TELECOMMUNICATIONS FORUM: RECORD OF KEY POINTS OF DISCUSSION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS FORUM: RECORD OF KEY POINTS OF DISCUSSION

Conference Room 1R1 Parliament House Canberra

November 28 2003

INTRODUCTION

This document contains a record of the key
points of discussion at the above forum and is prepared by the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission. It does not constitute minutes of the
forum, and the fact that a position is stated does not mean that every
party in attendance has committed to that position. However, it does
indicate the key points of discussion during the day, and provides a platform
for taking work forward on the issues raised.

It has been circulated to participants for
their comment prior to publication on the Commission's website, and many,
but not all, of those comments have been incorporated in the document.

The references in the document to Recommendations
refer to those in the When The Tide Comes In
discussion paper. The issues have been divided into the same topic
headings used at the forum. Papers from
participants are also linked from our telecommunications page.

TEXT TELEPHONY

Recommendations 9, 10, 11, 12, 18

Q1 Is the ACIF-hosted Text Any to
Any (TATA) project the best way forward?

Q2 What might be some key principles
and features for the ACIF text telephony model?

Q3 How might resources be found
to achieve implementation of an agreed text telephony model?

1. ACIF process is the best way forward
   - there is consensus on the direction being followed.

2. The importance of real time communication
   was stressed.

3. The importance of interworking between
   devices was stressed.

4. The importance of universal design
   was stressed.

5. This project must move relatively
   quickly - 2004.

6. There are some mobile handsets available
   which will communicate with TTY's.

7. There needs to be transition planning,
   including re-visiting and/or re-negotiating the result of the Scott
   v Telstra decision to take into account technological developments.

8. If industry continues to make the
   running, there may not be a need for legislative change.

9. There is a clear need for resourcing,
   in particular for any interworking capability between existing TTY and
   new text services.. It was suggested that this may occur through DCITA,
   and/or it may fall under the USO.

PUBLIC PAYPHONE ACCESSIBILITY
AND TTY PAYPHONES

Recommendations 22, 23

Q1 Do we need an industry code on
public payphones, and what should it contain?

Q2 Do we need an action plan for
TTY Pay phones, and what should it contain?

1. There is a need for an Industry Code
   for payphones and an Action Plan for TTY payphones.

2. Payphones have a very important role.

3. ACA inquiry showed the lack of knowledge
   of payphone location rules.

4. 60% of payphone users are carrying
   mobiles - use of payphones is not diminishing with the increase of mobiles.

5. There needs to be a phasing in of
   TTY connection to payphones.

6. People with disabilities are over-represented
   in low income groups, which increases the need for access to payphones.

7. The importance of a volume control
   on payphones to the broad range of people who are hearing impaired -
   a much larger sector of the population than people who are deaf - must
   not be overlooked.

8. A Code in this area could be site-specific,
   with percentages of features determined by types of sites.

9. There appears to be a need to inform
   the relevant community about the availability of TTY payphones and their
   locations. It was noted that TTY payphones and their locations are
   listed on Telstra's website and in the TTY directory.

10. Industry's capacity to install TTY
    payphones may be restricted if phone call prices remain fixed.

DISABILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY

Recommendation 16

Q1 How do we avoid a repeat of the
regrettable situation which occurred with digital mobile phones and hearing
aids?

Q2 Should we work towards legislative
or voluntary industry codes to ensure impact analysis is part of new technology
roll-outs?

1. It was suggested that here should
   be guidelines or a checklist against which to test new initiatives,
   and then the registration of a statement with ACA that the technology
   complies.

2. There was support for a Community
   Impact Statement or similar process.

3. Industry is already doing a lot in
   this area to raise the awareness of consumer representative organisations,
   for example, on next generation networks.

4. There needs to be a debate on an
   Industry Code in this area in the relevant fora.

5. Regulators and government can be
   as guilty as industry in allowing technologies which exclude people
   with disabilities.

6. There is a need to monitor international
   experience.

7. The Any To Any project is a good
   model - it has been pre-emptive in addressing issues.

8. There is a need to influence developments
   in international Standards bodies and global manufacturers.

SMS PRICING FOR DEAF
USERS

Recommendation 17

Q1 Are groups who primarily rely
on SMS communications disadvantaged by current pricing?

Q2 If so, what strategies may address
this?

1. UK guidelines for best practice
   for mobile phone providers should be examined to assess applicability
   in Australia. AMTA could follow this up..

2. It is important to recognise the
   way people who are deaf use SMS - it is virtually their only form of
   mobile communication. It is not valid to compare the price of one SMS
   with the price of one voice-call - an interaction which occurs in one
   short voice-call may take four to six SMS's.

3. The competitive nature of the market
   was recognised, but it does not - on its own - address the discrimination
   between deaf people and hearing people?

4. Text users take longer to type on
   TTY's, and need to send more messages to achieve the same result.

5. A website for SMS pricing comparisons
   would be very valuable - perhaps AMTA or a consumer organisation could
   host this.

6. Industry has not adequately communicated
   appropriate pricing plans to the relevant community.

7. SMS pricing is a potential major
   issue for DDA complaints.

EXPANSION OF SECTION
593 CONSUMER GRANTS PROGRAM & RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Recommendation 6 & Recommendations 3,
25

Q1 How can consumer participation
and accessibility research be resourced effectively in the future?

