PUC Workshop Universal Service Public Policy Programs Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Wednesday, April 26, 2006 >>ALJ Bushey: Good morning, everyone. Hello! Good morning! Before we get started today, I just wanted to get some organizational things out of the way. Our basic -- first of all, I'm Administrative Law Judge Maribeth Bushey. I am going to be assigned to the proceeding that will be addressing these issues. Commissioner Chong has just joined us with her advisor, Robert Haga. Before we get started, I wanted to get an understanding of the speakers for this morning. So far, I have John Darby, Anna Leach-Proffer, Winston Ching, Philip Kaplan, and Ann Ruth. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak this morning? Your name, sir? >> Colin Petheram, with AT&T. >>ALJ Bushey: I had your name card yesterday, in advance. And over here? >>Anna Leach-Proffer: I was just going to let you know that I don't think Phil Kaplan is going to make it. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. Okay, was there anyone else? Okay. Very good. For those of you who were not here yesterday, our general format -- thank you -- our general format is for speakers to come down to the podium, make their presentation at the podium after carefully identifying themselves and slowly spelling their name for our captioners, then make their presentation. At the conclusion of the preparation, the commissioner and I may ask some questions. Once you have completed answering the questions, please come and join us at the table. When all the presentations are over, we will have a discussion of the issues that have been presented. Oh, and also, is there anyone who has a PowerPoint presentation? (Speaker static.) >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. Anything else before we formally get started? Very good. Good morning. I'd like to formally welcome you to the commission's Universal Service public policy programs workshop. I'm Administrative Law Judge Maribeth Bushey, I will be assigned to this proceeding and I will be facilitating our program this morning. Our topic for this morning is the deaf and disabled telecommunication program's issues. To get us started this morning, Commissioner Chong will make a presentation. Commissioner Chong. >>Com. Chong:Thank you, judge Bushey. Welcome to everybody. Thank you very much for attending our second day of workshops on Universal Service funding and our public policy programs. I am the assigned commissioner, commissioner Rachelle Chong. And for those of you who were here yesterday, welcome back. I'm sure we're going to have more fascinating and fun conversation. I went home last night and was really excited by the discussion that we had yesterday. I found it extremely helpful, and I know the staff did, too. So my thanks to all of you who came yesterday and are back for more fun. Now, for those of you that are new, I wanted to welcome you here today. I told everybody yesterday, don't be shy about speaking up. And nobody was shy. We actually forced a few people to come up to the mike. Joyce is smiling. And they came up and were very poised and made wonderful comments. So please don't be shy. Yesterday, we covered financing mechanisms for the Universal Service programs and we also covered LifeLine and teleconnect programs. The presentations were extremely informative. They were very helpful to everybody in terms of understanding what issues we have confronting these programs and, of course, the aim is to have an inclusive of all issues type of OIR, which we hope to release end of May. I think it's fair to say everybody in the room yesterday learned something. Today, I'm very pleased that we are focusing on our deaf and disabled telecom program, a program that I believe is critical to our mission of bringing benefits of the telecommunications network to every citizen, including those whose disabilities might limit their use of the network in traditional ways. I'm pleased that our program is recognized as one of the nation's leaders. I'm also cognizant that fulfilling our mission comes at a cost. DDTP is big by any measure, about $70 million a year in expenditures. To continue our national leadership, we need to be proactive in looking at these programs and making sure they continue to fulfill their federal and state statutory mandates. Before we begin our formal rulemaking, I wanted to get everybody on the same page in terms of information about the program and putting our thinking caps on together. To get our mental juices flowing, the staff of the PUC prepared a very useful report that has given us some excellent information about the program history, its funding levels, and how the program works at present. I challenged the staff to be bold in their report to stimulate our thinking about where we go from here. And, boy, did the staff deliver. The staff takes "bold" to new heights in thinking about these programs. I did want to clarify today that the staff report is a "think" piece. It does not represent any prejudgment of the issues by the staff or the commissioners, of course. I'm interested in hearing your reaction to the staff report, your feelings about the effectiveness of the existing DDTP program, and your ideas about where we should go from here. What issues do you think need to be raised in the OIR? Now, I know some of you expressed some dismay over the short time period for filing written comments before this workshop. Please don't worry. We are going to have comprehensive written comments after we issue the OIR. So you haven't missed your chance. Yesterday, I talked about an elephant in the room. And by that, I meant the fact that many of these programs are quite old, and they have had their rules set in the wire-line phone world of YESTERYEAR. The world has changed dramatically since Senator Gwen Moore championed the Moore Telephone Service Act. Wireless communications encompass devices that are personal communicators -- (Static on speakers.) >>Com. Chong: -- E-mail, Internet, and digital music and video. E-mail, VOIP, Wi-Fi, and WiMax are revolutionizing the way we communicate. So the key issues for legislators and regulators are how to rework our Universal Service frameworks to take these technological changes into account. I would like to better understand how significant changes to the legal, regulatory, and technological environments have or will impact California's Universal Service policies. We need to do what's necessary to protect Universal Service programs in a competitive telecom market. Here are my goals for today. I want to, number one, ensure the funding and programs meet statutory requirements. So it's helpful to me if you could relate your issues to the statutory goal and how the commission's authorized to act under the statute. Number two, to ensure the funding and programs are accountable to the people of California. Everyone should be able to find and understand information about the collections and expenditures of these programs. Is a single annual report about DDTP sufficient? Does it contain enough information about the successes of the program? Number three, ensure that the program is designed to work in a 21st-century communications environment in a technology-neutral way. Wireless phones are now in 70% of the nation's homes. They're used by 23 million Californians. Bypass of the traditional wire-line network is predicted to be about 30 to 40% by the end of the decade, giving wireless and newcomers like VOIP. This is based on the use of technologies that we know about today. Who knows what's coming next. So, obviously, we need to adapt our laws and regulations to ensure that the goals of Universal Service continue even as technology continues to advance. How can the funding and the programs work in a technology-neutral manner? How can we manage the overall cost of the program if we expand services available under a program for some new technologies? I look forward to our dialogue today. It was quite robust yesterday, and I'm hoping it will be the same today. Because of our sign language interpreters and our captioning service, I did want to remind everybody to speak slowly and to enunciate clearly so that all of the people interested in this hearing have an opportunity to understand what's going on. Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you, commissioner. Are there any questions or issues that we should address before we begin the presentation? Hearing none, then, we'll start with the first one on the list, Mr. John Darby. >>JOHN DARBY: Yes. I am John L. Darby, D-A-R-B-Y. I'm a hard of hearing senior citizen. I want to thank the commissioner for her comments. I certainly agree that we all do want to hear and understand. And the program isn't the only elephant in the room. Some of us are also that age. [ Laughter ] >>JOHN DARBY: I'm not going to give you all of my background, because I actually have given the Public Advisor's desk a copy. Suffice to say that I was director for the Hearing Society for the Bay Area for 36 years, and in 1980, members of my board and I participated in the initial public hearings held by the PUC on how to implement S.B. 579, which had been passed a year before. And we sat through, I think, some ten days, long, arduous days, of trying to figure out how to implement -- how to provide TTYs to deaf and severely hearing impaired people. I appreciate this opportunity to make some comments about -- I did get -- I'm sort of computer-illiterate. I managed to get some things, and I did manage to download the staff report after a lot of effort. But I didn't have time to respond, and I didn't know how to send attachments by E-mail. So my attachments are attached to my written documents. On page 19 -- I do want to share some specific comments. On page 19 of the staff report, the introductory statement refers to "equipment and services to Californians who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled." I have always had trouble with that term. But the actual code now does say that the equipment is available, the services are available to individuals with, quote, "functional limitations of hearing, vision, speech, mobility, manipulation, and cognition." And that really is a very broad range of people. And while I may seem to be splitting hairs, it's important to recognize probably the majority of consumers presently enrolled in the program do not identify themselves as either deaf or disabled. And it is -- access to wire-line telephone service as currently mandated can be impeded or blocked by functional limitations of any type. Many consumers who could benefit in the program, in fact, resist applying because they do not consider themselves deaf or disabled. I applaud the CPUC's approval of the program using the current name, "California Telephone Access Program." And that -- (Static on speaker.) >>JOHN DARBY: Somebody doesn't like what I'm saying. >>ALJ Bushey: Excuse me. Just by way of explanation, we are Web-casting this, and that -- I'm assuming that that is what's causing the noise. So -- >>JOHN DARBY: Thank you, Judge Bushey. The name "California Telephone Access Program" and then "California Relay Service" are the two main elements of the DDTP. But for marketing purposes, CTAP is a far more desirable term. For example, where I live, at San Francisco Towers, we have an annual wellness fair, and I, for years, arranged for the program to have an exhibit table at that wellness fair. Very -- When the term "Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program" appeared on the table, very few of our residents would stop by and look at the equipment. They sort of saw the name and veered away from it. These are all senior citizens. When they changed the name on the table to "California Telephone Access Program," people came up to look at all of this wonderful equipment, because they weren't labeling themselves as being deaf or disabled. And so I really applaud your approval of their using that term. Also, seniors, many seniors, are leery of anything that's labeled as free. And we have an ongoing battle about the term -- use of that term. Consumers have actually paid for the program through surcharges for the last 25 years. And they need to recognize that now, if they need it and are certified, they're eligible to receive equipment and services at no additional charge. But it isn't actually a free service. It's at no additional charge. And "free" does turn off a lot of consumers. In references to DDTP issues, page 33, et seq., I confess a certain bias. Several questions are raised relative to some types of means-tested eligibility. This program was mandated to provide basic access to telecommunications services for people with some kind of functional limitation. The equipment and services are often referred to as electronic curb cuts to provide such people with basic access. You may not agree with my analogy, and I have used it once before here at the PUC. But would you seriously consider installing toll gates at all street intersections with curb cuts for many only income-eligible people to use them at no cost and then charging tolls to people above those income limits? What we're talking about here is basic access to a publicly available service. I do not believe income eligibility should be an issue for the