COAT recommendation: Ensure universal service fund availability for low income persons with disabilities wishing to use high speed Internet services through the Lifeline and Link-up programs, in order to increase the number of people with disabilities who can access these broadband services.
Who will benefit? Many deaf and hard of hearing persons have begun to rely exclusively on Internet Protocol (IP) relay and video relay services (VRS) – both of which depend on Internet connections – because these offer more functionally equivalent service than traditional PSTN-based relay services.[1] For example, IP relay permits multiple calls simultaneously, conference calls and Internet browsing. Similarly, VRS is becoming the predominant form of communication for deaf people who sign because it allows a conversation to flow more naturally, quickly, and transparently between the parties, achieving a telephone experience that more closely parallels the experience of people without hearing disabilities. Approximately one million deaf individuals who sign can benefit from VRS, as well as direct peer-to-peer video communications. In addition, millions more who are hard of hearing may also be able to use video over broadband to lipread conversations. Likewise, more than 2.5 million people whose speech is difficult to understand may benefit from direct peer-to-peer video communications because their gestures and facial expressions can be seen by the call recipient.[2]

Current law: At present, the Lifeline/Link-Up programs provide discounts to individuals with low incomes for initial installation/activation fees and monthly fees associated with the provision of telephone service provided over the public switched telephone network (PSTN).

Why it is not enough: The Lifeline and Link-Up programs are tied to telecommunications services and do not extend to broadband or other Internet-based services. As a consequence, these programs offer no financial subsidies for persons with hearing loss who are migrating from the PSTN to IP based forms of communication – for both peer-to-peer and relay communication. The failure of the Lifeline and Link-up programs to cover broadband fees is preventing many low income persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or severely speech disabled from accessing these valuable services. Indeed, according to one recent study, the percentage of people with disabilities who have access to the Internet is only half that of the general population.[3] The low incidence of broadband ownership is particularly apparent in rural communities, where people with disabilities are the least employed and have minimal discretionary income at their disposal. Under the proposed legislative change, individuals would be able to choose whether to use Lifeline or Link-Up subsidies for high speed broadband or PSTN-based services.

Technical and Economic Feasibility: The proposed change would have little impact on the Universal Service Fund (USF) because it would provide individuals with a choice of how to use USF subsidies that are already available to them for PSTN use. At the same time, by providing greater communication access, it would increase independence and productivity for the populations eligible for these discounts.

COAT recommendation: Ensure universal service fund availability for low income persons with disabilities wishing to use high speed Internet services through the Lifeline and Link-up programs, in order to increase the number of people with disabilities who can access these broadband services.
Who will benefit? Many deaf and hard of hearing persons have begun to rely exclusively on Internet Protocol (IP) relay and video relay services (VRS) – both of which depend on Internet connections – because these offer more functionally equivalent service than traditional PSTN-based relay services. For example, IP relay permits multiple calls simultaneously, conference calls and Internet browsing. Similarly, VRS is becoming the predominant form of communication for deaf people who sign because it allows a conversation to flow more naturally, quickly, and transparently between the parties, achieving a telephone experience that more closely parallels the experience of people without hearing disabilities. Approximately one million deaf individuals who sign can benefit from VRS, as well as direct peer-to-peer video communications. In addition, millions more who are hard of hearing may also be able to use video over broadband to lipread conversations. Likewise, more than 2.5 million people whose speech is difficult to understand may benefit from direct peer-to-peer video communications because their gestures and facial expressions can be seen by the call recipient.

Current law: At present, the Lifeline/Link-Up programs provide discounts to individuals with low incomes for initial installation/activation fees and monthly fees associated with the provision of telephone service provided over the public switched telephone network (PSTN).

Why it is not enough: The Lifeline and Link-Up programs are tied to telecommunications services and do not extend to broadband or other Internet-based services. As a consequence, these programs offer no financial subsidies for persons with hearing loss who are migrating from the PSTN to IP based forms of communication – for both peer-to-peer and relay communication. The failure of the Lifeline and Link-up programs to cover broadband fees is preventing many low income persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or severely speech disabled from accessing these valuable services. Indeed, according to one recent study, the percentage of people with disabilities who have access to the Internet is only half that of the general population. The low incidence of broadband ownership is particularly apparent in rural communities, where people with disabilities are the least employed and have minimal discretionary income at their disposal. Under the proposed legislative change, individuals would be able to choose whether to use Lifeline or Link-Up subsidies for high speed broadband or PSTN-based services.

Technical and Economic Feasibility: The proposed change would have little impact on the Universal Service Fund (USF) because it would provide individuals with a choice of how to use USF subsidies that are already available to them for PSTN use. At the same time, by providing greater communication access, it would increase independence and productivity for the populations eligible for these discounts.

[1] IP relay users access a relay services center by using a computer and the Internet in lieu of a TTY. VRS allows persons who are deaf or hard of hearing to communicate with hearing persons using a television or a computer with a video camera device and a high speed Internet connection. The caller uses the video link to access a sign language interpreter at a remote relay services center and the interpreter interprets the conversation between the two parties.

[2] U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, “Bureau of the Census Report: Americans with Disabilities 1991-92” (1993).

[3] The Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities, “Disability and the Digital Divide: Comparing Surveys with Disability Data,” RTC Ruralfacts (June 2006), available at http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/TelCom/Divide.htm