasing percentage of their overall revenues.1 It would be a year to year function, not2 knowing when or if a subsidy would be there.3 Ultimately if the subsidies are decreased or4 withdrawn consumers would end up paying more for5 their service, possibly more than they can afford.6 There are programs like the various lifeline programs7 in place for low income families. However, there are8 many borderline consumers that could very possibly be9 forced to drop their service because of rising10 unaffordable rates.11 Therefore, I would recommend that all12 service providers terminating calls, one of their13 competitors be compelled to enter into14 interconnection arrangements and pay a fair rate for15 services provided. This rate should take into16 consideration the company's actual cost providing the17 service. The actual costs of providing service in18 rural areas should be shared fairly by competing19 providers that use the rural network, not supported20 by artificial and political, if I can call it that,21 subsidies because of the importance of land line22 188 companies providing these services. Thank you.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: This is just a suggestion2 for us for consideration in the next charter of the3 FCC CAC.4 LINDA WEST: Correct.5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you very much,6 Linda.7 GENE CRICK: I am shifting gears -- the ad8 hoc group on that, I will recite that and turn the9 microphone over. Future directions for the FCC sent10 suggestions and observations, one is external and11 that's to continue what we've done. And that's12 opening the FCC issues and process to normal13 consumers and citizens. This particularly includes14 the use of newly available technologies, like the RSS15 feeds discussed.16 Internally, I suggested within the CAC17 that we look to and develop an enhanced sharing of18 activities within and among our working groups, I19 know sometimes a working group will be addressing an20 issue that I think is absolutely fascinating and21 important and have relevance for rural populations,22 189 but I'm not able to participate in every working1 group nor they in ours.2 And it would be nice to know more of3 others work and we could use some of the4 newer information technologies to do that, an example5 being what we might do to save meeting time, we might6 do a little bit richer pre-meeting sharing of the7 proposals and what's coming forward. It is possible8 the brighter minds may encourage dialogue in advance9 to enrich that.10 The other thing is to broaden the working11 groups themselves. I don't mean increase the number12 of working groups, nor change the constitution of the13 working group, but instead what's been allowed to do14 so far that is to include in the group itself the15 process of deliberation, the voices of experts,16 outside experts on the issues appropriate to that17 group, they can greatly craft comments and18 recommendations. An example being academics might be19 able to inform us of research that comes to bear on20 what we're saying or economists could give us what we21 call in policy making the fiscal notes on something.22 190 It may be a worthwhile idea, but we need to1 understand the cost that's likely before we decide if2 it is a practical idea.3 I want to affirm what others have said. I4 personally feel the work of the CAC is extremely5 important and it might be more so if we use every6 tool we can to support the staff like CGB in greater7 participation. It is not a direct CAC mission. I8 hope that each of you as individuals and as members9 of our group can help find ways for consumers to10 share their ideas, seek consensus and work with the11 industry to develop at least the framework of more of12 a national plan for public interest and13 telecommunications, I think that's going to help us14 develop a richer policy overall.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I have one comment. You16 are permitted to bring anyone you want to into a17 working group. You were aware of that?18 GENE CRICK: Yes, ma'am, and I have.19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You wanted to reaffirm20 it.21 GENE CRICK: Yes, I've brought Dr. Andrew22 191 Cahill, he knows that a lot better than I. I am1 frankly getting old enough to admit it.2 Our grand finale, our universal service3 funding recommendations and the principles of4 implementation. Most of you know and I am very5 privileged to be part of it, most of you know that6 the Benton Foundation, and we have Charles here and7 we have Gloria the director, an indescribable asset8 to that foundation. They have assembled a group of9 people and policies to craft practicable10 recommendations for that.11 I will turn it over to Charles.12 CHARLES BENTON: Thanks, Gene.13 We have been working for over a year on14 actually at Penn State and their colleagues all over15 the country in trying to come up with papers and16 recommendations on how to improve the universal17 service system which is, if not broken, is in18 trouble.19 We're now spending about $7.2 billion a20 year in supporting universal service which is21 certainly the largest commitment in public22 192 communication anywhere. And I have a couple of short1 paragraphs to read, and I will conclude with a2 comment and then back to Gene on the resolution3 that's on the table, we do have a resolution on the4 table.5 The recommendation regarding general6 principles implementing service reform which is in7 your folder here. Anyway, in this decade, one of the8 central questions policy makers must now answer is9 how we become a digital nation and extend the10 benefits of broadband and the opportunities that it11 delivers to all Americans.12 The recommendation before us now builds on13 our historical commitment to universal service,14 recognizing that as communications technologies15 evolve, universal service must evolve with it. The16 recommendation calls upon the FCC to broaden both the17 services supported by the universal service fund18 which is a sub -- USF sub-organization of the FCC and19 the base of contributions into the fund.20 We ask for the commission to discipline21 the size of the