Exhibit 99.1

ORDER

By the Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:

1. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which added section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ¹ requires common carriers offering telephone voice transmission services to provide telecommunications relay services (TRS) ² throughout their service areas. Telecommunications relay services are defined in the Communications Act as “services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual.” ³ The statute and regulations provide that eligible TRS providers offering interstate services, and certain intrastate services, in compliance with the TRS rules, will be compensated for their reasonable costs of doing so from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund). ⁴ TRS providers submit monthly to the Fund administrator the number of minutes of the various forms of TRS they claim to have provided, and the Fund administrator compensates them based upon the per-minute compensation rates established by the Commission.

2. On August 12, 2009, Purple Communications, Inc. (Purple) filed a Petition for Rulemaking to Clarify Relay Rules. ⁵ Among other things, Purple asks the Commission to adopt formal rules “that confirm that the ADA permits the reimbursement of multi-party VRS calls, regardless of whether a hearing individual is on the call,” ⁶ and to confirm the lawfulness of certain outreach and marketing practices. ⁷

3. The Commission’s rules provide that petitions for a rulemaking “which are moot, premature, repetitive, frivolous, or which plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission may be denied or dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner.” ⁸ We dismiss pursuant to this rule Purple’s contention that VRS calls among individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are compensable by the Fund. Purple requests in its instant Petition that we “confirm” that VRS calls not involving a hearing individual are reimbursable under section 225 of the Communications Act. In January 2009, however, nine VRS providers, including GoAmerica (now Purple), filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking to expand under Title I of the Communications Act the class of services compensable from the Fund. ⁹ Although the petitioners submitted reasons for doing so, they accepted in the January 2009 filing that the Commission currently does not allow compensation for services that enable individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or speech disabled to communicate with each other via VRS. ¹⁰ We find that Purple’s filing of a petition that contradicts Purple’s own arguments in another pending proceeding renders consideration of the inconsistent Petition for a Rulemaking unwarranted on the issue of VRS calls not involving a hearing individual.

4. We take this opportunity to reiterate and emphasize to all providers that VRS calls not involving a hearing individual unambiguously are not compensable under current law. Section 225 of the Communications Act defines “telecommunications relay services” as “telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual . . . .” ¹¹ Although Purple asserts that the Commission has been “inconsistent” when discussing whether deaf-only calls are reimbursable,” ¹² in accordance with the statute, the Commission has been clear that a call between two VRS users who are both deaf or hard of hearing does not constitute a compensable relay call. ¹³ In fact, in the recent IP-Based Relay Numbering Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration cited by Purple, ¹⁴ the Commission stated plainly that “point-to-point” calls, i.e., calls that “permit persons with hearing disabilities to communicate directly with each other,” ¹⁵ between VRS users are “not relay calls, and thus

2

are not compensable from the Fund.” ¹⁶ Indeed, the Commission emphasized that establishing a relay call between two registered VRS users would be “inappropriate.” ¹⁷ Further, the Commission requires providers to verify whether a user is requesting a point-to-point call before setting up the call, in part to ensure that providers do not establish a relay call in such circumstances. Finally, the definition of VRS in the Commission’s rules makes clear that VRS is a service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users. ¹⁸ Therefore, there is no Commission decision or rule in which the Commission has held that calls between persons who are deaf or hard of hearing using sign language and a video connection are VRS calls compensable under section 225.

5. We do not address at this time the other issues raised in the Purple Rulemaking Petition , including whether certain practices identified in the Petition are “lawful.” ¹⁹ We note, however, that whether specific conduct may be lawful, including conduct undertaken in the context of a regulated industry like this one, turns not only on the agency’s rules but also on applicable criminal and civil statutes. The Commission’s rules assume good faith compliance with the Communications Act and the law generally on the part of providers seeking compensation from the Fund and therefore the rules do not establish, for all contexts, the parameters of what may or may not be lawful. ²⁰ Further, certain conduct of the sort described in the Purple Rulemaking Petition is currently the subject of a criminal investigation. Therefore, we decline to address the other issues raised in the Petition for Rulemaking, which remain pending.

6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 225, and Sections 0.141, 0.361, and 1.401 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361 & 1.401, this Order IS hereby ADOPTED.

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Purple Rulemaking Petition IS DISMISSED IN PART to the extent provided herein.

8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order be effective upon release.

9. To request materials in accessible formats (such as braille, large print, electronic files, or audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This Order can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Formats (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders .

3

4

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO CLARIFY RELAY RULES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A – PROPOSED RULES

APPENDIX B

-i-

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO CLARIFY RELAY RULES

Pursuant to Section 1.401 of the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) rules, ¹ Purple Communications, Inc. (“Purple”), a leading provider of communications services for deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals hereby petitions the FCC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to clarify and strengthen the agency’s rules regarding telecommunications relay services and speech-to-speech services for deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals. ²

Next year will mark the 20 ^th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ³ (“ADA”). Among other things, this landmark legislation was designed to enable deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to more fully participate in the mainstream of American society – including employment – by making accessible the telecommunications services and

opportunities that many hearing individuals take for granted. ⁴ Indeed, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the lead House sponsor of the ADA, has stated that a “major focus of the ADA . . . was to improve employment opportunities.” ⁵

Since the adoption of the ADA, the Commission has recognized its “central role in enforcing the requirements of the ADA,” ⁶ which mandates that the FCC “ensure that interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United States.” ⁷ As Commissioner Copps has recognized, the availability of “telecommunications relay services (TRS) that enable [deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals] to communicate by phone or video to employers, doctors, family and friends” is “[e]ssential to the success of those with hearing disabilities.” ⁸

Purple respectfully submits that the Commission’s rules and interpretive rulings have fallen short of the policy goals outlined by Congress and the FCC. Procedurally, the FCC has not promulgated a comprehensive set of rules governing deaf and hard-of-hearing communications but instead has issued periodic and sometimes contradictory declaratory rulings.

2

Unfortunately, these declaratory rulings have created uncertainties that undermine the provision of deaf and hard-of-hearing communications and impair the FCC’s ability to carry out its core statutory responsibility under the ADA to ensure that relay services are available “to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner” to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers. ⁹ The problem was recognized by Commissioner Copps three years ago:

The lack of consistent, clear and fully transparent rules make it difficult for the Commission to administer the program accurately while at the same time causing tremendous economic uncertainty for providers who want to develop and implement business plans to serve the hearing disabled. All this raises my biggest concern that, at the end of the day, it is the consumers who will suffer perhaps because they do not know that video relay service is available or because a provider chooses not to serve a community altogether. ¹⁰

These problems remain today. While the TRS industry continues to mature, regulation has not kept up with the technological advances and growing deaf and hard-of-hearing participation in the workplace. Given these lingering uncertainties and the importance of TRS to deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans, ¹¹ Purple respectfully requests that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to clarify its TRS requirements and to address remaining critical issues affecting the TRS industry. With broad participation from the public, the affected community, and the industry, the Commission will be better able to ensure that TRS is available to deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals as envisioned by the ADA. ¹²

3

Specifically, and as more fully detailed below, the Commission should, at a minimum, adopt rules that address three specific ambiguities created by its declaratory rulings. First , the Commission should adopt rules clarifying that employees and contractors of TRS providers may make TRS calls in the course of their employment. This practice is not specifically prohibited by the current rules, and the ability to make TRS calls is absolutely essential to deaf and hard-of-hearing employees who want to participate fully in the workplace. However, the FCC’s various pronouncements with regard to financial incentives to make TRS calls ¹³ are ambiguous on this issue. Indeed, a broad reading of the prohibition on TRS providers offering any financial incentive to make TRS calls could jeopardize TRS providers’ programs to distribute free or subsidized TRS-capable communications devices to deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals. Second , the Commission should adopt rules clarifying that reimbursement from the interstate TRS Fund for the reasonable costs generated through multi-party calls between deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and persons who may or may not have such disabilities is permissible. ¹⁴ Third , the Commission should adopt rules that confirm the lawfulness of reasonable outreach and marketing practices to make all consumers, including enterprise consumers, aware of TRS availability. ¹⁵ These clarifying rules are critical to help deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals communicate and to open employment opportunities for them.

