Council of Canadians with Disabilities Preliminary Submission to CRTC Re: Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services for persons with disabilities, Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2008-8 and T

Related Documents

August 19, 2014

Let's Talk TV

May 31, 2012

Crusading for 24/7 Access

November 17, 2011

Comments on the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund

More on Technology

24 July 2008

Executive Summary

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) is pleased to provide the CRTC with its preliminary comments on the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services for persons with disabilities, in response to Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2008-8 and Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-8 and will be developing a substantive submission for the Commission. CCD seeks to appear at the public consultation, scheduled to begin on 17 November 2008. In summary, CCD believes that:

  • Access and equality will only be achieved through regulation.
  • New barriers must not be created.
  • A national approach must be taken to communications.
  • CRTC must ensure its actions abide by the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • On-going consultation with people with disabilities is essential.
  • The principles of universal design must guide the development of telecommunications and broadcasting services and products.

1. Introduction

1.1 Request to appear at the Public Consultation-The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) is submitting its preliminary comments to the CRTC, as per the instructions in "Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2008-8 /Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-8". CCD seeks to appear at the CRTC public consultation, which begin on 17 November 2008. CCD will address the points raised in this paper in a substantive manner in its final submission to the CRTC.

1.2 CCD is the national cross-disability organization of men and women with disabilities that works for an accessible and inclusive Canada. Founded in 1976, CCD has in its membership nine provincial cross-disability organizations, one territorial cross-disability organization and seven national organizations of persons with disabilities:

  • British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities (BCCPD)
  • Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities (ACCD)
  • Saskatchewan Voice of People with Disabilities (SVOPD)
  • Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities (MLPD)
  • Confédération des Organismes de Personnes Handicapées du Quebec (COPHAN)
  • Nova Scotia League for Equal Opportunities (NSLEO)
  • PEI Council of the Disabled
  • Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD)
  • Disabled Women's Network Canada (DAWN-Canada)
  • National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS)
  • National Network for Mental Health (NNMH)
  • Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians (AEBC)
  • Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada
  • People First of Canada
  • Citizens with Disabilities-Ontario
  • NWT Council of Persons with Disabilities

As a cross-disability organization, the CCD focuses the bulk of its attention on broad social policy issues that affect all people with disabilities.

1.3 CCD has a long history of participation in the public policy reform process. For example, CCD has been an intervenor in many of the leading equality rights cases decided by the Canadian courts. Some of CCD's interventions addressed such issues as:

  • The accommodation of people with disabilities in employment (Bhinder, O'Malley, Grismer and Keays cases),
  • How equality is defined under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Andrews case, Lovelace case),
  • Inclusive education (Eaton),
  • The right of deaf people to have interpreters in medical settings (Eldridge case),
  • The equal protection of the law (Latimer case), and
  • Accessibility (VIA Rail, One Person One Fare cases).

1.4 CCD has been a witness before many Parliamentary Committees, providing expert advice on topics ranging from voting to disability-related supports. CCD has been a member of Industry Canada's Advisory Committee on Adapted Technology. CCD was a member of the now concluded Dis-IT research project, which was a three year initiative funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to investigate information technology from the perspective of persons with disabilities. One of the focus areas for the Dis-IT research project was public policy on information technology. (See the Appendix for a sample of the work undertaken by this project.) CCD was a member of the community coalition that formed in 2006 as a result of Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9. The other members of the Community Coalition were: the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, CNIB, Canadian Association of the Deaf, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Canadian Council of the Blind, Neil Squire Society, University of Toronto Adaptive Technology Centre, ARCH, Roeher Institute, Dis-IT, Media Access Canada. Henceforth, this group will be referred to as the Community Coalition.

1.5 CCD's priority issues are: income and poverty, employment and disability-related supports (Disability-related supports are any good or service used by a person with a disability for independent living.). Broadcasting and telecommunications impact on all of CCD's priority areas. For this reason, CCD's National Council of Representatives has established a standing committee to address access to technology by persons with disabilities. Broadcasting and telecommunications affect how people find jobs, earn a living and interact with their environment. If Canadians with disabilities do not have full access to broadcasting and telecommunications, then we will not be able to participate fully in our communities. The CRTC has a key role to play in ensuring the access of persons with disabilities to broadcasting and telecommunications, so CCD is very pleased that CRTC has undertaken this consultation and is most anxious to share the expertise of its volunteers who specialize in access to technology by persons with disabilities. In September 2008, CCD is hosting a community dialogue, focusing on the CRTC consultation. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for community members to share their perspectives and responses related to the CRTC Notice.

2. Principles

CCD General Principles

2.1 The following principles guide CCD's work in support of an accessible and inclusive Canada.

2.1.1 Access is a right. In accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), telecommunications providers and broadcasters have a legal obligation not to discriminate in the provision of their goods and services. The CRTC is obliged to discharge its responsibilities in a way that conforms to the values and principles of the CHRA and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, the CRTC has an obligation to interpret the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives in a way consistent with the Charter and the CHRA.

2.1.2 Universal Design. Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by the widest possible range of people with varying abilities, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

2.1.3 Consultation. People with disabilities have a right to identify their own needs and we are best situated to develop solutions for meeting these needs. There is an inherent value in consultation because it promotes the inclusion, independence and dignity of persons with disabilities.

2.1.4 Full Citizenship. People with disabilities are full citizens and members of the public and as such expect to access the services available to the Canadian public. The Broadcasting Act states,

3 b) the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;...
p) programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose...

As members of the public, people with disabilities must not be denied access to the broadcasting system, which uses public property, radio frequencies, and which provides an essential public service, as described in the Broadcasting Act.

