Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Selected Telecommunications Devices for Hearing-Impaired Persons December 1982 NTIS order #PB83-169292 TECHNOLOGY AND HANDICAPPED PEOPLE DECEMBER 1982 BACKGROUND PAPER #2: SELECTED TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED PERSONS Virginia W. Stern, M.A. Martha Ross Redden, M. S., Ed.D. Project on the Handicapped in Science, Office of Opportunities American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. ~ ‘ - ‘ --– ‘ ---- - ~ OTA Background Papers are documents containing information that supplements formal OTA assessments or is an outcome of internal exploratory planning and evalua- tion. The material is usually not of immediate policy interest such as is contained in an OTA Report or Technical Memorandum, nor does it present options for Con- gress to consider. I J -,,\\’ - . .““ . ,),+, ‘, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ; ,“ ,.’ Office of Technology Assessment > “ . --: Washington, D.C. 20510 ,,4 ,.. .,F .... ~,, //, ,,, ,,! . -.—... — —.———. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-600546 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword Technology exerts a powerful influence over the lives of everyone, making life easier, more fulfilling, but sometimes more painful and frustrating. This statement is especial- ly true for people with disabilities. The appropriate application of technologies to diminishing the limitations and extending the capabilities of disabled and handicapped persons is one of the prime social and economic goals of public policy. The Federal Government is deeply involved in programs that affect the develop- ment and use of technologies for disabilities. Congress and other institutions have become increasingly interested in questions of how well programs that directly or indirectly de- velop technologies and support their use have been performing. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources requested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to conduct a study of technologies for handicapped individuals. That study examined the specific factors that affect the research and development, evaluation, diffusion and marketing, delivery, use, and financing of technologies directly related to disabled people. The problems and processes of the development and use of technologies were analyzed in the context of societal allocation of resources and the setting of goals for public policy. The main report of the study Technology and Handicapped People was released in May of 1982. This case study is background paper #2 of the study. There will be a number of case studies published as part of the assessment, and each will be issued separately. The case studies were commissioned by OTA both to provide information on the specific technologies and to gain lessons that could be applied to the broader policy aspects of technology and disability. Drafts of each case study were reviewed by OTA staff; by members of the advisory panel to the overall assessment, chaired by Dr. Daisy Tagliacozzo; by members of the Health Program Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Sidney S. Lee; and by other ex- perts in medicine, disability policy, Government, public interest and consumer rights, and rehabilitation engineering. We are grateful for their assistance. However, respon- sibility for the case studies remains with the authors. & #. “ JOHN H. GIBBONS Director . /// Advisory Panel on Technology and Handicapped People Daisy Tagliacozzo, Panel Chair Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Harbor Campus Miriam K. Bazelon Robert Leopold Washington, D. C. Department of Psychiatry Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Tom Beauchamp Kennedy Institute—Center for Bioethics LeRoy Levitt Georgetown University Mount Sinai Hospital Monroe Berkowitz A. Malachi Mixon, III Bureau of Economic Research Invacare Corp. Rutgers University Jacquelin Perry Henrik Blum Rancho Los Amigos Hospital University of California, Berkeley Barbara W. Sklar Frank Bowe Mount Zion Hospital Woodmere, N. Y. William Stason Jim Gallagher Veterans Administration and Harvard School of Martha Porter Graham Center Public Health University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Gregg Vanderheiden Melvin Glasser Trace Research and Development Center Committee for National Health Insurance University of Wisconsin Ralf Hotchkiss Michael Zullo Oakland, Calif. Corporate Partnership Program U.S. Council for International Year of John Kimberly Disabled Persons Yale School of Organization and Management Yale University iv OTA Staff for Background Paper #2 H. David Banta, Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division Clyde J. Behney, Health Program Manager Clyde J. Behney, Project Director Anne Kesselman Burns, Analyst Chester Strobel, Analyst