Search

Call for comments: Video Relay Service (VRS) Review - 2 of 4

Video Transcript

Call for comments

The Commission hereby initiates a public proceeding to review VRS.

To ensure that all stakeholders have the information they need to file constructive comments and suggestions for how VRS can be enhanced, the Commission has made available on the record of this proceeding a text version of the Sage Report, as well as ASL- and LSQ interpreted Executive Summary videos.

Further, to ensure that the Commission has the factual record necessary to conduct its review, Commission staff have requested information from the CAV by way of a separate letter issued today. Responses to this request are due by 26 April 2021 and will be made available on the record of this proceeding to assist parties in formulating their interventions.

The Commission is seeking detailed comments from interested persons on the following aspects of VRS:

VRS user experience

Describe the impact that the introduction of VRS has had for people who communicate using sign language. Has the service improved access to telecommunications services since it was launched?

Are there concerns or issues related to the VRS user experience, including ease of use, quality of service (technical and interpreter-related), outages, the user complaint and feedback mechanism, account suspensions, or others?

Based on users’ experiences and the information filed on the record of this proceeding, is it necessary for the Commission to impose specific quality of service standards on the CAV? If so, what should those standards include and why?

Have there been any issues accessing 9 1 1 using VRS? If yes, describe the issues and provide suggestions for improving access to 9 1 1.

VRS regulatory policy and the CAV

VRS is currently delivered by the CAV, a centralized and independent administrator. Is there any evidence that the market context, including the availability of sign language interpreters, has changed since the creation of the VRS Policy in 2014 to such an extent that the Commission should consider introducing a competitive model for delivering VRS?

Is the CAV’s current structure, including its Board of Directors and mandate, still appropriate?

Registered users who are Deaf or hard of hearing currently elect three members of the CAV’s Board of Directors: one ASL Director, one LSQ Director, and one joint ASL LSQ Director. Telecommunications service provider (TSP) stakeholders elect two TSP Directors. Does this method for selecting Directors require improvement? If so, provide a rationale for this position and suggestions for how to improve the process.

Is there a rationale for expanding the CAV’s mandate to give it the flexibility to administer developing and future message relaying technologies?

Funding

Funding for VRS comes from the National Contribution Fund (NCF). Are the current funding model and the $30 million annual funding cap still appropriate?

Retail Internet service revenues are not currently considered contribution eligible revenues for funding VRS. Should those revenues be included? Provide a detailed rationale.

The CAV must meet minimum requirements, including submitting an annual application to the Commission, in order for the NCF to release funds. Are these minimum requirements still appropriate? If not, what changes or additions are required and why?

Awareness and promotion of VRS

Is there sufficient awareness of VRS among sign language users, as well as among the businesses, institutions, and individuals that may receive VRS calls? If not, what additional measures are appropriate?

What role should stakeholders other than the CAV take in promoting and increasing awareness of VRS, especially among the general public?

Timing of the next review

When should the Commission next review VRS?

Out-of-scope issues

The following issues are outside the scope of this proceeding:

  • appropriate wireless service plans for persons with disabilities, since a proceeding has already been launched;
  • the future of TTY[teletypewriter] service;
  • text-based message relay services; and
  • other communications services, such as captioned telephone service (i.e. Captel), for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing, or who have speech disabilities.

This video in sign language shows the content of the Call for comments section in the Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2021-102.

Watch other videos related to this Notice of Consultation:

To enable interested persons whose first language is ASL or LSQ to fully participate in this proceeding, the Commission will accept video submissions in those languages.

Share your views and ideas on the Video Relay Service in Canada

Date modified: