How IP Relay providers for the Deaf were forced to shut down

For most Americans, the process of using the telephone isnt even considered. Its as natural as putting on clothes or jewelry. Most People dont have to worry about their speech or articulation, and dont think about the challenges of placing a phone call. For the estimated 10,511,400 Americans with impaired hearing or speech compiled from fact sheets produced by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, however, they have to rely on telephone relay services to make calls.

The ADA defines relay services as telephone services that enable people who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have a speech impairment, to communicate with a person who can hear in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual without a disability to communicate by telephone. The relay user dials 711, the national number, and is connected to a communications assistant, or CA. The CA then places the call and assists depending on the type of call. There are a vast array of relay methods, as can be seen below.

CAPTIONED TELEPHONE SERVICE (CTS)

for people with a special captioned telephone that enables them to communicate by speaking, listen to what they can hear, and read what the other person is saying through captions displayed on the captioned telephone

HEARING CARRY OVER (HCO)

for people with a speech disability who use a TTY

INTERNET PROTOCOL CAPTIONED TELEPHONE SERVICE(IP CTS)

an Internet-based system that enables people to communicate by speaking and listening to what they can hear over a telephone, and read what the other person is saying through captions displayed on a computer or other web-enabled device

INTERNET PROTOCOL RELAY

an Internet-based system for people with a computer or other web-enabled device who communicate using text

SPEECH TO SPEECH (STS)

relay service for people with a speech disability who use a telephone

TTY RELAY SERVICES

the original and now traditional relay service, which can be reached by anyone by dialing 711 from a telephone or TTY1

VIDEO RELAY SERVICE (VRS)

an Internet-based system for people with video conferencing equipment or videophones who communicate in American Sign Language

VOICE CARRY OVER (VCO)

for people who are deaf or hard of hearing who communicate by speaking

Non-English language relay services, such as Spanish-to-Spanish

Even though many are available, one type of relay service is shrinking in the USA, becoming less available to those who need it. IP Relay is becoming less available in the United States because many providers are discontinuing their IP relay services. Just a few of these providers who have discontinued their IP relay services in the past ten years include Purple Communications, Hamilton Relay, Inc., Sorenson Communications, Inc., and AT&T.

IP Relay is very beneficial to people who are deaf, have a speech disability, or who are deaf blind. Jean Modry, a deaf user of IP Relay says that IP Relay can become very useful when there isnt enough light to use VRS.

You need background light for the operator to see the deaf person signing. If you were outside or in the car at night, the lack of light was an issue. With the IP Relay, lack of environmental light was not an issue. The cell phone backscreen lit up and you could read the print easily in the dark, Modry said in an email.

Modry also illustrated how IP Relay was useful in other ways. Last summer, I had an old cell phone that did not have enough juice to do video relay calls. I had enough power to type messages back and forth which is why on the road I could only use IP Relay Services.

Users who want to use the service still have one option left. At the time of this writing, Sprint is the only remaining IP Relay provider because they were able to work out a deal with the FCC.

In an email, Marci VerBrugge-Rhind in Corporate Communications of Sprint wrote, A few weeks ago, after several discussions with the FCC, we were able to agree to terms that would allow Sprint to continue offering IP Relay services. We knew how important it was that we remain in this business the outpouring of support weve received from the deaf community and the deaf and blind community asking that we stay is a testament to how critical this service is to many.

Andrew Phillips, the Policy Counsel at the National Association of the Deaf said, IP Relay is a valuable service for many deaf and hard of hearing individuals. In fact, IP Relay is the only accessible relay service for many deaf-blind individuals as well as many who are unable to use VRS or IP CTS. IP Relay is also an important backup relay service for VRS users who due to poor network conditions, cannot connect to VRS.

The providers who are shutting down the service are doing so for reasons related to the FCC. According to a notice on the IP Relay website of Purple Communications, the reason they are shutting down their IP Relay services are because of actions by the FCC. They state As a result of FCC action, IP Relay was forced to shut down the service effective November 14, 2014. We apologize for the inconvenience. The Purple team was unavailable to comment.

Sorenson Communications also states, in a video, and on their website, that the shutting down of IP Relay is in direct response to the new IP Relay compensation rates determined by the FCC. The website says, The rates are too low to provide you with the high-quality IP Relay service you deserve.

