ARCHIVÉ - Transcription
Cette page Web a été archivée dans le Web
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
Offrir un contenu dans les deux langues officielles
Prière de noter que la Loi sur les langues officielles exige que toutes publications gouvernementales soient disponibles dans les deux langues officielles.
Afin de rencontrer certaines des exigences de cette loi, les procès-verbaux du Conseil seront dorénavant bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience et la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT
LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of
telecommunications and broadcasting services to
persons with disabilities /
Questions en suspens concernant l'accessibilité des
services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion pour
les personnes handicapées
HELD AT:
TENUE À:
Conference Centre
Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room
Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage
140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec
Gatineau (Québec)
November 18, 2008
Le 18 novembre 2008
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of
Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur
les langues
officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le Conseil
seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page
couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à
l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des
matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un
compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel,
est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux
langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée
par le
participant à l'audience
publique.
Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of
telecommunications and broadcasting services to
persons with disabilities /
Questions en suspens concernant l'accessibilité des
services de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion pour
les personnes handicapées
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Leonard Katz
Chairperson / Président
Elizabeth Duncan
Commissioner / Conseillère
Timothy Denton
Commissioner / Conseiller
Suzanne Lamarre
Commissioner / Conseillère
Candice Molnar
Commissioner / Conseillère
Stephen Simpson
Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI
PRÉSENTS:
Sylvie Bouffard
Secretary / Secretaire
Kathleen Taylor
Hearing Manager /
Gérante de l'audience
Martine Vallée
Director, Social Policy /
Directrice, Politiques
Sheila Perron
Hearing Officer /
Agente d'audiences
Lori Pope
Legal Counsel /
Véronique Lehoux
Conseillères juridiques
HELD AT:
TENUE À:
Conference Centre
Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room
Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage
140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec
Gatineau (Québec)
November 18, 2008
Le 18 novembre 2008
- iv
-
TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:
Neil Squire Society 319 / 1734
Chris and Jeff Stark 387 / 2107
Canadian Association of the Deaf 424 / 2351
Henry Vlug
435 / 2406
TELUS Communications 483 / 2717
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
586 / 3368
Gatineau, Quebec /
Gatineau (Québec)
‑‑‑ Upon resuming on Tuesday, November 18,
2008
at 0903 / L'audience reprend
le mardi 18 novembre
2008 à
0903
1722
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the second day of this
hearing.
1723
I will pass it on to the Secretary for any preliminary remarks and
introductions.
1724
THE SECRETARY: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
1725
Bonjour à tous. Good morning
everyone.
1726
For the benefit of those who were not in the room yesterday, I would like
to go over a few housekeeping matters.
1727
I would like to remind everyone that when you are in the hearing room, we
ask that you completely turn off, and not leave on vibration mode, your cell
phones and BlackBerrys, as they cause interference on the internal
communications systems used by our translators and
interpreters.
1728
Please note that ASL and LSQ sign language interpretation services will
be made available throughout the hearing, if needed. Please advise the Hearing Secretary if
you require such services.
1729
Furthermore, French and English captioning of the hearing is available on
the screens to my left, as well as on the CRTC's web home
page.
1730
If you require assistance during the consultation, our staff members, in
and outside the hearing room, or in the public examination room, will be pleased
to help you.
1731
For ease of reference, I will name the panel members, from left to
right: Elizabeth Duncan, Timothy
Denton, Suzanne Lamarre, Leonard Katz, Candice Molnar, and Stephan
Simpson.
1732
I would now call on our first participant, the Neil Squire
Society.
1733
Please introduce yourselves for the record. You will then have 15 minutes for your
presentation.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
1734
MR. BIRCH: Thank you very
much.
1735
Good morning. My name is
Gary Birch, and I am the Executive Director of the Neil Squire
Society.
1736
Along with me today is Harry Lew, Manager of Research and Development for
the Neil Squire Society.
1737
I would like to begin by thanking the Commission for inviting me to speak
today, and for the recognition of the critical issues related to persons with
disabilities by initiating these hearings.
1738
I see that this is a good start, which I hope will represent the first
step in an important process that will achieve equality of access to
telecommunications services for all Canadians.
1739
The Neil Squire Society is a Canadian not‑for‑profit organization whose
mission is to enable people with significant physical disabilities to achieve
great independence through the development, adaptation and use of innovative
services and technology for the home and workplace.
1740
Our primary target group is those with mobility and agility
impairments.
1741
Since its inception in 1984, the Society has opened doors to independence
for over 20,000 Canadians with physical disabilities.
1742
The Neil Squire Society is unique, as it is one of the few
not‑for‑profit, community‑based organizations that maintains an active research
and development group.
1743
The Society's greater mandate is to use technology to help these
individuals fully participate in the activities of society, such as living
independently, going to school, and holding meaningful
employment.
1744
Due to its unique combination of technical capacity and close affiliation
and interaction with the disability community, the Neil Squire Society works
actively with industry to inform them of the issues that affect persons with
disabilities with regards to emerging technologies.
1745
One of our key areas of focus is to carry out initiatives that will help
to make new and existing technologies in the area of information and
communication technologies accessible, and improve their usability and
accessibility.
1746
Ideally, we would like to make them accessible from the earliest stages
of development, to eliminate the accessibility gap.
1747
We are pleased that the CRTC is having these hearings, as the CRTC is the
most appropriate body, with the mandate, responsibility and potential mechanisms
to take real action to address the issues that I and others will raise during
these proceedings.
1748
Canada is lagging way behind many other jurisdictions around the world in
terms of addressing the issues of access to telecommunications, particularly
emerging technologies for persons with disabilities.
1749
For example, this is demonstrated in the fact that our related industries
are the slowest to adopt next‑generation services, such as video relay and
speech‑to‑speech services, and in the lack of regulations in Canada that are
supported by other jurisdictions, such as the requirement for hearing aid
compatibility on cell phones.
1750
The key issues that I would like to emphasize this morning are as
follows:
1751
Accessibility of wireless hand‑held platforms:
1752
The nature of the relationship between Canadian consumers and the telecom
service providers has changed dramatically. Less than 10 years ago, telecom service
providers were focused on developing long‑term relationships with consumers by
delivering a single, stable, voice product to consumers. Today the telecom service providers are
driven more so by innovation and are focused on attracting customers to
next‑generation services that will drive additional
revenue.
1753
The result is that an intimate relationship has been created between the
telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers.
1754
The telecom service providers cannot deliver new services without having
the next‑generation features in the handsets. Similarly, the handsets cannot access
those services without the appropriate infrastructure being supported by the
telecom service providers.
1755
So when we talk about accessibility to services provided by the telecom
service providers, we cannot ignore the relationship between the telecom service
providers and the handset manufacturers, and the role they play in getting
handset manufacturers to create handsets appropriate for the needs of their
customers.
1756
Accessibility of wireless hand‑held platforms ‑‑ cell phones, smart
phones, PDAs, et cetera ‑‑ to persons with disabilities, and, in
particular, in the case of persons with mobility impairment, means providing
accessible input, control and mechanical functions, as well as accessible
output, display and control functions, such that all of the services that are
provided by the telecom service providers, all of the wireless networks, are
usable by persons with disabilities.
1757
To achieve this end would involve a requirement on the telecom service
providers to implement strict procurement requirements, which would create a
significant pressure on handset manufacturers to require them to produce their
technology in accessible formats.
1758
We envision, as a minimum, that this should result in a commitment
regulated by the CRTC for telecom service providers to carry at least two or
more accessible devices across all services provided, basic and
advanced.
1759
Accessibility of the services provided by the telecom service providers
is completely tied in with accessibility of the handsets. The two cannot be
separated.
1760
Persons with disabilities will not have equal access to
telecommunications in Canada unless both the services and the platforms that
they are provided on are accessible.
1761
The CRTC, therefore, must revisit the mechanisms available to them, to
ensure that these procurement requirements are put into
place.
1762
The telecom service providers have indicated to us that they are too
small a market to make any difference.
This is not true. Handset
manufacturers are getting pressured by telecom service providers from many other
major jurisdictions around the world, and Canada's telecom service providers
should be aggressively adding their voice to this end.
1763
Also, although not always typical, there are examples where small market
telecom service providers have had an important impact on handset manufacturers
to produce platforms that meet special needs.
1764
As an example of a step in the right direction, the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission, the FCC, has rules requiring telecom service
providers to make their products and services accessible to persons with
disabilities if this access is readily achievable.
1765
Where access is not readily achievable, Section 255 requires
manufacturers and service providers to make their devices and services
compatible with peripheral devices and special customer equipment that are
commonly used by people with disabilities, if such compatibility is readily
achievable.
1766
In fact, we have demonstrated ourselves at the Neil Squire Society that
such solutions, on various commercially available platforms, are often
technically readily achievable, but because of current business practices these
solutions are not usually considered by the telecom service providers and the
handset manufacturers.
1767
The point is, the problem is not often technical, it is the business
practices involved.
1768
The important role of regulation:
1769
Despite the social responsibility of industry, the desire to help persons
with disabilities does not translate into corporate policy or business
decisions.
1770
There is a role for regulation, and most of the major strides in
disability rights and inclusion in the last decade have come about due to
regulations.
1771
It is important not to overlook the catalyst effect that regulation has
on industry to deliver on their social contract.
1772
Other jurisdictions and global not‑for‑profit organizations that
specialize in this area have recognized that regulation is the most effective
means to address these issues.
1773
For more details, see the answers submitted by the Neil Squire Society to
the CRTC on September 5th, 2008.
1774
We have often heard the argument from various industry stakeholders that
market forces will address the issues of accessibility. Over the past several years we have been
working with industry, and although there has been some interest to work with us
on solutions for persons with disabilities, it has become very clear to me that
these market forces and social responsibilities play a very small role in their
decision to get involved with these initiatives.
1775
The clear motivating force is regulation from other jurisdictions around
the world that requires issues of accessibility to be addressed. It is time for Canada to become one of
those jurisdictions that recognizes this need and implements regulation, and no
longer runs the risk of becoming the dumping ground of inaccessible
technologies.
1776
Emergency services:
1777
In the recent past there have been many examples of emergency situations,
both large‑scale and small‑scale, where the use of various wireless telecom
devices and services has been instrumental in the saving of
lives.
1778
In fact, many emergency service protocols are now integrating these types
of devices and services into the core of their procedures. For detailed examples, please, again,
see the answers to questions submitted to the CRTC by the Neil Squire Society on
September 5th, 2008.
1779
If these devices and services are not accessible, then persons with
disabilities will be excluded from this extremely valuable form of receiving
assistance in an emergency situation, often the very individuals who are most at
risk.
1780
Therefore, this becomes the most compelling reason of all for the CRTC to
take action to boldly implement various mechanisms, including regulation, as it
has a clear responsibility to ensure that persons with disabilities have proper
access to these devices in emergency situations.
1781
Employment:
1782
These new and emerging wireless telecom technologies and services that
utilize the cellular networks and provide various business‑related services are
also being adopted and integrated into the mainstream at a very rapid
pace.
1783
Therefore, because these technologies and services are generally not
accessible, this is becoming a serious issue for the inclusion of persons with
disabilities in the workforce. Not
only is this a barrier to persons with disabilities who are trying to enter the
workforce, it is also a major threat to those who are already in the workforce
and are not able to access this new technology as it becomes part of the
standing operating procedures entrenched in business.
1784
Given that economic and social inclusion through employment is critical
to many persons with disabilities, this is yet another important reason why it
is essential that the CRTC take appropriate action.
1785
Ongoing consultation, market research and usability
testing:
1786
The telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers cannot
deliver appropriate accessible technology on their own. We need to ensure that mechanisms are
put in place, such that there is ongoing consultation with consumer groups
representing persons with disabilities, related market research to identify gaps
and usability, and accessibility testing that involves actual consumers with
disabilities of the new and emerging technologies and
services.
1787
The information resulting from these processes would be required to be
fed back to the telecom service providers and the handset manufacturers, to
continually improve the accessibility and usability of these emerging services
and technologies.
1788
Currently there is no process in place to consult the disability
community before new services, hardware and features are deployed by
industry.
1789
We envision that this could be accomplished by a multi‑level engagement
process, involving consumers with disabilities and the related consumer groups,
as discussed above, along with key industry, government and other regulatory
bodies, to change the nature of the technology to make it inherently accessible
through the setting of standards, regulation and
education.
1790
New and emerging technologies have the potential to enhance the lives of
people with disabilities. However,
too often they become additional barriers and a form of exclusion because of
their inaccessibility.
1791
It is important to be designing solutions for the next generation of
services and devices, as well as the current ones which may be obsolete in a few
months. To accomplish this will
take a coordinated effort by all stakeholders.
1792
The development of these multi‑level consultation processes becomes the
next step that must be undertaken in a fashion that will involve the meaningful
interaction of all stakeholders, which will result in effective mechanisms and
appropriate regulations that should be a win‑win for all
parties.
1793
Funding:
1794
Sufficient funding of community‑based groups working with persons with
disabilities to work with the telecom service providers and the handset
manufacturers is absolutely critical to enabling this community to be fully
engaged in a range of processes designed to eliminate the accessibility
gap.
1795
This would include a need for research to better understand the needs of
persons with disabilities across the spectrum of disability, for the creation of
standards, and the development of adaptive technology solutions, including
research and experimentation. It
would also include the processes that I discussed earlier in regards to
consultation.
1796
The funding required needs to be substantial to close the accessibility
gap. It needs to be permanent to
meet this persistent need and to address problems effectively over the long
term.
1797
There is no current source of funding for this type of work. It is envisioned that funding could come
from three potential sources ‑‑ government, industry, and the users in
general.
1798
The first two sources are often looked towards for support and, indeed,
mechanisms with these organizations should be pursued.
1799
However, the third potential source should be examined very
closely.
1800
As Canadians, we have a strong social history of supporting the most
marginalized, whether abroad or in our own communities. This is a unique social value and a
responsibility that is embraced by all Canadians.
1801
A user‑supported initiative could involve a mechanism whereby those who
benefit from the use of these new and emerging telecom technologies and services
would contribute to a fund, likely through a levy type of system, that would be
designated to ensure that these technologies and services are designed to be
inclusive for all consumers.
1802
Given the extremely large pool of users, the financial burden on any one
user would be very small, almost unnoticeable. There are examples of this already in
the form of the levy that some Canadian carriers charge each of their
subscribers to support relay services.
1803
In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity once again,
and I look forward to our question and answer period.
1804
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much, Mr. Birch.
1805
We will start the questioning with Commissioner
Simpson.
1806
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Good
morning. Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you for helping us
get a priority sense for the issues that you feel are important to Canadians
with disabilities.
1807
I would like to start my questioning with respect to your first point,
concerning the accessibility of wireless hand‑held
platforms.
1808
Being from Vancouver, I am very familiar with your organization and its
work. To that extent, it has been
my observation that you have a very strong sense of what is capable
technologically, in terms of what is available in the marketplace. So your observations I take very close
to heart.
1809
The issue of the gap that exists right now in wireless hand‑held
platforms, what would you say is the principal reason that issues of universal
standards and goals toward closing that gap through the use of standards exists
today, given the relatively high concentration of
manufacturers?
1810
There are, ostensibly, half a dozen worldwide manufacturers of hand‑held
platforms, and yet universal standards don't seem to be a priority with this
group.
1811
What is the principal driver that is missing in terms of universal
standardization?
1812
MR. BIRCH: That is a great
question. I will take a stab at it,
and Harry may have some input on it, as well.
1813
I believe that part of it is because technologies are changing so
fast. That is at the root of a lot
of the issues that I brought up today.
It is the speed at which new technologies and services are being
deployed.
1814
I think it is a highly competitive environment. I believe that that is one of the
reasons it has been hard to agree on certain standards because they all want to
have their proprietary ways of input/output‑type scenarios with their
devices.
1815
It is that very lack of standardization that actually makes dealing with
these devices so difficult. We have
many examples where we develop a solution, an interface that will allow, say, a
high‑level quadriplegic to use a device.
We just get it prototyped and working and then that device is off the
market and their new device uses a new operating system or a different way of
interacting with it so that our solution and all the work we put into it is for
naught.
1816
So that's why it's so important, we need to change that paradigm and
actually work with industry and help them design these devices such that we can
make them accessible with a little effort.
1817
So your question on standards, I think that's the main reason, is that
the technology is moving so quickly and there is a lot of competition between
the manufacturers and they are not eager to standardize on these
points.
1818
MR. LEW: There is a lack of
coordination between a lot of the national standard bodies. So if you look at between North America,
which is obviously the U.S., Canada and Europe and then Asia themselves, they
all have their own standards, not necessarily ‑‑ they obviously don't all
have standards in terms of accessibility.
In some cases they are guidelines as opposed to
standards.
1819
But coordinating them and getting them to cooperate is something that
Europe is starting to try to do to create sort of an international type of
standard, but there are these jurisdictional things between nations that
national standard bodies prefer to create their own standards and that hasn't
changed in a significant way where there's an international standards body that
is coordinating everything around accessibility.
1820
We haven't seen that type of agency and there is not a ‑‑ I don't
think there is one international organization that represents disability issues
right now. They are still basically
based in a specific country per se. Right?
1821
So when they are bringing forward standards ‑‑ so if you are talking
about United States, they tend to be more progressive mainly because there are
significant lobby groups in the disability issues that are well coordinated and
well‑funded to push those issues at that level, where if you look at Europe they
are a little bit behind in terms of what's happening than the United
States.
1822
If you look at Canada themselves, they tend to lag 10 years behind just
standards in general that are involved in the telecommunications industry. So it's just not disability issues, but
it's emergency, enhanced emergency 9‑1‑1 facilities, those kinds of things, the
newer types of technology.
1823
I think what you are seeing is just a lag and a certain amount of
national barriers, for lack of a word, for lack of harmonization between
standards.
1824
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: One of
the challenges in a country looking at regulation to try and impose standards as
opposed to other means of cooperation is to try and determine to the
satisfaction of all concerned that there are very specific hardships, barriers,
discriminatory barriers that are created by a lack of universal
access.
1825
Is there any particular information that you can point us to that gives
us a sense for whether you feel that there is a palpable level of
discrimination?
1826
We know there are technological and physical barriers associated with the
inability to access certain types of devices, but do you have a position on the
issue of discrimination with respect to hardships that are coming as a result of
the inability to use platforms now?
1827
MR. BIRCH: I'm not sure I
fully understand your question. Are
you looking for statistics or examples?
1828
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Well,
sure. I think the question that we
are putting to all groups is to try and elevate the understanding beyond the
cost issues and into issues that move more into not just quality of life issues
but the real determination that that there are measurable implications to the
barriers.
1829
MR. BIRCH: Okay. I don't think statistics exist to back
this up, but I have some examples I will try to give you quickly. I will keep my examples to people with
mobility disabilities.
1830
A lot of colleagues here today at these hearings will be talking about
other forms of disability that also run into the very serious forms of
discrimination. But yes, in my mind
we run up against it every day.
1831
There is all ‑‑ there are folks with high‑level disabilities who
cannot use the devices that the rest of their coworkers use in the
workplace. We have ‑‑ as an
example, we have an MP right now in the House of Commons that cannot use his
wireless device. He needs to have
his assistant use it for him.
1832
You know, people ‑‑ I, with my cell phone, I can use some of the
basic functions, but to use some of the more advanced functions I can't with my
fingers so I'm not able to ‑‑ I'm not allowed to use some of those services
that my able‑bodied counterparts are.
1833
I'm trying to think of other ‑‑ but there are many instances where
people are not able, where their able‑bodied counterparts would simply use the
device to go shopping or to access their bank accounts or to call up their
friends or whatever, those all become either very difficult to do or impossible
to do because of the lack of accessibility.
1834
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Let's
try and narrow this down for me a bit to the area of employability as a way to
try and put some dialogue to the record with respect to that
issue.
1835
So as I understand from your presentation and from the work that your
group has been doing, one of the main identifiers that you have rested a lot of
your Society's work on has been the ability to reintroduce people into the
workplace as a result of access to and the development of new
technology.
1836
MR. BIRCH: Yes, that has
been a key part of our work, yeah.
1837
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Is
that a driver that brings about a renewed interest or a new interest to the TSPs
and the manufacturers?
1838
I'm now starting to move into the area of work groups. I know that you have been working, for
example, was Nokia.
1839
MR. BIRCH:
Yes.
1840
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: As you
go through the mechanisms to bring about opportunities for funding and projects
that work collaboratively with telecommunications companies and manufacturers,
what is the most effective proposition that you bring to the table that causes
them to want to participate on your projects?
1841
MR. BIRCH: Yes, I can answer
that.
1842
Just before I do, I would like to go back to sort of the beginning of
your question and it goes back to your first question about
discrimination.
1843
In the workplace now it is becoming ‑‑ these are trends that we are
seeing, but people are required to do e‑mail while they are away from the
office. I can't do my e‑mail
effectively at all. I couldn't even
get on yesterday and then when I do get on, it's very, very ‑‑ it's almost
not worth me even trying.
1844
Those are the kinds of trends we are seeing and it is becoming the
expected business practice in a lot of cases. So just to finish that example
off.
1845
The reason industry seems to want to work with us ‑‑ and we met with
them. We tried to give them
business cases about, you know, if you make your device more usable and more
accessible, then that's good for everybody. We tried to make business cases in terms
of the aging demographics and there's going to be needs for devices that, you
know, are usable by people with low vision and loss of dexterity, et
cetera.
1846
Those types of arguments, although they seem interested to a certain
extent, don't really seem to be the decision‑maker. The decision‑maker is that they are
facing markets and jurisdictions that have requirements to make their devices
accessible and that seems to be, in my experience, the reason why they actually
come to the table, sit down and actually contract us to help
them.
1847
MR. LEW: Just to add to
Gary's comments, the reason that the manufacturers are interested in working
with us is mainly because we are an organization with an internal technical
capability. So in a lot of cases
they will work with disability groups and the disability groups will say well,
we don't like this feature, but then when the handset manufacturers themselves
turn around and ask them, well, what is it you don't like in technical terms,
they are not able to articulate that because in a lot of cases obviously they
don't have engineers on staff.
1848
In our case, we are an organization that was built on technology and
focused on using technology and emerging technologies to help people with
disabilities. So we have the
technical capabilities so we can actually translate into the actual technical
terms what needs to get done on a specific platform or device to make it
accessible.
1849
So that's really the advantage.
1850
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That's
an excellent segue, thank you, to my next question.
1851
Turning around to the groups that you work with in the disability
communities, do you have or can you provide for the record some more information
concerning ‑‑ you were saying earlier, and this seems to be an endemic
situation for us as well in that we are finding it difficult to really get a
handle on solid information that gives us insight as to those exact
barriers.
1852
We understand to a certain extent the impositions that occur, but it
seems that you have a good handle, or at least are working toward technology
that is in response to those needs.
1853
Is there anything you can add to what you have just said, Mr. Lew,
regarding disability communities and how they communicate their needs
presently?
1854
I'm asking very specifically:
Do you know or do you have data that you can share with the Commission
that gives insight as to the needs of the disability communities with respect to
handheld wireless technology?
1855
MR. LEW: We do have studies
that we've done for specific carriers, I mean for handset manufacturers, but in
a lot of cases those were done under non‑disclosure agreements. So we are not able to put forward in a
public forum some of the issues that we saw on a specific design per
se.
1856
In general, it really depends on the design so there's not a general set
of guidelines per se, I mean for a specific handset. There are obviously best practices that
we have sort of seen and which we are suggesting to some of the handset
manufacturers.
1857
I don't know if you are looking for those kinds of examples right now
or...
1858
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I'm
trying to go to the issue of having a better understanding of the need by the
communities.
1859
MR. BIRCH: Could I just add,
what we are finding with each handset and related services that are provided on
those handsets, that the only way to really understand what is working well and
what needs to be improved is in these usability testing sessions where we
actually have people with disabilities, across the spectrum of disabilities,
come in and actually use these devices and through a bit of a methodology and
then understand what's working and what's not.
1860
We are finding that that ‑‑ as Gary pointed out, we are gaining some
best practices but each one is relatively unique and I think that that ‑‑
you know, when it's talking about the consultation process, I think that has to
be built in somehow; that is, new handsets and services are coming out and you
really need the input from the actual users about how to make this device
usable.
1861
It may be hard to pull off a binder of standards that would guarantee
that.
1862
I think best practices, yes, but maybe detailed, maybe
not.
1863
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you.
1864
In your presentation you referenced that in the United States the FCC has
applied a ruling, section 255, which requires manufacturers and service
providers to make devices and services compatible with peripheral devices and
specialized customer equipment.
1865
Can you expand on that, please?
1866
MR. BIRCH: Yes, and Harry
can bail me out here.
1867
Basically I think what they are saying there is that if you can't make
your device as a stand‑alone device easily accessible for a given consumer, that
you make it easily ‑‑ that you make it such that adaptive devices like in
our case something like a sip‑and‑puff switch or some other form of adaptive
technology that a person would normally use to interact with technology can be
interfaced to that device.
1868
That's a common kind of scenario, where we are trying to figure out how
to use a double or a single input switch to interface with the
device.
1869
So am I answering your question?
That's what we're trying to ‑‑ the point is they should do that were
readily achievable.
1870
I guess my point was that based on our experience there are sometimes
some technological hurdles there, but often they are not that great and it's
just the business practices that come into place that actually become the
biggest hurdle.
1871
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you.
1872
Just one final question on the technology side of
things.
1873
With respect to integrated approaches, taking technology and support for
the technology from service providers, could you speak for a moment, please, on
how vital you feel or not the integration of training and customer support to go
hand‑in‑hand with the technology, how valuable that is to the success of a new
technology?
1874
MR. LEW: If I understand
your question right, you are talking about the general services or the handsets
themselves or the technology or just a broader ‑‑
1875
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:
General services.
1876
MR. LEW: Okay. I think what we are seeing right now is
that as you talk about next generation services ‑‑ and it goes back to your
other question asking about the need that you sort of see.
1877
So in the old days when you are talking telephones, you are only talking
about voice, right. You are just
having to supply voice and the ability to call. Now when you are talking about the new
next generation technologies, it's anywhere from e‑mail to SMS to web browsing
to streamed video type services to even videoconferencing, in terms of some of
the features that are envisioned in future.
1878
So when you talk about those level of complexity of systems, what you are
seeing is more of a barrier being created.
So to browse the web not only do you have to be able to scroll around the
screen to navigate let's say a website, but you are also having to enter text in
order to make that actually interact with that.
1879
So the level of accessibility increases
exponentially.
1880
Not only are you ‑‑ so in the old days obviously dialling, one of
the solutions is using voice recognition technology to actually make a phone
call. Well, there isn't the power
or the capability on a handset to do speech to text to actually, let's say,
dictate a voicemail message or go on the Internet or do something very advanced
in terms of ‑‑ I mean, some of the smart phones you can actually obviously
use Excel or Word documents or read and review and actually edit documents
themselves. So some of the handsets
are almost getting to the point where they almost are like mini PCs that you are
carrying themselves.
1881
So when you are looking at that level of complexity in terms of the
applications that are being delivered to the consumer, the level of complexity
of the solution also rises, too.
1882
Now, to go back to your other question about training, obviously training
and education is a really important component. I mean, a good example is that we were
trying to get handsets for a specific study we were doing and we were trying to
approach carriers to see which handsets were actually available in Canada that
supported certain assisted technology.
1883
What we did find is that when we approached the carriers is that even
though they had accessible technology listed on their website or a person
referred to who we should talk to, when we actually talked to a local person at
a store that would actually sell you the handsets, they didn't know anything
about it. They couldn't refer me to
a specific 1‑800 number or website where I could find more information about
that.
1884
So there is a lack of understanding within the carriers in terms of the
education of their own internal staff of how to deal with the request from the
accessibility perspective.
1885
In our case it wasn't specifically around mobility impairment. It was actually about another
impairment, in this case vision. So
we were trying to get a telephone system that would support essentially a
text‑to‑speech system which we were trying to do for a study and we did
have ‑‑ we were referred to specific handsets through our contacts at
Nokia, but then trying to find what handset was actually available in Canada
from a carrier and then trying to find out information on how that was supported
and whether it was subscriber‑based or whether you had to just go buy the
handset yourself was a difficult issue for us.
1886
So it's important for the consumers when they contact the carriers to
actually get accurate information in terms of what is available so they
understand their choices. But it is
also important within the carrier structures themselves that they educate their
staff so they know where to refer to those kinds of
inquiries.
1887
So that we are finding is still lacking in the current
environment.
1888
I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.
1889
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes,
it does, thank you.
1890
Pursuing this a little further, just to round out some other information
that I'm after, with respect to websites in particular, to service provider
websites, is there anything else that you have not mentioned that comes to mind
with respect to information and services that could be improved upon by the
service providers?
1891
MR. LEW: Are you talking
just outside of the websites or in addition to websites?
1892
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I'm
thinking specifically about the websites at this point as a conveyance device
for information.
1893
MR. LEW: Yes. What we have found is that obviously
there are accessibility standards around websites primarily focused on the
vision impairment. So if you look
at the W3C standards, they have mainly been approved by the people from the
vision impairment side as opposed to the other disability organizations, and
that has been the primary focus of those sets of
standards.
1894
If you look at some of the carrier websites across Canada, not all of
them meet those W3C standards. In
some cases I know ‑‑ we know of one carrier where they have created a
parallel website for people with disabilities and another one for consumers
themselves.
1895
So rather than adhere to the standards themselves, they have decided to
just split it off.
1896
Part of it is because of just the technology. I mean, obviously their main site is
very consumer driven and they are selling to that very young demographic, which
obviously is very multimedia‑based.
But if you look at a lot of the multimedia technology on their websites,
it is less suitable for someone with a vision impairment, let's say, because
they can't see what's happening in terms of a fancy video or a glitzy display
that comes from the website themselves.
1897
Outside of the websites themselves, I mean there are still the support
centres. So if you are going
through an automated support centre, a lot of people with mobility impairment
need more time to interact with the system and in some cases they actually will
time out before they are able to access it.
1898
So if you are into an automatic call centre, if you don't push a button
within a certain amount of time because you are using an alternative method to
generate the push button, let's say, on your regular home telephone, you
actually won't be able to get through to an actual support service from that
side of it.
1899
So that's a good example where your disability is dictating how you are
interacting with the system and whether your system isn't accommodating you from
that perspective.
1900
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you.
1901
The last question in this line.
Outside of the website with respect to other communication formats that
service providers have in their contact with their customers, are there any
other formats or recommendations or ideas that your organization has that could
improve upon or cause service providers to look at other formats ‑‑ I am
thinking in the area of billing information, terms of service agreements and so
on ‑‑ that can be improved upon.
1902
MR. LEW: I think people with
disabilities face sort of the same challenges that regular consumers face in
terms of billing. I mean it is
still difficult to understand what you are paying
for.
1903
One of the number one complaints, I think, we hear as consumers is that
if I sign up for a contract, I don't get full disclosure of what I am actually
paying for in terms of how many minutes.
I mean a classic case is when ‑‑ I mean even the industry has a
difficult time conveying that information to the consumer.
1904
I mean a classic case is I was at an industry conference in the United
States and they were talking about billing for data minutes, right, and they
basically said, well, the consumers don't understand how much they are being
billed and the structure of data minutes, because I mean if you are paying by
the minute, let's say you browse a website, you don't know what bill you are
racking up, right. So at the end of
the day, you may get a bill for $5 or you might get a bill for $500 depending on
what it is.
1905
So from that marketing perspective, the industry actually went to
unlimited minutes for a fixed fee because that was easier for the consumer to
understand.
