AT&T’s FaceTime Blocking Hurts the Deaf

[naisho]

The phone companies aren't subjecting to ADA law to provide a facetime over 3G/4G because ADA law doesn't exactly mention about facetime over 3G/4G.

It will probably be updated some time in the future. It is discriminatory to not allow deaf to FaceTime with deaf when it is possible.
Most of us already understand the telecommunications section should provide equal communication for people disabled by law, regardless if they talk to other disabled or hearing people.

Outside of the whole law thing I seem to be the only person wondering how AT&T will do this in the future. How they will tag deaf iPhones? I know they can scan GSM IMEI range but that doesn't help if all phones deaf got are random same, as hearing IMEI. Only other way I can think of is firmware.

 

[Evo Dragon]

Is that you (cat)? lol

 

[Jane B.]

Hearing who know ASL are not classified disabled by law. They are not covered by the American Disabilities Act. I think you should take some time to understand what the ADA is about and related for, particularly Chapter 5.

47 USC § 225 - Telecommunications services for hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals | LII / Legal Information Institute

I understand you are concerned for your hearing friends and family, but the point is they are not disabled by law, therefore they are not supposed to be covered by law in this situation.
An example of what you are asking for, it is like you are asking the Native American Rights Fund to reimburse other non-native americans. This is not what the law was intended to do.

And so, according to you, the deaf are supposed to have to use something other than what they prefer just because the other party to the call can hear!

 

[naisho]

And so, according to you, the deaf are supposed to have to use something other than what they prefer just because the other party to the call can hear!

Sign language is the deaf's first language.
Deaf can't hear, so they can't use a voice plan. Hearing people can use their voice, therefore they have voice plans. That is why hearing are not eligible for a TAP plan. Why do you seem to have a problem with deaf people signing or want fair treatment for hearing people?

Deaf don't "prefer" text. They use text because that is the only option available for them to communicate on mobile.

 

[Jane B.]

Sign language is the deaf's first language.
Deaf can't hear, so they can't use a voice plan. Hearing people can use their voice, therefore they have voice plans. That is why hearing are not eligible for a TAP plan. Why do you seem to have a problem with deaf people signing or want fair treatment for hearing people?

Deaf don't "prefer" text. They use text because that is the only option available for them to communicate on mobile.

I'll try to state this yet another way.

The way I read what you have posted you are saying that the deaf should not be allowed to use their preferred method, FaceTime, to sign to a hearing person that knows sign when both are away from WIFI!!! That is because you would continue to prohibit the hearing from using it over 3G/4G limiting their use with the deaf to when the hearing person has access to WIFI only.

 

[naisho]

I'll try to state this yet another way.

The way I read what you have posted you are saying that the deaf should not be allowed to use their preferred method, FaceTime, to sign to a hearing person that knows sign when both are away from WIFI!!! That is because you would continue to prohibit the hearing from using it over 3G/4G limiting their use with the deaf to when the hearing person has access to WIFI only.

I'll try to state this yet another way.

The way I read what you have posted you are saying that the hearing should not be allowed to use their preferred method, FaceTime, to call to a deaf person that knows sign when both are away from WIFI!!! That is because you would continue to prohibit the deaf from using it over 3G/4G limiting their use with the hearing to when the deaf person has access to WIFI only.

Are you getting a grasp of what you implied? All I had to do is switch your interpretation of hearing and deaf around and you have the same issue in a completely different situation.
Besides, the point you are bringing up is extraneous of the issue at most. Many deaf probably aren't going to be FaceTiming hearing people. They are going to call other deafs or interpreters.

 

[Frisky Feline]

I understand what Naisho was trying to explain.

Most of us Deafies do pay out of our pocket to buy alarm clock which is more costs than regular clock. we pay for our HA or CI, while hearing people dont need it because they can hear. We pay for the alarm door or baby cry while hearing people don't need to pay because they can hear. so Most of us, Deaf, deaf or HOH who likes face time, either looking at signers or read lips along with the facial expression while hearing people don't look at people faces but listening. that would make sense as to why deaf/hoh need facetime more than hearing people. If hearing people wants facetime then they pay for it.

 

[Jane B.]

I understand what Naisho was trying to explain.

