| Part ofa series on |
| Translation |
|---|
 |
| Types |
| Theory |
| Technologies |
| Localization |
| Institutional |
| Related topics |
|
Avideo relay service (VRS), also sometimes known as avideo interpreting service (VIS), is avideo telecommunication service that allowsdeaf,hard-of-hearing, andspeech-impaired (D-HOH-SI) individuals to communicate overvideo telephones andsimilar technologies with hearing people in real-time, via asign languageinterpreter.
A similar video interpreting service calledvideo remote interpreting (VRI) is conducted through a different organization often called a "Video Interpreting Service Provider" (VISP).[1]
VRS is a newer form oftelecommunication service to the D-HOH-SI community, which had, in the United States, started earlier in 1974 using a simpler non-video technology calledtelecommunications relay service, also known as "TRS", or simply as "relay service".
VRS services have become well developed nationally in Sweden since 1997[2] and also in the United States since 2003. With the exception of Sweden, VRS has been provided in Europe for only a few years since the mid-2000s, and as of 2010 has not been made available in many European Union countries,[3] with most European countries still lacking the legislation or the financing for large-scale VRS services, and to provide thenecessary telecommunication equipment to deaf users. France, Germany and the Nordic countries are among the other leaders in Europe, while the United States is another world leader in the provisioning of VRS services.
One of the first demonstrations of the ability fortelecommunications to help sign language users communicate with each other occurred whenAT&T'svideophone (trademarked as the "Picturephone") was introduced to the public at the1964 New York World's Fair –two deaf users were able to communicate freely with each other between the fair and another city.[4] Various universities and other organizations, includingBritish Telecom's Martlesham facility, have also conducted extensive research onsigning via videotelephony.[5][6][7] The use of sign language viavideotelephony was hampered for many years due to the difficulty of its use over slowanalogue copper phone lines,[6] coupled with the high cost of better qualityISDN (data) phone lines.[5] Those factors largely disappeared with the introduction of more efficientvideo codecs and the advent of lower cost high-speed ISDN data andIP (Internet) services in the 1990s.
Significant improvements invideo call quality of service for the deaf occurred in the United States in 2003 when Sorenson Media Inc. (formerly Sorenson Vision Inc.), a video compression software coding company, developed its VP-100 model stand-alonevideophone specifically for the deaf community. It was designed to output its video to the user's television in order to lower the cost of acquisition, and to offer remote control and a powerfulvideo compression codec for unequaled video quality and ease of use with video relay services. Favourable reviews quickly led to its popular usage at educational facilities for the deaf, and from there to the greater deaf community.[8]
Coupled with similar high-quality videophones introduced by other electronics manufacturers, theavailability of high speed Internet, andsponsored video relay services authorized by the U.S.Federal Communications Commission in 2002, VRS services for the deaf underwent rapid growth in that country.[8]
Using such video equipment, thedeaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired can communicate between themselves and with hearing individuals usingsign language. The United States and several other countries compensate companies to provide video relay service (VRS). Telecommunication equipment can be used to talk to others via a sign language interpreter, who uses a conventional telephone at the same time to communicate with the deaf person's party. Video equipment is also used to do on-site sign language translation viavideo remote interpreting (VRI). The relative low cost and widespread availability of3Gmobile phone technology with video calling capabilities have given deaf and speech-impaired users a greater ability to communicate with the same ease as others. Some wireless operators have even started free sign language gateways.
Sign language interpretation services via VRS or by VRI are useful in the present-day where one of the parties isdeaf,hard-of-hearing, orspeech-impaired (mute). In such cases the interpretation flow is normally within the same principal language, such asFrench Sign Language (LSF) to spoken French,Spanish Sign Language (LSE) to spoken Spanish,Swedish Sign Language (SSL) to spoken Swedish,German Sign Language (DGS) to spoken German,British Sign Language (BSL) to spoken English, andAmerican Sign Language (ASL) also to spoken English (since BSL and ASL are completely distinct to each other), and so on.
Sign language interpreting involves considerable effort on the part of the interpreter, since sign languages are distinctnatural languages with their ownconstruction,semantics andsyntax, different from the aural version of the same principal language.
Multilingualsign language interpreters, who can also translate as well across principal languages (such as from spoken Spanish, to spoken English, to ASL and vice versa), are also available, albeit less frequently.
With video interpreting,sign language interpreters work remotely with livevideo andaudio feeds, so that the interpreter can see the signing party, and converse with the hearing–speaking party, and vice versa. Much liketelephone interpreting, video interpreting can be used for situations in which no on-siteinterpreters are available. However, video interpreting cannot be used for situations in which all parties are speaking via telephone alone. VRS and VRI interpretation requires all parties to have thenecessary equipment. Some advanced equipment enables interpreters to control the video camera remotely, in order tozoom in and out or to point the camera toward the party that is signing.