1906
So when you are talking about billing in other areas, I think the same
challenges are there. I mean obviously for some people getting bills in
alternative formats for the vision impairment, and I am guessing that they can
speak to that. I mean it is the
same as when you get a banking bill.
You can get a Braille‑type format for the people that need it from that
perspective.
1907
But in terms of the mobility impairment side of it, their challenges from
that perspective in terms of actual billing are a little less because if they
can get it in electronic format and on the web, obviously, as long as you are
able to get an accessible computer, you are able to access that billing
format.
1908
So there's ‑‑
‑‑‑ Discussion off the
record
1909
MR. LEW:
Yes.
1910
MR. BIRCH: I was just going
to say ‑‑ Harry touched on it but I think for mobility impairment, it is
keeping the language simple in a lot of cases so people understand what they are
getting and what they are not getting.
1911
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you.
1912
In the area of emergency services, you had indicated that ‑‑ you
know, your identification of the obvious importance of easy and available access
to those services.
1913
Could you expand ‑‑ you have been quite emphatic about your position
that the CRTC should be taking appropriate action, immediate appropriate
action. Could you expand on that
issue and perhaps put a priority to some of the points you
have?
1914
MR. BIRCH: Well, this is
another one of those emerging trends that I see as incredibly important because
as I started to do more and more research into this area, as I tried to indicate
in my presentation, you will find that handheld wireless devices are becoming a
main part of emergency plans for many institutions and I tried to give some
examples in my submission to the answers to the
Commission.
1915
And because of that it just seems ‑‑ I hope I am giving you the
answer but it just seems that underlines ‑‑ I guess it is perhaps the best
example of where a person with a disability must have access because that can
be, you know, literally a life and death situation. So they need to be able to access their
handsets and the related services and if they cannot do that, then they are
going to be at a distinct disadvantage and at risk if they are not able to do
so.
1916
So I think I am so emphatic about it because I see that as the most kind
of life‑threatening kind of situation that is emerging. But ‑‑
yes.
1917
MR. LEW: I can add a little
bit to that. I mean I think you are
going to see this example sort of referred to a lot. Obviously, there was the Virginia Tech
incident where there was, obviously, a shooting at Virginia Tech in the United
States. In reaction to that,
obviously, the House of Representatives have implemented some ‑‑ a Bill
basically asking that the campuses are able to respond and get information out
to students within 30 minutes.
1918
If you actually look at the incident itself, it is kind of interesting
because there is, obviously, a 911 conference happening in Ottawa right now, at
least from the Canadian members of that.
1919
What they found was that the cellular infrastructure actually was
overwhelmed when that incident happened and the result was that a lot of the
students ended up doing star 911 and trying to send an SMS message to emergency
services. There is no support for
SMS on emergency services. So those
messages went to nowhere. So there
was an expectation. Basically the
students thought that service was available in an emergency situation and that
wasn't a reality.
1920
Even now, I mean the early planning for the emergency services in North
America, they are only now starting to look at supporting the next generation
services like SMS and video relay.
1921
I know that I was talking to someone on the plane that was attending the
conference. He said that in a lot
of cases a lot of the operators had forgotten about the TTY system. So when they actually get an emergency
call, if they don't actually hear a voice at the end of the line, they actually
will hang up even though it may be a deaf person calling in on a TTY
system.
1922
So that technology, even though it is getting older, that is the only way
a hearing impaired person can actually make an emergency call through a TTY
system, because the more conventional type of communications, which is SMS or
email, is not supported by emergency services.
1923
So that is a case where the emergency services are not accessible to a
specific disability group and there is no accommodation for
that.
1924
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I just
have two more questions.
1925
The first is on the formation of ongoing work groups. You distinguished that what is required
is a multi‑level work group environment and I am wondering if you can give me an
idea of what the perfect work group environment looks
like.
1926
MR. BIRCH: I wish I could
give you the perfect one. I think
this will be a matter that needs to have some discussion between the
stakeholders.
1927
But roughly, I envision that there probably is a role for an overview
consultation process where there are some discussions about what are the key
issues. But then I see very quickly
getting down to smaller working groups that are actually trying to understand
the specific issues involved with specific services and specific devices and
that is where I am also suggesting that that be a very interactive process with
actual consumers with disabilities and that that be followed up with actual
resources to put solutions in place and that those solutions actually end up
being available to people with disabilities.
1928
So it is along those lines.
I believe that is what is really needed and the capacity of the
not‑for‑profit organizations that are active in these areas and have the
expertise around the disabilities.
We simply don't have the capacity.
1929
I think Cathy Moore from the CNIB was making a similar point yesterday,
that it is very difficult for us to keep up these processes because we are
literally doing them off the side of our desks. So it is a really huge problem. If we don't have some capacity to stay
involved, that expertise is not going to be in the loop and it is
critical.
1930
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you.
1931
The final question is to do with funding and my question is directed
toward the notions of the purpose of the
funding.
1932
You are indicating that more research is required to understand the user
requirements; is that correct?
1933
MR. BIRCH: In some cases,
yes. So in a place where there is
no best practices or standards ‑‑ and that is going to happen because the
pace of technology is changing so quickly ‑‑ there needs to be a forum
where the handset manufacturers and the service providers can sit down and
actually watch people interact with these devices and that is the best way to
understand what needs to be done.
You can't do that sitting around a table talking.
1934
I am sorry, am I answering your ‑‑
1935
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That
is a good start. You are indicating
that this type of funding would be necessary to support ongoing research though;
is that correct?
1936
MR. BIRCH: Yes, I am going
to be careful with that. At least
my thinking there is not so much just ongoing research for the sake of research
but once you identify that these are the issues, then there needs to be some
resources to then ideally work with the industry engineers and the technical
capacity that does exist within the not‑for‑profit, which is fairly thin, but
then you sit down and actually make those solutions happen, make them
real.
1937
So, you know, once you have identified them, that is great, but then you
actually have to solve them technically and then there is the whole business
process and finding some mechanism where those solutions are then available to
people and that has to be done in a way that keeps up with the pace of
technology.
1938
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Now,
the big question: Do you have or
has it been discussed within the community as to what magnitude is required in
terms of funding?
1939
MR. BIRCH: That is a very
fair question and I don't have an answer, I am sorry. We have not had the resources or time to
cost that out and I even hate to guess at it.
1940
But we are working in such a poverty kind of mentality right now that
some funds of any kind would help and I think to do it right, it would
be ‑‑ I think the numbers initially would sound big but if you divided that
across all the population of users in Canada, it would be ‑‑ I am hoping a
few cents per person would actually provide a fund that would enable all this to
happen.
1941
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That
is per person across the board?
1942
MR. BIRCH:
Yes.
1943
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON:
Okay.
1944
MR. BIRCH: Like I say, we
haven't done the homework to analyze that, the exact numbers well, but it is a
conceptual thing at this point.
1945
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you. I think that concludes
my ‑‑ sorry.
1946
MR. LEW: I think there
is ‑‑ I mean I think there is a precedent for it. If you look at the way the relay systems
are currently funded, I mean I believe that in Bell Canada's case there is like
a 13‑cent levy per subscriber that goes towards funding the relay services, the
existing relay services for the deaf.
1947
So we are not suggesting that ‑‑ anything new in terms of the
funding mechanism in terms of dealing with this specific issue. What we are ‑‑ I guess we are at an
early enough stage that we are suggesting the idea but we don't know the
magnitude. Part of it is depending
on how quickly new technology emerges.
So I mean there is obviously a lot of different trends
emerging.
1948
So I mean if you were to look at, let's say, banking and ‑‑
cellphone banking is a new emerging technology, right. So how do you understand the barriers of
that and how much effort needs to go into understanding that for each one of the
disability groups and how often does a new technology like that come
along?
1949
If you look at it, banking and telecommunications are two of the most
highly regulated industries. You
know, how do you merge those two together and then dealing with issues around
accessibility around those?
1950
So I mean it is difficult to say how deep those issues are without at
least doing some initial studies and there really isn't a mechanism to
necessarily do an initial study right now, no formal mechanism that makes
industry and the disability organizations come to the
table.
1951
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I
think what I hear you saying is that it is an issue not just of ‑‑ I think
this is what you said, that it is not just an issue of research applied to
understanding technology and the betterment of technology for accessibility but
all of the other related issues as that technology gets
applied.
1952
MR. LEW: Yes. I mean at the end of the day we
understand that technology is going to emerge very quickly and we know that from
the telecommunications industry. In
a lot of cases, even they don't know what services are going to catch on with
the public.
1953
In some of the industry conferences that we have been to they have been
quite frank in terms of like we didn't think that ringtones was going to take
off, right. So ringtones is a
billion dollar business for them but if you think about it, when they originally
announced it and put it out there, they thought it was just like a small revenue
value‑added service, right, but just because of the people's desire to
personalize a phone, and that is more of a cultural shift, it has become a big
money‑maker for them from that perspective, right.
1954
So when we are talking about next‑generation services, whether it is
streamed video to your handsets or even banking, it is hard to say what is going
to take off and we know that those emerging trends have to be prioritized in
terms of what is happening, right.
1955
So whether you have to study every trend that comes up or whether just
the ones that sort of come up as a high priority are going to determine the cost
of what needs to get deployed.
1956
One other thing I would sort of add in terms of our previous discussion
in terms of technology, within the handset manufacturers themselves,
accessibility is really seen as a regulatory issue. So if we were to look at some of the
handset manufacturers, their accessibility group is actually under the
regulatory umbrella.
1957
As a result, those groups are limited in terms of being able to fund
research in terms of accessibility.
They actually have to go around to product design groups and twist arms
and essentially get them to invest in an accessibility feature and that is
sometimes a hard business case to make when they are trying to design the next
generation of handsets to actually add a hook that ‑‑ or add a feature that
would make it more accessible for a person.
1958
So even within their own organization within the handset manufacturers,
having more visibility and having regulation is something they can point to to
say, look, we have got to do this from a regulatory perspective as opposed to a
business case or a good corporate citizen perspective. So I mean they have their own challenges
within their groups themselves in terms of having visibility around
accessibility.
1959
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you. That concludes my
questioning.
1960
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Simpson.
1961
I think some of us on the panel also have a few questions. I have one and I will
start.
1962
First of all, thank you very much for coming. I think your information you provided us
is very appropriate and, in fact, I want to leverage on it as
well.
1963
You folks are technologically savvy. You are looked upon by industry, as
you say here, as a resource and you meet with industry. I think you also mentioned you meet with
some of the handset manufacturers and some of the other folks as
well.
1964
We heard yesterday some of the groups that represent people with
disabilities saying that they don't have that expertise at all and you sort of
appear to me as being right in the middle of this, right in the hub
basically.
1965
You said in your submission earlier, dated July 24th, that during the
deferral account you have met with this community coalition group of a number of
various representatives of people with disabilities as
well.
1966
To what extent are you working with those people on an active basis to
answer ‑‑ to help them with some of the questions that they have where some
of their members are looking for either technological interfaces or products
that might help them as well?
1967
MR. BIRCH: We have some
examples of some initiatives where we are working with other community‑based
groups that work with persons with disabilities. We typically do that on a project‑driven
basis.
1968
We are currently carrying out a project trying to understand the
accessibility challenges around mobile payment and that is involving
organizations ‑‑ other community‑based organizations that represent other
types of disabilities.
1969
We do come together now and then, together as groups, to talk about the
issues. We try to give some support
where needed around the technological issues there.
1970
There are other members in the community, that are either directly
involved with consumer groups or helping to advise those consumer groups, that
have their own technical capacity to talk about these
issues.
1971
And so we tend to, at those meetings, try to get the folks that have the
best technical understanding to try to sort of give the sort of basics of what
is going on from a technological point of view and also what are the emerging
trends and what are kind of both the threats and the opportunities coming down
the line.
1972
But we are only allowed to do those now and then when funds are
available.
1973
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I
understand the funding issue and I understand that one of the things you are
doing is more futuristic, emerging technologies, as you say, as
well.
1974
I guess what I am wondering is if this Commission is looking for a focal
point that could be this hub to engage all the parties, funding aside, would
your group be one of those groups we should be looking at as perhaps becoming
that integrator, if I can call it that, as well?
1975
MR. BIRCH: Yes. Okay, I understand your question
better. Yes, indeed, obviously, I
would like to work with my community partners but I believe we can be one of the
key spearhead groups in that area because we have bridged, you know, working
daily with persons with disabilities and have the technological
capability.
1976
So if I am understanding your question correctly, we would be delighted
for an opportunity where we could take a lead role in helping to ensure the
accessibility of technologies for persons with
disabilities.
1977
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, those
are all my questions.
1978
Commissioner Molnar?
1979
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank
you.
1980
I had one question related to devices. You are very technology savvy, you are
working on standards and so on.
1981
Do you know of devices that are available in jurisdictions outside of
Canada that would enable accessibility, either, as an example, different mobile
handsets or ancillary devices that are available outside of Canada that aren't
available here or aren't supported here?
1982
MR. BIRCH: Because of
Harry's work around the world with industry, I think I will defer that to
you.
1983
MR. LEW: Okay. That is a difficult question for me to
answer on a global scale, mainly because what we are seeing, if you actually
look at some of the devices, devices that may be available in one country may
not be available here just from a general consumer sense in terms of it being
not popular or not being picked up by a specific carrier.
1984
Really, the way the industry works is that handset manufacturers
manufacture a line of products and then the carriers get to choose from
essentially a menu what products they want to support.
1985
So a classic case, let's say, from a consumer perspective, is, obviously,
the Apple iPhone was available in the States but it didn't come to Canada till
Rogers picked it up and Rogers is the exclusive dealer of the
iPhone.
1986
And the iPhone actually is a classic example of an inaccessible platform,
to be honest with you. I mean they
currently are ‑‑ there is currently a complaint against them from the
vision impairment community, from the blind community in the United States. Because it is all icon‑based, there is
no registration for the buttons because it is a smooth screen, so I can't even
tell what is on the screen and how to interact with it from that
perspective. So that is a classic
case.
1987
But in terms of if you are asking me about a specific technology that is
available in another jurisdiction that isn't available here, we haven't seen it
from a general sense, from the perspective of it being a technology issue. It is more whether the carrier has
picked up that particular line.
1988
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: I am
sorry, that is actually my question.
1989
MR. LEW: Ah! Okay. Fair enough.
1990
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Right. You know, I am aware
that they carry lines and my question is:
Are you aware of some devices that would facilitate access for the group
of your constituents that is not made available and supported here in
Canada?
1991
MR. LEW: Not currently and
the issue for that is there are very few solutions currently for people with
mobility impairments. I mean I can
count maybe three solutions, and again, they are just very basic solutions in
terms of dialling the phone.
1992
There is one solution that is a little bit more advanced in terms of
being able to, let's say, access some of the features of the PDA, and again,
that product is now basically obsolete in the new generation of phones because
the technology has advanced so far ahead of where the manufacturer is able
to ‑‑ or a manufacturer of the assistive technologies has been able to keep
up.
1993
I mean we face the same challenges.
We created a solution for a Windows‑based platform environment and the
challenges that we ran into were not necessarily technological, but just the
business structure in which it worked.
So we actually needed security certificates from the designer of the
operating system, which is Microsoft, we also needed a security certificate from
the actual handset manufacturer, and then we needed a security certificate from
the carrier if it we are going to deploy it in the United
States.
1994
So we actually had three levels that we had to get permission from to
actually deploy that technology and we stalled at the handset manufacturer
because they couldn't direct us to anyone within their organization that had the
mandate to deal with accessibility specifically.
1995
Through their regular mechanism, we would have to come up with a business
case, and if we weren't generating millions of dollars in revenue for them, they
didn't have a mechanism to even address our business
concerns.
1996
So it wasn't a technology issue in that case, it was a business‑case
issue, in terms of: unless you had
a business case that was going to generate millions of dollars of revenue, we
don't have the mechanism to deal with you.
1997
And we never did get to the carriers, and that's another level that was
going to be difficult to deal with from that side of it.
1998
But, in general, if we were to look at outside of mobility impairment,
the classic case is ‑‑ we talked about this ‑‑ the phone that I was
trying to get for that study that actually had vision
impairment.
1999
The phone suggested by Nokia was, I believe, an N86 or 8030. We couldn't find that from a single
carrier in Canada because it's not available from them, but it was the phone
that was suggested by Nokia, in terms of being able to support text to speech
and the most popular in the United States.
2000
Just because of the consumer demand side of it, or the perceived consumer
demands from the carrier, no one was carrying it in Canada so we actually had to
buy it from the States and bring it into Canada.
2001
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank
you.
2002
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Lamarre.
2003
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Merci,
monsieur le président.
2004
I have two points of clarification in regards to issues you have brought
in your presentation.
2005
On page 4 of the written notes of your presentation, I will quote it, it
says:
"The TSPs have indicated to us that
they are too small of a market to make any difference." (As read)
2006
You state that:
"This is not true. Handset manufacturers are getting
pressure from TSPs from many other jurisdictions around the world and Canadian
TSPs should be aggressively adding their voice to dissent." (As read)
2007
Last sentence, and that's what I'm getting
at:
"Also, although not typical, there
are examples where small‑market TSPs have had an important impact on handset
manufacturers to produce platforms that meet special needs." (As read)
2008
Would you have an example of such in a typical small
market?
2009
MR. LEW: Okay, I will answer
that question.
2010
So the classic case is Jitterbug, in the United States. They are a small reseller of minutes
from a large carrier. So they
actually originally had a line of phones ‑‑ well, Samsung originally
manufactured a line of phones that was suitable for seniors. So, I mean, it's a very simple phone, it
has ‑‑ a small phone.
2011
There's one orientation where it's a single button, right, and you can
use that button to, essentially, call an operator and make an operator‑assisted
call, and then it's got the standard handset
inside.
2012
That phone actually disappeared from the Samsung line and for a number of
years Jitterbug ‑‑ they weren't able to get a suitable phone. So recently, last year, they actually
convinced Samsung to make a small number of phones. So their subscriber base is just a few
hundred thousand people ‑‑ not millions of people, just a few hundred thousand
people.
2013
Actually, if you are in the United States, you probably will see their
commercial. Jitterbug was featured
in the Wall Street Journal and they were running an ad campaign, because,
obviously, this new phone just came on the market earlier this year for
them. So there's a big advertising
push.
2014
But that's an example where a small carrier or a small reseller was able
to actually get them to actually create a special line of phone for them. Again, it's atypical, but it was a case
where it did happen.
2015
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay.
2016
And in your introduction you mentioned that your society has helped over
20,000 Canadians with physical disabilities.
2017
Are those mostly anglophone Canadians or are you active also in the
French parts of Canada?
2018
MR. BIRCH: They are
primarily English‑speaking. We are
active in the Maritimes and in New Brunswick and the Moncton area. We have delivered some of our
programming there in French and it is our desire to do more, but that has been
more a resource‑based issue than anything else.
2019
We would be delighted to be able to expand our services to
French‑speaking individuals as well.
2020
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: And
are you aware of any similar organization as yours in either Quebec or in the
Maritimes?
2021
MR. BIRCH: Not in the
Maritimes, and, as far as I know not in Quebec, not in the exact form that we
are in, no.
2022
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you.
2023
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Commissioner Denton.
2024
COMMISSIONER DENTON: I have
two questions for you.
2025
You noted that Canada tends to lag about 10 years behind in several
areas, including emergency response.
2026
Could you expand on that please and give us some
details?
2027
MR. LEW: I can talk a little
bit about that.
2028
So if we were to look at the enhanced E9119 services, in the United
States they are already doing planning for the next generation of services that
essentially are looking at supporting video relay, SMS, email as the next
generation.
2029
As far as I know, the equipment at the core of most of the carriers, if
they have bought any equipment in the last five years, that will be
supported.
2030
But in terms of the actual thinking of adopting those services, and,
again, this was talking to people that deal with E911, there is just some trials
in the United States that are about to launch now in a few cities looking at
those advanced services. And if you
were to look at the trends in which those new services get adopted in Canada,
they tend to lag quite a bit behind, mainly because Canada, one, it's
conservative; and two, I think they look at it as a cost issue because of the
retraining of all...
‑‑‑ Technical difficulties / Difficultés
techniques
2031
COMMISSIONER DENTON: It's
part of the service.
2032
MR. LEW: Okay, fair
enough.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
2033
MR. LEW: ...because of the
retraining of the staff.
2034
So I mean, some of the issues against SMS right now, currently, is that
there's a perception that they would have to actually retrain all their
operators. Because, I mean, if you
look at the way teens SMS now, they have all these abbreviations. Well, a lot of the operators on the 911
services, they tend to be of a different generation. So, I mean, they look at it as a really
high training cost for them to do that.
2035
So I don't have a specific example, if that's what you are looking for,
mainly because if you look at 911 services right now, they are currently
voice‑based, right, and obviously there's less technology from that perspective
voice base.
2036
I mean, I guess the big initiative right how that's happening in terms of
the E911 is that they are trying to develop a system that actually is able to
assign an IP address that knows what building you are in, per se,
right?
2037
Well, that is requiring a major change, basically, because they need to
change the IP addresses and assign an IP address to every building. And part of that perspective is actually
they have to change all the IP addresses over at once, not nationally, but
internationally. So that's their
real constraint.
2038
But in terms of the planning, in terms of Canada, I have been told that
they are not even looking at that and they are looking way down the road from
that, where the United States are trying to address that now in some sort of
manner.
2039
I mean, obviously, it takes international coordination, but just
the ‑‑ I guess the level of capacity to deal with that issue in Canada
isn't quite there yet. I mean, even
though they are involved in the standards process, they see it very
conservatively and see it happening after it's been rolled out in the United
States.
2040
I'm not sure if I'm answering your question fully.
2041
COMMISSIONER DENTON: You are
answering my question perfectly.
2042
MR. LEW:
Okay.
2043
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
2044
MR. LEW: Thank
you.
2045
COMMISSIONER DENTON: So
essentially it's a generational issue of adaptation to IP‑based technologies and
it's a lack of foresight that this stuff is inevitable. Would that summarize
it?
2046
MR. LEW: Yes, I think so,
from that perspective.
2047
COMMISSIONER DENTON:
Okay. One more question,
please.
2048
You said you had some studies of best practices, that, though you had
conducted some studies that were for specific industries and that were therefore
confidential, you might be able to indicate to us what might best practices
consist of in this area of design.
2049
Are these available? Can
they be made available?
2050
MR. LEW: As it applies to
specific devices, no, because those are covered by confidentiality
agreements.
2051
COMMISSIONER DENTON: I
understand that.
2052
MR. LEW: I think, from a
general perspective, we are working on trying to create those best practices as
more of an education for industry ‑‑
2053
COMMISSIONER DENTON:
Yes.
2054
MR. LEW: ‑‑ so those will be available.
2055
COMMISSIONER DENTON: And to
whom and when?
2056
MR. LEW: To the general
industry. And, again, it will
depend on the application because, I mean, obviously, we are not set up to deal
with all versions of technology ‑‑
2057
COMMISSIONER DENTON:
Right.
2058
MR. LEW: ‑‑ we are very narrowly based, in terms of what we have
been asked to deal with or which we are trying to sponsor internally, from that
perspective.
2059
MR. BIRCH: The other key
factor, in terms of preparing those in a concise document, because we are
certainly learning the lessons around best practices, but it's a capacity issue
on our part, too, we don't have the capacity to actually sit down and publish
those best practices.
2060
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you, gentlemen. I appreciated your
presentation.
2061
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very, very much.
2062
This concludes this panel and we will take a short ‑‑ oh, sorry,
legal has got a question.
2063
MS POPE:
Yes.
2064
THE CHAIRPERSON: I
apologize.
2065
MS POPE: Hi, Lori Pope
speaking.
2066
In your testimony, in your initial presentation, you made a comment
about:
"Solutions may be technically
achievable, but because of business practice they may not be considered by TSPs
and manufacturers." (As
read)
2067
I wonder if you could give us any particular examples of
that.
2068
MR. BIRCH: Yes. We have tried to touch on that a couple
of times. It goes back to what I
was saying, that, you know, you can sit down and talk about the business case
around there's more and more persons with disabilities.
2069
There's lots of examples of where you have introduced what you thought
was an accessibility feature and that turns out to be a feature that makes the
phone or other types of technology a lot more usable by everyone, but those
argument rarely get you anywhere.
2070
MS POPE: Actually, what I'm
looking for ‑‑
2071
MR. BIRCH: Oh,
sorry.
2072
MS POPE: ‑‑ sorry, are examples of the solutions, so, you know,
maybe a proposal ‑‑
2073
MR. BIRCH:
Oh.
2074
MS POPE: ‑‑ that you made, you know, if this happened, this would
address this problem.
2075
MR. BIRCH: Harry, yes,
because of that example you gave.
2076
MR. LEW: Yes, I can refer
back to the other example.
2077
I mean, a case where we created, essentially, an accessibility solution,
again for high‑level person mobility impairment for a Windows‑based product, in
that case we created the solution up to a certain level, but to actually deploy
that solution on a commercial network we needed security certificates from not
only Microsoft but the handset manufacturer and the carrier in order to actually
run on their network.
2078
And the reason that is is because security is becoming a major concern
from handset manufacturers because there's more and more technology that gets
hosted on the handset, anywhere from your email information to, potentially,
your banking information in the future.
2079
MS POPE: Sure. And I think, actually, not to cut you
off but, you know, we are a bit tight for time ‑‑
2080
MR. LEW:
Yes.
2081
MS POPE: ‑‑ I think you made your submissions on the barriers of,
you know, actually getting it through the market process, or whatever. We are pretty clear. I'm more interested to know if you
can ‑‑ and maybe it's just too technical for us ‑‑ but if you can
speak to the actual solutions that could have been in the marketplace had the
negotiations worked out the way you had hoped, but these solutions are not in
the marketplace right now.
2082
MR. LEW: Yes. So the particular solution I'm talking
about was a way for a person with a high‑level mobility impairment to
essentially use a PDA, so that they could actually generate a cursor on a PDA
that was similar to what you would see on a desktop.
2083
Because currently the PDAs are all touch‑screen‑based, so if you can't
actually a touch screen, so if you can't use your hands, you can't interact with
that device. Or it's
track‑ball‑based, well, there's no alternative track‑ball mechanism right now
and there's no alternative method for you to do input in the
system.
2084
So what this system did was actually create a cursor on an actual device
so that you could interact with the on‑screen keyboard and you could use a
mouse, or a mouse emulation‑type device to actually interact with
that.
2085
So that was a particular device that's kind of stalled right
now.
2086
MR. BIRCH: Which
worked.
2087
MR. LEW: Yes, it is a
technology that works. So it wasn't
a technology perspective, it's just that we couldn't navigate through the
business structure to make it happen.
2088
MS POPE:
Right.
2089
And I believe you mentioned that you had purchased the Nokia phone you
were referring to and brought it into Canada.
2090
MR. LEW: Yes, it was an
unlocked phone, so we could actually insert the SIM card from a local
carrier.
2091
MS POPE: And so were there
any issues encountered in trying to use it on a carrier's
network?
2092
MR. LEW: No, because once
you insert the SIM card it would have been compatible. But as long as it's an unlocked
phone.
2093
Keep in mind that unlocked phones are, again, atypical. There are some distributors that will
sell to you, but that's not the typical case. So when you buy a phone in Canada from a
carrier, it's specific to that network.
2094
It's not as easy to transfer on mainly because they are trying to recover
their costs from the handsets. They
are subsidizing the handset that you buy.
So if you get a $99 phone, that phone actually may be $300. So that's why they are trying to lock
you up for three years: to recover
the costs of the handset from the lease.
2095
So if I buy an unlocked phone, per se, that may be $500 because you are
actually paying the full cost of the handset, itself. So that's a case where we actually
bought an unlocked phone in the U.S. and actually had it shipped to us, and then
are able to run it on the network by using their card.
2096
MS POPE: Great. Thank you very
much.
2097
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is counsel
finished?
2098
MS POPE: Yes, thank
you. Sorry.
2099
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
2100
We will take a 10‑minute break and resume in 10
minutes.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1028 / Suspension à
1028
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1047 / Reprise à
1047
2101
THE CHAIRPERSON: Order,
please.
2102
We will resume with the next party.
2103
Madam Secretary.
2104
THE SECRETARY: This is
Silvie Bouffard speaking, the hearing
secretary.
2105
We will now call on Mr. Chris Stark to start his
presentation.
2106
Mr. Stark, please introduce your colleagues, and you have 15 minutes for
your presentation.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2107
MR. C. STARK: Good
morning. Thank you very
much.
2108
To my left is my good wife, Marie; and my number one and only son, Jeff,
is at the far left.
2109
We hope to have a few remarks from me, and then a PowerPoint from
Jeff.
2110
I have submitted some 30 recommendations as summary, which you should
have in your briefing book.
2111
We had real‑time presentations.
I could have given you a humdinger at three this morning. That's an indication of how important
this subject is to us.
2112
We are here as individuals.
We want to thank you for the chance to
appear.
2113
And I want to especially thank the Commission staff for their many
courtesies, support and help in getting us to be able to be before you. I think they deserve a recognition or an
achievement award when this project is over from the Commission because without
their help I wouldn't be here.
2114
We don't have vast amounts of lawyers and vast amounts of staff to do it,
and as I get older, my hands start shaking, and that is why some of the
presentation material that I originally submitted is a bit
rough.
2115
I can't think of one initiative that industry has taken that has not
helped blind people only because the CRTC ordered it. There are no other ‑‑ no
other ‑‑ examples that I can think of where licensees, on their own motion,
have taken action to make our service better. It has all been dependent on you
folks. That is why regulation, a
strict regarding of what is happening out there, is
important.
2116
If you were to implement the stakeholder consultation recommendations,
this proceeding would far exceed my expectations.
2117
In 1996 we went through a similar exercise with the Cable Television
Association. I submitted the report
that was produced at that time, and a long lost friend, Harris Boyd, just came
over to say hello, and he can tell you what was in that report, because he wrote
it with people with disabilities.
2118
One of the promises was that we would have people work together, people
with disabilities and industry, to solve the problems that existed and were
coming forward ‑‑ one of the many unmet promises made to the Commission,
not kept, in our view, by industry.
2119
Another recent example is that you allowed descriptive narration to go to
digital cable. At the time it was
claimed that Rogers and others were taking steps to make it easier for blind
people to access digital narration.
2120
I have yet to be able to find out what those steps are. In fact, I have not found anybody, other
than myself ‑‑ I discovered from a person who was kind enough to tell me
about it that you can get a free box to listen to descriptive
narration.
2121
Nobody else knows about.
2122
You talk about technology and forbearance and all of this stuff. Let me tell you what forbearance means
to me.
2123
Here is the pager that summons me to crucial medical treatment at the
London Health Sciences Centre. I
can't see who is calling. I can't
tell what the power left in the battery is. I can't turn the call off. The only thing that helps me is that it
will rattle, and then I can go and call and try to figure out what is going
on.
2124
This exclusion in the marketplace threatens my very ability to
survive. It has to end,
please.
2125
You talk about cell phones.
Here is the one I have. The
buttons are so big that two of them are covered by one finger. You see, it is not designed for us. When you try to turn it on, you don't
know whether it has come on or not.
2126
It does have voice dialling.
I can say "dial", but you can't get it to work in a noisy
environment. It times out. It doesn't give you enough
time.
2127
Then we have the remote on the new digital box. You don't know when you are pointing at
the digital box. You don't know
when a number has been entered.
2128
That's all right from 1 to 10, but when it gets to 210, you get all
screwed up, and you don't know where you are on the box.