4

Throughout its implementation of Title IV of the ADA, the Commission has emphasized several policies critical to achieving Congress’s goals. The agency has found that: (1) public awareness is critical to the functional equivalence of TRS; ¹⁶ (2) advanced TRS technologies should be facilitated to increase functional equivalence; ¹⁷ and (3) TRS is crucial to the

5

employment of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. ¹⁸ But in recent years, in an apparent attempt to restrain the size of the TRS Fund, the Commission has issued several ad hoc declaratory rulings that have created uncertainties that put Congress’s ADA objectives of functional equivalency at risk. ¹⁹ Although Purple fully supports the Commission’s goals to ensure that TRS funds are used for their intended purpose, the Commission needs to address the unintended effects created by misapplication of these declaratory rulings that inhibit much-needed TRS marketing and adoption practices.

For example, on the one hand, the FCC has recognized that a major goal of the ADA and TRS is to improve employment opportunities for deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals. ²⁰ On the other hand, the FCC’s prohibition on financial incentives, if interpreted to an illogical extreme, could effectively both (1) prohibit TRS providers from hiring deaf, hard-of- hearing, and speech-impaired individuals in any capacity that requires them to use TRS services in the course of conducting their business, and (2) prohibit TRS providers from distributing free

6

or subsidized TRS-capable communications devices to deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals. ²¹ Such an interpretation is inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals access to “functionally equivalent” telephone service. ²² Moreover, the Commission itself has not interpreted the prohibition on financial incentives broadly in all circumstances. For example, the Commission accepts the practice of providing free or subsidized equipment (arguably a tangible incentive) to TRS customers, so long as that equipment may be used with any provider. ²³ The result of the uncertainty is to deter services to deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals, the very population the ADA is meant to protect.

Further uncertainty has been created by the Commission’s confusing approach to contacting customers. The Commission has emphasized that everyone must be “aware of the availability of TRS for it to offer the functional equivalence required by the statute.” ²⁴ In addition, the Commission has found that public awareness and outreach includes educating consumers about the availability of new features and technologies. ²⁵ Though the Commission

7

recognizes that a provider may directly contact TRS users to “provide technical support for TRS products or services used by a consumer,” ²⁶ the Commission’s declaratory rulings otherwise restrict the most effective outreach practices. ²⁷ The Commission requires carriers to reach out to consumers through advisories on their websites, promotional materials and carrier billing inserts, ²⁸ but such mechanisms are unlikely to publicize the availability of TRS “in a manner reasonably designed to reach the largest numbers of consumers possible.” ²⁹ As discussed below in Section V, it makes little sense to preclude TRS providers from reaching their customers in the most effective way possible, for example, by using outreach awareness campaigns and educating businesses, schools, and agencies as to the use of TRS for deaf and hard-of-hearing customers, clients, patients, and students. Indeed, the struggles TRS providers and, in particular, IP Relay providers have encountered implementing the mandatory 10-digit number registration – despite a multitude of efforts using various media – demonstrate the difficulty of TRS outreach generally. The Commission should focus on enhancing outreach options, not arbitrarily constricting them.

8

Moreover, further clarification by rulemaking is also appropriate in light of the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision requiring the FCC to “vacate the restriction on using customer data for ‘lobbying and other purposes’” based on First Amendment grounds. ³⁰ The Commission should revisit its rules to ensure that any restrictions are “no more extensive than necessary” to serve its interest as required by the court. ³¹

Without further clarification, TRS providers will be unable to make TRS a truly functionally equivalent telephone service as envisioned by Congress. Section 225 and the Commission’s rules create confusion for providers and consumers because outreach and marketing practices are not directly addressed. The Commission has touched on these issues only through declaratory rulings that lack the benefits of full public participation associated with notice and comment rulemaking. The resulting lack of clarity has chilled provider outreach, including core First Amendment speech, to consumers and therefore denied valuable services to deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired segments of the population.