2.1.5 No one should be made worse off by reform. Canadians, particularly disadvantaged Canadians, should not be further disadvantaged by reform processes.

Principles to Guide Telecommunications

2.2 CCD is re-iterating to the CRTC the principles that were developed by the Community Coalition (See section 1.4). These principles were submitted to the CRTC on 1 September 2006. The principles are:

  1. Telecommunications architecture should enable inclusive telecommunications services;
  2. Telecommunications infrastructure should support different modalities, allowing a broader range of inputs/outputs;
  3. Procurement of user terminal products and devices should specify accessibility requirements;
  4. Accessible user terminal products and services should be available on a retail level;
  5. The corporate public services and policies (e.g. procurement, customer experience, service development, employment) should include and support accessibility practice;
  6. Ongoing telecommunications-related research and development are necessary to ensure long-term availability of broadly accessible and inclusive services. (Community Coalition, 2006, p. 4.)

3. The Need for a Human Rights/Equality Rights Approach

3.1 CCD recommends that the CRTC incorporate equality rights/human rights law and principles into its decision-making on issues concerning persons with disabilities. In the CCD v. VIA Rail [2007] case, the Supreme Court of Canada took a strong stance in support of access and barrier prevention. The Court stated:

The twin goals of preventing and remedying discrimination recognized in Canadian National Railway v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) cannot be accomplished if the creation of new, exclusionary barriers can be defended on the basis that they are no more discriminatory than what they are replacing. This is an approach that serves to perpetuate and exacerbate the historic disadvantage endured by persons with disabilities. Permitting VIA to point to its existing cars and special service-based accommodation as a defence overlooks the fact that, while human rights principles include an acknowledgement that not every barrier can be eliminated, they also include a duty to prevent new ones, or at least not knowingly to perpetuate old ones where preventable. (CCD v. VIA Rail [2007] 1 S C R 650 2007 SCC 15 para. 186.)

3.2 CCD encourages a close working relationship between the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the CRTC. CCD notes the leadership that the CHRC has demonstrated on the provision of TTY service. (CHRC 2006)

4. Disability, Gender and Diversity Lens

4.1 CCD recommends that the CRTC develop a disability, gender and diversity lens to ensure that the issues of women and all marginalized people, including people with disabilities, First Nations and racial minorities, are considered as the CRTC undertakes its mandated responsibilities. CCD notes that the Canadian Hearing Society in its response has raised concerns regarding "[1] CRTC's personnel hiring, retention and promoting employees with disabilities...[2] a lack of internal access and accommodation policies in the CRTC..." (CHS 2008 p. 5) A disability, gender and diversity lens could assist the CRTC address problems such as these as well as assist it with decision-making processes associated with licensing and regulation. Furthermore, such a lens could be used when selecting commissioners to ensure that commissioners have adequate disability expertise.

5. The Need for a National Perspective

5.1 In its submission to the CRTC, the Community Coalition made a strong statement about the need for a national perspective and the CCD reiterates those which have continued relevance:

The accessibility of telecommunications services is not a local or regional issue. Persons with disabilities live in every province and territory in Canada and communicate with other people living throughout the country. All of these individuals have the right to accessible telecommunications services under the Telecommunications Act, the Canadian Human Right Act, and the Charter and in keeping with Canada's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

No one should be deprived of accessible services because they happen to live in Winnipeg or Halifax or Sudbury. And yet, that is precisely what would occur without national initiatives to provide accessible telecommunications services to all persons within Canada. (Community Coalition, 2007, p. 4-5)

5.2 CCD recommends, as did the Community Coalition, that the Commission adopt a national perspective—in keeping with its national mandate—and require that telecommunications providers engage in national initiatives to provide accessibility, implemented in a competitively neutral manner, in keeping with the requirements of the Government's Policy Direction to the Commission. There are no jurisdictional or policy obstacles that prevent the Commission from adopting a national perspective on access. Like the Coalition, CCD reminds the CRTC that:

The Policy Direction [Order issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006] requires that regulatory measures should be "efficient and proportionate to their purpose" and that measures relating to social obligations, such as accessibility, should be "implemented in a symmetrical and competitively neutral manner". (Community Coalition, 2007, p.5)

6. Linguistic Equality

6.1 As English and French are Canada's official languages, CCD recommends that the CRTC use its power to ensure that English/ASL communicators and French/QSL communicators have equal access to telecommunications and broadcasting services in their preferred language.

7. Timeliness

7.1 CCD recommends that CRTC use its authority to ensure that people with disabilities have timely access to services that become available as new technology is developed. Canada is a developed nation and Canadians with disabilities in Canada should have access to services that people in other developed nations enjoy.

7.2 CCD shares the concerns that have been expressed by the AEBC regarding Audio Description. AEBC notes that there has been little improvement in the provision of Audio Description since the issuing of Broadcasting Notice CRTC 2004-27. CCD recommends that the CRTC monitor providers with regard to timeliness and require corrective action from those that fail to introduce accessible services, such as Audio Description, in a timely manner.

8. Regulation

The Public Interest

8.1 The Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act acknowledge Canada's commitment to addressing social issues and achieving equality. The Telecommunications Act states in its Telecommunications Policy section:

7. ...that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives

(a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions...

(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services; and

These policy requirements cannot be achieved if there are barriers in the telecommunications system that prohibit equitable, independent and dignified usage by persons with disabilities. CRTC has a responsibility to ensure that people with disabilities have access to telecommunications services.

