LINDA DUBROOF,.
-- DMITRI BELL SEARCH, PACIFIC BELL,
SSLL SEARCH, BELSER, BELSER,:.
-- DONNA SORKIN, MANY PAM RANSOM, KAREN
BRINKMANN, KAREN STRAUSS STRAUSS ROBERT
OR {GART}, HOGGARTH, DONNA SORKIN, BARRY
KRATZ EXTRAS PELTZ-STRAUSS FLY NEXT TELL
SIS TELSIS, GOOD MORNING.
I WOULD LINING TO WELCOME YOU TO THE
PUBLIC POLICY WORK IS SHOP HEARING
COMPATIBILITY AND ACCESS TO DIGITAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
THIS IS THE SUMMIT PROCESS, MODEL.
THIS MORNING, WE WILL BE PROVIDING YOU
WITH A VERY INTERESTING MODEL.
IT FOCUSES ON BOTH EDUCATION AND ALSO
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PART TIES TO
NEGOTIATE A DISPUTED ISSUE.
SO IT COMBINES BOTH OF THOSE PROCEDURES.
WE BROUGHT TOGETHER AN EXPERT PANEL OF
EXPERTS.
ALMOST EVERYBODY WAS NIL IN THE SUMMER
PROCESS.
WE ASKED FCC TO BE WITH US THIS MORNING.
WHILE THEY WERE NOT A PARTICIPANT IN THE
PROCESS BECAUSE THE REGULATORY AGENCY
FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS THEY WATCH TED
PROCESS VERY CAREFULLY, AND WERE VERY
INTERESTED IN ITS OUTCOME AND WILL BE
PROVIDING US WITH THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
I WOULD LIKE NOW TO INTRODUCE OUR
PANELISTS.
KAREN BRINKMANN IMMEDIATELY TO MY LEFT
IS THE ASSOCIATE CHIEF OF THE WIRELESS
BUREAU AT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION.
I WAS GOING TO SAY BARRY {SKRAZ} NEXT ON
MY LIST.
YOU'RE NOT BARRY KRATZ.
KAREN PELTZ-STRAUSS IS THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNSEL FOR THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, LEGAL
COUNCIL.
DONNA SORKIN IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
SELF-HELP FOR HARD OF HEARING PEOPLE.
ROB HOGGARTH IS DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY
RELATIONS FOR THE PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION.
AND BARRY KRATZ IS DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS
AND INDUSTRY RELATIONS FOR ERICKSON
RADIO SYSTEM.
AND MY NAME IS PAM RANSOM.
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF ISSUE DYNAMICS
INCORPORATED.
WE'RE A PUBLIC AFFAIRS FIRM BASED IN
WASHINGTON WITH A NEW OFFICE IN SAN
FRANCISCO.
AND I'LL BE MODERATING TODAY'S WORKSHOP.
I WAS INVOLVED ALSO IN THE SUMMIT
PROCESS AND AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH
CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY COORDINATED THE
EDUCATIONAL PART OF THE PROCESS AND
THEN, FACILITATED THE NEGOTIATION PART
OF THE PROCESS WITH THE STEERING
COMMITTEE: WE ORGANIZED WORKSHOP INTO
TWO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS THIS MORNING.
FIRST, EACH OF THE PANELISTS WILL
PROVIDE YOU WITH BACKGROUND ABOUT THE
SUMMIT PROCESS SO THAT YOU GET A GOOD
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESSION ITSELF,
HOW DID IT COME INTO BEING, WHAT IS ITS
HISTORY, ITS STRUCK SURE AND ITS GOALS.
THEN, BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE MORNING,
EVERY ONE MAY HAVE HAD A LOT OF COFFEE
AND MIGHT LIKE A BREAK, WE WILL TAKE A
BREAK AT ABOUT 10: 20, WE WILL COME
BACK, IT WILL BE A SO SHORT BREAK.
WE WILL COME BACK AT ABOUT 10:30 AND
THEN TALKING ABOUT THE ANALYSIS OF THE
MODEL ITSELF.
EACH OF THE PANELISTS WILL PROVIDE THEIR
VERY INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE CONCERNING
THIS PRO {SKPES} WE WILL TALK ABOUT HOW
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO APPLY THIS PROCESS TO
DOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE INVOLVED
WITH.
AND WE WOULD LIKE YOUR INVOLVEMENT AND
QUESTIONS.
WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE AN INTERACTIVE
SESSION.
SO TO START OFF WITH OUR FIRST SEGMENT,
THE PANEL FELL LIFT WILL BE TO US
CUSSING ON THE SUMMIT PROCESS ITSELF, WE
WON'T BE GETTING INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE PARTY'S POSITIONS BECAUSE WE'RE
REALLY FOCUSING ON ON A MODEL {H}
MORNING, HOT THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES
INFORMED.
WE WANT TO ANALYZE THE MODEL AND ALSO,
AS YOU WILL HEAR LATER ON, THE
DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT REKIN DAD
SO WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO IMPACT THE
NEGOTIATION PROCESS.
SO WE WILL STEER AWAY FROM THE SUBSTANCE
AND FOCUS ON THE MODEL ITSELF.
FIRST, DONNA SORKIN WILL START OFF WITH
US AND TELL US ABOUT THE HISTORY AND
WHAT HAS LED UP TO THE SUMMIT PROCESS.
DONNA?
>> THANK YOU PAM.
HE WAS KIND OF AN INTERESTING
PREPARATION FOR ME BECAUSE I REALLY BEEN
INVOLVED IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PRO
{SKPES} THIS GAVE ME A CHANCE -- IS THIS
BETTER?
THIS GAVE ME A CHANCE TO REALLY THINK
ABOUT STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT THE
PROCESS ITSELF.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO DO.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FIRST ON THE
ORGANIZATION THAT I WORK FOR.
SOUTHEAST SELF-HELP FOR HARD OF HEARING
PEOPLE IS THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
PEOPLE WITH HEARING LOSS.
OUR MEMBERS ARE PEP OF ALL AGES AND HAVE
ALL LEVEL OFFICE HEARING LOSS BUT THERE
IS ONE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC
ABOUT OUR MEMBERS THAT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AND THAT IS THAT THEY ARE ALL
USERS OF TECHNOLOGY AND OF ALL TYPES AND
THEY USE TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT
HELPS THEM TO COMMUNITY COMMUNICATE.
THEY -- AS PEOPLE WITH HEARING LOSS, AND
THAT THOSE FACTORS ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN
UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS ISSUE DEVELOPED
DIFFERENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES THAN IT
DID IN EUROPE.
AND I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THE FACT THAT WE TOOK IT
DIFFERENT POSITION HERE IN THE U.S. IN A
SENSE WAS CONFUSING TO THE WIRELESS
INDUSTRY WHICH HAVE BEEN OPERATING WITH
THESE TELEPHONES.
IN EUROPE FOR I GUESS ABOUT 8 YEARS AND
MET WITH A VERY DIFFERENT RESPONSE.
THERE.
THEN, THEY HAD HERE IN THE U.S..
THE INTERFERENCE FROM PHONES IS NOT NOT
NEW IN EUROPE.
WHEN THESE PHONES HAVE BEEN OPERATING.
WE HAD BEEN GETTING REPORTS FROM MEMBERS
FOR YEARS ABOUT THE FACT THAT DIGITAL
PHONES CAUSED INTERFERENCE WITH HEARING
AID.
SO WE KNEW IT WAS AN ISSUE AND WE 'I
LOOKED BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND
LOOKED BACK POUNDS WE HAD AN ISSUE, AN
ITEM IN ONE OF OUR JOURNALS YEARS AGO
ABOUT REPORTS PEOPLE HAD ABOUT INTER
FENCE REINS FROM DIGITAL PHONE WITH
THEIR HEARING AIDS AND THE FACT SOME
EUROPEAN {YAN}S WERE GOING TO START
LOOKING AT THIS AS AN ISSUE.
BUT WE REALLY DIDN'T TRACK IT VERY
CAREFULLY BASE WE DIDN'T THINK THAT
THESE PHONES WERE GOING TO BE INTRODUCED
INTO THE U {SKPFMENT} WE DIDN'T REALLY
HAVE AN ON GOING RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY
WIRELESS COMPANIES IN THE SAME WAY THAT
WE HAD WORKED WITH THE LONG DISTANCE
CARRIERS AND WITH SOME OF THE BELL
COMPANIES OVER THE YEARS.
SO THERE WAS NOT THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION
GOING ON ABOUT ACCESS AND ABOUT THE
PHONES AND ABOUT WHAT THEY MEANT.
FOR HARD OF HEARING PEOPLE.
ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN
EUROPE, THERE IS REALLY A DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE ABOUT ACCESS AND CONSUMER
ISSUES.
I THINK THAT IN GENERAL, DON ASSUMERS
DON'T GET INVOLVED TO THE SAME DEGREE
THAT THEY DO HERE IN THE U.S..
AND THERE IS NO STRONG CONSUMER
ORGANIZATION FOR PEOPLE WITH HEARING
LOSS IN ANY OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTRY THAT
IS I KNOW OF.
I'M ABOUT TO LEAVE CONTINUE TWO WEEKS
FOR FOR THE FEDERATION, PEOPLE FROM ALL
OVER THE WORLD WITH HEARING LOSS.
ALREADY A NUMBER OF NATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WILL BE REPRESENTED
THERE.
BUT IN NO CASE ANY OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS GOT INVOLVED IN THIS
ISSUE.
AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS A SET OF
ISOLATED PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEY ARE HAVING
PROBLEM THAT IS REALLY DON'T HAVE A
GROUP TO ADVOCATE ON THEIR BEHALF.
NO REAL MECHANISM TO VOICE UNHAPPINESS
ABOUT THE {THAKT} THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO AT THESE TELEPHONES.
AND COUPLED THAT WITH THE FACT THAT A
LOT OF PEOPLE WITH HEARING LOSS ARE
PRETTY QUIET ABOUT THE {THAKT} THAT THEY
HAVE A HEARING LOSS.
BY NATURE, WE TEND TO JUST KIND OF DEAL
WITH IT.
AND WE DON'T TEND NOT TO -- WE TEND TO
STAY WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING, IT IS
BECAUSE OF OUR HEARING LOSS, WE JUST
RETREAT.
SO TO SOME EXTENT, I THINK THE FACT THAT
PEOPLE WERE NOT COMPLAINING IN EUROPE
LED TO SOME OF THE PROBLEM THAT IS WE
HAD IN THE U {SKPFMENT} THE FACT THAT
WHEN THE PHONES WERE STARTING TO BE
TALKED ABOUT HERE, WE HAD A VERY
DIFFERENT DIPPED OF ENVIRONMENT.
I THINK THAT WAS CONFUSING TO THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY BECAUSE YOU REALLY HAD
A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT TO DEAL WITH.
WHEN WE DID REALIZE THAT THE DIGITAL
TELEPHONES WERE GOING TO BE INTRODUCED
INTO THE U.S., WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE
ISSUE IN SOME DETAIL AND WE FOUND THAT
MOST HEARING AID USERS DIDN'T USE CELL
PHONES IN GENERAL.
WHAT WAS THE CASE FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS.
NUMBER ONE: MOST IS CELL PHONES UP
UNUNTIL PRETTY RECENTLY WERE NOT HEARING
AID COMPATIBLE.
SO PEOPLE WHO REQUIRED COULD NOT USE
THESE PHONES.
SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HAVE T COIL
IN THEIR PHONES, REMEMBER THAT MOST OF
THE PLACES WHERE YOU USE CELL PHONES IN
THE PAST HAVE BEEN IN CARS AND THERE WAS
THE ENVIRONMENT SO SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T
HAVE A {TFMENT} COIL IN THEIR PHONE
PROBABLY COULD NOT AND USE ONE OF THESE
PHONES IN A CAR AND THEY DIDN'T ATTEMPT
TO DO I AND ALSO THE FACT THAT CELL
PHONES IN THE PAST HAVE HAD A PRETTY POT
FEE RECEPTION, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU
ARE IN THE CITY.
YOU CAN HAVE A REALLY POOR RECEPTION AND
FOR SOMEBODY WITH A HEARING LOSS, THEY
NEED A CLEAN LINE TO BE ABLE TO TALK ON
THEM.
SO MOST HEARING AID USERS WERE NOT USING
ANALOGUE PHONES.
SO THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENT WE CAME INTO
THIS ISSUE WITH.
THEN, WE SEE A NEW SET OF PHONES BEING
TALKED ABOUT THAT PROMISE ALL KINDS OF
ADVANTAGES THAT PAST WIRELESS HAS NOT
PROVIDED AND DIGITAL PHONES COUPLED WITH
FAX MACHINES AND COMPUTERS, HAVE
ANSWERING CAPABILITY.
THEY WILL PROMISE A CLARITY RECEPTION,
NOT NOW POSSIBLE WITH MOST CELL PHONES.
THEY ARE THE NEXT STEP IN THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVOLUTION.
OUR MEMBERS WANTED TO BE A PART OF THAT
TO BE ABLE TO USE THESE TELEPHONES LIKE
EVERY ONE ELSE.
SO WE BECOME INTERESTED IN THIS PROCESS
BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE
THAT PEOPLE WITH HEARING AIDE {KOOS}
PARTICIPATE AND USE THESE PHONES WHICH
PROMISED A LOT OF ADVANTAGES.
SAME TIME, THE HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY
ACT OF 1988 SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTED
WIRELESS TELEPHONES.
AND THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
MOST CELL PHONES UP TO THAT POINT WERE
NOT HEARING AID COMPATIBLE.
THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE HAWK ACT OF
1988 THAT SAID THAT THE FCC WOULD
PERIODICALLY, REVIEW THAT EXEMPTION.
AND THE IT HAD NONE BEEN REVIEWED.
SO S H H H TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER
CONSUMER ORGANIZATION, THE ALEXANDRIA
GRAM BELL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF, AND
AN INDUSTRY GROUP, WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION COUNCIL JOINED TOGETHER
AND WITH A COALITION CALLED "HEAR IT
NOW" TOGETHER, FILED A PETITION IN JUNE,
1995 WITH THE FCC ASKING THE COMMISSION
TO REVIEW THE EXEMPTION FOR WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY.
IS AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE BEGAN A
PROCESS OF EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT THE
NEW WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY.
THE FACT THAT IT DID CAUSE INTER OFFICER
{SKPRENS} ALSO THE FACT THAT THESE WERE
PHONE THAT IS PEOPLE WITH HEARING AIDES
REALLY WOULD WANT WANT TO USE IN THE
FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS
POTENTIAL THAT THEY PROVIDED.
SO WE DID DEMONSTRATIONS, I GUESS FOR A
PERIOD OF ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MONTH WITH
THE PROTOTYPES OF THE PHONES AND
RECALLED THAT THE TIMING OF THIS WAS
BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ACT.
WHICH HAS LANGUAGE REQUIRING THAT
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT BE ACCESSIBLE.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AT THAT TIME.
SO WE WERE FOCUSING ON THE HAWK ACT AND
FOCUSING ON THE FACT THAT WE WANTED A
REVIEW OF THAT EXEMPTION.
I THINK ONE THING THAT WAS AGAIN, THE
INTERESTING THING THAT CAME UP DURING
THAT PERIOD OF TRYING TO INCREASE
AWARENESS WAS, I THINK WE CAUGHT THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY BY SURPRISE.
I THINK THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE YOU ALL HAD
BEEN OPERATING IN EUROPE AND REALLY HAD
NOT EN{KOUMENTS} ERRED ANY PROBLEM AND
ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS GROUP IN U.S.
STARTED {VEEM}ING AND GOING WHAT IS THE
PROBLEM HERE?
I DO THINK THAT ISSUE OF A DIFFERENT
CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE IN EUROPE REALLY
CONTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOW
FOCUSING ON THIS HERE TO A MUCH GREATER
DEGREE.
AND I'M GOING TO FIND IT INTERESTING TO
TALK TO PEOPLE IN EUROPE NEXT MONTH
ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING AT THIS POINT
TOO INCREASE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH
HEARING AIDES IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
I THINK I'M AT THE END OF MY TIME AND I
WILL PASS THE MIKE TO THE NEXT PERSON.
>> OKAY.
ROB?
>> ROBERT HOGGARTH WILL NOW TALK WITH US
ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUFFICIENT
PROCESS, ITS STRUCK SURE AND ALSO ITS
GOALS.
>> THANK YOU PAM.
ON BEHALF OF OUR {P} PRESIDENT, JAY
KITCHEN AND THE 1400 MEMBER COMPANY OF P
CIA, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE WORLD
INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY, PAM AND THE
VARIOUS SPONSORS OF RAMP RAMP '96
FORGIVING P C I HAVE AM THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS EVENT.
IT IS OF INTERESTING TO ME TO BE IN THIS
LOCATION BECAUSE EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS
CHEN P CIA WAS ACTUALLY WORKING ON
LOGISTICS FOR THE SUMMIT MEETING THAT
ENDED UP BEING HELD IN JANUARY, THAT ONE
OF THE FINALISTS WAS ACTUALLY THE
KELLOGG CENTER.
SO I NEVER GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HERE AND IT IS VERY IMPRESSIVE FACILITY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS FOCUS IN A
LIMITED TIME THAT WE HAVE ON FOUR
SPECIFIC AREAS.
THAT I THINK WOULD BE {WROOFL} FOR YOU
TO CONSIDER AND THAT I THINK IT'S FOR
FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS PROCESS.
I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND
ABOUT P CIA AND THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY'S
INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT.
SECONDLY, I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY
WHILE I HAVE THE TIME AND DON'T RUN ON
TO GO THROUGH WITH YOU WHAT THE
FRAMEWORK FOR THE SUFFICIENT {FPSES} AND
WHAT SOME OF ITS GOALS WERE AND THEN,
TIME PERMITTING {UX} I WANT TO FOCUS
{TON} TWO REALLY CRITICAL AND KEY
ELEMENTS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO ENGAGE
IN THIS PROCESS AT ANY TIME IN THE
FUTURE THAT ARE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS
THAT YOU WILL EITHER FIND, BECOME A
NECESSARY PART OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR
THAT YOU THEY ARE GOING TO BE REALLY
NECESSARY FOR MAKING THE PROCESS THE
MODEL TO WORK FOR YOU.
FIRST, TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE, P
CIA IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT IN JUST CAN
TWO AND A HALF YEARS WILL CELEBRATE ITS
50TH ANNIVERSARIES.
IT IS THE PERSONAL IN DID YOU TREE
ASSOCIATION AND WE EXIST TO REPRESENT
THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY BEFORE THE
PRIMARILY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATION
BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IN ADDITION TO THE WORK THAT WE DO UP ON
CAPITOL HILL, EDUCATEING LEDGE LATE FORS
AND REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS LO BEING
ON VARIOUS ISSUES, WE FOCUS A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF ATTENTION {TON} ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY.
