C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—COMMON CARRIER SERVICES › PART 67—REAL-TIME TEXT

47 C.F.R. § 67.2

Minimum Functionalities of RTT

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) RTT-RTT Interoperability. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be interoperable with other services and devices that support RTT in accordance with this part. A service or authorized end user device shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph (a) if:

(1) It is an RFC 4103-conforming end user device;

(2) RTT communications between such service or end user device and an RFC 4103-conforming service or end user device are reliably and accurately transcoded—

(i) to and from RFC 4103, or

(ii) to and from an internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon with the owner of the network serving the RFC 4103-conforming service or device.

(b) RTT-TTY Interoperability. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be interoperable with TTYs connected to other networks. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph (b) if communications to and from such TTYs:

(1) Pass through an RFC 4103-TTY gateway, or

(2) are reliably and accurately transcoded to and from an internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon with the owner of the network serving the TTY.

(c) Features and Capabilities. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall enable the user to:

(1) Initiate and receive RTT calls to and from the same telephone numbers for which voice calls can be initiated and received;

(2) transmit and receive RTT communications to and from any 911 public safety answering point (PSAP) in the United States; and

(3) send and receive text and voice simultaneously in both directions on the same call using a single device.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1990–1990 · leading case: Colorado Off. of Consum. Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 786 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado Off. of Consum. Couns. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 786 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “in the loop plant caused an overstatement of costs associated with residential *1094 loops; [8] (4) an over-assignment of investment costs to residential loops resulting from reliance on Mountain Bell's LAP-GAP analysis; (5) the failure to allocate loop circuit investments to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.