Telecommunications Access for the Deaf and Disabled



Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program

Telecommunications Access for the Deaf and Disabled

Administrative Committee (TADDAC)

March 28, 2014

10:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program, Main Office

1333 Broadway St., Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612

The Telecommunications Access for the Deaf and Disabled Administrative Committee (TADDAC) held its monthly meeting at the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP) main office in Oakland, California.

Frances R. Acosta, At Large Seat

Toni Barrient, Hard of Hearing Community Seat

Nancy Hammons, Late Deafened Community Seat, Chair

Diana Herron, Deaf Community Seat

Devva Kasnitz, Mobility Impaired Seat

Tommy Leung, Disabled Community - Blind/Low Vision Community Seat, Vice Chair

Steve Longo, Proxy for Jan Jensen, Deaf Community Seat

Fred Nisen, Disabled Community - Speech-to-Speech User Seat

Tony Tully, Office of Ratepayer Advocates Seat

TADDAC Members Absent:

Jan Jensen, Deaf Community Seat

TADDAC Non-Voting Liaisons Present:

Shelley Bergum, CCAF Chief Executive Officer

TADDAC Non-Voting Liaisons Absent:

Linda Gustafson, CPUC Communications Division

CPUC Staff Present:

Helen Mickiewicz, Legal Division

CCAF Staff Present:

Priya Barmanray, CRS Program Analyst

Dan Carbone, Consumer Affairs Liaison

Margie Cooper, CRS Contract Specialist

Silke Brendel-Evans, Special Project Coordinator

Patsy Emerson, Committee Coordinator

Vanessa Flores, Committee Assistant

John Koste, Telecommunications Equipment Specialist

Barry Saudan, Director of Operations

David Weiss, CRS Department Manager

Others Present:

Don Brownell, Revoicer for Devva Kasnitz

Thomas Gardner, Hamilton Relay (via phone)

Otis Hopkins, Attendant to Tommy Leung

Lois Peralta, AT&T (via phone)

Sylvia Stadmire, EPAC Co-Chair and TADDAC Liaison

David Strom, Sprint Relay

Chair of the Committee, Nancy Hammons, called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM.

I. Welcome and Introduction of TADDAC Members

Committee members introduced themselves.

II. Minutes of the February 28, 2014 TADDAC Meeting

The minutes of February 28, 2014 were approved without correction.

III. Approval of Agenda

The Agenda was approved after Nancy informed the Committee that the action items will be addressed in the afternoon portion of the meeting.

IV. Administrative Business

C. Report from CCAF

Shelley Bergum said that the Barcode Certification Form Distribution and Return Rate Report did not make it into the binder but was provided as a handout. She said that the report will be emailed to Committee members.

Shelley reported that percentages have been added to the report to show the return rate and said that the report’s numbers cover the period of February 13 through January 2014. She explained that the report does not cover a full year because the Committee did not start using the barcode certification form until the middle of February, adding that it took a while to distribute the barcoded forms through all of the Program’s venues.

Shelley said that over the past year the Program has had about 58,000 requests for certification forms through the Contact Center’s 800 number and that about 6,300 of the 58,000 certification forms have been returned to the Program, marking a return rate of about 10.7%. She explained that this means that 6,300 people completed their certification form with a signature from their doctor and have sent back the form for processing.

Shelley pointed out that the return rate through the Service Centers is about 6.9%, a little bit lower than the Contact Center but said that that is expected since most customers that visit the Service Centers already have received a certification form. She added that those who do pick up certification forms tend to be those who plan on giving the form to a friend or family member.

Shelley said that the report shows that the best avenue for distributing certification forms is the website, and added that over the past year the Program had a little over 25,000 people download the form, and of that number 3,400 completed and returned the form, resulting in a rate of about 14.7%.

She said that she is not surprised by the almost 15% return rate from the website because many people learn about the website in CTAP advertisements and visit the website and download the form there. She added that the website is a tool for them to view the equipment, Service Center locations, and requirements to receive equipment.