CTAP. On page 21, reference is made to a report from an ad hoc committee, the ACW, appointed by the current advisory committee. I have to take exception with at least a couple of their recommendations. I was chair of the DDTP administrative committee from 1997 to 2002, at which time I was termed out. In those days, it was truly an administrative committee. It was before the program restructure took place. I found that considerations and input from the two related committees, the equipment program and the relay service, to be invaluable, as well as both time and cost-effective, for us. There was at that time no way we could have undertaken all of the necessary work performed or had the expertise of all of the consumers and CPUC representatives on those two disparate groups. Also, each of the three committees was of a manageable size. To combine all of those consumers representative into a single committee of 25 to 30 people could well lead to an organizational impasse without all voices being heard and the possible result two of to three people assuming control and losing the very soul of the program, which is consumer control, representing the spectrum of individuals with all types of functional limitations. In fact, if one reviews the report of the ACW, it appears that it was approved by representatives of only one of the functional limitations. In fact, if one reviews it again, it appear that is there was a minority report from somebody else representing the speech-disabled community, but he was not only minority -- the minority report was not only ignored, but his name was then dropped from the final report as a member of the committee. Was there consensus on that report from people with functional limitations of vision, mobility, manipulation, and/or cognition? Or was any input even sought or considered? It is imperative that no group of representatives of people with a single functional limitation be permitted to seize control of the program. If the roles of committees have changed, then perhaps the two advisory committees to the principal advisory committee should meet less often, maybe quarterly. But still allowing for consumer input in the special areas of equipment management and relay service, and, hopefully, with continued CPUC staff participation in their deliberations. And as for the equipment voucher program, consideration was given to this in the past. And after careful consideration, it was discarded for numerous reasons. One of the primary reasons was that the largest consumer group presently served is hard of hearing elderly people. Members of this -- (Static on speaker.) >>JOHN DARBY: Members of this group, and I am one, don't want simply to be given a voucher for an amplified telephone and then potentially become victims of the marketplace. We want assistance in the selection of and training in the use of such equipment from knowledgeable personnel with no economic interest in our decisions. And because hearing loss itself is not static, we want to be sure that if we need stronger or different equipment within a year or two, it will be available to us. And also -- and this is a hot issue with many people -- being familiar with conflict-of-interest issues of PUC, I am rather surprised that the recommendation from the ACW, and also included in the comments filed by the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf, are even included relative to an equipment voucher program. At least some of the agencies in the Coalition operate bookstores or equipment sales rooms in which some of the same telephonic equipment -- amplified telephones, TTYs -- are sold to consumers who are more than likely eligible to be program participants, with appropriate certification. In fact, a review of the Web site for one of the agencies reveals that approximately one-half of the equipment listed available for sale to the consumers is the same equipment provided to eligible consumers by CTAP for no charge. For representatives of these agencies to recommend a voucher program which could conceivably enhance their own sales, in competition to the existing distribution program, appears to me to represent an egregious conflict of interest. Thank you for this opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I have submitted a written copy of them. Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you, Mr. Darby. Mr. Darby, would you please come and join us at the table? We're going to have a discussion after all of the presenters. And I would invite you to come around to sit on the back here. We'll fill up the back chairs first. >>JOHN DARBY: I need to see the screen. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. I'm sorry. You can sit there. Very good. >>JOHN DARBY: Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: Here's your -- >>JOHN DARBY: Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: All right. Our next speaker will be Winston Ching. >>JOHN DARBY: Winston's back there. >>ALJ Bushey: Would Mr. Ching prefer a mobile mike? Would that be easier for him? >>Winston Ching: Yes. >>ALJ Bushey: Yes? >>Winston Ching: For practical reasons, I would like to allow my voicer, Don Brownell, to read my statement. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. That will be fine. Mr. Brownell, could you identify Mr. Ching and the organization he represents, if he represents one. >>Don Brownell: You're here representing yourself? Mr. Ching is here representing himself. However, he is on TADDAC, the Telecommunications Access for the Deaf and Disabled administrative committee. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. >>Don Brownell: The statement of (Interruption by the captioner). >>Winston Ching: I appreciate the opportunity to address this body. I would first like to stress the importance of following through with the community in crafting the proposed OIR. When complete, the OIR will likely frame CPUC policy for the next several years, and I feel it is imperative that sufficient attention be given to the issues to reach genuine solutions. Although given the standard notice by CPUC policy, the workshop was given inadequate public notice and inadequate time period for written comments. (Static on speakers.) >>Winston Ching: -- for written comments to be submitted, as noted by several of those who submitted written comments. The written comments were also notable by the absence of comments from many interested parties, including the vendors to the DDTP. I encourage the CPUC to give opportunities for further public and professional participation, such as additional workshops and/or meetings with staff. From what I have experienced, the CPUC has written its policies in a vacuum, apart from those who will be affected, and those who have the expertise to create solutions in give areas. Any single workshop cannot cover the breadth of issues or solutions. Let's be thorough about it this time. My name is Winston Ching. I have been a participant in activities for the DDTP since 1997 and have served as the Speech-to-Speech community user representative on the administrative committee since February 2002. My experience with the program has taken me from before the CPUC took over administrative control through now, and my belief is that the program ran far better before the CPUC took over control and began their seemingly never-ending transition of DDTP administration, soon to enter its fourth year. Given that, one, the CPUC was legislatively authorized by A.B. 1734, 2002, to contract out for the provision of goods and services for the DDTP, and, two, the Telecommunications Division has been unable to get authorization to hire any staff dedicated to the DDTP, as anticipated by their initial transition plan for the DDTP, resolution T-16703, passed in December 2002; and, three, the T.D. staff is not particularly trained in managerial work or knowledgeable about any aspect of DDTP operations. Then why has there been no support forthcoming to write a single master services provider contract with an organization that has performed all of the operations of the DDTP for many years, a contract that would bypass staffing shortages at the CPUC and provide a direct route to equipment purchase, ending needless complications with the Department of Finance and the Department of General Services? I would like to see the CPUC recognize that the DDTP program is supplying specialized goods and services to a unique population and create a system that allows it to function efficiently and effectively, rather than attempting to fit it into a rigid bureaucracy that can only limit it from fulfilling its mission. I contend that it is the height of inefficiency for the DDTP to be administered by an agency that does not have the civil service classifications available and does not fully understand what it is doing. Good management will delegate what they cannot directly deal with. Hospital administration will not perform surgery; it is delegated to the surgeons. Similarly, the CPUC should step aside from day-to-day operations and allow the experts to do their job. Speaking of experts, the DDTP is fortunate to have three advisory committees filled with highly talented, degreed, and credentialed consumer members. But the CPUC is not taking the best advantage of having these consumer committee members available to them. Although TADDAC has requested involvement with the Telecommunications Division in planning and executing plans for the DDTP, time and time again, further desire to have the program operate at maximum effectiveness for the consumers, and to facilitate on behalf of the state, not once has TADDAC's request been given any serious consideration. Section 278 of the public utilities code calls for TADDAC to advise on the development, implementation, and administration of the DDTP, as well as regarding contracts and agreements related to the DDTP. But the committee has never been consulted on a contract, nor has much interest been shown in the committee's ideas for administration of the program. And, in fact, the committees have been kept from information that would facilitate their providing useful advice. The Telecommunications Division should develop a work plan for inclusion of advisory committee members in their operating structure in concert with the members of the committees. As a corollary, T.D. needs to designate at least one person as dedicated staff for the program, to attend all the committee meetings, provide information and feedback to the committees, and provide a direct communication link with Jack Leutza. This is no more than what the commission's own resolution, T-16703, called for, yet this has not been put into effect in the over three years since the resolution was passed. My feeling is that the most significant ways the program can be improved are included in the arguments above for a master services provider that can more efficiently operate the program and provide a single point of responsibility and coordination for the program functions, and to formally flesh out the relationship of the advisory committees to the CPUC. But I would like to mention a few other items of importance. First, I am upset that there are no current plans to incorporate new technology, such as wireless devices and videophones, into the program, as these items and others have clearly already proven their worth within the society. Secondly, I'm against changing the equipment program to vouchers and feel there is substantial evidence that vouchers will not serve the consumers as effectively as the extraordinarily responsive customer service-based system currently in use. Third, I question the rationale behind the obvious interest the CPUC has in means testing, given that the DDTP has not come remotely close to exhausting its annual budget or its surcharge authority. Finally, I strongly object to the suggestion that the three advisory committees would be stronger if rolled into a single committee, and feel the program would suffer from the loss of focus. Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak. I look forward to working with you in the near future. [ Applause ] >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you Mr. Ching. I have a couple of questions for you. Shall I present the questions and then your voicer can present your answers? Would that be a good idea? >>Winston Ching: Do you want to do that now? >>ALJ Bushey: Yes. >>Winston Ching: Okay. >>ALJ Bushey: in your very well-presented comments this morning, you asked that the members of the advisory committee be more involved in the operation of the program. Yesterday, we heard a lot of complaints about the level of funding for the advisory committees and their meetings. I'm concerned that additional impositions on the time of the advisory committee members might not be well received. Do you think that your committee members would be willing to participate possibly on an uncompensated basis, on additional work with our staff? >>Winston Ching: They're doing it for $300 a month now. I think that if travel and lodging are covered, they would love to. >>ALJ Bushey: My next question is about your recommendation for a master services contract. Could you give me just a couple examples of what types of services you would envision being incorporated in that contract? >>Winston Ching: There's a big problem with the number of contracts and currently, every contract has to be approved by DGS. Pre-transition of the program to the staff, the group of people who ran the program did all the contracts and the negotiations of those contracts. It is particularly interesting what happened to the CRS request for proposal after the TD rewrote the contract and took responsibility as the contractor. In January 2003, the DDTP announced the winners of the RFP and in July 2003. The T.D. restructured the contracts for the California relay service. And the people who were running the DDTP had to -- or the people who were running the DDTP reorganized into a nonprofit organization, the California communications access foundation. So they could bid on the IFP to run the program as a contractor. CRSAC was restructured so the CPUC had control of the new California relay service. So the original RFP was altered. Also, all of the equipment contracts had to be rebid. And there was a period of six months before T.D. was able to force DGS to accept the contracts. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you Mr. Ching. I appreciate that level of detail in the answers. It's really helpful to us to understand exactly what the problem is. Thank you. Shall we move on to our next speaker? Okay, Ann Ruth. Ms. Ruth. >>Ann Ruth: Hello, I'm Ann ruth, the equipment program advisor committee chair. And I would like to make a couple of comments, first regarding the ACWG report that was presented six months ago or so. And our committee the EPAC committee, wasn't on that committee. And for the most part, we remained separate, had a separate committee, cannot be tied into one big, full committee as reported in that ACW report. And second, the committee is not in favor of the voucher plan as stated in that report. The community wouldn't have people when they get a voucher and go to the store, the salesperson tries to sell a piece of equipment that is not appropriate for them and they've often ended up with the wrong type of equipment. And then they have four or five years, since the only equipment not on a loan program. I really would like to speak for EPAC, as far as new technology, I really would welcome the commission to look into that. Recently the EPAC committee has been looking into cellular phones and pagers. It has been hard to find the information on the Internet and talking with different companies. But we even went to the CTIA wireless conference a couple of months ago and found very valuable information there. And learned how well they're working with hearing aids and making them accessible with cellular phone, HAC compatibility rule is that's due in September. And then to work with induction couplers. I'll think of the word in a minute. As the next phase of the hearing aid cochlear implant, sorry. So in September, they plan to have the hearing aid compatible rule conformed, and then we will work with induction couplers to make sure those are compatible with cell phones. We're looking for that reason but also for the vision impaired, mobility impaired, perhaps the speech impaired. And they are coming out with new devices all the time. And it looks like it's getting better for the EPAC equipment and have also looked for what they're doing in other countries. And in Europe, they're really doing quite a bit, in Europe and Asia and have come a long way for people with disabilities. For the deaf people, they can use sign language, and sign on their phones. So it's all through the cellular phone. And they see it happening in this environment in relatively short time frame, since the technology is moving so fast, in that the 3G technology for cell phones is around the corner, and in the United States. And that will be probably next year or 18 months. So I think that could even -- we could seven cellular phone and pagers that eventually that can reduce the cost of some other devices in the program. It can be a huge impact on the community, as well. Also, they use sign language as a means to sign instantaneously over the cell phone. And then they're also allowing broadcast TV, and then if you get TV broadcast on your cell phone, not that we want to watch TV, but you can use it for communication, ways to communicate on a more rapid basis, would be greatly appreciated by all communities represented in California. So I think accepting a new technology, looking at wireless and broadband, and pagers, is not, they are even thinking about it in their technology happening quickly, and I think as far as funding, there are ways to incorporate into the program, where there are ways you could treat a hybrid with a VOIP using a public telephone network, so you could have the 911 emergency services, if the power went down, the person still could be covered and use the phone services. So I think there are options out there, to use and reduce cost. And also Wimax this is a great area to include the rural areas that are hard to get to, an cellular devices would be greatly appreciated in those areas as well. So I think you can be great benefit to reach new areas that are difficult for the program to target, since California is to big and so large and it's so diverse. I think it's run well now, and that the committee and the CCAF have done a good job with what they have, and in the finances. But I think we can even do more with new technology. I think it will allow us to reach new consumers, enhance their communication, improve their life, and still allow them to communicate freely using the phone lines. It is different than what is currently allowed now in the basic service program. So it would have to change. But I think it would be a welcome and exciting change, and that many people could benefit from it, from all ages and all functional limitations, and that it could be really a wonderful, wonderful benefit. And actually, not so expensive down the road. Now, the ways to fund it maybe on the other end is to give this company a tax break. And on the other end, on the user end, by both purchasing a purchase license, on the other hand, perhaps the service charge on the IP address, or you can do it -- they're talking about on the phone line, per phone line, with the dollar charge that's been talked about, to I think there are a number of ways to charge to make up the difference. To allow people to have access. I think give us 24 hours and we can come up with many solutions for funding to make this happen. That in California should be a leader in getting to their fantastic services for that deaf and disabled, I believe John Darby, California telephone access program, better name, to improve and get more people involved, seniors, students, and all into the program. But I think we're on a good track. We have great committees now. We have a great program now. And CTAP just wants to get better. [Applause] >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. Our next speaker is Colin Petheram from AT&T. >>Colin Petheram: Thank you. My name is Colin Petheram, C-O-L-I-N, last name is Petheram, P for Peter, E-T-H-E-R-A-M. Commissioner Chong, ALJ Bushey, CPUC staff, and members of the public, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DDTP program. I think the staff report has really provided an excellent background on where the program has come and where it currently stands. I'd like to really provide brief comments about three key topics. One is functional equivalence. Secondly, the growing recognition of people with disabilities thirdly, TADDAC's strategic recommendations. And fourthly, AT&T's principles for updating the public policy programs. The overarching goal of DDTP is functional equivalence for people with disabilities, providing communications access for all. I'm sure that many of the people here today use Blackberries, wireless PDAs. This product has clear value for many consumers, including people who are deaf or hard of hearing. It's like a mini wireless TTY. In the written comments, the California commission -- the California coalition said, "The DDTP program has become increasingly irrelevant to large portions of the disabled community. A large portion of the deaf community has migrated from TTYs to the use of text E-mail pagers such as Blackberries and Sidekicks." Clearly, the technology exists. Ann Ruth's comments before me clearly demonstrate there are a lot of innovative ways for people with functional limitations to communicate. The problem is right now, I think, that the current program does not accommodate those new technologies. If you look into the future, we're preparing at AT&T to deploy I.P. T.V., Internet protocol television. Internet protocol enables you to manipulate the video and audio signals and use them in the way that is most convenient for you, a critical feature for people with disabilities. A simple example is two-way video conferencing, which you could conduct in your own home and would be a vital feature for people with disabilities. It's another example of the way technology is forging ahead and providing greater accessibility. The second point is around the growing recognition of the market segment of people with disabilities. Just a couple weeks ago, "Ad Week" ran a cover story about the accessibility of disability and references the growing recognition of people with disabilities by Fortune 100 corporations. This is really being seen as a -- an expanding market segment. Aging baby boomers are retiring with an expectation about accessibility to technology, and functional limitation is the nexus between people with disabilities and aging baby boomers. Another example is a piece of research conducted by Microsoft Corporation, the convergence of the aging work force and accessible technology. In addition to the 54 million Americans living with a disability, there are 69 million Americans of working age who could benefit from accessible technology. The point I'm trying to make is, I think corporate America realizes more and more there's a growing demand and market for accessible technology. AT&T has just recently introduced a new advisory panel around access and aging, and we're looking to find out how we can do a better job of serving this marketplace, and perhaps more importantly for today's audience, work with the DDTP program. The point here is that there's an opportunity, I think, for TADDAC and the commission to grow the market for accessible technology. DDTP has a marketing opportunity, and service providers can see this as an opportunity rather than a regulatory mandate and obligation. I think the DDTP program has done a good job with their new advertising and outreach programs, but I think it's really important for us to think about who have we actually reached with those programs. Have we been able to reach teenagers as well as seniors? Low-income households as well as middle-class households? Hispanics? African-Americans? And also Asian families? I think TADDAC's strategic report, issued in December '05, offers some important recommendations. The report recognizes that the program is striving to reach its ultimate goal of functional equivalence for all deaf, hard of hearing, and disabled individuals. The report recognizes the financial constraints in the current program and also recommends the equipment loan program use a voucher system to increase options and to minimize warehousing of equipment. At the TADDAC meeting that took place on March 22nd, I believe Commissioner Chong was there, and several others of the CPUC staffers were there. Jim Tobias from inclusive technologies was the keynote speaker at that meeting, and I think provided a compelling vision of what new technology can offer people with disabilities. He encouraged TADDAC to move into an active role and to explore options for inclusion of wireless services, as said several times this morning. Also, to understand what early adopters are using and how. Within the community of disabilities, as with the general marketplace, there are early adopters that are evaluating and cycling through technology options. And Mr. Tobias also encouraged TADDAC to look at the equipment program as an opportunity for service providers to enter the marketplace. I believe yesterday, some of my coworkers from AT&T went through the principles that we think are really essential to updating the programs. I'm just going to run through them quickly. We're looking for conformity with the uniform regulatory framework that's currently being developed. I think we're also looking for consistency with the FCC's rules and guidelines around providing access for people with disabilities. I think that is really critical for any type of relay service that is managed both at the federal and state levels. I think the funding mechanism needs to be consistent with the FCC. AT&T's proposal is to use telephone numbers that would include numbers used for broadband and wireless purposes. I think we'd like to see consistent funding for all the public-policy programs in California. And we'd like to see competitive and technology neutrality. I think that many of the representatives from the community of people with disabilities today have expressed a significant interest and a desire to use new technologies, and I think the program needs to find a way to bring them into the fold, so to speak. I think one possible solution is a third-party administrator. This would benefit the program management, and as it states in the TADDAC report, this will provide for efficient participation for both consumers and service providers. I think if you look at some of the other public-policy programs that were discussed yesterday, some service providers are not incented to participate, because the turnaround of reimbursement funds is so lengthy that they're discouraged. So I'm going to wrap it up with just some summary comments. I'd encourage you to ensure consistency and compatibility with the FCC, look for sustainable funding in the long term, look at the DDTP and other public-policy programs are providing the services that the eligible customers want and need, and to use early adopters as trend-setters. And I think just one more plug for text pagers for the deaf and hard of hearing, and cell phones for the blind. Those are really the equipment that you see people in the community using and that I think the program really needs to include. Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. I don't have any more previously signed-up speakers. Are there others? >>Hale Zukas: Yes. >>ALJ Bushey: Please come forward. Mr. Petheram, would you like to join us? >>Colin Petheram: Oh, sure. >>Anna Leach-Proffer: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honor, Commissioner Chong, Mr. Haga. My name is Anna Leach-Proffer. L-E-A-C-H hyphen, P-R-O-F-F-E-R. I'm with the California center for law and the deaf. And I'm here today representing the coalition of agencies serving the deaf and hard of hearing. We would first like to say that we're very pleased that the commission has decided to evaluate the status of the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program, as well as the other Universal Service programs. We feel that in this time of rapid technological advancement, it's very important that we continuously evaluate our Universal Service programs to make sure that individuals with disabilities and low-income consumers also are not left behind in these advances. Today, I would like to comment on four major issues. The first is the failure of the DDTP's equipment distribution program to keep up with changing technology. Second is a brief discussion of our proposal, which was outlined in our written comments, for the commission to consider as part of this proceeding implementing a program that would provide discounted broadband service to individuals with disabilities who need that service to communicate. Talk a little bit more about how and why you might need that. Third, I would like to express the coalition's support for the recommendations made in the strategic plan that was released by the -- released late last year, drafted by the administrative contract work group. And last, I would like to discuss the coalition's opposition to the implementation of a means test for this program. So first, starting with the equipment distribution program, we feel that this program is currently failing to meet the needs of many consumers because it fails to keep up with advances in technology. As Mr. Petheram just mentioned, a large portion of the deaf community has migrated away from the use of older devices, like TTYs, and now uses wireless, text, and E-mail pagers, and also videophones and other video conferencing equipment as their primary means of communication. The program wants to meet the needs of consumers. We need to develop a better system for quickly and efficiently adding new equipment to the program as it becomes available. I understand that EPAC is currently working on getting some wireless devices into the program. I think maybe we need to brainstorm ways that this could happen a little faster. A second example of a failure by the program to keep up with changing technology that is important to our constituents is the lack of widespread availability of captioned telephone service in the state. This is a service that's been available for several years now and is extremely popular with both the late-deafened and hard of hearing consumers. And despite this high demand and awareness of the effectiveness of this technology, the state is still making it available only as a limited trial. And I understand they're increasing the number of people in the trial. But from what I have heard, there's been a lack of marketing about the program. There's also been some difficulty experienced getting certified and into the program. So what we would like to see is California at the forefront of new technology for communications access. And that would involve making new and innovative services, like CapTel, and like various wireless devices designed specifically for the blind or for the deaf, and making those available as soon as possible and as widely as possible. Question? >>Com. Chong: Did you say it was captioned television service? We don't do television. >>Anna Leach-Proffer: I'm sorry. Captioned telephone. Did I say television? >>Com. Chong: Yes. I did that in my old job, but not here. All right. >>Anna Leach-Proffer: My apologies. I was referring to CapTel as being, I guess, the commercial name. My fault. So the second issue I want to address is our suggestion that the commission consider as part of this proceeding implementing the program that would provide discounted broadband service to disabled Californians who need this service to communicate. I didn't give comments yesterday, but I would just quickly note that we would certainly support the inclusion of broadband in the California LifeLine program. We feel that it's important, especially in this day and age, for everyone to have access to the information and services that are available on the Internet. We feel that especially for individuals with disabilities, the lack of access to the Internet leads to greater difficulty connecting with the outside world. An example of a technology that would require the use of broadband that's particularly important to our constituents is the videophone. Videophone allows individuals who are deaf or hearing [sic] and communicate using sign language to communicate directly with one another or with hearing people through the video relay service using their first language. This is especially important to our constituents who have limited English proficiency -- apparently like myself -- [ Laughter ] >>Anna Leach-Proffer: -- and -- because this segment of the population cannot use text-based communications effectively. They need to be able to communicate in sign language. There are currently several providers who will supply the actual physical videophone free of charge to deaf consumers, but the consumer would still need to have broadband access to use that equipment. And for many low-income individuals, the high cost of the service prevents them from using this technology, which would be very helpful in communicating. Question? >>Com. Chong: Are they able to use DSL for that type of service or does it require a higher speed, such as what's provided in a cable modem? >>Anna Leach-Proffer: Some of the higher-speed DSL services -- they come in different bandwidths -- will work. There are some issues. It's easiest if you have a static I.P. address, which is usually more expensive, although there are some companies, I think Sorensen is one of them -- that now have the technology to use the service with a dynamic I.P. address. It's just more complicated, because the caller -- the person who wants to use the videophone would have to either E-mail or, you know, send a text message to the person, letting them know what their current I.P. address is, before they can call them via videophone. Just in closing on that suggestion, we do realize that implementing such a suggestion would move the program away from its traditional focus of providing physical consumer premises equipment. And we are cognizant of the fact that this might require some change in the authorizing legislation, although I think it's probably premature at this time to look at what would need to be changed, if anything. Moving on to my third point, we would like to recommend that the commission take the time during this process to seriously evaluate the recommendations that were made by the administrative contract work group issued in the strategic plan. In particular, we would like to see the program consider moving to a master contract encompassing all program services. We would like to see the Commission consider implementing a voucher or a coupon program into the equipment distribution program. Now, we realize that there is some resistance from segments of the disability community to this suggestion. We think that it's definitely something we need to start out as a trial. And we -- it would need to be carefully crafted to ensure that consumers are still getting the level of customer service that they're used to, not just simply being handed a piece of equipment that might not fit their needs. There still needs to be some careful planning to ensure that people get service, not just equipment. We also recommend, as was mentioned in the strategic plan, that the commission consider creating an office within the PUC, perhaps within the Telecommunications Division, that is designed specifically to deal with disability access issues. I think this would increase the visibility of these issues and would also allow for permanent staff which could develop expertise in disability issues. I know that's one of the complaints often heard from the community, is that there is not staff at the CPUC that's specifically trained in disability issues. We're envisioning this being something similar to the disability rights office with the FCC, although, obviously, on a much smaller scale. I think that office has done a lot to increase the attention that's paid at the FCC to disability issues, and the creation of an office within the PUC could have a similar positive effect. Last topic deals with the means test. There were several questions in the staff report that dealt with the possibility of implementing a means test for the DDTP program. We did not address these in our written comments. I'll address it only briefly today. The report didn't specify, but I'm assuming that the means test is being complicated -- is being contemplated only for the equipment portion of the program, not for the relay services, which are federally regulated. Okay. The coalition is opposed to the implementation of a means test. Unlike the LifeLine program, which purpose was to assist low-income Californians, the purpose of the DDTP was to ensure that Californians with disabilities had access to the equipment and services that they need to communicate with the same ease that those individuals without disabilities can communicate. DDTP is not facing any significant budget issues at this time, and, in fact, the program, as I understand it, is consistently spending less than its annual budget appropriation. Therefore, we don't feel like there is any reason to consider a means test at this time. Additionally, the Commission has the specific authority to impose a surcharge of up to half a percent on all intrastate telephone services. And currently, I'm not sure what level we're at, but I know we're not close to reaching that maximum. So if there were changes made to the program that increase the cost, there's still some room, even in the existing structure, to up those surcharges and make up for any shortfalls without even needing change in legislation. Aside from those policy reasons, we feel it would also be administratively difficult to implement a means test for a number of reasons. The program provides a wide variety of equipment, and that equipment varies greatly in cost. For example, equipment like a Telebrailler could cost several thousand dollars, whereas a basic amplified phone, you know, might be only $50. So it would seem that different means tests would be needed depending on what type of consumers we're dealing with and what type of equipment they needed. Also, it would be administratively difficult to evaluate the financial status of the thousands of program participants who already have state-owned equipment in their homes. I would imagine that the cost of retrieving that equipment from those who are no longer found to qualify would quite possibly outweigh any cost savings that could be found by implementing the program. So our basic position on the means test is just that, as a matter of policy, it's contrary to the purpose of the program, and on a practical level, I think it's unlikely to yield any significant net cost savings to the program. I would also like to mention, just quickly, before I wrap up, based on the feedback that I have received from consumers and other advocates over the last several days, it seems that there's a strong consensus that we need to have more of these work group meetings. People seem to feel like there was short notice, not enough time to adequately prepare responses. We're suggesting that perhaps -- maybe a certain number of workshops could be made formally a part of the OIR that's released. I know yesterday, Your Honor, you were asking about maybe a number of workshops. And while we don't have a specific number, we would think that we'd want to have at least three, you know, at different locations throughout the state, make sure to have one in Southern California, you know, one in the Bay Area, maybe one in Sacramento, just to allow people who may have difficulty traveling the opportunity to participate. So in closing, just like to say that we look forward to participating in this proceeding over the next couple months or maybe year. And we're hopeful that we can make changes that will make all of the Universal Service programs more consumer-oriented and better equipped to deal with rapidly changing telecom industry. Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. Please come and join us. I have one more speaker, Hale Zukas. Other than Hale Zukas, is there anyone who else would like to speak? One more? Okay. My general plan is to complete -- a third? You would like to speak? Not right now. I am just trying to get an understanding of how many we have. So three more speakers? >>Mark Finn: Yes. My name is Mark Finn. >>ALJ Bushey: Mark Finn. >>Mark Finn: I'm part of the TADDAC. And I was the coauthor of both the reports that you have been talking about. I didn't realize I was going to be here today. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. But you're here now. >>Mark Finn: I just kind of got -- just found out about it yesterday. So.... >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. So there are three additional speakers. When we complete those speakers, we'll take our morning break and then regather and discuss the issues that we will have heard. That's our plan. So our next speaker will be Hale Zukas. >>Don Brownell: Hale has prepared a statement. Statement by Hale Zukas to the PUC, Wednesday, 26 April, 2006. I am Hale Zukas, I was a member of TADDAC and its predecessor body, DDTPAC, from 1997 until I was termed out last September. I only found out about this workshop yesterday afternoon, so what I say here will not be as organized, nor as extensive as I would have liked. I was an avid observer of the administrative contract work group during its deliberations. I think the ACWG did a pretty good job of documenting the mess that resulted from the way DDTP was broken up in 2003, contrary, I submit, to the intent of A.B. 1734. And like everyone else who is knowledgeable about this issue, I agree that the way to clean up the mess is to contract with one entity which would be given responsibility for all aspects of the program. If the ACWG's report had been limited to this recommendation, I would have much less problem with it. Unfortunately, the ACWG went ahead to make two other major recommendations, which were, in my view, both outside its charge and based on knee-jerk reactions to things which are not all that significant. First, the ACWG recommended that EPAC and CRSAC be eliminated, with their functions being assumed in some poorly thought out way by TADDAC. The rationale is that this would save something like $70,000 a year, or one-tenth of 1% of DDTP's budget, and that it would reduce the need for staff members to attend. A number of members protested that this would eliminate two conduits -- [ interruption ] specifically, then, a number of members of EPAC and CRSAC protested that this would eliminate two conduits for bringing valuable expertise to bear on DDTP to main activities. But these protests were not heeded. ACWG's other extraneous recommendation was that vouchers be used in some ill-defined way. One member of the ACWG got spooked over the dispute that arose. There were wild and totally unsubstantiated claims about how instituting vouchers would save the program millions of dollars. There was no analysis of the many complex issues that the recommendation raised. It was only at the end that the ACWG, recognizing that it did not know how vouchers would actually be instituted, watered it down into the rather vague recommendation that a pilot be explored. One other thing. One of the members of the ACWG, Winston Ching, wisely dissented from the approach taken by the majority, and he prepared a minority report. At its December meeting, TADDAC decided, on a very close vote, not to submit it with the majority report. I don't know how widely it has been disseminated within the PUC. I commend it to your attention. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. With two remaining speakers, who would like to go first? Virginia, there are two. I guess we have three. I didn't see you behind the podium. You can go first and then you'll go second. >> Marilyn Finn: Okay. This will make a little break for you, because my name is Marilyn Finn. I'm the president of the board of trustees of the Hearing Loss Association of California, which was formerly SHHH California. We have approximately 1300 members in California, 29 chapters of hard-of-hearing people. We are hard-of-hearing. I'm very pleased to be here today. I am no relation to Mark Finn, who will be speaking in just a minute, but we are well aware of each other in the world today. We are -- we support -- Is this microphone working okay? >>ALJ Bushey: It is for me. Can everyone else hear Ms. Finn? >> Marilyn Finn: Okay. We support the voucher program only so long as it is a hybrid and trial program. I received a e-mail last night from Phil Kaplan, a wonderful friend and personal advisor, talking about what the voucher program can, may, and could be. It's a very exciting idea, but it's an exciting idea only. It is not yet a plan. We are very, very concerned that things not be taken out of place while this pilot program is put into place. The voucher program is not an entire success in the states where it's being used. And we all know that the Medicare prescription drug plan is a terrible thought in any of our minds, and we never, ever want to have anything like that happen in California. We think the EPAC committee should stand alone until the voucher program has been tried. The EPAC committee, as you can hear from Ann Ruth, is investigating so many of the new technologies right now. If this voucher program -- if and when this voucher program is put into position, the EPAC committee will also be reviewing certification of businesses that can sell this equipment to people who have vouchers. For hard-of-hearing people, there is no way that a hard-of-hearing person can come out of an audiologist or a hearing aid dispenser's office with two new hearing aids and have a clue how to find telecommunications on their own. They cannot just be handed a voucher. That's why we're in favor of the hybrid, where hopefully they would be encouraged to use the standard equipment that EPAC offers right now. That would be covered, according to Phil, 100%, by the program. So they would not be incurring any additional costs or anything. The idea that somebody could leave their audiologist's office, and order equipment online or going into a store, wherever, and then having to send it back, not knowing what it's supposed to do, not knowing what it could do, is a terrible thought. There are a lot of older hard-of-hearing people, they're not going to be able to do things online and they're not going to be able to go to the stores. They're going to need the CTAP program as it exists today, or very close to it. I'm sorry. Today, the ownership of the equipment is -- the equipment that you get from the DDTP belongs to CTAP or belongs to the DDTP, or whoever it belongs to. But it does not belong to the consumer. And we want to make sure that that kind of thing stays, and that's completely against the voucher program as it's conceived at the moment. However, the thought of having to pay for your own repairs on equipment that you've ordered that may not work, and you don't know what it's supposed to do, then you pay for the repairs, then you send it back, then you send it in, then you send it back, then you order somethings. This is all the cost of the consumer. This is not really fair. This is not what the program was set up to do. This was not to be a punishment. It was to be a help. So we really would be unhappy with the voucher program not furnishing the equipment that is really needed. In one state, the sale of inferior equipment to hard-of-hearing people using the voucher system is ruining the system. So it's so important, as Mark, I'm sure, will tell you in a few minutes, that all the certifications are in place, everything is safeguarded for the people who are using the system. This is a huge, huge change. Now, over and above the voucher system, we think that the outreach for CTAP is very strong in their marketing, but that they're not doing just one additional step that could make a tremendous difference. We think that every person that comes out of an audiologist's office or a hearing dispenser's office wearing two hearing aids they've never worn before should also come out with a fax receipt saying that that person has registered them in the CTAP program. And they come out with CTAP information. Right now, if we're lucky, they come out of the audiologist's office with the CTAP information. And maybe they come out with the form they need to fill out and have signed at some later date. There is no reason why this can't be done immediately and in the office of the professional, so that these people are already in the system. Once they're in the system, they're a lot more likely to take advantage of the system. We're tremendously in favor of everything Ann Ruth talked about, about new technology. It's just changing so fast. And it's going to be a wonderful thing, if we can start really keeping up with it. Who can? I don't know. There has been a lot of talk about not so much here, but on and the people I've been talking to, about a great savings by shutting down our warehouses and doing away with that portion of the program. Like EPAC, I don't think that should be shut down at this point. If they're full of outdated equipment and things that need repair, certainly they could have a housekeeping event. But like EPAC, the warehouses should stay in place, until we find out if the voucher system will work for this state. Because if it won't work, getting a committee back once a government committee has disappeared, is nearly impossible. Getting those warehouses back, getting anything like that back again, is going to really be hard. For all that we have listed, adjustments and considerations for today, we're incredibly proud of the telecommunications system in California. It really is outstanding. As are the people that work on these committees. They are incredible people. Thank you very much. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you. [applause] >>Margie Cooper: Good morning. My name is Margie Cooper. >>ALJ Bushey: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt you Ms. Cooper. Because we have three speakers and I realize the lateness of the morning hour, why don't we go ahead and take our break now, when we return we'll have our final three speakers and then have our discussion. Thank you. [ recess ] >>ALJ Bushey: Would you like to take your seats, please? Are we ready to resume our speakers? I have been asked myself and to remind others, to remain close to the microphone, when you speak. Apparently on our webcast we are cutting in and out. So resume our next speaker, please identify yourself. >>Margie Cooper: Good morning, thank you. My name is Margie Cooper C-o-o-p-e-r. I am the hearing representative of the CRSAC. And I am the chief financial officer for the DCARA which can is one of the coalition agencies that we talked about earlier. I did want to talk first about the CRSAC and our opinions. We have two new members, and we have differing views on some of the issues. However, we are united on the need for inclusion of new technology. We're United on our belief that the master contract would be much better, where the master contractor does most of the subcontracting, is responsible for that, and we are very United on, we need a strong, quality management program, which is part of the original plan and is very necessary to keep the quality of the relay service high. And that involves and is very important, keeps being involved that it will be a consumer-run program, that will be checking on the quality. And I'm not sure whether that has been included in the budget. I haven't been able to figure out whether there's actually money in there. Because there would be some cost to have the volunteers make calls. They'd be making test calls to judge the quality of the program. Right now, in the RFP, the only quality measures that are enforceable are the average speed of answer. They have penalties if they don't reach it. The only other way to ensure quality is the quality management program. Because of the time that's been taking for the turnover, and because of trying to get reporting by vendors to agree, so we can do our measurements, so forth, we are just starting the quality measurement program and it needs as much help as it can get. Hopefully there is money in the budget because to get volunteers to do this on a regular ongoing basis is not going to cost a lot of money, but it will cost something. The things that we don't necessarily agree on as a group is, one of the reasons is, we have two new members who weren't even here when the ACWG report was issued. And so they don't have that much knowledge about it. The voucher system, we have some agreement, or a few of the people believe that it is a good idea. We have at least one who thinks it's a bad idea. And my personal opinion is that I think it sounds good, but I think there absolutely has to be a loan program. I've talked to a lot of hard-of-hearing people, and they are very uncomfortable. I don't think they are even willing to use the equipment in the voucher program. I think the loan program needs to be there as a basis, and I'm concerned of the cost of having both. So I think it would take some looking, a lot of looking at. I think the voucher program as such sounds good, if you can also have the loan program. If there's some way of working that out. That's my personal opinion. As far as the committees, one of our members, at least one of our members does believe that the committees should be combined, and that we would be much stronger and have more input. As of now, TADDAC has the vote, and then they make recommendations to CPUC. CRSAC and EPAC give recommendations to TADDAC. Does not vote, does not give recommendations directly to CPUC. My personal concern with combining them is -- well, there's a couple. One is, once you get rid of a committee it is almost impossible to get it back, so if it doesn't work you're stuck with a new system. Two, is there enough people on the committee to be representative? There are a lot of segments of population that we serve, they all need to have representation. There are also different areas of the state that have different needs and I think it's important for them to have representation. If you have enough people to do that kind of representation then are there too many people on the committee to be effective? I'm not even sure how they would sit around the table with all of the -- with the interpreters, the captioners, all the others who are involved, I'm not sure they would be an effective committee. That's all I have. Thank you very much. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you Ms. Cooper, would you like to join us in the discussion afterwards? Mr. FINN seems to have gotten away from us. Would you like to join us? The podium is exactly in between us. All right, our next speaker was Mr. FINN. >>Mark Finn: Good morning. Ms. Commissioner, Your Honor, and Mr. Haga. I did not plan to speak this morning. As a matter of fact -- >>ALJ Bushey: Excuse me, Mr. FINN, could you identify yourself and the group you represent. >>Mark Finn: I'm sorry. My name is Mark FINN. I am the late deafened community representative for the telecommunications access for the deaf and disabled administrative committee. Which we call TADDAC. Which everybody has been referring to as TADDAC. I am the co-author, and one of the main authors for the transition paper that was written for AB 1734, I think it is -- 1734. And I was also one of the main authors for the strategic plan that everybody has been talking about. I do have one complaint about this whole thing, is that I really was not prepared for this. I didn't realize I was coming up here until yesterday. I was not allowed a ticket through CPUC until yesterday. So I had a lot of scrambling to do, and rearranging schedules and everything else, just to make it up here. And even there, starting at 9:00, the earliest flight that flies in gets in here at 8:00. So then you scramble from the airport to here, and run, and get lost, and that's why I was late to begin with. So I wish that there was a little bit better planning on the part of the Public Utilities Commission to let us know, as advisors, that we should be here. And -- and -- they very important, give us time to get our planes together. Give us authorization. We didn't get authorization until Jack gave us -- gave it to us at our last committee meeting. So we had three weeks to get all of it together. And I didn't know, until I found out yesterday, when I got my ticket, that I would even be coming. Okay. Let's get away from that. A lot of things have been talked about. And I'm going to focus in on basically what the strategic plan, what we were thinking when we were making the strategic plan. And we have to back up a few years, and realize that when AB 1734 came through, it basically disallowed the way the structure of DDTP was running. 1734 basically told us that DPAC was no longer an existing committee. DPAC was gone. In its place would become the telecommunications access for the deaf and disabled administrative committee. The reason that they did this is because they wanted to cut the strings. They wanted -- they didn't want DPAC in there to confuse the issue. Because DPAC was actually the administrative body of DDTP. When TADDAC came in, TADDAC became the advisory body to DDTP. Big difference. DPAC was running the bills, was signing the bills, was authorizing contracts, was doing all of the management of the company, so to speak, which is DDTP. Once 1734 came through, now all of a sudden, DPAC did not have any role at all. It all reverted over to the telecommunications division of the CPUC. When it did that, it had to abide by the rules and regulations of California. And California says, you have to go through DGS, you have to do this, you have to do that. Well, life changed. It was a complete, complete cultural change. And that cultural change to this day is being fought against. During the first year, it was just absolute chaos. Everybody, all the committees were doing what they wanted to do. They were sending reports where they wanted to send the reports, they were doing what they wanted to do. Even though the charters were very specific, that they had to go through TADDAC, they weren't. They were doing what they wanted to do. So it was chaos. We had to get some kind of our hands around this. How are we going to make this a manageable situation? To make this a manageable situation, we came up and we says, look, we've got to make a plan for the future. Where are we going? As advisors now, not as administrators, but as advisors. And that's extremely important to understand. As advisors, how do we set this up? How do we structure this organization? Now, I agree with just about everybody here that change is happening and that what we wanted to do was to change this into a modern company and not -- whenever you change the culture of a company, there's going to be problems. People aren't going to like it. People are resistant to change. But we had to change. Where was this change going to be? Everybody agreed that it was going towards a wireless society. So we wanted to have DPAC become a wireless society. Everybody agreed in that particular situation. Now, how do we get there? Well, it was very difficult. So we came up with a strategic plan. And we said, "Why do we need warehousing?" For instance. Let me just take warehousing. Because for some reason, this has gotten a little bit confusing. Why do we need to warehouse all of these phones that can be sent at the click of a computer dial to the person who is ordering it? Now, we're talking generic, off-the-shelf amplified phones, for instance. And that's the majority of what we deal with. And we say, we deal with maybe 30% specialized phones. Well, why can't we just put those into the -- the systems that we have now, the warehouse -- the centers that we have now? Why can't we just put it there? Why are we wasting two and a half million dollars a year warehousing phones like this? So we started thinking along those lines. Money was not a factor in uniting the committees. The idea for uniting the committees was to empower the committees. We felt that by uniting the committees, we were going to have one centralized vote -- voice. Excuse me. And that one centralized voice would be heard by many. Now, if we needed to go off and look at different things of technology, equipment, or whatever, we did it with subcommittees. Okay? And we did not in any way or form say anything about money. As a matter of fact, we said it would probably cost more to do it this way. But we did it for a centralized organization. We were trying to centralize the complete organization of DDTP so that we could go to the vision of the wireless technology. We were too fragmented. We felt we were too fragmented to be able to take what I call the company, DDTP, to the area that everyone wanted, the new wireless technology and other technologies that would benefit our consumers, but to do that, we were too fragmented. So we had to centralize our organization first and then go and get the technology that we want. In the process, we're doing -- we're getting the technology, because we have great people, like Ann Ruth back there, who on her own nickel is going to these conventions and picking up all of this information. And I want to make another point about this "on her own nickel," because that makes a big difference. We fly up here, we do all of this stuff, when I came in here, Your Honor, you did -- you said something, "On your own time." Well, you have no idea how much time we put into this. Okay? And to get paid is another thing that I could talk an hour about. Okay, but I'm not going to get to that place. We devote a lot of time to this. Everybody devotes a lot of time to this. We have some very, very smart people, very intelligent people, that want to combine this. We just have a little dissension among ourselves. Now, we're working that out. And we're working it out and we're working it out and we're working it out. Every day is getting better. At the beginning, it was not that good. But every day is getting better. Every meeting is getting better. Every -- every month is getting better. So we can see the progress. We know where we're going. And our partners, which is the Public Utilities Commission and people like Helen and Jack, that come over monthly and help us, give us a little bit of guidance on what is acceptable within the California bureaucracy. We are not bureaucrats. We do -- we don't know what -- how the system works a lot of times. So we depend on the bureaucrat to come in to give us a little bit of direction. And Helen has done a great job. Jack has done a great job. And I applaud both of them. At the beginning, it was hard. I think everybody will say that it's gotten better. Let me see if -- my notes here. Okay. In essence, all I really wanted to say is that we were taking an old business model that, through the legislature, through A.B. 1734, completed smashed the old business model. We had to come up with a new business model. That's where we're trying to go. That's the reason for the strategic plan. Thank you. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you, Mr. Finn. Our final speaker is next. I'm sorry? >>Nora Sinclair: I wasn't sure if there was anyone else. >>ALJ Bushey: No. I believe you're the final speaker. Unless there's a late arrival. I don't see any. >>Nora Sinclair: Hi. -- >>ALJ Bushey: Speak into the microphone, identify yourself, and the group you represent. >>Nora Sinclair: Okay. My name is Nora Sinclair. And you have it spelled correctly up there. And today, coming as a member of the public. I just found out about this meeting two days ago, so I'm not as organized as some of the people that are speaking today. I am a newly deafened adult. I became deaf about three years ago. And I'm currently on SSDI, disability. I make about $900 a month. I'm unemployed otherwise. So just to give you some perspective on some of my needs or other late-deafened adults' needs that are currently unemployed, working on fixed incomes, and just for themselves, I currently don't have a Sidekick or any PDA service, and if I were going to buy one, which I do need to become employed, it's about a third of my one month's salary. And that's just the purchase of the unit. In terms of monthly service, then, it would be about 30 to $40 a month. So you can do the math on that. Making $900 a month, that's not including Internet connection. So if I want to have access to broadband DSL and video conferencing phones, I'm not sure what the service costs now, but DSL is about $50 a month. So that's not including rent. That's not including food. That's not including transportation or car. So I am working on very limited resources at the moment. On the plus side, in terms of some of the things that the telephone access program has done, the DDTP, I currently use a captioning telephone, and that has been my Lifeline. Becoming deaf as an adult, I lost my job about four years ago. I was making a decent salary, in the $40,000 region. And now I have no access to regular phone use. If I'm outside of my house, with the exception of having a captioned phone at home, I have no means of communicating with people. I can't use a regular telephone, public telephones outside of my house. They do have TTY, but the majority of people that I communicate with on a regular basis are in the hearing world, and if I can't use a regular phone, how would I communicate with them? So if I had a Sidekick or PDA of some sort and access to wireless service for free or at least a discounted price, I could communicate with the hearing -- excuse me, hearing world and the deaf world both. So right now, I'm working with vocational rehab and the state of California rehab to try and get a job and to try and get access to a Sidekick, broadband service, all of these different services that DDTP provides. >>Com. Chong: I'm sorry. Would you mind describing to me exactly what a Sidekick means. I'm