8.2 The Broadcasting Act in 3 D i states:

the broadcasting policy of Canada shall, serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

And 3 D iii states:

through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society...

And 3 p states:

programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose; These policy requirements cannot be achieved if there are barriers in the broadcasting system that prohibit equitable, independent and dignified usage by persons with disabilities. CRTC has a responsibility to ensure that people with disabilities have access to broadcast services.

8.3 CCD is deeply concerned by CRTC's "market-oriented approach to telecom regulation" as described by Konrad von Finckenstein, QC, Chairperson, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, in an address on 17 June 2008. Despite the Chairperson's comments on consumer protection and access, CCD's past experience with market-oriented approaches and the deregulation of the Canadian transportation industry, make us wary. In our experience, these approaches and deregulation have led to an entrenchment of the status quo-inaccessibility and exclusion of people with disabilities.

8.4 CCD reminds the CRTC of its public interest responsibilities. For example, the Telecommunications Act Section 7 (h) directs the CRTC to "respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services". Like others in the disability community, CCD holds that "the market-oriented approach to regulation" does not mean a lack of regulation. Neither the telecommunications industry nor Canada's broadcasters are exempt from the protections afforded persons with disabilities by the Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The market-oriented approach to regulation must be undertaken in a manner that does not result in discrimination against persons with disabilities.

8.5 CCD asserts that the decision CRTC94-19, which allowed the sale of terminal equipment to be driven by market demand, was an error. People with disabilities have been made worse off by this decision. With the market-driven approach, new devices and services have become available, and they have not been usable by people with disabilities. While accessible cell phones, for example, exist, they are usually expensive and difficult to locate. As people with disabilities are members of the general public, generic telecommunications service providers should offer services and products that meet their needs. To do otherwise is injurious to the inclusion, independence and dignity of persons with disabilities.

8.6 Having heard from Canadians with disabilities about the inequality they have experienced since deregulation, the CRTC needs to take immediate corrective action. CCD urges CRTC to use its regulatory capacity to provide comprehensive access to telecommunications for persons with disabilities. Through regulation, the CRTC should assert a full inclusion and barrier removal policy that would apply to the entire industry and all its services and service applications. CCD will address the topic of regulation more fully in its final presentation to the Commission.

8.7 CCD notes that the United States Federal Communications Commission regulates extensively for the purpose of achieving access for persons with disabilities. CCD recommends that Canada adopt the United States' approach to accessible communications.

9. Affordability

9.1 Affordable broadcasting and telecommunications services are very important to people with disabilities, particularly to the many who live in poverty. CRTC needs to regulate the telecommunications and broadcasting industries in such a manner that people with disabilities have access to the services and products that they need at an affordable cost. Services required by people with disabilities should be available at the usual basic rate. For example, cell phone companies should be required to offer, at their basic service rate, an accessible cell phone and a service package to customers with disabilities that are usable by them.

9.2 In the past CRTC ruled that registered users of TTYs did not have to pay "the full burden of the technology that enhances or permits their use of the telephone.' (Gordon, 2006, p. 26.) One of today's unaddressed questions is whether the same principles will be used to provide a similar reduction in charges related to the internet environment and cellular/wireless services. (Gordon, 2006, p. 26.) CCD supports an accommodation, which would reduce costs for persons with disabilities. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities recommends that the CRTC hold discussions with the representative organizations of persons with disabilities and industry representatives concerning the price of cell phone and internet services for the purpose of ensuring non-discriminatory access to goods, services and facilities by requiring reasonable price adjustments unless an unjustifiable hardship would result.

10. Complaints Process

10.1 As people with disabilities experience many barriers in the areas under the mandate of the CRTC, CCD recommends an improved process at the CRTC for addressing the complaints of persons with disabilities. People with disabilities who have used the CRTC process have found it to be cumbersome and have been on the disadvantaged side of a power imbalance that exists in the current process. A Telecom Ombudsman is a concept that needs more consideration.

11. Consultation

11.1 CCD believes that on-going consultation with representatives from the organizations of persons with disabilities is a key to the development of accessible and inclusive telecommunications and broadcasting services. CCD supports the recommendations from the representative organizations of the Deaf, persons who are visually impaired, persons who are hard of hearing and persons with mobility and agility impairments that they be involved in a consultation process. CCD believes in taking a cross-disability (mobility, cognitive, sensory, etc.) approach so that none are left out of the process of improving access to these services.

12. National Telecommunications Accessibility Institute

12.1 In 2006, the Community Coalition proposed to the CRTC the establishment of a National Telecommunications Accessibility Institute. CCD reiterates this proposal, which is as follows:

The national disability advocate organizations propose establishing a National Telecommunications Accessibility Institute that would be funded by the ILECs, pro-rated as a percentage of the deferral amount each ILEC must spend. These funds would be transferred to the institute as a single transfer and used as an endowment to fund the activities of the institute including research and development grants awarded by the institute.

The Institute would be an organization independent of the ILECs. ILEC participation, and CRTC participation, would be sought in its governance and in its operation. The Institute would consist of accessibility experts representing a national, inclusive design, and cross-disability perspective as well as telecommunications experts from the ILECs, and would be chartered to advance established accessibility principles throughout the telecommunications industry.

The Institute would provide the following services and functions:

In collaboration with the larger disability community provide policy input and recommendations to CRTC in a process that would allow CRTC commissioners to review and act upon recommendations.

Create, provide, support, and publish guidelines and standards to provide guidance to ILECs with respect to inclusive design in their R&D and product development efforts.