Shelley reported that the CCAF Field in the report shows that about 127,000 forms have been distributed by staff, specifically Outreach Specialists, who distribute certification forms at community events or when visiting a doctor’s office. She said that while 127,000 is a large number, only a little over 4,000 are returned, resulting in a return rate of about 3.5%. She said that people are likely attending these health fairs, picking up applications and may or may not be qualified for the Program. She said that this is a way to get information about the Program out there, but said that it may not be the most efficient way of getting new customers because even though a lot of people are reached, a lot of those people may not be qualified for the Program or are not really interested in the Program to begin with.

She referred the Committee to the “Other” category in the report and said that this category counts the miscellaneous forms that are handed out from the headquarters office per the requests of doctors’ offices or community organizations. She said that all of these categories result in a return rate of 8.6% for the year which she feels is pretty good, and that the Program seems to be reaching out to intended audiences in a fairly effective way.

Nancy asked Shelley if there is a budget allowance for certification forms and also asked if there may be a way to reduce spending on the forms. Shelley said that each form costs the program about 37 cents and confirmed that she feels the cost is justified.

Tony Tully suggested that the Program consider having staff provide customers with the website information instead of paying for the costs of the forms.

Devva Kasnitz asked if staff has the return rates from previous years available. Shelley said that the Program does not have any prior data to compare to this year’s data because the barcoded certification forms were just developed in February 2013. She said that prior to the barcoded certification forms, the Program never had a way of knowing which forms were returned or where they had been distributed.

Diana Herron asked if Shelley and staff would be able to provide the Committee with the amount of forms that were distributed and returned in prior years, even if the data isn’t broken up into categories as it is displayed in the Barcode Report. Shelley said that staff can provide the Committee with that information.

Tommy Leung asked Shelley if the Program also distributes forms to agencies such as the Department of Rehab, so that these agencies can provide the forms to their clients and if so, does staff categorize the forms in a specific way for tracking. Shelley confirmed that agencies are in fact a typical place where Outreach Specialists distribute forms, and explained that while the forms distributed to agencies are not categorized on the Barcode Report, the barcoding on each form is very specific. She said that each time Outreach Specialists plan to distribute multiple forms at events, the distribution is classified as the particular event, and placed into the database so that each form is linked to the original source of distribution. Shelley confirmed that using barcoded forms is how the Program is able to measure the success of distribution and also allows the Program to be more selective about the types of events that staff attend and to know whether or not to limit the amount distributed.

Fred Nisen said that the Program needs to keep in mind those that may not have Internet access when considering simply referring people to the website to download a form. Shelley agreed saying that many in the disability community do not have Internet access and therefore would not benefit from being directed to the website. She also added that the certification form on the website is not currently an interactive form and requires a “wet” signature in order to be valid. Nancy asked if the “wet” signature requirement is a part of legislation and if it can be changed. Shelley responded saying that the requirement is not necessarily a part of legislation but more a part of state practices for programs.

Helen Mickiewicz said that she thinks that Shelley is correct and added that a “wet” signature seems to be simply what the state requires for accessing state services. She explained that the Program is funded by ratepayer dollars and is therefore a state funded program and the various activities conducted by the Program have to comply with the rules for state-funded programs. She said, however, that it seems that there should be a way for the state to accommodate persons with disabilities.

To avoid violating Bagley-Keene, Helen suggested that the Committee place this item on their agenda to discuss during a future meeting.

Regarding the lack of Internet access issue that many disability communities face, Steve Longo said that the Barcode Report shows that a lot of customers have faxed in their applications and said that faxing is another method to consider.

Helen said that Jonathan Lakritz has asked her to look into E-signatures in regards to the Program and added that she assigned one of her attorneys to look into the matter. She agreed to follow up with her attorney to see what was learned.

Nancy said that there are Committee members who would also like to send their Travel Expense Claims to staff with an E-signature.

Diana said that she feels the E-signature discussion is valuable and that the discussion should be moved to the Joint Meeting.