PRIMARILY, THAT IS THE F C {CHRFMENT}
BUT ALSO CAN INCLUDE THE EPA, THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AND
FROM TIME TO TIME, THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION.
OUR CURRENT MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE IS
BROKEN DOWN PRETTY MUCH INTO TWO MAJOR
SECTIONS.
WE GOT MAJOR SECTIONS THAT HAVE ARE
REPRESENTING THE INTEREST OF CARRIERS OR
LICENSEES AND THEN, WE HAVE ANOTHER
GROUP OF MEMBERSHIP SECTIONS THAT
SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE FOLKS
BEHIND-THE-SCENES, THE PEOPLE THAT
CONTROL THE TOERS THAT, MANAGE THE SITES
THAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES USE AS
WELL AS THE TECHNICIANS, THE PEOPLE WHO
ACTUALLY DESIGN BUILD; AND MAINTAIN THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM THAT EXIST.
SO WE HAVE A FAIRLY BROAD MANDATE.
OUR INTEREST IN THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE WAS
FOCUSED ON OUR BROAD BAND P C S,
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES SECTION.
THE B P A WHICH WE REFER TO IT IS A
MEMBERSHIP OF ALL THE NEW LICENSEES THAT
HAVE SECURED AND ARE SURING LICENSES
FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION TO OFFER THE NEW GENERATION
OF WIRELESS DEVICES THE DIGITAL
TELEPHONE THAT IS WE BEEN HEARING SO
MUCH ABOUT.
AND P CIA'S INTEREST IN THE IRK OF
HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY REALLY FIT IN
WITH OUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY WHICH IS TO
MAKE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AVAILABLE
TO EVERYBODY.
IN MANY RESPECTS {URX} YOU CAN LOOK AT
IT FROM A VERY MESS NEAR STANDPOINT IN
THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR
MEMBERS TO OFFER SERVICE TOSS AS MANY
PEOPLE AS POINTS IM.
THEY {WHANLTSES} TO GET THE AIR TIME IF
THEY ARE A SERVICE PROVIDER, {E} THEY
WANTS TO SELL RADIO TOSS FOLKS IF THEY
ARE A MANUFACTURERS SO. WHAT WAS OUR
{PROO} I MARY INTEREST IN THE ISSUE.
MOVING TO THE SUMMIT PROCESS ITSELF, YOU
ALMOST HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN TWO WAYS,
FIRST.
THE OVERALL GOAL THAT THE DIFFERENT
FOLKS AND THE DIFFERENT INTEREST GROUPS
WERE INVOLVED IN.
AND THAT WAS PRIMARILY MAKING DIGITAL
TONYS ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE WITH HEARING
AIDS AND IN GENERAL, ACCESSIBLE TO ANY
CONSUMER.
THE KEY OVERRIDING GOAL THAT WAS
ACHIEVED THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WAS THAT
ALL INDUSTRY GROUPS AGREED WE NEED TO
HAVE HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY FOR THESE
TELEPHONES.
THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE SUMMIT ITSELF
BECAME TWO-FOLD: ONE, EDUCATING THE
VARIOUS GROUPS AS DONNA POINTED OUT.
THERE WAS NOT A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT GROUPS AS TO WHAT
THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS WERE, WHAT THE
CONCERNS OF THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY WAS
AND REALLY, WHAT IMPACT AND INTEREST
HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS HAD IN THE
PROCESS.
SO THERE WAS A COMPONENTS OF {RAELD}
REALLY EDUCATING PEOPLE.
THE OTHER COMPONENTS WAS MOVING BEYOND
THAT EDUCATION AND REALLY MOVING TO AN
AREA AND A PROCESS BY WHICH ONCE EVERY
ONE {YOOND} THE OTHERS POSITIONS AND
INTEREST, TO AN AREA OF LOOKING ALSO
{LUTION}S LOOK {INGT} AT IDENTIFYING
LONG-THEY WERE AND SHORT-TERM SOLUTION
TOSS THE PRO {SKPETS} THEN IDENTIFYING
WAYS OF MOVING FORWARD TO MAKE THOSE
SOLUTIONS POSSIBLE.
THE SUMMIT PROCESS THAT WAS AGREED TO
ESSENTIAL LIE TOOK UPON ITSELF, TWO
FACES THE FIRST WAS THE EDUCATIONAL ONE.
AND THAT WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT
ACTUALLY HOSTING SOMETHING AT THE
KELLOGG CENTER, THAT WAS {HAN} INITIAL
ONE DAY PLENARY SESSION WHERE THE
DIFFERENT GROUPS COULD SIT DOWN, AND
PRESENT THEIR INTEREST AND VIEW THOSE
THE OTHER GROUPS.
AND IT BECOME MORE MORE FORMAL THAN
INFORMAL DIALOGUE OF INFORMATION BUT
ESSENTIALLY, IN ONE DAY, ALL THE GROUPS
GOT TOGETHER, HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO HOLD
THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL SESSIONS AND
EDUCATE THE OTHER INTEREST GROUPS ON
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE.
OVERALL, IN TERMS OF THE BIG PICTURE,
YOU HAD THREE MAIN GROUP, CONSUMERS WHO
WERE INTERESTED IN USING THE DIGITAL
DEVICES AND HAVING THEM WORK IN A WAY
THAT DIDN'T INTERFERES WITH THEIR
ABILITY TO USE THEM.
YOU YOU HAD THE IRWIRELESS INDUSTRY IN
MAKING THE PHONES AVAILABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE WITH VARIOUS
DEGREES OF HEARING LOSS AND ANOTHER
CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE PROCESS THAT A
GROUP THAT WE REALLY FELT NEEDED BE
INVOLVED WITH THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS.
THAT WAS PARTICULARLY OF CONCERN FROM
THE WIRELESS IN DUTIES FREE PER
{SFEKT}TIVE BECAUSE ANY CHANGE THAT IS
WOULD BE MADE IN A SPECIFIC HAND SET
REQUIRED AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HEARING
SAID AND IN MANY RESPECT, IT WAS OUR
FEELING THAT THERE COULD BE A GIVE TAKE
BETWEEN THE WIRELESS MANUFACTURERS AS
WELLS THE THE HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS.
THE SECOND PHASE THAT BARRY KRATZ WILL
FOCUS ON PRIMARILY WAS CREATING A SERIES
OF WORK CAN GROUPS TO ONCE YOU HAD THE
UNDERSTANDING OR THE BEGINNING OF THE
DIALOGUE TO REALLY CREATE A FRAMEWORK
FOR MOVING FORWARD.
AND PROVIDING INDIVIDUALS WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT ONLY DISCUSSING BUT
ACTUALLY ROLLING UP THEIR SLEEVES AND
IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS.
SO THAT WAS THE GENERAL {RAL} PROCESS
AGREED UPON.
IF I WERE TO GO INTO YOU ALL THE DETAILS
AND NEGOTIATIONS AND MEETINGS WE HAD
OVER A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME, WE
WOULD PROBABLY BE TWO DAY WITH ME
RAMBLING ON RELAYING THAT TO YOU.
BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THAT THAT
FRAMEWORK THAT WAS AGREED ON THROUGH A
STEERING COMMITTEE IN WHICH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WIRELESS
INDUSTRY, CONSUMERS AND HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS ALL PARTICIPATED.
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT EARLY IN THE
PROCESS, THERE WAS REALLY NOT A
FRAMEWORK.
THERE WERE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WITHIN THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY, PERSPECTIVE,
DIFFERENT ASPECTS AND PERSPECTIVES FOR
CONSUMERS AND FOR MANY, MANY WEEKS,
MONTHS EVEN, THERE WERE ACTIVITIES BEING
ENGAGED IN BY DIFFERENT INTEREST GROUP
THAT IS NEVER REALLY FORMED A COHESIVE
UNITS.
YOU HAD PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT
STRATEGIES, WITH DIFFERENT EXPECTATION
ALL MOVING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AND
NOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME, THIS
CREATED SIGNIFICANT LACK OF TRUST.
I WOULD SAY IN MANY RESPECTS BETWEEN
SOME ORGANIZATIONS THE TRUST LEVEL WAS
ZERO.
SO THE ABILITY TO GET EVERY ONE TOGETHER
AND TO FOCUS ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE
PROCESS, AND THEN, TO MOVE THROUGH THE
SUMMIT MEETING AND THEN THE FOLLOWING
WORKING GROUPS WAS IN ITSELF SIGNIFICANT
AACCOMPLISH: WE WILLAL DRESS LATER
WHETHER THE PROCESS IS WORKING BUT THE
MONTH {DL} ITSELF WAS THE PRODUCT OF
SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSIONS.
REAL COMMITMENT FROM MAKES OF ALL THREE
GROUPS AND A REAL FOCUS BY EVERY ONE
INVOLVED.
IN THE TIME THAT I GOT REMAINING, I WANT
TO FOCUS {TON} TWO CRITICAL ELEMENTS
BECAUSE THE INITIATION OF THE SUMMIT
PROCESS WAS CRITICAL WITHOUT THAT WE
WOULD NOT HAVE HAD USEFUL DISCUSSIONS.
THERE WERE TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THAT.
THE FIRST AND PAM MENTIONED THIS EARLY,
THE FCC WAS NOT AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
THE REGULATORY BODY THAT REALLY HAD
FOCUSED AND WAS RESPONSIBLE ARE
ULTIMATELY FOR FOCUSING ON THIS ISSUE
WAS A TREMENDOUS INSPIRATION FOR GETTING
THE PROCESS GOING.
THE GROUP THAT DON NO REFERRED TO FILE A
PETITION WITH THE FCC AND ASK THEM TO
TAKE SPECIFIC ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC TOOK IT UPON
HIMSELF TO CALL IN A BROAD CROSS SECTION
OF THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY TO DISCUSS THIS
ISSUE WITH HIM.
HE CALLED IN LICENSEES CARRIERS,
MANUFACTURERS, AND HE CALLED IN FRAYED
ASSOCIATIONS.
AND ESSENTIALLY HAD A -- IN TRADE
ASSOCIATION.
HE SAID LOOK, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE
TO ME AND CONSUMER AND ALSO SHOULD BE
IMPORTANT TO YOU.
AND I'M LOOKING TO YOU TO WORK WITH
CONSUMERS AND HEARING AID MANUFACTURER
TOSS MAKE THIS WORK.
THERE WAS A CRITICAL INSPIRATIONAL TYPE
MEETING THAT WAS HELD AND REALLY GAVE
THE {EM} TIS FORGETING THE WIRELESS --
{EM} TIS.
AT THAT TIME, THE CHAIRMAN TOOK A VERY
IMPORTANT VIEW OF THIS, HE VIEWED ATE AS
WIRELESS INDUSTRY ISSUE.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES
WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES
INVOLVEDING THE NEW P C S, NEW PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.
BUT IT WAS CRITICAL I THINK EARLY ON
WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT ALL INTEREST
GROUPS NEEDED TO PARTICIPATE IN FROM THE
ASPECT OF THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY.
THE OTHER MAJOR COMPONENT THAT I WANTED
TO DISCUSS AND MA'AM WOULD BE LOATHE TO
TO THE HER OWN HORN BUT THE CRITICAL
ELEMENT WAS THE ROLE OF A MEDIATOR.
I TALKED ABOUT HOW THE TRUST LEVEL WAS
CLOSE TO NIL BETWEEN A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT GROUPS.
IT WAS CRITICAL THAT FOR THE GROUPS TO
COME TO THE TABLE TO DEAL IN A CANDID
WAY, OPEN WAY, ONE WHERE THEY KNELT THEY
COULD ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING THAT, IT BE
FACILITATED BY THE ORGANIZATION OR
INDIVIDUAL THAT HAD THE TRUST AND
RESPECT OF BOTH GROUPS.
VERY SHORTLY AFTER, THAT SORT OF CONCEPT
BECOME NECESSARY AND MANY IN THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY RECOGNIZE TED NEED FOR
THAT INCLUDING P CIA, PAM'S NAME AND
ORGANIZATION CAME TO THE TOP OF THE
LIST.
THE CRITICAL COMPONENTS THAT SHE HAD
THAT YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR IN YOUR OWN
MODEL IS AN INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION THAT
HAS THE TRUST AND RESPECT OF ALL
PARTIES.
AND PAM'S CASE, SHE HAD WORKED AND
REPRESENTED FOLKS WITHIN THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY, AND SHE
ALSO THROUGH A NUMBER OF HER ACTIVITIES
HAD THE TRUST AND RESPECT OF CONSUMER
AND HEARING AID GROUPS.
WHAT WAS CRITICAL TO BRINGING PEOPLE TO
THE TABLE AND IT WAS CRITICAL GETTING
PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO COME TO THE TABLE
EVEN WITH THINGS BECOME DIFFICULT AT
TIMES.
SO I CANNOT UNDER EMPHASIZE THE ROLE OF
HAVING A THIRD PARTY INVOLVED IN GETTING
PEOPLE TO TALK.
AND THAT, I WILL LEAVE IT ON BARRY TO
FOCUS MORE ON THE ACTUAL WORKING PROCESS
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESSS IN THE NEXT SECTION OF THE
PROM.
>> I'M GOING TO TRY TO USE THE OVERHEAD
AND THAT WAY, HOPEFULLY, EVERY ONE WILL
BE ABLE TO HEAR ME.
>> COULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
?
>> YES,LY.
>> I'M PARRY KRATZ, RADIO SYSTEMS AND --
BARRY KRATZ AND WILL FOCUS ON THE THREE
WORKING GROUPS IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE
STEERING COMMITTEE.
THE -- HIGH ROLE IN THIS, I CHAIRED A --
OR DO CHAIRED ONE OF THE WORKING GROUPS
LONG TERM USER AND BY STANDER
INTERFERENCE GROUP.
LET ME JUST SAY THAT ROB'S REFERENCE TO
THE INSPIRATION PROVIDED BY THE F C
{SKRFMENT} AND THE CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT
SURE INSPIRE {WHATION} INSPIRATION IS IF
WORDS I WOULD USE BUT CERTAINLY
ENCOURAGEMENT WAS A PROPER DEFINITION.
I ALSO THOUGH, WOULD ECHO COMMENTS
{THAED} THAT WITHOUT SOME OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES TO GET ALL THE EXPERTS
TOGETHER, THE PROCESS WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO RECEIVE AS FAR AS IT DID
AND A LOT OF THAT GOES TO THE WORK THAT
PAM AND HER ORGANIZATION DID.
I'M GOING TO GET TO MORE OF THE NUTS AND
BOLTS OF WHAT REALLY WERE THE
ASSIGNMENTS OF THE WORKING GROUPS.
EACH WORK CAN GROUP CONSISTED OF A
NUMBER OF INDUSTRY EXPERTS INCLUDING
MANUFACTURERS, CARRIERS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS,
ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL AS CONSULTANTS.
THIS ENASSURED EVERY ORGANIZATION HAD A
VESTED INTEREST AND WAS REMEMBERED {SED}
AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE
OUTCOME.
ONE EXAMPLE WE -- THE LONG TERM USER
INTERFERENCE GROUP HAD APPROXIMATELY, 50
PARTICIPANTS IN A NUMBER OF THE
MEETINGS.
THE -- A LOST THESE CHARTS I WILL BE
USING, HAVE A LOT OF WORDS ON THEM.
LY NOT BE GOING THROUGH THE VARY BADGE
FOR YOU, HOWEVER, I WILL MAKE THEM
AVAILABLE TO PAM AND SHE CAN GIVE THEM
TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COPIES
OF THEM.
THE THREE WORKING GROUP, EACH HAD THEIR
OBJECTIVES AND GOALS IDENTIFIED BY THE
STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE ON THE SUMMIT.
THESE GOALS WERE IDENTIFIED AS WELL AS A
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE INTERIM REPORTS
ON 20, 40 DAYS AND 60S DAYS THE RESULT
OF THE WORK OF THE THREE WORKING GROUPS.
THE AND {P} I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT
EACH ONE OF THE WORKING GROUPS WAS
COCHAIRED BY A REPRESENTATIVE ONE,
WIRELESS INDUSTRY, A HEARING AID
MANUFACTURER AND THE OTHER A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONSUMER INTEREST.
THESE SLIDES WILL STATE THE OBJECTIVES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF EACH OF THE
WORKING GROUPS.
AS I SAID,LY NOT GO THROUGH THEM IN
DETAIL, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
TASK THAT EACH GROUP FACED.
IT IT IS A VERY INVOLVED PROCESS THAT
REQUIRED THE COLLECTIVE EFFORT OF ALL
THE ORGANIZATIONS IN ORDER TO BE
SUCCESSFUL.
ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS NATURALLY HAD
DIFFERENT AGENDAS.
HOWEVER, WE WERE ABLE TO STAY FOCUSED ON
THE OBJECTIVES WHICH WERE MONUMENTAL IN
THEMSELVES.
THEY WERE TO GAY {STHER} AND EVALUATE
THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND STUDIES
AVAILABLE.
SO THAT WE WERE NOT VIEWED AS HAVING TO
GO BACK AND ROA CREATE THE WHEEL.
THERE WAS AS DONNA MENTIONED, WE HAD A
NUMBER OF YEARS DEALING THIS ISSUE AT A
LET'S SAY A LESS VISIBLE LEVEL
THROUGHOUT OTHER AREAS IN THE WORLD AND
A LOT OF RESEARCH HAD BEEN DONE.
ALL OF THAT RESEARCH WAS REVIEWED BY THE
WORKING DROP GROUPS AND WAS INCORPORATED
IN THE WORK OF THE SHORT TERM LONG TERM
AND COMPATIBILITY GROUP.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SHORT TERM GROUP...
WAS CHARTERED WITH IDENTIFY INTERIM
SOLUTIONS FOR EXISTING WIRELESS
PRODUCTS.
I SHOULD MENTION HERE THE DIVIDING LINE
SET UP BETWEEN THE WORK THE SHORT TERM
GROUP AND THE LONG TERM GROUP WAS THAT
THE SHORT TERM GROUP HAD RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKETPLACE
THAT COULD TAKE A ADDED {FUPTION} OR
FEATURE OR DEVICE TO BE ADDED TO THE
UNIT SO THAT IT COULD BE INNER OPERABLE
WITH AN ASSISTANT LISTENING DEVICE.
THE LONG TERM GROUP FOCUSED ON NEW
PRODUCT OR THE NEXT PRODUCT CYCLE.
THE NEXT MODEL THAT IN THE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT BACK IN THE -- THE PHONES
AND ALSO FOR THE HEARING AIDES.
THE SHORT TERM GROUP IDENTIFIED 7
POSSIBLE SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS ALL OF
WHICH COULD MEAN THEY ARE IM{MENLD}ED
TODAY OR COULD BE AVAILABLE WITHIN SIX
MONTH TIME FRAME.
ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS BENEFIT THE USER
WHILE FIVE OUT OF 7 ALSO WOULD AFFECT --
HAVE AN IMPACT ON BYSTANDER IN {TR}
OFFICER REINS.
>> BARRY, COULD YOU MOVE.
>> IS THAT BETTER?
{P} ALL RIGHT.
ABOUT DO YOU RECALL THIS WAS STRIKE HE
FOR THE SHORT TERM GROUP.
SHORT TERM GROUP ALSO IDENTIFIED SEVERAL
ACTION ITEMS.
AND RECOMMENDATION TOSS TO THE STEERING
COMMITTEE.
TWO OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT WERE AN
ESTABLISHED CRITERIA FOR SOMED LEVELS OF
INTERFERENCE FOR BOTH BUY STANDER AND
HEARING AID INTER OFFICER {SKPRENS}
DEVELOP STANDARD FOR THE LEVEL OF THE
HEARING AID AS WELL AS THE ELECTRIC
MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATED BY THE WIRELESS
PHONE.
SIMILAR TO THE SHORT TERM GROUP, THE
LONG TERM GROUP WAS CHARGED WITH
IDENTIFYING LONG TERM SOLUTION FOR
INTERFERENCE {ZPERNS}ED BY HEARING AID
USERS.
ITS CHARTER WAS TO IMPACT NEW PRODUCTS
IN PLANNING STAGE OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
IT ALSO EVALUATED RESEARCH GOING ON
AROUND THE WORLD.
2 LONG TERM GROUP HAD TO EVALUATE THE
COST AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF
PROPOSED SOLUTION AND RECOMMEND TODAY
THE STEERING COMMITTEE A COURSE OF
ACTION THAT WOULD IMPACT ALL EFFECTED
PARTIES.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RESULTS THAT THE
HEARING AID AND WIRELESS INDUSTRY ARE
WORKING WITH A STANDARD PROCESS THROUGH
THE A N S IC 63 COMMITTEE AND WIRELESS
PHONE ADD {BITION} {M}S.
ADDITIONAL, IDENTIFYING ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS OF.
THE LONG TERM GROUP SPENT THREE
DIFFERENT MEETINGS IDENTIFYING ROOT
CAUSE ISSUES AND DIVIDED THEM INTO THREE
MAJOR CATEGORIES AND ASSIGNED TASK GROUP
TOSS WORK ON THOSE ISSUES AND THEN, TO
PROVIDE THAT AS INPUT TO A STANDARD
BODY.
BACK IN APRIL, TWO PROJECTS WERE TAKEN
OUT BY THE C 63 COMMITTEE WHICH HAS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELECTRO MAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY.
AND HAVE SET UP TWO PROJECTS ONE TO
FOCUS ON THE MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR
HEARING AIDES AND IMMUNITY AND WIRELESS
PHONE AND ALSO TO IDENTIFY ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS OF INTERFERENCE AND THIS WILL BE
DEVELOPED BASED ON INPUT FROM A NUMBER
OF STUDIES GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
ONE IS GOING ON BY HARRY LAY {VIT},
UNIVERSITY OF -- NEW YORK {JFERMENT}.
C C N Y.
AND JUDY HEART MAN IS INVOLVED IN THAT
PROCESS, AND FOR THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS AND WIRELESS
MANUFACTURERS.
AS WELL AS THE WORK THAT IS CURRENTLY
UNDER GOING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
OKLAHOMA.
ALL WILL PROVIDE INPUT TO THIS PROCESS
AND THE FIRST MEETING OF THE STANDARD
SETTING GROUP WAS HELD TWO WEEKS AGO IN
MINNEAPOLIS.
THESE ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COME PAT
BITTY GROUP, THE THIRD GROUP THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THEY WERE NOT CHARGED WITH IDENTIFYING
WAYS TO MAKE THE HEARING AID COMPATIBLE
WITH DIGITAL PHONES.
THIS GROUP EVALUATED HOW BOTH THE KNOWN
AND HEARING AID CAN OPERATE IN THEIR
INTENDED ENVIRONMENT.
ONE OF THE ISSUES FACED BY THIS GROUP
WAS THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY AND
THE ISSUE OF ARE WE TAKING ABOUT
COMPATIBILITY OR ACCESS?
AND THE SOME OF THE WORK IN THIS GROUP
IS STILL GOING ON AND I DON'T BELIEVE
THEIR REPORT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS YET.
I WOULD LIKE TO USE A CHART HERE THAT I
HAVE USED NUMBER OF TIMES THAT I AND
AAPOLL GUIDE TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE
SEEN IT BEFORE.
BUT WE HAVE USED THIS CHART TO SORTS OF
PICTURE WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLICE IN ALL OF THE WORKING GROUPS.
THE CHART IS REALLY DEPICKS THE NEEDS OF
BOTH HEARING AID DESIGNERS AND WIRELESS
INDUSTRY TO GET THEIR TECHNICAL EXPERTS
TOGETHER, EXCHANGING INFORMATION THAT
THE OTHER PARTY DIDN'T HAVE SO THAT WE
COULD UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL DETAILS
OF THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT AND AT THE
SAME TIME, BE ABLE TO MOVE THE HEARING
IMMUNITY LEVEL TO A HIGHER DEGREE,
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10-30, 10-50 VOLTS PER
METER.
AT THE SAME TIME, BRING IT CAN PHONE
MANUFACTURERS TO A LOWER EMISSION LEVEL
IF POSSIBLE.
AND IT BASIC LIE THROUGH THIS EX-{CHAK}
OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION WHICH IS
CONTINUING IN THE C 63 STANDARDS BODY IS
WHERE WE'RE USING THIS.
I THINK -- ONE LAST CHART BECAUSE I
THINK IT REALLY IS THE BOTTOM LINE OF
THIS THAT IS IMPORTANT: THE COLLECTIVE
EFFORT OF THE BROAD RANGE OF EXPERTS
THAT WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER AS A RESULT
OF THIS SUMMIT PROCESS REALLY ENHANCED
THE PRO {SKPES} ENABLED US TO MOVE IT
THIS FAR.
I THINK WITHOUT THE FOCUS THAT WE HAD
AND THE INITIATIVE OR INCENTIVE, BY THE
FCC TO BRING BOTH THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY
TOGETHER ALONG WITH THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS ALONG WITH THE CONSUMER
GROWINGS GIVING US THE INPUT AS TO WHAT
OUR REQUIREMENTS WERE, WE WOULD NOT BE
WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
IT IS NOT A SIMPLE PROBLEM BUT WE ARE
CONTINUING TO WORK ON IT.
BY I GUESS WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS LATER.
>> NOW, KAREN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT THE STEERING COMMITTEE PROCESS
ITSELF AND THEN THE NEGOTIATIONS PORTION
OF THIS PROCESS.
>> HI, I'M CALL {REN} STRAUSS {TRAUS}
FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE
DEAF.
I'M THEIR LEGAL COUNCIL FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY.
AND THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
OF DISCUSSION {H} MORNING WITH REGARD TO
THE GROUNDWORK THAT WAS LAID FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
ACTUALLY, LET ME BACK UP THOUGH BECAUSE
THE STEERING COMMITTEE WAS ACTUALLY
DEVELOPED BEFORE THE SUMMIT PROCESS
BEGAN.
IT WAS DEVELOPED IN ORDER FOR DECIDE
KIND OF WHAT SHOULD WE DO, WHAT STEPS
NEED TO BE TAKEN NOW THAT THIS PETITION
HAS BEEN FILED AND WE WANT TO TRY TO
FIND A SOLUTION TO THIS.
AND SO CONSUMERS, GOT TOGETHER WITH THE
DIGITAL WIRELESS INDUSTRY AND THE
HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS AND SAID, HOW
SHOULD WE GO CAN TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS
ISSUE.
AND THE CONCEPT OF A SUMMIT WAS
DEVELOPED AND PUT TOGETHER IN JANUARY.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN
-- INITIALLY IN THE FALL OF 1995.
AFTER THE SUMMIT TOOK PLACE, AS YOU
KNOW, THESE WORKING GROUPS WERE {ZVLD}
EXAMPLE THIS WAS GONE OVER IN DETAIL
JUST NOW.
THE INFORMATION FROM THE WORKING GROUPS
WHICH WAS BASICALLY, INFORMATION ON
RESEARCH AND ALL KINDS OF TECHNICAL
INFORMATION WAS THEN HANDED OVER TO I
GUESS IT WAS A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
STEERING COMMITTEE.
MANY MEMBERS WERE THE SAME BUT A GROUP
OF PEOPLE THAT WERE NOW SUPPOSED TO TAKE
ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, GATHERED BY THE
WORKING GROUPS AND TRY TO DEVELOP A
PROPOSAL FOR THE FCC.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE THAT DEVELOPED
AFTER THE SUMMIT WAS MADE UP OF ONLY A
SMALL NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS THE GOAL
WAS TO KEEP THE GROUP SMALL SO THAT WE
COULD HAVE NEGOTIATIONS KIND OF IN THE
SAME WAY THAT AN NEGOTIATED RULE-MAKING
IS DONE AT THE FCC.
WE WANTED TO SIT DOWN, WORK OUT WHAT
INFORMATION HAD BEEN DAY {STHERD} AND
COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL FOR THE IF K C
IT IT IS A VERY TRUE STATEMENT TO SIGH
THAT THE IMPUS WAS THE FCC DIRECTTIVE TO
GIVE THEM SOMETHING.
THEY {STAD} REED HUNDT WAS VERY INSIST
TENT ON WANTING TO COME UP WITH A
RESOLUTION BUT DIDN'T WANT A LOT OF
DIFFERENT PROPOSALS FROM A LOT OF
CONFLICT CAN ENTITIES.
THE GOAL WAS TO DEVELOP ONE SINGLE
PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY CONSENSUS.
AND SO THE AS I SAID, THE MEMBERS OF THE
STEERING COMMITTEE, THE GOAL WAS TO KEEP
THE MEMBERSHIP SMALL AND THE MEMBERS
WERE S H H H, AG BELL, AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF AUDIOLOGY, THESE WERE THE GROUPS
REMEMBERING CONSUMERS FOR THE MOST
{PARMENT}, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY, ASSOCIATION, P C {SISMT}, 1900
GROUP, PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, AND THE HEARING INDUSTRY'S
ASSOCIATION.
I WAS INVOLVED NOT REPRESENTING THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, BUT
RATHER, AS AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE
CONSUMERS IN THE MATTER.
AT THE TIME THAT I GOT INVOLVED, THE
GROUP HAD ALREADY -- I WAS JUST TOLD TO
SLOW UP WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR ME.
AT THE TIME THAT WE GOT INVOLVED, THAT I
GOT INVOLVED, THE GROUP HAD BEEN MEETING
ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS AND AT THAT
POINT, ONLY ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS
WERE LEFT BEFORE WE WERE DIRECTED TO
GIVE OUR MATERIALS OR GIVE OUR CONSENSUS
PROPOSAL TO THE FCC.
THE FCC SET A VERY TIGHT DEADLINE FOR US
BECAUSE THE GOAL WAS TO GET SOMETHING TO
THE FCC IN TIME FOR THE FCC TO IN
CORPORATE IT PERHAPSS I GUESS IN THE
NOTICE OF INQUIRY OR NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING THAT THE FCC WAS GOING TO BE
ISSUING ON THE 1996 ACT.
I WILL GET INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE
LATER.
BUT, DONNA MENTIONED THE {1998} {SAKT}
AND HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY ACT.
WELL, AT THIS POINT, THE 1996
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT HAD ALSO BEEN
PASSED.
SO ONE THING THAT WAS OF THE ISSUES WAS
WHAT ACT WE WERE OPERATING UNDER.
I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE DURING THE
ANALYSIS.
THE GOAL WAS TO TRYING TO COME UP WITH
SOMETHING FOR THE FCC SO THEY CAN'T
ULTIMATELY INCORPORATE IT IN THEIR
PROPOSED RULES UNDER THE 1996 ACT PRESUM
ABLELY.
WHAT WE DID DURING THE MEETINGS.
AS I SAY, WE HAD ABOUT THREE FOR FOUR
MEETINGS BETWEEN THE TIME THAT WE
STARTED TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANCE OF ISSUE
EXAMPLES THE TIME WE WERE SUPPOSED TO
DOME UP WITH A CONSENSUS PROPOSAL.
EACH OF THE MEETINGS WERE 8 HOURS EACH
DAY, A FELL DAY MEETINGS AND WHAT WE DID
WAS, -- A FULL DAY MEETING.
WE DEFINED VARIOUS ISSUES WE NEEDED TO
TALK ABOUT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO SIMILIAR TO WHAT
WAS JUST DONE WITH REGARD TO THE WORKING
GROUPS, I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU BRIEFLY
WHAT THE SUBJECTS WERE WITHOUT GETTING
THROUGH THE SUB{STAS} OF WHAT WE
DISCUSSED.
THE FIRST ISSUE WAS EDUCATION.
WE WANTED TO COVER WHAT KIND OF
EDUCATION WOULD BE NEEDED NOR EVERY ONE
FOR INDUSTRY, CONSUMERS, FOR HEARING AID
{AUD} OLD GIVE, FOR HEARING AID
DISTRIBUTORS.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH -- ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT THIS TOOK SO LONG TO
RESOLVE AND IT IS STILL TAKING SO LONG
TO RESOLVE IS THAT AS DONNA SAID,
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN THE CONSUMERS WENT
TO INDUSTRY INITIALLY, THIS HAD BEEN A
SURPRISE.
IT WAS VERY LITTLE EDUCATION ABOUT THIS
AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE
FUTURE, THAT PEOPLE BUYING HEARING AIDS
AND PEOPLE DISPENING HEAR AIDS AND
PEOPLE DISTRIBUTING THE TELEPHONES ARE
ALL AWARE OF WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO
DEVELOP WAS A PLAN FOR EDUCATION, FOR
THE FUTURE SO THERE ARE NO MORE
SURPRISES IN THE FUTURE.
THE SECOND THING WAS WE WANTED TO TALK
ABOUT HOW THE INTERFERENCE STUDIES WOULD
BE CONDUCTED.
THERE WAS STILL SOME QUESTION BY
INDUSTRY AS TO THE EXTENT OF IS
INTERFERENCE AND CONSUMERS AS WELL
WANTED A BENCH MARK, A GUIDE POST FOR
WHEN INTERFERENCE IS AKNOWING FOR
EXAMPLE.
AND SO, AAAKNOWING.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE VARIOUS STUDIES
{FERM} THERE WERE AT {HEEFMENT} TWO MORE
STUDIES.
THAT WAS ALSO TO GO INTO OUR CONSENSUS
PROPOSAL.
NEXT {ERX} WE {E} WANT TODAY TALK ABOUT
THE INTERIM DIGITAL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS.
AND AGAIN, THESE WERE SOLUTION THAT IS
WOULD BE BASICALLY FOR PHONE THAT IS
WERE ALREADY OUT SOME MIGHT {MFL} SOME
ADD ON DEVICES OR EXTERNAL DEVICES.
THESE WERE NOT INTEND TODAY BE LONG
TERM, BUT TO DEAL WITH THE TELEPHONES
ALREADY ON THE MARKET THAT WE STILL FELT
NEEDED SOME MANNER OF ACCESS.
AND NEXT, THE LONG TERM, THE FOURTH IS
THE LONG TERM SOLUTION.
THESE WOULD BE FOR THE TELEPHONES FOR
NEW PRODUCT CYCLES AND THEY WERE
QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO WHETHER LONG TERM
SOLUTIONS FOR EXAMPLE SHOULD APPLY TO
ALL TELEPHONES IN THE FUTURE.
OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD APPLY TO A CROSS
SECTION OF TELEPHONES.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT WE
WERE DISCUSSING.
WHETHER THE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS SHOULD
REQUIRE ACCESS THAT IS BUILT IN, WHETHER
EXTERNAL DEVICES SHOULD EVER BE
PERMITTED AGAIN.
AGAIN, THOSE WERE THE TYPES OF ISSUES WE
WERE DISCUSSING.
NEXT, IMPROVED HEARING AID IMMUNITY.
IT BECOME CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT THE
PROBLEM WAS NOT ONE-SIDED.
THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH HEARING AID
IMMUNITY JUST AS PROBLEM WITH THE
DIGITAL IT WILL TELL TONYS THAT'S OF
COURSE WHY WE HAD THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTED AS WELL.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN SHOULD ALL
HEARING AIDES BE REQUIRED TO HAVE
CERTAIN LEVEL OF IMMUNITY.
AGAIN, SO IT BY ALL HEARING AID, A
PERCENTAGE {OFING} HEARING AID.
WHO WAS TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF
IMMUNITY BY WHEN SHOULD IT BE
DETERMINED?
THAT'S AGAIN THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT
WE RAISED.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WHETHER ADDITIONAL
RESEARCH SHOULD BE DONE, WHETHER THERE
{THOULD} BE A STANDARD JACK FOR ALL I
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES INCLUDING
TTY'S AND DEVICES FOR ANY KIND OF
AMPLIFICATION OR COCHLEAR IMPLANTS.
WE TALKED ABOUT FINALLY, THE DEFINITION
OF ACCESS BILL TEE.
THE DEFINITION SESSION IN ANY
NEGOTIATION IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT IS GOING TO GUIDE ALL THE
REGULATIONS ALL THE RULES THAT ARE
CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSALS.
SO IF YOU SAY THAT ACCESS HAS TO BE
PROVIDED FOR EXAMPLE, {BRI} JANUARY
FIRST, 1997, WHAT IS ACCESS?
AND SO WHETHER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOR
EXAMPLE, THE EXISTING FCC 68 HEARING
COMPATIBILITY STANDARD WAS AT ISSUE?
OR WERE WE TALKING ABOUT INTERNAL
COUPLEING OF SOME KIND THAT, BECOME AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION AS WOMEN.
SIMILARLY, THE DEFINITION OF
INTERFERENCE.
BY WHAT SAND {DARD} WOULD WE BE JUDGING
THAT INTERFERENCE?
AND FINALLY, ONE OF THE THING THAT IS
CAME UP WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD
BE A FUND FOR HEARING AID REPLACEMENT IF
INTEREST OFFICER REINS CANNOT BE
ELIMINATED.
THIS IS ONLY DISCUSSED VERY BRIEFLY BUT
IT WAS SOMETHING PUT ON THE TABLE.
WHAT WE DID IN TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATION
WAS TO FIRST DEFINE THE GROUND RULES.
WE TRIED TO {P} LAY OUT SOME BASIC RULES
ABOUT WHO COULD ATTEND THE MEETINGS.
HOW THE DISCUSSION WOULD OCCUR, IT
TURNED SOUGHT AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT
THIS MORE LATE THEIR TO A LOT OF THE
DISCUSSION WAS MORE IN WRITING THAN IN
DISCUSSION BUT I'LL GET INTO THAT MORE
LATER.
AND AGAIN, AS I SAID BEFORE, OUR GOAL
WAS TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT, A
CONSENSUS, WE HAD TO DEFINE WHAT
CONSENSUS WAS FOR EXAMPLE.
I KNOW THAT I HAD PARTICIPATED WITH SOME
PEOPLE HERE ON THE NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
AT THE FCC FOR WIRE LINE HEARING AID
COME PAT BILL KNEE DIDN'T THE DEFINITION
WAS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A DEFINITION OF
CONSENSUS IMPORTANT THIS.
SO THAT WAS ALSO IMPORTANT.
AND FINALLY, WE HAD TO DRAFT A PROPOSAL.
AS I SAID, WE HAD TO PUT SOMETHING IN
WRITING THAT FELL FOR THE MOST PART ON
MYSELF AND TERESA BARE WHO WAS WORKING
FOR THE INDUSTRY.
AND BASIC ILY, WHAT WE DID WAS PUT
TOGETHER HAS MUCH AS WE COULD ON WRITING
AND AM I ALLOWED TO GO ON, I GUESS WE
CAN, THAT WE ULTIMATELY DID NOT REACH A
CONSENSUS BUT, CAME VERY CLOSE AND ON
MAY 16TH, 1996, WE SUBMITTED REPORTS TO
THE FCC.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY WERE THREE SEPARATE
REPORTS {UX} ONE BY CONSUMERS EXCLUDING
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF {AUD} -- OF
AUDIOLOGY ASSOCIATION AND ONE FROM
DIGITAL WIRELESS INDUSTRY AND THE HEAR
AGO INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION.
AS PAM ALLUDED TO BEFORE, WE ARE NOW
REGIONING NEGOTIATIONS.
WE CAME VERY CHOSE AND WE'RE SORRY AT
THE LAST MINUTE, NEGOTIATIONS FELL APART
AND AGAIN, I WILL I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT
LATER {URX} WHY THEY FELL APART, THE
FACT FORS BUT WE ARE GIVING IT A SECOND
FRY AND HOPEFULLY, WILL MAKE IT A
SUCCESS THE SECOND TIME AROUND.
>> NOW, KAREN BRINKMANN WILL DISCUSS
FCC'S GROWING INTEREST IN THESE TYPES OF
INFORMAL AGREEMENT AND DISCUSSION
BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND CONSUMERS AND ALSO
PROVIDE US WITH A BROADER PERSPECTIVE OF
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS RULEMAKINGS AND
PROCEDURE THAT IS ARE GOING ON AT THE F
C Y.
>> HANGS {PAFM}.
I JUST WANTED TO START EXPLAINING WHY
I'M HERE SINCE THE FCC WAS NOT A PART OF
THIS PROCESS INITIALLY EXCEPT PERHAPS IN
A INSPIRATIONAL ROLE.
>> MY {NAEMING} IS KAREN BRINKMANN,
ASSOCIATE LEAVE OF THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU OF THE FCC.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY{REK} LAYING THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY.
THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.
THIS IS A REGULATED INDUSTRY AND IT'S
GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF THE FCC AND
LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS.
SO, IT MAY BE USEFUL TO TAKE A STEP BACK
AND TALK ABOUT THE FCC'S INTEREST IN
DEALING WITH ARE GOING TORE PROBLEMS
THROUGH NONCONDITION CONDITIONAL METHODS
SUCH AS VOLUNTARY NEGOTIATIONS OR MORE
FORMAL NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING.
BUT BEFORE I TOUCH ON THAT, I THOUGHT I
WOULD STEP FURTHER BACK AND TALK FOR ONE
MINUTE ABOUT THE FCC WHO WE ARE AND WHAT
WE DO.
THE FCR IS A INDEPENDENT REGULATORY
AGENCY CREATED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS AND
AS SUCH, WE ARE GOVERNED BY THE
INSTRUCTIONS THAT CONGRESS GIVES US AS
TO WHAT OUR GOALS SHOULD {INTE} AND HOW
WE SHOULD CARRY THEM OUT.
IN GENERAL, AND THE COMMENTS I MAKE WILL
BE MY OWN OPINIONS AND NOT OFFICIAL WORD
OF THE FCC BUT, I CAN GIVE YOU SOME
FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT CERTAINLY IS
RELIABLE I HOPE.
I GUESS THE GENERAL GOALS ARE TO PROMOTE
TECHNOLOGY, DEPLOYMENT TO THE BENEFIT OF
ALL AMERICANS.
TO PUT IT MOST BROADLY.
THAT INCLUDES INSURING THAT NEW
TECHNOLOGIES CAN BE INTRODUCED BUT ALSO
TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE INTRODUCED IN A
WAY THAT ALL AMERICANS CAN TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THEM AND THAT BENNETT
AMERICANS.
SO WE HAVE A COMPONENT OF -- BENEFIT.
AND A COMPONENT OF PROTECTING CONSUMERS
AND MAKING SURE CONSUMERS WHO MIGHT NOT
OTHERWISE HAVE ACCESS TO THESE
TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES GAIN THAT
ACCESS AS NEEDED.
AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE A
RULE-MAKING ABILITY WHICH IS A
{LELINGTSES} LAYTIVE TYPE ROLE.
WE ALSO -- LEGISLATIVE TYPE ROLE, LIKE A
JUDGE, WE RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN PART
{E} TOS AND WE ALSO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE
FUNCTION OF ENFORCING OUR RULES AND MOST
PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR ROLE OF
ENFORCING INTERFERENCE BETWEEN PARTIES
USING RADIO FREQUENT SPILL {TRUM} AND
EXPECT FUNCTION.
SO ALL THREE OF THOSE ROLES ARE RELEVANT
TO THE TOPIC AT HAND TODAY.
WE ALSO COORDINATE VERY CLOSELY WITH A
NUMBER OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
I WILL JUST LIST THEM.
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES THAT
NECESSARILY ARISE OUT OF THE USE OF THE
RADIO {FRK} SPILL {TRUM}, WE CORD HATE
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, THE F C A {HAFMENT}
WITH RESPECT TO RADIO TORES AND -- FAA
AND THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION WHO
IS THE {HAEING} THAT REGULATES HEARING
AID.
WE ALSO COORDINATE ON CONSUMER
PROTECTION ISSUES AND FRAUD PREVENTION
WITH THE F T C AND THE SECURITYS AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
WE ALSO WORK VERY CLOTSLY WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND F T C ON
ANTI-{DRUFT} AND MARKET ISSUES.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE KEY AGENCIES
THAT WE WORK WITH.
TO THE FOCUS OF THIS PARTICULAR CHAIRMAN
IN PROMOTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS
TWO-FOLD.
ONE IS ENSURING THAT AS I MENTIONED TO
THE PROMOTION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND
SERVICES, OCCURS IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS
ALL CONSUMERS AND HE HAS WORKED VERY
HARD TO PROMOTE EXPANDING THE DEFINITION
OF WHAT WE MINE MEAN BY UNIVERSAL
{SKPRS} ACCESS.
HE IS FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE THAT THE
SOCIETY IN THE BROAD EVIDENT {SERNS},
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY BENEFITS FROM THE
INTRODUCTION AND PROVISIONS OF SERVICES
AND TECHNOLOGIES.
AS PART OF THOSE GOALS, I THINK THE LAST
THREE YEARS CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS A
TIME OF RAPID CHANGE AND DEPLOYMENT OF A
GREAT DEAL OF NEW SERVICES HAPPENING
VERY QUICKLY IN PART THROUGH THE USE OF
OUR AUCTION PROCESS WHERE BY, WE MAKE
SURE A MARKET FORCES AND NOT THE
GOVERNMENT ENSURE THAT THE PARTY WHO
VALUES OUR RADIO SPECTRUM MOST HIGHLY
GETS THE LICENSE TO USE IT.
WE DO PERFORM A CONTINUING CAN
MANAGEMENT ROLE OVER THE RADIO SPECK
{FRUM} BOTH FROM A SAFETY INTERFERENCE
SPANNED FORWARD AND ALSO, TO MAKE SURE
THAT LICENSEES OPERATE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, PROVIDE SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS
AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO UNDER OUR RULES.
WE DON'T PICK WINNERS EITHER LICENSING
PROCESS OR IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY
GENERALLY AS ROB ALLUDED, WE FOUND IN
HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY, THERE WAS A
LOT OF PRESSURE ON US AT THE BEGINNING
TO PICK A STANDARD TO FIND THAT ONE
STANDARD WAS BETTER THAN ANOTHER AND NOT
JUST BECAUSE OF {Z} HOW IT INTERACTS
WITH HEARING AID, BUT GENERALLY, A LOT
OF PRESSURE ON THE COMMISSION FIVE YEARS
AGO WHEN WE FIRST AUTHORIZED THIS
COMMUNICATION SERVICE WHICH ARE THE NEXT
GENERATION OF WIRELESS TELEPHONES TO
CHOOSE A TECHNOLOGY THAT WE WOULD THEN
PROMOTE AS THE NATIONAL IS STANDARD.
THIS WOULD NECESSARILY PICKING WINNERS
FROM AND LOSERS THEY NORMALLY DECLINE TO
DO THAT WHEN POSSIBLE.
SETS MINIMUM GUIDELINES FOR HEALTH,
SAFETY AND QUALITY AND BEYOND THAT,
ALLOWS OPERATORS TO DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY
AND IN NO VOTE IN ANY WAY THEY CAN.
AND WE DO -- INNOVATE, WE DO ENCOURAGE,
FLEXIBLE RULESS AS WE ARE GOING THROUGH
THE PROCESS OF AUTHORITY RIDING NEW
TECHNOLOGIES OR CHANGING THE RULES AS TO
EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES AND WE HAVE FOUND
OVER THE YEARS THAT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED
BEST WHEN INDUSTRY IS ALOUD TODAY
RESPOND TO MARKET DEMANDS AND NOT TO
SOMETIMES ARBITRARY DECISIONS BY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO DON'T ALWAYS
KNOW BEST.
SO THAT'S BY WAY OF BACKGROUND HOW THE
FCC OPERATES.
I WANT TO {MENINGTS} A COUPLE OF
PROCESSES THAT WE USE TO MAKE SURE THAT
ALL OF OUR PROCEEDINGS ARE WELL-BALANCED
AND INCLUDE THIS WIDE PARTICIPATION AS
POSSIBLE, THAT PARTIES HAVE ADEQUATE
NOTICE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PAR TISSUE NATE EXAMPLE
THAT WE MAKE ULTIMATELY, INTELLIGENT
DECISION.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT GOVERNS
EVERYTHING WE DO AS AN INDEPENDENT
SAYING AND UNDER THAT ACT, WE HAVE A
RULEMAKING PROCESS AS WELL AS ADD {JUD}
TORE OR JUDICIAL TYPE PROCESS THAT
REQUIRE TO US GIVE NOTICE OF WHAT WE ARE
ABOUT TO DO WHETHER IT IS RESOLVING A
DISPUTE OR ASKING ON A PETITION FOR
RULEMAKING LIKE THE ONE THAT {P} WAS
FILED LAST YEAR.
THE ADMINISTRATIONTIVE PROCEDURE ACT
PROCEDURES HAVE THE UNFORUNATE SIDE
EFFECT OF MAKING IT CUMBERSOME FOR SOME
GROUP TOSS PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROCESS.
THEY DO REQUIRE THAT PARTIES FILE ALL
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS WITH US ON AN OPEN
PROCEEDING IN WRITING.
THEY WIRE THAT IN MANY CASES COPIES OF
THEIR WRITINGS BE PROVIDE I HADED TO
EVERY OTHER INTERESTED PARTY.
IT IS {NETION} TO ENSURE A DECISION
MAKING THAT IS NOT UNFAIRLY BIASED {BIP}
BUT IT CAN BE CUMBERSOME.
SO IN THE BEGINNING IN THE 80'S,
CONGRESS ENCORE {RAUJTS} LEAD THE
ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE WHICH WAS AN
OR ORGANIZATION, ALEGAL ADVISORY GROUP
CHARTERED BY CONGRESS TO ADVICE
CONGRESS, ON PROCEDURE, THE CONFERENCE
AND CONGRESS ULTIMATELY, DEVELOPED
SEVERAL PROCEDURE THAT IS COULD IM{PROS}
UPON THE ADMINISTRATIONTIVE PROCEED DUCT
ACT AMONG THEM {URX} THE USE OF
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKINGS, WHICH HAS BEEN
ALLUDED TO.
THIS IS A PROCESS WHERE IF THE AGENCY
HAS A ESTABLISHED THE NEED FOR A RULE,
AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A LIMITED NUMBER
OF PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF
THE RULE, WE CAN CHARTER A NEGOTIATED
RULEMAKING COMMITTEE WITH ADEQUATE
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR BALANCE FOR
PARTICIPATION.
THAT COMMITTEE CAN DEVELOP A RECOMMEND
{DAX} TO THE COMMISSION WITHOUT HAVING
TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE PAPER PROCESSES
I HAVE DESCRIBED.
IT CAN MEET REGULARLY AND COME UP WITH A
PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSION.
ULTIMATE YOULY, THE FCC DOES STILL HAVE
TO ADOPT THE BEFORE THEY WILL BECOME
LAW.
IT HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF GETTING THE
PARTIES TOGETHER AND ENCOURAGING THEM TO
SHARE INFORMATION.
YOU HEARD FOLKS TALK A LOT CAN ABOUT THE
EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE PROS THAT HAS
GONE ON HERE.
FREQUENTLY, IN OUR WRITTEN RULEMAKING
PROCEEDINGS, WE DO NOT HAVE A
TREMENDOUSLY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE AT
THE FCC WE HAD COMMENT FROM ONE SIDE OR
ANOTHER THAT FAVOR A PARTICULAR
ARGUMENT, WE GET RESPONSES THAT COUNTER
THOSE ARGUMENTS BUT WE FREQUENTLY DO NOT
GET A LOT OF UNDERLYING TECHNICAL
INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS A PARTICULAR
FINDING OR ARGUMENT.
AND NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING TENDS TO
ENCOURSE {RABLTSES} PARTY TOSS SHARE
THAT UNDERLYING BASIC INFORMATION.
THAT IS VERY HELPFUL.
IT ALSO CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROCEEDING IS MORE BALANCESED TYPICALLY,
IN OUR RULEMAKING, WE HAVE A SMALL
NUMBER OF CONSUME WERE REPRESENTATIVES
PARTICIPATING WE HAVE A LARGE
PARTICIPATION FROM THE INDUSTRY,
OCCASIONALLY FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES BUT TENDS TO BY PRIMARILY THE
INDUSTRY WHO FILES COMMENT WITH US IN
RULEMAKING.
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING THE COMMISSION
MAKE AS SPECIAL EFFORT TO INCLUDE A
BALANCED PARTICIPATION ON THE COMMITTEE.
SO WE TEND TO HAVE AND I THINK KAREN
WILL AFFIRM THIS HAS HAPPENED IN HAIRING
AID COMPATIBILITY, WE TEND TO HAVE A
MORE BALANCED REPRESENTATION OF CONSUMER
MANUFACTURERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS AND
EVEN GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE THAT IS
WE MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE GET IF WE JUST
SAY A COMMENT ON A PARTICULAR RULE.
IS AND FINALLY, I GETS IF NEGOTIATED
RULE MAKE ASK TENDS TO PRODUCE A RESULT
THAT HAS ULTIMATELY MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN THE BUYING INTO IT.
SO WE TEND TO REDUCE LITIGATION AT THE
BACK END AND WE HAVE HOPEFULLY ACTION
PROCESS IN WHICH MOST PEOPLE SINCE IT IS
AN CONSENSUS PROCESS MOST PEOPLE
{HABL}LY THINK THEY HAVE COME OUT WITH
THE RESULT THAT THEY ARE HAPPY WITH
WHEREAS IN THE A PAPER PROCEEDING, THE
FCC TENDS TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION,
EITHER MAKING EVERY ONE A LITTLE UNHAPPY
OR ONE PARTY VERY UNHAPPY AND ANOTHER
PARTY HAPPY.
WE FRY TO DO IT THROUGH NEGOTIATED
RULEMAKING.
THE LAW REQUIRES TO US REACH CONSENSUS,
IT MEAN THAT IS ALL PARTY AGREE UNLESS
THE GROUP DESIGNEDS TO DEFINE CONSENSUS
ANOTHER WAY.
SO IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT PROCESS,
SOMETIMES VERY TIME CONSUMING BUT CAN BE
VERY BENEFICIAL.
ANOTHER PROCESS, IS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION.
WHEN WE HAVE HAVE DISPUTES THAT WILL
NORMALLY GO THROUGH HOUR JUDICIAL TYPE
FUNCTION, RATHER {HAN} GOING BEFORE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND HAVING
PARTIES PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND ARGUE AND
AND WITNESSES PARTY CAN A{GR} TO A
ADMINISTRATION RESOLUTION WHERE THEY
WORK WITH A MEDIATOR TO RESOLVE {THER}
DISPUTE AND IN FACT, CAN DRAMATICALLY,
SHORTEN THE TIME THAT THE LITIGATION
MIGHT OTHERWISE TAKE.
AND THEN, FINALLY THROUGH THROUGH IN
THROUGH THE FEDERAL AT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ACTS, THEY CAN CHARTER A AN
ADVICE ROA COMMITTEE AND NOT ON A
PARTICULAR RULE BUT JUST ON GETTING US
THE TECHNICAL THIS WAS THAT WE WOULD
OTHERWISE LACK.
A GOOD EXAMPLE IS OUR NETWORKING
LIABILITY COUNCIL WHICH IS NOW GOING
INTO ITS 6TH YEAR.
IT IS CHART {WHART}ED TO DEAL WITH THE
OUTAGE OF TELEPHONES WHICH HAS RESULTED
IN NOT ONLY RESOLUTION OF A NUMBER OF
THE OUT {SALTS} AND RELIABILITY PROBLEMS
BUT ALSO, ADVICE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH
SUCH DIFFERENT ISSUES AS GROWING
COMPETITION, NATURAL DISASTERS ACCESS OF
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES INTER {OP} PER
ABILITY OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY,
STARTING TO BECOME MORE MAINSTREAM.
SO THE NETWORK FOR LIABILITY COUNCIL HAS
A NUMBER OF ISSUES ON ITS PLATE.
IT WILL BE MEETING AGAIN THIS COMING
MONDAY FOR THE TWO BEGIN ITS THIRD
CHARTER {WRORT} OF WORK.
THEY FOUND IT VERY HELPFUL TO GIVE US
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.