Unfavorable experiences of video relay interpreters have been documented in the United States[9][10][11][12] and United Kingdom.[13]
Video Relay Services is based on three main factors: sign language interpreters, call center management (customer service, call center management), and platform provider (mobile app, servers).
Canada's regulatoryRadio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a policy order on July 21, 2009, requiringCanadian telecommunication,wireless service, andVoIP providers to implementIP-based text relay services by July 21, 2010, and also delaying a decision on the national provision of video relay services in both official languages (ASL &LSQ) for three years.[14][15] According to deaf-community organizations Canada is lagging far behind its neighbour, the United States, with respect to video relay service for the deaf, hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind, and speech-impaired.[16]
The Video Relay Service Trial Project, managed by Telus with Sorenson as the provider, ended on January 15, 2012. The trial project, which lasted for 18 months, was accessible for approximately 300 participants in BC and Alberta, and cost over $3 million (CAD).[17]
The CRTC issued a policy order on April 22, 2014, deciding that VRS should be offered in Canada, starting as early as the fall of 2015, overseen and implemented by an independent VRS administrator (now the Canadian Administrator of Video Relay Service - CAV).[18]
The CAV opened Video Relay Service in Canada - named SRV Canada VRS - for registration on September 28, 2016[19]
At first, SRV Canada VRS offered 12 hour weekday service (6 am to 6 pm Pacific Time, and accordingly for subsequent time zones) and 8 hour weekend service (8 am to 4 pm Pacific Time).[20] Hours of service were progressively increased, first on April 3, 2017[21] and then on July 3, 2017.[22] On October 2, 24/7/365 service started.[23][24]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Denmark's video relay service is currently provided by TegnKom and 12K Studio (12K A/S).
TegnKom was created in 2005 as project in cooperation with AMC Nord (Aarhus Municipality), and only offered to deaf people at their workplace. The service can only be used on Windows-based units with use-license for the preinstalled software (MMX).
12K Studio was created and financed in 2011 by the nationwide sign language interpreter company, 12K A/S. The service can be used on Windows-, OS X/iOS-, Linux- and Android-based units (pc, mac and smartphones) with Skype and/or FaceTime app. 12K Studio service is primary offered to deaf people at their workplace, but can also be used in private for free.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
There are five companies that provide VRS in France. On October 7, 2016, the Law for a Digital Republic (Loi pour une République numérique) required telephone services to be accessible to deaf, hard-of-hearing, deafblind and speech-impaired persons, through the provision of VRS for sign language and cued speech, Text-relay and Speech-relay. The law splits the requirement among three key sectors: telecom carriers, large corporations, and public services. These companies cover the cost of service, making it free for end-users. The major carriers under the French Telecom Federation (FFTélécoms) begin providing services in October 2018 through theRogervoice app.[25] Large corporations and public services do not comply uniformly to the requirement, and those that do only provide partial compliance, usually relying on one of the 5 existing third-party providers (Sourdline, Deafi, Elioz, Acceo and Rogervoice).
Legal compliance remains a challenge in France, with all parties being globally dissatisfied. In November 2021 a report mandated by the government and carried out by civil parties including NGOs and associations, drafts a list of proposals to improve services.[26] With the focus being on end-users choosing which provider they'd like to make calls with (rather than carriers or call centers imposing a provider). The recommendations carry similar traits to the United States'TRS program. As of 2024 the reform is still underway and is expected to be enacted by 2025.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Currently, Germany has two providers of VRS and VRI: they are TeSS and TeleSign. TeSS was created in 2005 by the consortium of Deutsche Gesellschaft der Hörgeschädigten (German Society of Hearing Impaired), Deutsche Telekom, Bundesnetzagenteur (federal infrastructure regulatory agency), and several other associations. Deutsche Telekom provided the initial funding for feasibility project that started in 2006.
The deaf and hard-of-hearing clients who use the VRS for private calls must enrol with TeSS and arrange the payment method. They pay 14 eurocents per minute for text relay and 14 eurocents for video relay. TeSS operates around the clock (24/7).
TeleSign provides the combined video relay and video remote interpreting service for the deaf and hard-of-hearing clients at work. The clients must apply to the integration agency for videophones and funds. The subscription is 220 euros per month with one point seven euro per minute of video relay service. The integration agency restricts the monthly call volume to 100 minutes per client. TeleSign operates from eight in the morning to six in the afternoon.
TeSS has added the work-related VRS/VRI as to countereffect the demand of integration agency to switch from TeleSign to "cheaper" TeSS service.
Despite the availability of VRS providers in Germany since 2006, the VRS usage is very extremely low as compared to other countries (no more than 3000 clients out of 80,000 deaf people). The integration agency is notorious for rejecting the applications many times on "cost benefit" factor: the agency claims that some deaf clients do not make sufficient VRS calls per month to justify the cost or that the nature of employment does not warrant the need for VRS and videophones. The deaf and hard-of-hearing callers who use VRS for private calls do not receive any form of reimbursement for the VRS calls.
The grassroot movement is gaining momentum in pushing for the free VRS in Germany to be subsidised by the government through the contribution from the telecom companies.
NAV, or the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration provides the national relay service for Norway. The service started in 2008, and its usage is increasing.
Video relay service exists in Spain since September 2009. The platform that provides this service is called Svisual.[27] It allows Deaf people and Hard of Hearing people to communicate with hearing people.The service is provided inSpanish Sign Language and inCatalan Sign Language.Customers may download a free video software application to their phone or tablet, or access the Svisual web on their computer.[28]The service works 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Sweden was the first country in the world to implement a public VRS fully subsidized by the government. The service started as a pilot project in 1996 for ISDN videophones, but started to offer SIP-based services in 2003. Currently the Swedish video relay service is the largest in Europe with an average of 110,000 minutes every month.
There is one national service for the country, which is procured by bids to the National Telecom and Postal Agency (PTS) every four years.
The service is provided by Evantia Oy, with call centers in Örebro, Uppsala and Gotland.
Customers may download a video software application from the service provider, use a web-based application or access the service using Skype and third-party SIP software.
Significan't (UK) Ltd, a deaf and sign language led social enterprise, was the first to establish an IP video relay service in 2004 in London. The SignVideo Contact Centre utilizes qualified and registered sign language interpreters and processed its 10,000th video call in 2006. In 2010 Significan't introduced the iSignVideo range of videophones and a web-based video calling service, the SignVideo SV2. This service is compliant with the concept ofTotal Conversation.[29]
contactSCOTLAND BSL is the national VRS service for Scotland and it is free-of-charge for its users. The service was procured by the Scottish Government and it complies with standards for Total Conversation.
In 2015, the Association of Sign Language Interpreters in the UK published aBest Practice Document on Video Interpreting.
In the United States, VRS services have been regulated by theU.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since 2002.
Ed Bosson of theTexasPublic Utility Commission (PUC) envisioned deaf people communicating with videophones more than 10 years before the FCC began reimbursing for it. Bosson contacted Mark Seeger ofSprint Relay and discussed the possibilities. Seeger then contacted Sprint technicians to see if the proposal was feasible, and then suggested that Bosson bring the idea to Texas' PUC.
It took Bosson considerable time to convince the Texas PUC and to enlist help from a lawyer in interpreting. He first convinced his supervisor and then, one-by-one, the PUC Commissioners that video relay should become a part of statewideTelecom Relay Service offering. Bosson was authorized to manage the first video relay service trials, and Sprint became the first service provider to conduct the Texas Video Relay Service tests. Bosson would later receive national awards fromSmithsonian Computerworld andTDI for his work with VRS.
In 1995, the first trial was run by Sprint inAustin and was limited to four public call centers.
The second trial occurred in 1997 and served ten cities inTexas. At that point, Sprint and Hanwave Interpreting partnered to provide service. Jon Hodson of Sorenson Communications worked with Ed Bosson during the early stages and provided video conferencing software during the VRS trial in Texas. (At this point the service was called "Video Relay Interpreting" or VRI, which a name that now refers toVideo Remote Interpreting. Linda Nelson has been credited with changing the term from VRI to VRS.) Later, Hanwave Interpreting Service was bought byCommunication Service for the Deaf, and Sprint expanded their relay subcontract to include VRS services in addition to the establishedTRS services.[8]
In 2000, VRS officially became available throughout the State of Texas. In 2002, the FCC allowed for the reimbursement of interstate VRS providers via an interstate TRS fund administration, making the United States the second country after Sweden to federally subsidize VRS nationwide.
TheFederal Communications Commission (FCC) is the regulatory body for VRS in the United States. In addition to overseeing VRS, the FCC also overseesTelecommunications Relay Services (TRS), from which the VRS regulatory framework has evolved. The FCC oversees TRS and VRS as a result of their mandate in theAmericans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to facilitate the provisions equal access to individuals with disabilities over the telephone network.
The Interstate Telecommunications Relay Fund was created by the FCC to fund TRS and its scope was expanded to include VRS. Funding for the TRS comes from state tax, through rate adjustments or surcharge on local telephone bills.[30] The tax on revenue is set by the FCC yearly and has been steadily increasing as the number of VRS minutes continues to climb. For 2007 the tax is 7.2/100ths of a penny per dollar of revenue, up from 3.8/100th of a penny in 2000. The current revenue tax of .0072 is expected to generate $553 million against telecommunications industry revenue of $76.8 billion. The fund is managed by an administrator who publishes the reimbursement rates[31] paid to all relay providers.