Continuing with her report, Shelley referred the Committee to the Consumer Affairs Report in Tab 7, specifically page 3 where the wireless feedback could be found. She said the Program approved ten Hard of Hearing people at a distribution event who were in need of wireless equipment, adding that their service was subsidized through the Federal Wireless Program, however, the phones available through the Federal Wireless Program do not meet accessibility needs because they lack accessibility features. She said that the problem CTAP customers are having is the opposite—they can receive an accessible phone, but the Program is unable to offer them a subsidy for monthly service. She said that the Program often hears that customers feel caught between CTAP and the Federal Wireless Program as each program fails to offer them both an accessible phone and subsidized monthly service fees simultaneously. Shelley said that this issue brings up concerns about affordability that she feels the Program needs to address. She said that CTAP has distributed over 450 Jitterbugs since the permanent program began and a significant amount of the phones have been returned and a significant amount were never activated. She said that even though the Program doesn’t yet have concrete data to prove why the phones are not activated, anecdotal information from customers point to the monthly service fees as the prominent barrier.

Shelley added that GreatCall currently offers good discounts to consumers who get their Jitterbug through the Program. She went over some of GreatCall’s service options and features such as Urgent Care Service and Ask a Nurse however, she said such features matter less to customers than having the data plan they feel they need at an affordable price. She stressed the importance of solving these affordability issues before the Program moves forward and distributes more wireless devices or it will encounter the same activation and distribution problems it currently has with the Blackberry and Jitterbug.

Nancy said that one option might be to activate the phones at the Service Centers or activate the phones during home visits so that customers can have someone help them with the process. Shelley said that when customers receive their Jitterbug phone at the Service Center, staff requires that they activate the phone before they leave the center, however, customers can still receive a Jitterbug device through the Contact Center.

Helen said one of the major obstacles for the Commission regarding the affordability of monthly service fees for wireless devices is that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over wireless rates and has been preempted not just by the FCC but by Federal law. She explained that the state retained jurisdiction over wireless terms and conditions of service but not over rates, and therefore the CPUC cannot regulate wireless rates and cannot compel wireless carriers to lower their rates in order to obtain a subsidy from the Program. However, Helen said that the Commission has made improvements to the Lifeline Program and those improvements now allow wireless carriers to participate with certain requirements. She added that for the most part, carriers seem to be pleased although an appeal was made by AT&T regarding the decision which Helen said the Commission is currently reviewing.

She said that it may be possible to link the provision of DDTP wireless phones with the LifeLine Program and that it may be possible to persuade wireless carriers to offer similar discounts to DDTP customers even if they are not eligible for LifeLine. She added that the entry of wireless into LifeLine is new, and so any exploration may take some time. She encouraged the Committee to take time to discuss this topic during a future meeting.

Helen confirmed that the states have a role in determining whether a wireless carrier can be eligible to participate in the Federal LifeLine Program. She said that the states are required under federal law to designate a carrier as an eligible telecommunications carrier, which in turn permits the eligible carrier to receive subsidies from the Federal LifeLine Program. She said that now that wireless is included at both the federal and state level, the Commission can look into exploring the possibility of including the DDTP in the connection.

Regarding the certification forms that are faxed in, Devva asked Shelley if a majority of those are faxed in by agencies or consumers and if there is any way to tell. Shelley said that staff can probably tell since there isn’t a large number of them, adding that they likely come from both agencies and consumers.

Devva also said that she recently wrote a paper on accessible phones and said that she took a serious look at the Jitterbug. She said that the phone was not liked by the consumers who tested the phone, even though they received two months of free service. She said that none of the testers opted to keep the phone.

Shelley finished her report saying that there are several other issues in Dan’s Consumer Report this month that she thinks are worth discussing for example, the decrease of CapTel captioning quality.

At this time, Nancy referred the Committee to a written letter from her friend Lorraine Peters who wrote about her experience at the CTAP Service Center in Fresno. Nancy reported that Lorraine went to the Service Center to obtain a CapTel phone but was told by a CTAP staff member that while she will be able to call out on the phone, callers would need to dial an (800) to reach her. Nancy said that this extra step to receive incoming calls interferes with Lorraine’s original purpose for the phone and said that Lorraine returned the phone to CTAP. Nancy also reported that Lorraine was not pleased with the quality of the captioning on the phone during a demo she received, adding that the captioning took a long time to appear and when it did, it did not make sense.

Hamilton Representative, Thomas Gardner said that he received information regarding the complaint from Lorraine Peters and said that Hamilton acknowledges that Lorraine’s experience was not a good first impression by the carrier, however he thinks it is important that Lorraine be aware of a few factors. Thomas said that captions are normally delayed, although if the delay was extensive he said that the captioner may have been inexperienced. He said that Hamilton’s third party auditors who test captioning accuracy and speed for Hamilton and their competitors, have noted that captioning errors have been dramatically decreasing. Thomas said that he is aware however, that many customers are not satisfied with the captioning correction and said that Hamilton is working to get further information and has expressed to CapTel Incorporated (CTI) how concerning the matter is. He said that the current explanation from CapTel on why the correction feature reverted to its previous method, doesn’t provide Hamilton with the answers it needs.

David Weiss said that he decided to conduct an internal study and said that Priya Barmanray, DDTP’s CapTel Specialist helped investigate the quality differences between the landline CapTel and the Internet-based CapTel service.

Priya said that staff conducted a few test calls using Internet Protocol (IP) CapTel and analog CapTel and said that there was a noticeable difference between the two services. She explained that IP CapTel calls are handled through CTI and that analog CapTel calls are handled through companies like Hamilton Relay. Priya also said that the number of errors and corrections were much less for IP CapTel calls.

Toni Barrient said that she uses IP CapTel but said that she has had many people who use analog CapTel complain to her about the quality of the captioning. She said that she hopes TADDAC can hold a discussion about the possibility of distributing IP CapTel phones in the future.

Helen said that IP CapTel raises another jurisdictional question, in that a couple of years ago the Legislature passed a bill that prohibits the CPUC from regulating Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services or IP enabled services. Given that information, she said she isn’t sure the Program is permitted to distribute VoIP enabled equipment and that maybe staff could get legislation to rethink or to look into whether there is an exception to the code. She said that there is an exception for the universal service programs and that the DDTP is one of the Commission’s universal service programs, also known as public purpose programs. She said she isn’t sure, however if an exception can be made for IP services.

Tommy asked Helen if it truly counts as “regulating” Internet services if the Program were to only distribute IP enabled equipment. He said that the Program is offering wireless devices and is not considered to be regulating wireless carriers.

Helen said that Tommy makes a very good point and explained that the Program had difficulty getting wireless carriers on board because the Commission had to essentially ask for them to volunteer since they could not be required to do so. She added that while it may not be impossible for the Program to distribute IP equipment, the process may be difficult.

Nancy stressed that the Program is responsible for providing accessible telecommunications equipment to people with disabilities and said that the CapTel phones are not providing access. She asked why the Program is continuing to distribute a product that is not working for its customers. She added that California has always been a leader in this area and said that other states look to California as an example for their own equipment distribution.

Toni said that the CapTel phone CTAP distributes is simply not providing equal access under the law as it was intended. She said that having to dial an 800 number is not something that the general population has to do and that asking the Deaf and Hard of Hearing population to take an extra step blocks access and is unacceptable. She said that one of the most critical complaints she hears is from those who need to use the CTAP phone with doctors’ offices and pharmacies who refuse to dial the 800 number.

David said he wanted to clarify that when CTAP customers want an Internet-based phone, Field Operation staff refers them to IP-based vendors such as Hamilton and Sprint. He said that those who do can currently provide IP enabled equipment to customers at no charge, as the FCC Order to charge consumers $75 for equipment has been stayed.

Priya informed the Committee that staff conducted test calls on the IP-based phone, Ensemble, and confirmed that the software for captioning is provided by ClearCaption and that the phone is manufactured by Clarity. She said that there were some glitches with the phone during testing likely due to software updates, and that Clarity promised to provide staff with a new testing sample. She said she would check in with John Koste about the testing on the equipment.

Nancy also asked that Sylvia Stadmire ensures that EPAC follows through with the testing.

Shelley said that through testing, David and Priya learned that there are different agents who caption on IP CapTel as opposed to the analog CapTel. She asked if Thomas could expand on that and also asked Thomas why either CTI or Hamilton made the choice to revert back to the previous method of managing the errors in captions. Thomas said that in order to answer Shelley’s first question, he would need to check in with his team to find out where the calls are answered and whether or not that information is public knowledge. He said that he can, however verify that both Hamilton and CTI process CapTel calls. Regarding the caption correction method, he explained that the current process is actually the original methodology, adding that now captioners can correct errors in-line without notification of the change as opposed to before, when captioners would correct the error by placing the correction in brackets accordingly. He said that Hamilton has asked CapTel for clarification several times about why the change took place and said that the only response they have received was that it was an internal decision. Thomas said Hamilton is still requesting more answers from CapTel and continues to express the dissatisfaction that they are hearing from the state and from consumers.

David said he feels the more complaints that can be documented the better, and encouraged the Committee to speak to their colleagues and constituencies and urge them to file a complaint directly with customer service if they are experiencing problems. He said the complaints should be filed with the call number, the date, the time and the CA number if possible and added that if someone does not feel comfortable filing a complaint directly with the vendors’ customer service, they can contact DDTP staff and staff will keep a record of the complaint.

Tommy said that in reading Dan’s report it seems that the short form explanation from CapTel was that the reversion to the original correction method was the result of a software update and no further follow-up on the matter is the result of poor customer service on behalf of the captioners. He said that there shouldn’t be any reason why CapTel cannot revert the software update. He asked if there is something TADDAC might be able to do on behalf of their constituents to let the providers know that the current method is unacceptable.

Shelley agreed with Tommy saying that she believes this is an important enough issue that the Program needs to file a complaint rather than leaving it up to individual customers, since the Program purchased the service. She asked Helen to advise the Committee on proper protocol and asked her if a letter could come from TADDAC or if it would be better coming from the Communications Division (CD). Helen said that the letter should come from TADDAC and be directed to CD and CD would then contact the vendor. She suggested that the Committee discuss this at a future meeting to avoid violating Bagley-Keene. She said that a Committee member could take it upon his or herself to draft a letter between today and the next meeting so that the letter could be voted on during the next meeting.

The Committee agreed to address the responsibility of the letter writing later in the meeting.

At this time, Nancy informed the Committee that she would not be able to attend the April 25th Joint Meeting and that she would like to have Steve Longo proxy for her. Steve assured the Committee that he is a participant in the Late Deafened Community and that he participates in Committee meetings as a proxy from time to time.

IV. Administrative Business

A. Report from CPUC Staff

Helen reported that CD is working with the Legal Division and with Shelley to finalize the Agendas for the April and June Joint Meetings. She said that topics for those meetings will include Committee member roles and responsibilities, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting act and Conflict of Interest issues. In addition to these topics Helen said that CPUC staff will also give an overview of the changing landscape in the telecommunications industry and how those changes might affect the Program. She said that if any Committee members have any suggestions for topics they can email Patsy.

Helen reported that the southern California ad campaign will be finishing up on the 30th of March and that those ads feature the direct response ads in English and Spanish and also feature the California Phones ads in Cantonese and Mandarin.

Regarding Speech Generating Devices (SGDs) Helen said that the Commission is in the second phase of the Rulemaking and that applications for SGDs can be found on the Commission’s website. Helen informed the Committee that so far, four devices have been delivered to customers and that a fifth is pending. Regarding the second phase of the Rulemaking, Helen said that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is accepting comments on the Rulemaking and that the process likely won’t be finished until later in the year.

Referring to the accessibility of the Commission’s website, Nancy asked Helen who is responsible for making changes and updating the website. Helen said that she isn’t sure who is responsible for making the changes to the website, but that CD was likely responsible for directing the set-up for the SGD application and was also likely trying to arrange that information in the existing format of the website. Tony said that he spoke with Jonathan Lakritz recently and that Jonathan informed him that as the SGD Program continues, CD plans to collect data and revisit the site to make corrections.

Helen said that Committee feedback regarding the website is very helpful and said that the Committee should think about setting up a subgroup to navigate the Program’s websites and get a feel for what needs to be changed. She said that once they have an idea, they can draft a letter to the CPUC proposing those changes.

Regarding the iPhone pilot, Helen informed the committee that CD has been working with the California Department of Technology and CCAF on the distribution model and support method for the pilot, as well as how to best integrate it into the Program. She added that CD expects that the pilot should be ready to roll out by the third quarter of this year.