Provide confidential inclusive design consultation and user testing of ILEC product and service accessibility. The CRTC would require planned new services and products to be brought before the institute for accessibility input at an early-design stage and again at a design maturity testing stage of ILEC product life cycles.

Establish [a process for] solicit[ing] proposals, and fund[ing] projects that address gaps in serving the telecommunication needs of people with disabilities [and facilitate] opportunities for inclusive design represented by emerging technology. Grants would be administered by a recognized grant organization (e.g. CANARIE or others).

In collaboration with the CRTC, design and strike an accessibility CISC (CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee) that addresses interoperability issues that affect the accessibility and compatibility of telecommunications services with alternative access systems. Meetings of this committee could be initiated at the discretion of either the Institute or the CRTC. This CISC committee structure would incorporate the following: CRTC representation including a secretariat role; adequate compensation for members of community groups sitting on the committee; recommendations of the CISC accessibility committee, whether by consensus or non-consensus reports, to be dealt with by the CRTC in accordance with its ordinary process for dealing with such CISC reporting.

The mandate of the CISC committee would be restricted to solving specific technical matters of interoperability. Regulatory policy decisions affecting accessibility of telecommunications would be dealt with at the CRTC or other appropriate venues in accordance with the law and public policy.

Insofar as ILECs have limited direct authority over all products or services engaged in a telecommunications exchange, but do have some influence with the suppliers from whom they procure goods and services, the Institute would create and update accessibility criteria and supplement the procurement criteria or technical requirements provided by ILECs to their suppliers. These criteria would also be made available to independent suppliers who produce goods or services that interoperate with the ILECs.

Develop and update service standards that ensure an equitable customer experience; ensuring that customers with disabilities benefit from telecommunications at the same level as their non-disabled peers. This would include, but would not be limited to: quality of customer service, employee training, public communications, IVR evaluation, and documentation.

Provide a national information service to the public that will assist disabled persons in identifying, learning about, and obtaining telecommunications related accessibility resources available from the ILECs or from providers of user equipment that connects to the ILEC networks.... (Community Coalition, 2006, p. 8-11)

13. Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS)

13.1 There are a range of telecommunications relay services that function as disability-related supports for people with a variety of different disabilities: Text-to-Voice TTY-based TRS, Voice Carry Over, Hearing Carry Over, Speech-to-Speech (STS) Relay Service, Captioned Telephone Service, Video Relay Service (VRS), IP Captioned Telephone Service. People with disabilities in the United States have access to this range of services. TRS is regulated by the Federal Telecommunications Commission and there are mandatory minimum standards for these services.

13.2 People with disabilities throughout Canada should have services comparable to what people with disabilities in other developed countries enjoy. In particular, CCD supports the recommendation of the Canadian Hearing Society calling for Captioned Telephone Services similar to CapTel. When the market does not respond, then the CRTC has a responsibility to use its powers to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the full range of telecommunications relay services.

13.3 Video Relay Service (VRS) In its submission to the CRTC, the Community Coalition addressed Video Relay Service (VRS). Specifically, the Coalition argued that the deferral account monies should be used to develop and implement a national Video Relay Service (VRS) which would be made available to all telecommunications service providers on a competitively neutral basis so as to enable all telecommunications users across Canada to receive the benefit of this service. CCD continues to support this national model of VRS provision. Like other self-representation disability organizations, CCD was displeased that the CRTC did not decide in favor of a national VRS. BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec will have VRS but not the other areas of Canada. CCD reiterates calls from the Deaf community for Deaf people to be hired by the Telecoms to work in their VRS.

14. National Accessibility Fund

14.1 The Community Coalition called for the establishment of a national Accessibility Fund, which would be used to fund the development of new technologies and for improving the accessibility of telecommunications services. As with the national VRS, these new technologies would be made available on a competitively neutral basis to all telecommunications service providers so as to maximize the benefit derived from the deferral account monies. CCD continues to support the establishment of a national Accessibility Fund.

15. IP

15.1 In its Final Comments, the Coalition addressed IP technologies. CCD reiterates the following points made by the Coalition.

The ongoing introduction of IP technologies—if undertaken in a forward-looking manner based on the principle of universal design—has the potential to place persons with disabilities on a much more equal footing with the rest of Canadians. This will benefit everyone as it will permit all members of society to communicate more effectively with each other. This, in turn, will enable all members of society to participate more fully in all types of activities—social, economic, political, business, scientific, artistic—to the benefit of these individuals and of society as a whole. (Community Coalition 2007, p. 3)

16. TTYs

16.1 CCD supports the initiatives undertaken by the Deaf community on TTYs and acknowledges the leadership that has been demonstrated on this issue by the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD).

16.2 Presently, TTYs are widely used devices, even as other types of technology are being adopted. Through its regulatory authority, CRTC needs to ensure that Canada's telecommunications providers deliver service that is accessible and compatible with TTY technology.

16.3 Access to pay telephone service—CCD supports the Deaf community's efforts to make public environments more accessible and inclusive by increasing access to payphones by Deaf people. In 2001, as a result of action initiated by CAD, the CRTC in Telecom Decision 2004-47, ordered all Canadian telephone companies to provide equitable access to pay telephone service by requiring that any bank of two or more pay telephones include one pay phone with a TTY by 31 December 2007. With respect to installations where there is only one pay phone, by 31 December 2010, a TTY is to be installed if there is a verifiable need.

