Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Accessibility

Importance of Standards

VoIP requires successful interoperation between several pairs of technology elements.  For example, peer-to-peer VoIP over the Internet depends on the following:

• that the microphone works with the sound card
• that the sound card works with the rest of the PC hardware
• that the PC hardware works with the operating system
• that the operating system works with the VoIP softphone
• that the operating system works with the networking hardware
• that the networking hardware and software work with the access network
• that the access network works with the ISP
• that the ISP works with the Internet backbone
• ... and back again on the receiver's side until the sound card works with the speaker

Obviously, most of these are not specific to VoIP.  But the chain of interoperability is vulnerable at all points.  Standards strengthen this chain by creating and maintaining public agreements about how the links are to be shaped and joined.

Many variations and different protocols, and few gateway services between them create fragmentation and less usability for all protocols, because you cannot reach everybody from the same service. The telephone network was created when such tendencies were cancelled by regulation for the benefit of voice users who now have a universal voice network. What forces can make VoIP and IP Multimedia the true interoperable super-network giving higher functionality for all with reachability to all regardless of what operator or equipment manufacturer they have?

Even if voice and video is implemented with compatibility according to VoIP standards, the real time text component is not, even when there are well established real time text conversation standards for the major VoIP environments.

In order to gain the described benefits, it requires co-ordination and keeping back the temptation to rush away in various directions with different solutions to similar problems. That is the big challenge! Avoid fragmentation to gain in volume and uniformity to get a snowball effect. How likely is it that we can require multimedia access to emergency services if there are 10 variants of access protocols? How can the positive forces be created that can cause harmonization and concentration on a very small set of protocols?

Luckily, many of the standards organizations concerned with interoperability and communication protocols include accessibility experts.  More work needs to be done, of course, but there has already been much progress.

VoIP and the "Accessibility Chain"

Just as the chain of interoperability can be broken by one product that does not comply with standards, the chain of accessibility is vulnerable.  The accessibility features built into mainstream products must work with related features in other mainstream products, or with assistive technologies.  For example, a VoIP system may offer text communication over IP, but at some point there must be a way to communicate by text to a TTY.  This can be built into the VoIP system, or it can be a compatibility feature with assistive technology network products that act as TTY gateways.  Either way, there are technical issues to address that are similar to standard interoperability issues; there are also some issues that are unique to accessibility:

• assistive technology firms may lack the technical resources needed to "keep up" with mainstream technological developments
• the assistive technology industry as a whole, being composed of a few small firms, has not developed a robust standards environment for its own products
• given the shortage of standards, mainstream technology designers may develop compatibility with only one model of assistive technology
• mainstream developers may not understand user needs in enough detail because people with disabilities are by definition atypical
• mainstream developers may not understand how people actually use assistive technologies and may focus only on technical compatibility issues

There are probably other issues.  The point is that the strength of the VoIP environment may be one of its weaknesses as far as accessibility is concerned. 

What is VoIP's strength?  A highly decentralized, low-barrier-to-entry industry environment where value can be added at any point encourages rapid innovation in products and services, as well as low prices.  In many ways, VoIP may be the most convincing and powerful argument ever made in favor of breaking up telephone monopolies.  VoIP potentially enables almost anyone to create a new telecommunications product or service, because it is not necessary to build or invest in a worldwide network.  Because developers of those new products and services have low costs, they can focus on smaller markets.  One of these markets may be people with disabilities.  It is entirely possible that some companies — maybe even current assistive technology companies — will offer assistive network services for VoIP.  That would be a wonderful development.

But it wouldn't essentially solve the accessibility problem, because we'd still have the same issues of the compatibility and interoperability between mainstream and assistive technologies.  And a highly decentralized industry means that there is another potential set of problems based on information about accessibility.

The VoIP Information Burden

...on Industry

If we had a telecommunications monopoly where all hardware, software, and networks came through one provider (public or private), information flow about accessibility would be simple.  The company would probably have a large accessibility office with good connections with public agencies and regulators, as well as internal working relationships that fostered accessibility improvements.  The level of commitment would be clear to everyone involved.  This is not to say that all problems would magically disappear, but there would not be much confusion about what the problems were or what the next steps should be.

In fact, that is what we had in some jurisdictions.  In California circa 1980, Pacific Bell had a large disability services office, with national support from Long Lines, Bell Labs, Western Electric, and other parts of the Bell System.  Pacific Bell was able to assign field engineers to individual customers, who designed, built, and maintained highly customized telephones.  Those field engineers were free to inform themselves about the needs of people with disabilities and develop the solutions they wanted.  Correspondingly, those solutions were guaranteed to work, because the field engineers were embedded in the one company that was responsible for end-to-end operations.

Today's telecom engineers faced with addressing accessibility have no such luxury.  Their companies may compete with each other, making cooperation tentative.  Upper management may make decisions on new platforms and standards adoption that swamp or ignore the accessibility issue. Staff churn and corporate re-engineering mean that scarce accessibility wisdom are being discarded.  All these result directly from today's competitive telecom environment that otherwise has provided unique benefits.

The bottom line is: what will the information cost be for a VoIP engineer in Company X to learn about an accessibility solution required in a new product?  It may require research, attending meetings, reading up on standards, and testing, all the time navigating through a jungle of companies, technologies, and consultants.   If that information cost is too high, it will not be paid.  For many of the newer, smaller firms — the ones most often pointed to as the engines of VoIP innovation — it may almost always be too high.

...on End Users

Now consider the information burden on consumers with disabilities.  That community's innovators and early adopters consist of a few thousand technologically sophisticated, advocacy-oriented people with disabilities, who know how to use their personal information networks to find out about accessible products.  Most of the rest of the disability demographic is lower in income, less well educated, and more socially isolated.  To them VoIP (as with much of modern technology) may appear as an impossibly complex maze, navigating through which may lead them to a goal they are not convinced they want.  They may have had enough disappointments trying to use technology to lead to a profound sense of pessimism.

Their bottom line is: how far down in the user manual will they have to dive to find something that addresses their disability? What will it take to explain their needs to a customer service representative?  Can they stand the need to communicate with a mainstream company and an assistive technology company to solve a problem?  Consumers pay information costs as well, and have to make the same kind of "is it worth it?" decisions.