Kerry Britten Kemp, Editor Virginia Cwalina, Administrative Assistant Mary E. Harvey, Secretary Pamela J. Simerly, Secretary OTA Publishing Staff John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson Doreen Cullen Donna Young Acknowledgments In addition to the advisory panel to the overall project on Technology and Handicapped People, a number of people provided helpful comments on drafts of this background paper. The case study authors and the staff of the Office of Technology Assessment would like to give particular thanks to the following individuals: H. Latham Breunig Bryan R. Luce Arlington, Va. Office of Research and Demonstrations Health Care Financing Administration Diane Castle Washington, D.C. National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology James C. Marsters Rochester, N.Y. Pasadena, Calif. Sy Dubow James Reswick The National Center for Law and the Deaf National Institute of Handicapped Research Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Reese Robrahn Sarah Geer American Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities The National Center for Law and the Deaf Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Barry Strassler Harriet Loeb Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. Washington, D.C, Silver Spring, Md. Darld Long Don R. Warren National Institute of Handicapped Research Wisconsin Foundation for Applied Technology Washington, D.C. Madison, Wis. OTA Note These case studies are authored works commissioned by OTA. The authors are responsible for the conclusions of their specific case study. These cases are not statements of official OTA position, OTA does not make recommendations or endorse particular technologies. During the various stages of the review and revision process, therefore, OTA encouraged the authors to present balanced information and to recognize divergent points of view. vi Contents Chapter Page 1. Background Information on the Hearing-Impaired Population . ... 1 2. Background Information on Technology for the Hearing-Impaired Population . 3 3. The Development and Diffusion of Teletypewriters for Hearing-Impaired People . 5 4. Issues and Concerns . ..., 9 Rate Reduction for Intrastate Long-Distance Calls. 9 Telephone Customer Services for TDD Users . 9 Rate Reduction for Interstate Long-Distance Calls . 10 Eligibility for Reduced Rates . 10 Public TDDs . 10 Cost of TDDs . 11 Distribution of Free TDDs in California . 11 ASCII-Baudot Standardization and the Impact of Computer Technology . 13 New Legislation. ..., . ., . 13 Deaf Politics . 13 Appendix A: Personal Communications . 15 Appendix B: Sample Personal Communications by TDD and TDD-Related Services . 16 Appendix C: Sample Printout of a TDD Communication. ..., . 17 References . ., . 19 vii 1. Background Information on the Hearing-Impaired Population The hearing-impaired (i.e., hard-of-hearing and defined and possibly still the most poorly iden- deaf) population of the United States is difficult tified of all the handicapped groups. to define. A census of the people with hearing im- The Office of Demographic Studies, located pairments, taken in 1970-71, is the only extensive at Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C., was effort that has been made to date. Subject to errors formed to organize the 1970-71 census of the deaf, resulting from nonresponse, this census still of- and it has continued publishing statistics, notably fers the best available figures: 13,362,842 hearing- the results of its annual survey of hearing- impaired persons (persons with any degree of impaired youth receiving education in special hearing impairment) in the United States, includ- schools and programs. The Office of Demo- ing 1,767,046 deaf persons (35). graphic Studies and the National Center for A 1978 survey conducted by Bell Laboratories Health Statistics make prevalence estimates based as part of its planning for products and services on the census and on new information from the indicated that 16,650,000 people in the United annual survey of schools. Current estimates show States are hearing impaired to some degree (2). 14.5 million persons with any type of hearing That survey found that 4,070,000 of these peo- disorder and 2 million severely hearing-impaired ple have a hearing impairment that affects tele- persons who could be termed “deaf” (24). phone use: 440,000 people who have a profound Approximately 300,000 deaf persons were born or total hearing loss and cannot use the telephone deaf or lost their hearing before the age of 3 and without a telecommunications device such as a thus are considered “prelingually” deaf. Tradi- teletypewriter (TTY); * 1,630,000 severely hearing- tionally, it was said that these children could not impaired people who use a hearing aid and who be educated in the regular school system, because cannot use the telephone