THE FCC SIMPLY COULD NOT GET THE OTHER
WAY.
THOSE OF YOU FAMILIAR WITH STANDARDS
SETTING IN THIS COUNTRY KNOW IT IS A
PRIVATE PROS PROCESS.
AND OUR ABILITY TO TAKE {PING} ADVANTAGE
OF TO {KOUN} ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK IS
VERY {VAU} VALUED BY THE FCC.
SOLY STOP THERE.
>> JUST LOOKING AT MY WATCH AND SO THAT
WE DON'T MISS OUT ON ALL OF THE GOOD
INFORMATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND
ANALYSIS THAT HOUR PAN {NL} LIFTS HAVE,
HOWEVER BECAUSE I DID PROMISE A BREAK,
WE WILL HAVE A VERY QUICK FIVE MINUTES
BREAK AND WE WILL START BACK HERE RIGHT
ON THE DOT IN FIVE MINUTES.
>>> CAN WE GET STARTED AGAIN?
>>> NOW THAT WE PROVIDED YOU WITH
HOPEFULLY, A GOOD BASIC UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT WHAT THE SUMMIT PROCESS LOOKED
LIKE, WHAT WAS ITS GOALS, ITS HISTORY,
WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW IS FROM THE
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE PAN
PANELISTS PROVIDE YOU WITH THEIR
VIEWPOINTS AND AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER IN
THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THIS MODEL
WORKED.
WHAT WERE WERE ITS STRENGTHS WEAKNESSS,
WHAT WORKED, WHAT DIDN'T SO THAT YOU CAN
ALSO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT
ISSUE THAT IS YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH, YOU
CAN THINK ABOUT WHETHER THIS MODEL WOULD
APPLY TO THAT SITUATION.
WHAT I CAN I WOULD LIKE TO DO BEFORE WE
GET STARTED TO KICK OFF THE DISCUSSION
IS TO BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS IN A AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN
ISSUE THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, THAT YOU
CAN THINK ABOUT AND YOU CAN ASK
YOURSELVES AND IT'S THE QUESTIONS WILL
HELP YOU DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS THE BEST
MODEL FOR YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION.
SO FIRST, YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT DO YOU
HAVE THE RIGHT PARTIES AROUND THE TABLE?
DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE INVOLVED IN
EDUCATION, PROCESS, PART, OF THIS MODEL,
AND DO US HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE AT THE
NEGOTIATING TABLE?
ARE PEOPLE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE
ISSUE.
ARE THEY LEADERS IN THEIR PARTICULAR CON
{STIN} {YENT} SEE AND LASTLY, IF --
CONSTANT SEE, IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT,
ARE THESE INDIVIDUALS PARTIES AT THE
NEGOTIATING TABLE GOING TO BE ABLE TO I
GUESS IN CHICAGO WE USE THE WORD "CLOUT,
WILL THEY HAVE THE CLOUT TO BE ABLE TO
DIDN'T BACK AND TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM
SUSPECT {PORL}ING THE FINAL AGREEMENT IN
THE END?
THE NEXT THING YOU MAY WANTING TO ASK
YOURSELF IS IS THE POWERBALL PLANNED
AMONG THE PARTIES?
BECAUSE IF A GROUP HAS THE POWER TO GET
WHAT IT WANT ON ITS OWN, IT WILL GO
AHEAD AND DO IT AND NOT BE INVOLVED THAT
NEGOTIATING PROCESS.
NEXT IS THERE A NUMBER AS THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, IS IT
WORKABLE?
IT'S NOT VERY REALISTIC TO THINK IF YOU
HAVE A WHOLE {AUD} YES OF PEOPLE THAT
HAD HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF INTEREST THAT
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO BRING THEM TOGETHER
AND NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT THAT HAVE ONE
CAN LIVE WITH.
IS THE ISSUE ITSELF RIPE FOR DECISION?
IS THERE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON WHICH YOU
CAN BASE YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR
DECISIONS AT THE END?
AND ALSO, ARE THE PARTIES STILL KIND OF
JOCKEYING FOR POSITION?
ARE PEOPLE WATCHING MEDIA CAMPAIGNS?
ARE THEY THREATENING LEGAL SUITS.
IF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS ARE GOING ON,
THE DECISION MIGHT NOT BE READY TO BE
{OOD} DRESSED.
NEXT, DO ALL THE PARTIES BELIEVE THAT
THEY ARE GOING 0 BENEFIT FROM
NEGOTIATING BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT SOME
TYPE OF A DECISION WILL FROM INEVIDENT
ABLE?
OFTEN NEGOTIATIONS WORK BEST IF THE
PARTIES THINK IF THEY DON'T SIT DOWN AND
COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, THEN, SOMEONE
ELSE WILL COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR
THEM.
SO THERE IS SOME INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO
WORK TOGETHER.
NEXT: DO EACH OF THE PARTIES THINK THEY
WILL BE BETTER OFF AS A RESULT OF
NEGOTIATING AND THAN IF THEY DIDN'T
NEGOTIATE.
THIS COMES DOWN DO NOT ONLY THE PARTIES
PERCEPTIONS OR WHETHER THEY WILL BE
BETTER OFF, BUT ALSO, IS THE ISSUE
SOMETHING THAT CAN END UP IN A WIN/WIN
SITUATION?
WHAT WE FOUND AND KEPT SAYING OVER AND
OVER AGAIN WITH THE SUMMIT PROCESS, THAT
IT HAD TO BE {P} A WIN/WIN SITUATION,
THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO WORK IF ONE
PARTY THOUGHT THEY WERE THE BILLING BIG
WINNERS AND THE OTHERS FELT THEY WERE
THE LOSERS.
NEXT: DO THE PARTIES AGREE ON
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES?
IF HE DO ARE YOU DO, OFTEN, IT APPEARS
AS A GREATER POSSIBILITY FOR DIFFERERING
CON {STIN} {YENT} SEE TOSS COME TO
AGREEMENT.
AN EXAMPLE, IS THE NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
FOR HEARING AID COMPATIBILITY.
DURING THE PROCESS, ALL OF THE PARTIES
INVOLVED DECIDED THAT YES, AT SOME TIME
IN THE FUTURE ALL WIRE LINE TELEPHONES
SHOULD BE HEARING AID COMPATIBLE.
THEY DIDN'T SAY WHEN.
THEY DIDN'T SAY HOW IT WAS GOING OBEY
PHASED IN, BUT THAT WAS THE UNDERLYING
AGREEMENT THAT EVERY ONE INDUSTRY AND
ALSO, CONSUMERS COULD AGREE TO.
NEXT: ARE THE PARTYS WILLING TO MAKE
SOME {TRATED} OFFS AND SOME COMPROMISES?
IF UP PARTIES -- TRADE OFFS AND
COMPROMISES.
IF PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO MAKE SOME
TRADE OFFS, IF THEY ONLY STICK TO THEIR
INITIAL POSITION, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
HAVE A VERY POSITIVE NEGOTIATING
PROCESS.
AND THEN, LASTLY, DO ALL OF THE PARTIES
HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION
UPON WHICH THE FINAL DECISION IS GOING
TO BE BASED?
AND THAT I THINK IS ONE PLUS OF A SUMMIT
PROCESS IN THAT THERE IS THE EDUCATIONAL
PIECE AND ALSO WHEN IT IS WORKING RIGHT,
WITH THE WORKING GROUPS, THERE IS THAT
OPPORTUNITY FOR KIND OF A HE {VEL}ING OF
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SO THAT ALL
THE PARTIES ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL.
ASKING YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS, AND
THEN ANAL LEADING THE ANSWER WILL HELP
YOU -- ANALYZING THE ANSWER WILL HELP
YOU DECIDE WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR MODEL
IS RIGHT FOR YOUR SITUATION.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES HOWEVER, THAT A
PARTICULAR MODEL IS GOING TO SUCCEED IN
ANY SITUATION BUT IT MAY GET YOU A
LITTLE BIT CLOSER.
ALSO, I THINK HEARING FROM PEOPLE THAT
WERE ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS
WILL HELP YOU DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS
GOING TO BE APPLICABLE FOR YOUR
SITUATION.
SO NOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE
EXPERTS AND PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN
THE PROCESS IS AND FIRST, I HAVE ASKED
OUR TWO INDUSTRY PANELISTS, ROB AND
BARRY TO TALK ABOUT THE INDUSTRY'S
PERSPECTIVE ON THE SUMMIT PROCESS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> BARRY: I THINK THE FIRST THING WITH
NEED TO DO IS STEP BACK A MINUTE, LOOK
AT WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE SUMMIT
PROCESS.
AND REALLY WANTED TO CREATE A FORUM
WHERE WE COULD HAVE AN OPEN EXCHANGE OF
INFORMATION BETWEEN EXPERTS FROM THE
CONSUMER THE USER SIDE OF THE HEARING
IMPAIRED COMMUNITY, THE EXPERTS OF
HEARING AID, BOTH DESIGNERS AND
MANUFACTURERS AS WELL AS EXPERTS FROM
THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY, WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS, PHONE
MANUFACTURERS AS WELL AS CARRIER AND
OPERATORS OF WIRELESS SYSTEMS.
I THINK THE SUMMIT PROCESS ACCOMPLISHED
THAT WITHOUT A {DOUNL}.
WE WERE ABLE TO CONVENE AND PAM, I'M NOT
SYRUP OF THE NUMBER, BUT WE HAD WHAT,
150 PEOPLE APPROXIMATELY, AT THE SUMMIT
PROCESS HELD HERE IN WASHINGTON.
WE WERE ABLE TO ATTRACT -- WHAT I
BELIEVE WAS A TREMENDOUS BODY OF EXPERTS
REPRESENTING ALL OF THE AFFECTED
PARTIES.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THE SUMMIT
PROCESS STARTED OFF WITH A FULFILLING AT
LET ITS FIRST OBJECT TIP.
AS I HAD MENTIONED WHEN WE ESTABLISHED
THE WORKING GROUPS THAT WE HAD TO THEN
BREAK THIS GROUP DOWN INTO AREAS WHERE
YOU COULD FOCUS ON SOME OF THE EXISTING
WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE.
YOU HAD TO EVALUATE THE BODY OF
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT HAD BEEN
DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY AND ALSO HAD TO
IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE POINT DENTSAL
IMPACT OF YOUR R F ADMISSIONS ON HEARING
AID AND BY STANDARDS?
WE WERE ABLE TO BRING ALL THE KNOWN
ISSUES OF THE HEARING AID INTERFERENCE
AND BOY STANDING INTERFERENCE TO THE
TABLE IN DISCUSSION GROUPS AND BY
EXCHANGING INFORMATION FROM USERS, AND
CONSUMER INTEREST AND THE HEARING AID
AND THE WIRELESS MANUFACTURERS,
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE A LOT BETTER AND
THIN WERE ABLE TO {YFP} ROOT CAUSES.
UNTIL WE GOT -- TO UNDERSTAND ROOT
CAUSES.
UNTIL YOU GOT TO THE ROOT CAUSES YOU HAD
TO ADDRESS, YOUR ENGINEERS AND YOUR
TECHNICAL EXPERTS HAD UNTIL THEY
UNDERSTOOD THE ROOT CAUSES COULD NOT
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY COULD DO TO THEIR
PRODUCT TO HELP FOR INSTANCE THE PHONE
MANUFACTURER UNTIL THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT
THEY WERE DOING TO THE HEARING AID
COMPONENTS, WERE THEY ABLE TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURER, WHAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO
GO AND VICE VERSA.
SO IT WAS THIS EXCHANGE OR OPPORTUNITY
TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION.
IN A VERY OPEN FORUM, ALL THE WHILE
RECEIVING INPUT OF REQUIREMENTS FROM THE
USER COMMUNITY THAT AT LEAST FROM A WORK
{OING} GROUP PERSPECTIVE, I BELIEVE THE
PROCESS WORKED VERY WELL.
IT HAS SOME SIGNIFICANT STRENGTHS AND
SOME WEAKNESSS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO
BE AWARE OF.
FIRST OF ALL, IT DID BRING TOGETHER THE
EXPERTS.
AND THEREFORE, WE HAD EVERYTHING OUT ON
THE TABLE TO THAT WE WERE NOT REIN
{VEMENT}ING THE WHEEL NOR WERE DECISIONS
BEING MADE IN A VACUUM.
IN OTHER WORDS, HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS WERE NOT MANUFACTURERING
JUST THE BEST POSSIBLE HEARINGING AID
THAT WOULD FULL UNTIL THE NEED OF THE
HEARING IMPAIRED INDIVIDUAL, THEY WERE
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENVIRONMENT
WITHIN WHICH THAT HEARING AID HAD TO
{OP} {VAT} AND WHAT ELSE WOULD HAVE AN
IMPACT ON IT.
FROM THE PHONE MANUFACTURER, RECOGNIZING
WHAT IMPACT THERE RF WOULD CAUSE ON
OTHER DEVICES AND THIS IS A NOT ONE
LIMIT TODAY HEARING AIDES.
WE LOOK AT THIS IN ALL ASPECTS OF WHERE
IS THE PHONE GOING TO BE USED BECAUSE
ONE OF THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OFAL
WIRELESS DEVICE IS IT HAS TO {RAD} ATE
ELECTRO MAGNETIC ENERGY OR RF ENERGY IN
ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE.
WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO {RAD} ATE RF
INNER GO, WE DON'T HAVE A WIRELESS
INDUSTRY AND THE C C DOES NOT MAKE ALL
THE MONEY ON CONSULTING THE SPECTRUM
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GENERATE.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE ABLE TO
GET THE EXPERTS TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT HAS TO BE A STRENGTH.
I THINK THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH
IS THAT BECAUSE WE HAD ALL THESE EXPERTS
TOGETHER, WE WERE ABLE DO NOT REIN VENT
THE WHEEL.
WE DIDN'T HAVE TO TART AT BASE ZERO.
WE COULD UTILIZE THE INFORMATION LOOKED
AT, REVIEWED AND IDENTIFIED AND WE COULD
THEN IDENTIFY WHAT ELSE NEEDED TO BE
LOOKED AT AND TO BE WORKED ON.
WE ALSO THEN WERE ABLE TO SINCE WE HAD
ALL OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES AROUND THE
TABLE, ONE ABLE TO GET TO A COMPROMISE
SITUATION.
OF COURSE ON THE OTHER HAND THAT, ALSO
CREATES A WEAKNESS BECAUSE EVERYBODY
DOES NOT WALK AWAY VERY HAPPY AND
HOPEFULLY, YOU'RE JUST REALM CAN A
COMPROMISE WHERE EVERYBODY IS JUST A
LITTLE UNHAPPY AND NOT VERY UNHAPPY.
BUT YOU DO RUN THAT RISK.
I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER STRENGTHS OF
THIS IS YOU CREATED FORUM WHERE
EVERYBODY CAN PARTICIPATE.
IT WAS AN OPEN PROCESS.
ANYBODY THAT ADD AN INTEREST WAS ABLE TO
BE THERE AND HAD -- GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THE ISSUE.
I THINK FROM THE WEAKNESS SIDE, -- WHAT
WE GOT -- THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
BASE DECISIONS IN THIS ENVIRONMENT ON A
CONSENSUS CAN BECOME VERY, VERY SLOWS
AND TIME CONSUME {PK} PROCESS.
WHERE YOU HAVE EVEN WITHIN A AREA WHERE
YOU HAVE JUST PHONE MANUFACTURERS TRYING
TO DEVELOP A STANDARD, A STANDARD FOR A
NEW TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY OR
SOMETHING, THE PROCESS IS VERY SLOW.
NOW, IF YOU HAVE DIVERSITY GROUPS TRYING
TO GET TOGETHER TO REACH A CONSENSUS,
THE PROCESS BECOMES EVEN SLOWER.
AND IT ALSO CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET
EVERYBODY TO WORK TOGETHER AND TO MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON A COMMON GOAL
AND OBJECTIVE.
IT TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT TO KEEP THE
PROCESS FOCUSED ON THE END OBJECTIVE.
IF YOU CAN DO THAT THOUGH, YOU CAN MAKE
SIGNIFICANCE SUCCESS.
OF COURSE, THE OTHER WEAKNESS OF THIS IS
YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE A NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DIFFERENT AGENDAS AND
TRYING TO ONCE AGAIN, FOCUS ON THE GOAL
OF WHATEVER TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN
KEEPING THE SIDE AGENDAS OFF THE TABLE
AND OUT OF THE NEGOTIATING OR THE
CONSENSUS DEVELOPING PART IS -- CAN BE
VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE COCHAIRS.
I ALREADY MENTIONING TED ONE WEAKNESS
THAT SINCE DECISIONS ARE BASED ON A
COMPROMISE, NOT EVERYBODY WILL BE
TOTALLY HAPPY.
SO YOU CAN VIEW THAT ONE AS BOTH A
STRENGTH AND WEAK WEAKNESS.
ROB, DO YOU HAVE ANY {OOR} -- THAT FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE.
>> ROB: I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE
LUXURY OF TELLING YOU THESE ARE JUST MY
PERSONNAL OPINION AND HOT JUST THE
POSITION OF THE ASSOCIATION BUT IN MANY
RESPECTS, THEY ARE MY PERSONAL
OBSERVATIONS OF A SIGNIFICANT PART OF
THE PROCESS.
I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE TO HEART
A NUMBER OF THE CHECK LIST ITEMS THAT
PAM GAVE YOU IN TERMS TERMS OF LOOKING
AT THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS REALLY
CRITICAL TO WORK YOURSELF THROUGH MAKING
SURE YOU KNOW THAT THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND WHETHER THEY
ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO HOLD THEIR
CONSTITUENTS TO THE DECISION YOU REACH
AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE
NEGOTIATING ABILITY AND THE AUTHORITY TO
MAKE DECISIONS.
I CONCUR WITH A LOT OF STATEMENT THAT IS
BARRY MADE TOO ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS
IN MANY RESPECTS OF THE WORKING GROUP
PROCESS.
WE ALSO NEED TO RECOGNIZE I THINK AS HE
MENTIONED EARLIER WHEN YOU'RE DEALING
WITH A PROCESS LIKE THAT DOES TAKE A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF RE{SKPOURS} TIME,
YOU WILL RUN INTO A SITUATION WHERE A
DECISION MA MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE MADE
IN A ARTIFICIAL HALL TIME FRAME OR AS
QUICKLY AS SOME FOLK WOOS LIKE IT TO BE.
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SAW THAT AS CAR
MENDED, WE ENDED UP WITH -- KAREN
MENTIONED, WE FILED OUR -- THE
ENCOURAGING THING THE GROUPS CONTINUEDED
TO WORK FOG AND DISCUSS SOME OF THOSE
ITEMS THE REALLY TRY TO BRING IT TO
CLOSE SURE.
IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT STRENGTH, I
MENTIONED ONE OF THEM ALREADY TODAY,
THAT WAS THE KEY CRITICAL ROLE THAT A
FACILITATOR PLAYS.
YOU NEED SOMEONE WHO CAN LOOK AT THE
PROCESS FROM AN OBJECTIVE STAND FORWARD,
SOMEONE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY TO MAKE THE
PROCESS WORK.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M PURELY
NEGOTIATING FOR BARRY OR FOR SOMEONE
ELSE IN THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY, I CAN
COME IN AND SAY, YEAH, I REALLY, TOOK A
STRONG ATTITUDE IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS
AND I'M HOLDING FIRM AND I'M NOT GOING
TO BUDGET.
{Z} SOMEONE ELSE COULD TAKE THAT --
BUDGE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A FACE SIT TATE
FOR WHO HAS THE PRIMARY UT AND
EXPECTATION TO MAKE THE GROUPS WORK
TOGETHER, YOU CAN GET BY THAT INITIAL
SORT OF HARDLINE THINK {SKMING} REALLY
GET FOLKS WORKING TOGETHER.
SOMETHING THAT PAM MENTIONED, THAT I
THINK IS CRITICAL IS GETTING EVERYBODY
TOLL TABLE.
I THINK WE HAVE HAD THAT IN SUMMIT
PROCESS, WHERE PEOPLE BEGIN TO THINK
ABOUT A WIN/WIN APPROACH.
LOOKING AT IT WITHIN ABUNDANCE MENTALITY
AS OPPOSE TO A SCARCE TEE MENTALITY.
NOT THAT BOY {FRX} I WIN, ANOTHER GROUP
WILL LOSE, BUT THAT THERE ARE AREAS THAT
YOU CAN AGREE ON, AREAS OF OF
ACCOMMODATION THAT CAN BE REACHED WHERE
EVERYBODY COMES AWAY WITH SOMETHING AND
THINGS MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK HAS A TESTAMENT TO MEMBER {OS}
OF FOLKS WHAT THIS TABLE, THERE WAS THAT
SPIRIT THAT FOLKS HAD TO BEGIN WIN AND
THAT PAM BROUGHT OUT THAT HELPED THINGS
WORK.
{YPT} TO ARE HARSH A LOT OF THINGS THAT
BARRY THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE
FOCUS ON THAT EVERYBODY I THINK NEEDS TO
BE A WARE OF AS YOU BEGIN TO LOOK AT
THIS SORT OF PROCESS IS THE EXPENSE
INVOLVED.
TIME AND MONEY IS A TREMENDOUSLY
EXPENSIVE PROCESS.
PAM AND I CAN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THAT
LATER, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU ARE LOOKING AT
NOT JUST YOUR INDIVIDUAL TRAVEL EXPENSE
AND TIME {KPENS}, YOU'RE LOOK {INGT} AT
BRINGING IN ATTORNEYS TO HELP YOU OUT
AND LOOKING WHAT SECURING SERVICES OF A
FACILITATOR.
IT REALLY REQUIRE HAS TREMENDOUS
COMMITMENT AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
GOING IN THAT IT WILL REQUIRE SOME
SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCES ON YOUR PART.
MAYBE FOREGOING TO OPPORTUNITIES.
I THINK WITH RESPECT TO THIS SUMMIT
PROCESS, THAT EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE
REALIZE THAT IT WAS A CRITICAL AND
IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT MADE IT MUCH MORE
EASIER TO GET OVER SOME OF THOSE
HURDLES.
TOUGH MAKE AN ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE
YOU'RE DEALING WITH TO DETERMINE WHETHER
YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT AND
TO DETERMINE IF THE OTHER PARTIES
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS ARE ALSO WILLING
TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT BECAUSE IT IS
NOT GOING TO WORK THE ONE GROUP IS
REALLY PUSHING FOR IT AS PAM NOTED AND
ANOTHER GROUP DOES NOT NECESSARILY SEE
THE BENEFITS.
SO YOU REALLY HAVE TO BY SURE OF THAT
GOING IN.
THAT WILL BE THE CONCLUSION OF MY
STATEMENTS FOR NOW.
>> DON IN A AND KAREN?
>> DONNA: I GOT TO PICK UP ON SOME POINT
THAT IS {BR} REAND ROB MADE BUT PERHAPS
FROM A LITTLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
ROB JUST MENTION TED EXPENSE OF THE PRO
{E} {SES} LIKE THIS.
THAT IS INDEED THE CASE.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I THINK THAT
CONSUMERS REALLY FELT WAS THE IMBALANCE
OF RESOURCES THAT THE VARIOUS GROUPS HAD
IN THE PROCESS.
WE'RE A TINY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION WITH
AN ANNUAL BUDGET THAT IS A TINY TRACK
SHUN OF WHAT ANY ONE OF THESE COMPANIES
HEAD AND -- WE WOULD COME INTO MEETINGS
WITH OUR ATTORNEYS THAT HAD BEEN --
WHO'S TIME WAS BEING UNDERWRITTEN BY
ANOTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.
AND IN SOME CASESS I WOULD GO INTO A
PLEAT {SKMING} BE 15 LAWYERS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE.
THAT'S THE {KIPTED} OF ENVIRONMENT THAT
WE WOULD BE {OP} ATING IN.
LIKEWISE, WE WOULD HAVE SOME TECHNICAL
ADVISORS WHO WOULD BE DONATING THEIR
TIME BUT NOTHING LIKE WHAT WIRELESS CAME
IN TO THIS PROCESS WITH.
AND IT AT ONE POINT, WE REALLY FELT THAT
WE NEEDED INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL STUDIES
DONE AND HAD ASKED FOR RESOURCES FROM
WIRELESS TO DO THAT.
AT ONE POINT WERE DENIED THOSE
RESOURCES.
WE JUST COULD NOT PAY FOR THAT.
AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS WE DO
HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STUDY GOING ON NOW
THAT'S BEING FUNDED BY M ID R R OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO LOOK AT
INTERFERENCE BAY GROUP THAT IS NOT
BEHOLD ENTO ANYBODY THAT ARE NOT
CONSUMERS, NOT INDUSTRY.
SO WE REALLY FEEL THAT IN A PROCESS LIKE
THIS, THERE HAS TO BE SOME ALLOCATION OF
RESOURCES FOR CONSUMERS SO THEY REALLY
HAVE PARTY.
THAT'S REALLY BEEN A -- {PART} TEE.
I THINK IF INDUSTRY COMES IN, IN GOOD
FAITH AND WORKS WITH CONSUMERS WILL
NEEDS TO BY A PART OF MONEY PUT ASIDE
FOR CON {SAUM} ARES TO USE BECAUSE WE
OFTEN WERE PUT INTO THE POSITION OF
GOING BACK AND SAYING WE NEED TRAVEL
MONEY TO BRING CONSUMERS IN EXPERTS IN
AND THE PROCESS SHOULD NOT WORK LIKE
THAT.
I WAS BEING REAL CAN KILLED WITH YOU
ABOUT THAT REAL IMBALANCE OF
RERESOURCES.
WE ALSO REALLY BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE
SOME FORMAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE FCC IN A
PROCESS LIKE THIS AND KAREN WENT THROUGH
EARLIER SOME OF THE BUREAUCRACY
INVOLVED.
IF THERE IS A FORMAL FCC ROLE IN THE
PROCESS LIKE THIS, BUT THERE WERE TIMES
WHEN THERE REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SOMEBODY FROM THE FCC SITTING IN THE
ROOM, WE FELT.
AND IN SOME CASES WIRELESS AGREED WITH
US THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL
KIND OF PRESENCE TO HAVE HAD.
JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE SAID
THINGS, FCC COULD HAVE BEEN THERE TO
CLARIFY ISSUES.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY WOULD
HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO
DO THAT FROM THE BEGINNING.
ANOTHER ASPECT OF IT THAT WAS DIFFICULT
FOR US AND BOTH BARRY AND ROB ALLUDED TO
THIS, THE COMPETITION THAT EXIST WITHIN
THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY, WITH VERY DIVERSE
INTEREST THAT WERE THERE AT THE STABLE
EXAMPLE FOR US CONSUMER ARE, IT WAS
PRETTY EASY BECAUSE WE WERE REALLY
PRETTY MUCH TOGETHER ON WHERE WE
{WARNL}ED TO BE.
IN THIS THEIR CASE, THEY WERE ATTEMPTING
TO DEVELOP CONSENSUS WITHIN THEMSELVES
AND WITH US.
SO THAT MADE THE PROCESS DOUBLELY
DIFFICULT.
AND REALLY CONFUSING TO US BECAUSE YOU
DIDN'T KNOW WHO YOU WERING DEALING WITH
AND WHAT THE ISSUES WERE AND HOW YOU
WANTED IT TO COME OUT.
THAT WAS A DIFFICULT ASPECT OF THE PROS,
YOU WILL END UP WITH A SOME POSITIVE
THINGS ABOUT IT.
I AGREE WITH BARRY VERY MUCH THAT THERE
WAS A LOT OF LEARNING THAT WENT ON IN
THIS PROCESS.
PARTICULARLY ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE.
A LOST OF LEARNING ALSO ON THE PROCESS
SIDE, -- AMONG THE DIFFERENT PARTIES
ABOUT WORKING WITH EACH OTHER.
IN NEXT PHASE OF THIS, WE WILL PICK IT
UP AND GO BACK TO THE TABLE, I BELIEVE
THAT WILL HELP HIS COUNT THE CONSENSUS
AND REACH AGREEMENT.
SO THAT IS A VERY POSITIVE OUTCOME.
WE ALSO AS AN ORGANIZATION HAVE
DEVELOPED WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH
INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES AS A RESULT OF THIS
PROCESS AND FAIRLY EARLY ON IN THE
PROCESS PACIFIC GEL AND THEIR EQUIPMENT
PROVIDER ERICKSON DID MAKE A COMMITMENT
THAT WHEN THEY DELOW THEIR SYSTEM IN
CALIFORNIA, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
TELEPHONES THAT PEOPLE WITH HAIRING
AIDES COULD USE AND WE HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN A -- HEARING AIDES AND IN
TERMS OF {MRAP}ING WHAT THAT MEANS, IN
TERMS OF ACCESS.
THAT'S BEEN A VERY FRUITFUL KIND OF
RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO WANT
TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS THAT CONSUMERS
WANT TO USE TELEPHONES.
AND I HAVE INVOLVED US IN THE TESTING OF
THOSE PHONES REALLY OPENING THEMSELVES
UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON WHERE THEY ARE
IN TERMS OF PICKING THE PHONE.
SO THAT'S BEEN EXTREMELY POSITIVE
OUTCOME AND SOMETHING WE WANT TO TRY TO
CONTINUE TO DO WITH INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS
AND MANUFACTURERS AS THEY A{DEEMENT} TO
MOVE THIS ISSUE AIM LONG.
AND LASTLY, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE THERE
IS A COMMITMENT AMONG THE VARIOUS
PARTIES TO REACH AGREEMENT AND
HOPEFULLY, WHEN WE COME BACK TOGETHER
AGAIN, THE FIRST WEEK IN AUGUST, THAT
COMMITMENT {LP} SHINE THROUGH AND WE
WILL THIS TIME BE ABLE TO PRESENT ONE
POSITION TO THE FCC INSTEAD OF THREE.
I'M GOING TO PASS THE MIKE TO KAREN.
WHO WILL CONTINUE ON.
>> I'M GOING TO TRY DO NOT TO REPEAT
WHAT DONNA SHADE DID START WITH A
POSITIVE NOTE TO PICK UP WHERE SHE WEPT
OFF AND THEN GO TO THE NEGATIVE AND
HOPEFULLYED UP SOMEWHERE IN THE
MID-{DM}.
YOU'RE RIGHT, DONNA, PROBABLY, THE MOST
POINTS THINK THING TO SAY IS THE
NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUING.
SO WE HAVE NOT BROKEN THINK BONES THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN REPAIRED OR CAN'T BE
REPAIRED.
WE'RE STILL VERY OPT TO MISS PARTICULAR
THAT WILL BE A WIN/WIN SITUATION.
LET ME JUST TALK A LITTLE BY BIT ABOUT
WHAT WERE SOMETHING THAT IS MADE THIS
PROCESS A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CALL HEM
NEGATIVES BUT I SAY THAT WHAT I WOULD
LIKE TO DO IS COMPARE THIS PROCESS WITH
THE REGULATORY NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE HAD
AT THE F C Y FOR WIRE LINE.
THAT PROCESS YOU MAY KNOW WAS COMPLETED
ABOUT FINALIZED 3 WEEKS AGO.
WE COMPLETED GOSH {ARX}S LAST SUMMER AND
THEN, 3 -- NEGOTIATIONS LAST SUMMER AND
FCC ISSUE I HAD FINAL RULES BASED ON OUR
CONSENSUS PROPOSAL.
IT WAS A COMPLETE WIN/WIN SITUATION BUT
IT OF NOT ALWAYS LIKE THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD IN THAT
PROCESS THAT I THOUGHT WAS A LITTLE BIT
{MUR} KEY IN THIS PROCESS IS WE HAD A
DEFENDANT ISN'T LAW THAT WE NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENTS.
HERE, WE WERE KIND OF WAFFLING BETWEEN
TWO LAWS.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, AS DONNA
MENTIONED BEFORE, ONE WAS HEARING AID
COMPATIBILITY ACT OF 1988 AND THE OTHER
WAS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996.
AND THE REASON THIS WAS AN ISSUE AND TO
SOME EXTENT, STILL REMAINS AN ISSUE IS
THAT IN OUR PROPOSAL WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO BASICALLY IS HAND THE FCC
REGULATIONS THAT WE WANT THEM TO
PROPOSE.
THE {TAFERNDZ} {DARD} UNDER EACH OF
THESE LAWS ARE -- THE STANDARDS ARE
{DISM}.
THE OTHER ONES YO USES A READILY ACHIEVE
BELIEVE AND THERE IS SOME QUESTION THERE
TO WHICH LAW WE'RE GOING BY.
THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE IN THE REGULATORY
NEGOTIATION.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHICH LAW WE WERE
OPERATING UNDER.
THE SECOND THING HERE, WELL, THIS IS
PROBABLY TRUE OF THE REGULATORY
NEGOTIATION AS WELL, BUT THE TIME LINE,
THE TIMETABLE THAT WE WERE OPERATING
UNDER.
BY THE TIME THE STEERING COMMITTEE
ACTUALLY GOT DOWN TO THE NEGOTIATIONS,
THE ACTUAL SUBSTANTIVE NEGOTIATIONS, AS
I MENTIONING MENTIONED BEFORE, WE ONLY
HAD ABOUT 3 SESSIONS LEFT.
THAT SIMPLY WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE
REGULATORY NEGOTIATION, WE HAD IN 8 FULL
DAYS AND REALLY NEED A LOT OF TIME WHICH
ALSO LEADS INTO ROBERT'S COMMENT WHICH
IS THAT UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROBLEM WHERE
ANY OF THESE PROCEDURE, WHETHER INFORMAL
OR FORMAL NEGOTIATION IS THAT THEY ARE
INCREDIBLY TIME CONSUME GOING FOR PUBLIC
INTEREST ORGANIZATION, THAT IS ALSO A
NEGATIVE, ALSO A DISADVANTAGE TO TAKE.
WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TO GET
WHEN IT TAKES UP DAY AND DAYS, IT'S
DIFFICULT FOR US.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CAN SAFE US A LOT
OF TIME AT THE END, NOT HAVING TO FEND
DEFEND A POSITION IN LITIGATION.
SO IN THE LONG RUN, SIT WORTH THE TIME.
IT DOES TAKE A LOT OF RESOURCES FROM US.
WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THE TIMETABLE
WAS VERY SHORT AND SIMPLY TOO SHORT.
WE RAN OUT OF TIME AND HAD WE HAD SOME
EXTRA TIME, WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD
HAVE COME UP WITH SOME CONSENSUS.
THE PROBLEM WAS THAT NEITHER SIDE WANTED
TO SAY TO THE FCC WE NEED MORE TIME.
THEY -- THEY WATCHED SOMETHING AND WE
PUT THEM OFF A FEW WEEK AND FINALLY,
SAID, ALL RIGHT, LOOK WE HAVE TO
GO-AHEAD.
BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL NEXT TIME WE WILL BE
ABLE TO DO IT.
DONNA MENTION TED NEED FOR FACILITATOR,
PREFER {HABL}LY, THE F C Y THEY OPERATE
UNDER RESTRAINS AND CAN'T COME IN ON A
FORMAL BASIS UNUNLESS THEY FOLLOW
CERTAIN GUIDELINES BE THE FEDERAL
COMMITTEE FACTS.
THEY DELAY THE PROCESS FURTHER BECAUSE
YOU HAVE TO NUMBER {LIRB} ON IN THE
REGION {STHER} AND GIVE NOTICE AND
DELAYS THE PROCESS.
AND NO ONE WARRANTS TODAY DELAY THE
PROCESS.
WE KIND OF RUSHED INTO IT.
IN RETRO {SFEKT} AND BEHIND SIGHT, I
WOULD HAVE SAID, HAD I KNOWN HOW LONG IT
WOULD GO FORWARD, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
MADE SENSE TO INITIATE THAT FEDERAL
ADVISORY PROCESS.
I THINK THAT HAVING THE FCC AT THE TABLE
IN THE WIRE LINE NEGOTIATED RULE MAKING
WAS INVALUABLE.
HAVING SOMEONE TO PUT EITHER OF US, {EE}
THEIR SIDE, IN LINE WHEN WE GOT OUT OF
LINE WAS VERY, VERY HELPFUL.
HAVING SOMEONE TO SAY TO US, YOU CAN'T
DO THAT THE LAW WILL NOT PERMIT YOU TO
DO THAT OR YOU HAVE TO GO THIS ROUTE WAS
REALLY HELPFUL.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT HERE.
SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE HAD AT THE
NEGOTIATED RULE MAKING A LOT MORE
DISCUSSION AND A LOT LESS WRITING.
THE WRITING WAS DONE IN BETWEEN THE
MEETINGS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
HERE, THE WRITING WAS DONE NOR SOME
REASON, AT THE MEETINGS.
AND SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD
DEVELOP CLUSTERS, THE CONSUMER WOOS
DEVELOP A GROUP AND INDUSTRY WOULD
DEVELOP A GROUP AND WE WOULD KIND OF
LEAVE THE ROOM.
ONE GROUP WOULD LEAVE THE ROOM FOR ABOUT
3 HOURS.
SO THERE WAS A LOT LOVE WASTED TIME BY
THE OTHER SIDE.
THERE WAS NOT AS MUCH GIVE AND TAKE.
WE'RE HOME TOGETHER REMEDY THAT IN THE
SECOND ROUND AND HAVE A LOT MORE --
THERE WAS A LOT OF EDUCATION AND THAT
WAS DEFINTELY A PLUS.
