Project number: 224348 Project acronym: AEGIS Project title: Open Accessibility Everywhere: Groundwork, Infrastructure, Standards Starting date: 1 September 2008 Duration: 48 Months AEGIS is an Integrated Project (IP) within the ICT programme of FP7

1. VIDEO RELAY SERVICE
PRACTICES AND
POLICIES AROUND THE
WORLD
C. Vogler1, J. McWhinney2, P. Harper3, A. Raike4, G.
Hellström5, G. Vanderheiden6
1Gallaudet University, 2Significan’t, 3Australian Assoc.
of the Deaf, 4Aalto University, 5Omnitor, 6Trace Center

2. What are Video Relay Services?
Optional: Audio
patch-through
(voice carry
AEGIS persona: over, hearing
Tomasa Almaraz carry over)

3. Relay Services as Enablers
• Relay services enable functional
equivalence
• An attempt at a definition:
Can deaf* people use telecommunication services in
the same unrestricted manner and at the same
costs as hearing people?
* “deaf” is meant to include deaf-blind, hard of hearing, and
people with speech disabilities, as well here

4. Relay Services in Context
• Real-time or near real-time:
• Video Relay Services (~50% share in US in
2010, >60% in Sweden)
• Captioned Telephony (~ 20% share in US in
2010)
• Interactive, but with significant lag
• IP-based Text Relay
• Analog TTY Relay
• Speech To Speech

5. VRS Across the World
• Currently not interoperable – video call side
does not work across national boundaries
• Per-country differences in technologies and
policies
• The following slides compare some key
aspects of VRS across nine countries
• Full matrix can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/VRSComparison

6. VRS Standards and Protocols
Applies when a deaf person calls a hearing person
via VRS via a video connection
SIP H.323 H.324M Proprietary
Australia X (Skype)
Denmark X X
Finland X (likely)
Germany X X X (Web)
New Zealand X X
Norway X X X X (Skype)
Sweden X X X (Web)
United X X (SignVideo
Kingdom only)
United States X X (FaceTime,
Web)

7. VRS Standards and Protocols
• It is a Wild West out there
• No common interoperable protocol
• This is a huge problem for point-to-point calls
• Severely limits the ability of mainstream equipment
to make video connection to VRS
• There is pressure to move toward SIP (also
for next-gen emergency calls)
• Note: SIP alone does not guarantee
interoperability, also need common set of codecs,
and peering arrangements with proxy server
operators

8. Hearing Person Calling Deaf VRS User
ENUM E.164 Verbally give
(direct dialing of number, handle,
deaf user’s or SIP address
number) to relay
interpreter
Australia X
Denmark X
Finland X
Germany X
New Zealand X
Norway X
Sweden X
Switzerland X
United Kingdom X
United States X

9. Hearing Person Calling Deaf VRS User
• In almost all countries, relay calls are still
too complicated to set up for hearing callers
• USA and UK are the only exceptions
• There a hearing caller just dials a telephone
number normally, and is routed through an
interpreter automatically

10. Emergency Calling through VRS
Can use VRS to Caller location Priority given
call support over normal calls
Australia
Denmark X
Finland
Germany X
New Zealand
Norway X
Sweden X X (only REACH X (only REACH
112) 112)
United Kingdom
United States X X (but technical X
differences across
providers)

11. Emergency Calling through VRS
• In some countries calling emergency services
through VRS is impossible
• Most countries do not support caller location
• VRS interpreter must ask the caller, and then
consult directory to find appropriate PSAP
• Most countries do not support priority in caller
queue
• VRS has no idea that the caller wants to dial
112/999/911, with disastrous consequences if many
callers are ahead in queue

12. Policies Guiding VRS Availability
• From strongest to weakest:
• Functional equivalence
• Only restrictions are technical and human factors (e.g.
availability of interpreters, types of calls supported by relay
service technology)
• Access to telecommunications
• May be subject to “reasonable accommodations” provision,
such as limited talking time, no nighttime calls, extra cost
to caller, etc.
• Social services
• Typically covers labor market participation of people with
disabilities with state funds with a set number of
interpreting hours/year, subject to bureaucratic needs
assessment

13. Policies Guiding VRS Availability
Functional Access to Social Service
Equivalence Telecom
Australia X (text relay only,
VRS TBD)
Denmark X
Finland X
Germany X (personal) X (business)
New Zealand X (funding limits)
Norway X
Sweden X
United Kingdom X (personal) X (business)
United States X

14. Operational Policies for VRS
Limited Limited Extra Cost Mandated
hours weekdays to Deaf by Law
Callers
Australia X X
Denmark X X X
Finland X X X
Germany X X X X
New X X X
Zealand
Norway X X X
Sweden X Implicit
United X X X
Kingdom
United X
States

15. Summary and Conclusions
• Need for technical standards
• Need for integration into ENUM E.164
• Emergency access is lacking
• Also need to consider next-gen emergency, e.g.
REACH 112, NG-911
• The differing philosophies underlying VRS
show in the operational characteristics
• Limited availability in many countries
• Extra costs to callers in some countries

16. Acknowledgments
The contents of this presentation were developed with funding from the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S.
Department of Education, grant number H133E090001 (RERC on
Telecommunications Access). However, those contents do not
necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and
you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

17. Questions?
Email: christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu
Web: http://tap.gallaudet.edu/