Quiero saber acerca de...

7684

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
14. Speed of Answer. Commission rules currently provide a metric for speed of answer, which is that 85
percent of all captioned telephone calls be answered within ten seconds of a users initiation of contact with the captioning center and the start of captioning, measured daily. The rules currently require TRS providers themselves to measure speed of answer and to submit speed-of-answer data for every call in their monthly call detail reports.
15. The Commission seeks comment on whether to strengthen the applicable speed-of-answer standard for telephone captions. With fully automatic captioning, for example, an IP CTS
provider can begin delivering captioning almost instantaneously upon receiving notice that a registered user is making a call for which captioning is desired. Would it be reasonable to require all providers to meet a standard that approximates what is feasible with fully automatic captioning? For example, even though a provider may find it desirable, for other reasons, to continue using CAs for some or most calls, could fully automatic captioning be used as a stopgap measure for calls for which a CA is not immediately available?
16. Other Standards. The Commission tentatively concludes that no rule amendments are needed to quantify standards for transcription speed and usage data. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. If the Commission adopts a caption delay standard, as proposed, should it also amend the rule on CA typing speed to make clear that it no longer applies to CTS and IP CTS?
17. The Commission seeks further comment on whether its minimum TRS
standards should be modified to provide more specific and quantified performance standards for service outages and for dropped or disconnected calls. If the Commission adopts such standards, how should they be measured and what should be the minimum metric for compliance?
18. Should the Commission direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to conduct rulemakings or otherwise determine more granular metrics for caption delay, accuracy, or other TRS standards?
Testing and Measurement Methodologies 19. The Commission proposes that the methodologies used to assess provider performance shall produce objective, quantifiable, repeatable, and verifiable service quality measurements. The Commission also proposes that such
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Jan 29, 2021

Jkt 253001

methodologies be technologically neutral and not designed to favor any particular service provider. However, to the extent a providers service is designed to work only with a particular device such as a proprietary phone or a smartphone, the Commission proposes that the providers service be tested when used with that device.
20. The Commission proposes the following additional guidelines for service quality testing:
1 Sample size i.e., the number of test calls should be calculated to provide reliable and accurate information;
2 Test calls should mimic the proper use of the service e.g., both parties to a call should not be in the same room;
3 Test calls should follow the structure of a natural telephone conversation;
4 Test calls should not be detectable as test calls by CAs e.g., test calls should not start with a loud dual-tone multi-frequency tone followed by live conversation;
5 Testing should be designed to evaluate service performance over a range of telephone audio conditions e.g., static, distortion, inaudible or unintelligible conversation, and background noises, accents, and dialects that are likely to be encountered by CTS and IP CTS users.

The Commission seeks comment on these proposed guidelines. Do they appropriately balance the benefits of precision and fairness with the need for efficient methods of measurement?
Should the Commission adopt these guidelines as recommended or mandatory? Should test calls include conversations in languages other than English? Are there additional guidelines the Commission should consider for testing the quality of service provided to IP CTS users with hearing loss and low vision or who are deafblind?
21. The Commission also seeks comment on the specifics of how tests and measurements for caption delay and accuracy should be conducted, and how the Commission can best ensure that such methods and procedures are transparent. Should the Commission specify the sample size and frequency of such testing, and if so, how? To what extent can document scoring, technical parameters, recording conditions, or other parameters affect test values, and what guidance should the FCCs rules provide regarding these matters? Should the Commission direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to conduct rulemakings or otherwise make more granular determinations on how to conduct performance testing and measurement in relation to caption delay, accuracy, or other TRS standards?
Alternatively, should test methods be subject to a peer review process?
22. The Commission also seeks comment on what specific
PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

consequences should result if testing shows that a provider is failing to meet the minimum standard for caption delay or accuracy. If test results conducted in accordance with applicable methodological guidelines indicate that a provider is not meeting the Commissions minimum standard for caption delay or accuracy, should the service be retested on a weekly basis, with compensation withheld until such time as testing shows the problem with caption delay or accuracy has been fixed? Alternatively, should the provider be given some period of time to rectify the problem, with withholding to begin if the problem cannot be rectified within that time period?
Should the Commission formalize a compliance ladder approach, similar to the one used for closed captioning quality problems, which would be triggered whenever testing shows that a provider did not meet an applicable service quality standard?
Responsibilities for Measuring Service Quality 23. The Commission tentatively concludes that to obtain authoritative assessments of IP CTS providers performance in relation to caption delay and caption accuracy, it would not be practicable to rely on provider selfmeasurement and reporting e.g., as in speed-of-answer compliance.
Measurement of provider performance in these areas raises more complicated methodological issues than those involved in speed-of-answer reporting, such that effective oversight of the testing undertaken by individual providers would impose undue administrative burdens on both providers and the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
24. The Commission also seeks comment on whether authoritative testing and measurement of caption delay and accuracy would be most effectively and reliably performed by the Commission or by an entity selected and supervised by the providers themselves, through some type of joint undertaking. Could a providersponsored entity conduct such assessments in a manner that is objective and unbiased? How should the Commission ensure that such an entity remains unbiased and independent of improper influence by any TRS provider or group of providers?
25. The Commission seeks comment on whether an entity designated to conduct performance testing should be authorized to conduct testing and measurement in additional areas other than caption delay and accuracy. To
E:FRFM01FEP1.SGM

01FEP1