June 5,1998 Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 (C Docket No. 98-67) Dear sirs: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities. By way of introduction, I am a person with a speech disability and find the relay very helpful in my work. It's interesting to note that some of the worst reactions come from Congress. I've actually had operators hang up on me or say "Oh No! Not a relay call." Introduction - at paragraph 2 - This is a good idea and should be so required. However, we wonder how someone is trained to "understand someone with speech disabilities." III Discussion 14. We strongly support your conclusion at this paragraph. 15. We support your conclusion at this paragraph. 16. We also agree with your conclusion here. The Advisory Commission should consider the valid costs of maintaining and improving these services. 18. We agree with this change. 23. We agree with your conclusion here. 24. We there should be a national STS requirement. 25. Your conclusions here appeal to be valid. 26. Some exceptions may be needed here. 32. Perhaps if VRI is not man&ted at this time, it could be some years down the road. 33. This issue should be reviewed in 2 years. 34. We agree with your position here. 37. We agree with your conclusions here. 39. We feel that the TRS fund should cover "relay" conversations between English, Spanish and Amexican Sign Language. We feel that American Sign Language when typed on a TTY can be translated effectively. 41. (1) Yes TRS Centers should be required to pass a caller's ANI to an emergency service operator. (2) An "emergency call" is one where one or more persons is faced with death or injury or there is a risk of serious properly damage. We will leave it to others to propose specific language. 44. I've often had this problem on long distance calls, usually the operator ends up leaving a message and then calling back-which requires a person to pay for two long distance calls. 45. We disagree with your tentative conclusion. As telecommunications technology advances ADA regulations must keep up. Perhaps these new regulations can address this. 46. We agree with your conclusions here. 51. We support these proposed rule amendments. 52. We support this requirement. 53. Your requirements for service should prevent this from happen& 58. We would have to agree with your conclusion here. 60. We agree with your conclusion here. 62. The ten minute requirement is reasonable. 65. It makes sense that reasonable costs and good quality of service are enhanced with competition. 66. Your conclusion here appears to be reasonable. 70. This information belongs to the state. 72. If this information is not "customer identifiable" and is needed to provide efficient service-the firms losing a contact should be required to offer it to the new company. 75. We strongly support your conclusions here. 76. The FCC should adopt these guidelines. 83. We support creating a speech-to-speech relay within two years. 88. We agree with your conclusion here. Agaiq thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, David Eichenauer Governmental Affairs Specialist DE/se We feel that the Relay Service is an essential service in helping persons with speech and hearing disabilities communicate. This service must continue to be updated to include new technology and such things as speech to speech relay. High professional standards must be maintained. We feel that the Relay Servicew is an essential service inhelping persons with speech and hearing disabilities communicate. This service must continue to be updated to include new technology and such things as speech to speech relay. High professional standards must be maintained. A United Way Agency Two Seventy One o East First Street o Corning, New York 14830 AIM (607) 962-8225 (v/TDD) AUTO (607) 936-9129 FAX (607)937-5125