2129
Those are on‑screen programming issues ‑‑ low‑tech, no‑tech, very
small cost items to resolve.
2130
I have one more device that I want to show you. This is something that has come out in
recent times. There is no
screen.
2131
I don't know if you had to pay for the screen on your phone, but they
charged me for it, even though I can't use it.
2132
That's the point. We pay for
a lot of services that we can't access, and we can't use, and we don't know what
is happening half of the time.
2133
It confuses us. It makes us
feel incapable, when, in fact, it's the service and the
technology.
2134
This machine has different shaped keys. It has the feature that I wanted to
demonstrate for you, which any machine could have, and that feature
is...
‑‑‑ Audio presentation / présentation
audio
2135
MR. C. STARK: I guess I
didn't hold it down long enough.
‑‑‑ Audio presentation / présentation
audio
2136
MR. C. STARK: That way I can
learn the key panel anytime I want.
Those are my visual labels.
If I could get something like that on a TV remote, or on a phone, so that
I could figure out where the hold button was, the hands‑free button, the link
button ‑‑ all of these things are technology that we have
today.
2137
My final point, before turning it over to Jeff, is that we often get
advertisements and things about better deals and rates from all of the legacy
carriers, but you can't get them in alternative formats, and when you ask about
alternative formats you are told, "You can have only one alternative
format."
2138
My wife reads Braille, I read text, and somebody else may ‑‑ we are
planning for living together when sighted people can read the same
bill.
2139
It's not my fault that I don't know Braille.
2140
Finally, it is up to you.
You can make a big difference in our quality of life if you can step up
to the plate and hit a home run, and make sure that industry realizes that
meeting our customer service needs is a cost of doing
business.
2141
We are already paying for the services. We are already paying for them, but we
can't use them.
2142
Jeff, sir, if you would like to take off now and use the rest of the time
with your PowerPoint...
2143
MR. J. STARK: Thank you very
much. Thank you for having me, as
well, here.
2144
I would like to talk about accessibility as a technical requirement. As a starting piece for this discussion,
the most common argument that I often hear on this subject ‑‑ and I think
that many people hear it ‑‑ is the fact that the market isn't ready, the
technology isn't ready.
2145
We heard that from the cell phone carriers many, many
times.
2146
In front of me on the table ‑‑ and anybody can come up and have a
look ‑‑ are about a dozen cell phones and BlackBerry‑like devices, using
four different cell phone operating systems, from multiple manufacturers, all of
which could be operated by someone with a variety of disabilities, not the least
of which would be someone who is blind or has low vision.
2147
These devices are commercially available. They are in the marketplace, but because
there is no requirement by the carriers to provide these devices, they are not
available in Canada.
2148
As Neil Squire said previously, you have to go to the States to get
them.
2149
Your general consumer has a cell phone that is subsidized by the carrier,
as in a sub‑$500 cell phone.
2150
In the States, all of these devices, if you sign up for a carrier's
offering, are also available at a sub‑$500 cost. But if you buy it unlocked or as an
independent person, you are looking at about $1,000 out of your
pocket.
2151
So everybody else gets a $39 cheapie phone that works for them, and
persons with disabilities are left by the wayside.
2152
I am not going to talk about the legislative aspect of things. I notice that ARCH and many other people
who are far more eloquent on this topic than I are on the agenda, so I will
leave it to them to, effectively, do that.
2153
But I do want to talk about the fact that technical standards exist. They are out there. Other organizations and other
legislation are applying them.
2154
We often look at these requirements as being things that are separate, as
in special things for special people.
2155
A number of years ago we would send persons with disabilities off to
institutions, because we thought we needed special things for special
people. Why do people want access
to basic services in the real world, such as access to buildings, restaurants
and other services?
2156
We have moved away from that.
We now have curb cuts and accessibility standards for
buildings.
2157
We had the same problem with the school systems. Kids were sent off to institutions and
other areas, as opposed to offered educational opportunities. We have moved away from
that.
2158
In the information management, information technology and
telecommunications sectors we are dealing with the same challenge. We think that specialized,
compartmentalized services are really helping persons with disabilities, but in
the larger scope of things, the application of standards and requirements in
procurement, contracting, development and acquisitions will benefit not just
persons with disabilities, but the general public. This applies to devices, to software, to
systems and information.
2159
The standards are geared toward providing device independence ‑‑
that a variety of technologies, required by a variety of persons with
disabilities, can access these services, can know about offerings and other
pieces on the web, out in the systems, out in
publications.
2160
The other side of things is that, by applying these standards, today's
accommodations become tomorrow's services.
The curb cuts and electronic door openers that we required years and
years ago, we now consider them to be just a part of building systems, a part of
the design of things.
2161
By applying the same type of standards, standards that reflect the needs
of persons with disabilities, we can move toward a service that meets
everybody's needs, instead of a service that really meets nobody's
needs.
2162
More specifically, we talk about web content and information that is
becoming more and more pushed to the web.
Our day‑to‑day lives are all based around the web. Our work is all based around the
web. The carriers and service
providers provide material on the web ‑‑ everything from television
programming schedules to deals to promotional activities to devices, and so
on. If we don't look at
accessibility as both a technical requirement and a usability requirement,
persons with disabilities will be excluded from those
services.
2163
Accessibility needs to be applied at the beginning of activities and
throughout a project. Without that
weaving into mainstream activities and projects, the needs of persons with
disabilities will be left behind.
2164
If we do not define and document the rationale and the requirements in
everything we do, then we are just hoping for the goodwill of others, which
doesn't get us very far.
2165
We have a number of good examples, both in Canada and abroad, including,
as a starting point for accessibility in information services and information
technology areas, the Government of Canada toolkit, the accessible procurement
toolkit, which has requirements that could easily be injected into every
contract and every procurement activity that is done, both globally and by
carriers.
2166
This has also been adopted by a number of other governments abroad. I have been told that the European Union
has even adopted these standards ‑‑ or has adopted this toolkit, which
points to standards that can be cut‑and‑pasted into mainstream
activities.
2167
The last thing I want to say is, the more severe the disability ‑‑
we have statistical information that points to the fact that the more severe the
disability, the more limits to participation in the general
public.
2168
That is pretty much what I wanted to talk
about.
2169
MR. C. STARK: I don't know
whether we have any time left for our presentation, but if you would rather ask
questions, I can speak for hours on obstacles to our use as
customers.
2170
The deferral accounts, moneys that were supposed to benefit disabilities,
from what I can see, the carriers are still fighting over that bone, and I have
experienced no benefit from it.
2171
I don't know, Marie, if you want to add anything.
2172
MS STARK: Not really. I will answer the questions as they
come.
2173
For me, the most important step is to start implementing from the
beginning of projects. As Jeff was
mentioning, you have to be inclusive in all aspects of a project, from the
beginning throughout. It is always
seen as being a retrofit right now, or as doing something additional. That is one of the reasons why we are
always falling behind. We always
seem to be catching up. It seems to
be a never‑ending battle going upstream, instead of downstream. You are fighting against the
waves.
2174
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much for your presentation this morning. We do have a couple of questions for
you, and I will ask Commissioner Duncan to lead the questions, but I do want to
say that I have been with the Commission for five or six years, and I was
actually in a staff position as well, and I did follow the issues that the
Starks have been bringing up to the Commission for many years. We are glad to actually see you here, as
well.
2175
I will pass it on to Commissioner Duncan.
2176
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Good
morning, Mr. Stark, Jeff Stark, and Marie.
My name is Elizabeth Duncan, and I am the Atlantic Region
Commissioner. As the Chairman said,
I am going to lead the questions.
2177
I will direct my questions to Mr. Chris Stark, and you can redirect them
as you feel appropriate.
2178
First of all, I want to say that your presentation is very thorough, so I
think you have answered a lot of the questions I had. I still have a few others, but the
staff, I want to assure you, will take into consideration everything that you
submitted. As I said, it is a very
thorough presentation, and I think, in the oral phase here, we only heard a
portion of it, but we will study it all.
I want you to know that for sure.
2179
I want to start with described video. I am wondering if you have a view on
what types of programs are best suited ‑‑
2180
Let me say that the Commission has first considered that described video
is best suited to programs with significant visual elements that are key to the
storyline, such as drama, documentaries and children's
programming.
2181
Some parties are of the view that described video could be expanded to
include other genres of programming, and I am wondering what additional genres
you feel would lend themselves to described video.
2182
MR. C. STARK: Audio
description and descriptive video, I think, are at the heart of your
question.
2183
It really depends on the nature of the audio
description.
2184
I know that Marie gets awfully upset listening to or watching a Senators'
game. The announcers are off
telling stories about last night's visit to the bar, and the play is going
on ‑‑ "Oh, they scored."
2185
Well, she doesn't know anything.
2186
Then, when there are things like a reporter from, say, Washington giving
a report, there is usually stuff on the bottom about who he is talking to and
who he hasn't spoken to.
2187
Another area that is critical for us is on‑screen programming/audio
output. To me, that is something
that carriers can do fairly cheaply.
2188
I think that a basic answer to your question is everything, but you have
to move in increments. If you have
adventure and kids' programming, particularly kids'
programming ‑‑
2189
I don't see any descriptive narration on CPAC at all. You could have a speech before the
Canadian Club, and the guy on the secondary audio could say: The Prime Minister is wearing a blue
pinstriped suit today, with a red tie.
2190
Well, everybody else knows that, but I don't.
2191
Or, they are sitting in a semi‑circle.
2192
It is no different from the courtesy that you folks have extended us
today by identifying yourselves before you speak. I can't even see ‑‑ I know you are
out there somewhere.
2193
I am not sure if that is answering your question or pounding my soapbox,
but the issue is that descriptive narration has some role in sports, maybe not
every little thing ‑‑
2194
MS STARK: Maybe not as much
as in some other areas.
2195
MR. C. STARK: But certainly
some.
2196
I still haven't been able to get the Weather Network's descriptive
narration, and I have now gone to digital.
There are four key strokes to check a channel ‑‑ four key strokes,
with four choices that I can't read.
There is a limit to my memory.
2197
Most people can remember four or five things, and tomorrow they remember
them differently.
2198
So having a hot key to flip back and forth would increase my ability to
use that service.
2199
Do you want me to go on, or have I ‑‑
2200
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: No, I
think that's fine, Mr. Stark. I do
appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that we have to move in increments, and
I note your point about CPAC.
Hopefully they will hear your point. I think they have been recognized in
some of the material I have read as doing a good job on closed captioning, I
gather, so hopefully they will hear your point on described
video.
2201
With respect to The Weather Network, I have a question. I thought that I had read where you
could get a descriptive narration on the SAP channel for
Newsworld.
2202
Am I wrong in that?
2203
MR. C. STARK: On the SAP
channel for Newsworld it's my understanding and experience that that's
voiceprint. There are a couple of
half hours, I think. There used to
be a day. But, you know, when you
are at 7:00 at night and you need to know whether a storm is coming, I still
haven't been able to access it.
2204
I spoke to the folks at The Weather Network who are making a submission
and they were saying that not all carriers pass through their descriptive
narration on their channel.
2205
So I'm not really qualified to say any more than that. I haven't been able to find it and it's
probably a good example of lack of information because we don't know how to do
it.
2206
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: If I
can, I will just also acknowledge, then, that what I gather from your remarks is
that you see that there is benefit in ‑‑ although you recognize it might be
nice to have things 100 per cent described, you do recognize there is a place
for both the audio description and the described
video.
2207
I do note that you feel that there should be maybe more controls or more
checks on the audio descriptions so broadcasters maybe get feedback so they
know, because I have also been annoyed watching hockey games and hearing
needless chatter when I would rather hear the game described even though I'm
looking at it.
2208
So, you know, I sympathize with that.
2209
So maybe we do need some feedback to broadcasters. I'm sure that they would like to deliver
what their listeners want, so I think those are all very helpful
comments.
2210
MR. C. STARK: Most of the
30‑odd recommendations you have before you hopefully in the summary docket in
your briefing book are what I would call low‑cost/no‑cost solutions; things
like, you know, having somebody tell you when you call up this is how you sort
this problem out.
2211
Not as happened to me a little while ago. Well, how many lights are on your
modem? I don't know. I can't see lights. Oh, just why can't you see the lights
online? Oh, just a moment, and I'm
off to the deaf relay service.
2212
That's valuable for people who can't hear, but I can hear. It doesn't do anything for
me.
2213
So training is a vital part of all of that and knowing their front‑line
staff and people with disabilities knowing what is offered and what is
available.
2214
This phone is a Rogers phone and we told somebody about it and they
called up and they said oh, well we never had a phone for the blind. This is three months ago and I know it's
still available. Its advantage is
they bundle the talking program and they bundle the phone
together.
2215
But it is a generation two.
It doesn't always work on all the services. So as a result, when you use it you have
to sign a two or three‑year contract, pay triple what a person who doesn't have
the need for the Talks Program and 80 per cent of blind people I would say live
at poverty level or below. We are
the lucky ones.
2216
So back to your descriptive narration, the increments are recognized but
they have to be predictable and then there have to be some
standards.
2217
Like if I could some day see the national news read by a gentleman in
braille, or a sports report from a gentleman using a sign language interpreter,
or a lady who is in a wheelchair covering an event, you know, those are the
kinds of roles industry can play.
2218
And my wife says I'm babbling.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
2219
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Well,
she did that very discreetly because I didn't notice.
2220
Let me just continue, then, with some of the questions that I have here
for you, but your comments are very helpful.
2221
If we were to decide that the level of described video should be
increased, do you think that it would be better to specify a number of hours or
a percentage of the overall programming?
2222
Which do you think would be a more appropriate way to state
it?
2223
MR. C. STARK: A percentage
because then you would have different ‑‑ either way will work, but because
you would have a variety of programming.
As long as that percentage went rate across the
board.
2224
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Okay.
2225
MR. C. STARK: Jeff, did you
want to say ‑‑
2226
MR. J. STARK: I was just
going to say a more diverse offering.
2227
MR. C. STARK: Yes, a more
diverse offering. If there was
anything to be emphasized, it would be health and kids
programming.
2228
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: We did
have a little chat about the genres, so I take your point that it's obviously
more meaningful to you to have access to a wider variety of
programming.
2229
That kind of leads into my next question, which is about the accessible
channel which is expected to launch shortly. I'm assuming that you are familiar with
it.
2230
I just am wondering what you consider to be the role of The Accessible
Channel and, as we go forward do you think it's a substitute for a requirement
for the over the air broadcasters or do you think it should be in addition to
that?
2231
MR. C. STARK: It is
certainly in my view ‑‑ and l'll let Marie and Jeff comment because they
will have something to say about it ‑‑ not a substitute. I don't want to watch the
accessible ‑‑ I don't want to watch Grey's Anatomy on The Accessible
Channel at 3:00 in the morning. I
want to watch Grey's Anatomy with my friends on a regular channel at 9:00 at
night.
2232
So what the accessible ‑‑ you know, if you want to take the 11 cents
per subscriber per month, there may be better ways of using that money. It may benefit some people. If it does, that's great. In general, I don't listen to it because
it doesn't interest me. I don't
want to hear described 1930s movies and stuff like that and The Shadow. I can get that a number of places. I want contemporary
material.
2233
So I don't see it as a substitute.
If it has any value added, take a look at the number of blind people
using it against the total number of blind people and decide whether it's worth
it.
2234
Marie, do you want to make a comment?
2235
MR. J. STARK: I think we all
want to live somewhere, in the house, but we don't all want to live in the
ghetto. And I think that is to me
what building a separate service apart from the mainstream offering could lead
to.
2236
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you very much for your comments there.
2237
I'm sure it will be of use to certain audiences, especially until you get
equipment or technology that is easier for you to use and navigate. So I'm sure it is going to be
appreciated in that respect.
2238
I think the intention, although I can't really ‑‑ I shouldn't
probably go there. But I understand
the programming will be in line with what is being offered, although I take your
point: everything can't be seen at
9 o'clock at night, so it is not all going to be played at the time you might
want to see it.
2239
But anyway, I thank you for your comments and I understand
them.
2240
I think it goes without saying that you would agree that a working group
would be beneficial. A working
group with the industry to prioritize and to give the industry a better
understanding of what your requirements are would be
beneficial.
2241
And obviously ‑‑ I shouldn't say obviously.
2242
Do you think there is a necessity for that to be a requirement, a
regulated requirement?
2243
MR. C. STARK: Well, if you
want my short answer, it's three letters:
yes.
2244
The reason for that is my experience in the regulatory environment is
that if they don't have to report on it and its accomplishments, then it will
gradually lapse and be not very effective.
2245
I would like to see programming committees that would look at everything
from employment to equipment accessibility to, in the case of my poor old
CPAC ‑‑ I didn't plan to pick on them today, but...
2246
I don't remember ‑‑ and I looked yesterday ‑‑ that they have
ever carried a program of activities for 20 per cent of Canada's population,
people with disabilities, whether it's December 3rd, accessibility day, or maybe
they are carrying these hearings.
But I was able to find it on the website with the help of your staff and
enjoyed some good listening yesterday.
2247
So the issue then is that it is no simple answer, but the more people you
can get involved the better.
2248
Let me give you a precise example.
2249
In 1994 there wasn't an accessible bank machine in the country. We and a few others went after the Royal
Bank ‑‑ God bless its soul. It
still has my money, whatever is left of it after the stock
crash ‑‑
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
2250
MR. C. STARK: And they then
set up a focus group in Toronto, brought in the manufacturers, tried out
different designs, decided on one and they rolled it
out.
2251
The first one was here in Ottawa at Bank and Queen in 1996, I think. And we had hoped that by that technology
knowhow that it would have resulted in every bank machine in the country being
accessible. It
hasn't.
2252
What it has resulted in is that technology going south and there are over
100,000 accessible bank machines in the United States.
2253
So, you know, the technology exists if nobody is willing to use it and
the costs are ‑‑ you know, once you roll it out, the costs are
insignificant.
2254
MS STARK: There are
standards as well, don't forget.
2255
MR. C. STARK: There are CSA
standards for phones, accessible kiosks, which are another aspect of all of this
whole business.
2256
I think that ‑‑ you know, for example, the Commission ordered as one
of our ravings of the past that pay phones have a pip on the five for
orientation. That has gone right
through the industry.
2257
My Panasonic new television has a pip on the five. But does my converter from my set‑top
box?
No.
2258
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you, Mr. Stark. I will
continue on with the questions, because you are making a lot of good
points. As I say, we will take them
all into consideration.
2259
I wanted to talk to you about Electronic Programming
Guides.
2260
I understand that it may be possible to have a unique audio tone on an
Electronic Programming Guide to indicate the availability of a described video
program.
2261
I'm just wondering if you think that is realistic and practical. Do you think that is something that
would work?
2262
MR. C. STARK: Well, you
would have to try it, but off the top of my head it would be better than what we
have now, which is nothing.
2263
What I would like is to be able to go to Channel 7 say, CJOH, and get a
beep that let's me know that there is a descriptive narration program in
progress and then to hit one key and go listen to
it.
2264
I don't use the menu at the moment.
I am a long proponent and much of what you heard on this little machine
here was a synthetic voice. It
seems to me there is no reason why the on‑screen programming can't be hooked up
for either keyboard navigation or navigation through a third ‑‑ a
peripheral so that you can scroll through the programs available and with the
beep then tell me that one has descriptive narration.
2265
Right now the whole system is unusable for me.
2266
Would you agree with that, Jeff?
2267
MR. J. STARK: I would say
that there's sort of the three problems, right. There is the lack of the on‑screen
programming, the television guides and all the wealth of information provided
people about what shows are on and that's almost necessary these days with,
what, 400 channels to choose from, as far as knowing what's on it what's
available.
2268
There is also, as he said, the issue of making the narration
known ‑‑ or letting people know that the descriptive narration is available
and making it easy for people to turn that on, leave it on or switch to it when
necessary.
2269
And right now, because the whole system doesn't provide any text to
speech output, there is no opportunity for that.
2270
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I think
that I have trouble myself visualizing how the tone and even the audio guide
would work, but I think that only underscores that there is obviously a need and
there is a need for collaboration and input from the
community.
2271
So we will take again that into consideration.
2272
I'm just going to move ahead to ‑‑ let's see what else I have
here.
2273
With regard to new media, we were just wondering if you had an opinion on
the most appropriate type of professional broadcast content that should be
described online.
2274
We heard yesterday from the CAB ‑‑ I don't know if you're listening
at that point ‑‑ that it isn't a simple matter to take the programming that
is described on the linear television and put that on the
Internet.
2275
So I don't know how practical it is.
2276
Do you have an opinion on what would be the most appropriate professional
broadcast content you would like to see?
Like would it be drama, for example, or children's programming? Would you prioritize it that
way?
2277
MR. J. STARK: So you are
talking about IPTV? Is that
where ‑‑
2278
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: It's
not IPTV.
2279
MR. J. STARK: Or are you
talking about videos on the web or ‑‑
2280
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: It's
the videos, like for example ‑‑
2281
MR. J. STARK: ‑‑ content on the web.
2282
There are standards out there for all of those, both on the web and in
general. So if we apply those
standards, there would be lots of opportunity.
2283
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: What we
are talking about here, if I can just clarify, is in an instance where CTV has a
program that has described video on it but then when they put it on their
website it doesn't have the described video portion with
it.
2284
So if ‑‑ because there is obviously a cost. They have given us that evidence
yesterday. There is a cost to doing
it.
2285
If they were to prioritize, what priority, which programming would you
prioritize as number one, for example:
children's, drama?
2286
MR. C. STARK: Well,
personally I would priorize the more popular ones. You know, if it has good ratings, you
obviously want it.
2287
If it's children, you would do good to have that. If it's programming to help people live
longer, that kind of stuff. And
current affairs as well.
2288
But I don't see why it should cost more because the Internet is so much
more flexible. So you get on this
program, let's say it's The House or CTV Live with Mike Duffy. Well, if you want to download that from
the Internet, you go and you click on okay, I want that in English, I want that
maybe in French, I want that maybe in descriptive narration. So you make your
choice.
2289
It's no different than the Canadian, God help us, Revenue Canada website
where I can go in and click on their pamphlets for downloading and get it in
plain text, HTML, PDF or a PRN file for braille.
2290
So my point is I would have to see why it costs so much to make something
that already exists for the on the air programming expensive on the
net.
2291
So if I understood that, then I might give you more of a useful
answer. But to me that don't make
sense because if you already have produced it ‑‑
2292
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Well,
we will have an opportunity to follow up with the broadcasters and get further
explanation of why it would be more expensive. I'm just ‑‑
2293
MS STARK: Can I add
something?
2294
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes,
certainly.
2295
MS STARK: A thought that
always comes to mind every time I hear about this, what do you call it,
captioning for the deaf is brought to you by, it has become a source of revenue
and all the captioning, I would think, for all the broadcasters or whoever is
making money out of that, because obviously if they are getting sponsors right
and left. Well maybe eventually the
same thing could happen to descriptive narration.
2296
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you for that.
2297
MS STARK: Anyway, that's the
thought that comes to mind. When I
hear that I tell myself, my God, you know, maybe once the service becomes more
known throughout the industry that this service is needed and is being used,
maybe they will be able to get ‑‑ that will become a source of
funding.
2298
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: We did
ask that question yesterday, so that is on the ‑‑ we are considering that;
that that might be a possibility.
2299
I don't want to miss anything here and I have my pages a bit out of order
here, so just bear with me a second if you would.
‑‑‑ Pause
2300
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I'm
just wondering how you would prioritize the different measures that have been
identified for persons with disability.
2301
You know, if we only could do a few things at a time, what would be your
highest priority?
2302
MR. C. STARK: Well, the
first thing is to be able to access the service.
2303
MS STARK:
Regulation.
2304
MR. C. STARK: You forbeared
in the telephone, you forbeared in the marketplace for cell phones, you
forbeared in a number of aspects of the cable and satellite business. And if that forbearance could be limited
by a requirement to demonstrate how everybody can use the service through
universal design, then that would probably be the top
priority.
2305
Industry can come up with the solutions if they know they have to; and if
they don't, well, it may impinge on their licence or
whatever.
2306
But right now the marketplace is a free‑for‑all, and we are not able to
cope with that.
2307
Could you repeat your question again, please?
2308
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes,
sure.
2309
We have had a number of suggestions from different groups as to what
measures could be taken to improve accessibility. So I was just asking you to maybe
identify the ones that you would rank as being the first priority, the top
priorities, maybe the first three.
2310
MR. C. STARK: Well, that
would be number one, to make them accountable.
2311
Number two would be to develop some mechanism for people who are blind,
and maybe for others, to access some of the control and management
information.
2312
I have a program for the Internet which is much easier to use than
Internet Explorer, and much safer.
So that is the second point, is to be able to manage your information in
a way that makes sense to us: not columns, not charts, not graphics, not pop up
windows.
2313
That reminds me, and then I will give you number
three.
2314
Marie got a note yesterday from Rogers: Merry Christmas. Rogers has a Christmas gift for
you. Click on this before ‑‑
go before December 14. So she goes
and the screen doesn't read anything to her.
2315
So I guess that was a bit of improper advertising, because it should have
said if you are sighted, Rogers has a free Christmas gift for
you.
2316
That is the effect on our psyche of feeling excluded, ghettoized and
marginalized.
2317
The third area I think that would be very important would be to have
website accessibility, to have on‑screen program access, to have the list of
services available, like everything from free directory
assistance.
2318
There are blind people out there that don't know that we can get
directory assistance and then as a result of ASIC's application, hit one and get
it free dial.
2319
It is especially true with the cell phone operators. They are not equipped to handle that in
any way.
2320
So the issue is once we are told it doesn't exist, then nine times out of
ten you believe that, even if it isn't true.
2321
So information is number three.
2322
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank
you very much. I think that a lot
of that would probably be accomplished by working groups, or could be at any
rate. That is something to
consider.
2323
One last question for me, because we are running out of time and I think
probably some of the other Panel members have
questions.
2324
Yesterday with regard to accessibility of information, the CNIB
recommended that customer service manuals should be navigable, that they should
be available on CD or via website.
2325
I'm just wondering your reaction to that, if that would serve your
purpose?
2326
MR. C. STARK: I'm going to
ask Jeff in a second to comment, but I want to give you another story. I sound like an old curmudgeon on the
wharf giving stories, but anyway.
2327
When I got this phone I said what about an accessible manual and they
said oh, call Nokia and they will make it available right quick. We have an arrangement with
them.
2328
Well, I'm still waiting. And
after calling four or five times and calling back Rogers, I gave
up.
2329
So it's not just an accessible manual in a navigable format, which
probably would be Daisy, it is an accessible manual to begin with. And all manuals should be accessible in
the format of your choice: braille,
audio, plain text, HTML, PDF, whatever.
2330
Jeff, do you want to finish that one?
2331
MR. J. STARK: No, I think
that was very effectively done.
2332
The only thing I would add to it is the fact that if the information is
provided in an accessible form online, which is usually just HTML provided so
that it meets the Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0, then a lot less
requests for multiple format would be required as well.
2333
So if these things get applied universally, all types of areas could be
benefited by them.
2334
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Okay. Well, thank you very
much, all of you. I appreciate your
comments.
2335
Mr. Chairman, that finishes my questioning. Thank you.
2336
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
2337
Once again, I'm Len Katz, the Chairperson of this proceeding. I want to thank the Starks very
much. I don't think there are any
other questions. I polled the other
Commissioners on the Panel here.
2338
I do want to take the opportunity to thank all three, Chris, Marie and
Jeff Stark, for appearing before us today and I will look forward to meeting
with you at a future opportunity.
2339
Thank you very much.
2340
MR. C. STARK: Okay. Thank you and please hit a home
run.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
2341
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Madam Secretary, can we just take a
five‑minute intermission to allow the next party to come
up?
2342
THE SECRETARY: All
right.
2343
I just want to note for the record before the break that the list of Mr.
Stark's recommendations distributed to the Panel Members will be registered as
STARK Exhibit No. 1 and the Jeff Stark PowerPoint presentation will be
registered as STARK Exhibit No. 2.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1141 / Suspension à
1141
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1151 / Reprise à
1151
2344
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before
we begin, a quick announcement. It
is now 10 minutes before 12:00. My
name is Leonard Katz. I am the
Chairman of the proceeding.
2345
I have a hard stop at 12:45, but if we are not finished with this panel
we are going to resume after lunch with the same
panel.
2346
It is not my intent to force any issues here at all, but if we don't
complete before lunch we will reconvene after lunch with the same
group.
2347
With that said, Madam Secretary...?
2348
THE SECRETARY: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
2349
I will now call on the Canadian Association of the Deaf for their
presentation. Please introduce
yourselves and proceed with your presentation.
2350
Thank you.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2351
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): Hi,
my name is Jim Roots. I am the
Executive Director at the Canadian Association of the
Deaf.
2352
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
Hello, my name is Henry Vlug and I am here in two
capacities.
2353
To begin with, I am a lawyer for the Canadian Association of the Deaf,
but I am also here in a personal capacity.
I am Henry Vlug, representing myself.
2354
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): I
would like to ask for your indulgence if my presentation goes a little bit
longer than the 15 minutes, because we are relying on the sign language
interpreters.
2355
We are listed here as the Canadian Association of the Deaf but we are
also representing two other organizations, the Canadian Cultural Society of the
Deaf and Sign Relay Canada.
2356
We are pleased that the CRTC has called this proceeding to focus on
issues of accessibility, but we would like to say that this can't be a one‑time
event. One public hearing doesn't
resolve all the issues of accessibility.
The Commission needs to use this public hearing to establish a permanent
mechanism for ongoing consultations regarding
accessibility.
2357
When we talk about consultation, we mean both the CRTC and industry
players. The Commission itself has
no consultation with disability consumer groups. You depend entirely upon our
participation in your proceedings and that is not good
enough.
2358
In telecommunications American companies are much more interested in
consulting with Canadian consumers than Canadian companies
are.
2359
In the past six months the Canadian Association of the Deaf has been
contacted two times by Canadian companies.
At the same time, we have been contacted nearly 100 times by American
companies.
2360
The broadcasters are a bit better at consultation. The CAB, Canadian Association of
Broadcasters, has good relations with us, as well as the CBC, but there are a
lot of expectations that we will rubberstamp any recommendations that they
make.
2361
Decisions are made without seeking our input, but we have seen that
captioning isn't the greatest and we have made formal complaints. They will go out of their way to meet
with us to discuss different solutions, but the answers are that they can't fix
our complaints because they have made decisions regarding the captioning prior
to our participation.
2362
Real consultation includes us in research and development and during that
phase. We should be part of the
decision‑making process and we should be part of the company as
staff.
2363
In last year's CRTC proceedings about the deferral accounts we warned you
repeatedly that the regional VRS cannot succeed in Canada; that only a national
VRS could be successful. At the
time the Commission decided that the deferral accounts money could only be used
for regional or provincial services, not for national
services.
2364
The result is that it has given us another long delay in bringing VRS to
Canada.
2365
Bell Canada agrees with us so they have postponed pursuing the VRS system
here in Canada.
2366
It appears that the Commission itself recognizes too late that they have
made a mistake and now we are looking into ideas on how we can set up a national
program. That just emphasizes that
you should have listened to us in the first place.
2367
We want to take a minute and talk about two different issues around the
VRS.
2368
In the United States they have had the service for many years. They have already done the
experimentation and their research and they have come up with solutions to most
of the problems. We need to learn
from their experience. We don't
need to reinvent the wheel. We just
need to move on with the VRS system.
2369
The technical specifications that we want to discuss is the call setup
and signalling protocol.
2370
Currently there are two standards, the H323 or 323 and SIP. Nearly all of the new devices coming to
the market are SIP‑based. Most of
these have backward compatibility to the H323. Canada doesn't have the legacy of H323
so it is wiser to standardize now with the SIP
technology.
2371
The second technical specification that we want to discuss is the
dialling number.
2372
Without a well‑defined dialling mechanism each vendor would introduce its
own pseudo‑name or a number for calls between the vendor's own domain of users,
for example, callers from one of its customers to another of its customers. However, when one vendor's customer
calls a person who uses a different vendor, they would have to use the lowest
common denominator, which is the IP address.
2373
This is the awkward and time‑consuming process and can lead to poor video
transmission.
2374
Recently the FCC established a standard. It is a 10‑digit number that the VRS
users input, but we need to learn from their experience.
2375
As we know, the major reason why we don't have a VRS in Canada is around
the question of how to pay for it.
Again, we are saying to look at the American model. Their model is fantastic and we should
bring it here in Canada.
2376
All the American phone companies, wireless providers and related
businesses contribute monies to the Telecom Relay Services Fund, the TRS. Practically anyone can set up a Video
Relay Service and then send an invoice for monthly costs to the TRS fund for
reimbursement.
2377
The rate of reimbursement is based on the formula called the TRS
rate.
2378
The advantage is obvious.
There is open competition to provide the Video Relay Service in the
marketplace and the marketplace will choose the best companies, more or
less.
2379
We have to remind you that the Commission ‑‑ sorry, that the
Canadian federal government made it clear that it wants us to foster competition
and market driven services. Last
February we set up a process for spending the deferral account monies, and the
monies aren't earmarked for a Video Relay Service.
2380
Some private phone companies have already partnered with American
companies with the assumption that the CRTC will approve a Canadian Video Relay
Service.
2381
We are generations behind. Other countries are providing a service
and telephone companies are offering very few solutions to deaf and hard of
hearing individuals, for example, with a message relay service. But consumers are endlessly complaining
that the service quality isn't good, that it isn't very
efficient.
2382
If you adopt the TRS fund model, it will allow these companies to provide
services with much greater efficiency and equality. It would be a huge mistake to restrict
the provision of VRS to only the existing telephone
companies.
2383
The Accessibility Fund is separate from the Video Relay Service Fund, so
we are talking about two separate funds.
The Accessibility Fund is already in place and we are in support of a
national accessibility fund and it should be under the control of disability
consumer groups.
2384
Many companies are involved in this process anticipating that the CRTC
will be focusing on the Video Relay Service in the next year and that the
Accessibility Fund will be available.
But we are asking not to go that route because we already have a good
model in the United States. It
would be good to follow it here in Canada, otherwise we will be wasting another
year.
2385
We have an expert report from Ed Bosson, who is the father of the Video
Relay Service, and he lists specific references for the rules by which the
American TRS fund operates. It is
laid out in simple terms and can be copied here for use in
Canada.
2386
There is still time left during the present proceedings to deal with the
Video Relay Service.
2387
I would also like to talk about emergency 911
services.
2388
For the last 20, 30 years we have been talking about improving services
for the deaf and hard of hearing.
It is very frustrating that there isn't one central organization
responsible for emergency services.
2389
The CRTC establishes the regulations but limits its own authority in this
issue. Most of the municipalities
hold the responsibility and we don't have the resources to deal with hundreds of
municipalities across Canada.
2390
We would like to suggest that some of the funds from the accessibility
monies be used to conduct international research to see what is available and
also what is possible. We know that
there has already been a lot of research and development outside of Canada for
911 emergency services, but Henry is a volunteer and I can only devote so much
of my energies on that issue.
2391
We need the funds in order to hire experts to be able to do that research
so we can come up with good solutions.
2392
With CBC hockey night that plays on Saturday nights the captioning is hit
or miss, but Don Cherry's captioning is horrendous. We know that Don Cherry is a motormouth
and that he speaks very quickly and the captioning or the captionists can't keep
up with his rate of speech.
2393
On Sunday mornings CBC, on their website, they do a replay of what he
said the previous night, but it's broadcast without captioning. My question is: Why don't they use that website and use
the time lag to improve the captioning so it's available the following
day?
2394
I would also like to talk about the size of TV
screens.
2395
About 15 years ago it was determined that if a screen was less than 13
inches that it didn't require a decoder inside of the unit. Any units larger than 13 inches required
a decoder. But Canada didn't really
establish its own regulations around that, and today you can't find a decoder
inside a unit smaller than 13 inches here in
Canada.
2396
It means that cell phones with the screens that can broadcast video
transmissions don't have captioning.
The monitors at the airport don't require the decoder, or even on
airplanes.
2397
The ruling or the decision was based on old information. We assumed that deaf persons wouldn't be
able to read small captioning, but we were never asked and we need to have that
accessibility in the same way that everyone else does.
2398
You can read captioning on a smaller device. It is available there when you watch
Newsworld. So the captioning should
be available on smaller units than 13 inches.
2399
The Commission lacks awareness around disability right and issues because
there isn't a disability unit within the Commission itself. I have heard before that the CRTC has
many disabled employees, but they are not in a unit that focuses on disability
issues and who has the authority to make decisions or
recommendations.
2400
We need to establish a disability unit within the CRTC. We need to approach the government and
say we need this disability unit so they can focus on different issues that
affect us and to appoint a disabled person on the board of
commissioners.
2401
We feel that you need to start taking action and move forward with
different issues. What we suggest
that you start with is establishing the Canadian video relay service fund, and
secondly, to establish the national accessibility fund. We need to be able to use some of those
funds from the accessibility fund to be used for the 911 emergency
service.
2402
We would like to have a policy change to extend the captioning to all
televisions and new media regardless of the screen size. We would like to see a disability unit
within the Commission with substantial authority, resources, and for all the
employees within that unit to have some kind of
disability.
2403
We would like to send a letter to the Canadian government recommending at
least one person with a profound disability be appointed to the CRTC as a
commissioner as soon as possible and to direct all industry participants to
develop plans for ongoing consultations that include hiring persons with
disabilities and make sure that it is not just a rubber‑stamping opportunity and
not to call a second process next year to make decisions on the video relay
service. We would like to see it
happen now, before April 1st. Thank
you.
2404
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you. I think, Madam Chairman, we
were going to have Mr. Vlug as well?
2405
THE SECRETARY: Yes. Mr. Vlug, we would invite you to begin
your presentation and we will follow with the panel questions for
both.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2406
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I am
fine with that.
2407
My comments now will be personal and not in relation to CAD, but there
definitely is some overlap.
2408
I have been working for myself and for the Canadian Association of the
Deaf for more than 40 years now and it has been quite frustrating. When I saw the blind individuals give
their presentation, the Starks, earlier talking about descriptive video and your
questions, I felt like it brought me back in time.
2409
It is the same old crap.
Excuse me, I am sorry. You
don't seem to have learned any lessons from our information that we provided
years ago. You have asked which
channels we would like to have audio description and what priorities you would
like to give us, but it is the same questions you asked us which channels should
be closed captioned.
2410
And the questions about incremental increases, those are the same
questions that we have answered years ago and our answer is it should be a
hundred percent descriptive video.
Blind people should not have to pick and choose what shows and they
should not have a segregated channel.
2411
And those answers apply to the deaf community as well. I am sympathetic towards the groups, the
blind people, and they have to go through the same things that we went through
when we instituted or asked for closed‑captioning
services.
2412
And the same excuses have come from the industry as well: it is far too expensive; it is
technically impossible. We have
heard those excuses in the past and it is simply not true.
2413
Financial hardship is another issue and people from the broadcasting
associations crying, saying that there is a turn of events, difficult economic
times coming up, but those are the same excuses we heard 20 years ago. If you do your math, the cost would be
less than one percent of the whole budget to provide the full access that we
require.
2414
And now I see that you are questioning the industry and the lawyers and
counsel are questioning industry about what is undue hardship. Undue hardship is
the right measurement to use for that, and less than one percent of the total
cost of their budget is not undue hardship.
2415
You have seen my personal submissions that I have submitted within the
proceedings, and you can tell ‑‑ I don't know how to say it but I am
extremely frustrated with the complaint procedure in regards to closed
captioning. It is totally useless
and still is.
2416
There have been one or two exceptions where we have had some
success. You saw the person from
Rogers here yesterday. Susan
Wheeler, I believe, was her name.
2417
Once, a few months ago, I finally got a response and saw some changes to
accommodate or to improve the closed captioning.
2418
But we didn't see any action before that. All we would receive was apologies and
they didn't seem to take closed captioning seriously or their response would
be: I am sorry, it is just a human
error, technical difficulties, you will just have to live with
it.
2419
And hearing that again and again and again, it is ‑‑ you know, it is
like the little boy taking care of the sheep and crying wolf. Once in a while there will be technical
difficulties, once in a while there will be human error, not most of the
time.
2420
And usually the technical difficulties can be fixed, and as far as human
error is concerned, they can do something about it.
2421
But they don't act. And why
don't they act? It is because of
you.
2422
In the past, you would have regulated standards for closed captioning,
and there had to be a 90 percent without error rate and you would enforce
that. But every time in the past,
there would be the excuse: Sorry,
we made a mistake but we have still surpassed our 90 percent non‑error rate, our
capacity.
2423
So if they are over 90 percent, then there is no action. So you allow for that 10 percent margin
of errors but that is too large. We
need 100 percent captioning.
2424
I still today look at channels and I can't understand why there isn't any
captioning if you say there is to be 90 percent captioning, but there are many
channels that don't provide captioning.
2425
So now we finally have this new rule, 100 percent captioning but there is
an exception to that. We understand
that there may be human errors and technical difficulties that may not allow
them to have 100 percent captioning, so that is there open. So every time we complain, they will
say: Oh! It was human error;
technical difficulty.
2426
And so then your staff is stuck because you have this proviso saying they
are allowed to have ‑‑ there is an exception and you are allowed to have
human error and technical difficulties, and so then we can't follow
through.
2427
I suggest that you get serious about it, set up standards like the
Americans, that they propose, the FCC.
The FCC hasn't been passed but their paper ‑‑ and it is mentioned
also in my documents and our positions that we have submitted ‑‑ I suggest
you look at their regulations. They
have some great descriptions and their information is exactly the same as what
we do here in Canada.
2428
Their solution comes from a wonderful group of experts which includes
deaf individuals and DI's and NAD and other deaf organizations that have come
together and proposed solutions and they proposed this
FCC.
2429
And then, once again, why reinvent the wheel, just as Jim Roots
said. We shouldn't invent our own
Canadian solution. There is already
a model that we can copy.
2430
I ask you to please set up standards and make the Canadian broadcasters
accountable and that they take these regulations seriously. They say here in Canada, we are better
than any other country in the world.
I would argue, I haven't seen their graph, their report but I have my
doubts. Even if it is true, if it
is indeed true, it is because I have been working for the last 40 years forcing
them to. Without me, we would be
further behind.
2431
I have been coming to CRTC hearings many times, getting you to enforce
these rules, and when I am frustrated and when you refuse to do it, I have to go
to other organizations like the Canadian Association of the Deaf and the
Canadian Human Rights Commission to work on our behalf.
2432
I noticed in the other room, in the examination room, you do have a copy
of the case, the Canadian Human Rights case, Vlug against CBC, and that was 10
years ago now. At that time, the
Canadian Human Rights Commission examined our complaints and wouldn't take their
excuses any longer.
2433
And at that time CBC had been cut back or experienced cutbacks from the
Canadian government and they cried undue hardship, that they didn't have the
funds, just like CAB was doing yesterday, that they didn't have the funds to
provide appropriate accommodations.
And the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave them a chance to prove
undue hardship and they didn't even come close.
2434
And I would argue the same with CAB. If you further investigate what
their budget is, they cannot come close to undue hardship for captioning or for
video description.
2435
I am asking you to please pay attention to the Human Rights
Commission. Don't give the
broadcasters licence to discriminate.
That is what you have been doing and it has to
stop.
2436
I will stop now and would be happy to answer
questions.
2437
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much, gentlemen.
2438
I will turn the mic over to Commissioner Lamarre but I remind everyone
that we will take a break for lunch at 12:45 and we will reconvene, most likely
with this same panel, at 2:15.
2439
Commissioner Lamarre.
2440
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
2441
Thank you, Mr. Vlug, Mr. Roots, for being here with us today and thank
you for providing us with the written format of your presentation for those of
us who do not speak sign language.
2442
I must say I have read with great interest all of your submissions,
including the expert report that you filed in support of your submissions, and
you have made yourself quite clear, what your expectations are and the reasons
for them, completing this with your presentation this
morning.
2443
Despite that, I still have some questions basically to probe on certain
specific issues that you have raised and complete our record on
others.
2444
So I will address these in three separate sections. First, I will start to address a few
questions regarding telecommunications services; second, even though you have
not made specific reference to it this morning in your presentation, I would
like to get your opinion about some issues regarding customer services; and
finally, we will talk about closed captioning.
2445
I do also take your point that, Mr. Vlug, you are legal counsel for the
Canadian Association of the Deaf and you are also here on your personal
behalf. So I will be relying on
either yourself or Mr. Roots to let me know when an opinion by either one of you
is made and is not shared by the both of you.
2446
Mr. Vlug, you have two hats, so please let me know if the two hats do not
fit together, which one you are actually wearing when you are
answering.
2447
MR. VLUG (interpreted): Will
do. I will try my best
anyway.
2448
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Specifically on the VRS availability, I hear you entirely that you are
strong advocates of a national service.
2449
Now, this being said, could you expand on your opinion on the
availability of such a service, the video relay service, as it regards both
scheduling of the availability and also availability in both official languages
of Canada in different parts of Canada?
2450
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): Jim
Roots. Currently, we do not have
VRS in Canada. TELUS is supposed to
be testing their regional VRS in British Columbia and Alberta but they have not
shared anything with us, the deaf community. So I can't share with you what they plan
to provide or what they will provide. That is their way of consulting. They haven't
consulted.
2451
MR. VLUG (interpreted): In
the States, it is available 24/7, 365 days of the
year.
2452
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): It
depends on the funding. If you
enforce it and you have a pool of funding, then it is unlimited. It just depends on how much is in the
pool of funds.
2453
SRC, sign Relay Canada, has made a short proposal last year and they
would provide ‑‑ their proposal was to provide a slow start‑up; for
example, 8:00 to 6:00, five days a week in American Sign Language only for the
first two or three months, and then slowly expand to LSQ, and the delay for LSQ
is that there isn't as many LSQ interpreters available.
2454
So we need to train them to be ready to take on that
role.
2455
Our long‑term goal is to provide relay services 24/7, 365 days a week
(sic) in both official languages, in ASL and LSQ.
2456
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I
would like to add, it depends on what your decision is but if you make the right
decision there will be three or four or five VRS companies who will run to
Canada and provide the service immediately tomorrow and they would be able to
provide that service 24/7, 365 days of the year. And they do have experience with
providing second language interpreting as well.
2457
You can speak with Kelby Brick who is here. He is going to give a presentation
later. He is from one of the
American companies and they provide Spanish interpreting as well. And they have similar problems; they
don't have enough fluent interpreters in Spanish and sign language. But you can ask him the details of
that.
2458
It will not be easy and it will cause some disruption within the deaf
community, just as it is happening now in the States. The deaf community in the States is
disgruntled because the community interpreters are being taken and used for
video relay. Therefore, there's not enough interpreters out there to go to the
doctor's appointments or for students to take university courses or whatever the
case may be for the community.
2459
My personal opinion is that will be a short‑term pain for a long‑term
gain. We are already suffering from
that now here in Canada, without having relay services
here.
2460
Sorenson, an American company, already has four centres in Canada,
perhaps five now ‑‑ you can ask Sorenson when they give their presentation
later ‑‑ and they are currently hiring our Canadian interpreters from our
communities in those centres. So
those areas or regions where those centres lie are already experiencing resource
problems or issues with interpreters.
2461
To answer your question more simply, we should have video relay services
24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year in both
languages.
2462
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: You
mentioned in your presentation that some Canadian companies have already
partnered with U.S. companies in anticipation of implementing in the future a
video relay service.
2463
Are you at liberty of telling us who are these
companies?
2464
MR. ROOTS (interpreted):
Well, it says "confidential."
I know of two myself.
2465
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay.
2466
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): I
know two for sure. I don't know if
the others are really interested but it is confidential.
2467
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay.
2468
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
Officially, there is nothing yet.
None of the telephone companies have said that they are partnering with
anyone.
2469
We have heard through the grapevine from interpreters or friends that
have given us information. What we
have heard is Sorenson and TELUS have an agreement but it is not
official.
2470
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: One of
the issues that keeps creeping up either in submissions by parties or even in
the presentations is the difficulty for the disabled community to find out which
devices are available for their purposes and, more specifically, mobile devices,
wireless phones.
2471
Some service providers have suggested that there are other resources for
persons with disabilities to get that information, such as the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind catalogue that provides information that is suitable to
their needs.
2472
Now, I would like your opinion on this. Do you think that it would be more
effective to get such information on devices availability from service providers
or from third independent parties?
2473
MR. VLUG (interpreted): For
the deaf community that isn't a large issue. We have a pretty good knowledge of
what's available and we are usually alerted to it quite
quickly.
2474
In Ontario, for example, we have the Canadian Hearing Society, and they
have a catalogue with all kinds of technical equipment that is available and
most of that's not available out in the larger
community.
2475
And comparably, out west, we have the Western Institute for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, and they have a similar catalogue for their
market.
2476
So if I need a TTY or some kind of technical equipment that's where I
would go to purchase it. It
wouldn't be worth going to a phone company to get a TTY. I would go to the deaf
centre.
2477
We do have a problem with wireless service providers. My BlackBerry, for example, it's similar
to what you have heard from other organizations: they don't have a package that is geared
towards our community. They have
some plans that accommodate us, but then they hide some other things in the
contract and it's very difficult to find it.
2478
I have a business plan, because I am a business guy, so I know what to
look for in a contract, and so they don't realize that there is this plan
available in the business section that would accommodate
everyone.
2479
Jim is just saying, If I could add,
please?
2480
MR. ROOTS (interpreted):
Every week the CAD receives four to six requests from the general public
asking, "Where do I find a special phone?
My mom is losing my hearing and I don't know how to get her a
telephone? Where do I find a
TTY? Where do I get a captioning
device?". Every week we get four to
six requests from the larger community.
2481
And they are individuals that weren't born deaf or hard of hearing. They have become deaf or hard of hearing
later in life and they don't have access to the deaf community and they don't
know where to buy the equipment.
2482
And they may not be aware of CHS.
They may surf the web and they may find CAD, so they ask us. But we don't sell technical equipment
and we often refer them to the Canadian Hearing Society or other organizations,
like WID, out west.
2483
I recall Chris Stark was talking about trying to buy a new wireless
BlackBerry, for example, and didn't need the video component to it. And then they increased his cost because
he was asking for less services.
2484
And I have had a similar experience. Two years ago I was trying to buy a new
BlackBerry myself and Rogers offered $250 to buy the technical devices, and then
$30 per month for the service plan.
I said, "Fine," but I said, "I don't need the voice messaging system, I
don't use the telephone, and I don't need a ringtone, so take that off, and I
don't need any of the music and I don't need the voicemail
either."
2485
So I thought the cost would decrease. Instead, it increased
substantially. They told me it was
going to cost $450 for the technical device and $60 per month for the service
plan. I said, "Forget it," and
walked out and went to another Rogers store and said, "I would like to buy a new
device. I want the $30 service plan
without the voice phone," and they said, "Sure".
2486
They knew about this plan that would accommodate me. We were done in a few minutes and I got
the original price of $200 a month and a $30 service plan. But this other store that I had gone
into had no idea.
2487
So it's not standardized within the industry.
2488
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Thanks, Chair.
2489
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much.
2490
We are now going to adjourn for lunch and reconvene at
2:15.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1242 / Suspension à
1242
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1414 / Reprise à
1414
2491
THE SECRETARY: Please be
seated. Veuillez prendre vos
places, s'il vous plaît.
2492
THE CHAIRPERSON: Order,
please. We are going to
resume.
2493
Can I ask the secretary if there's any outstanding
issues?
2494
THE SECRETARY: Yes, legal
has some issues to discuss.
2495
MS LEHOUX: Thank
you.
2496
At the end of yesterday, we indicated that we would be posing a question
to all TV broadcasters that are participating in this hearing regarding the
financial impact of increasing described video.
2497
The question is the following:
The RAAQ has proposed that all English and French over‑the‑air
broadcasters be required by the end of their licence term to provide 28 hours
per week of described video, starting with 14 hours per week in year one of the
licence term.
2498
For each broadcast licensee participating in this hearing please comment
on the financial impact of this proposal at the corporate group level. Specifically, please identify the
estimated cost in years one and seven that this proposal would represent. Where applicable, please provide details
on the relevant production, post‑production and distribution costs. Please also comment on the impact of
these costs on your overall operations.
2499
You are asked to answer that question by November
28th.
2500
This question will be sent by email to all participating television
broadcasters in both official languages shortly. Copies of the question are available in
the examination room for consultation.
2501
Thank you.
2502
LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous avons préparé un sommaire des engagements du 17
novembre de Quebecor et de l'ACR, qui est déposé au dossier public et sera
publié sur le site du Conseil à compter du 19 novembre. Je note pour les fins du
record que ce document est la pièce CRTC No. 1.
2503
We will now proceed with the rest of Mr. Vlug's and the CAB's
questioning.
2504
CONSEILLÈRE LAMARRE : Merci, Madame la
Sécretaire.
2505
Well, back from lunch, I still have a few questions to cover the telecom
services issue, so I will pick up not quite where...well, where we left off,
even though it's a question that does not relate to the previous
one.
2506
In the submissions filed both by the Canadian Association for the Deaf
and Mr. Vlug, you have both referred at length about VRS issues. I would like to have your opinion on the
effectiveness of another type of telecommunication service, and that is IP relay
service.
2507
What advantage or disadvantage do you see as to how this technology could
serve deaf or hard‑of‑hearing people?
2508
MR. VLUG (interpreted): So
you are asking me to comment on things that I really haven't experienced myself
at this point. Canada doesn't have
even video relay service yet, so I don't have an opinion on
that.
2509
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: That's
a fair answer.
2510
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I'm
sure that industry people that are here, what they tell me is that relay
services in the States, the time of minutes used on one service is going down
and the amount of minutes used on an IP relay service are increasing. But video relay services continue to
grow. And, of course, in Canada, I
imagine that we would have the same kind of experience. We have a similar
environment.
2511
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Mr.
Roots, would you like to add something?
2512
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): No,
I think that Henry's comments stand.
2513
The text relay service, the message relay service that we have continues
and I just want to add the point that I don't see any change to the text relay
service that exists because a lot of hard‑of‑hearing people still continue to
use that system, people that don't use sign language.
2514
And a lot of people are not comfortable using an IP relay system and
using the computer for communication, and so there's a group of people that may
not use the IP relay. But deaf
people have taken to video relay services quite quickly.
2515
MR. VLUG (interpreted): And
Henry just is adding, we also can't assume that all deaf people ‑‑ well,
not all deaf people sign, so not all people will be immediately using a VRS
system. We are talking to a lot of
people and a lot of people refuse to use a video phone.
2516
So it depends on who you are talking to and their comfort level with
different technology.
2517
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you.
2518
Now, on the customer service issue, in relation to service providers'
websites, what information and services from these sites would be useful to
increase accessibility for persons who are hard of hearing or
deaf?
2519
MR. VLUG (interpreted): Now
I have pretty much stopping going to any of the companies' websites to get the
information that I require. There's
nothing useful on their websites for my purposes.
2520
They could improve a lot on their website. One thing they could do is have someone
signing and have that accessible in both LSQ and ASL, but I don't believe that
they are interested in doing that.
2521
We have other ways to get information and I don't depend on the
individual companies' websites. I
feel that every time we do ask the questions, they don't have the answers for us
anyways. Once in a while you are
lucky to hit upon a person who knows something about what I'm asking, but most
of the time it's a waste of time.
2522
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Mr.
Roots, nothing to add?
2523
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): No,
nothing to add. Thank
you.
2524
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you.
2525
On the issue of consultation between the industry and disabled persons or
groups representing them, certain industry parties submitted that an
industry‑wide consultation process with a working group for each telecom and
broadcasting would be a suitable way of creating an effective and meaningful
process.
2526
Would you please comment on the benefits of such a process, including
what you think it might achieve or what would be its
challenges?
2527
MR. ROOTS (interpreted):
Traditionally, provincial phone companies have set up an advisory
committee for the message relay services that exist at the present time, which
is using the TTY as a method of communication, and that advisory committee might
meet once, perhaps twice a year.
2528
When the consumer representatives show up, the industry people come and
let them know of all the decisions that they have made throughout the year. So they are there to present their
decisions and they expect us to rubber stamp what they have come up with at that
point.
2529
We felt that the process is not effective. It's a false consultation. And most of the technical experts or
experts in disability groups have resigned or left those advisory committees
because it's not a useful way to spend their time.
2530
Also, depending on the representative chosen, sometimes those people do
not actually represent the community.
Bell, at one time, was shocked when we told them that the person they had
chosen to be on their advisory committee had actually been kicked out of our
organization five years prior and they were completely
unaware.
2531
So the quality of people that are involved in those advisory groups
perhaps is tenuous, so there are issues with the quality of the advisory group
and the attendance there.
2532
TELUS' advisory committee has completely come to a
standstill.
2533
SaskTel brags that it has a wonderful relationship with the deaf
community, and strong ties, but when I ask deaf people in Saskatchewan if they
have been involved, they say no. If
I ask them if they have heard anything from the advisory committee, they say
that they haven't heard anything.
2534
There are other examples of similar‑type stories. It doesn't seem to be worth it to
participate on these advisory committees.
2535
We feel that the current model should be scrapped. The best way to have effective ongoing
consultation would be to have just that, ongoing consultation, not
rubber‑stamping once or twice a year.
2536
We want people involved in the research and development in that phase, at
the very beginning of their research and development. That way they can affect the decisions
before they are actually implemented.
They can provide feedback and technical expertise on certain research and
development projects.
2537
For example, Bell went ahead and invented new technology with the keypad
TTY at pay phones, and the technology is actually quite horrible. The deaf community wouldn't accept that
old technology 30 years ago, and Bell decided to bring it back without
consultation.
2538
If a deaf person had been involved in the research and development phase,
they would have said, "Look, this is something that the deaf community has not
accepted in the past. We should be
investigating a different type of technology."
2539
Henry.
2540
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I
just wanted to add to that.
2541
By the way, did you know that there are four pay phones just outside the
door of this room, and two of them have a QWERTY keypad? I challenge you to go ahead and try
making a call using those keypads.
2542
The ones outside are actually a big improvement over the ones that TELUS
and Bell have set up with the numbered keypads only. The ones out there are
alphabetical.
2543
But I challenge you to go out and make a phone call on one of those
phones. I bet you won't be
successful.
2544
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): It
was said in the report that this would satisfy our needs, and it
doesn't.
2545
But what I find very interesting in the consultation process ‑‑ we
want involvement, true and meaningful involvement.
2546
If you look at the States, what is happening with the relay service
there, and why it has been so successful, more successful than anything that has
been started in Canada, is because deaf people have been involved right from the
get‑go. Here there has been
nothing.
2547
Just to add to what Henry stated, Bell bringing back this old
technology ‑‑ communication services for the deaf in the United States,
they developed a new video pay phone that is being distributed now. There is a TTY built in, and there is a
telephone that hearing people can use, as well.
2548
Video technology is expensive, but it has been developed, and it answers
every person's needs within one system.
2549
So you compare what the States have gone ahead and done. They have moved ahead light‑years,
whereas Canada, by instituting the old technology, has actually moved
backwards. It's like the movie
"Back to the Future".
2550
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: If I
hear you right, you are saying that the main challenges of establishing such
consultation are to create factual partnerships between the industry and
stakeholders, and to find the right people to participate on each
side.
2551
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I am
not sure that is quite our position.
Our position is that consultation on its own isn't very useful. We need to be involved, so they need to
hire us. We need to be working
alongside them, and incorporating all that that
means.
2552
You need deaf people sitting in this hearing as employees of the
CRTC.
2553
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you for that precision.
2554
Now, a subject that is dear to you, Mr. Vlug, I am sure, is the closed
captioning issue. The first
question I have is in regards to quality control at the level of the
broadcaster.
2555
It has been proposed that broadcast licensees be required to develop an
internal quality control policy for closed captioning.
2556
In your opinion, what should an internal quality control policy include
to be truly effective?
2557
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
Firstly, I don't believe that it should be internal. It should be outside monitoring. I don't trust the broadcasting
companies.
2558
There has been a lot of misrepresentation and lies about what they have
done, so I don't trust them.
2559
We need an outside person to be able to monitor the
quality.
2560
They don't measure their own quality, really. I believe they were telling you
yesterday that we use a voice recognition system, and the quality is less than
the real‑time captioners, and that kind of thing, but how do they know? They have no measurements, so how do
they know about the levels of quality?
2561
They say that there is no good way to actually measure it. They assume that voice recognition
software is not as good as real‑time captioning.
2562
When you look at the American FCC proposal for the regulations from the
deaf groups, they have a lot of details.
They give you percentages and goals to meet. I am sure you will be asking other
groups about the percentages and the requirements ‑‑ what error rate they
accept, and all of those details.
2563
At CAD, we would like to adopt what they have as proposed regulations for
the FCC.
2564
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: You
are leading me to my next question.
The RQST has proposed that an error rate be established in order to
measure captioning accuracy, and we will be hearing them on this issue on
Friday.
2565
It may be difficult for you to answer this question, since RQST has not
presented yet, but, nonetheless, I am going to ask
it.
2566
In your opinion, how should errors be defined and
identified?
2567
MR. VLUG (interpreted): It's
not really that difficult. If there
is a spelling mistake, it's an error.
If there is a grammar mistake, it's an error. If the timing is off, it's an
error.
2568
I don't believe that it's hard to do.
2569
But, again, that is all described within the regulations ‑‑ the
proposed regulations for the FCC.
2570
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: You
are saying that the proposed regulations for the FCC already have some of those
specifications.
2571
MR. VLUG (interpreted): From
what I recall, yes.
2572
I can't add much more to that, really.
2573
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Assuming that we do get to the point where we establish how errors are
being defined and identified, and an appropriate error rate has been
established, in your opinion, should error rates be different depending on the
method or type of captioning used by the
broadcasters?
2574
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
Pre‑recorded captioning, if it's all done in a canned program that is
ready to be presented, then the error rate should be zero, or .001 percent, in a
pre‑captioned program.
2575
There is no excuse for errors within that kind of
programming.
2576
For real‑time captioning, we understand that we need to accept some error
rate, but it should not be to the extent that it is now. There are a great deal of errors at this
point.
2577
And we do watch TV often, and we do see some real‑time captionists that
catch it almost perfectly, and then the next day, or the next hour, it's so bad
that you can't even continue to watch the program and you change
channels.
2578
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you for making the distinction between live captioning and pre‑recorded
captioning. I get your point that
the difficulty is more important with live, and that with pre‑recorded
captioning we expect a higher quality.
2579
My question was really to get your feeling about how broadcasters use the
technologies. Broadcasters do not
use the same technologies, so should we make a distinction as far as the quality
control is concerned, depending on the type of technology that a broadcaster is
using?
2580
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
No.
2581
Voice recognition and all that kind of different software ‑‑
no.
