36 CFR Part 1194 - Proposed Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines NPRM - Preamble

410.8 Video Communication (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This section proposes that ICT with real-time video functionality must ensure that the quality of the video is sufficient to support communication through sign language. This proposed section would be new to both the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommended that the Board include a provision requiring ICT used to transmit video communications in real-time to meet certain specifications for video quality and fluidity (i.e., speed, data stream, and latency). See TEITAC Report, Part 6. Subpt. C, Rec. 6-E.

The Board’s proposals relating to the requisite quality of real-time video communications have received mixed reviews from commenters. In the 2010 ANPRM, the Board proposed specifications for the quality of real-time video communication that largely mirrored the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. Many commenters expressed support for the general concept of a video quality requirement as important for ensuring the accessibility of a means of communication, which, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, is the functional equivalent of voice communication. Some commenters, on the other hand, were critical of the Board’s proposed technical specifications as overly prescriptive or unsupported by research. In light of such concerns, in the 2011 ANPRM, the Board simply proposed—as here in this proposed rule—that the quality of video must be sufficient to support sign language communication. Commenters to the 2011 ANPRM, while again generally supportive of the effort to ensure real-time video communications were usable by persons with hearing impairments, largely took issue with the proposal’s lack of testable measures.

While the Board is mindful of commenters’ criticisms to the 2011 ANPRM’s performance-based standard for video quality of real-time video functionality, the Board has nonetheless retained this standard in this proposed rule. This provision would cover video communication via the web on dedicated videophones, as well as commonly used ICT such as smartphones. We are not aware of standards or specifications for video quality that would provide testable and achievable metrics to assess the quality and transmission of real-time video communications. However, technologies—as well as standards development—have progressed greatly in recent years. We welcome public comment on technological improvements or useful metrics relating to real-time video communication developed since the 2011 ANPRM.

Question 27. Does the performance-based standard in proposed 410.8 ensure that video quality would be sufficient to support a real-time video conversation in which one or more parties use sign language? If not, are there standards for video quality or transmission that would better implement the accessibility goal of this proposed requirement? Would it be readily achievable for manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to comply with section 410.8?