16.4 As members of the public with equal rights, Deaf people should have access to pay telephone service at installations where there is only one pay telephone. A universal design approach to service delivery calls for as wide a possible range of people to be able to use a device or facility. By equipping single pay phone installations with a TTY, the objective of universal design is met. Furthermore, pay telephone services are often needed in emergencies. As it is impossible to predict where an emergency will occur, there is a verifiable need for all pay telephones to include TTY equipment.

16.5 The Stakeholder Consultation document notes that, "...the Deaf community indicate they are working... on a much preferred VRS (instead of TTY solution for pay phones), participants indicate a lack of interest on the part of both carriers and the Commission to pursue this."

16.6 CCD recommends that the Commission use its regulatory authority to ensure telephones in public spaces are accessible to the Deaf and hard of hearing community and that telecommunications providers adopt the technology preferred by the consumers of these services. The objective is that Deaf and hard of hearing telephone users have access to service that is equal or equivalent to that which hearing consumers have.

16.7 TTYs and IP—As more individuals and businesses make the transition from traditional telephones to alternatives, such as VoIP, the full participation, inclusion and equality of persons with disabilities is threatened. For example, a Deaf person may have an accessible phone at home but might encounter barriers when calling a person using VoIP service. Barriers may also be encountered in the workplace and in community settings, as more and more consumers make the transition to VoIP. CRTC has a duty to ensure that no new barriers are created as a result of technology change. CCD recommends that the CRTC use its authority to ensure the compatibility of IP communications with analog TTY products.

17. Captioning

17.1 CCD supports the recommendations of the Deaf community and the hard of hearing community on captioning and acknowledges the leadership that has been demonstrated on this issue by CAD.

17.2 CCD notes the concerns raised in the Stakeholders Consultation Final Report regarding the quality of captioning and regulations that do not require captioning for receivers with less than 13-inch screens. CCD recommends that CRTC resolve these barriers so that viewers who rely on captioning have equal access to television services.

17.3 The Stakeholders Consultation Final Report raises the impact of the transition to HD television on captioning and that some HD television channels do not provide captioning for programming. CCD reminds that CRTC of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the VIA Rail case and the Court's comments regarding the illegality of the creation of new barriers.

17.4 CCD urges the CRTC to use its authority to prevent the creation of new barriers, such as HD channels which do not provide captioning for programming.

18. Described Video

18.1 CCD supports the recommendations of the AEBC on described video. Like the AEBC, CCD urges the increased availability of described video services during prime time media broadcasts, working toward the goal of 100% of broadcasts incorporating description. CCD recommends that the CRTC work with the AEBC to establish the date when that goal will be achieved. CCD also reiterates the AEBC's position on the Accessible Channel, that is,

...the approval of the so-called Accessible Channel by the CRTC must not be allowed , in any way whatsoever, or by any other service of any kind including specialty services, to further delay or reduce the introduction of additional video described programs by all stations, including specialty stations. The applicants for the Accessible Channel supported this position. (AEBC, 2008, para 37.)

CCD also shares AEBC's concerns regarding the transition to HD and its impact on video description. This transition must not create a new barrier to video description. As noted previously, CCD reminds the CRTC of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the VIA Rail case, which spoke out strongly against the creation of new barriers.

18.2 Like the AEBC, CCD is alarmed by the increasing number of services that require a user to interact with on-screen programming. As AEBC points out in its brief, descriptive video soundtracks are broadcast by cable companies on the Secondary Audio Program (SAP), which is accessed via a visual menu, making it inaccessible to persons with visual impairments. CRTC needs to use its powers to ensure that services such as SAP are delivered to the public in a manner that conforms to the principles of universal design.

19. Customer Service and Support

19.1 CCD is aware that the telecommunications industry has developed a Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. (CCTS). While CCD acknowledges the industry's goodwill, CCD's past history with voluntary measures makes us skeptical of voluntary, industry driven initiatives.

19.2 CCD recommends that the CRTC, using Ontario's "Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, Ontario Regulation 429/07" as a guide and in consultation with the representative organizations of persons with disabilities, develop accessibility standards for customer service and support for the telecommunications and broadcasting industries.

19.3 Chris and Marie Stark, in their 20 July 2008 submission to the CRTC, address the barriers they have encountered in obtaining information from telecommunication providers in alternate format. CCD recommends that the CRTC act to remedy this barrier.

20. Emergency Services

Telephone Service

20.1 Pay Telephones—Pay telephones continue to be an important part of the public landscape for persons with disabilities. Generally, people with disabilities have lower incomes than their non-disabled peers and some individuals may not be able to afford to have a personal cell phone, so the pay telephone retains its traditional importance for people with disabilities. Furthermore, pay telephones are a critical community resource when people find themselves in vulnerable situations. The pay telephone can be an important lifeline to police, medical, fire and other emergency services. Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to violence, therefore emergency telephone access is a critical issue for this group and their voice, represented by the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, needs to be heard and attended to on this issue. For these reasons, access to public pay telephones needs to be maintained, that is, they must not be phased out or become less available. All pay phone installations must follow universal design principles so that the widest possible range of people with disabilities have access to them.

20.2 911 Service—Through its public interest mandate, the CRTC has a responsibility to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to emergency services. The CCD recommends that the CRTC use its authority to ensure that 911 services are accessible to the users of TTYs, Voice Carry Over services, phone text messaging, and IP services.

Broadcasting

20.3 It is imperative that emergency announcements follow the principles of universal design, so that they are accessible to the widest range of the public as possible. Emergency announcements that are broadcast solely as a text message without accompanying audio are inaccessible to persons who have visual impairments, persons who have certain learning disabilities, and persons with disabilities who have not had the opportunity to learn to read due to social barriers. Similarly, audio announcements that are not captioned present a barrier to the users of captioning. CCD recommends that the CRTC use its authority to require broadcasters to follow universal design principles when notifying the public about emergency situations.

