VIDEO RELAY SERVICE

PRACTICES AND

POLICIES AROUND THE

WORLD C. Vogler1, J. McWhinney2, P. Harper3, A. Raike4, G. Hellström5, G. Vanderheiden6

1Gallaudet University, 2Significan’t, 3Australian Assoc. of the Deaf, 4Aalto University, 5Omnitor, 6Trace Center

What are Video Relay Services?

Optional: Audio

patch-through

(voice carry

over, hearing

carry over)

AEGIS persona:

Tomasa Almaraz

Relay Services as Enablers

• Relay services enable functional equivalence

• An attempt at a definition:

Can deaf* people use telecommunication services in the same unrestricted manner and at the same costs as hearing people?

* “deaf” is meant to include deaf-blind, hard of hearing, and people with speech disabilities, as well here

Relay Services in Context

• Real-time or near real-time:

• Video Relay Services (~50% share in US in

2010, >60% in Sweden)

• Captioned Telephony (~ 20% share in US in

2010)

• Interactive, but with significant lag

• IP-based Text Relay

• Analog TTY Relay

• Speech To Speech

VRS Across the World

• Currently not interoperable – video call side

does not work across national boundaries

• Per-country differences in technologies and

policies

• The following slides compare some key

aspects of VRS across nine countries

• Full matrix can be found at

http://tinyurl.com/VRSComparison

VRS Standards and Protocols

SIP H.323 H.324M Proprietary

Australia X (Skype)

Denmark X X

Finland X (likely)

Germany X X X (Web)

New Zealand X X

Norway X X X X (Skype)

Sweden X X X (Web)

United

Kingdom

X X (SignVideo

only)

United States X X (FaceTime,

Web)

Applies when a deaf person calls a hearing person

via VRS via a video connection

VRS Standards and Protocols

• It is a Wild West out there

• No common interoperable protocol

• This is a huge problem for point-to-point calls

• Severely limits the ability of mainstream equipment to make video connection to VRS

• There is pressure to move toward SIP (also for next-gen emergency calls)

• Note: SIP alone does not guarantee interoperability, also need common set of codecs, and peering arrangements with proxy server operators

Hearing Person Calling Deaf VRS User

ENUM E.164

(direct dialing of

deaf user’s

number)

Verbally give

number, handle,

or SIP address

to relay

interpreter

Australia X

Denmark X

Finland X

Germany X

New Zealand X

Norway X

Sweden X

Switzerland X

United Kingdom X

United States X

Hearing Person Calling Deaf VRS User

• In almost all countries, relay calls are still

too complicated to set up for hearing callers

• USA and UK are the only exceptions

• There a hearing caller just dials a telephone

number normally, and is routed through an

interpreter automatically

Emergency Calling through VRS

Can use VRS to

call

Caller location

support

Priority given

over normal calls

Australia

Denmark X

Finland

Germany X

New Zealand

Norway X

Sweden X X (only REACH

112)

X (only REACH

112)

United Kingdom

United States X X (but technical

differences across

providers)

X

Emergency Calling through VRS

• In some countries calling emergency services

through VRS is impossible

• Most countries do not support caller location

• VRS interpreter must ask the caller, and then

consult directory to find appropriate PSAP

• Most countries do not support priority in caller

queue

• VRS has no idea that the caller wants to dial

112/999/911, with disastrous consequences if many

callers are ahead in queue

Policies Guiding VRS Availability

• From strongest to weakest: • Functional equivalence

• Only restrictions are technical and human factors (e.g. availability of interpreters, types of calls supported by relay service technology)

• Access to telecommunications • May be subject to “reasonable accommodations” provision,

such as limited talking time, no nighttime calls, extra cost to caller, etc.

• Social services • Typically covers labor market participation of people with

disabilities with state funds with a set number of interpreting hours/year, subject to bureaucratic needs assessment

Policies Guiding VRS Availability

Functional

Equivalence

Access to

Telecom

Social Service

Australia X (text relay only,

VRS TBD)

Denmark X

Finland X

Germany X (personal) X (business)

New Zealand X (funding limits)

Norway X

Sweden X

United Kingdom X (personal) X (business)

United States X

Operational Policies for VRS

Limited

hours

Limited

weekdays

Extra Cost

to Deaf

Callers

Mandated

by Law

Australia X X

Denmark X X X

Finland X X X

Germany X X X X

New

Zealand

X X X

Norway X X X

Sweden X Implicit

United

Kingdom

X X X

United

States

X

Summary and Conclusions

• Need for technical standards

• Need for integration into ENUM E.164

• Emergency access is lacking

• Also need to consider next-gen emergency, e.g.

REACH 112, NG-911

• The differing philosophies underlying VRS

show in the operational characteristics

• Limited availability in many countries

• Extra costs to callers in some countries

Acknowledgments

The contents of this presentation were developed with funding from the

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S.

Department of Education, grant number H133E090001 (RERC on

Telecommunications Access). However, those contents do not

necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and

you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Questions?

Email: christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu

Web: http://tap.gallaudet.edu/