Lastly, Helen said that the Commission is continuing to file comments with the FCC and that the most recent comments do not affect the Program.

Nancy asked if the State receives revenues from Apple’s Facetime feature on iPads. Helen said that she doesn’t think the state receives any revenue from Facetime but said that the Commission plans to look into providing iPads as a component of the SGD Bill regarding supplemental telecommunications equipment. She explained that the State does not collect a surcharge on services that are not considered telecommunications services.

V. Public Input – Held in both the AM and the PM Session

At this time, Nancy read the final paragraph of the letter from consumer Lorraine Peters. Addressing Lorraine’s problem with the location of the Fresno Service Center, Frances Acosta said that she initially raised the issue about the Frenso Service Center’s location when she first became a TADDAC member. She said that the location is in a high-end area, and is not easily accessed.

After some discussion about the location of the Fresno Service Center, Shelley provided the Committee with insight into the process of selecting a service center location and the criteria the location must meet to be selected.

The Committee continued to discuss the points made in Lorraine’s letter, and decided to address the issue regarding the Fresno location, when the lease is closer to its end.

LUNCH

Review and follow-up of TADDAC Action Items List from the February 28th meeting

Action Item #35: Committee members to assist CRS Vendor outreach efforts by sending information on community events to David Weiss.

The Committee discussed upcoming events during their Member Reports. This item remains ongoing.

Action Item #51: Jan Jensen will contact the executive directors at the eight sister Deaf Agencies in California and ask them about their experiences with the communities they serve and the kinds of access their communities prefer.

Diana reported that she and Jan have been working on this item over email. They have each taken on four agencies and are in the process of developing guide questions for the agencies. Diana also said that she and Jan plan to contact the Deaf members of EPAC to see if they would like to participate in working on this item. This item was left open.

Action Item #52: CPUC and CCAF Staff will follow up with making online applications accessible.

Shelley reported that tmdgroup is still working on their redesign of the application. She said that staff has tested the application and has provided feedback to tmdgroup. She said the rollout should take place soon.

Devva asked if tmdgroup might need testing participants. Shelley said that tmdgroup is currently testing and will check with them to see if Committee members can be involved in the next round of testing. This item was left open.

Action Item #53: The Committee will ensure that they are informed about the changes in the LifeLine Program and how these changes will affect the DDTP.

This item was not discussed. This item was left open.

Action Item #54: Committee members will establish a point person to support the Committees to see that their marketing requests are supported.

Devva drafted a list of potential approaches and questions regarding marketing. She asked that the Committee send her their feedback and comments via email.

V. Public Input – Held in both the AM and the PM Session

There was no public input at this time.

At this time, Nancy reported that she has not heard from the CPUC regarding TADDAC’s request for a full-time Social Media manager for the DDTP. Shelley said that she has also not heard from the CPUC regarding the proposal, but she knows that the CD staff has been busy with their office move.

Answering a question from Diana about when the Program’s budget is approved, Shelley said that the 14-15 fiscal year budget has already been approved and if the social media position is approved it will be for the 15-16 fiscal year. Diana agreed to follow up with CD about the proposal.

Nancy confirmed that TADDAC has finalized their interview questions.

VI. Unfinished Business

A. Review of the Committee Member Manual

Nancy led the Committee through some important points in their manuals.

During this discussion Nancy brought up the possibility of giving each TADDAC member a chance to Chair a different meeting. After some discussion on what a rotating chair would entail and require, the Committee decided against the idea and agreed to discuss the changing of a Chair person when Nancy’s term as Chair ends in June.

VII. New Business

A. EPAC Report and Recommendations

Sylvia Stadmire reported that EPAC was shown various pieces of equipment by the Customer Contact Operations Department during their March meeting. She said that the department provided the Committee with insight into the equipment testing process via a presentation by the department.

Sylvia also reported that EPAC is working on selecting a venue for their Offsite meeting which they decided will be held in October.