Most of us Deafies do pay out of our pocket to buy alarm clock which is more costs than regular clock. we pay for our HA or CI, while hearing people dont need it because they can hear. We pay for the alarm door or baby cry while hearing people don't need to pay because they can hear. so Most of us, Deaf, deaf or HOH who likes face time, either looking at signers or read lips along with the facial expression while hearing people don't look at people faces but listening. that would make sense as to why deaf/hoh need facetime more than hearing people. If hearing people wants facetime then they pay for it.

It has been appearing to me that naisho has been saying that the hearing should be prohibited from getting 3G/4G FaceTime at any price! Thus, keeping the deaf from being able to have a FaceTime conversation with a signing hearing person unless the hearing person happened to be where they had WIFI.

I do not sign but have paid plenty for various tech items because of my lack of hearing. I have not referred to myself as a deafie because I just don't like the terms deafie and hearie as they both seem like they are making fun of that group of people the name is applied to.

 

[Bottesini]

It has been appearing to me that naisho has been saying that the hearing should be prohibited from getting 3G/4G FaceTime at any price! Thus, keeping the deaf from being able to have a FaceTime conversation with a signing hearing person unless the hearing person happened to be where they had WIFI.

I do not sign but have paid plenty for various tech items because of my lack of hearing. I have not referred to myself as a deafie because I just don't like the terms deafie and hearie as they both seem like they are making fun of that group of people the name is applied to.

It was obvious to everyone else that that was not what he was saying at all.

 

[Frisky Feline]

It appears to me that you are having a difficult time for who you are. i m sorry that you feel that way. But some of us know who we are and accept who we are with no problem.

So Same deal for anyone who does not like to be called a senior citzen while others do not mind because they know how expensive medicines or assistance needed are therefore they are please to have discount $$ when they turn 55. I know I will not have problem with this when i hit age 55.

 

[naisho]

It has been appearing to me that naisho has been saying that the hearing should be prohibited from getting 3G/4G FaceTime at any price! Thus, keeping the deaf from being able to have a FaceTime conversation with a signing hearing person unless the hearing person happened to be where they had WIFI.

I've never claimed anything of that kind, you are the one who is claiming I said it.

This is what I've said about hearing and FaceTime:

I say AT&T need to find a way to limit people from using too much facetime before allowing it.

I think they need to set rules for FaceTime use over 3G.

They need to separate FaceTime between hearing and deaf/hh. Right now, they are taking the easy way out by putting no facetime for everyone.

Hearing subscribers do not subscribe to TAP access, they are billed and monitored by their appropriate plans.

However AT&T wants to deal with the hearing subscribers is still up to their decisions.

If they want to exclude the hearing or integrate them into some kind of regulation - which I proposed in here several times already - is up to them. The hearing do not have any communications/disabilities law to back them up, it is up to AT&T to decide what they want to do with the majority of users on their network.

 

[Oddball]

I've never claimed anything of that kind, you are the one who is claiming I said it.

This is what I've said about hearing and FaceTime:

Well said! I don't understand why JaneB is fussing about facetime.

 

[Oddball]

It will probably be updated some time in the future. It is discriminatory to not allow deaf to FaceTime with deaf when it is possible.
Most of us already understand the telecommunications section should provide equal communication for people disabled by law, regardless if they talk to other disabled or hearing people.

Outside of the whole law thing I seem to be the only person wondering how AT&T will do this in the future. How they will tag deaf iPhones? I know they can scan GSM IMEI range but that doesn't help if all phones deaf got are random same, as hearing IMEI. Only other way I can think of is firmware.

I hope so. ADA laws will be updated and mandated eventually. Time will tell.

I read a post somewhere...AT&T and Deaf people had a secret meeting last week or so, they voiced their concerns about expensive TAP plans. I don't know AT&T will decide to keep the same TAP costs or not.

 

[Frisky Feline]

Is that you (cat)? lol

Not a quite. No.

Here is the photo... yep this is me,

 

[dkf747]

Well said! I don't understand why JaneB is fussing about facetime.

I do. The solution to the problem is not to restrict a service to the deaf only, or to the hearing only, but rather to open it up for everyone. I want to be able to talk directly with my hearing friends, family, or business without having to use relay all of the time. Relay is awesome, but sometimes I want to talk directly, without the interpreter. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Frisky Feline]

I do mind that any hearing people pay too little while deafies pay too much is not fair for me. If hearing people want face time then they pay a little more. no big deal.