2582
It should be good before it is sent out. We shouldn't have to suffer through
their errors.
2583
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): If
I could add, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has said that the voice
recognition programs ‑‑ that their accuracy rate is actually very
good. It is possible to get up to
98 percent accuracy.
2584
Our response is, watch the programs that you use this software for. Even a 2 percent error rate is still too
high. It has a huge effect on the
captioning. There are a lot of
errors.
2585
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I
know that we did this in a past hearing, but we challenge you to watch a program
with captioning with the sound turned off.
2586
I think that some of you did take on that
challenge.
2587
Just to warn you again, it would not be the same.
2588
Sometime, maybe, what you could do is watch a repeat of a program, so you
kind of have an idea of what they are saying, and then turn off the sound, and
you will see how stilted it is.
2589
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): I
am curious, I know that some of you did watch television ‑‑ I think the
challenge was actually to turn off the television sound for ‑‑ somebody was
going to do that for a week.
2590
I wonder, is there a report?
Did anyone write up a report of their experience?
2591
Did any of you try to watch television with captioning and no
sound?
2592
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: I
can't speak for my colleagues, but I do watch television with captioning on a
regular basis.
2593
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): But
with the sound on or off?
2594
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Sometimes with the sound on, and sometimes with the sound
off.
2595
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): Is
your experience different depending on whether the sound is on or the sound is
off?
2596
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Yes,
it is.
2597
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): We
don't have the option of turning the sound on.
2598
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: I
realize that you don't.
2599
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, as you are probably aware, will
be tabling reports of its working group on closed captioning, and it is expected
that it will propose the establishment of a new standard that, hopefully, will
become universal.
2600
If and once such a standard is agreed upon, would adherence to the
standard by broadcasters be best achieved, in your opinion, by a Condition of
Licence or by voluntary measures?
2601
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): If
I could clarify something first, my understanding is that the Canadian
Association of Broadcasters is not developing standards, it is developing
guidelines, and there is a big difference.
2602
Guidelines would require voluntary compliance, and with standards you
could have requirements that they must meet.
2603
Henry...
2604
MR. VLUG (interpreted): Both
Jim and I are on that working group.
We are participating in the meetings by telephone, video‑phone, by
e‑mail.
2605
Just to let you know, it is hard work. They won't move. They have their position, and we are
trying to get them to move forward a little bit. They refuse
to.
2606
They actually want to move backwards and lower what is in the present
guidelines.
2607
So it's a very tough job on the working committee that we are involved
with now, and we covered a little bit of that in our
presentations.
2608
We do not expect any improvement as a result of that working
group.
2609
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: We
will see when we have it, and you will have the opportunity to comment on it,
once it has been put on the record.
2610
I take the point that you have made through your presentations, and
through your submissions, that there needs to be control of the quality of the
closed captioning.
2611
How do you see the CRTC enforcing certain quality levels? What enforcement tools do you see, or do
you want us to rely on?
2612
MR. VLUG (interpreted): You
could use a variety of tools.
Again, that is covered within the proposed regulations to the
FCC.
2613
There is the possibility of fining the companies; taking away their
licence, if it's bad enough; suspension; making them come and report to
you.
2614
There is a variety of mechanisms.
2615
You don't have to give them a seven‑year licence, you could give them a
one‑year licence, or a six‑year licence.
2616
There are several tools that you have the power to use, and I hope that
you use them.
2617
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: From
the list of tools that you have identified, there is one that is not available
to us, and that is the fining power.
We don't have a fining power, neither under the Broadcasting Act nor the
Telecom Act.
2618
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
There are ways that you can put the broadcasting companies on the spot
that will cost them money. They
won't be giving you money, but it will be costing them
money.
2619
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Mr.
Vlug, I am going back to telecom now.
Inadvertently, I skipped a question.
2620
I am turning to you, more specifically, to take advantage of the fact
that you are legal counsel.
2621
What is coming is actually a hypothetical question.
2622
Assuming that the Commission would determine in a follow‑up proceeding to
regulate the sale, lease or maintenance of terminal equipment, could you
identify the specific regulatory measures that the Commission should put in
place that would be effective?
2623
And, tell me, in your opinion, where the Commission would get its
jurisdiction to do so.
2624
MR. VLUG (interpreted): To
be honest, I haven't really done a lot of research on your
legislation.
2625
I know that you have done things like that in the
past.
2626
A flex coil for people who are hard of hearing, I know that you required
that for pay phones, and now you are requiring that the pay phones be accessible
for TTYs.
2627
So you have, several times in the past, regulated equipment‑related
issues, and when it's been regulated, companies have complied and not challenged
it.
2628
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Mr.
Roots, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, how active is it in the French
parts of Canada, as compared to the English parts of
Canada?
2629
Do you get as many demands from French Canadians as you do English
Canadians, or are you equipped to answer those demands when you get
them?
2630
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): We
have a system where we run with provincial affiliates, and there are provincial
deaf organizations that are affiliated with us as a national
organization.
2631
We have the Alberta Association of the Deaf, the Ontario Association of
the Deaf, there is the Cultural Society for the Deaf, and there is a provincial
organization in Quebec.
2632
We have another category of membership where that organization cannot
vote, and the organization is not controlled by deaf people, and that is where
our members from Quebec fit in.
That is the CQDA.
2633
There are a few deaf organizations in Quebec that are affiliated with
them.
2634
We have six people on our Board of Directors. One of those people is francophone, and
that is required in our bylaws.
2635
We have officially four languages: ASL, LSQ ‑‑ and those are treated as
equal by the Canadian Association of the Deaf ‑‑ and we also have English
and French in the written form.
2636
So everything that we provide is in a bilingual format, both French and
English.
2637
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: If I
understand correctly ‑‑
2638
MR. VLUG (interpreted): If I
could add something, during the meetings that we have, our national meetings, we
have LSQ interpreters and ASL interpreters, so that everyone has access to the
information.
2639
I might sign something in ASL; we have an interpreter who will then
interpret that into LSQ, and vice versa.
2640
It is imperative that we provide that during our
meetings.
2641
We can't really afford it, but we do it anyway.
2642
MR. ROOTS (interpreted):
That's right.
2643
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: If I
understand it properly, your organization is an umbrella organization for other
organizations in Canada that represent deaf and hard‑of‑hearing
people.
2644
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): Not
an umbrella organization per se. We
are a national body and each province has their own deaf association, and really
the provincial associations all have input into the national body and control
the national body.
2645
The board itself is elected with representatives from across Canada and
the provincial associations have votes and they set the policy. They decide our priorities, not the
board.
2646
So it is not an umbrella organization in the way you would think of
it. We look at it as a grassroots
organization where we include everyone from the grassroots and it's fed up to
the national body.
2647
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you for those precisions.
2648
Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair.
2649
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Lamarre.
2650
Are there any other questions from anybody on the
Panel?
2651
Can I ask counsel if they have any questions? They do.
2652
MS POPE: Yes, we do have a
few questions. It's Lori Pope
speaking.
2653
My first question is what expertise CAD would bring to consideration of
VRS and IPRS services that individual customers involved in a trial would not,
in your view?
2654
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): CAD
is very directly involved in the deaf community itself. We are a grassroots organization and we
often call on experts, for example Mr. Vlug. We call on him quite
frequently.
2655
And really all the information that you probably have on VRS comes from
our organization, or a lot of it, the research that we have done. So we provide a lot of
expertise.
2656
I'm not sure if I'm answering your question or if I'm on the right
track.
2657
MS POPE: Just that one of
the telephone companies, when asked about consultation, said that they would be
consulting with service users involved in their trial and felt that that was a
very helpful form of consultation.
2658
So I'm wondering whether you feel that CAD as an organization would have
something additional to offer in a consultation, apart from the individual
experiences of people involved in a trial?
2659
MR. ROOTS (interpreted):
Maybe Henry can answer that.
2660
MR. VLUG (interpreted): Yes,
I do have something to say about that.
2661
It sounds to me a lot like what SaskTel was doing with your pay phone
issue. They met with deaf people,
you know, within SaskTel. They
convinced these people that it was silly to set up pay phones out in the cold or
in different places. So that's not
true consultation; it's not discussion.
It is singling out deaf people and convincing those people that this is
acceptable.
2662
Those people are not aware of the legal requirements or the CRTC's orders
and they just go along with whatever this company, SaskTel for example, tells
them.
2663
So it depends on who the people are that they select and whether they are
aware of their rights. Are they
aware of what is available out there?
2664
So we as CAD know what's available.
We know what is happening in the United States. We know what is happening in other
countries. We have a pretty good
idea of what legal obligations are and what we can go to court and fight for
and, you know, what we can go and fight for in court that we don't get from
CRTC, for example.
2665
So often we don't have the resources to do it, but things we could do,
and we know what those options are.
I'm not sure that a regular grassroots deaf person would be aware of all
those issues.
2666
MS POPE: Thank
you.
2667
I just want to clarify something in the exchange that you had with one of
the Commissioners regarding IPRS, Internet Protocol Relay
Service.
2668
As I understand IPRS as distinct from VRS, IPRS is somewhat like message
relay in that it is text based only it would be available through other
platforms: your computer, your Blackberry, whatever.
2669
I wondered if you had any particular submissions to make on IPRS, for
example.
2670
With VRS you talked about the need for a national system. Do you have any comments to make about
IPRS?
2671
MR. VLUG (interpreted): Our
proposal is that all the relay services should be controlled in the same way as
VRS. The regular system now, I
think that should be taken away from ILEC, the phone companies, what we have
now. They are doing a lousy job and
they refuse to make any improvements.
They refuse to have different types of
availability.
2672
In the States they have a variety of types, but here we have the basics
and that's it.
2673
So I think that should be taken out of their hands and all regulated
under the same company. We will
listen to presentations from GoAmerica later and Sorenson and groups like that
and talk about how they have proceeded.
2674
MS POPE: Great. In terms of service bundles with
services that you may be paying for but not able to use, I wonder if either of
you have any suggestions for what a service bundle that would contain only
services that can be used by people who are deaf would look
like.
2675
What services might be included in such a bundle?
2676
MR. VLUG (interpreted): All
of them, if everything could be accessible to us, but they are not. The phone companies refuse to make them
that way so that's all detailed within my submission. It's very
frustrating.
2677
MS POPE: Okay, thank
you. So we can refer to your
written submissions on that.
2678
You have spoken to your experiences in getting information from websites
and customer service representatives.
2679
Do you have any proposals for other sources of information that would be
in particular formats?
2680
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): I'm
sorry, related to what? Could you
clarify?
2681
MS POPE: Information that
you would like to have from the telephone companies, if there are certain
formats that would be appropriate or if there are certain areas of information
that you wanted?
2682
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): In
sign language, if there were video clips in ASL and LSQ.
2683
MR. VLUG (interpreted): On
the Internet you will see more and more there are companies that actually have
video clips and you can click on those and it's in sign language and you can get
the information that way.
2684
For Jim and I, we are very fluent in English and we can read and get the
information that way, but for many deaf people they are unable
to.
2685
Even, for example, CRTC's website, there is a lot of language and a lot
of English within the website and the average deaf person would not be able to
access it.
2686
MS POPE: Okay,
thanks.
2687
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): If
I could just add, I have noticed a few provincial governments now actually have
sign language on their websites and the United States ‑‑ sorry, interpreter
error.
2688
The Government of Nova Scotia has partnered with an organization called
Deaf Awareness Advocacy in Nova Scotia.
So they have partnered with them and there is new information and they
have a plan, a project plan where they will take information, put it into ASL
and get it out on the web for deaf people.
2689
And when they are talking about this plan changing and the Nova Scotia
government is giving information in print, which a lot of deaf people have no
access to, they can go onto the website and go onto the video clip and see
somebody signing and then it's clear.
2690
The Ontario government is also ‑‑ when the SARS virus, for example,
came out, when that occurred a few years ago, on the government website there
was everything in print warning people about how to proceed, and what they did
in this situation was they brought in a deaf person who had this taped in sign
language with all the information, they put it on their website and the deaf
community could access the information on SARS.
2691
It was just basic information that got out to the
community.
2692
The federal government, I haven't seen any of that happening at this
point.
2693
Henry is just adding a point.
2694
MR. VLUG (interpreted): Just
maybe a year ago now the National Association for the Deaf in the United States
signed a contract with ‑‑ who was it, Jim?
2695
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): I
don't know.
2696
MR. VLUG (interpreted): I believe it was the revenue agency, the tax
agency, and they will be working on making a lot of information accessible on
their website through sign language.
2697
MS POPE: Thanks. My last question is again back to
consultations, if you have any suggestions as to how appropriate
representation ‑‑ representatives should or could be selected for
consultations, given that there may be many organizations that represent
different groups, different levels of government, that sort of thing, if you
have had any proposals in that regard?
2698
MR. ROOTS (interpreted): If
you work with national disability organizations, I think that is important and
they must be consumer driven organizations. That is where you will get people with
disabilities that have control, and they are aware of people in their
communities that would be technical experts. And if they don't know readily of an
expert to recommend, they know who to ask to find an expert to
recommend.
2699
For example, if you wanted an expert in deaf communication, you would
contact the Canadian Association of the Deaf and if we weren't aware of who
would be a good match for your specific consultation process for your needs, I
would certainly know who to ask to find someone to be able to refer to
you.
2700
Henry is just adding that ‑‑
2701
MR. VLUG (interpreted): When
those groups need someone to consult, they want someone there who has the
appropriate kind of knowledge.
2702
Again, if the CRTC ‑‑ they should already know who the experts are
in the field and if these companies had deaf employees, then they have resident
experts and they wouldn't even have to come to us. But that isn't the case anywhere so the
only option they have is to approach us asking for
experts.
2703
MS POPE: Thank you. I believe Véronique has some
questions.
2704
MS LEHOUX: Yes. I have just one very small
question. I am Véronique Lehoux,
legal counsel, too.
2705
Mr. Vlug, you referred to the closed captioning quality standards put
forward to the FCC.
2706
Could you provide those standards?
Is this something you have?
If you do, can you provide them to the Commission or file
them?
2707
MR. VLUG (interpreted): The
paper that I'm referring to, it's a link on our first submission. There is a link there in our first
submission to both the original proposal for the regulations, and then the
second link is for the reply and the comments. And in the comments they have more
specifics on the percentages and those kinds of details.
2708
MS LEHOUX: Thank
you.
2709
THE CHAIRPERSON: I would
like to thank both Mr. Vlug and Mr. Roots for appearing before us
today.
2710
We will move right on into the next appearance. I believe it is by TELUS
Communications.
2711
Thank you, gentlemen.
2712
MR. VLUG (interpreted):
Thank you.
2713
THE SECRETARY: I now call on
TELUS Communications Company to come forward to the presentation
table.
‑‑‑ Pause
2714
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Madam
Secretary, do you want to introduce the next party?
2715
THE SECRETARY: Yes. Appearing for TELUS Communications
Company is Mr. Woodhead.
2716
Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you have then 15
minutes for your presentation.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
2717
MR. WOODHEAD: Thank you,
Madam Secretary.
2718
My name is Ted Woodhead and I'm just going to do a preliminary item here,
if I may.
2719
To my left is Ann Mainville‑Neeson and to my right is Eric Edora and
behind us, assisting us are Isabelle Morneau and Alisha
Simpson.
2720
But as a preliminary matter, Commission staff addressed some
interrogatories to various carriers last week and I have spoken with Commission
counsel and in the interests of time I believe, and probably in the best
interests of all participants, we would undertake to provide written responses
to those interrogatories for the public record by November 28th, if that is
satisfactory with Commission counsel.
2721
THE CHAIRPERSON: They are
nodding affirmatively.
2722
MR. WOODHEAD: TELUS
appreciates the opportunity to appear before the Commission. As I said, my name is Ted Woodhead. I am Vice‑President, Telecom Policy and
Regulatory Affairs for TELUS.
2723
Again, as I said, on my immediate left is Ann Mainville‑Neeson, Director
of Broadcast Regulation; and on my right is Eric Edora, Director of Regulatory
Affairs.
2724
TELUS is proposing to establish a consultation with our subscriber base
for determining priorities for the disposition of the approximately
$3 million of our deferral account funds dedicated to the development of
advanced communications services for persons with
disabilities.
2725
This money should be put to use for proposals that respond to the needs
of the disabled community and for the goals of this proceeding. With this proposal we can achieve both
meaningful and effective consultation, as well as ensure that useful products
and services are available to our subscribers with disabilities following the
consultation.
2726
Prior to the introduction of a new product or service specifically
designed for persons with certain special needs, there are strong incentives for
service providers to consult with the relevant disability groups. These strong incentives exist because
industry service providers want the relevant disability groups to provide
insight on the functionality and desirability of the planned product or service
prior to its introduction.
2727
We welcome the help of representatives of the disability groups to
establish priorities. Together with
representatives of the disabled community we will find the most sensible means
of using these funds to promote accessibility within our
regions.
2728
We will report on the results of this consultation, as well as the
progress of the implementation of these initiatives. These reports will be provided pursuant
to the Commission's current reporting requirements for the disposition of the
funds remaining in the deferral account.
2729
The cost of accessibility initiatives must be recoverable and with TELUS'
proposal consultation will revolve around finding the best initiatives for
funding.
2730
TELUS is proud to be planning an upcoming trial of video relay services
in its Alberta and BC ILEC regions.
We are the only telecommunications service provider undertaking this
trial in advance of the outcome of this proceeding and of any determination
regarding the provision of this service.
2731
This trial will provide important information regarding the cost of
providing the service and the utility of the service to
customers.
2732
Operational costs for video relay services are expected to be higher than
those for traditional message relay service. In TELUS' view, prior to any requirement
for the national provision of video relay services there must be full
consideration given to finding the best method for video relay service providers
to recover their operational costs.
2733
The information gathered from our trial will be key to the next phase of
implementation.
2734
I will now turn it over to my colleague, Ann, to discuss
broadcasting.
2735
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Thank
you. My name is Ann
Mainville‑Neeson.
2736
TELUS also provides broadcasting services as a new entrant in the
broadcast distribution industry through its IPTV service. As a licensed Category 1 broadcasting
distribution undertaking, TELUS TV provides many services which make
broadcasting more accessible to persons who are visually or hearing
impaired.
2737
For example, TELUS TV ensures that all the closed captioning information
received from broadcasters is passed through to it
subscribers.
2738
In addition, as the operator of a video‑on‑demand programming service,
TELUS also ensures that most of the programming it offers on its VOD service is
closed captioned.
2739
TELUS TV also provides the pass‑through of video description to it
subscribers and will be distributing, as part of its essentials package the
soon‑to‑be launched Accessible Channel, which is a national English‑language
service offering a 24‑hour 100 per cent open format described video programming
providing news, information drama and other programming to visually impaired
Canadians.
2740
While we appreciate the comments of the Starks this morning, it is our
view that The Accessible Channel would provide a much better access to described
video programming than the four hours per week of described programming provided
by each broadcaster as part of their regular schedule.
2741
Presumably many people who are visually impaired would also find this
service useful.
2742
With respect to the Interactive Programming Guide, while TELUS is not
aware of any technology which would make information provided in the Interactive
Programming Guide menus more accessible to persons with disabilities, there are
many features of our IPG that provide increased accessibility for persons with
disabilities, including those persons who are vision
impaired.
2743
Through such things as personalized favourites lists, our IPG allows our
customers to choose their favourite channels and to limit their surfing or their
browsing to only those channels.
2744
Also, TELUS TV's IPG reminder or autotune feature reminds the customer of
a show that they previously scheduled to watch and will even automatically
change the channel to that program at the prescribed time. Both of these features help to make
television, and more particularly our IPG, more accessible to persons with
disabilities by allowing the customer to make choices in advance of programming
and by narrowing the scrolling and the channel surfing
requirement.
2745
I will now turn it over to my colleague, Eric, to discuss further
telecommunications initiatives that will provide accessibility to persons with
disabilities.
2746
MR. EDORA: Good
afternoon. I'm Eric
Edora.
2747
Throughout its history TELUS has demonstrated its commitment to the
delivery of accessible telecommunications products and services. Of course, TELUS' commitment has been
recently assisted through the use of funds specifically allocated from the
deferral account for accessibility initiatives.
2748
In addition to the trial for video relay services mentioned earlier,
TELUS is planning another trial, this trial for IP relay services in its Alberta
and British Columbia ILEC regions.
This trial is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of
2009.
2749
IP relay is generally faster than traditional message relay services and
has the additional benefits of IP.
As a result, IP relay services can be made available over any Internet
accessible device. When used with a
laptop, Blackberry or other SMART phone, IP relay is available virtually
anywhere the customer takes a mobile device. IP relay represents a tremendous
evolution from traditional message relay services.
2750
TELUS has also completed two other initiatives that were specifically
approved by the Commission for funding from the deferral
account.
2751
First, in order to better promote the availability of our products and
services for persons with disabilities, TELUS recently launched a special needs
website where information related to our accessible products and services is
described and made available for customers to order. The website also includes step‑by‑step
instructions describing how to use many of TELUS' special needs services and
includes a downloadable application form that TELUS customers can use to request
special needs services from TELUS.
2752
This website will be continually updated with the latest TELUS products
and services and will be improved over time.
2753
In addition, in 2007 TELUS launched Enhanced Directory Assistance
Service. This service is free for
registered TELUS customers with disabilities in Alberta and British
Columbia. Enhanced Directory
Assistance provides customers with access to services such as weather
information, movie listings and location directions that allow a customer to
find a business location within a local vicinity or
neighbourhood.
2754
On the TELUS wireless network the information can be delivered via
SMS.
2755
Enhanced Directory Assistance provides significant benefits for customers
with disabilities because they have the ability to get information without
needing, for example, to read a telephone directory for listings, to use maps to
get directions or to flip through a newspaper for movie and weather
information.
2756
For persons with limited mobility or impaired vision Enhanced Directory
Assistance might make these everyday tasks just a little bit
easier.
2757
Prior to these deferral account initiatives TELUS has long offered its
customers services such as TELUS relay services, TTY long distance discounts,
alternative bill formats and accessible pay phone terminals. In fact, TELUS' predecessor company,
BCTel, was the first in Canada to offer message relay service back in
1984.
2758
Our commitment to customers with disabilities remains strong, and with
the funds that the company has remaining in the deferral account TELUS looks
forward to developing new services and developing new products to meet the needs
of customers with disabilities into the future.
2759
MR. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman,
TELUS thanks the Commission for the opportunity to present at this proceeding,
and we are pleased to answer any of the Panel's questions at this
time.
2760
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you
very much.
2761
I will be the one starting off with some questions, Mr. Woodhead. I will direct them to you and allow you
to redirect them as you see fit.
2762
I have a series of questions just on a topical nature. It includes the deferral account which
you have emphasized in your paper, general consultations, MRS, IPRS, VRS,
wireless services. We will talk
about described video and closed captioning. We will talk about the website and some
general regulatory issues.
2763
So we have pretty well got quite a few things here to talk
about.
2764
The deferral account. You
have talked about it here and you mention I guess in your second paragraph that
there is a disposition of $3 million outstanding.
2765
Can you tell me how much money was initially earmarked for initiatives
relating to accessibility coming out of the deferral account
proceeding?
2766
MR. EDORA: The 5 per cent
allocated to deferral account funds for accessibility proceedings amounted to
approximately $8 million.
2767
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You
mentioned two services you have already introduced as a result of the deferral
account initiative, I guess. One
was the enhanced directory assistance and the other was the
website.
2768
That accounted for a portion of the money. I'm not sure if publicly I can say what
it is, but if you want to tell me what it is, that would be great; if not, then
if you could just file how much you have spent to date for those two
initiatives, I would appreciate it.
2769
MR. EDORA: We can definitely
file that information for you, Mr. Chairman.
2770
The enhanced directory assistance, the implementation of enhanced
directory assistance, the money allocated from the deferral account for enhanced
directory assistance did not necessarily ‑‑ was not necessarily allocated
for implementation costs. There
were ongoing costs for enhanced directory assistance and for the special needs
website. That was part of our
initial approved allocation from the deferral account.
2771
So when we file our costs for the implementation, those may not
necessarily line up with the costs that we initially got approved from the
Commission for the deferral account funds.
2772
THE CHAIRPERSON: That's why
I would like to know what it is so I know what is left.
2773
MR. EDORA: Yes, we can file
it.
2774
THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. For those two services that you have
introduced, to what extent did you involve the people with disabilities in the
consultation of either the enhanced directory assistance and/or the website that
you have introduced?
2775
MR. EDORA: These initiatives
came out as a result of the deferral account consultations and in those
consultations we met at a national level, at a regional level and with
individual provincial governments as well.
2776
For the specific implementation of those particular services, those
services were discussed at the consultations during the proceeding and they
were ‑‑ and as a result they were raised with disability groups as priority
initiatives.
2777
We received approval from the Commission in Decision 2008‑1 and then we
implemented, so we did not specifically undertake consultation following the
Commission's decision in Decision 2008‑1.
2778
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So there was no active consultation as
you build your plan to introduce these services?
2779
MR. EDORA: No, there was
not.
2780
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Let's go back to the
quantum.
2781
So there was about $8 million.
You said part of it was earmarked for these two services you have already
introduced and you are saying there is $3 million left for advanced
communication services, which I assume relates to IPRS and video relay
services.
2782
MR. EDORA: No, that's not
correct.
2783
THE CHAIRPERSON: That's not
correct.
2784
MR. EDORA: The IP relay
service and video relay service were also approved by the Commission in Decision
2008‑1 as part of the deferral account initiatives. As a result, the $5 million that we have
allocated for the deferral account from already approved initiatives includes
both the trial for IP relay and the trial for VRS.
2785
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That was roughly $3 million and that is
the $3 million we're talking about here or you are talking about
here?
2786
MR. EDORA: No. The four specific initiatives approved
by the Commission in Decision 2008‑1 amounted to approximately $5 million. We had $8 million total and $5
million allocated from Decision 2008‑1 initiatives.
2787
As a result, we have $3 million left for future initiatives and that is
the $3 million that Mr. Woodhead referred to in the opening
statement.
2788
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The four projects that were initially
approved, what were they?
2789
MR. EDORA: The four projects
approved by the Commission in Decision 2008‑1 were the trial for IP relay
services, the trial for video relay services, the implementation of the special
needs website and the implementation of Enhanced Directory Assistance
Services.
2790
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Okay.
2791
Coincidentally I guess the trial for video relay services and IP related
services amounted to roughly $3 million, based on my information that I have
here.
2792
MR. EDORA: Those were the
initial cost that were ‑‑ those were the costs as approved by the
Commission in Decision 2008‑1, that's correct.
2793
THE CHAIRPERSON: So now we
are on the same page.
2794
So what have you done with regard to those initiatives that were approved
back in 2007?
2795
MR. EDORA: Those initiatives
were approved in Decision 2008‑1, so January 2008. The IP relay trial is scheduled for
launch in the first quarter of 2009, so early 2009. The video relay service trial is
scheduled for launch in January of 2009.
We are currently in finalization of negotiations with our vendor for
video relay services for that trial.
2796
As a result, we are close to implementation and I have been told that the
implementation should take place in the first month of
2009.
2797
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The reason I asked the question was
because in the evidence that you filed you seem to imply it was going to be
coming up in October/November, which was around now. So it has been
delayed.
2798
MR. EDORA: When we filed our
proposals back in 2006, we proposed that if approved by the Commission we would
launch video relay services within eight months and I believe also for IP relay
services within eight months of the Commission decision.
2799
So yes, that gets us to approximately September/October 2008 and, yes,
there has been a small delay.
2800
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. This comes back to the issue of
consultation and it is a two‑part question.
2801
One, did you notify the Commission that you would be late in rolling out
these trials? And two, did you have
consultation with people with disabilities with regard to these trials as you
have developed them because they are imminent now
basically?
2802
MR. EDORA: In terms of
notification to the Commission we, TELUS, of course is adhering to the
requirements from Decision 2008‑1 where we report back annually and, as a
result, our notification to the Commission was going to take place in March 2009
as to the status of the initiatives.
2803
So no, we have not given specific notification prior to today of the
timing of our launch ‑‑ of the specific timing of our
launch.
2804
With regard to consultation, for video relay services the consultation,
as I mentioned, took place as part of the deferral account proceeding. Once the initiative got approved by the
Commission, our implementation team had to run a request for information and a
request for proposals for this particular initiative. So most of our service delivery and
design, at least as it pertains to the VRS trial, has been with our
vendor.
2805
THE CHAIRPERSON: They are
with your vendor, but did you at all consult with the people with disabilities
groups to see whether their needs were going to be respected and included in the
design phase?
2806
MR. EDORA: Our vendor is an
experienced provider of video relay services in the United States. As a result, our vendor would have
experience in the service and also knowledge of some of the challenges and some
of the issues that the disability groups or people with disabilities, people
with hearing impairments, have with video relay services.
2807
As a result, we took it with our vendor, with consultations with our
vendor to understand what the limitations of the service were, what the
prospective usage and what the prospective design of our trial should
be.
2808
THE CHAIRPERSON: But you
still did not consult with the user group themselves in Canada ‑‑ in
Alberta and British Columbia and in Québec?
2809
MR. EDORA: We did not
specifically consult with the disability groups in our three ILEC provinces,
that is correct.
2810
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Okay.
2811
MR. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman,
if I may, and perhaps this is clear to you, but we obviously consulted during
the deferral account process and the results of that consultation indicated that
the groups wanted a video relay service.
That's why we proposed it.
That's why it was approved.
2812
And then we went and sought out a video relay service in the United
States where I believe the previous presenters were indicating that the kind of
firms that are operating these services down there are what they
want.
2813
So to the extent that the answer to your question is did we consult with
disability groups in the design of a video relay service, no, we were looking
for a vendor of the video relay service in the United
States.
2814
THE CHAIRPERSON: This is
akin to my 29‑year old son saying he needs wheels and I bring him a
bicycle. I mean yes, you are going
to go to a vendor who has expertise in this, no doubt about it, but at the same
time don't you think that at some point in time, particularly because this is
deferral account money that is coming out of the public development of this
deferral account, that there would have been an obligation in the early stages
to sit down with these people, because there was nothing there to start with,
and ask for their input?
2815
MR. WOODHEAD: My point is
that we did sit down with them and ask for their input and they said they wanted
a video relay service, and we agree and we went and got
one.
2816
MR. EDORA: Mr. Chair, the
video relay service, as everyone has heard, is available in the United States
and is used on a regular basis by customers in the United States. There is really no difference between a
Canadian video relay service and an American video relay
service.
2817
So, as Mr. Woodhead says, if we have approval to implement video relay
service in Canada, we don't ‑‑ other than discussing directly with our
vendor in terms of trial design, I'm not entirely certain what additional
information we would need to gather about video relay service that we
wouldn't ‑‑ for specific consultation with disability
groups.
2818
THE CHAIRPERSON: Neither
would I, but it would be worthwhile asking them.
2819
Let me ask you a question just on that topic. Is there anything unique about video
relay service to serve a multilingual country like Canada?
2820
MR. EDORA: Absolutely, in
the sense that my understanding is that there are limited number of LSQ
interpreters in Québec and so there are going to be some implementation issues
in terms of video relay service in Québec for the French
language.
2821
That is why TELUS has proposed to not only undertake this trial, but has
asked the Commission to determine some of these issues that arise as a result of
the trial of VRS service, to examine that in a separate proceeding, because the
truth of the matter is not a lot of people in Canada understand how video relay
service is going to operate in terms of its overall usage and in terms of its
overall customer demand and some of these, for example, language implementation
issues that we think we are going to face.