21. Legislation

21.1 Presently, the Telecommunications Act does not specifically address disability. (Gordon, 2006, p. 26) CCD recommends that the Act be amended to address access to telecommunications by persons with disabilities, universal design and barrier prevention and removal.

22. Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities

22.1 Canada's Broadcasting Act states that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of: Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society, and the special place of aboriginal people within that society. The Act's reference to equal rights means that the barriers and biases regarding the portrayal of people with disabilities must be an area of concern for the CRTC. Despite past efforts by the CRTC and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), people with disabilities, particularly people with visible disabilities, are not on screen in representative numbers. Canadians do not see people with disabilities occupying influential on screen positions on mainstream programs on Canada's television networks. CRTC needs to use its authority to make Canada's television personalities a more inclusive group.

22.2 Portrayal is a particular concern to women with disabilities, due to the intersecting of negative stereotypes, originating in sexism and ableism. CCD recommends that the CRTC undertake specific discussions with women with disabilities concerning the portrayal of women with disabilities during the consultation process.

23. Conclusion

23.1. CCD is pleased to provide the Commission with these preliminary comments on this array of issues of vital importance to persons with disabilities and will be developing a substantive submission for the Commission. CCD believes that:

  • Access and equality will only be achieved through regulation.
  • New barriers must not be created.
  • A national approach must be taken to communications.
  • CRTC must ensure its actions abide by the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • On-going consultation with people with disabilities is essential.
  • The principles of universal design must guide the development of telecommunications and broadcasting services and products.

Bibliography

AEBC. 2008. Unresolved Issues Related to the Accessibility of Telecommunications and Broadcasting Services to Persons with Disabilities.

ARCH. 2005. Telecommunications Policy Review Reply.

CAD. 2006. Annual Report.

CAD. 2007. Letter to CRTC re: Application by the Canadian Association of the Deaf associated with the implementation of the teletypewriter program in Access to pay telephone services. Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-47.

CAD. 2008. "CRTC Finally Approves Video Relay Service." http://www.cad.ca/en/news/details.asp?newsID=34.

CHRC. 2006. No Answer II A Review of Federally Regulated Organizations' Telephonic Communications with People Who Are Deaf, Deafened or Hard of Hearing.

CHS. 2008. Response to CRTC Broadcast Notice of Public Hearing.

Community Coalition. 2006. Improving Access to Telecommunications Services for Persons with Disabilities A Proposal Developed in Consultations between the National Disability Community and Relevant ILEC's In Response to CRTC Ruling 2006-9.

Community Coalition. 2007. Review of proposals to dispose of the funds accumulated in the deferral accounts Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-15 Final Reply Comments of the Coalition of Disability Groups.

Ontario. 2007. Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, Ontario Regulation 429/07.

Gordon, Phyllis. 2008. A Federal Disability Act: Opportunities and Challenges. A Paper Commissioned by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and Canadian Association for Community Living.

Stark, Chris and Marie. 2008. Submission to CRTC.

Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9.

Von Finckenstein, Konrad. 2008. Notes for an address. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/speeches/2008/s080617.htm retrieved 6/25/2008.

Appendix

This Appendix contains a series of fact sheets developed by the Dis-It research initiative, in which the Council of Canadians with Disabilities was a member. Our participation in projects such as this demonstrate the importance of telecommunications to CCD.

Telecommunications policy: What's in it for you?

Why should disability advocacy organizations be concerned with telecommunications now?

  • Telecommunications is CHANGING FAST
  • Innovations in telecommunications are providing new ways for people with disabilities to be INCLUDED
  • But government is dramatically REDUCING regulation of telecom companies
  • People with disabilities could be EXCLUDED

Disability advocacy organizations can take action NOW by promoting universal, inclusive design and protecting disability rights in telecommunications policies.

Telecommunications is changing FAST

  • Equipment has changed from rotary dials to touch-tone keypads to cordless phones to cellular phones, and now includes wireless voice and data devices like the Blackberry and iPhone.
  • Telecommunications services now include text messaging, voice mail, call forwarding, caller ID/display, and other features.
  • The complex layers of technology and networks that connect callers have changed in ways that create more potential for enabling technologies.
  • Who provides equipment and services has also changed, with the traditional phone companies now competing with wireless, cable, and internet based companies.

Most of these changes have happened in the last ten years, and the pace of change is getting even faster. That is putting pressures on businesses to develop and put new products and services on the market very quickly, before their competitors and before the next technological advance.

Innovations provide new ways for people with disabilities to be INCLUDED

New equipment and services provide:

  • Choice among multiple ways to communicate, such as voice, text, graphics, and video, all available at the same time
  • Translation from one way of communicating to another, like sign language to voice, voice to text
  • More types of phones and other equipment designed for the abilities and preferences of users with and without disabilities

But if the companies that develop and provide the equipment and services don't do it right, people with disabilities won't be able to take advantage of these amazing opportunities. Instead, these technologies will become major barriers to participation in the mainstream of society.

Government is dramatically REDUCING regulation of telecom companies

The telecom companies haven't voluntarily made their equipment and services accessible to people with disabilities. One of the corners that often gets cut in the race to develop and sell new products is making sure equipment and services meet access requirements of people with disabilities. Government regulation can help.