IT IS CLEAR THAT INDUSTRY AND CONSUMERS
LEARN A LOT AT EACH POSITION IN THE
WORKING GROUPS AND UP TO THE STEERING
COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, THE POSITIONS THAT
WERE PER POUNDED BY EACH GROUP AT THE
STEERING COMMITTEE WERE NOT FULLY
EXPLORED.
WHY WAS IT THAT WE DIDN'T WANT EXTERNAL
DEVICES.
WHAT WAS REALLY THE CORE FOR OUR REASON
FOR WANTING ALL TELEPHONE TO BE
ACCESSIBLE.
WE DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO THE NITTY
GREET TEE OF THAT.
RATHER, IT WAS KIND OF PEN AND PAPER
BACK AND NORTH.
AND AGAIN, WE WILL TRY TO RESOLVE THAT A
LITTLE BIT.
LET ME SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE.
I THINK GENERALLY, WE DID HAVE THE RIGHT
PARTIES AT THE TABLE.
WE AM ADDED ANOTHER ONE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF THE SECOND TIME
AROUND.
AND WELL, SOME WHAT INFORMALLY, THE
WORLD INSTITUTE ON DISBILL {TOORX}, THEY
WILL BE A CONSULTANT AS WOMEN.
THE POWERBALL {LANSES}, I THINK THAT THE
REGULATORY NEGOTIATION WAS A BIT MORE
EQUAL.
THERE WAS AGAIN BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE
SET BY THE FCC {URX} IT WAS A LITTLE BIT
MORE BALANCED IN NOT HAVING A LOT LOVE
LAWYERS ALTHOUGH I'M HOPING AGAIN, THE
SECOND TIME AROUND, IT IS A LITTLE BIT
MORE BALL BALANCED.
I WANT TO {MNTION} ONE MORE THING
EXAMPLE THEN I'M DONE.
AND THAT'S THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS I DO THINK IT
WAS VERY MANAGE BELIEVE AND I COMPARE IT
TO ANOTHER PROCESS GOING ON WHICH I FEAR
IS NOT AS MANAGEABLE.
AND THAT IS THE ACCESS BOARD.
33 PEOPLE ARE SITTING AROUND THE TABLE
TRYING TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS TOSS MAKE
EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE UNDER THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT.
WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOW THAT GOES, BUT
YOU CAN TELL YOU IT IS A LOT HARDER WORK
WITH THAT NUMBER THAN IT IS WITH THIS
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING.
I DO THINK WE DO HAVE A WIN/WIN
PHILOSOPHY AT THIS POINT.
IT WAS REALLY A PLEASURE.
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT EVERY PARTY HAD THE
{DLOUT}.
>> NOT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND
ALSO ONE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT THERE
WERE SOME REPRESENTATIVE WHO IS AGREED
TO DO CERTAIN THINGS FOR FOR THEIR
CONSTITUENTS TO DO CERTAIN THING AND
THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR FCC TO ISSUE
RULE MAKING THOSE CONSTITUENTS CAME
FORWARD AND SAID, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO
DO THIS.
SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE PEOPLE AT THE
TABLE REPRESENT THOSE PEOPLE.
BUT, GENERALLY, I'M HOPING THAT THE
SECOND ROUND WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT
WHATNOT TO DO AND WE LEARNED ABOUT WHAT
TO DO AS WELL.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS WILL BE THE ICING
ON THE TAKE.
AND THAT WE CAN THEN PUT IT IN THE OVEN.
GIVE IT TO YOU.
>> LET THEM DO THE ICING.
>> THE FCC IS VERY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF
THE PROCESS OVERALL.
WE BEEN A REAL CHEERLEADER FROM THE
BEGINNING.
TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE PARTIES TO REACH
A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
TO THE PRESENT DAY WE HAVE DECIDED TO
WAIT ROUND TWO AND WE'RE VERY OPTIMISTIC
ABOUT THE OUTCOME.
THE REASON THE FCC URGED THE {PART}S TO
GIVE US THEIR REPORT EVEN THOUGH THEY
TOLD US THEY HAD NOT REACHED CONSENSUS
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION ANSWER TO MASTERS
AND WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THAT
PROCESS, THE VARIOUS GROUP, WE ALSO
ANSWERING TO {SKONS} AND OTHER GROUP
THAT WERE NOT AT THE TABLE WHO VERY MUCH
WARNEDED TO KNOW WHERE THIS ISSUE --
WHEN THIS ISSUE WILL WOULD BE RESOLVE.
WE HAD A PETITION FILED BY DONNA AND
OTHERS LAST SUMMER, COMING UPTON A YEAR
FOR US TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT
PETITION.
WE HAVE AN EXISTING STATUTE, THE HAWK
ACT AS WELL AS A NEW STAY {F} STATUTE TO
IMPLEMENT AND WE AT MY MOMENT ARE ASKED
BUT WE ALSO COULD BE ASKED FORMERLY TO
{SFONDZ} {STHO} CONGRESS SHALL AND
CONSUMER INQUIRIES WHAT IS THE FCC BOG
TO DO ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
SO IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FCC TO
GET A STATUS UP {ZMALT} AND ALTHOUGH WE
APPRECIATE THE PAYMENT AMOUNT OF TIME
THESE THINGS TAKE, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT
FOR US TO MONITOR WHETHER PROGRESS IS
BEING MADE.
AND WE DON'T {TWABT} TO INTERFERE WITH
{P} PRO BREAST IS BUT IF IT IS SHOT
BEING MADE, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE
COMMISSION TO STEP IN AND CHANGE THE
COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS OR THE
DISCUSSIONS.
SO THAT WAS THE REASON THE FCC PUSHED
NOR A REPORT AND GOT SEVERAL HUNDRED
PAGES OF VERY USEFUL INFORMATION IN MAY
AND I GUESS FOR US, THAT'S A CHIEF
DISRANG OF THIS PROCESS, IS THE F --
DISADVANTAGE OF THE PROCESS, WE THE FCR
IS NOT IN CONTROL, WE CERTAINLY DO NOT
GET TO DEFINE THE PROCESS, TIMING.
THE PARTY REACH CONSENSUS WHEN THEY
REACH IT.
{THALS} ALSO A DISADVANTAGE OF US BEING
IN CONTROL, THAT SOME TIME,, WE {PRB}
{FORB} RESULT BY THE ISSUE IS BRIGHT FOR
POSITION AND SOME OF OUR PAPER
PROCEEDINGS THAT HAS RESULTED IN SMALL
DISASTERS THE ORIGINAL HEARING AID ACT
WAS OVER THE COURSE OF RULEMAKING OVER A
COUPLE OF YEARS LESS THAN A MONTH {FT}
AREA THE RULES, WE HAD TO STAY PART OF
THEM BECAUSE THERE IS A TREMENDOUS OUT
OUTCRY FROM THE INDUSTRY WAYS WE HAD
COMPLETELY FAILED TO ANTICIPATE THE
COST.
THE COMMISSION THEN PROVIDED TO DO
NOTHING FOR TWO YEARS WHILE IT HOPED
THIS INDUCE {SMREE} AND CONSUMER GROUP
WOOS WORK OUT A SOLUTION.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
BUT IN ONE YEAR WE GOT INITIATED IN
RULEMAKING CONSENSUS WAS {REEKTS}ED ON
THOSE ISSUES.
SO IS THAT PROCESS CAN BE VERY POINTS
SNIFF AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
{EM} PAIN TIDES THAT PROCESS ALL HAVE
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGE AND THEY
WORK ATTORNEY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
WE ALSO HAD NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING THAT
HAVE NOT PRODUCED RESULTS.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO {EM} FACE {STHIDZ}
THAT THE FOUR NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
FORMERLY ENDED THE NEGLECT GRID {SAKT}
AS WELL AS THIS PROCESS, IN ALL FIVE IN
STATS, THE COMMISSION FEELS STRONG HE,
EXAMPLE THE PUBLIC HAS STAYED IT HAS
{MRO} DUSTED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION THAT IS WELL ABOVE THE
QUALITY OF {QOUN} TEE OF INFORMATION
THAT WE NORMALLY GET IN RULE MAKING
DECISIONS.
SO WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT
ASPECT.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE ON A TIME
ISSUE THAT ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES IT SEEMS
VERY TIME ON ASSUMING THE TOTAL TIME
FROM BEGINNING OF PROCESS TO END IF ONE
INCLUDES THE DECISION WHETHER TO EVEN
HAVE A RULEMAKING OF THE BY BEGINNING
PART OF THE PROCESS AS WELL AS THE
LITIGATION THAT TYPICALLY FOLLOWS
ISSUING RULES CAN ACTUALLY BE SHORTER
WHEN IT IS NEGOTIATED FROM LAST JUNE
WHEN THIS PETITION WAS ORIGINALLY FILED
AND THE F C Y WAS MADE AWARE THERE MIGHT
BE A PROBLEM FOR HEARING AID COME PAT
BILL KNEE AND DIGITAL WIRELESS PHONE
TOSS JUMP LAST MONTH WHEN IT WAS DECIDED
THERE WAS A SECOND ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS
THERE, THAT WAS A CHILDREN YEAR PROCESS
THAT WE THINK RESULTED IN FAR MORE
INFORMATION GATHERING AND EDUCATION AS
WELL AS SELLING IN MOTION THE SEVERAL
STUDIES MENTIONED TO DEFINE A STANDARD
FOR ACCESSIBLE LEVEL OF INTERFERENCE AND
TO DEFINE STANDARDS FOR SHIELDING THAT
WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED HAD WE SIMPLY
LOOKED AT THE PET NATION AND MADE A
DECISION THIS HAVE THE RULEMAKING OR
NOT.
AT THIS POINT, WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
COMMENTS ON THE PELT SESSION {P} MADE A
DECISION TO ISSUE A NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULE MAKING AND RECEIVE COMMENTS BUT I
THINK IT IS VERY REASONABLE TO GUESS
THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE
NEARLY AS MUCH INFORMATION AS IT HAS NOW
AND WILL HAVE BY THED OF THIS MONTH WHEN
SOME OF THOSE STUDIES ARE COMPLETED.
AND THAT THE PROCESS GOES AS WE THINK IT
WILL IN {AUK} AND SEPTEMBER, AND HOWEVER
MUCH TIME THE PARTIES END UP TAKING, WE
WILL ALSO GET A RESULT THAT WE WOULD NOT
HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH A RULEMAKING.
THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE REPEATEDLY
EMPHASIZED WITH ALL THE FOLKS HERE AND
WHO ARE INVOLVED THAT THE OUTCOME THEY
WILL ACHIEVE WILL BE ONE THAT ALWAYS OF
THE MEMBERS ARE INVESTMENTED IN, NOT
ONLY BECAUSE IT'S VOLUNTARY, BUT ALSO
BECAUSE THEY HAVE PUT A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF RESOURCE INTO ACHIEVING IT.
WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE IN THE
PAPER PROCEEDING.
THE PARTIES FREQUENTLY TAKE EXTREME
POSITION, IT IS AN ADVERSARIAL PROCESS
AND THE TICKLE RESULT IS PEOPLE SEEK
RECORRECTION FROM {ZPUS} REVIEW IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS ON ANY ISSUE THAT THEY
FELT FAIRLY STRONG HE DID NOT COME OUT
THE WAY THEY LIKED EVEN IF IN FACT, A
COMPROMISE POSITION IS NOT NECESSARILY
SOME THING THEY CAN'T LIVE WITH BUT IF
THEY THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
GET THE COMPROMISE STRUCK BY THE COME
{MIKTS}, OVERTURNED, THEY MAY TRY DO
THAT FOR BUSINESS OR POLITICAL REASONS.
THERE TENDS TO BE A GREAT DEAL OF
LITIGATION OVER EVERYTHING THE FCC DOES
THROUGH THE NORMAL ADVERSARIAL PROCESS
WHEREAS HERE, THE SEVERAL THAT HAVE BEEN
COMPLETED AND IMPLEMENTED, THERE IS NOT
A LOT OF LITIGATION OR PROCESS BY WHICH
WE DEVELOPED RULES FOR A NEW CLASS OF
SATELLITES.
ENDED UP RESULTING IN THE LICENSING OF
ALL THE PARTIES WHO PARTICIPATED, NO
PORTION FOR RECORRECTION AND NO APPEALS
OF OUR DECISION AND ALL OF THOSE EACH
TEES ARE NOW BUILDING SATELLITES DID
SOME OF THEM ARE ALREADY OPERATE
OPERATING.
WE THINK THAT IS A ADVANTAGE TO THIS
PROCESS.
FINALLY, ONE OTHER DISADVANTAGE WHICH I
WILL NOTE, THIS CAME UP, FOLK FROM THE F
C Q WHO WORKED ON THE HAIRING AID
COMPATIBILITY FOR WIRE LINE PHONES THAT
ALREADY A FEW THINGS THAN NEGOTIATED
OUTCOME THAT THAT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT
FOR THEM TO DEFEND SHOULD THERE BE AN
APPEAL.
SO ONE DISADVANTAGE FOR STUDENTS THAT
CONSENSUS IS SOMETIMES MESSY.
IT MAY BE THAT THE PARTIES COME UP WITH
IT AND OUTCOME ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE
BECAUSE IT'S TIME TO COMPROMISE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO. WE THINK
THAT'S GREAT BUT SOME TIME, WE HAVE TO
GO TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND EXPLAIN
THAT DECISION SO ANOTHER PARTY SEEKS
REVIEW, PARTICULARLY ONE THAT WAS NOT
PART OF THE PROCESS.
SO THAT CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US
FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
WES ALL HOPE THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
SIT ONE OF THE REASON YES IT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THE INTERESTED
PARTIES AT THE TABLE AND ONE OF ONE OF
THE REASON THAT IS THE NEGOTIATED RULE
MAKING ACT REQUIRES US NOT DO AN
NEGOTIATED PROCESS UNLETTERS WE CAN
IDENTIFY A LIMITED NUMBER OF PARTS WHO
ARE POSSIBLE GOING TO -- THAT IS JUST
ANOTHER CAUTION.
THAT'S ALL.
>> AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD LIKE TO
ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTION THAT IS YOU MAY
HAVE THAT IF YOU COULD WHEN YOU HAVE A
QUESTION, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND IF YOU
HAVE A PARTICULAR PRESENTER THAT YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION, LET US
KNOW WHO THAT IS.
>> YES, JEFF IS THE NAME TO KAREN THE
LAWYER, I FORGET YOUR NAME.
>> YOU WHICH ONE, YOU HAVE TWO KARENS.
>> THE OTHER ONE NOT FROM THE F C Y.
>> I WILL.
>> YOU POINTED OUT THAT YOU ARE SO CLOSE
TO CONSENSUS BUT DIDN'T ELABORATE AS TO
WHAT FELL SHORT.
MY QUESTION IS: WHAT WERE THE OUTCOMES
AND THE RESULTS OF THE SUMMIT AND A
SECOND QUESTION, ANY AND ALL OF {YOURX}
HOW TO DISCUSS AND THAT IS WITH THE USE
OF P C S TECHNOLOGY AND ERICKSON IN
PARTICULAR, THEY LOOK TO G S M
TECHNOLOGY FOR THEIR BROADCAST,
TRANSMISSION TO BE DONE, THE POSSIBILITY
OF USING A DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY, CAN
THAT HELP TO ALEAVE ATE PROBLEM {ZS}
BRING SOLUTION TO THE ISSUES?
>> WELL, IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST
QUESTION, WE CAN {STRIKTS}LY INSTRUCTED
TODAY NOT TO GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF
WHAT OUR CONSENSUS OR OR NONCONSENSUS
WAS BECAUSE WE ARE STILL GOING THROUGH
THE NEGOTIATIONS.
SO I HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT.
BUT, I MENTION BEFORE SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE DID DISCUSS LIKE WHETHER ACCESS
HAD TO BE BUILT IN VERSE EX-STERNNAL,
WHETHER ALL PHONES NEEDED TO BE
ACCESSIBLE OR A RANGE OF PHONES.
THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT WERE MADE.
WHAT WE DID AGREE ON WERE AS THE
EDUCATION PLAN, FOR THE HOST PART, I
THINK AGREED ON WHO WOULD BE DOING THE
INTERFERE REINS STUDIES.
WE GENERALLY AGREED ON THE DATES OF THE
INTER REMEMBER PROPOSALS AND THE FINAL
PROPOSALS.
BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CONTACT ME
OR PAM I DON'T KNOW, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
OR SO.
WE CAN GIVE {TU} FINAL OUTCOME AND I
WOULD LIKE TO PASS IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE
WITH RESPECT.
TO THE SECOND QUESTION.
>> I CAN RESPOND TO THAT.
>> BARRY: THE RESPONSE IS THAT EARLY ON
IN THE PROCESS, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT
AT THE OPENING SUMMIT, THE ISSUE IS NOT
A ISSUE OF TYPE OF ACCESS TECHNOLOGY.
THE ISSUE IS ONE OF DIGITAL TRANSMISSION
AND ALL PROPOSED P C S TECHNOLOGY THAT
IS -- THAT WILL BE DELOWED IN 19 MEG
HURTS AS WELL AS DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY BEING DE{MRYD} IN THE 80 MEG
HURT CELLULAR BAND DO HAVE THE POTENTIAL
OF CREATING INTERFERENCE WITH HEARING
AID DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF HEARING
AID, THE LOCATION TO THE BASE STATION AS
WELL AS THE TYPE OF PHONE AND TECHNOLOGY
YOU'RE USING.
SO IT IS NOT A {TIN} OF TECHNOLOGY WE'RE
DEALING WHERE OTHER THAN A DIGITAL POST
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS {KREE} A ATED IN
INTERFERENCE, THAT'S WHAT IS BOOING
DEALT WITH.
ALL TECHNOLOGIES ARE INCORPORATED IN THE
TESTING PLANS THAT WILL BE CONDUCTED TO
PROVIDE INPUT TO THE STANDARDSATION
PROCESS.
I HOPE THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>> YES, I DOES.
>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK TO THE
QUESTIONS ARE FED INTO THE AUDIO LOOP SO
PEOPLE CAN USE THEIR T COILS, IF YOU
HAVE A QUESTION, I'LL STAND UP HERE AND
IF YOU CAN COME UP AND ASK YOUR QUESTION
INTO THE MICROPHONE.
AND.
IF YOU WOULD COME UP HERE AND ASK YOUR
QUESTION.
THANKS.
>> I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A NAIVE
QUESTION, BUT, IN TERMS OF HEARING AID
COMPATIBILITY, I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS
-- I HAVE NOT HEARD MUCH SAID ABOUT THE
RESPONSIBILITY OR FROM THIS POINT ON
ABOUT HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS.