TRS industry outreach and employment practices affect not only the industry, but the availability of functionally equivalent telephone services to deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals. As the Commission has recognized time and again, “guidance from the courts indicates that issues of general applicability are more suited to rulemaking than to adjudication.” ³² And as the Commission recognized, “a rulemaking proceeding is generally, a

9

better, fairer and more effective method of implementing a new industry-wide policy” than are ad hoc and potentially uneven adjudications in isolated proceedings. ³³ The statutory language of Section 225 also supports the use of rulemakings on matters affecting the TRS fund. Section 225(d)(1) mandates that the Commission “prescribe regulations to implement this section” and provides a non-exclusive list of topics upon which Commission must issue rules. ³⁴ By engaging in notice and comment rulemaking, the Commission will expose its regulations to “diverse public comment” that “ensures fairness to affected parties.” ³⁵

10

As the Commission has recognized, “TRS is a critical tool for employment” for deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals. ³⁶ The unemployment rate of the deaf community has been reported as high as 60 percent. ³⁷ If such individuals cannot communicate by telephone, their ability to compete and succeed in today’s job market is functionally eliminated. ³⁸ The FCC has also noted that “[i]mproving the quality of TRS will enhance employment opportunities for people with hearing and speech disabilities and may contribute to a decrease in their unemployment rate.” ³⁹ Indeed, Commission Rule 64.604 requires that TRS providers use Communications Assistants “familiar [    ] with hearing and speech disability

11

cultures, languages, and etiquette.” ⁴⁰ Purple takes these Commission goals seriously and employs hundreds of deaf and hard-of-hearing employees and independent contractors. ⁴¹ In Purple’s experience, deaf and hard-of-hearing employees excel in many areas within the company, including operational management, customer care, product development and engineering, and outreach provided that they have access to the same communications tools available to hearing employees. These employees communicate in the same language as Purple’s customers and understand the types of products and services desired by the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. These employees also improve Purple’s efficiency because they communicate point-to-point with deaf customers, thereby eliminating the need for interpreters in the field and over the phone system, thus decreasing the need for TRS. ⁴²

Though the Commission’s prohibition on financial incentives is best interpreted not to cover employees who use TRS in the course of business operations, Purple requests that the Commission adopt rules that codify this point. As an initial matter, TRS providers’ employees are not ordinary “consumers” within the meaning of the Commission’s prohibition. ⁴³ To find otherwise would directly contradict the purpose of the ADA as a whole to “provide a clear and

12

comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” ⁴⁴ in light of Congress’s finding that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in… employment.” ⁴⁵ Indeed, any rule prohibiting (or even limiting) the employees of TRS providers from utilizing TRS services in the course of their employment would have the anomalous effect of penalizing TRS providers for hiring employees from the very population they serve and thus preventing TRS providers from offering functionally equivalent “technological services currently offered to nondisabled [employees] . . . to [employees] with disabilities” when “it is technologically feasible to do so.” ⁴⁶ What is more, use of TRS is a civil right designed to remedy discrimination against deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech impaired individuals. Prohibiting (or limiting) TRS in the workplace, however, discriminates against deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals by not allowing them to use the same communications tools that hearing employees use daily. The Commission should not restrict this right in the absence of the most compelling of reasons and only if such restrictions are permitted under the ADA.

If the Commission wants to establish boundaries of acceptable use by employees or contractors, Purple would support such FCC efforts. However, just as the Commission does not restrict other carriers’ employees from using services supported by the Universal Service Fund, it should similarly refrain from such a restriction on the employees of TRS providers, or put any unfair burden or scrutiny on deaf and hard-of-hearing employees.

13

Full implementation of the anti-discrimination goals of the ADA ⁴⁷ commands that the Commission adopt rules that specifically confirm that reimbursement from the interstate TRS Fund for the reasonable costs generated through multi-party conference calls between deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and persons who may or may not have such disabilities (hereafter “multi-party calls”) is allowed. To be sure, the Commission has been inconsistent when discussing whether multi-party calls and deaf-only calls are reimbursable. We understand, for example, that a representative from the Inspector General’s Office of the FCC recently opined that deaf-only multi-party calls were not reimbursable. This conflicts, however, with the goals of the ADA and the Commission’s own conclusion – which it has repeated for close to ten years – that “TRS enables persons with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by telephone with persons who may or may not have such disabilities .” ⁴⁸ Undeniably, to provide the deaf and hard-of-hearing community equivalent access to communications services necessitates additional Commission action in this area. The hearing community relies heavily on multi-party calls –

14

both with hearing and deaf individuals – to satisfy day-to-day business requirements. To ensure functional equivalency, the Commission should adopt rules that confirm that the ADA permits the reimbursement of multi-party VRS calls, regardless of whether a hearing individual is on the call. ⁴⁹ Failure to issue such rules will further obstruct the disabled community’s integration into the mainstream workplace.