2822
That's why we think this trial is critical, not only for TELUS and our
customers, but also for the broader implementation of the service in
Canada.
2823
THE CHAIRPERSON: So you are
saying there are unique situations because there are limited people for dealing
with the French language.
2824
Why wouldn't you have sat down with the CAD who were just here and just
ask them whether they can actually help you in finding the resources and the
tools and the development and the trials for this at some point in
time?
2825
MR. EDORA: Mr. Chair, let me
say that ‑‑ I will address your question in a
moment.
2826
But in terms of the consultation, what better consultation is there than
the service provider willing to undertake the delivery of the service to a
subset of customers that have hearing impairment and delivering that service to
those customers in our Alberta and British Columbia ILEC
regions?
2827
This is direct consultation with the specific customers who not only want
the service but will use the service.
2828
As a result, there are two different ways you can do consultation. You can do consultation and talk about
ideas and you can do consultation and actually implement. And that's what we are
doing.
2829
So in TELUS' view, this as another form of
consultation.
2830
Now, to address your specific question, you are absolutely correct that
perhaps some of the advocacy groups would have had specific knowledge about some
of the issues that we face in terms of the French language
implementation.
2831
However, the issue is that that issue only presented itself after our
vendor mentioned it during the course of our negotiations. So in that respect you are absolutely
correct. Perhaps we should have
gotten some information from the advocacy groups on that specific
issue.
2832
THE CHAIRPERSON: I will tell
you, I come from the industry that you are in and what I was taught repeatedly
is find a need and fill it. That's
how you make money in this world, finding a need and filling it. Usually finding a need means talking to
customers.
2833
I think you folks would be the first ones to advocate that it is
important to be close to your customer and deal with them.
2834
In this case what you are telling me is because there was a set of money
set aside from a deferral account and you did consult with them in 2006 in the
buildup of it, you now thought you had a rubber cheque or a blank cheque to go
ahead and spend the money without even talking to these
people.
2835
I just find it strange.
2836
MR. WOODHEAD: Well, that
isn't what we are saying. You are
right about the first part. We went
out and consulted with these groups and one of their priorities was a video
relay service solution.
2837
What we are going to do now is to trial with people in those subject
groups the service and in fact consult with them about what works for them and
what doesn't. That is the direct
customer and that is the purpose of the trial, in order that we can understand
the demand issues. Does it
work? Is it satisfying their
needs?
2838
So it's not that we are not trying to consult with our direct
customers. In fact, that's what we
are asking to do and that's what we're doing.
2839
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we
heard Mr. Vlug just briefly earlier say that it's important to not just address
it through a sample of customers but also the national agencies that actually
have the experience and the depth and the breadth to understand the implications
and the ramifications of some of these things, not just the end‑users as
well.
2840
So I guess I ask you the question: Will you undertake to talk with these
industry groups before you roll out the service?
2841
MR. WOODHEAD: We can
undertake to do that.
2842
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
‑‑‑ Pause
2843
THE CHAIRPERSON: TELUS is
fortunate that in 2010 the Olympics will be coming to British Columbia. To what extent will people with
disabilities have access to services in order to be able to partake in the
benefits of the two weeks of Olympics that are going on?
2844
Have you thought about that as part of your business plans for the
Olympics, number one, and for the IPRS and the VRS, number
two?
2845
MR. EDORA: I'm sorry, Mr.
Chair, can you please restate the question?
2846
We are having trouble understanding.
2847
THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure, I'm
sorry.
2848
In 2010 the Olympics are coming to British Columbia. To what extent have you built a plan
around providing communication services for those people that have disabilities
that will either be attending from remote areas or, alternatively, living in
British Columbia but wanting to either watch on whatever medium there is,
whether it's a wireless phone or a television?
2849
Have you thought about it at all?
Is there anybody who has sort of put together a plan or a consideration
as to how we deal with this segment of the marketplace?
2850
MR. WOODHEAD: I wouldn't be
aware if anyone has specifically thought about that.
2851
THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you
find out and file something if there is something? If not, just let us know that there
isn't.
2852
Let's see here, in your response to questions to BDUs, dated July 7,
2008, on page 3 of 4 ‑‑ you don't have to look for it, but you responded to
a series of questions with regard to the website.
2853
I would just read it to you.
It says:
"TELUS does not consider it
necessary to promote the availability of this information on its website because
interested parties will generally seek out this information which will be easily
found..."
2854
And I emphasize the word "easily found":
"... using navigation menus or the
search functions of the website."
(As read)
2855
You also have, if I can find it ‑‑ anyway, there is another
reference with regard to the word "easy", relatively easily being injected into
a couple of your responses as well.
2856
When you say these things, have you actually had somebody who was
disabled, whether visually or auditorily, a hearing disability, check to see
whether it is that easy to access the website?
2857
MR. WOODHEAD: If we could
have a moment, Mr. Chair?
2858
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Certainly.
‑‑‑ Pause
2859
MR. EDORA: In terms of
TELUS' website, no, we do not specifically consult with people with
these ‑‑ with either visual impairment or hearing impairment to determine
whether our website is easy, as you put it, Mr. Chair.
2860
But we try as much as possible to adhere to the W3C standards ‑‑
guidelines, I'm sorry, for website design.
My understanding is that our website actually complies to a very high
degree with the W3C guidelines.
2861
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it fully
W3C version 2 compatible?
2862
MR. EDORA: No, it is
not.
2863
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is
not. And yet you used deferral
account money to upgrade your website?
2864
MR. EDORA: We used deferral
account money to launch a special needs website that has at essential location
the information pertaining to accessible products and services at one particular
location on our website, yes.
2865
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that
website accessible across Canada?
2866
MR. EDORA:
Yes.
2867
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is your Enhanced Directory System
available across Canada?
2868
MR. EDORA: It is available
in our ILEC regions.
2869
THE CHAIRPERSON: In your
ILEC region in ‑‑
2870
MR. EDORA: In Alberta and
British Columbia.
2871
THE CHAIRPERSON: How about
in Québec?
2872
MR. EDORA: In Québec I do
not think the service is available.
2873
THE CHAIRPERSON: You do not,
okay.
2874
If I can find it ‑‑
‑‑‑ Pause
2875
THE CHAIRPERSON: I can't
find it.
2876
As you no doubt have heard from a lot of people, they are concerned that
there hasn't been a sufficient amount of consultation between the work that you
are doing on their behalf, mind you, and them as well.
2877
I refer you to another interrogatory that you filed to BDUs, also dated
07 August 08, No. 3, page 1 of 1, and the question revolved around
consultation: how to go about
effective and meaningful ongoing consultation with the industry and the
disability groups.
2878
Your response was that:
"It's not necessary for the
Commission to require ongoing consultations between industry service providers
and disability groups. Ample
avenues exist for meaningful and effective consultation between industry service
providers and disability groups to take place."
(As read)
2879
Then there is the other easier.
"It has become much easier for all
persons and groups to have a voice."
(As read)
2880
Yet what we are hearing is that these groups don't feel their voice is be
heard through these what I will call ad hoc consultations, and they are the ones
that are sort of reaching out to us and saying do something about it because we
are not being heard.
2881
You are saying everything is fine, we are talking to people, they will
get what they want and trust us.
2882
Is there not a disconnect? I
mean, you have been here for the last two days, Mr. Woodhead. You have heard
them.
2883
MR. WOODHEAD: I indeed have
heard them. I guess my response
would be, you know, anything that can be done to improve the
consultation ‑‑ and you have raised a couple of examples here
previously ‑‑ we would be supportive of. It's just really the infrastructure
around that that I guess at the end of the day we would be looking to you for
guidance as to how that might be implemented going
forward.
2884
But as I said, the things that we have thus far proposed we felt that
trialling with various customer user groups would provide us with some of that
feedback. But if you are looking
for more robust or a more fulsome process, obviously we would be in your hands
on that.
2885
THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm not
sure we are looking for it. I mean,
we would much prefer for the parties to get together themselves and work things
out. What we are hearing is that
it's not happening and we need something a bit more
structured.
2886
I look to you folks can say if it can't be done in an unstructured
environment, I guess it falls upon us to take a look at how one goes about
structuring something more formally.
2887
What you are telling me is we don't need structure, everything is fine,
and yet what I'm hearing the industry saying is it's not quite what you are
hearing from TELUS.
2888
MR. WOODHEAD: Well,
obviously our view is that in the things that we have laid out for you, we
believe we were consulting.
2889
So it's a question of ‑‑ I understand the frustration. I have listened to the people who have
come up and given very articulate presentations. But I guess at this point in time I'm
not exactly sure what that consultation then looks like.
2890
It may well be ‑‑ it may well be, as we have made an undertaking to
go and talk to one group for example again, at the post or in the implementation
phase of that particular project, that we will learn some more from
that.
2891
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Okay.
2892
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: May I
also add a broadcasting example.
2893
We do receive from time to time some feedback from various persons who
use our service. One specific
example that I have is with respect to closed captioning on HG services. All the trials, all the testing, all the
technical testing that we had done in our labs and in our own offices and our
employees use of the service did not seem to have any
problem.
2894
It turns out that on certain TV sets the closed captioning doesn't show
up well; it gets all garbled. And
we resolved that in conjunction with someone who was visually ‑‑ or who was
hearing impaired and who needed to read the closed captioning, and we were able
to fix the problem on a one‑on‑one basis.
2895
These things, no matter how much consultation, even with a national
group, this type of problem might not have come up
otherwise.
2896
But certainly when we do get approached with a specific problem, we do
try to resolve it on a one‑on‑one and generally we are very successful in doing
so.
2897
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just that
when you are building new services up front it would be nice to talk to your
constituency. That's all I'm
suggesting.
2898
Let me move on to MRS and IPRS and the like.
2899
Do you provide MRS services today in‑house or is it contracted
out?
2900
MR. EDORA: We provide it
in‑house.
2901
THE CHAIRPERSON: You provide
it in‑house.
2902
Is there a plan or a program to look at its evolution and redevelop it or
develop it?
2903
We heard earlier some people saying that it has been around for a long
time and it has not changed at all.
2904
Can you perhaps enlighten us as to when it was introduced and what stages
of development or redevelopment it has gone through to reach where it is
today?
2905
MR. EDORA: It was first
introduced, as I mentioned in the opening statement, by BCTel in
1984.
2906
To be honest, Mr. Chair, I can't speak to all the product changes that
have taken place of our message relay services over time. TELUS has implemented such ancillary
services such as hearing carryover and voice carryover as variants of different
types of relay services. So we do
look at opportunities to enhance the service, to provide better functionality
for our customers.
2907
The biggest evolution that we see for relay services, at least as they
pertain to text relay services, is IP relay. IP relay we view is going to be a
tremendous enhancement to existing message relay services.
2908
THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you
provide just an overview as to what products and services the end‑user needs in
order to make relay services work?
2909
MR. EDORA: Traditional
message relay services, my understanding is that a hearing impaired customer
just needs a teletype writer device and a phone line.
2910
THE CHAIRPERSON: And where
does he get the teletype writer device from?
2911
MR. EDORA: They are
available aftermarket in a number of different locations.
2912
THE CHAIRPERSON: So they buy
them on their own?
2913
MR. EDORA:
Yes.
2914
THE CHAIRPERSON: You don't
provide them?
2915
MR. EDORA:
No.
2916
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The service that you provide as a
byproduct of it is what, the operator services?
2917
MR. EDORA: The service we
provide is the relay service.
Message relay service operates with the customer typing in what they
desire to say to the end calling party and then the relay service operator then
takes that text and relays it in voice form to the called
party.
2918
THE CHAIRPERSON: The relay
service operator is an employee of TELUS?
2919
MR. EDORA:
Yes.
2920
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you
measure or monitor the volume of these calls that come into your message relay
operators?
2921
MR. EDORA: Yes, we
do.
2922
THE CHAIRPERSON: So you
would know what the volume of those calls are?
2923
MR. EDORA: Not offhand, I do
not.
2924
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Could you find out what they were for
the last 12 months and filed it, please?
2925
MR. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
2926
THE CHAIRPERSON: You said
that you see IPRS as a natural evolution of
MRS.
2927
How do you see the transition for the person currently using MRS
happening? Is it simply going to be
that one day they are going to open the paper up and read that TELUS has now
ended or is about to end MRS services and introduce IPRS, or is there a plan to
transition it? And what is the
process for that?
2928
MR. EDORA: There is no plan
to specifically transition customers from message relay to IP relay
service. If we launch IP relay
service in full implementation in our regions, they can choose whether to use
traditional message relay service or IP relay service.
2929
The difference mainly is the customer interface
device.
2930
So if they choose to go to an Internet enabled device and use relay
services in that manner, they can.
But TELUS plans on supporting message relay service until the last TTY is
off the market in its ILEC regions.
2931
MR. WOODHEAD: If I may,
Mr. Chairman, this was a point that we picked up in the consultations
during the deferral account proceeding from groups who were interested in that
service.
2932
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You are currently, I guess by CRTC
Decision, collecting a certain amount of money per customer in your provinces
for message relay service.
2933
Is that right?
2934
MR. EDORA: That is
correct.
2935
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that
amount of funds you see sufficient to run both the MRS and the transition to
IPRS services?
2936
MR. EDORA: The current
tariff is just for the existing traditional message relay service. There would have to be separate cost
recovery for IP relay.
2937
THE CHAIRPERSON: So you
would be looking at applying to the CRTC for approval for the general body of
TELUS customers to pay for the cost associated with providing IPRS
services?
2938
MR. EDORA:
Yes.
2939
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you not
think that as people transition from MRS to IPRS, the business that you have now
in MRS will deteriorate or drop and as a result you will have sufficient funds
from the MRS collection to move across?
2940
MR. EDORA: We haven't done
that analysis. We haven't examined
the precise cost implications of launching IP relay service fully across our
regions.
2941
I should say that the migration from MRS to IP relay is not necessarily
one‑to‑one. There are reasons why
customers may choose to make ‑‑ continue to make calls on message relay
service even though they may have access to IP relay.
2942
So it's not necessarily ‑‑ it's not necessarily implied that as one
minute goes from message relay service to IP relay service that the message
relay service operation goes down automatically by one
minute.
2943
THE CHAIRPERSON: When was
the last time the CRTC approved the rates for MRS in British Columbia, Alberta
and Québec for you?
2944
MR. EDORA: That I do not
know.
2945
THE CHAIRPERSON: I would
hypothesize that at least five years, if not more.
2946
MR. EDORA: Yes. The rate for message relay has also been
frozen during the price caps period.
2947
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Have you had productivity gains in terms
of mechanization for customer service over the last five to 10 years? Do you not think that some of that
economic benefit that accrued to your mechanization and customer service
improvements would have resulted in savings perhaps in how you perform MRS, and
yet, you are still collecting the same amount of money for the MRS general
body?
2948
MR. WOODHEAD: The
mechanization of MRS?
2949
THE CHAIRPERSON: The
mechanization of your customer service.
2950
MR. WOODHEAD: Of our
enterprise‑wide customer service?
2951
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes. I mean I think most of the phone
companies across Canada have realized sufficient grains in productivity
improvements through mechanization of all sorts, including customer service
handling, your VRUs and everything else as well, in order to be able to realize
savings, and yet, the rates that have been struck back five, 10 years ago
haven't changed at all.
2952
So I put it to you: Is there
a not a contribution there that can be used to aid in the development of IPRS,
and probably VRS as well?
2953
MR. WOODHEAD: We have to
look at that but I would also tell you that the costs of providing MRS have gone
up, you know, labour costs which are, as you pointed out, an operator
service. The costs of the service
itself, and we incrementally cost, have gone up and the rates have
not.
2954
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. With regard to wireless services, do you
provide any wireless services today that support the needs of either of the
parties that have appeared before us in the last two days?
2955
MR. WOODHEAD: We believe we
do, yes.
2956
THE CHAIRPERSON: So you have
wireless products?
2957
MR. WOODHEAD: Well, we have
wireless products and I think ‑‑ are you asking do we have a phone or a
device that is specifically designed for a person with a particular
disability?
2958
THE CHAIRPERSON: We heard
this morning from ‑‑
2959
MR. WOODHEAD: Jeffrey
Stark?
2960
THE CHAIRPERSON: No. We heard from the Neil Squire Society
that there is a phone from someone called Jitterbug in the States that has
one‑button or two‑button or three‑button access to end
users.
2961
MR. WOODHEAD: There is a
phone called the Jitterbug that was developed in the last couple of years in the
United States that has large tactile buttons.
2962
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you
offer it?
2963
MR. WOODHEAD: We don't offer
the Jitterbug but we offer a phone that is very similar.
2964
THE CHAIRPERSON: So you do
offer a phone that is very similar?
2965
MR. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
2966
THE CHAIRPERSON: So if any
of the people who are looking for it need one, can they just walk into one of
your TELUS stores?
2967
MR. WOODHEAD: I was looking
at one on our website the other day.
I haven't gone and looked at a store but it is on our
website.
2968
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is on
your website.
2969
MR. WOODHEAD: And if I may
perhaps, wireless devices, as I guess everyone pretty much knows, have evolved a
great deal over the last decade or more, and a lot of the issues ‑‑ and I,
you know, listened to Mr. Stark this morning come with the size of the device
and the positions of the keys and some of that sort of stuff, and I couldn't
quibble or argue that the devices, as they got smaller, probably, you know,
constrained only by the distance between the ear and the mouth in terms of how
small you can get them, have gotten smaller in terms of the
tactility.
2970
On the other hand, the devices, and I'm not suggesting that this is
perfect, but the devices have become so much more application‑driven. It is not just voice, it is
data.
2971
And again, this doesn't solve everyone's problems but with the advent of
GPS‑enabled devices where you can get directions, with all of the variety of
enhanced directory assistance type services, with the ability to manipulate
fonts, with the greater proliferation of websites designed to W3C compliance and
designed, indeed, for mobile devices, I think, you know, it is not ‑‑ I am
not going to suggest to you that it is the perfect story but there has been an
evolution here, and I appreciate that there still remains challenges for folks
but it hasn't been a completely static situation and these devices actually can
be assistive in many ways.
2972
THE CHAIRPERSON: You said in
your opening remarks that you have just rolled out this website application for
special needs.
2973
Is that now operational?
2974
MR. EDORA: Yes, as of
September 2008.
2975
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So I am sure we will be having people
come before us in the next three days who may test it and let us know just
whether it really is as robust as you have developed it to be. I look forward to hearing that as
well.
2976
When your professional buyers sit down with the wireless manufacturers,
do they question these manufacturers with regard to the ability to meet some of
these special needs?
2977
MR. WOODHEAD: The
standard‑setting is done, you know, at international organizations. So, for example, a lot of the, either
through ‑‑ well, let's just use a couple of examples.
2978
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the amendments to the
Rehabilitation Act in the United States, some of the equipment suppliers do
this.
2979
There are also rules, similar types of standards, that are established
internationally through international standards‑setting bodies that the device
manufacturers build to comply with.
And so that is kind of how we do it.
2980
When our buyers, and you are right, when our terminal buyers go, do they
ask for special types of arrangements?
I don't believe so but the devices are manufactured to international
standards and that is what we buy to.
2981
And I think Anne has something to add.
2982
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
Yes. In fact, the questions
are asked from our buyers as to whether or not devices are compatible and that
is how we know that there are a significant number of our wireless devices that
are compatible with, for example, TTY so that you can use a TTY service on many
of our mobile phones.
2983
Questions are asked, but to Ted's point, obviously, we are a very small
market and not a very big buyer in the whole global scheme of things but we do
ask those questions.
2984
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So once they ask the questions and the
manufacturers say, we have the product, do your buyers actually buy them or do
they come back and not buy them?
2985
Because what we are hearing is, like I said earlier, other than
Jitterbug, which you said you don't have but you have got something else, are
there other products that you are not offering that may be readily available off
the shelf from the manufacturers that might address the needs of some of these
disability groups?
2986
MR. WOODHEAD: We are not
aware of that, but to the point, I think ‑‑ I was listening with interest
to Jeffrey Stark this morning and his presentation and I believe those devices
that I think he was talking about, we actually offer, but there are ‑‑ in
the case of the ones that he was talking about, we currently don't offer some of
those specific ones but we offer CDMA‑equivalent devices.
2987
But one of his concerns was devices with operating systems in them that
are not as beneficial as others and I believe he was sort of suggesting that
mobile devices with Windows operating systems or Symbian systems in them are
easier for him to use and manipulate.
2988
THE CHAIRPERSON: And I guess
we heard in the last day and a half as well that some of the products that
people are buying, I mean they need the services but some of the applications
they can't use, for example, simply because their disability doesn't allow
it.
2989
Is there some way, similar to, I guess, what the Commission did in long
distance for TTY, where there was a discount of 50 percent ‑‑ is there some
way of recognizing the fact that the utility of some of these products are not
at a hundred percent for the people that are buying it, just because, you know,
they have got a disability, and some way of incorporating that into the pricing
or the service of these products to recognize
that?
2990
Because they are not getting the value for it. You have put it in there because you
bought a handset and the handset comes the way it does and you can't change it,
as you said.
2991
Given that, though, and given the fact that they need part of the
utility, is there not some way of recognizing the discounted utility, if I can
call it that?
2992
MR. WOODHEAD: Well, I think
there is and I think it probably exists.
I was looking at our online store ‑‑ well, that is where I happened
to come across, and I wasn't actually looking for it for that reason, but this
device that we were just speaking of earlier that is a substitute, if you will,
for a Jitterbug‑type phone.
2993
There are a variety of devices ‑‑ let's take the device side. There are a variety of devices that you
can get even online, if I cast my mind back, at virtually zero dollars on a
package. So the functionality of
the device is there but do you need it all?
2994
To flip to the package side, you can pretty much à la carte. Now, the story ‑‑ you can à la
carte and say I want data only.
2995
Now, I understood Mr. Roots to say that he had had some difficulty
there ‑‑ and I don't doubt that either ‑‑ and I can say that we are
not a hundred percent all the time on our customer contacts. We should be but we are not. And I find ‑‑ and I understood that
he ultimately got what he wanted at a different location.
2996
Not the greatest customer service story but I know that you can à la
carte all of these services and reduce the price or you can go on a variety of
different plans.
2997
THE CHAIRPERSON: But I think
the issue is they don't know that.
I mean you are in the business.
You are certainly aware of it.
They, one, have difficulty accessing some of these things and, two, don't
even know what questions to ask.
2998
I am just wondering, we are going to hear from SaskTel later on, but they
in their evidence indicated they have got a special needs manager basically who
looks after an awful lot of the customers.
2999
Is there not a way of focusing ‑‑
3000
MR. WOODHEAD: We have
that.
3001
THE CHAIRPERSON: You
do?
3002
MR. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
3003
THE CHAIRPERSON: So would
everybody in your territory who has got a question be able to call this person
and ask them how they go about getting a product that meets their needs at a
price that is not ‑‑ that is more creative than just the price that is
there? If you package something
together, you bundle it together, you can actually get what you want at a lower
price than buying it à la carte?
3004
MR. WOODHEAD: I will ask
Eric to correct me if I am wrong here but I believe there is a contact ‑‑
there is contact information and contact numbers for special needs customers who
want to reach a TTY operator in that client service group or, you know,
whatever, somebody, a live person who can fulfill their needs, answer their
questions and would be able to explain how the plans and devices might best work
for them.
3005
But I will ask Eric if I have misspoken.
3006
MR. EDORA: There are
specific product management personnel that can deal with accessibility issues,
at least as it pertains to our wireline
services.
3007
When it comes to wireless, the really best avenue for all of our
customers, including customers with special needs, is to see a personal
attendant at a TELUS store. Those
people are equipped and can ask all the questions that they have to ask of that
particular customer to find out what precise needs they may
have.
3008
It is important to realize that customers, by definition, have different
needs. Customization is a big part of trying to build the right package for a
wireless subscriber, and as a result, sometimes you need to have the personal
one‑on‑one contact so you can ask all the questions and understand the usage of
that particular device.
3009
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have no
problem with the one‑on‑one but I have been in retail as well and I know retail
employees come and go and training is a major issue, and I would have thought
that a one‑person point of contact, or two or three or whatever, would make it
far easier because that person is there a lot longer than someone who has been
trained in a retail store today and has moved on to some other part of a career
tomorrow and then you are left having to train
them.
3010
MR. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chair, can
I take an undertaking because I believe that even on the ‑‑ I believe if
the implication of what Eric is saying, I believe that on the wireless side
there is, in fact, a client centre that would do this but I can answer that
fully if you wish me to take an undertaking on it.
3011
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
I would appreciate it.
3012
This is more a point of principle and I am going to put it out
there. But again, we have heard
that technology is evolving very, very quickly, and it is hard to keep up with
it but I think we have also heard suggestions made, and I don't know in what
context, but as technology evolves, certain functions that are there today for
some of the people with disabilities aren't there
tomorrow.
3013
As a principle, would you agree with me that it would make sense to, at a
minimum, say that people with disabilities should not have less capability and
less applications with new evolutions of technology than they are already
receiving with the existing?
3014
MR. WOODHEAD: I would hope
that would be the case, yes.
3015
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
3016
Okay, I want to move on to described video.
3017
You said in your remarks this afternoon, on the bottom of page
2:
"TELUS TV also provides the
pass‑through of video description to its customers." (As
read)
3018
Is it a hundred per cent pass‑through?
3019
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Not
yet. We are still working towards
that. We did have some difficulty
in obtaining the described video signal from services that we obtained from Bell
ExpressVu. There was a time where
the services that we obtained from the Bell service were actually separate, we
would need two separate encoders.
That has changed now and so we are working to ensure that that now gets
fully passed through.
3020
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there a
timeline for this to be done?
3021
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well,
definitely by the September 2009 deadline but hopefully
sooner.
3022
THE CHAIRPERSON: So at that
point in time, you will be a hundred percent pass‑through?
3023
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
Yes.
3024
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
3025
We talked about your website.
Could I ask you, if you don't know, to let us know how far along W3C
compatibility your website is and to what extent you intend to evolve it so it
does become W3C compatible?
3026
MR. EDORA: Our website
today, our telus.com website for customers to access, for example, to find out
information about our products and services, my understanding from our IT people
is that our website is 90 percent compliant with the W3C
guidelines.
3027
There are some basic issues that prevent us from being 100 percent
compliant, and truth be told, we may never be 100 percent compliant, but we have
sufficient functionality in that website in terms of colour choice, in terms of
text size, in terms of user ability to access different features of our website
via audio as opposed to text on the screen, and so we try to make our website as
accessible as possible and, as a result, we do adhere to most, if not all, of
the W3C guidelines.
3028
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I guess if I was part of the 90 percent
I would be happy. If I was part of
the 10 percent and it makes it totally useless for me, I wouldn't
be.
3029
So I guess all I am asking you to do is to tell us, not necessarily now
but you could file it, what component of W3C you are not compatible with
today.
3030
MR. EDORA: The primary
portion of our incompatibility is JavaScript enabled. My understanding is that if JavaScript
is required on your website, then you do not meet all of the W3C
guidelines. Unfortunately, our
website today requires that JavaScript is enabled for our customers to access
our site.
3031
THE CHAIRPERSON: So what
limitation does that provide and to what interest group does that limit it? Who then cannot access your
website?
3032
MR. EDORA: Most computers
nowadays can run websites with Java and so I can't give you the percentage
because I honestly don't know but the vast majority of internet users would be
able to access our website.
3033
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: If I
may add as well.
3034
Eric spoke of the telus.com website, which is our corporate website that
offers all the information with respect to the services that we
offer.
3035
With respect to content that we offer on either the mytelus.com service
in English or the globetrotter.net service in French, there are some issues and
it doesn't necessarily go to accessibility per se.
3036
W3C compliance, when we looked at that, there are numerous standards
included in that that really don't relate to accessibility for persons with
disabilities. But with respect to
where you include video and a lot of imaging, which of course is what we do on
those websites that offer content, it does make it very difficult to follow the
same standards as are required in order to meet the W3C
standards.
3037
But that doesn't mean that they are any less accessible to persons with
disabilities. It just means that we
are using a different type of standard that perhaps works better with our mobile
service or perhaps works better for various reasons but it does not necessarily
mean that it is any less accessible to persons with
disabilities.
3038
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. TELUS is also a BDU. We heard yesterday the Canadian
Association of Broadcasters indicate that with regard to captioning quality,
there is a role for BDUs to play as well as part of the work towards making
closed captioning better than what it is today.
3039
Can you comment on what role you would see TELUS playing as a BDU in this
regard?
3040
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well,
obviously the pass‑through, which we do for all services, and I did mention the
example of there were technical difficulties that we have resolved and as far as
we know we have resolved them all with respect to HD
services.
3041
So as you change technologies, the standards that were initially set for
HD have evolved over time, and so it does require us to make adjustments to our
IPTV service in order to ensure that.
So I definitely think that those are the roles ‑‑ that is the role
that we should be playing as a BDU.
3042
With respect to the actual provisioning of closed captioning, this is
part ‑‑ that is an integral part of the broadcasting programming
service. It is not a distribution
thing. We already pass through all
of the components.
3043
So to the extent that the CAB might have been looking for additional
funding, it seems to me that perhaps that is something that ‑‑ and it was
at one time included in the funding that we provided to the CTF, so that
programming funding that they received for the programming from the CTF did
include some funding going towards the closed captioning. Perhaps those rules should be
re‑instituted.
3044
THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't
think it was funding that they were looking for. I thought they were looking for support
on the back end of the distribution chain but I could be
wrong.
3045
Anyways, those are all my questions, but I am sure some of the
commissioners here have got questions as well.
3046
I will turn to my right first, to Commissioner
Lamarre.
3047
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
3048
Since we are talking about closed captioning, I do take your point that
after doing the test and when you put up the system, there were still some
issues that were at the receiver end and it was involving TV sets and you fixed
that.
3049
Did you actually do an accounting of what it cost you in resources to try
and fix that?
3050
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: No, we
didn't. It was ‑‑ you know, we considered at the time that it was one‑off
and, you know, it was adjustments with respect to one particular brand of TV set
and it didn't occur to us at the time to cost that out.
3051
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: So
would it be fair to say that it was not significant enough for you to take the
trouble of doing the exact accounting of how much resources it
took?
3052
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: With
respect to that particular problem, absolutely, yes.
3053
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: With
regards to the ‑‑ let me get the proper wording here. With the enhanced directory assistance,
in answering a question from Commissioner Katz you answered that it is not
deployed in Quebec at this point.
3054
When do you intend to deploy it in Quebec?
3055
MR. EDORA: I don't know the
specific timeline for the Quebec implementation.
3056
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Would
it be possible to get one?
3057
MR. EDORA: Yes,
absolutely.
3058
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Mr.
Woodhead, as part of your undertaking as far as the issues of contact for
customers with accessibility, would you kindly add to that the issue of the
availability of that service also in French as well as in
English?
3059
MR. WOODHEAD:
Absolutely.
3060
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you.
3061
As far as your website ‑‑ and you had mentioned that you now have a
special section on that website for products and services for persons with
disabilities ‑‑ is it available in both French and
English?
‑‑‑ Pause
3062
MR. ENDORA: At this time it
is not, but we are working on the Quebec French‑language implementation of the
website. It should be available by
March 2009.
3063
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: March
2009. Thank
you.
3064
You have touched upon one implementation difficulty that you will have
the VRS in regards to the scarcity of LSQ interpreters available to fulfil, you
know, positions in order to make your service available in
French.
3065
I have to admit I have absolutely no clue what it takes to become an LSQ
interpreter, but I'm still wondering if you have considered putting in place a
training program so it would be easier for you to hire LSQ
interpreters.