REGULATION = Laws or rules that make sure companies act fairly for all Canadians

  • The federal government regulates telecommunications equipment and services, including access for people with disabilities, through the CRTC and Industry Canada. (The CRTC's full name is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.)
  • The Canadian Government has been gradually deregulating the tele-communications industry for over 20 years, and the current Conservative government is increasing the pace of deregulation.
  • Some deregulation has reduced costs for consumers.
    • A long distance call costs a lot less now than it did before long distance services were de-regulated in 1992.
  • Deregulation has created more barriers for people with disabilities
    • Phones have become more complex and inaccessible since the federal government stopped regulating wired telephone equipment in 1994.
    • People with disabilities also experience barriers using wireless cellular phones which is a telecom service that has never been regulated in Canada.

What can we DO? 3 Actions that will help

  • Advocate for universal, inclusive design to make all equipment and services usable by all people.
    • Universal or inclusive design is an approach to making mainstream equipment and services that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for assistive or adaptive equipment or specialized services.
  • Universal or inclusive design is an approach to making mainstream equipment and services that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for assistive or adaptive equipment or specialized services.
  • Call on the federal government to protect disability rights in telecommunications policy
  • Work with other disability advocacy organizations to highlight this issue

How and where can we ACT?

How to contact the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Mail: Secretary General, CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2
Tel.: 1-877-249-2782 (toll-free)
TTY: 1-877-909-2782 (toll-free)
Fax: 819-994-0218
Internet: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

This is one of a series of fact sheets on telecommunications and people with disabilities produced by the Disability and Information Technologies (Dis-IT) Research Alliance. All of the fact sheets are available at www.dis-it.ca.

The Dis-IT Research Alliance was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Other organizations that contributed to the development of these fact sheets were the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, ARCH Disability Law Centre, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the CNIB, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Neil Squire Society, and the University of Toronto's Adaptive Technology Resource Centre.

What do Canadian disability advocacy organizations need to know about new telecommunications technologies?

The Big Issues in Less than 30 Seconds:

  • New technologies have the potential to make telecommunications more accessible to with disabilities.
  • But turning that potential into reality requires companies who develop and implement new technologies to incorporate the access requirements of people with disabilities in their new equipment and services.
  • Canadian telecommunications companies don't have a good track record of voluntarily making their equipment and services accessible.
  • More and more people with disabilities will be excluded if new telecommunications equipment and services are inaccessible.

Telecommunications technology is changing radically and fast

  • Traditional wired phone service is being replaced by wireless/mobile/cellular phones and the Internet.
  • Almost everybody now has a wireless cellular phone.
    • iPhones, Blackberrys and other "smart phones" provide wireless access to voice, e-mail, and the Internet as well as multimedia features like cameras, music players, games, GPS (global positioning), even TV.
    • New Internet-based "VoIP" phone services could soon replace traditional wired phone service.
  • It's not just about talking on the phone anymore:
    • E-mail, text messaging, and social networking websites like Facebook are popular alternatives to voice communications.
    • Web cameras and advanced cell phones provide video communications over the internet.

New technologies have the potential to make telecommunications more accessible

  • Internet phone service has amazing potential for people with disabilities.
    • The Internet can handle more data faster than phone lines, and can simultaneously transmit different modes of communication (e.g., voice, text, graphics, video).
    • As a result:
    • People with disabilities may be able to use their preferred ways of communicating
    • Relay services could translate from one way to another (e.g., sign language to voice, voice to text).
  • Many wireless phones have advanced features such as cameras, web browsers, and global positioning that offer many opportunities for people with disabilities (e.g., navigation/way-finding, paying for purchases).

The big "but"

  • If the companies that develop and implement new telecom technologies don't make them accessible, people with disabilities will be excluded from these new technologies and, more importantly, the new opportunities that new technologies provide.
  • Canadian telecom companies don't have a good track record on accessibility.

New telecom technologies exclude more and more people with Disabilities

  • Until the 1990s, telephones were relatively simple devices.
  • Since then, phones have become more complex and inaccessible:
    • Visual displays exclude people who have vision impairments.
    • Tiny buttons/keys exclude people with mobility impairments.
    • "Soft" keys that change function depending on how the phone is being used exclude people with learning and intellectual disabilities.
  • There is a history of new telecom technologies undermining the accessibility that existed in older technologies.
    • Almost every new generation of phones has initially been incompatible with hearing aids.
    • Companies may charge a premium for the high data transfer speeds required for video and other non-voice forms of communication that would benefit many people with disabilities.
  • Barriers aren't only technical.
    • Devices using new technologies are usually expensive. Even if a device is technically fully accessible, many people with disabilities cannot benefit from it if they cannot afford it.

Universal/inclusive design is the bottom-line

  • Universal design (or inclusive design) is an approach to making mainstream equipment and services that are usable by as many people as possible without needing assistive or adaptive equipment or specialized services.
  • A major principle of universal/inclusive design is having multiple ways of operating a device (e.g., dialing a number by touch or voice, reading information on a display visually or as audio).
  • Universal/inclusive design benefits all users, not just people with disabilities.
  • It's getting easier to make universally accessible devices because many new telecom technologies are software-based, which are easier and less expensive to make accessible than hardware-based technologies.

This is one of a series of fact sheets on telecommunications and people with disabilities produced by the Disability and Information Technologies (Dis-IT) Research Alliance. All of the fact sheets are available at www.dis-it.ca.

The Dis-IT Research Alliance was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Other organizations that contributed to the development of these fact sheets were the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, ARCH Disability Law Centre, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the CNIB, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Neil Squire Society, and the University of Toronto's Adaptive Technology Resource Centre.

What do Canadian disability advocacy organizations need to know about regulation of the telecommunications industry?

