*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 39838*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  137 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 APPROVING  IN  PART,  DISSENTING  IN  PART 
 Re:  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  Disabilities  (CC  Docket  Nos.  90-  57  &  98-  67, 
 CG  Docket  No.  03-  123) 


 Fourteen  years  ago,  when  Congress  passed  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act,  it  directed  the  Commission  to  do  everything  we  could  to  ensure  that  those  with  disabilities  have  access  to  functionally 
 equivalent  services.  That  concept—  functional  equivalency—  may  sound  inelegant,  but  it  translates  into  equal  opportunity,  equal  rights  and  a  fuller  participation  in  our  society.  It  translates  into  54  million 
 Americans  having  more  of  the  tools  they  need  to  be  fully  productive  citizens. 
 In  most  ways,  today’s  Order  and  Notice  embraces  this  mandate  of  functional  equivalency.  It  updates  our  rules,  resolves  open  questions  and  clarifies  the  obligations  of  TRS  providers.  We  also  seek 
 comment  on  how  to  address  thorny  jurisdictional  questions  that  accompany  new  Internet  services.  And  we  ask  if  the  time  is  right  for  VRS  to  become  a  mandatory  service.  These  are  good  and  positive  steps. 
 But  in  a  few  ways,  today’s  Order  falls  short  of  the  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act.  For  this  reason,  I  support  this  Order,  but  not  in  two  key  respects. 


 I  am  disappointed  with  the  position  the  Order  takes  affirming  the  Bureau’s  abrupt  decision  last  year  to  slash  in  half  the  VRS  compensation  rate  with  less  than  twenty-  four  hours  notice.  As  a  general 
 principle,  people  intuitively  endorse  lower  rates,  but  here  the  providers  of  VRS  were  left  wondering  what  costs  were  allowed  and  what  costs  were  disallowed  by  a  methodology  that  was  employed  with  too  little  in 
 the  way  of  rules,  standards  or  prior  guidance  from  the  Commission.  More  importantly,  VRS  consumers  were  stuck  with  the  consequences.  Service  hours  were  cut  without  warning  and  long  waits  for 
 communications  assistants  became  common.  As  a  result,  the  service  missed  the  functional  equivalency  mark  by  a  too  wide  margin.  There  are  also  issues  of  authority  and  notice  that  we  do  not  straighten  out  and 
 settle  in  this  item.  This  is  unfortunate.  It  leaves  in  legal  limbo  the  “know-  it-  when-  I-  see-  it”  VRS  cost  standard  used  one  year  ago.  I  am  pleased  we  ask  questions  about  adopting  guidelines  and  standards  for 
 reasonable  costs  in  the  Notice.  This  is  the  right  thing  to  do.  It  will  enhance  our  oversight  and  ensure  the  program  functions  with  the  integrity  it  must  have.  Nonetheless,  I  believe  that  what  was  done  last  year 
 was  without  precedent  and  not  right.  On  this  issue,  I  respectfully  dissent. 
 I  also  find  troubling  the  conclusion  that  some  forms  of  non-  shared  language  TRS  are  not  eligible  for  reimbursement.  Latinos  are  now  the  largest  minority  group  in  the  United  States.  There  are  thousands 
 of  deaf  children  from  Spanish-  speaking  homes  in  this  country.  In  fact,  they  are  the  fastest  growing  minority  group  in  the  deaf  school  age  population  in  the  United  States.  For  this  population  to 
 communicate  in  a  functionally  equivalent  manner  with  their  Spanish-  speaking  parents,  we  should  be  authorizing  non-  shared  language  VRS  reimbursement.  On  this  issue,  I  also  dissent. 


 Finally,  though  I  will  support  the  position  this  decision  takes  on  outreach,  I  remain  concerned  that  we  really  need  to  do  more  to  explain  this  service.  Callers  using  relay  service  experience  an  unacceptably 
 large  number  of  hang-  ups  because  people  receiving  TRS  calls  are  not  familiar  with  the  service.  Employment  opportunities  are  not  extended  to  individuals  with  hearing  disabilities  because  some 
 employers  are  uncomfortable  using  TRS  for  business  transactions.  This  is  unacceptable.  In  this  Order,  we  expressly  task  the  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau  to  take  concrete  steps  to  improve 
 public  awareness.  I  believe  that  the  Bureau  is  working  to  do  a  good  job  of  outreach  based  on  the  resources  available  to  it.  Nevertheless,  we  task  the  Bureau  very  specifically  here  and  I  look  to  Chief 
 Snowden  and  his  team  to  do  a  banner  job  reaching  out  to  familiarize  the  population  at  large  with  TRS.  If 
1
 2 
 these  efforts  fail  to  produce  the  kind  of  wide-  spread  understanding  we  must  have  to  ensure  true  functional  equivalency,  I  will  push  hard  for  us  to  revisit  this  issue. 
 Thank  you  to  the  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau  for  your  hard  work  on  this  item.  I  look  forward  to  working  with  the  staff  of  the  Disabilities  Rights  Office  on  the  TRS  issues  we  have  teed-up 
 in  this  Notice  and  other  outstanding  issues  concerning  handset  hearing  aid  compatibility,  digital  captioning  and  IP  services. 
2