3066
MR. ENDORA: In terms of
availability of LSQ sign language interpreters, we would see that as an issue
that the provider would have to report back to us and indicate that to us. We do not have any specific plans for a
training program operated by TELUS to get LSQ interpreters, to make people able
to provide LSQ services.
3067
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: So
basically what you are telling me is that the VRS service is actually being
contracted out to a vendor?
3068
MR. ENDORA: Absolutely. My understanding is in the U.S. all
video relay services are contracted out to specialized providers of
VRS.
3069
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: But
you are the one setting up the requirements from your supplier for the VRS
service, so what I would like to know is just how much thought you have put into
this to make sure that you do meet the requirements of your clients in both
English and French?
3070
MR. ENDORA: At this time,
our vendor does not meet the requirements for French.
3071
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: And
when will the vendor be meeting those requirements for
French?
3072
MR. ENDORA: Our trial is
just for Alberta and British Columbia, for English ASL. As a result, there is no specific
requirement at this time for LSQs VRS service.
3073
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: So you
did not set any specific requirements for LSQ at this
point?
3074
MR. ENDORA: Well,
irrespective of whether we set requirements or not, we understand that it's
impossible right now for our vendor to supply LSQ VRS
service.
3075
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
However, you his client, so if you don't set up the requirement, what's
going to motivate him to meet that requirement?
3076
MR. ENDORA: The motivation
will be that if there are LSQ‑available people that can provide the service,
then they will be able to provide VRS services in Quebec for people who require
that service. That's the
motivation.
3077
Unfortunately, what has happened is we understand that there's just a
small number of people that can provide the service, not just for video relay
services, but just in general, in Quebec and for the French
language.
3078
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Well,
I'm sorry, Mr. Endora, but I'm not satisfied with your answer. What I'm trying to convey to you here is
that you have French‑speaking clients who will need that service and what you
are telling me is that you will be providing that service once you have LSQ
interpreters available.
3079
Well, how are they going to be made available if you don't insist with
your vendor that your clients, your French clients, are being served the same
way you are serving your English clients?
3080
MR. WOODHEAD: We will have
to get back to you on what was in the actual RFI and whatever the arrangement is
with the vendor. Because I believe
we heard just previously from Mr. Roots that one of the issues was in Quebec
that one of the providers that is involved in trialing this or wanting to come
into Canada is trying to absorb LSQ translators from other positions that they
might be in in Quebec, and we can certainly get back to you as to what the
status of that was. But, obviously,
we would want to offer the service across our operating territory. We are not in the habit of having
services, you know, here and not here.
3081
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Oh, I
appreciate that. Thank
you.
3082
Now, my last question is basically for you, I think, Mr.
Woodhead.
3083
In answering questions of our chair, Mr. Katz, regarding procurement of
equipment and how you get across to the manufacturers the need that you have for
your customers that have accessibility issues, you mentioned that the specifics
or requirements or the standards ‑‑ I don't remember exactly the word you
used ‑‑ were actually decided on international regulatory
bodies.
3084
Now, I was hoping you could be more specific as to which body
specifically you are referring to and whether it's a regulatory body or a
standardization body.
3085
MR. WOODHEAD: Well, I
wouldn't have suggested, I don't think I said ‑‑ I hope I didn't suggest it
was a regulatory body. I think it's
a standard‑setting body.
3086
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay. You did. Oh, so it's a standardization body. Okay. Could you be specific as to which body
we are referring to here, as far as wireless devices are
concerned?
3087
You can get back to me on that, if you wish.
3088
MR. WOODHEAD: I can. I was going to say I suspect it's some
working group of the ITU, but I can figure that out for you and get back to
you.
3089
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay. And also I would be
interested to know if TELUS is actually sitting on this organization, either as
a full participant or as an observer.
3090
MR. WOODHEAD: TELUS Mobility
actually leads one of the Canadian delegations to the ITU. We have a dedicated individual that
goes. I'm not sure ‑‑ and I
can check ‑‑ if he is involved on that particular
subcommittee.
3091
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: If you
are referring to Mr. Serge Bertuzzo, I can assure you that's not what he's
doing. He's mainly dealing with the
spectrum issues.
3092
MR. WOODHEAD: Okay. That would be who I was speaking
to ‑‑
3093
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay.
3094
MR. WOODHEAD: ‑‑ so you have answered your own
question.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
3095
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Well,
I'm disappointed. Maybe you can
find someone else who sits on those standardization organizations, but just let
me know if at least you also have an observation task that's assigned to
somebody with regards to what's going on?
3096
MR. WOODHEAD: We would not,
then.
3097
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
No?
3098
MR. WOODHEAD: And who we
would rely on for that would probably be our carrier partners in the United
States.
3099
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay.
3100
Those are all my questions.
Thank you.
3101
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
3102
Before some people cross their legs a second time, we are going to take a
break here. I think some of the
commissioners here have more questions to ask, but we will adjourn till 4:30 and
we will come back with some final questions.
3103
Thank you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1620 / Suspension à
1620
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1630 / Reprise à
1630
3104
THE SECRETARY: Please be
seated. S'il vous plaît, prend vos
places.
3105
THE CHAIRPERSON: If
anybody's my age and has watched Columbo in the past, you will know that he
always has one more question.
Commissioner Lamarre just realized she has a couple more questions to ask
of you.
3106
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Well,
actually, staff pointed a few things out to me and, as I'm the designated techie
on this panel, I'm the one who gets to ask
them.
3107
Ms Mainville, in response to the issue of having difficulty to pass the
descriptive video ‑‑ from what you receive from Bell ExpressVu, you have
mentioned that the issue has been fixed and you expect that by September
2009 ‑‑ your target there is that by September 2009 it will be fully
passed, you are not going to have any such issues any
more.
3108
Did I hear you say that previously, with the fee you were getting from
Bell, you needed two specific decoders and coders to put it on your link and
that now you only need one?
3109
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: That's
correct. We would have needed two
separate encoders.
3110
What was happening was that the video and the normal audio feed were on
one encoder, and then there was a separate encoder for the video description
audio feed, and they weren't ‑‑ essentially, it's almost like they were
split out. I'm not a techie,
so...but it's essentially as if they were split out, and so it would have
required a second encoder.
3111
Obviously, that would have been very expensive to implement. And I believe that the Commission agreed
with that because in the process that we had on video description only, you
know, less than a year‑and‑a‑half ago, it was determined that only those feeds
received from Cancom, Star Choice, were required to be passed through by January
2008, which, of course, we do.
3112
And so since then we have been notified by Bell that has changed
now. And they weren't doing that
just to be mischievous. It had
something to do with the way that they then offer the signal to their
subscribers. And you will be
speaking with Bell shortly so I'm sure you are going to have those questions,
but it had to do with the way that they were then offering the video description
to their subscribers.
3113
But as an SRDU, it created problem for us BDUs when we received the
signal to be able to then put it back together as one. Now that problem is fixed, we will be
now adjusting our systems such that we will be able to include the video
description feed in the way that we do now.
3114
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay. So if I want to know
exactly what changed, with the feed you are receiving from Bell I will be asking
Bell about that.
3115
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: I think
that would be a good....
3116
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Okay,
thank you.
3117
Now, I don't know if you are aware, but there are other feed providers
that have a different system, where, you know, as far as the set‑top boxes is
concerned, for the user, actually the TV viewer, you can set it up so that you
always get the secondary audio channel, and hence the descriptive video. But there's a glitch with that type of
setup, insofar as when there is no described video it's a lost track, and then
you basically lose the audio.
3118
Do you encounter such difficulties with the way your system is set
up?
3119
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well,
what we have been asking broadcasters ‑‑ and so far we have had a lot of
success in those, you know, discussions with broadcasters ‑‑ is to ask then
that, where there isn't any described video, that you just have the normal audio
that's on that track. So that
whatever programming is described, let's say, at 9 p.m., whatever else, you
know, at 8 p.m., 7 p.m. and whatnot, is just the normal audio feed, and then,
boom, the programming with the described video.
3120
So that secondary audio always has some audio feed, whether it's
described or not, and so that certainly enables us to have the setup that we
do. So that once a person has
changed, gone through the steps that it takes to change it to always receive the
described video, even if they change the channel, they still end up on the
described video feed.
3121
So whatever programming that is described will pop up
first ‑‑
3122
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay.
3123
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: ‑‑ but if there is no described video, then
they should get the normal feed.
3124
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: So
basically you are telling me that whether or not there is described video on the
second audio channel, you are always transmitting something on the second audio
channel, even if it's just a repeat of the main channel?
3125
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well,
it's not a repeat ‑‑ well, yes, it's repeat, yes, it's the same, identical
as on the normal channel.
3126
And so we have worked with the programming services to ensure that
secondary audio has that and, where they weren't able to provide, they have
sometimes indicated where they do have described video, and then we swap it for
them.
3127
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay. And that does not
cause bandwidth issues with your system?
3128
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: No,
because actually the ‑‑ ultimately, we did implement a SAP, so a secondary
audio programming.
3129
You may recall that our initial submission back, you know, a
year‑and‑a‑half ago, we had indicated that we would rather not do that and come
up with some different solution that would allow us not to have that blank
channel, but that just didn't pan out.
And as we changed some of our middleware, so the way that we provide the
programming services, we were able to just dedicate a small ‑‑ audio
programming doesn't take that much bandwidth, so we just dedicated a secondary
audio. Programming that bandwidth
is always taken up whether there's something there or not.
3130
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Okay,
thank you.
3131
Finally, about the electronic program guide, which I'm assuming you do
have on your set‑top box, are you using either unique audio tone or logo in that
guide to indicate whether a specific program is being
described?
3132
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
No. In fact, one of the
difficulties that we have is getting advanced notice where there is, in fact,
described video. We are not
getting, necessarily, that notice from all of our content providers, so that
would be very difficult to implement, number one.
3133
Number two, from a technology perspective, at this time our programming
guide is visual only. And while I
have certainly listened with interest to the comments that were made that it
would be simple to do this, my techies tell me otherwise.
3134
But certainly I will be bringing this back to them and seeing if, in
fact, it is difficult or not and if there are ways of doing so. That would be contingent, of course, of
receiving the information.
3135
But part of our discussion with the content providers was that they would
prefer to just fill up that secondary audio with DV ‑‑ either described
video or normal audio programming and not necessarily providing advance
notice.
3136
You come to the same problem as we have with simultaneous
substitutions. Schedules change on
a regular basis and it becomes cumbersome for content providers to provide
notice to all BDUs, who are obviously not their only customer. So it does get a bit burdensome for
them, I'm told.
3137
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE:
Okay. And if I may just
insist about the fact that your electronic programming guide, you mentioned, is
100 percent visual. Do you have any
plan to make an audio program guide?
Do you know if it's feasible?
Or could you undertake to let us know?
3138
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well,
certainly I never heard of such a thing before we started this proceeding. And I read with interest the comments
that were made from other parties that have implemented that kind of
thing.
3139
We have started discussions as to, you know, how expensive would it be to
launch that kind of thing, but those discussions always lead to the point that,
unfortunately, during the type of service that simply just reads out what
programming is available at what time does not fit well with the interactivity
of our programming guide.
3140
So rather than implement that kind of service, which I think is of
limited use, if there was a way that we could actually have the technology that
allowed us to, you know, when you tune to that channel it tells you, "You are on
channel 46, watching whatever", that, to us, is what we would really strive
for.
3141
So as we discuss with our TELUS TV team, I think that we will be looking
towards that kind of ultimate solution.
We would prefer that to an interim solution that was just a reading out
of the programming guide.
3142
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: What
that solution actually tells you what channel you are on and ‑‑ well, the
way you are describing it right now, actually. So it tells you what channel you are on
and probably which program you are watching, but it doesn't allow you to plan
your evening or weekend as far as TV viewing is concerned.
3143
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well, I
mean, if we envisioned it in such way that when the ‑‑ at this point the
menu pops up on screen and then your cursor ‑‑ you can always see where
your cursor is, and if there was a way for that cursor to tell you, "You're now
on Desperate Housewives, on CTV, channel 7" and that's when you can click to put
in a reminder to set it as one of your favourites, if there was a way that could
be read out to you with a screen‑reader technology or ‑‑ you know, we are
an IPTV service and so we would like to see, ultimately, the best technology fit
with, you know, what we are already offering by way of
interactivity.
3144
You know, we would hate to go retro with something that is of limited use
by just having, you know, an audio‑scrolling type of ‑‑ you know, the old
analogue channel that tells you, you know, channel 4, that tells you what's
coming, on and you have to wait for a significant amount of time for the
programming that you really want to see.
3145
So we would strive towards that kind of solution, which I don't think is
very near at this point. I do think that it's, you know, a bit further down in
the future. But, ultimately, I
think that would be the best use ‑‑ or that persons with disabilities would
get the most use of that kind of interactive audio guide and it may not be that
distant in the future.
3146
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: And
what would be your educated guess as to what "not very near"
means?
3147
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: At this
point screen readers exist, but the technology folks on our TELUS TV tell me
that, you know, you are at least two years.
3148
COMMISSIONER LAMARRE: Thank
you, those are all my questions.
3149
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will go
from east to west.
3150
I look to Commissioner Duncan to start.
3151
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just a
couple of questions.
3152
First of all, picking up on Commissioner Lamarre's question about the
Bell signal, I understood you to say that they are no longer passing it through
on two channels. But then in your
response to Ms Lamarre, you said that there is still a second track for the
audio.
3153
So it is still using two channels?
3154
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Well,
it's not using two channels, per se.
3155
A while back, the way that we offered CPAC, for example, with the two
audios, so the French language and the English language, is we actually
duplicated the video signal entirely.
We no longer do that. We
offer a second audio track for that one video
channel.
3156
So the one channel has two audio tracks essentially in the same way that
other cable services are offering the service, except that being digital it is
fairly easy to access. And once you
have gone through the steps, it's on, and on for every channel each time you
change the channel. Even when you
turn the TV off and turn it back on, the described video is always the first
audio track to come up.
3157
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So with
your IPTV solution, then, the requirement in 2009, you are not going to be faced
with a capacity issue?
3158
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: No,
capacity is not the issue.
3159
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Is not
an issue.
3160
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
Obviously, there is an expense associated, there it a buildout to be
done, which is why we haven't immediately started to offer every single service
now, that we do receive them from Bell.
We have to change the way that we offer the services and that requires a
bit of a buildout, but we do anticipate meeting the
deadline.
3161
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Okay.
3162
I just want to go back. I
wanted to ask you, to do with your answer, Mr. Woodhead, about the TTY
equivalent ‑‑ I think it was your answer ‑‑ about the MRS and the IPRS
service. I think I was maybe a
little confused.
3163
Is the TTY equipment provided by TELUS or purchased by the
user?
3164
MR. ENDORA: It is purchased
by the end user.
3165
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Okay. So it's not your
equipment, then?
3166
MR. ENDORA:
No.
3167
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I know
in our office in Halifax we have one, and I don't know how many pounds it
weighs, it looks pretty heavy, but have they been modernized? Are they fairly portable now
or...?
3168
MR. ENDORA: They are
designed to be portable. To be
honest, I don't know how big the average TTY equipment is.
3169
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I'm
curious to know, do you have any idea what percent of your users would be
dependent on sign language?
3170
MR. ENDORA: Dependent on
sign language? I do not know that
offhand.
3171
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN:
Okay. So VRS service might
be rolled out for a very few number of people. You have no idea how many people might
use sign language solely?
3172
MR. ENDORA: That's
definitely a question and that's why this trial will be useful. It is an open question as to the overall
demand of video relay service.
That's absolutely correct.
3173
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And I
went into your special needs site here and, of course, I see it's not available
in Nova Scotia ‑‑ we do have a TELUS cellular phone, one of our many, many
phones is a TELUS cellular phone, but it's not available in Nova Scotia. First of all, I was going to ask you why
I didn't see it, but you had said it was only available in Alberta and British
Columbia, which is where you have the funds.
3174
I'm wondering, if I was blind or vision impaired, your website for
special needs, how would I be serviced by that?
3175
MR. ENDORA: My understanding
is that there are tools, there are tools on the website that allow ‑‑ for
example, screen readers or for audio capabilities of that website that people
with hearing or visual impairment can actually access the
website.
3176
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So my
laptop would come with that or my desktop, those tools, or is that peripheral,
something I would attach?
3177
MR. ENDORA: To be honest,
I'm not sure how these particular website tools are actually
accessed.
3178
COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay,
thank you.
3179
I have got a question here, then.
In your second ‑‑ no?
Okay, that's fine. I'm fine,
then.
3180
Thank you very much.
3181
That's mine, Mr. Chairman, thanks.
3182
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Duncan.
3183
As we go from east to west, I have got one question, as you pass through
central Canada, that just came up.
3184
Do you provide MRS services to your wireless customers if they want to
use this?
3185
MR. WOODHEAD: Wireless
customers, yes, wireless carriers have to provide it.
3186
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Do all your wireless customers get a
line item on the bill for MRS services?
Do you charge all your customers, including wireless, for
MRS?
3187
MR. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
3188
MR. EDORA: There is a
specific line item for relay services for wireless
customers.
3189
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just remind
me what that amount of money is.
3190
Is it different by province for TELUS for wireless? I know for wireline it is different
between Alberta and B.C.
3191
MR. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
3192
THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't
know about wireless.
3193
MR. WOODHEAD: I don't know,
but we can undertake to provide that to you.
3194
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank
you.
3195
Commissioner Molnar...?
3196
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank
you.
3197
I think I will first begin by following up with Commissioner Katz's
questions related to message relay.
3198
I have some interesting ‑‑ I know that in the initial questions that
the Chairman asked he asked you to provide an undertaking that showed the volume
over the last 12 months of your message relay service.
3199
I'm wondering if it would be possible to extend that and show us how
volumes have changed over the past five years. Would that be information that you
have?
3200
MR. EDORA: Absolutely we
would provide that information.
3201
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank
you.
3202
Just to follow up on that, and I guess why I'm asking that question, I
have a sense that there have been a number of new technologies in the market
such as SMS, you know, text messaging or instant messaging and so on that really
have been of benefit to the persons who are deaf.
3203
I wonder to what extent there has been a natural transition away from
traditional message relay service already.
3204
So that's the information I would like to see and I'm thinking maybe five
years of information would help us see if there actually has been a transition
away from message relay already.
3205
MR. EDORA: Absolutely, we
will provide the numbers for you.
3206
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank
you.
3207
I also want to follow up a little bit on the information or the
discussion you had related to the cost of message relay
service.
3208
Mr. Woodhead, you said that the costs have increased for message relay
service because operator service costs have increased. I expect it has been quite a long time
since anybody has actually looked at the costs related to, you know the actual
doing a Phase 2 type of cost for message relay service. But would you be able to tell me: Are there other cost components that
were considered in establishing the rates initially for message
relay?
3209
MR. WOODHEAD: I'm sorry,
Commissioner, if there were other cost elements...?
3210
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Outside
of operator service that are incorporated into the rate for message
relay.
3211
MR. WOODHEAD: I would have
to go back and look. I believe
there are, but I would have to check.
3212
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Yes. If you have anything
related to an old study or something that at least identifies what are the cost
components that make up message relay, we would appreciate
that.
3213
MR. WOODHEAD: Very
well.
3214
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank
you.
3215
I want to go back for a minute to your opening remarks about the video
relay service trial that you are going to conduct.
3216
You say in your remarks that the trial ‑‑ it says
here:
"In TELUS' view prior to any
requirement for a national provision of video relay services there must be full
consideration given to finding the best method for video relay services to
recover their operational costs."
(As read)
3217
So what is it that is going on with your trial that will help us to
determine the best method to recover the operational costs of video relay
service?
3218
MR. EDORA: There is a
distinction between video relay services and the traditional message relay
services, and as well even IP relay services, in the simple respect that there
is a live operator that is signing to the calling ‑‑
3219
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Sorry,
just in the interests of time, I understand how video relay service is
conducted.
3220
So if you could tell me what is ‑‑ at the end of this if we make a
determination to provide a national video relay service, we are also going to
have to make a determination as to how we will fund nationally both startup and
ongoing costs of that service.
3221
So is there information that will be captured from your trial that will
help us to determine how to fund the ongoing operational costs of providing that
service?
3222
MR. EDORA: The crucial
information that we will gather, and as a result the Commission will understand,
is just the usage of the service and the true operational costs of running this
service, even for a limited trial.
3223
As I said, the difference between IP ‑‑ traditional relay services
and video relay services is we just expect the operational costs are going to be
considerably higher.
3224
As a result, the traditional approach of using an individual tariff on a
local line may not be applicable because the rate for operational ‑‑ the
rate to fund operational costs for video relay services might be considerably
higher than traditional relay service.
That is a critical piece of information.
3225
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So what
you will determine out of that is the operational costs for providing it to a
select trial group of customers. Is
that true?
3226
MR. EDORA: That is correct,
we will have an understanding as to the operational cost, at least as it
pertains to the particular trial that we are undertaking.
3227
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Okay. Can I just validate,
then, you RFP'd before you initiated this
trial?
3228
MR. EDORA:
Yes.
3229
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So you
have the least cost provider ‑‑
3230
MR. EDORA:
Yes.
3231
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: ‑‑ in providing this
trial?
3232
MR. EDORA: Well, I can't
verify it's the least cost provider, but it was the provider that met the
guidelines of our request.
3233
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Okay. Thank
you.
3234
What about the IP relay service trial that you are conducting, what sort
of knowledge or information will be get from that?
3235
MR. EDORA: The IP relay
trial is dramatically different in terms of the information gathered than our
video relay service trial. VRS is
yet to be implemented. IP relay has
yet to be implemented, but we expect that the usage will be similar to message
relay service, at least in terms of the number of calls being made and the types
of calls being made.
3236
So the trial in terms of information that we will gather is just how
customers use the service, what they find effective about the IP relay service,
any sort of modifications they may wish to see before implementation, that type
of thing.
3237
It's not necessarily to determine operational costs, even though that is
a component of it.
3238
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Okay. Just one more question
and following up on the questions that Commissioner Lamarre asked related to
your passing through described video.
3239
You commented that with the embedded format that you are moving to that
the described video second audio channel will be always on. Is that right?
3240
Could you help me in two ways.
I'm just trying to understand.
It seems to me from what we have heard from some of the groups
representing persons who are blind and some of the submissions made is that it's
quite difficult to both be aware that there is programming available and then
functionally to access it.
3241
You know, there are different menus in different screens you need to go
through to have that service available to you on your
television.
3242
So you have commented that if you said it, is it true; if you said it
once, it's there?
3243
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: That's
correct.
3244
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And it
will flow through, I believe you said it will flow through audio and only
superimpose the described video where that exists?
3245
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
Right. It is not quite a
superimposed. This is the feed that
the broadcaster ‑‑
3246
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: No, I
understand. Poor wording on my
part.
3247
What about other channels, because we are talking about Canadian channels
here and we are talking about at this point at least a select group of Canadian
channels where described video is available.
3248
So what happens if you want to move from an OTA or a specialty service
that has described video to one that does not? Will that flow through or will that
cause a consumer to have to go through the full menu?
3249
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: I admit
that I'm not sure of that.
3250
I know that we had paid particular attention to the programming on one
specific channel knowing that the obligations will be for all ‑‑ at least
all Canadian channels ‑‑ to have that.
3251
So I can certainly undertake to verify what happens for channels that
were not currently offering described video to see what is
there.
3252
I venture to say that just because we have discussed this functionality
and the idea that the always on being of extreme importance to our subscribers,
I would think that we have thought that one through. But I can certainly undertake to verify
that.
3253
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Okay. Well, thank you for
that.
3254
I'm interested from the fact many times you have homes where there are
people in the home that perhaps you have one person in the home who is unable to
see or has, you know, visual limitations and others that don't and so you are
sharing the set‑top box, you are sharing the remote. And how easy is it for everyone to
access the programming.
3255
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
Absolutely. And certainly we
recognize that it is a six‑step process to turn on the described video,
something that we have made sure that all of our customer service
representatives are very familiar with so that anyone who has any
difficulty ‑‑ for example, if you are visually impaired perhaps you know
you may not see have I pressed that button and because it is all on screen they
can walk you through that process and what should be
happening.
3256
So for that reason we recognize that turning it on and off is not
particularly easy. So with respect
to other members of the family who may not want it on but don't necessarily want
to turn it off and make it a hassle for other members of the family, we are
certainly trying to make it as easy as possible.
3257
I will verify with respect to those channels that were not currently
offering subscribed video to see if there is any audio programming
there.
3258
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Okay. Thank
you.
3259
I just want to follow up with what you said. You said it is a six‑step process. That is the process that will be
available in September '09?
3260
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Oh no,
that is the current process for turning on the described video, so when you go
to the menu then click on, you know, the various things to be able to turn
on. Unfortunately it is not a
single button on the remote. You do
have to go through a few steps to be able to turn on that functionality, in the
same way that if you are turning on the parental controls, you know, it takes a
moment to get to the menu and then from that menu go to another submenu and
actually turn it on.
3261
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Are you
in discussions with your manufacturers and suppliers now about any ways to
reduce the number of steps to access that?
3262
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: We are
always looking at different ways to be able to configure our menu systems and
yes, we are in talks with manufacturers, as well as our own technology folks on
trying to make things easier.
3263
At this time, this was the easiest that we could come up with. But if there are any improvements that
we can make as we do develop it, it is being kept in mind with respect to all
the future ‑‑
3264
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Right.
Maybe I will just ask it one more
time very directly. Do you have
requirements today that you are speaking to your suppliers or manufacturers
about that would seek to reduce the number of steps?
3265
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: I don't
believe that it is a manufacturing issue, so it is our technical
folks.
3266
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR:
Technical, your middleware, whatever it might
be.
3267
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: Not
directly at this time, but we are certainly ‑‑ I know that the system is
continuously evolving and that does result in different changes being
made.
3268
The one thing that I can say is that we are ensuring that there are no
additional steps that are ever required.
As for reducing, I'm not sure that is something that we can promise at
this time.
3269
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: I will
pass it on just with one comment, however.
3270
My experience is that it evolves based on the requirements defined by the
service providers, particularly in the world of IPTV where you are pioneers in
some ways.
3271
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON:
Understood.
3272
COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Those
are my questions.
3273
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Molnar.
3274
Commissioner Simpson...?
3275
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you very much.
3276
Picking right up on the statement from Commissioner Molnar about the
directives of an organization such as yours to your supplier community, I am
going to be asking you some questions along the line of the trial on the BRS and
where I would like to start is with respect to your company's approach to the
trial in terms of what it is that you are seeking as an
outcome.
3277
Is it that you are trying to learn what is involved in the provision of
this service to the community by relying on the supplier you have chosen or do
you feel that you have learned sufficiently from the consultations that you
engaged in prior to that supplier selection that that consultation guided you in
the specifications that you used to choose your supplier?
3278
MR. EDORA: The consultations
that we had prior to the deferral account decision, it was clear to us that a
number of groups wanted video relay services. So, Commissioner, there are a number of
existing operators of video relay services in the U.S. and my understanding from
the way the consultations went is a number of the groups said in the U.S. they
have video relay services. We
should have a similar type of service in
Canada.
3279
So we undertook the vendor selection for our trial knowing that our
vendor would come from the United States, would have experience in providing VRS
in the United States.
3280
So you are right in the respect of video relay services were highlighted
as a need as part of the consultation and then our vendor selection process, we
tried to pick the best vendor, at least for the sake of the trial, existing
vendor from the choice of VRS service providers already in the
marketplace.
3281
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That
just begs asking the question: What
was the criteria used in the selection of the vendor then?
3282
MR. EDORA: I think we can
undertake to provide to the Commission in confidence the requirements in terms
of the vendor because often ‑‑ immediately at my disposal I don't have that
information.
3283
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I will
come back to that in a minute because there is some other information that I'm
hoping you might have either through an undertaking or in this proceeding share
with us.
3284
Understanding that in the selection of a service or a technology provider
there is going to be a strong criteria list which has to satisfy the business
case and satisfy an analysis of customer needs and requirements, we had heard
earlier today through the presentation by Messrs. Roots and Vlug that in their
considered opinion they were in agreement with you in that VRS is alive and well
and has a quality of service provided in the United States, and there is no need
to reinvent the wheel other than obviously we would choose to see that service
provided through a Canadian service provider.
3285
Now, armed with that, I want to go back again and try and understand,
aside from the determination that VRS is required in this country, why you
wouldn't have taken it upon yourself to try and learn as much as possible from
the user community why those services, qualitatively and quantitatively, were
deemed to be satisfactory so that you could sharpen your criteria list and
lessen the need for this to be a trial and more of a precursor to a
rollout.
3286
MR. EDORA: Our trial is a
12‑month trial and a lot of the information that we plan on gathering we hope to
get as part of this trial. There is
no better way to find out the strengths and weaknesses of a prospective service
than actually putting it into the marketplace.
3287
This is actually implementation.
It is implementation on a trial basis, but it is implementation. So we will talk directly with the
customers that actually use the service and tell us whether there are specific
limitations or specific things about the service, both positive and negative, so
that we know if we were to go to full implementation we can make the necessary
adjustments.
3288
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: So
what you are saying is that this trial was necessary for you to learn those
determinations rather than gain the insight before you went into the
trial.
3289
MR. EDORA: Absolutely. I think what everyone has to understand
is this service has never been launched in Canada. And yes, we anticipate this service will
be similar to the American services already in the marketplace. But no service provider, ILEC or CLEC or
whoever, has provided the service in Canada and we think it's important to at
least trial so that not only do we understand the strengths and weaknesses of
the service, we can understand the overall customer
demand.
3290
Is this a service that will actually have a lot of utility for the
hearing impaired community?
3291
We have heard that it will have, but the truth is we won't know until we
at least try.
3292
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: From
my understanding, because I am not like a lot of my learned colleagues, that up
to speed on the telecommunications industry, are you saying ‑‑ again, for
my clarity ‑‑ that you are going through ‑‑ the first stage of this
exercise is to understand the technological implications before you start
fine‑tuning the service with respect to quality and service
issues?
3293
MR. EDORA: The service we
will be providing in Canada ‑‑ I just want to be clear on that point just
in case anyone is wondering.
3294
The technology issues are definitely an immediate concern, but we don't
view them as an ongoing concern because, as I have said, the service is
available in the U.S. through outsource providers.
3295
So we think that provided we get ‑‑ provided we have enough time for
implementation for the trial and we can iron out the technological issues, we
don't think that is going to be an ongoing concern as part of the
trial.
3296
The big issue for us are operational costs. How much is this service actually going
to cost? And, as well, how are the
customers actually using the service and are they getting sufficient utility
from the actual service?
3297
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you very much.
3298
I would just like to end with one more question and a thought I would
like to share with you.
3299
Would it be possible ‑‑ with the information that you are learning
with respect to VRS, is there anything that either you have now or would be able
to share with the Commission on a confidential basis to aid in our understanding
of what you have learned from this exercise of using the deferral money as a
trial process?
3300
MR. EDORA: As part of the
deferral account procedures, of course we have to provide data on an annual
basis.
3301
As well, if the Commission is interested on the status of the report or
the ongoing learnings from the report over the course of the trial, we would be
happy to provide those in confidence.
3302
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank
you. I would just like to
say ‑‑
3303
MR. EDORA: I'm
sorry...?
3304
THE CHAIRPERSON: Before you
go, I think I also heard you say earlier you are going to file the RFI and the
RFP as well with us.
3305
MR. EDORA: We were going to
file the requirements for the vendor in confidence with the
Commission.