not familiar with that particular service. >>Nora Sinclair: Oh, okay. Sorry. A Sidekick or a Blackberry, any PDA would provide me personally access to other people. I could, instead of using the Internet, I could send an E-mail to deaf people. Is that what you -- >>Com. Chong: Yeah. So it's a PDA that allows text-messaging? >>Nora Sinclair: Correct. Yeah. So for my family is hearing, if they were going to call me, they would go through the California Relay Service, CRS, I believe using 711 or one of the providers. And they would text-message me out in the field using the Sidekick or PDA. And then with other hearing people, the same thing. With deaf people, then, they would just do direct text message to text message. The other point I wanted to make is, TTYs at home have really become more antiquated. When I first became deaf, I was using a TTY and going through 711, the relay service. And I was using the "go ahead" system. I would -- because I can still speak, but I cannot hear over a telephone, it was very cumbersome. I would be speaking with my family, and I would talk to them. But I couldn't understand them. So it would go through the operator. The operator would type out the information that they said. I would read it, and then after I couldn't hear on the phone, I would just read it only. And then after I finished reading their comments, I would make a comment and have to say, "Go ahead," every time one person would want to talk back and forth. It's very cumbersome. Today, using the captioning phone, it's much easier. I can hear what I can hear on the phone, but it's also captioned. So I miss probably 99% of what is said over a telephone. However, I can hear voice intonation, emotional quality, things like that. I can tell if somebody is loud or happy or glad, other means of communication besides the words. So -- I'm trying to think of other things. I think that's it. Thank you for your time. >>ALJ Bushey: Oh, no, no. Please come back. >>Nora Sinclair: Oh, sorry. >>Com. Chong: We would love to have you join us at our table for discussion. If you wouldn't mind. >>Nora Sinclair: Okay. >>ALJ Bushey: Please be seated here, if that's convenient for you. You'll need to see the signer or -- do you look at the screen? Very good. Thank you. Your timing is impeccable. The issue I wanted to put before our discussion team up here was, what can we do to solve the problem of the lag time for new technology? You have given us a live human being so I can turn to our discussion group and say, "What is stopping us from getting this young lady her PDA?" You can tell me what it is, I can write an OIR, and we can fix it. But you need to tell me what it is. So with that as your kick-off, who would like to go first? >>Marilyn Finn: You're missing Ann Ruth down here. >>ALJ Bushey: Oh. Oh. We're missing someone. >>Angela Young: I think it's the green button. >>ALJ Bushey: There we go. Very good. Is there anyone else that I missed? Would it be more convenient to give him the -- would is it be more convenient for him to have a mobile microphone? Let's take that -- Ms. Finn has nominated you to answer the question, Ann. So there you are. >>Ann Ruth: I think it's actually a part of the legislation that was written. So and it's part of the wireless devices. So we need to actually look at the law. I'm not sure how to say it without phrasing, because I think it defines, determines basic access service as the telephone, because it's an access line. And I know the PUC said that it could be -- I guess they defined it as a point-to-point term, and before it meant a land line. And now they are considering possible wireless line. So it's very -- it's more up to the commission than me as to how to define the term "wireless." >>ALJ Bushey: I'm sorry. When you say it's in the law, you mean the existing law, not -- >>Ann Ruth: Yes. >>ALJ Bushey: It's in the definition in the existing law is confine, we believe, to -- >>Ann Ruth: A wire line. >>ALJ Bushey: To a wire line. So we need a legislative change? >>Ann Ruth: Yes. And that's why -- or a PUC change. And that's why the words are the old technology, even though there's a big demand, a need for new technology and TTYs and -- a prime example of what our needs and we would like for the program. And we're looking into service plans that would meet and accommodate. So we need to contact different companies to see what and how they can offer the program. The information we have seen so far is that they offer -- I think it's Cingular offers a $5 a month voice connect waiver. But they don't offer a wireless minutes plan, you know, for the month or for peak time, slow time. So $5 a month isn't that big of a discount. >>ALJ Bushey: That's not enough? >>Ann Ruth: No. Because you can talk forever. And I think even with some companies, the thing is, Verizon Wireless that was trying to get TTYs to be free time. They were testing this in the north, I think in Washington state. And I don't know their results, if they are continuing that, or if that -- through the trial that they discontinued or how long it went on for. But did they offer TTY technology free time, then that could be a significant savings for consumers as well. >>ALJ Bushey: Thank you, Ms. Ruth. Helen Mickiewicz, the telecommunications counsel has moved to the podium. I think she has something to enlighten us with. Helen. >>Helen Mickiewicz: I just wanted to clarify what Ann was saying about the statute so that you know what the story there is. Section 2881 of the public utilities code specifies that equipment can be provided, together with a single access line. That's the language in the statute. Now, the legal division has reviewed the language in the statute and advised the commissioners via a memo, and we've advised the -- this is a couple years ago -- we advised the committees quite recently, that we believe that the language in the statute can accommodate inclusion of wireless equipment in the program. We note that the statute was enacted before wireless service was really available. And we think the intent of the statute was to ensure that there's a limit on how much equipment each individual can obtain, but not necessarily the technology. So we've advised that we think wireless equipment can be included, but that requires action by the commission, which is what Ann was referring to when she said "it's up to the commission." And we have advised the committees that EPAC has to come forward with a recommendation. And Ann just explained that they're looking into that now. And then TADDAC has to review it and forward it on to the commission. And that's the process contemplated in the charters. So it's in the works. But we can have further discussion offline about the statute, if you wish. But that's how we see it. >>Com. Chong: Okay? >>ALJ Bushey: Please. >>Com. Chong: Ms. Ruth, so you said that this EPAC recommendation is in process. Do you have any kind of time frame as to when you might be submitting it to TADDAC and then they would be submitting it over to the commission? It's an awfully opportune time. >>Ann Ruth: It is. I guess we have to contact the companies to see what they can offer the EPAC, you know, CTAP program, with how many minutes that they can offer, you know. And they'll probably come back with how many people are there -- would they be considering? You know, how big is the program, how many people will be using it. >>Com. Chong: Are you in active discussions already with the wireless carriers? I remember that they were at your last meeting that I attended. >>Ann Ruth: Yes. And that was the last time we really talked with some others, different ones, at the CTIA Conference. But I -- but I don't have all the numbers as to how big the program is to offer to see how many people are in the program, say, "Could you give us 500 minutes, you know, for a week? Could you give us peak time, off time, weekends?" You know, what about for a business case, personal use. So these are all issues. And all the phones would have to have (inaudible) GPS or 911 emergency. And location identifier. Now, the GPS offers that, but it does not offer location, or in the building office. So if it's a busy city or -- it cannot locate somebody in a building. But it can locate somebody in a street or a -- or an area. But that's just GPS technology. And I'm sure that's getting better, and as time goes on, there are companies that are developing other location identifiers. But I think that would suit the needs for now. And as time gets on, I think that should meet the commission's needs for 911. >>Com. Chong: Have you considered doing a survey of some of the members of the community to see what they think their needs are, to get a statistical sense of the breakdown? Because I understand that different members of the community have very unique, different needs. So I'm wondering if it might be helpful for the commission to have some statistics about, you know, 50 to 60% would prefer a wireless device; 10% want to stay with their wire line; X percent would like to have some kind of broadband capability in order to have video signing ability. Have we -- do we have any kind of information like that already? Or could you gather it if you had some time? >>Ann Ruth: I'm sure we can. I think the -- as far as I hear from the deaf community, they all want pagers. I don't know if they necessarily need broadband. But that is the number-one thing, is the pager. And that would be a Sidekick. And I just saw late last night the Sidekick 3 is coming out. And it does -- with a Blackberry or a Sidekick. And is working with 711, which is -- you can contact somebody directly instead of waiting for them to call a person and get back in touch with them. So that's really good news for the deaf community, so they can contact directly. So things are really happening for the deaf community, which is wonderful. And this new Sidekick probably will be excellent. As far as -- So that's what the deaf community wants, is to -- a working Sidekick, where they can use TTY, and I'm sure has GPS with it. >>Com. Chong: What is the approximate cost of a Sidekick right now, maybe the Sidekick 2? >>Ann Ruth: Probably -- I would say -- >>Com. Chong: Just estimate. >>Ann Ruth: -- 2- to $4 00. >>Buddy Singleton: 300 to $4 00. >>Ann Ruth: Buddy said 3- to 400? >>Interpreter: Yes. >>Buddy Singleton: Yeah, 300, 400. >>Ann Ruth:Thank you, buddy. >>Mark Finn: Which service? >>Ann Ruth: That's without service. >>Com. Chong: Approximately $30 per month? >>Buddy Singleton: It's about 31, $32 a month or so, in the 30s. >>Mark Finn: Commissioner, maybe one point, at -- Ann is absolutely correct in everything she is saying. And I think the one point that we're missing here is the service. We can get the equipment, and a phone is great. But if it isn't hooked up to anything, it's worthless. It's just a paperweight. And that's what a Sidekick becomes, is a paperweight, without the service. So it has to be bundled. That's where we get into really tricky areas here, is the bundling of it. How do we get the service? >>Com. Chong: Yes. Yesterday, we addressed issues relating to some of our other programs. And there was discussion of allowing recipients of those program benefits to use their -- either a rebate or a coupon or a voucher -- we were calling them many things yesterday -- towards other technologies other than just a wire-line telephone. So, presumably that could include the possibility of a wireless device or potentially you could apply it towards broadband, depending on which services the commission decides could be available under a program. But I totally understand your point, Mr. Finn. >>JOHN DARBY: Commissioner, could I make one point? And that is, I do represent the hard of hearing senior population, which is a very large section of the program recipients. Many of them -- >> Is your mike on, sir? Is the green light on? >>JOHN DARBY: The green light is on. >>Com. Chong: Can you hear that in the back? >>JOHN DARBY: Sorry. >>Com. Chong: He needs to get closer is what people are signaling. >>JOHN DARBY: Many older hard of hearing people, we have a problem in that the FCC finally has -- is, you know, getting rid of the exemption for wireless carriers to have hearing aid-compatible wireless telephones. By September of this year, we're supposed to have 25% of our wireless telephones be hearing aid-compatible. That's still a very small number. It's being phased in slowly over the next period. But there is a real problem for many hard of hearing. I'm one of them. I was a victim of trying to use a wireless for several years, and I just could not get one that was compatible with my hearing aids. And hearing aids cost several thousands of dollars. I wasn't about to change hearing aids just to be able to use a wireless phone. So a lot of older hard of hearing people will want to continue using a wire-line. And I do think it's important to do a survey of them. I certainly am not saying I am opposed to wireless. I have always supported wireless technology and the access to it. But do consider the very large population for whom wireless may be a burden rather than a benefit. >>Com. Chong: We're envisioning a -- well, I'm envisioning -- I can't speak for anybody else -- a menu of choices, of services. And what strikes me in listening to this community is