Sylvia referred the Committee to Tab 3 in their binders where two equipment recommendations could be found. Sylvia and CCAF staff explained that EPAC would like to recommend the HearAll (SA-40), a cell phone amplifier, and the Clarity Alto, an amplified corded phone. Barry Saudan confirmed that the Clarity Alto is a replacement for the Clarity XL40-D which is being discontinued, and the HearAll (SA-40) will allow the Program to reach a younger demographic who are not using landlines.

After much discussion about how TADDAC would like to receive EPAC’s equipment recommendations in the future, the Committee voted on the two pieces of equipment that EPAC recommended.

Motion: Steve Longo moved to accept the Clarity Alto into the Program as a replacement for the Clarity XL40-D. The motion carried.

Motion: Tommy Leung moved to accept the HearAll (SA-40) into the Program. The motion carried.

B. Committee Outreach to Constituents

The Committee discussed possible outreach solutions and considered setting up individual social media pages as a way to reach people. Tony reminded the Committee that the website is the fundamental source for information on the Program and that they can simply refer people to the site and avoid confusion.

Tommy suggested that staff provide Committee members with flyers or a write up of approved equipment and the equipment’s features so that members can share the information with their constituencies. He added that staff informing Committee members of approved equipment will also allow them to spread the word via their own social media outlets.

At this time, Nancy asked Committee members to decide on the language for their proposal to CD regarding the CapTel captioning issue. After a quick discussion on what concerns the Committee wanted to address in their letter, Toni agreed to draft the letter and bring it to the next meeting so that the Committee could discuss the letter and vote on the next step.

Shelley reminded the Committee that they should also consider discussing discounts for DDTP customers who do not qualify for LifeLine, a topic Helen raised earlier in the meeting. She said Helen mentioned placing this item on the agenda for their next meeting so that the Committee can make a decision on how to move forward. Shelley confirmed that requirements for LifeLine can be found on the CPUC website. Tony and Lois Peralta recommended googling California Lifeline Program to find the requirements easily.

The Committee agreed to place this item on their next agenda and Tommy agreed to write a discussion starter for the topic.

C. Member Reports

Tommy reported that the American Council of the Blind will be holding a convention in April. He said that David has that information.

Fred reported that he participated in the Speech to Speech demo at the Berkeley Service Center at the Ed Roberts Campus, and said that while the turnout for the demo was good, the demo did not go very well. He said that the operator disappeared from the call and that he was told something in the DDTP Hamilton profile seems to have caused the problem. Fred said that there was a photographer present and said that he would make sure Committee members received photos of the event.

Devva reported that she has been working on the marketing information exchange for the Committee and asked them to send her their feedback on the document she created.

Frances reported that she has made a couple of presentations for the Independent Living Center in Fresno and another for the Independent Hispanic Businessmen’s group. She also reported that she worked with the Service Center in Fresno on outreach, and she also helped contact three television networks as well as public radio. She said that she was also able to get CTAP announcements on the websites of three different non-profits in Fresno.

Nancy reported that May is Better Hearing Month and that there should be plenty of opportunities for CTAP to advertise. She also reported that she is helping to organize a hearing dog program to walk around Lake Elizabeth and that CTAP might be able to have a booth at the event.

Steve reported that Ken Arcia will be holding a Tech Day soon. It was later discussed that this event will be held in May at the San Leandro Deaf Community Center.

Diana said that she believes the California Association of the Deaf will be holding an event this year and that she believes there will be a lot of discussion surrounding VRS reform, particularly around the neutral platform issue.

Toni reported that she has been referring the Program to individuals and said that she leads a hearing loss support group and recently held a discussion about selecting cellphones with 60 attendees. She added that she is currently preparing for the Hearing Well Club in Laguna Village on May 9th where there will be a telecommunications fair. She added that CTAP, Hamilton, CaptionCall and CapTel will be present at the event and said that she plans on contacting Sprint and Verizon so that they can participate as well. Toni said she plants to promote the event to audiologists and hearing aid dispensaries in the area and explained her plans for advertising to them. The Committee discussed the possibility of displaying the Clarity Alto at the event if the phone is approved by then.

D. Future Meetings and Agendas

The Committee discussed their upcoming meeting dates and confirmed that the second Joint Meeting will be held on June 27th.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:15PM.

These minutes were prepared by Vanessa Flores.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download