3306
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is that not the
RFP?
3307
MR. EDORA: Well, conceivably
it could be.
3308
THE CHAIRPERSON:
Okay.
3309
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I
would just like to end by saying that in the course of doing our homework on
this case it has come to my appreciation that this is not just a technological
service provision issue. I know you
know that, but I'm trying to I guess for the record get out I think a very
strong point that this type of service provision puts you into a very different
customer service space with respect to content, which is something that I think
the telecoms have traditionally been more in the carriage area, not the content
area.
3310
I have very much come to appreciate that with respect to interpretation,
well all aspects of assisting those who require additional services, that it is
highly personal.
3311
And in looking at the quality of the VRS services in the United States, I
was amazed to come to understand the nuances that are involved, for example,
just in the relationship between the customer and the interpreter, and that
relationship being one of building trust to the extent that there is not the
concern of misinterpretation, which apparently can happen quite frequently and
it is detected through issues like lip reading.
3312
And also just the whole engagement and relationship between the way you
engage the client and the service you provide has become a tremendous insight
for us. I would caution all
technology providers to become more sensitive to.
3313
Thank you.
3314
THE CHAIRPERSON: Does legal
have any questions?
3315
MS LEHOUX: Thank
you.
3316
What are or would be the challenges in terms of cost or technical
challenges if TELUS were required to provide, one, information and more
alternative formats than those currently required and, two, or more documents
than those currently required?
3317
MR. WOODHEAD: Do you mean
through our website or do you mean ‑‑
3318
MS LEHOUX: Not only your
website.
3319
MR. WOODHEAD: Without
knowing I get you are just globally generally
asking.
3320
I think we would have to see examples of what you are talking about to
understand what the cost implications would be and what
our ‑‑
3321
MS LEHOUX: I will give you a
few examples and then maybe you can undertake to provide a written answer to
these.
3322
The first one with respect to, let's say alternative formats, it could be
responding in LSQ, like having LSQ and ASL as an alternative format for a
document, or a plain language document for those cognitive challenged
persons. So these are
examples.
3323
And in terms of more documents, this morning Mr. Stark mentioned that it
could be information sheets for all processes needed to use the service, such as
how to access descriptive narration, the PVR features, how to book pay‑per‑view
movies, how to book pay‑per‑view sports, so these kinds of additional
documents.
3324
MS MAINVILLE‑NEESON: So if I
understand correctly, you are asking not only the cost of translating or
interpreting those documents in alternative formats but also about the creation
of those documents, because we don't currently have documents that are how‑to's,
which probably isn't a bad idea.
3325
But that list could be very long so I'm not sure we know how to provide
the information that you are asking, not knowing exactly how many documents we
would be talking about.
3326
So we can attempt to provide a general response to that and we will
undertake to do so, but the scope of this question could be very broad, as I
understand it.
3327
MS LEHOUX: Absolutely, but
if you answer on those that I have identified in terms of the documents, these
are good examples and it is going to give us a good cost figure and technical
issues.
3328
So that would be for the moment enough.
3329
MR. WOODHEAD: Yes, we can
endeavour to do that, but to Ann's point, I mean there is a myriad of
services. So I'm just trying to
chunk it out in a unit kind of basis for you.
3330
So if it is an ASL or LSQ document for how you activate a feature on a
cell phone, it may take three pages.
So three pages of ASL equals X and then you are going to have to
extrapolate, which will be very imprecise, across probably hundreds, thousands
of services.
Okay.
3331
MS LEHOUX: Thank
you.
3332
MS POPE: Hi, it's Lori Pope
speaking.
3333
One quick question following up on the discussion around IP relay
trial. I understand that will be
starting in January.
3334
Is that a one‑month trial or how long is that trial going to
be?
3335
MR. EDORA: Just to be clear,
the video relay service is in January ‑‑
3336
MS POPE: I'm
sorry.
3337
MR. EDORA: ‑‑ the IP relay is the first quarter
2009.
3338
The IP relay trial is scheduled for a two‑month
trial.
3339
MS POPE: Two months' trial,
okay.
3340
You mentioned that you had a telephone that was similar to the Jitterbug
phone. Can you tell me the specific
name of it? Do you
know?
3341
MR. WOODHEAD: No. I was trying to remember it, but for
whatever reason I think ‑‑ I can't remember it. But I can provide that to
you.
3342
MS POPE: Previous witnesses
have stated that there are a number of accessible devices available in the
United States but not in Canada, and I believe that the Neil Squire Society
proposed that service providers have two accessible devices across all services
provided.
3343
So I'm wondering what your response or position on that proposal would
be.
3344
MR. WOODHEAD: Well, we
obviously believe we have accessible devices across ‑‑ sorry, two
accessible devices across every service?
3345
MS POPE: Now, I assume that
that means for example wireline, wireless, that sort of thing? So that you would have a choice for
example in a wireless phone that would be equally accessible for you if you
were ‑‑
3346
MR. WOODHEAD: The only one
that I would hesitate saying really at this time about is wireless, but I mean
there are, you know, accessible options to wireline phones and we believe there
are accessible options to wireless phones in our current
inventory.
3347
MS POPE: In your current
inventory, okay, great. Thank
you.
3348
Could you please comment on the submission made by the Canadian
Association of the Deaf that the most appropriate funding model for IPRS and VRS
would be the American approach in which all U.S. companies, wireless and related
businesses, contribute to a National Telecom Relay Services Fund from which
competitive relay services providers are compensated?
3349
MR. EDORA: IP relay service
and video relay service are fundamentally different. IP relay service is an extension or an
evolution of the existing message relay services. So it is my understanding that the
funding model for IP relay service can be similar to the existing funding model
for message relay service.
3350
Again, that is the value in having the trial, is we can actually find out
the operational ‑‑ we can actually see some of the operational costs of IP
relay and see if it truly correlates with message relay
service.
3351
Video relay service is fundamentally different, a fundamentally different
service and fundamentally different in terms of operational
costs.
3352
So yes, the U.S.‑based model seems to work well in the U.S. I understand there are jurisdictional
issues in terms of setting up of the national fund and collecting and payment of
the video relay service operators, but that is one model that could be
effective.
3353
It's just TELUS' sole point in this entire ‑‑ as it pertains to
video relay services is that the existing funding model of traditional message
relay services may not be sufficient for video relay
services.
3354
MS POPE: Then my last
question is just to clarify something.
3355
In a reply to interrogs TELUS said that it had TTY access to its
services, but the sheet that was submitted ‑‑ I think it was from the white
pages on compliments and complaints ‑‑ didn't list
it.
3356
So I just want to clarify:
Does TELUS had TTY line for complaints and I guess
compliments?
3357
MR. EDORA:
Absolutely.
3358
MS POPE: Those are all my
questions. Thank
you.
3359
THE CHAIRPERSON: I would
like to thank this panel for appearing before us today.
3360
Madam Secretary, we are going to move on to one more
party.
3361
Just for everybody's notification, we were planning to have SaskTel on
today as well. We are going to,
with their approval, move them until tomorrow
morning.
3362
So we will conclude today with the next party, which is the Alliance for
Equality of Blind Canadians.
3363
Madam Secretary, do you have any comments at all?
‑‑‑ Pause
3364
THE SECRETARY: I will now
call on Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians to come to the presentation
table.
‑‑‑ Pause
3365
THE SECRETARY: This is
Sylvie Bouffard, the Hearing Secretary speaking.
3366
I will present the panel members from left to right, for your
information: Elizabeth Duncan,
Timothy Denton, Suzanne Lamarre, Leonard Katz, Candice Molnar and Stephen
Simpson.
3367
Mr. Workman, you can begin your 15‑minute
presentation.
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
3368
MR. WORKMAN: Okay. First I just want to thank the
Commission for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Alliance for
Equality of Blind Canadians, and I also want to echo the comments Chris Stark
made earlier about the helpfulness and friendliness of the staff in making this
process accessible for us to actually attend.
3369
I want to start off just by admitting up front that I am far from an
expert in the legal or technical aspects of telecommunications and
broadcasting. I don't pretend to
have all or even most of the solutions to what are clearly a set of complicated
issues.
3370
But through our initial submission and my presentation here today and the
final submission to be handed in in January, I and others who have helped me
work on this project hope that we can accurately represent the experiences and
concerns of the members of the Alliance for Equality of Blind
Canadians.
3371
Now, the AEBC recognizes that the public notice attached to this hearing
specifically said that the Commission is not interested in discussing ways of
addressing accessibility that would involve regulation of terminal equipment, so
I'm not going to say a lot about that.
But I think I would be feeling the AEBC if I didn't state in strong terms
how critical we feel regulation of terminal equipment is to addressing the
accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting
services.
3372
The AEBC firmly believes in regulation of terminal equipment in
accordance with principles of universal design as necessary for addressing the
issues of accessibility.
3373
For example, we certainly want to see an increase in the availability of
descriptive video. However, the
value of this descriptive video is significantly reduced when those who would
make use of it are unable to do so as a result of inaccessible terminal
equipment.
3374
So we are calling for regulation of terminal equipment because the design
manufacture and sale of this equipment cannot be left solely up to market
forces. Leaving it to the market in
the past hasn't seemed to work, and there is no reason to believe it will in the
future.
3375
So while we believe that disabled consumers form a largely untapped
market and that this consideration is often neglected when considering financial
implications of making products and services accessible, we believe that there
are much more fundamental issues at stake than just the financial
considerations.
3376
So issues like equality, like access to culture and community, dignity
and independence and these far more fundamental issues need to be weighed
alongside the financial concerns.
3377
So all of that being said, our initial submission outlined a variety of
concerns for blind and partially sighted Canadians and for people with
disabilities in Canada more generally, and not all of them required or called
for regulation of terminal equipment.
So I am going to take some time to expand on two such concerns, namely
the provision of audio description and accessibility of broadcasting via the
Internet.
3378
With respect to audio description, in paragraph 60 of Broadcasting Public
Notice CRTC 2004‑7, the Commission stated that all broadcasters can and should
provide audio description. And
elsewhere, in paragraph 63 of the same Public Notice, the Commission said that
it expects licensees to provide audio description wherever
appropriate.
3379
And despite these statements, the AEBC believes that there still exists a
major lack of audio description which limits access to information and prevents
the full enjoyment of television viewing.
3380
Now, I'm just going to offer a few examples to illustrate this
point.
3381
A fellow national Board member recently wrote to CBC to complain about
the lack of audio translation during news stories that contain foreign
languages. So during these stories
a textual translation appears at the bottom of the screen, but it is not
accompanied by an audio translation, which results in an inability to fully
understand the story being reported.
3382
The person at CBC who responded to the complaint misunderstood the
complaint and confused audio description with video description, which indicates
a lack of understanding of the issue.
3383
That's one example.
3384
In another example, each night during the CTV's national news broadcast
the anchor will pause for a look at the markets, the closing numbers of the
markets, and while this is going on we have music in the background and numbers
will flash across the screen and again leading to an inability to access the
information that is being provided.
3385
In a final example, the Government of Canada has recently been airing a
commercial that is totally inaccessible to blind and partially sighted
Canadians. In the commercial, which
I believe is to encourage the purchase of Canada Savings Bonds, all we hear is a
coin falling against a surface and the words a message from the government of
Canada, but there is no way for blind or partially sighted Canadians to
independently know what that message is.
3386
So these are just a few of many, many situations where audio description
can and should be provided, where it is appropriate to provide it and yet where
audio description is not being provided.
3387
It is the AEBC's belief that the provision of audio description would not
constitute a serious financial burden and yet providing such description would
go a long way to making broadcasting more accessible for blind and partially
sighted Canadians.
3388
So we would like to see a stronger statement by the Commission regarding
the requirement to provide audio description, along with more education of
broadcasters on its importance.
3389
I want to turn now to broadcasting over the Internet. This is an emerging medium in the area
of broadcasting and we recognize that technology is still being developed and
that jurisdictional issues are still being sorted out. But that said, this is an example we
think of a situation where accessibility can be thought about and worked on and
taken into account at the initial stages.
3390
So rather than waiting until the techniques of Internet broadcasting are
developed and entrenched, and then trying to address accessibility 10 or 15
years down the road, we need to start making attempts now to build accessibility
in at the preliminary stages.
3391
So with regard to Internet broadcasting, the AEBC would like to see more
accessibility, both in terms of the medium and in terms of the
content.
3392
So with regard to the medium at this point, the websites that hosts these
video players, these online video players and the video players themselves are
difficult if not impossible to use when using assistive
technology.
3393
So we are calling on CRTC to encourage and require broadcasters who would
choose to broadcast online to work to make their websites and video players more
accessible.
3394
Now, regarding the content of the online broadcasting, we would like to
see descriptive video requirements be imposed in a similar way that they are for
conventional television broadcasting.
3395
So there is an opportunity here with respect to online broadcasting to
think about the accessibility at the initial stages and we hope that this
opportunity will not be wasted.
3396
All right. So I have talked
a bit about audio description and broadcasting via the Internet, but I don't
want it to be assumed that these are the only issues of concern for the
AEBC. As I said in our initial
submission, we discussed a variety of issues of concern including availability
of descriptive video, transition to high definition television, accessibility of
emergency broadcasts and portrayal of persons with disabilities in the
media.
3397
These are all priority issues for the AEBC and we would really like to
see meaningful steps taken to address all of them.
3398
Finally, the AEBC joins many of the individuals and organizations
representing people with disabilities at this hearing in calling for an increase
in meaningful consultation.
Productive conversation between people with disabilities,
telecommunications and broadcasting service providers and the CRTC is the best
way to move forward on these issues.
3399
The breadth of the issues that will be raised throughout this hearing
cannot possibly be dealt with in this one consultation alone. So we need to see some systemic change
when it comes to the way issues of accessibility are dealt with by the
CRTC.
3400
We are looking for things like regular consultation, the use of
disability impact analyses and the adoption of a disability
lens.
3401
I think it can sometimes seem like we in the disability community are
looking for sort of immediate change or change to happen overnight, but that
really comes out of a sense of frustration, a sense that the problems that were
pointed out years ago are still problems today and only minimal progress has
been made.
3402
It is the AEBC's position that the barriers that are faced by blind and
partially sighted Canadians and Canadians with disabilities more generally are
the result of the way institutions, products and services are deliberately
designed. So it's not that the
intention is to exclude, but the design is chosen and when the outcome is
exclusion, whether the intention was to exclude or not is really
irrelevant. Once the barrier is
identified the right thing to do is to remove
it.
3403
I'm sure that everyone in the disability community who is participating
in this process is glad to have the opportunity to clearly identify and
articulate the barriers to equality and citizenship and independence that we
face as a result of inaccessible telecommunications and broadcasting services,
and I'm sure we're all desperately hoping that we can begin to do the right
thing and promote the dignity and full inclusion of people with disabilities by
resolving these issues.
3404
Once again, I say thank you for giving me this opportunity to present
here today.
3405
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Mr. Workman, for joining us today.
3406
Mr. Denton will lead the questions.
3407
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good
afternoon, Marc. My name is Tim
Denton and I'm going to be your interrogator this
afternoon.
3408
I've always wanted to say that to somebody.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
3409
COMMISSIONER DENTON: We are
going to begin with a bunch of a fairly prescribed set of questions that we are
asking all the groups.
3410
I would just like to start by saying thank you for a crisp and logically
organized presentation. I
particularly enjoyed the notion that in matters of new media that accessibility
might be worked out now rather than later; that issues cannot be dealt with in
one consultation alone; and that the issue is the outcome, not the
intention. These are my take‑aways
from your speech.
3411
I am going to start with described video and the questions are dry but
the purpose is to get your statements on the table, so just bear with me as I go
through them.
3412
In your view, what kinds and types of programming should be
described?
3413
MR. WORKMAN: I suppose when
we are talking about descriptive video, then it would be things like dramas and
sitcoms and documentaries. I mean
many of the ones that have already been mentioned, children's programming, those
sorts of programs where there is a lot of visual content and it is difficult to
fully enjoy the program without the added description.
3414
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3415
Should these requirements apply equally to all program undertakings, such
as over‑the‑air, pay, pay‑per‑view and video‑on‑demand? If not, why not?
3416
MR. WORKMAN: I can't think
of a reason why they shouldn't.
3417
COMMISSIONER DENTON:
Noted.
3418
Should these requirements apply equally in French and English? If not, why not?
3419
MR. WORKMAN: Again, I can't
think of a reason why they shouldn't.
3420
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Apply
equally?
3421
MR. WORKMAN: Yes, apply
equally.
3422
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Should
these requirements be modified on an as‑needed basis, and if so, on what basis
might you suggest?
3423
MR. WORKMAN: Should ‑‑
can you maybe repeat the question?
3424
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Should
these requirements for video ‑‑ sorry, for described video be modified and
how would we go about modifying them if we needed to? Do you have any thoughts on
that?
3425
MR. WORKMAN: I know the AEBC
wants to see an increase, so I mean in the sense if that counts as a
modification, then we would like to see slowly ramping up to include as much as
is possible, really.
3426
I can't ‑‑ I am having trouble thinking of another
modification. I mean quality would
have to be discussed on a regular basis and perhaps modified in that sense. And then ‑‑
3427
COMMISSIONER DENTON: That
would be dealt with in the consultation regime you were proposing in any
case?
3428
MR. WORKMAN:
Mm‑hmm.
3429
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Here is
a question that ‑‑ the Commission has made a distinction between described
video, which requires a separate narrative to be produced on a secondary audio
track, and audio description, on the other hand, which requires sensitivity on
the part of the on‑air staff and program house.
3430
Is the distinction between described video and audio description likely
to be relevant going forward?
3431
MR. WORKMAN: I do believe it
is. I think there are situations
where audio description may be more appropriate for a program than video
description. I think the news
examples are clear examples of where audio description could be of tremendous
value.
3432
The news is typically a fairly accessible program except for, you know,
situations where they have people speaking in foreign languages and the only
translation is a textual or where the market numbers are provided in that
way.
3433
So news, sports. I think
game shows can be another situation where there is some sort of description,
maybe even by the host.
3434
Say, for example, CBC's recent program "Test the Nation," I know a lot of
blind people tried to watch it but found that it was completely
inaccessible. All of the questions
appeared on screen and very few were read out, whereas you have a show like "Who
wants to be a Millionaire," where the questions are both on the screen and read
out along with the multiple choice answers. So game shows could be another
situation.
3435
So I guess what I would say is that there are certain programs where
audio description is more appropriate than video description, and so in that
sense the distinction between them is important for moving
ahead.
3436
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you. That is
fine.
3437
I want to talk about The Accessible Channel. What is your view of the role of The
Accessible Channel in the system going forward vis‑à‑vis increasing described
video?
3438
MR. WORKMAN: The Alliance
for Equality of Blind Canadians opposed adoption of The Accessible Channel. I think now that it is here ‑‑
okay, first, the reasons we opposed it was we generally support integration and
it felt like a sort of segregation, and then there was also concerns about how
this would prevent moving forward when it comes to video description on main
networks. So once you have your
channel, then you don't need to go and watch other
channels.
3439
So I think now that it has passed, our position is that we are going to
do whatever we can to make it so that our prediction doesn't come true, so that
we do move forward with video description on other channels and that The
Accessible Channel doesn't prevent us from doing that.
3440
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3441
My next question concerns the transition to digital. Are your concerns related to described
video based on concerns for the programming or for the ease of use and
availability of the equipment?
3442
MR. WORKMAN: I believe that
the original concerns were about the availability. You are referring, I suppose, more to
the initial comments and after having done some more reading on the matter, it
does seem like the use of set‑top boxes for digital cable can be a more
effective way of accessing the descriptive video simply because it can be a
little bit more standardized than having to use a particular television brand or
something like that.
3443
So I suppose our concerns were about the availability of the descriptive
video, whether or not it would continue to be passed
through.
3444
COMMISSIONER DENTON: It is
perfectly okay that your concerns change in the course of the hearing and as you
go through the process, so please don't feel obliged to stick with your going‑in
position, because if you find that there's new or different concerns, just let
us know.
3445
MR. WORKMAN:
Mm‑hmm.
3446
COMMISSIONER DENTON: The
purpose of this is just to get your statements on the table and for the record
so that we have them, and if you feel that you need to change a position, go
ahead, you know, it is your call.
3447
MR. WORKMAN: And so I will
just say then that it is really just something that we are worried about, that
it is something that we need to be thinking about and making sure that it
doesn't happen, because so often technological changes do lead to an inability
to access what you were once able to access. So it is really a concern about the
possibility and something that we are hoping that we can guard against or the
Commission can help us guard against.
3448
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3449
I am going to just address some questions in relation to customer service
and support and it concerns alternative formats.
3450
What additional printed materials other than what has been required by
the Commission in the past ‑‑ and these include billing statements, billing
inserts and information setting out rates, terms and conditions ‑‑ what
additional printed materials would be useful to have in alternative
formats?
3451
MR. WORKMAN: With respect to
telecommunications companies?
3452
COMMISSIONER DENTON: With
respect to just getting bills from companies, I think, would be the best way to
conceive it. I will just remind
you, if you get billing statements, inserts, and information about rates, terms
and conditions of service are in alternative formats. Are there other forms of information you
can think of that would be useful to get in alternative
formats?
3453
MR. WORKMAN: Not off the top
of my head, no.
3454
COMMISSIONER DENTON: That is
fine. That is
fine.
3455
Do you have ideas in relation to service providers' websites whereby they
can be made more useful to increase accessibility for persons that are blind or
have vision loss?
3456
MR. WORKMAN: I would ‑‑
I suppose I would recommend consulting or having our web designers consult with
people who have designed sites for the visually impaired or the blind
Canadians.
3457
So there are a number of website designers who regularly construct sites
for blind users and so I guess I would suggest perhaps consulting with them or,
alternatively, consulting with the manufacturers of the assistive technology
used to access the sites. So when
they collaborate, then the accessibility is a lot easier to, I think, build and
maintain.
3458
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3459
One of the concepts that has been put forward by, in fact, several
disabled groups or groups for the disabled is the notion of consultation and how
it might work.
3460
I can ask you a specific question but I think I would just like to hear
you speak about the process of consultation as you conceive it, how it ought to
operate and whom it might involve.
3461
MR. WORKMAN: This is a tough
question. I don't really have an
answer ready. I know that there are
concerns about consultation that leads nowhere, so we would want something or
some way of ensuring that something will come out of the consultation. What that would be, I am not entirely
sure.
3462
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Well,
for instance, do you see it happening under the auspices of government or the
CRTC; do you see it as something purely between the industry groups and the
disabled groups; or how would you conceive the structure of it working? Is it permanent or purpose‑driven,
one‑time or ongoing?
3463
MR. WORKMAN: I think many
AEBC members would like to see the CRTC be involved because of what ‑‑
well, for example, what Chris Stark mentioned earlier, that it seems to be, in
his experience, and he has a lot of experience, the only way that industry
moves, and other senior Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians members have
echoed that statement.
3464
I don't have the experience.
I haven't participated in these consultations to know, you know, whether
or not the CRTC is necessary but I think I would defer to the ones with the
experience and say that we would like it to be ‑‑ for the CRTC to play some
role.
3465
COMMISSIONER DENTON: I'm
going to turn now to handsets and equipment, because I think this is a big
issue, you know, for the blind and whatever.
3466
My concern is to get a sense of what the principal problems are and any
suggestions you might have for the rectification of those problems, given the
fact that handsets and whatever are manufactured by large international
corporations and that Canada doesn't control them.
3467
MR. WORKMAN: When it comes
to some of the problems, well, I mean, as Chris Stark pointed out, the buttons
are an issue.
3468
I guess one of the main problems is the expense of the software that you
add on to make the phone accessible.
I suppose a solution to, or an alternative, ideally, you want the
phone ‑‑ I guess ideally we would like a phone that was accessible out of
the box, that you didn't need to add software to. But failing that, were that software
provided, like, were it not something that the customer had to purchase, I think
that would be a major step in a positive
direction.
3469
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Have
you given thought to the standards process internationally for how these things
might be improved at an international level before they are actually
made?
3470
MR. WORKMAN: All I could say
is that I would hope that consultation would help, in terms of defining
standards, and then adopting those standards.
3471
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Fair
enough.
3472
One of the thing we are trying to probe is those elements of equipment
that make it inaccessible, and how to deal with it.
3473
Now, one of the things to think of alternative components or software
solutions. They might consist of
accessible information, such as operator guides or user information, they could
consist of customer support to assist in the understanding of how to operate the
device or they might consist of specific technology that replaces the
inaccessible component, such as speech synthesis or other
measures.
3474
I'm inviting you to talk about the relative merits of information,
customer support or technological solutions, in any order you wish to discuss
them.
3475
MR. WORKMAN: I guess I would
echo what I believe it was Commissioner Katz said about the high turnover rate
in customer support, and specifically within stores but also the support that
you get online or using the telephone, that without people who are going to be
there for a significant amount of time and who have taken the time to really get
to know the technology and the requirements of persons with disabilities, then
the customer support is not going to be effective.
3476
I think with respect to adding on software or something like that, that
can be a very useful solution provided that it's the software that ‑‑
provided, I guess, again, that it goes back to consultation, provided that,
after the consultation, this is what we agree is the most appropriate solution
for the largest number of people, the largest number of
user.
3477
So, I mean, if that's undertaken, then I think software could be a very
useful solution.
3478
And then the first one was information ‑‑
3479
COMMISSIONER DENTON:
Accessible information, such as operator guides or user
information.
3480
MR. WORKMAN: Again, I could
see some use in that. If you can go
on the website and find the information you need, then that's very effective and
I would think a rather low‑cost solution for industry.
3481
So, yes, that one would be another one that would be
supported.
3482
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3483
We are aware that organizations such as the CNIB, the Canadian National
Institute for Blind, produce catalogues of resources available to persons with
disabilities.
3484
Are you aware of these resources, or other resources, and are they an
effective source of information for your needs?
3485
MR. WORKMAN: Personally, I'm
not aware of them.
3486
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3487
Would more information from makers of terminals and other equipment about
their equipment assist you in the resolution of your problems? And if so, what kinds of formats would
be useful?
3488
MR. WORKMAN: Yes, I believe
more information would be helpful in solving
problems.
3489
In terms of formats, I guess the challenge is that the blind community is
pretty heterogeneous and so for some people large print is going to be the
format of choice; for others, Braille; and still others etext or some sort of
electronic format, something that you might access online or download a PDF, an
accessible PDF or a Microsoft Word document.
3490
So I think those are the three main ones. I mean, another format is someone
reading it, a human voice in audio format.
I suspect that the other three would be the priority formats: large print, Braille and electronic
text.
3491
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank
you.
3492
MR. WORKMAN: One of the
issues would be ‑‑
3493
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Sorry,
what?
3494
MR. WORKMAN: I will say that
also ‑‑ well, I guess I'm not sure if this fits, but if the language were
maybe perhaps more descriptive, in the sense that pictures aren't exactly going
to be helpful, so perhaps changing the content of the information, would be also
useful. Simplifying some of the
language, I suspect that could help more than just the blind community. But, yes, in terms of perhaps being a
bit more descriptive.
3495
So there's content changes, I think that could be helpful, as
well.
3496
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Now,
I'm going to ask you a really stupid question, but you are going to have to bear
with me here.
3497
MR. WORKMAN:
Yes.
3498
COMMISSIONER DENTON: When
you find stuff on the Internet, how do you receive the information yourself, as
a blind person, off the screen? Is
it voice synthesis that gives you the answers?
3499
MR. WORKMAN: Yes, there's
two options there. I use a screen
reader, so it's text to speech. It
translates the text on the screen into a ‑‑ what's the word? ‑‑ a
computerized voice. That's one
option. Another one is to use
Braille, where it translates what's on the screen into Braille, that's read
through a refreshable Braille display.
3500
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Are
those expensive?
3501
MR. WORKMAN: Yes, they
are. The screen reader that I use
runs around $1,000, and a Braille display could ‑‑ I couldn't give you the
exact figure, but I suspect it would be in the same area, or more
expensive.
3502
Now, that being said, there are cheaper screen readers, and even a free
screen reader that can be used on the Internet, but these less expensive ones
have fewer capabilities, are less robust.
Perhaps in time that will change and then the cost won't be a huge
concern, but I think at this point it is an important
concern.
3503
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Fair
enough.
3504
I next want to ask you a question in relation to the availability of
equipment overseas or in foreign markets helpful to persons with
disabilities.
3505
Have you had any experience where stuff was available in the States or
elsewhere that was not available for Canada and which was useful to persons with
disabilities?
3506
MR. WORKMAN: I know of a
phone that's an LG phone and it is not entirely accessible straight out of the
box, but it does perform features like text messaging and contacts, like, you
can add and delete contact. And I
believe even things like call display.
It will announce the caller.
3507
It's an LG phone and some of them are, like I said, not fully accessible,
but accessible straight out of the box, to some extent.
3508
COMMISSIONER DENTON: LG is a
company
3509
MR. WORKMAN: I believe
so.
3510
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a
Korean company.
3511
COMMISSIONER DENTON: Oh,
it's a Korean company. Thank
you.
3512
I'm next going to ask you a question in relation to issues around
universal design.
3513
Are you aware of organizations within Industry Canada that can assist
with standards development for accessibility? Have you had any experience with
them?
3514
MR. WORKMAN: I personally
have not. I suspect others in the
AEBC have, so I could put the question to some of the other board
members.
3515
COMMISSIONER DENTON: That
might be something that would be interesting hear your organization speak to, if
you have something on that.
3516
Now, just to close out my questioning, I would like you to tell us if you
had to do three things ‑‑ three things ‑‑ to improve the situation,
what would they be?
3517
MR. WORKMAN: I sort of knew
this question was coming.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
3518
MR. WORKMAN: I think one of
our top priorities is going to be the regulation of terminal equipment. That's one that we don't expect movement
on, but it still remains a priority.
So beyond that, descriptive video, I think, is another significant
concern for the members of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians. Increasing the amount of descriptive
video, making it easier to access, those are two important
concerns.
3519
I think the next one, I'm going to go with the consultation, and so
organizing or arranging and working with us and industry in creating and
maintaining positive and productive forms of consultation.
3520
I think those are three priorities for us.
3521
COMMISSIONER DENTON: That's
great.
3522
I'm going to speak to your question of terminal
standards.
3523
There may be ways of getting at the issues of terminals, how they work
and how they are designed, through a standards process that does not involve
regulation, but might take place internationally, whereby you could see
trickle‑down effects in a few years as these kinds of concerns are brought into
place.
3524
Anyway, it's a thought going around in my mind about
this.
3525
Thank you very much. That's
been extremely useful, Mark. I
appreciate your candour and precise answers.
3526
MR. WORKMAN: Thank
you.
3527
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
Commissioner Denton.
3528
It's Mr. Katz again. I will
just poll the panel and see if there's any other questions on the
podium.
3529
Commissioner Lamarre? No,
there's none here.
3530
Legal counsel, have you got any questions at all? No?
3531
Thank you very, very much, Mr. Workman. We appreciate your appearance
here before us.
3532
And we are done for the day.
Thank you all.
3533
THE SECRETARY: The hearing
will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
‑‑‑ Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1801, to
resume
on Wednesday, November 19,
2008 at 0900 /
L'audience est ajournée à
1801, pour reprendre
le mercredi 19 novembre 2008
à 0900
REPORTERS / STÉNOGRAPHES
____________________
____________________
Johanne Morin
Monique
Mahoney
____________________
____________________
Jean Desaulniers Fiona
Potvin
____________________
____________________
Sue Villeneuve Madeleine
Matte