In addition to regulating the funding of VRS, the FCC regulates the standards that VRS companies and their employees must follow in handling calls. These regulations ensure that VRS calls are handled appropriately and ethically.
The U.S. FCC-issued rulings include:
On December 12, 2005, the Commission released an order adopting new rules permitting carriers desiring to offer IP Relay and VRS services and receive payment from the Fund to seek certification as a provider eligible for compensation from the Fund.[32] The record reflects that other entities that desire to offer VRS have been unable to join a certified state program.[33]
(i) a description of the forms of TRS to be provided (i.e., VRS, IP Relay and/or IP CTS); (ii) a description of how the provider will meet all non-waived mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS offered; (iii) a description of the provider's procedures for ensuring compliance with all applicable TRS rules; (iv) a description of the provider's complaint procedures; (v) a narrative describing any areas in which the provider's service will differ from the applicable mandatory minimum standards; (vi) a narrative establishing that services that differ from the mandatory minimum standards do not violate applicable mandatory minimum standards; (vii) demonstration of status as a common carrier; and (viii) a statement that the provider will file annual compliance reports demonstrating continued compliance with these rules.
The rules further provide that after review of the submitted documentation, the Commission shall certify that the provider of IP Relay, VRS and IP CTS is eligible for compensation from the Fund if the Commission determines that the certification documentation:
(i) establishes that the provision of IP Relay, VRS and IP CTS ... will meet or exceed all non-waived operational, technical, and functional minimum standards contained in § 64.604; (ii) establishes that the IP Relay, VRS and IP CTS... provider makes available adequate procedures and remedies for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this section and the mandatory minimum standards contained in § 64.604, including that it makes available for its users informational materials on complaint procedures sufficient for users to know the proper procedures for filing complaints; and (iii) where its service differs from the mandatory minimum standards contained in § 64.604, the IP Relay, VRS and IP CTS ... provider establishes that its service does not violate applicable mandatory minimum standards.[citation needed]
Normally:
Hearing people can also contact a deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-disabled person via VRS. To initiate a call, a hearing person calls a VRS and connects to a video interpreter who then contacts the video user.
Some VRS services also offer:
The namevideophone is not as standardized as its earlier counterpart, thetelephone, resulting in a variety of names and terms being used worldwide, and even within the same region or country. Videophones are also known asvideotelephones (orvideo telephones) and often by an early trademarked name "Picturephone", which was the world's first commercial videophone produced in volume. The compound name "videophone"slowly entered into general use after 1950,[37] although "video telephone"likely entered the lexicon earlier after "video"was coined in 1935.[38]Videophone calls (also:videocalls andvideo chat),[39] differ fromvideoconferencing in that they expect to serve individuals, not groups.[40] However that distinction has become increasingly blurred with technology improvements such asincreased bandwidth and sophisticatedsoftware clients that can allow for multiple parties on a call. In general everyday usage the termvideoconferencing is now frequently used instead ofvideocall for point-to-point calls between two units. Both videophone calls and videoconferencing are also now commonly referred to as avideo link.
Webcams are popular, relatively low cost devices which can provide live video and audio streams via personal computers, and can be used with manysoftware clients for both video calls and videoconferencing.[41]
Avideoconference system is generally higher cost than a videophone and deploys greater capabilities. Avideoconference (also known as avideoteleconference) allows two or more locations to communicate via live, simultaneous two-way video and audio transmissions. This is often accomplished by the use of amultipoint control unit (a centralized distribution and call management system) or by a similar non-centralized multipoint capability embedded in each videoconferencing unit. Again, technology improvements have circumvented traditional definitions by allowing multiple party videoconferencing via web-based applications.[42][43] A separate webpage article is devoted tovideoconferencing.
Atelepresence system is a high-end videoconferencing system and service usually employed byenterprise-level corporate offices. Telepresence conference rooms use state-of-the art room designs, video cameras, displays, sound-systems and processors, coupled with high-to-very-high capacity bandwidth transmissions.
Typical use of the various technologies described above include calling or conferencing on a one-on-one, one-to-many or many-to-many basis for personal, business, educational,deaf video relay service andtele-medical, diagnostic andrehabilitative use or services. New services utilizing videocalling and videoconferencing, such as teachers and psychologists conducting online sessions,[44] personal videocalls toinmates incarcerated in penitentiaries, and videoconferencing to resolveairline engineering issues atmaintenance facilities, are being created or evolving on an ongoing basis.
Media related toVideo Relay Services at Wikimedia Commons Media related toVideophones and Videotelephony at Wikimedia Commons