The Commission must look to the principles underlying the ADA to determine how to treat multi-party calls. The purpose of Title IV of the ADA is to further the “goal of universal service by providing to individuals with hearing or speech disabilities telephone services that are functionally equivalent to those provided to individuals without hearing or speech disabilities.” ⁵⁰ More specifically, the Commission has stressed that “TRS is a critical tool for employment” and if “people with hearing or speech disabilities cannot communicate by telephone, their ability to compete and succeed in today’s job market is threatened.” ⁵¹ The Commission also has remarked that “[b]eing able to place a phone call to . . . receive training . . . and to advance one’s career through formal and informal networks depends largely on one’s ability to communicate with many different individuals and entities.” ⁵² To this end, the Commission has stressed that “[i]mproving the quality of TRS will enhance employment opportunities for people with hearing and speech disabilities.” ⁵³

15

Here, functional equivalence mandates that the Commission reimburse all multi-party calls equally. The Commission already requires that TRS providers offer “three-way calling functionality,” which the FCC defines as a “TRS feature that allows more than two parties to be on the telephone line at the same time with the CA.” ⁵⁴ This provides hearing individuals complete freedom to initiate and participate in reimbursable multi-party calls with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. In addition, the Commission has recognized that hearing-only multi-party calls have “long been available to voice telephone users.” ⁵⁵ Consistent with the ADA, functional equivalence mandates that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community also be able to participate in multi-party calls without regard to whether hearing persons are on the call. ⁵⁶ In the TRS industry, multi-party calls are a crucial component to employee success – regardless of whether the calls involve hearing participants. By adopting rules that protect these calls, the Commission will fulfill its Section 225 mandate to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are able to thrive in their jobs and not fall victim to discrimination because of communications barriers.

16

Purple also submits that multi-party calls with multiple video interpreters (“VIs”) are critical to ensuring robust discussions among employees in this complicated industry. Without VRS capabilities – including the ability of VIs to communicate with each other on a multi-party call – call participants are unable to interact in a productive way with other members of a multi-party call. Further, Purple’s conclusions are consistent with the Commission’s previous statement that as “three-way calling matures to providing multi-party conference calling, there may be instances where more than one CA is necessary.” ⁵⁷ Technology has evolved and made multi-party VRS calls a reality. Given this – and the fact that such calls are critical to the success of deaf and hard-of-hearing employees – the Commission should confirm in industry-wide rules that the use of multiple VIs is appropriate for multi-party calls. If technology evolves to make these rules somehow unnecessary, the Commission may revisit this issue at that time.

Leaders in Congress have already expressed support for the above interpretation of Section 225. In fact, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) – former Chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet – recently expressed strong support for permitting reimbursable multi-party calls under Section 225. When introducing the 2008 “Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act,” Representative Markey explained that his bill “clarifies that TRS services are intended to ensure that people who have hearing or speech disabilities can use relay services to engage in functionally equivalent telephone communication with all other people, not just people without a hearing or speech disability .” ⁵⁸

17

To the extent that the Commission believes that Section 225 limits its authority to reimburse VRS providers for all multi-party calls, including deaf-only multi-party calls, Title I provides “ample authority” to accomplish the same objective. Less than a year ago, for example, the Commission employed its “ample authority” pursuant to Title I to regulate deaf-only point-to-point calls. ⁵⁹ The Commission stated that facilitating point-to-point calls between Internet-based TRS subscribers “furthers the purposes of section 225,” which “directs the Commission to ensure that relay services are available ‘[i]n order to carry out the purposes established under section 1, to make available to all individuals in the United States a rapid, efficient nationwide communication service, and to increase the utility of the telephone system of the Nation’.” ⁶⁰ The Commission noted that Section 225 contains a “clear statement[    ] from Congress that it intended persons with disabilities to have the fullest possible access to the Nation’s communications

18

system.” ⁶¹ Thus, the Commission required that VRS providers facilitate deaf-only point-to-point calls to “serve[    ] these goals.” ⁶² Here, the Commission could, to the extent necessary, employ its ancillary jurisdiction because multi-party calls are needed to provide the deaf and hard-of-hearing community with the “ fullest possible access to the Nation’s communications system.” Without full access to the benefits of multi-party call functionality, the deaf and hard-of-hearing community cannot participate in the business world in a functionally equivalent way to hearing individuals.

