Submission by the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind in response to the Telecommunications Relay Service Stakeholder Review 26 February 2006

Overview

The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind (RNZFB) provides a unique service to deafblind New Zealanders. Following a survey in 2004, we estimate there are 600 people who experience significant difficulties with both hearing and sight loss. However, based on UK estimates of 40 people in every 100,000, there could be as many as 1520 affected nationally by deafblindness.

The RNZFB keenly supports the ongoing availability of the Telecommunications Relay Service. We believe it reduces the acute social isolation of deafblind people. It enables our deafblind members to self-advocate, rather than relying on the help of another individual, and supports the right of our members to equal access to telecommunications services.

The Relay Service is also in line with objective 7.6 of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, to identify unmet needs and develop affordable solutions.

As with any new service that has limited resources, there are a few teething issues we think require clarification and review. This submission addresses those issues whilst applauding the concept of the Relay Service and wishing to see the Government commit to its continuation.

Responses to specific questions

Question 1: How much has the relay service helped [deafblind] people to access standard telephone services?

Our client base is diverse, with each of our members having vastly differing needs and unique situations. This poses a challenge when providing technology and training. Within the context of those challenges, the Relay Service is an important interface for deafblind people to access the telephone and reduce their experience of social isolation. The interpretation process and the equipment required for deafblind people to communicate at a distance is available when they need it and, in most cases, how they need it.

Question 2: Should there be any changes to the Relay Service to make it better for people who use it?

There is, as yet, an untapped potential market for users of this service.  The service is not being as widely promoted as it could be, and resources for training both Sprint staff and users of the service are limited.

Our experience also is that most people who receive a call from the Relay Service have not been exposed to it and are unsure what’s happening during the time lags while the translation process is occurring. Better explanation of the service to call recipients would help people become more confident. Wider public education and promotion would increase use and familiarisation of the Relay Service.

The issue of confidentiality occasionally arises, with a third party (ie the Relay Service provider) having access to confidential information being discussed, such as bank account details. It is essential that users at both ends of the conversation have confidence in the security of the service.

Additionally, the Relay Service customer team is not trained in the use of braille, which is required for our members to access the TDY machine. The Foundation has stepped in (with limited resources) to take up the shortfall and teach braille users how to master the machine. Clarification of who funds the requisite training and how much training is available would improve the process for our members of gaining access to the service. The more they are exposed to the equipment, the better.

Question 3: Which service features of the Relay Service do you like the most?

Interaction with the field staff providing the service has been positive. Our members appreciate the quality of the customer service.

The option of internet access is also important as 48 per cent – almost half of users – choose this option.

Question 4: Which service features of the Relay Service do you like the least?

Ongoing support for members in accessing the service and maintaining the equipment is seen as the biggest issue. Whilst Sprint provides the equipment, there has occasionally been a lack of follow-through when problems are encountered with it.

Question 5: Do you see a need for textphone access to the relay system from public places, given that internet access is now available?

We interpret textphone to mean texting from a cell phone. In which case, yes this would be a welcome addition to the service. Text messaging is accessible to many of our members and we believe they have a right to equitable access to what is now considered as a standard telecommunication service.

Question 6: Do you see a need for text or voice access to the relay system in languages other than English?

Ideally, yes. We would like to see the service being provided initially in Maori and Pacific Islands languages, with a broadening of that base to include Asian immigrants.