fund by effective oversight and we22 193 couple universal service reform with other needed1 reforms to encourage competition investing in rural2 broadband infrastructure funding, telecom relay3 service and spectrum management and opening of more4 of the airways for the broadband. Just a few5 details.6 There is no easy solution to the challenge7 of bringing broadband to rural consumers, these8 challenges must be addressed based on the same9 principles that have also guided the rest of10 communication policies for affordable access to the11 most important technologies of the era. Of the $7.212 billion spent annually in support of universal13 service, about 4 and a quarter billion are for the14 so-called high cost areas almost entirely in the15 rural and mountain parts of our country. So this is16 a very important area for that. The FCC is involved17 in and it is struggling with and will be struggling18 with in the future. So hopefully these comments and19 the two pages will provide some help. And Shirley,20 we want to put this -- I -- we need a resolution.21 Gene is moving the resolution.22 194 Is there a second?1 Maybe you should be doing this. That's2 your job.3 (Laughter.)4 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Yes. Quit trying to5 preempt me, I haven't left yet.6 (Laughter.)7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have a recommendation8 for regarding the principles of universal service9 reform. And do I have a motion that we accept this10 recommendation?11 Linda West. And second, and now we're12 open for discussion.13 I saw Debbie first, and Karen, you have14 the microphone. Go ahead and talk.15 KAREN PELZ STRAUS: I just wondered if I16 could make a friendly amendment, Charles. I assume17 we're talking about the bullets on the second page;18 is that right?19 CHARLES BENTON: Yes.20 KAREN PELZ STRAUS: Relay service funding21 in the past has never been used for people with22 195 disabilities. What's happened now, broadband is very1 expensive but the best way for many people with2 disabilities to communicate and deaf people who use3 video, this involves broadband services and4 equipment.5 So what I'd like to do is to add a6 sub-bullet at the end where it says reform USF in7 conjunction with a comprehensive set of program8 policies. He should include -- I would like to add9 allowing use of USF support for broadband equipment10 and services used by people with disabilities.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Would you give me that12 one more time?13 KAREN PELZ STRAUS: It would be allowing14 use of USF support for broadband equipment and15 services used by people with disabilities.16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: So that amendment would17 be allow use of USF support for broadband equipment18 and services for people with disabilities. Do I hear19 a second on that motion?20 JOEL SNYDER: Second.21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We'll vote on the motion22 196 to amend.1 All in favor?2 Opposed or dissenting? Okay.3 Okay, what --4 JOEL SNYDER: I'm abstaining.5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Who have we got down6 there? Rich and -- no, that's not Loretta. Tammy.7 And Dane and Shelly. We have five abstentions; is8 that correct?9 Oh, and Tony.10 SCOTT MARSHALL: Okay.11 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I hope we never get two12 people with the same name on this committee, Scott13 will really be in trouble.14 We have a recommendation that's been15 amended, and an extension on the amendment. But the16 recommendation has been approved by a majority17 vote -- the amendment. Further discussion?18 DEBRA BERLYN: I completely support the19 bullet points under the promise and the challenge20 here, I think we certainly -- certainly also have21 interest in making sure that all consumers have22 197 access to affordable broadband services. However,1 under the second page recommendations, we have not as2 of yet endorsed a particular way of getting there in3 terms of specifically here whether or not the4 universal service fund should be used to support5 broadband.6 So I would bring that up as a hesitation7 that I have at this point to move forward. That will8 mean increased costs to all consumers.9 RICHARD ELLIS: At the very last part of10 the day, when I'm sure a lot of folks haven't thought11 through all of the implications of these things, this12 is a big deal. I don't want to say yes or no, but it13 just seems to me we are throwing it in the last14 minute to folks and it has literally billions of15 dollars of implications. So just with that caution,16 it requires some thought.17 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay, we have another18 comment down here.19 HELENA MITCHELL: Where we say we20 recommend the CAC examine this issue, a more thorough21 evaluation or something like that.22 198 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We're having a motion1 that we table this until the next committee. There2 is some validity to that, this is a complex subject.3 Let's hear from some other members of the group, I4 think it is something that deserves some time. Dane,5 then we'll come to you.6 K. DANE SNOWDEN: When the time is right,7 I would second Helena's motion, along the lines of8 Debbie and Rich. It will increase the costs to9 consumers. The wireless industry does have strong10 positions on supporting USF and the efficient use of11 USF funds. And we all know in a matter of -- what12 technology you're using, consumers are paying that13 monthly on their bill.14 It is something we have a goal that the15 system be more efficient, not only in the16 administration of the money, but also as it does the17 process of different programs that it does support.18 So I support the ideas and the principles that were19 outlined on page 1. It is just at this time the20 wireless industry can not support the recommendation,21 not because anything is wrong with it, it is just22 199 premature.1 SHIRLEY ROOKER: The intent is good, but2 there is cost and other factors --3 K. DANE SNOWDEN: The current review of4 the comp system right now that is before the FCC that5 involves