The Big Issues in Less than 30 Seconds

  • The federal government has been gradually deregulating the telecommunications industry for over 20 years.
  • Phones and other telecommunications equipment and services have become more inaccessible during that time.
  • In 2007, the Conservative government began to increase the pace of deregulation.
  • Telecommunications will become even more inaccessible if the federal government doesn't require telecommunications companies to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities.

The Basics

  • Telecommunications falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government in Canada.
  • The Telecommunications Act provides the framework for Canadian telecommunications policy.
  • Industry Canada sets federal government policy about telecommunications.
  • The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) is responsible for the regulation and supervision of telecommunications in Canada.

The Purposes of Regulation

  • Regulation ensures that essential services (e.g., basic phone service, 911 emergency service) are available to all Canadians.
  • For a region or service where there is only one company, or one company dominates others, regulation prevents the dominant company from abusing its power.
  • In the transition from regulation to competition, regulation attempts to provide a level playing field for the dominant and new companies to compete fairly.
  • Regulation is also used to achieve social policy goals (e.g., accessibility).

Regulation and People with Disabilities

  • The Canadian government has never taken a pro-active, systematic approach to ensuring that telephone and other telecommunications equipment and services are accessible to people with disabilities.
  • The CRTC has dealt with accessibility in a narrow piecemeal fashion, and usually only in response to complaints from advocacy organizations and individuals with disabilities.
  • CRTC regulations that deal with accessible telecommunications are limited to specific issues such as:
    • message relay services
    • billing in alternate/accessible formats
    • long distance discounts for TTY users
    • accessible pay phones

Other countries have laws or regulations about accessible telecommunications. For example, the U.S. Telecommunications Act requires telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities.

Deregulation

  • Since the 1980s, the federal government has been gradually deregulating the telecommunications industry.
  • The Conservative government increased the pace of deregulation in 2007 and directed the CRTC to base its decisions on competition and market forces as much as possible.
  • Some of the changes that have occured under deregulation include:
    • new companies are allowed to compete with Bell Canada, Telus, and the other companies that used to have regional monopolies
    • existing regulations on conventional local and long distance phone services have been removed or relaxed
    • many new services and technologies are unregulated, including cellular and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone services
    • companies can set their own rates for some services (e.g., local and long distance) that had been controlled by the CRTC

Deregulation: Good or Bad?

  • The big phone companies say that relying on market forces stimulates competition which results in greater choice, better service, and lower costs for consumers.
  • There's evidence that is true some of the time:
    • Long distance calls cost a lot less, down as much as 50 cents per minute, after the CRTC deregulated long distance services in 1992 and let other companies compete with the big monopoly phone companies.
    • Buying a phone today costs a lot less than it used to when you had to pay a monthly fee, year after year, to lease one from your phone company.
  • But there's also evidence that deregulation doesn't always benefit consumers:
    • Although cell phone service is unregulated and open to competition in Canada, three national companies dominate the market (Rogers, Bell, Telus) and charge much higher fees than companies in the U.S. and most other countries.
    • The CRTC deregulated local phone service in most large Canadian cities in mid-2007, but rates haven't gone down.
    • Many Canadians, especially those who have low incomes or live in rural or remote areas, have limited or sporadic access to the Internet because of a 1984 CRTC decision to deregulate all telecommunications services except basic phone service.

Deregulation and People with Disabilities

  • Market forces may or may not protect the interests of consumers without disabilities, but market forces have not protected the interests of Canadians with disabilities.
  • Phones have become more complex and inaccessible since the CRTC decided to deregulate wired and cellular phones in the 1990s:
    • Despite a recent challenge from people with disabilities, the CRTC refused to re-introduce regulations to ensure that accessible phone equipment is available to people with disabilities in Canada.
  • When the CRTC decided to only partially regulate "VoIP" Internet phone services in 2005, it acknowledged that the accessibility requirements of people with disabilities are often neglected when new technologies are developed and introduced:
    • To date, however, the CRTC has not done anything to compel the telecommunications companies to ensure that the accessibility requirements of people with disabilities are included when the companies introduce Internet phone services and other new telecommunications technologies.

In 2001, Chris Stark and Marie Laporte-Stark, people with disabilities living in Ottawa, asked the CRTC to overturn its 1994 decision to deregulate wired phone equipment. After more than five years of submissions, including objections from most of Canada's major telephone companies, the CRTC denied the Stark's request and refused to regulate the accessibility of phone equipment.

What should disability advocacy organizations do?

  • On June 10, 2008, the CRTC launched a seven-month consultation examining the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services in Canada.
    • The consultation will include a public hearing in Ottawa beginning November 17, 2008 and lasting approximately ten business days.
    • Interested individuals and organizations have three opportunities to make written submissions:
      1. Initial comments are due July 10, 2008.
      2. Reply comments responding to submissions from other parties are due October 2, 2008.
      3. Final comments are due January 12, 2009.
  • How to participate:
    • Submit written comments.
    • Read submissions by other parties on the CRTC website.
    • Make a presentation at the November 2008 public hearing.
    • Monitor the public hearing (audio and captioned webcasts, transcripts).
  • Web links:

This is one of a series of fact sheets on telecommunications and people with disabilities produced by the Disability and Information Technologies (Dis-IT) Research Alliance. All of the fact sheets are available at www.dis-it.ca.

The Dis-IT Research Alliance was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Other organizations that contributed to the development of these fact sheets were the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, ARCH Disability Law Centre, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the CNIB, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Neil Squire Society, and the University of Toronto's Adaptive Technology Resource Centre.