Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday December 19 2016, @02:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the shouting-is-not-the-answer dept.

The Federal Communications Commission last week approved one of the most important advances in communications technology for deaf and hard of hearing people in decades, in one of the agency's final acts under the leadership of outgoing FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

In a move that's being hailed by accessibility advocates and leaders in the deaf and hard of hearing community as a historic step forward, the five-member FCC unanimously adopted rules to facilitate the transition from outdated, analog teletype (TTY) devices to a new, internet-based, real-time text messaging standard (RTT) compatible with the latest smart phones.

As a result of the FCC's action, the nation's wireless carriers and device manufacturers will be required to support RTT functionality, which allows real-time text messaging—without the need to hit "send"—in which the recipient can instantly see letters, characters and words as they are being typed.

[...] This innovation will facilitate more natural, conversation-friendly communication for deaf and hard of hearing people—without the need for separate, specialized hardware. It will also allow 911 operators to receive incomplete messages during an emergency, potentially saving lives. RTT technology is expected to be inter-operable across wireless networks and devices, creating the potential for unprecedented ease of communication between deaf and hearing people.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday December 19 2016, @05:46PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday December 19 2016, @05:46PM (#443222) Homepage

    You are wrong.

    About what, exactly? About seatbelts? If they must be in that form and no other - which I wasn't aware of and may not be the case in my country, even if it is in yours - then it's an analogy that still doesn't apply. The FCC aren't saying "this is how deaf people must communicate," are they?

    How is the FCC telling providers they must support one particular system any worse than letting them support none?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday December 19 2016, @07:42PM

    by Francis (5544) on Monday December 19 2016, @07:42PM (#443282)

    I'm pretty sure that the US doesn't mandate them to be a in a certain form other than that there be a belt across the lap and one across the shoulder. There are at least 2 designs I've seen in cars, but one of which has largely died out because it didn't work.

    If somebody comes up with a better solution, I don't believe they'd be barred from using it, as long as it met the specifications.

    But, the fact of the matter is that there's no pressing need to improve safety belts. And certainly not one that adds cost or complexity to the system. They're just there to prevent a person from being ejected from a car in the event of a crash. There's other technology, like airbags, ABS and ESC that also apply, not to mention crumple zones and roll cages.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:25AM (#443556)

      I'm pretty sure that. . .

      In other words, you do not know? Out with it, Francis! Tell us what it is that you actually know! (And, give us some citations, please? Oh, dear god, please? )

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:15AM (#443578)

        Hi Aristarchus, still raw from the ass fucking, are we?