1. It was suggested that the following
   set of principles would underpin an effective model:

a)      Resources
to consumer organisations should be allocated following scoping of needs
by a representative committee which would make recommendations to Government.

b)      There
should be a three-year funding cycle with annual acquittals. This would
make funded organisations both efficient and accountable.

c)      Efficiencies
are not necessarily gained through competition amongst consumer organisations.

d)      Industry
support of consumer organisations can assist industry with equitable development.

2. It was suggested that research and
   development could facilitate greater access to telecommunications, and
   policy-makers, industry and regulators would benefit from a competitive
   grants program to support innovative research and development as detailed
   in Recommendation 25. Such a program could:

a)      Be
seen as an investment in the future;

b)      Use
tax and other incentives as part of its resourcing;

c)      Draw
on international experience through networking; Japan, US, the Nordic
countries and the EC are good models.

d)      There
is a benefit from input of consumers with disabilities involved in research.

e)      Partnering
with universities could be valuable.

3. The restrictions on Government in this
area caused by budget cycles and current policies were noted, but DCITA's
preparedness to discuss these issues with industry and consumers was appreciated.

4. There needs to be discussion amongst
consumer groups about generalist v specialist, and project-based v program-based
funded activities. DCITA sought the views of consumer groups on funding
priorities in these areas.

5. Consumer organisations need to be more
strategic, and industry can help.

DISABILITY EQUIPMENT
PROGRAM

Recommendations 7, 8

Q1 Should mobile phones be included
in disability equipment programs, and if so what is the best way to do
this?

Q2 Would people with disabilities
be better served by a cross-industry disability equipment program, and
if so, how might it operate?

1. People with disabilities need access
   to telecommunications.

2. People with disabilities should not
   be restricted from carriers by inequitable equipment issues.

3. An independent cross-industry program
   was generally supported by consumer representatives.

4. Such a combined program should be
   discussed under the auspice of ACIF. Funding and other issues need
   resolution. Such a program might need to look at micro markets.

5. There is value in separating the
   equipment program from the customer - the customer then becomes valuable
   to industry.

6. An equipment program does not just
   involve sourcing- staff training, and consumer support are also necessary
   components.

7. The DEP is currently outside the
   TIO's jurisdiction and this may need to be addressed. This is because
   the TIO does not deal with complaints about equipment.

8. Planning for a DEP must look to future
   technology.

MOBILE PHONES IN DEP

1. Industry is happy to discuss meeting
   the needs of micro markets and communicating availability of accessible
   equipment to relevant communities.

2. However, devices meeting specialised
   needs may firstly need to be part of a DEP, although may move to more
   general availability over time.

3. Need to consider the definition of
   the standard telephone service and what it covers. However, although
   it may not cover mobiles, the convergence with the DDA must also be
   taken into account.

4. Need to consider whether the DEP
   would include handset bundles?

5. Need to consider whether the DEP
   would include the handset as a stand-alone item?

6. Should government or industry lead
   on this issue?

MOBILE TELEPHONY ACTION PLANS

Recommendation 20

Q1 What are some ways to address
the accessibility of mobiles? What are some programs/actions/practices
which can be implemented to improve mobile phone accessibility?

Q2 Do we need a mobile telecommunications
action plan, what should it contain?

1. An industry plan could co-operatively
   provide equity and remove barriers.

2. Communicating and information sharing
   are likely to provide a better solution than more prescriptive solutions.

3. There needs to be consumer involvement.

4. UK guidelines for best practice for
   mobile phone providers should be examined to assess applicability in
   Australia. (as per SMS pricing discussion).

5. AMTA would be best placed to co-ordinate
   this work.

EXPANSION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DISABILITY STANDARD

Recommendations 13, 14, 15

Q1 Do we need a more comprehensive
telecommunications Disability Standard, and if so what areas should it
cover?

1. Universal design and importance of
   commercially available equipment was noted.

2. A code on information does not apply
   to equipment suppliers and importers - it only applies to CSP's.

3. What has been learned from ACA consultation
   and other discussions could feed into a draft guideline, although further
   discussion with consumers is necessary.

4. There could be a code enforceable
   by the ACA which is about information provision. Information about
   features would have to carry all relevant information for CSP's. There
   could be a second code on information as between CSP's and manufacturers.

5. A standard set for features that
   a standard phone has to meet (currently only two) would meet far more
   needs if it contained more features. By lifting the standards it becomes
   more mainstream. Many Standard Telephones already on the market exceed
   the requirements of the current Disability Standard.

6. The Telecommunications Act may not
   be the right place for regulation if the aim is to achieve end-to-end
   connectivity. The DDA may provide an alternate option, although an
   amendment would be required to the DDA before such Standards could be
   enacted.

7. Industry is of the view that Disability
   Standards cannot limit other customer choices.

8. It was noted that public procurement
   in the US requires access. Other countries including the EC are looking
   to follow this model. However, this will not preclude choices in the
   market.

9. Consumers indicated their disappointment
   about the proposed move from standards to guidelines - they feel they
   have compromised already in the ACA process which reviewed proposals
   for adding to the current standard.

10. Identification of overseas equipment
    which may be of benefit in Australia would be useful. The CTN work
    and Tedicor could assist with this.

11. The ACA and HREOC were requested
    to look at possible mechanisms going across both regulatory systems.

MOVING FORWARD

1. Atmosphere to go forward- positive
   and inclusive.

2. HREOC does not want to reproduce
   effective mechanisms which already exist.

3. HREOC will write up notes to circulate
   to participants.

4. Then HREOC will work with other players-
   particularly industry bodies, regulators and consumer groups - to take
   issues forward.

HREOC will publish regular status reports
on what has been achieved - probably six or twelve monthly.