Sorenson regretted having to exit the IP Relay business, but explained in a July 8, 2013 letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that rates set by the FCC in its order of July 1, 2013, left Sorenson no other alternative. Those rates are simply too low to sustain a high-quality service, and they are further scheduled to be reduced by 6% in each of the following years said Ann Bardsley, Director of Public Relations at Sorenson. For Sorenson to be able to again provide IP Relay service, the FCC would have to make substantial changes to its outmoded approach to rate making, Bardsley said in an interview. The current rate-of-return methodology (used to compensate for IP Relay) is based only on allowable costs, a subset of actual costs. The FCCs current model allows for no margin on expenses in the labor-intensive IP Relay industry and, since July 2013, consistently generates rates that are unsustainable. Simply put, the FCC would have to raise the compensation rates to the levels that they were prior to July 2013 for Sorenson to even consider re-entering the IP Relay market.

Mike Snyder, Deputy Chief of the Web and Print Publishing Division of the FCC says that the reason IP Relay is shutting down is because of all of the fraud that has been happening. IP Relay service has been subject to significant fraud and abuse in recent years, totaling millions of dollars. The FCCs efforts to protect these services for all consumers by eliminating this fraud and abuse has resulted in several providers terminating their provision of this service. The fraud isnt new to the FCC or the providers, though. Cases date back to as early as 2004. Both parties are well aware of these types of frauds. In 2004, news outlets such as MSNBC and several newspapers including the Baltimore City Paper ran stories of reported abuse of the relay system, such as users from international locations calling businesses in the United States to fraudulently purchase goods.

In 2012 the FCC mandated that all people who wish to use the IP Relay services must sign up with a geographic 10-digit number. This process has been different depending on the providers but all required some form of identification such as a U.S.-issued ID and proof of address that needed to be faxed in or sent via email, where a team would verify the information.

Sprints operation is no different. A user must submit proof of a U.S.-issued ID and proof of address. A customer service agent will manually verify identification. This may take several business days to complete because the team wants to be thorough.

Unsurprisingly, the general public is well aware of the IP Relay scams and have been for years. One such example, is a video on YouTube Uploaded on Oct 4, 2011 that shows the fraud in action and responses from AT&T and the FCC. In the video titled, Exposing the IP Relay Scam, AT&T says that they are aware that these scam calls are happening and they direct people to the FCC. They say in the video, that they report this to the FCC because the FCC makes the rules and regulations, not the providers.

The FCC responded in the video by saying that they couldnt tell whos calling from a different country but a year later, in 2012, providers had to verify registrations.

To voice concerns about the ending of this service from many providers, the National Association of the Deaf sent an email to Chairman Tom Wheeler and copied Maria Kirby of the Chairmans Office, Kris Monteith, and Karen Peltz Strauss of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, as well as Gregory Hlibok of the Disability Rights Office, expressing concerns about the shutting down of Purples IP Relay service, asking why the FCC would diminish the services to only one provider. In the letter, it says, As you know, Purple Communications is leaving IP Relay and has informed the community that they are leaving because the Commission has required them to monitor the content of IP Relay calls. Consequently, many of our consumers are asking why the FCC would diminish their choice of IP relay service to only one provider and would require an invasion of their privacy during such calls.

In a response, Wheeler wrote in regards to fraudulent uses, the value of this service for the consumers who truly need it has declined considerably in recent years because many businesses and individuals have come to routinely reject all IP Relay calls, even legitimate ones.

Wheeler writes later in the letter that our efforts to provide a multi-vendor IP relay environment has been hindered by the failure of some providers to effectively verify the identities and eligibility of such fraudulent callers. In fact, several IP Relay companies have paid millions of dollars to settle investigations of their practices. Although there is only one Relay provider still offering these services, the departure of the other providers was not our choice.

It is unfortunate that most IP Relay providers have chosen to terminate their IP Relay service rather than work with the Commission to eliminate fraudulent calls.

This service is valuable to many, however, and the diminishing is a huge hindrance to those who need the service. Now, people have fewer phone options. As Modry succinctly puts it, choices are for the greater good. Im not happy about service providers eliminating IP Relay from their service array. It eliminates choices for us, especially for those who do not know sign language.