Section Links
Support
You can help by your DirectoryFind out where to go for services, products, classes... |
What is Deaf equivalent to Voice Telephony?Executive SummaryThis paper outlines the views of Deaf Australia and its members in relation to accessibility in the telecommunications environment in Australia, with particular focus on what the Deaf community perceives to be equivalent to voice based telephony.From the invention of the telephone until the 1980's, Deaf people were unable to access the standard telephone service and it was not until the advent of the telephone typewriter (TTY) that Deaf people were finally able to use the telephone. During the 1990's significant progress was made in terms of the establishment of the National Relay Service (NRS). Subsequently an amendment to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 now states that the Standard Telephone Service is described as a telephone service fit for the purpose of voice telephony or if it is impractical for a person with a disability, a form of communication that is equivalent to voice telephony. The TTY (and modem) is listed in this regulation as an alternate communication device. In today's context with the equipment provided to deaf people from telecommunication carriers through the Telecommunications Disability Equipment Program (managed by Telstra), the nearest equivalent to voice telephony is the TTY. With no other telecommunication option available, the TTY has served its purpose despite its limitations. These limitations include:
It has been over 20 years since the TTY became available in Australia and since then no alternative real-time communication device that suited Deaf people has evolved. However, in moving forward to contemporary Australia with access to the Internet, the continuing increase of broadband availability in homes and businesses and with an emerging range of video telephony equipment now available commercially, an important shift has occurred with the Deaf community now looking to videotelephony as the "Deaf equivalent to the voice phone." With various types of IP-based videotelephony available such as desk-top, videoconferencing and mobile video phones which uses various standards/protocols such as H.323, H.264 and 3G, and becoming more accessible and evidence that Deaf people in other countries have found benefits with using sign language in communicating through video, Deaf Australia was keen to explore further what it could mean for Deaf people in Australia. To this end, Deaf Australia through the DTAN project with help of funding from the Department of Communications, IT and the Arts prepared a discussion paper 'What is Deaf equivalent to Voice Telephony?' and collected feedback from 27% of Deaf people from our membership base. Information was also gathered from recent research and experiences overseas. It was also recognised that for Deaf people to communicate fluently in sign language through a video device using the Internet, high speed broadband is required (e.g. minimum 512 / 512 kbps download & upload depending on device used). This is significantly higher broadband speed than the average household utilises. Findings from this discussion paper confirmed that Deaf people felt strongly that it was time for Deaf Australia to start focusing on video communications as the new equivalent to the voice phone. VoIP (Voice over the Internet Protocol) is being addressed currently but there is no focus on what its equivalent might be for the Deaf community at this stage. There is a need for Deaf Australia to look into the Standard Telephone Service legislation so that it applies to all sectors of telecommunications for example, mobiles, Internet and video telephony. Much progress has been made in Europe and the United States in regard to video communications being ushered in as the equivalent to voice telephony for the Deaf community – support is not just from the industry but also the Government and regulators as well through funding, regulatory or legislative changes. Video Relay Services in place since 2000 are now fast outgrowing text-based relay services. It is Australia's turn and responsibility to start working to make this happen – all of us together the Deaf community, the industry, Government and regulators. Evidence supporting recommendationCurrently in Australia, Deaf people are able to access the world of telephony through the means of a telephone typewriter (TTY) when using a fixed line service and this form of telecommunication is also recognised under legislation in Australia. However, the other methods of communication the Deaf people use are SMS messaging on all mobile handsets, video communication using 3G network, the Internet using a wide range of applications i.e. computer webcams, Instant Messaging (IM) and a slowly growing number of videophones using high speed broadband. A discussion paper 'What is Deaf equivalent to Voice Telephony?' was prepared and distributed to Deaf Australia Members in May 2005 and a questionnaire was also attached for as many Deaf people to fill out and return by end of August 2005. The scope of this discussion paper covered the history of telecommunications for Deaf people, what we use today, what real time communication actually means, the actual research on Signed vs. Spoken languages, some facts on TTY's and the NRS; and what technology was available in Australia currently. At the end of August 2005 when the deadline for responses was closed, we had 81 completed questionnaires that were received from members of the Deaf community (which showed the highest response rate ever for any of our discussion papers with a 27% response rate). With this in mind, we feel that the quantity of responses has shown the importance of the need to generate this position paper. The major role underpinning the existence of Deaf Australia is to enhance the status of sign language in Australian society and to ensure that Australian Deaf people are able to exercise their linguistic human rights (their right to use sign language). If sign language is rejected, the situation of Deaf people is weak and unequal. (World Federation of the Deaf Manual 1994:41) In 1972, there was research that shows