that every member's needs are unique to their own particular situation. So one thing that I think is important is that we need to give more choices to the end user so that they can pick what really meets their particular need. And so it wouldn't be wireless to the detriment of another service. >>JOHN DARBY: Right. Thank you very much. >>Com. Chong: No more wire line, only wireless; that's not what we're thinking. >>JOHN DARBY: Thank you very much, commissioner. >>ALJ Bushey: It sounds like the wireless technology is in the administrative pipeline to be approved and to join the menu of services that would be available to participants. Is that a fair statement? >>Ann Ruth: Very fair. And we're trying to [inaudible] I think for the hard of hearing that doesn't require a service plan or activation fees up-front. So I think we have a good one there. And it's one that -- for the Sidekick, we have to do more analysis to find out, you know, how many minutes should we have. How much can the program offer per, you know, per Sidekick per user, you know, per month, you know, per week, and then break it down that way. So I need to contact the companies and see what they would be willing, you know, and then what's in it for them, how much are they going to get out of it, you know. Because they'll do it if they can get some business out of it, too. So it has to work both ways. >>ALJ Bushey: One of our purposes for these workshops is to lay the foundation for our upcoming proceeding. And one of the things I need to do is, what we need to do in that proceeding to make this happen. And I'm understanding that we don't need to do anything; that it's underway. Is that correct? >>Ann Ruth: It is underway, yes. >>ALJ Bushey: What do you need from me? >>Ann Ruth: I'll probably ask you that question. I would turn that around and say, what do you need from me? Because I think I can go after the companies, but what should I ask them? You know, like, how many -- 'cause they probably need to know how many people are in our program that would use the Sidekick. Again, how many minutes are they -- how many minutes will they give for free and what can they charge for? That's the one I'm not sure about. So what am I asking? I'm asking -- I guess I'll probably have to submit an analysis of how many people are needed; right? Some fiscal analysis, I would think. Or just give some options. Because I could give some options. >>ALJ Bushey: I don't think we would go to that level of sort of program administrative detail. I think the commission is anticipating its proceeding is looking for authorizations to the various committees or to the -- to the communications division as to what they need from the commission to go forward. It sounds like everyone has the authority to do what you want. It's just taking it a bit of time to get it done. I see Helen Mickiewicz has once again moved to the podium. >>Helen Mickiewicz: I just can't get enough of this. I wanted to mention a couple of things. One is something that Mark mentioned earlier, and I wanted to be sure that you understood his reference. The statute in question, to relate one and subsequent statutes, which put this program into law, allow us to pay for equipment and allow us to pay for relay service. The statute does not allow us to pay for service on a recurring basis. We can only pay for equipment, which is why the wireless bundling of service and equipment presents a problem, the same with the PDA, the Blackberry, so on. That's the reference that Mark was making. The other thing that Linda Gustafson, who is the project manager for the DDTP in Telecom Division, mentioned to me and wanted me to point out is that assuming that we are presented with some recommendations for wireless equipment, there may be issues with DGS that we don't anticipate at this moment but our experience so far in transitioning this program into the PUC and having to go through DGS for equipment purchases, because, by law, DGS has to purchase all state equipment, the reason -- what we've experienced is that DGS has some peculiar requirements that we may not know about until we get to that point. And we just wanted to make sure you know that. And that leads me to make one other comment about the warehousing that Mark mentioned earlier. The reason the equipment goes to the warehouse is, it's a loan program, and the equipment is opened at the warehouse, it's received from a vendor, opened, labeled as state of California equipment, repackaged, shipped to the user. We have looked at the possibility of having vendors label the equipment and found that that is not really feasible. So that's why we have the warehouse. But if we moved to a program or even in part we moved to a purchase using coupon, discount, whatever, rebate, then the equipment would belong, theoretically, to the user and would not have to be labeled and could be ordered directly from a vendor. So these are all the variables that I just wanted to mention. Sorry. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. So paying for monthly service charges from a wireless company is missing? >>JOHN DARBY: Yes. >>ALJ Bushey: From the current. >>Helen Mickiewicz: That's correct. For us to do that would require a statutory change. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. >>Com. Chong: Helen, could you explain the bundling issue a little bit more to me. Are they selling the equipment bundled with service only and we have not been able to discuss with the companies an unbundled package? >>Helen Mickiewicz: That's one of the things that Ann, I think, mentioned, that they are looking at the possibility of getting the equipment unbundled, but also, you know, in large quantities and at discount. But if you walk into a wireless store to purchase equipment as an individual, you have -- if -- you can get a phone separate from the service, but you pay three times as much. If you get the service with the phone, you get a discount or perhaps a free phone. And that we can't do through this program. It has to be a separate equipment purchase. And that, by the way, was one of the reasons that those wireless carriers were invited to speak at the joint meeting a month ago, so that they could address that very issue. >>Com. Chong: And what did they say, Helen? >>Helen Mickiewicz: Well, actually, I was hoping Ann could answer that question. But as I recall, they said, basically, "We're willing to work with you to solve this problem." You know, "We can accommodate, we've done it in other states." Some gave specific examples. But I don't remember the specifics of what they said. I know Ann could probably -- >>Ann Ruth: I don't think they said specifics. I don't think they wanted to be targeted in a public forum, that they wanted to work offline with specifics. So they kept it general. >>Com. Chong: Please follow up with me on that point. >>Ann Ruth: Okay. >>JOHN DARBY: Commissioner, before Ms. Mickiewicz leaves, I hate to be splitting hairs, but I wanted to ask a question because she knows the law so well. 2881, to be a program participants, one has to be certified. But it also said you have to be a California telephone subscriber. That would include a wireless subscriber, then, in that definition? >>Helen Mickiewicz: The language in the statute isn't as specific as "a California telephone subscriber." It does say -- I think it says "customer" or "subscriber." But, yes, so far as the legal division is concerned, that would be a subscriber to wireless service as well as to wire-line. >>JOHN DARBY: Thank you. >>Com. Chong: Don't go away, Helen. >>Helen Mickiewicz: Okay. But Linda's pointing out to me that, currently, the program has based eligibility on wire-line service. >>JOHN DARBY: Right. >>Helen Mickiewicz: So that would have to be modified. But that's an internal program characteristic that can be changed. >>Com. Chong: Helen, just to clarify that very last point -- don't go away -- it would take the commission to decide that program change to include wireless within the current definition? I just want to be clear so that ALJ Bushey understands that point. >>Helen Mickiewicz: Yes. It is the legal division's conclusion that the commission has to issue an order in which it decides that it's going to include wireless equipment in the program, and then it can direct staff and, in conjunction with the vendor and the committees, to make that happen. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. So we can solve the equipment problem with a commission decision, but we require legislative change to solve the monthly service charge problem? >>Helen Mickiewicz: If the monthly service problem really is a problem. I mean, if we can solve the equipment problem that -- Yes, the answer is correct. The question is, do we really want to include service. That's really kind of a policy call. And if you want to include service, it makes the program considerably more expensive. And then you're looking at the possibility of having to raise the cap on the surcharge which funds the program. >>ALJ Bushey: That's kind of silly to give them equipment that they can't use. >>Helen Mickiewicz: Well, it depends on what the monthly service charge is and, you know -- as it is now, for example, we pay for equipment on a one-time basis. We pay for relay service on an ongoing basis. And if this equipment were going to replace for many users access to relay, then you could look at it as a kind of a -- a wash, that you could apply some of the money that's going to relay service to pay for service for these other kinds of equipment, except, yes, that would require legislative change. >>ALJ Bushey: Okay. >>Com. Chong: How expensive is the TYY service? Is it expensive? >>JOHN DARBY: TTY? >>Com. Chong: TTY, excuse me. >>Colin Petheram: It's -- there's no cost to the user. It's -- the funds in the budget are used for the -- by the carriers to provide the service. >>ALJ Bushey: Are there any further comments on the wireless -- Helen? >>Helen Mickiewicz: Oh, well, Linda was suggesting that I point out that since we don't pay for service for wire-line users in the program today, if we began -- if we looked at the possibility of paying for service with other kinds of technologies, we might be in the position of having to pay for service for wire-line users as well. So once you open that box, then that's what you're looking at. You might have an inequity otherwise. >>ALJ Bushey: I'm sure there are other ramifications. I am just trying to understand what the impediments are and what we're looking at. >>Helen Mickiewicz: I have someone tugging at my sleeve -- >>Com. Chong: I would suggest that Linda start talking for herself. Because she's very knowledgeable. >>Linda Gustafson: I have a partner with my counsel, and I like my -- [ Laughter ] >>Linda Gustafson: -- my buddy to lead. >>ALJ Bushey: The last topic I wanted to touch on today was discussion of -- if we don't have any further comments on the wireless issue -- is the recommendation we heard from several speakers to move to a third-party administrator or a master services contract. Now, I've determined in my mind that those are synonymous. If that's not correct, please let me know. Mr. Finn. >>Mark Finn: When we gave you -- and I say "we," the authors of the strategic plan -- put it in, we did include a master service provider. But -- and this is a very big "but" -- we had to keep the existing contracts for the providers, which happened to be MCI and all of the other providers that provide California Relay Service now, out of that. So it cannot be a master service provider as you're talking about, because they have contracts directly with the Department of General Services. >>ALJ Bushey: I'm understanding you to tell me that I was wrong, a master service contract was not the same as a third party administrator. Let's talk about a third party administrator. >>Mark Finn: As we understood, a and a half service provider was basically going back to the old model of DDTP when DPAC was running it and running all the contracts. That is what we always considered a master service provider. A third-party provider is different. >>Buddy Singleton: Excuse me, I have a comment. I'm sorry to interrupt the process. The interpreters have to leave. >>ALJ Bushey: I know. >>Buddy Singleton: They were only contracted until 12:00. So I need an interpreter for access here. What should I do? >>ALJ Bushey: Is there anyone who can interpret? >>Buddy Singleton: These are the only interpreters here. >> I can translate. I sign. But I can try. >>Buddy Singleton: but you can't hear. Can you not hear? >>Com. Chong: She can see the closed captions. >> Buddy Singleton: I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable. That's not all right for me. I don't get full access that way. >>ALJ Bushey: in the event we will close our workshop. We have reached the end of the time for our -- >>Buddy Singleton: I'm sorry, interrupt that. >>ALJ Bushey: We've all been too long with it this morning. The important point to take away is that we are going to be opening a formal process. This is just the beginning. There will be many opportunities for workshops, public participation hearings as well as written comments and hearings on the formal proposal. So thank you all very much for coming. >>Buddy Singleton: I look forward to that. (12:05 p.m.)