the FCC -- there is a lot of debate going on6 around this particular subject.7 SHIRLEY ROOKER: We have a motion on the8 floor to delay this. I'm not sure what protocol is9 when you have a previous motion and this motion would10 preempt it.11 VOICE: How about if I withdraw my motion?12 SHIRLEY ROOKER: She will withdraw her13 motion and make -- you want to make a motion to table14 it instead?15 LINDA WEST: To table it and use this as a16 model, a steppingstone, a first steppingstone for the17 next --18 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you, Linda. Linda19 is recommending that instead that we table this and20 reserve it as something that deserves serious21 consideration in a future CAC. So she's making that22 200 motion. Do I hear a second to it?1 AUDIENCE: (Indicating.)2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: So let's see a show of3 hands on the motion to table this until our next CAC4 meeting, making certain that it's given prominent5 attention by that committee.6 SCOTT MARSHALL: To clarify, until the7 next meeting, or are we referring it to the next8 committee for further consideration?9 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I think we're referring10 it to the next committee for consideration, would11 that be correct? Yes.12 SCOTT MARSHALL: Thanks.13 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right. So we have --14 VOICE: With the recommendation it be15 given high priority.16 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Yes.17 We have a recommendation on the floor and18 it has been seconded.19 Gene?20 GENE CRICK: I don't know the form, you21 are more the expert, but I would like to inform --22 201 because it is ongoing, I would like to inform the1 commission of this being considered, you know what I2 mean? I'm not saying -- I'm just saying --3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: You'd like for us to make4 it known to the FCC that it will be --5 GENE CRICK: We don't agree on the6 mechanics, but think the issues are -- rather than7 have it surface in April.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Is there some way we can9 do that? We can do a letter to that effect. I'll10 tell you what, let's take the motion of tabling it,11 and put your motion into effect that we write a12 letter to that effect, somehow that --13 GENE CRICK: Yeah.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: With a great deal of15 priority in the next CAC meetings. May I see a show16 of hands for that, please?17 VOICE: You get a telephone hand, that's18 John.19 GENE CRICK: We'll be bringing them20 forward and --21 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Okay. A second to that?22 202 VOICE: No, no, no, I wanted to discuss1 it.2 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Also, it has been3 seconded by Linda. And Debra, you want to discuss4 it?5 You know you're all that stands between us6 and taxi cabs.7 DEBRA BERLYN: At least it is not cocktail8 hour yet.9 I would like to offer to have the letter10 reflect the bullet points as opposed to the11 recommendations. Let's raise the issue, but not12 propose the solution yet until we've had an13 opportunity to really discuss that.14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: So that would mean that15 broadband has now become vital to our personal16 success in daily life, correct?17 GENE CRICK: I accept that friendly18 amendment.19 SHIRLEY ROOKER: All right, okay. Let's20 vote on the motion to write a letter with Debra's21 points with the amendment. Can I see a show of hands22 203 on that, please?1 Opposed?2 All right, then that will be done, it's3 been adopted, absolutely.4 I think unless someone has some5 significant items to bring up that -- Gene, you're6 finished? Gene's finished.7 GENE CRICK: Oh, yes.8 SHIRLEY ROOKER: I just decided he's9 finished. We appreciate the hard work you all have10 put into this, and I think this will make some very11 interesting discussions for the future CAC.12 K. DANE SNOWDEN: I think you were about13 to wrap up; is that correct?14 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Yes.15 K. DANE SNOWDEN: I would like to throw16 whether it is a motion or suggestion or comment or17 whatever it might be, but I would like to say18 six years ago, Scott Marshall walked in my office and19 said to me when I was a staffer at the FCC that we20 had to have this person, Shirley Rooker, be chair of21 the CAC. And I wanted to offer for this group on the22 204 record that we thank you, Shirley, for your1 dedication, for your leadership and for your always2 allowing multiple voices to be heard, for your wit,3 for your grace and steadfast dedication to the4 community. And for that, I ask for applause.5 (Applause.)6 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Thank you. That's very7 nice, I didn't know Scott was to blame for this.8 I've been blaming you all this time.9 We now open the floor to the public10 comments from members of the public who have been11 sitting here patiently all day.12 Do we have comments?13 If not, Scott wants 30 seconds.14 SCOTT MARSHALL: 15.15 SHIRLEY ROOKER: 15. Time him.16 SCOTT MARSHALL: I want to thank you all,17 you've been a marvelous group to work with these past18 years, I've learned so much from you, I've shared19 your frustrations, I've shared your successes. And20 for most of my professional career, I was sitting21 over on the other side of the table as an advisory22 205 committee member, so it has been a great ride and1 thank you all for being patient with me, I know2 that's not always easy.3 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Oh, yes, it is.4 AUDIENCE: You're a pleasure.5 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Isn't that the truth? He6 has really kept this group together. Thank all of7 you so much. I hope to see you next year when we're8 rechartered and somebody else is sitting up here9 making you behave. Thank you very much. I guess10 that concludes the meeting.11 AUDIENCE: Motion to adjourn.12 SHIRLEY ROOKER: Second?13 AUDIENCE: Second.14 (Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the meeting15 adjourned.)16 17 18 19 20 21 22