 

[VamPyroX]

I've noticed that only one person mentioned Tango (besides me).

Doesn't anyone use Tango?

Tango is an app on both Android and iPhone. If FaceTime is a problem, then switch to Tango?

My wife has iPhone, but she uses Tango and Skype.

She only uses FaceTime with her grandmother (who's too stubborn and technologically inept to use other 2-way video apps).

 

[naisho]

I do. The solution to the problem is not to restrict a service to the deaf only, or to the hearing only, but rather to open it up for everyone. Why is this so hard to understand?

It is a hard issue for AT&T's side on how to do this. It looks easy as a complainer, however if you are their tech you have more problems to solve.
The biggest problem with opening up FaceTime straight up for everyone is that it will immediately congest the 3G/4G network. Everyone will start getting slow downloads, internet browsing just because anyone with an iPhone (not jailbroken) can now call whenever they want.
In just one day, if 1/4th of AT&T's network uses 3G/(LTE in future) FaceTime for ~20 minutes a day, they have consumed over 1 terabyte (1,000 GB) transmission each day. That's enough content for ~1500 movies streamed from DVD. Can they handle it? Most likely not.

AT&T most likely cannot supply that kind of bandwith without having to either
a) deal with angry customers complaining of slow speeds
b) having to expand or buy more wireless territory, upgrade their speeds.

Thus, it is easier to address the issue by opening it up to the deaf people first and worry about addressing how to deal with the hearing later. The hearing can still use voice, so they can live without it for now. Deaf people need it to talk with other deafs or interpreters. I'm betting there are probably less than 500,000 deaf people on the TAP plan, so it should not be a bandwidth problem at all.

 

[naisho]

I've noticed that only one person mentioned Tango (besides me).

Doesn't anyone use Tango?

Tango is an app on both Android and iPhone. If FaceTime is a problem, then switch to Tango?

My wife has iPhone, but she uses Tango and Skype.

She only uses FaceTime with her grandmother (who's too stubborn and technologically inept to use other 2-way video apps).

I would agree in principle, but I learned something years ago as an IT technician. Sometimes when you are not in the area and dealing with people who are technology illiterate, the simpler or easier it is for them to do something, the less hassles there will be for you unless all your friends are tech savvy. The poplar opposite of them are especially tech-illiterate family or relatives.
The problem with Skype, Yahoo messenger, or other video-capable accounts is that it requires them to learn how to install that software (on their phone or computer) and also take the time to make and login an account. What takes us a minute or two can take 10, 20 for someone else.
Furthermore, it complicates operability when Skype is created to promote its own calling system, VoIP/international calls/free to other skype accounts, etc, requiring a slight learning curve on operation. Illiterate people will never understand until they take the time to sit down and learn it, which is often never. One of those problem between the chair and the keyboard.

Technology illiterate people frequently want something that is working 'straight out of the box' and seem stubborn against alternatives. This is why FaceTime has became a target. It is so easy to use for people, as a software that comes pre-installed, press a couple buttons and you are on cam requiring virtually little to no setup or learning curve involved at all. Last bit, I think these people who are clueless are the same people who are in everyone's social network.

 

[dkf747]

It is a hard issue for AT&T's side on how to do this. It looks easy as a complainer, however if you are their tech you have more problems to solve.
The biggest problem with opening up FaceTime straight up for everyone is that it will immediately congest the 3G/4G network. Everyone will start getting slow downloads, internet browsing just because anyone with an iPhone (not jailbroken) can now call whenever they want.
In just one day, if 1/4th of AT&T's network uses 3G/(LTE in future) FaceTime for ~20 minutes a day, they have consumed over 1 terabyte (1,000 GB) transmission each day. That's enough content for ~1500 movies streamed from DVD. Can they handle it? Most likely not.

AT&T most likely cannot supply that kind of bandwith without having to either
a) deal with angry customers complaining of slow speeds
b) having to expand or buy more wireless territory, upgrade their speeds.

Thus, it is easier to address the issue by opening it up to the deaf people first and worry about addressing how to deal with the hearing later. The hearing can still use voice, so they can live without it for now. Deaf people need it to talk with other deafs or interpreters. I'm betting there are probably less than 500,000 deaf people on the TAP plan, so it should not be a bandwidth problem at all.

That's a reasonable answer as long as it gets opened up some day. I can live with that for a while.