THEY WERE INVITED TO THIS.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS TALK OR IF
YOU'RE INVESTIGATING WHETHER OR NOT
HEARING AIDES WILL NEED TO HAVE CERTAIN
TYPES OF CHANGE CHANGES IN THEM EXAMPLE
IF SO, IS IT ECONOMIC FEASIABLE TO DO
RETRO FITTING ON EXISTING HEARING AIDES.
>> I {WONTSES} TO ANSWER MAKE A POINT
ABOUT THE PROCESS AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL
HAVE TO ANSWER THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
THE ONE OF THE OTHER ADVANTAGES OF A
VOLUNTARY PROCESS IS THAT WE CAN BRING
IN PEOPLE, WE OTHERWISE CANNOT COMPEL TO
COME BEFORE US AND PARTICIPATE IN OUR
PROCEEDINGS.
ONE OF THE GREAT ADVANTAGES OF THIS
PROCESS WAS THAT IT DID INCLUDE THE
HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS AND
AUDIOLOGIST AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE
OTHERWISE EXPECTED TO HEAR FROM IF WE
HAD TO THE DONE A TRADITIONAL RULEMAKING
PROCEDURE.
>> BARRY: LET ME ADDRESS THE HEARING AID
ISSUE.
THE HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS AND ALONG
WITH THE HEARING AID INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN
ALL OF THE {SOUMENT} PROCESS AS WELL AS
WORKING GROUPS.
THEY ARE ALSO VERY ACTIVE AND IN THE
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT OF THE N C 63
COMMITTEE THAT I MENTIONED, ONE OF THE
MAJOR HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS
COCHERRY, THE EFFORT.
SO THAT DR. DR. THE QUESTION ABOUT RETRO
FITTING, THAT DEPENDS ON THE HEARING
AID, THE TIME OF AID, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU
RETRO FIT, IT CAN BE COSTLY DEPENDING ON
THE TYPE OF RETRO FITTING IF YOU'RE
TRYING TO INCREASE THE IMMUNITY OF THE
HEARING AID.
SOME OF THE WORK GOING ON BY THE TASK
GROUPS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE LONG
TERM GROUP ARE LOOKING AT MODIFICATION
OF COMPONENTS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF
HEARING AID PRODUCTS THAT WILL BE
AVAILABLE.
SO THAT IT'S A CHANGING PROCESS AND IT
CONTINUING PROCESS ON BOTH THE PHONE
MANUFACTURERS SIDE AS WELL AS THE
HEARING AID MANUFACTURER'S SIDE.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I THINK ONE OF
THE MAJOR BENEFITS THAT WHAT WAS A
PRODUCT OF THE WHOLE SUMMIT PROCESS HAS
BEEN THE PARTICIPATION AND CONTINUING
PARTICIPATION OF THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURERS ALONG WITH THE DIGITAL
MANUFACTURERS.
WITHOUT THAT, WITHOUT THEIR
PARTICIPATION, I WOULD NOT FEEL AS
OPTIMISTIC AS THAT WE'RE HAVING HALF THE
SUCCESS.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.
PAM.
BARRY, CAN I JUMP ADD SOMETHING, THERE
ALSO IS A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SIDE OF
THIS ISSUE AND THE HEARING AID INDUSTRY
SIDE WHERE THERE IS A REGULATORY BODY
THAT'S VERY INTERESTED IN WATCHING THE
PROGRESS AND THERE ARE TWO POINT THEY
TENTSAL PIECES OF OUT {STBDZ}ING
LEGISLATION THAT -- THAT THE
INCOMPATIBILITY PROBLEM COULD FIT UNDER.
THERE IS REALLY NO OUTSTANDING
LEGISLATION OR RULEMAKING PROCEDURE THAT
IS WOULD REQUIRE THE HEARING AID
MANUFACTURER TOSS MAKE THEIR HEARING
AIDES MORE IMMUNE OR IS SHIELD THE
HEARING AID.
SO IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, THERE IS
NOT AS -- THERE IS NOT A REGULATORY OR
LEGAL IMPETUS TO PUSH THEM TO DO IT.
IT IS ALL VOLUNTARY WHAT THIS POINT.
>> DONNA: WHAT PAM SAID IS CORRECT.
THE FDA HAS BEEN AN OBSERVER OF THIS
PROCESS.
AND IS REALLY A LITTLE UNCLEAR ABOUT
WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO BECAUSE THERE'S
ALSO BEEN CANDIDLY, SOME LOBBYING ON THE
PART OF THE HEARING AID INDUSTRY TO EVEN
REMOVE SOME OF THE AUTHORITY THAT THE
FDA HAS RIGHT NOW OVER HEARING AIDES.
SO IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE IT'S GOING TO
COME DOWN.
CANDIDLY, CONSUMERS WERE DISAPOSSIBLED
AT THIS UNWILLINGNESS OF THE INDUSTRY TO
COMMENT TO ANY TIME LINES ABOUT WHEN
THEY WOULD BEGIN TO INITIATE THESE
CHANGES.
THERE IS AN EFFORT TO STUDY THE PROBLEM
BUT NO ONE MANUFACTURER EVEN THE FOUR
MANUFACTURER THAT IS HAVE BEEN DEALING
WITH THIS ISSUE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS
HAS THE YET GUN TO {MOD} {SNI} AND
REENGINEER HEARING AIDES.
SO WITH REALLY TOOK THE PERSPECTIVE THAT
WE WANT TIME LINES, PEOPLE TO BEGIN TO
MAKE COME ADMITMENTS ABOUT WHEN THEY ARE
GOING TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE {P} HEARING
AIDES.
AS IS ALWAYS THE CASE, INDUSTRY WILL TRY
TO WAFFLE ON WHEN THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY
MAKE THOSE KINDS OF CHANGES AND BEGIN TO
PUT THOSE INTO PLACE.
>>> DONNA, THAT'S WHERE I EMPHASIZE MY
OWN OPINION, THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSUMER
EDUCATION WHICH IS ONE OF THE PIECES OF
YOUR SOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE ALL
A{GREELD} ON TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON.
THAT WE'RE CHANGING CANNOT BE FORCED
LEGALLY, THEY SECRETARYLY CAN BE
ACHIEVED THROUGH CONSUMER PURCHASING
MOTION.
>> NEXT QUESTION.
>> IT IS NOT A QUESTION, A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, I AM THANKFUL THAT THIS
TASK FORCE OR GROUP HAVE NOT RUSHED INTO
ANY FINAL DECISIONS.
AND THEY HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT THEY
{RO} NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT WHICH IS
IN THE PAST, AND A LOT OF LAWS PASSED
HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE.
IT WAS EITHER PASSED AND HOT FOLLOWED UP
WITH STRINGENT REGULATIONS.
WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING
ENFORCED.
SO I'M HAPPY THAT THIS SUMMIT IS TAKING
THE TIME TO LOOK AT THESE LAW {STS} LOOK
AT WHAT HAS TO TO BE IN THEM TO MAKE
HOME NOT A MANDATE BUT A VOLUNTARY
WORKING TOGETHER OF THE DIFFERENT GROUPS
AND WE SEE THIS IN OTHER AREAS THAT THE
GROUPS ARE BEGINNING TO COME TOGETHER
AND DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE.
SECONDLY, I HOPE THAT THE {SKORNDZ}
ROUND OF TALKS IS MORE IN THE AREAS OF
EXPENSE TO CONSUMERS.
IF THEY HAVE THIS IN PLACE, AND IT IS SO
EXPENSIVE THAT THE CONSUMERS CAN'T
AFFORD TO PURCHASE IT, IT IS NO GOOD FOR
{EM} THEM TO SET THE RULES.
>> I KNOW WE ARE SHORT ON TIME.
WE WITH REGARD TO EXPENSE, THAT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF THE ISSUES FOR
CONSUMER TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER
SOLUTION COMES OUT OF {H} IS NO MORE
COSTLY FOR DON ASSUMERS WITH HEARING
LOSS THAN IT IS FOR CONSUMERS WITHOUT
HEARING LOSS.
>> YES?
>> I'M WITH A F AND T WIRELESS SERVICES
AND I WOULD I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
FIRST, I WANTED TO ASK DONNA, I
UNDERSTAND THAT DONNA, I WANTED TO ASK
YOU MORE ABOUT THE EDUCATION SITUATION?
I KNOW THAT PART OF THE LONG TERM GROUP
CAME UP WITH OR MAYBE IT WAS THE SHORT
TERM GROUP, CAME UP WITH SOME IDEAS FOR
EDUCATING CONSUMERS AND I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET
INFORMATION OUT TO THE CONSUMERS AND I
STARTED WORKING WITH C T I A, I KNOW
THEY CREATED WEB SITE BUT THAT IS NOT
NECESSARILY SOMETHING ACCESSIBLE TO ALL
PEOPLE.
SO I AM HOPING TO CREATE A SIMPLE
BROCHURE THAT WE CAN PUT THEIR LOGO AND
OUR LO GO AND WE CAN GET THE BROCHURE
OUT TO CONSUMERS AND I'M HOPING OTHER
SERVICE PROVIDER THERE IS BE ABLE TO USE
THE SAME BROCHURE.
WHAT ARE SOME OTHER THING THAT IS WITH
AS SERVICE PROVIDERS CAN DO TO GET
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS OUT TO THE
CONSUMERS SO THEY CAN BE {PAURT} OF OF
THE PROCESS?
THAT IS A VERY GOOD {SQE} AND VERY
DIFFICULT ONE.
AS THE DIRECT TORCH OF AN ORGANIZATION,
THAT TRIES TO REACH PEOPLE WITH HEARING
LOSS ALL OVER THE CON COUNTRY, I KNOW
HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO REACH PART HARD
OF HEARING PEOPLE.
THEY DON'T CLUSTER TOGETHER.
AND SO THEY ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH.
SO, WHEN WE TRY TO REACH PEOPLE, WE FIND
THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REACH
THEM IS THROUGH THEIR HEARING CARE
PROVIDER.
THAT'S THE ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR.
IF SOMEONE WEAR AS A HAIRING AID, THEY
ARE PURCHASED FROM AN AUDIOLOGIST OR
HEARING AID SPECIALIST.
SO I THINK THE PROBABLY, THE BEST WAY TO
REACH PEOPLE GENERALLY AND I'M SAYING
THIS AS THE DIRECTOR OF CONSUMER
ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE
TO REACH PEOPLE GENERALLY.
I KNOW {EK} REALLY ONLY REACH 20,000
PEOPLE THAT ARE IN SOME WAY AFFILIATE WE
HADSS AND MAYBE PICK UP ANOTHER -- SHHH
AND MAYBE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS SO I THINK
THE BEST WAY TO REACH PEOPLE IS THROUGH
{AUD} OLD {ZPIFT} AND THROUGH HEARING
AID SPECIAL LIFT.
THAT IS -- THAT IS THE REASON THEY WERE
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS SO WE HAVE A
MECHANISM TO REACH PEOPLE THAT ARE
COMMITTED TO DOING THAT.
WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO DO.
MOST AUDIOLOGISTS DON'T KNOW VERY MUCH
ABOUT THIS ISSUE AT ALL.
AND A LOT OF THE INDUSTRY LIT SURE SO
FAR IF YOU PICK UP THE LITERATURE FOR
PHONES HERE IN THE WASHINGTON AREA, THEY
TELL TO YOU GO TALK TO YOUR HEARING CARE
PROVIDER WHO AT THIS POINT WILL KNOW
NOTHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
SO {URX} I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK THAT
WE GOT -- WE HAVE A WEB SITE NOW AND KEY
WORDS WILL CALL IT UP, IF YOU ASK FOR
HEARING LOSS OR AID, YOU YOU CAN FIND
IT.
SO CERTAINLY, WE WILL PUT INFORMATION ON
OUR WEB SITE BUT I THINK THE BEST WAY TO
DO THIS IS WE GOT TO MAKE A REALLY
CONCERTED {SKPVRTS} CONSUMERS NEED BE
{LFLD} AND INDUSTRY, AND WE NEED TO
DEVELOP REALLY GOOD MATERIAL THAT WE ALL
FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.
IT NEED {OS} BE THROUGH HEARING AID
DISPENSERS, I THINK SO.
>> BARRY, AS A CELLULAR PHONE
MANUFACTURER, I KNOW THAT YOU AND
ERICKSON HAVE START WORKING ON SHORT
TERM SOL SOLUTION AND I KNOW YOU WILL
THAT FOR OUR T A PHONE AS {WREM}.
BUT AS A SERVICE PROVIDER, WHAT WAS IT
THAT ENCOURAGED TO HELP ON THE SHORT
TERM SOLUTION {UX} BAND WAGON QUICKLY?
WHAT CAN WITH WE DO AS SERVICE PROVIDERS
TO TRY TO GET SOME OF THE OTHER
MANUFACTURERS TO DO THE SAME INSTEAD OF
WAITING FOR THE EQUIPMENT TO COME OUT?
>> SOMETHING MUST HAVE INFLUENCED YOU TO
GO {HA} {STHAED} START MAKING
MODIFICATIONS?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS, YOU
KNOW, ERICKSON HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMITED
TO QUALITY PRODUCTS FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS.
WE ALSO HAD THE FIRST SYSTEM HERE IN THE
P C S 1900 SYSTEM, DELOWED FOR A P C, IT
WAS THEREFORE A SYSTEM GETTING A LOT OF
ATTENTION FROM DONNA AND THE SELF-HELP
FOR HARD OF HEARING.
IT WAS UNDER THE NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT.
WE WERE ALSO UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE IN
CALIFORNIA TO OBTAIN ZONING AND SIDE
SITE APPROVALS AND THE IN DIS{TREER},
THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY, {WBL} TAKING SOME
UNFAIR CRITICISM AND AND WERE REALLY
SPLITTING THE INDUSTRY AND SPLINTERING
THE INDUSTRY BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY BATTLE
WHEN THE REAL BATTLE WAS A DIGITAL
WIRELESS BATTLE.
AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE FELT WE HAD TO STEP
FORWARD AND MAKE SOME COMMITMENTS TO THE
INDUSTRY ON A WHOLE AND DEDICATE
RESOURCES TO WORKING THROUGH THE
INDUSTRY WITH THE EFFECTED PARTY AS WELL
AS WITH THE HEARING AID MANUFACTURERS
AND EVERY OPERATOR THAT WE CAN GET
INVOLVED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
HOW DO YOU FOCUS WITH OTHER?
YOU AS OTHER CARRIERS ARE ALSO MAKING
PURCHASE DECISIONS FROM MANUFACTURERS.
IT'S THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE WAY.
AT LEAST IT GETS THE ATTENTION OF SOME
MANUFACTURER ARE.
>> IS THERE A BETTER ANSWER.
>> JUST TO ADD, I DO THINK IT IS A
REALITY THAT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, THE
ACCESS BOARD WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF EQUIPMENT GUIDELINES FOR SECTION 255
THAT I WOULD GUESS THAT THERE IS GOING
TO BE SOME LOOKING WHAT DIGITAL WIRELESS
PHONES AND HOW TO MAKE THOSE MONTH MORE
ACCESSIBLE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
ERICKSON WILL HAVE A MARKET ADVANTAGE AS
WILL YOU KNOW, AND THEY WILL HAVE
EQUIPMENT OUT THERE IN THE FIELD BEING
TESTED AS WILL ANY OTHER PROVIDER AND OR
MANUFACTURER WHO GETS THEIR EQUIPMENT
OUT BEFORE THE GUIDELINES.
>> IF I CAN EXPAND AND PICK UP ON ONE
OTHER POINT THAT I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN
MADE TODAY: WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVOLUTION AND A
CONVERSION TO DIGITAL AND DIGITAL
WIRELESS.
AND IT'S MOVING A LOT FASTER I THINK
THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT.
I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS MOVED A LOT
FASTER THROUGH THE AUCTION PROCESS AND
LICENSES AND THERE IS A DESIRE TO ENSURE
THAT WE GET THROUGH THIS REVOLUTION
SUCCESSFULLY FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF
WIRELESS.
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON SOLVING THIS DIGITAL
WIRELESS PROBLEM.
IT IS A BRAND NEW -- IT IS A NEW
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S BEING DEMYED AND WILL
PROVIDE A LOT OF BENEFIT TO A LOT OF
CONSUMERS AND THEREFORE, IF THERE ARE
SOME ISSUES, THEY NEED TO BE DEALT WITH
JUST AS WE DEALT WITH ISSUES OVER THE
PAST.
EVERY TIME A NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES IN,
SOMETHING CROPS UP THAT YOU HAVE NOT
DEALT WITH.
THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD STOP
DEMYING BUT SHOULD MAKE SURE EVERYBODY
HAS AN OPPORTUNITIES TO UTILIZE THE
SERVICE.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS OUR LAST QUESTION.
>> I STEP YOU HAD OUT FOR A FEW {NINTS}
AND I'M SORRY, BUT I DID WANT TO SAY
THAT IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS, ONE
WEAKLING IS THERE AND WILL CONTINUE BE
THERE IS WHEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE LIKE THIS
WHERE THE TECHNOLOGIES ARE FOREIGN TO
CONSUMERS, AND THERE IS INADEQUATE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM PEOPLE,
TECHNICAL EXPERTS, WHO ARE JUST ON THE
CONSUMER SIDE WHERE IT IS VERY DEPENDENT
FOR TECHNICAL {NFLTS}, I THINK THIS IS
PROBABLY BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PROCESS,
A PROBLEM FOR ME.
ALREADY A FEW OF US WHO WORK IN RESEARCH
RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY AND ENOUGH OF US
IN SOME AREAS WE DON'T HAVE THE
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THIS PARTICULAR
ONE AND SOMETHING FOREIGN TO US FOR
EXAMPLE.
IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES I'M
SURE THIS IS A CONSUMER ISSUE GENERALLY,
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INDICATES, WE ARE
WORK CAN SPECIFIC DISABILITY GROUPS
WHERE CONSTITUENTS ARE LOW AND PEOPLE
LIKE KAREN, ATTORNEY WHO IS WORK IN THIS
AREA ARE VERY MUCH OUT NUMBERED BY
INDUSTRY, IT WILL BE AN ON GOING PROBLEM
BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY IS HANGING SO
RAPIDLY, I WANTS TO SAY SOMEWHERE ALONG
THE LINES WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT
WEAKNESS IN THE PROCESS.
>> BEFORE WE CLOSE, I WOULD LIKE TO
REMIND EVERY ONE, I WAS ASKED TO
ANNOUNCE AT THE END OF I DID, THERE WILL
BE A WRAP UP SECTION FROM FOUR TO 5 P.M.
IN THE FIRST FLOOR AUDITORIUM.
THAT'S WHERE EVERY ONE MET YESTERDAY.
ARE AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF YOU
FOR BEING WITH US.
AND HANG OUR PANEL.
-{DHRN} THANK OUR PANEL.