hearing people speak an average of 4 to 5 words per second and sign language users sign about 2 to 3 signs per second. Signing only looks slower, however. What people convey in 'information' is about 1 or 2 'propositions' per second for both speaking and signing, i.e. there is no difference in the rate of information exchange in signed and spoken languages1. It just takes more words than signs to say the same thing. You need to qualify this in regards to facial expressions etc being part of sign language. Sign and spoken conversation occur at comparative speeds, significantly faster than TTY conversation. You can imagine, the TTY which handles 65 words per minute, severely restricts the flow of information that is taken for granted by the mainstream society who uses the voice telephone. This provides further basis to the meaning of just what is equivalent to a voice phone from our perspective. Discussion paper feedbackFrom the feedback received from the Deaf community to the discussion paper questionnaire, I will summarise some points below that will further illustrate the Deaf community’s thoughts about this subject. Out of the 81 replies, 83% of the members are connected to the Internet with 56% of them connected to the Broadband service and the majority of them subscribed to Telstra’s services. When asked about whether they found by using the TTY for calls (as well as using the NRS) they felt it was too slow to communicate freely (meaning the quality of conversation), 62% of respondents replied yes. At the same time, 56% of them felt that their hearing friends did not feel comfortable using the NRS. This was to find out whether the current system was user friendly and therefore confirms that this form of communication was not on par with the standard telephone service. To better capture the meaning of why they did not think their friends felt comfortable using the NRS, one respondent stated;
The discussion paper also explored the issue of whether Deaf people wanted the NRS service to continue in its present form without the ability to include new or emerging relay services such as the Internet Relay and Video Relay Service. 55% of respondents replied No and 85% replied that they would be happy to change from a TTY to video telephony. Finally, we asked members to rate what they felt to be the closest equivalent to a voice telephone from a list of technologies available i.e. TTY's, video telephony, SMS etc. Video telephony ranked the highest with 64%. That is very high given the fact that very few people own some form of video telephony equipment however many Deaf people can see the enormous benefits such technology would afford them. To better convey the participants' responses to the concept of video telephony, comments from the participants included:
Our positionFrom research of our member base and overseas Deaf communities, Deaf Australia believes that for Deaf people (whose primary mode of communication is Auslan); the closest equivalent to a voice phone in today’s environment is IP video-based telephony. In Section 6 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, it defines the standard telephone service (STS) as being:
The clause (1) (b) (ii) refers to 'another form of communication that is equivalent to voice telephony (for example communication by means of a TTY)'. It does not say that only TTY's are to be considered. It gives room for other equipment to be used, in whatever form is equivalent to voice telephony. It also provides for in the same Section 6, that voice telephony can include the carriage of data. Video transmission is defined by the telecommunications industry as data. To give further strength to our position, the recent United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities which was ratified in December 2006 states under Article 9: Accessibility that:
Also it is our belief that Deaf people would, through video communications, be able to further participate in the mainstream society by having access to them in their workplace, homes and importantly, via the Video Relay Service (VRS). The VRS in the United States also act as video interpreting service providers for situations where it is required i.e. one on one session, and some workplace situations. This has a double application and we have heard nothing but positive acclaim for VRS and video interpreting in the United States through the media and the Deaf community themselves. The evidence is also similar in the UK, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. This could also be applied to medical consultations, remote interpreting services and communication for people in rural areas (provided that the broadband infrastructure is available to them) – in fact the opportunities are endless. It is prudent to state at this stage that Deaf Australia is not advocating the total abandonment of the TTY altogether as some members of the deafness community especially those who are Deaf Blind and Hard of Hearing still rely on the use of TTY technology. Especially the use of Braille TTY's and the functionality of the Voice Carry Over (VCO) using the NRS. Ironically, in the United States, the Video Relay Service (who is funded by the Federal Government) now provides a VCO component to their video communications services. We are two steps behind in Australia. Firstly there is no Video Relay Service and secondly the uptake of VRS in the US is phenomenonal - fast over riding the TTY as well as providing opportunity for a higher quality of life and participation of Deaf people in the mainstream. Below Deaf Australia has set out major recommendations which we believe provides for a just and equitable solution for deaf people in accessing telecommunications in the Australian environment. We welcome the input and collaboration of the whole telecommunications industry including Governments, carriers and regulators to work together to make video communications one of the other items in the fast growing telecommunications arsenal. RecommendationsDeaf Australia recommends that serious consideration and action be given to the following and that the telecommunications industry, Government and regulators start working together in achieving these outcomes.
|