Accordingly, the Commission should adopt rules pursuant to Section 225 and the FCC’s ancillary jurisdiction that confirm that minutes generated through multi-party calls between deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and persons who may or may not have such disabilities are reimbursable from the interstate TRS Fund.

That the ADA and the Commission’s rules provide for communications services for the deaf and hard-of-hearing is not a secret and should not be treated by the Commission as if they were. As the FCC has recognized, “outreach is an issue of recurring and serious importance for TRS users.” ⁶³ This is because those who rely on TRS for access to the nation’s telephone

19

system, and thereby for access to family, friends, and businesses, gain little from the mandate of Title IV if persons receiving a TRS call do not understand what a relay call is. Without such awareness, persons receiving a call may simply not take the call. ⁶⁴ It also is paramount that those who desire to call a deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired person are aware that they can easily do so through TRS. In addition, the FCC has acknowledged the importance of outreach to make consumers aware of updated features and technologies. ⁶⁵ Further, making businesses aware of how TRS can work at their companies will encourage more employment of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech impaired individuals ⁶⁶ and will help those businesses better serve deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired customers. ⁶⁷ Indeed, other universal service programs mandate “advertising” of the supported services as a condition of service. ⁶⁸

Given the current state of confusion regarding appropriate TRS outreach practices and the pending Tenth Circuit remand on use of customer data, the FCC should initiate a rulemaking

20

proceeding that will adopt rules allowing for effective outreach and consumer awareness. In particular, the FCC should adopt rules clarifying that the following marketing practices are lawful:

Through rules that confirm the lawfulness of these outreach practices, as described in Appendix A, TRS providers will be able to fulfill their outreach obligations in a meaningful and effective

21

manner. ⁷⁰ As such, the Commission will fulfill its mandate to ensure that all deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals in the United States have access to a functionally equivalent telephone service. Further, by cementing the legitimacy of these practices, the Commission will provide smaller VRS providers the opportunity to increase their presence and compete in an industry that historically has been dominated by one aggressive competitor with a significant VRS market share. In turn, consumers will reap the benefits of increased competition, including more advanced services and technologies and improved customer support.

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address various critical issues affecting the provision of TRS.

22

Appendix A – Proposed Rules

To address the issues discussed in the Petition for Rulemaking, Purple proposes the following new section 64.614 of the rules as follows:

§ 64.614 TRS Unfair Marketing Practices.

(a) No provider of TRS or any of its agents may engage in any program that involves the use of any type of financial or other incentive, either directly or indirectly, to encourage or reward a consumer for placing a TRS call. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) an employee or contractor of a TRS provider may communicate by TRS for appropriate business purposes, and (ii) a provider of TRS may provide equipment and related services to a consumer at a discounted price or free of charge or subsidized, provided that the offering of such equipment and the consumer’s use or possession of such equipment is not conditioned on the consumer’s choice of default TRS provider or on any minimum usage amount.

(b) No provider of TRS or any of its agents may contact a consumer and require, request or suggest that the consumer make relay calls. Notwithstanding the foregoing, TRS providers may engage in marketing and consumer outreach efforts, including the following:

(i) Advertising;

(ii) Organizational sponsorships, provided that no conditions are imposed regarding the use of TRS;

(iii) Consumer surveys, provided that participants are offered no incentives, either directly or indirectly, to use TRS;

(iv) Education, awareness and outreach campaigns, including retention of third parties to conduct such campaigns, provided that compensation of third parties is not related to the use of TRS;

(v) Training both individuals and businesses on the use of TRS, provided that no conditions are imposed regarding the use of TRS; and

(vi) Asking a consumer to make a test call to ensure that an installation has been done properly, to ensure that a service problem has been remedied, or to help diagnose service problems.