Video Relay Service

A Video Interpreter sign used at locations offering VRS or VRI services.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Video Relay Services

A Video Relay Service (VRS), also sometimes known as a Video Interpreting Service, is a videotelecommunication service that allows deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech-impaired (D-HOH-SI) individuals to communicate over video telephones and similar technologies with hearing people in real-time, via a sign language interpreter.

A similar video interpreting service called Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is conducted through a different organization often called a "Video Interpreting Service Provider" (VISP).^[1] VRS is a newer form of telecommunication service to the D-HOH-SI community, which had, in the United States, started earlier in 1974 using a simpler non-video technology called Telecommunications 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 the first decade of the 2000s. 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 also provide the necessary telecommunication equipment to deaf users. 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.

Telecommunications facilitated signing

One of the first demonstrations of the ability for telecommunications to help sign language users communicate with each other occurred when AT&T's videophone (trademarked as the "Picturephone") was introduced to the public at the 1964 New York World's Fair –two deaf users were able to communicate freely with each other between the fair and another city.^[4] Various other organizations, including British Telecom's Martlesham facility and several universities have also conducted extensive research on signing via videotelephony.^[5] The use of sign language via videotelephony was hampered for many years due to the difficulty of its use over slow analogue copper phone lines coupled with the high cost of better quality ISDN (data) phone lines.^[5] Those factors largely disappeared with the introduction of more efficient video codecs and the advent of lower cost high-speed ISDN data and IP (Internet) services in the 1990s.

21st century improvements

Significant improvements in video 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-alone videophone 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 powerful video 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.^[6]

Coupled with similar high-quality videophones introduced by other electronics manufacturers, the availability of high speed Internet, and sponsored video relay services authorized by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in 2002, VRS services for the deaf underwent rapid growth in that country.^[6]

A deaf or hard-of-hearing person at his workplace using a VRS to communicate with a hearing person in London. (Courtesy: SignVideo)

Present day usage

Using such video equipment in the present day, the deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech-impaired can communicate between themselves and with hearing individuals using sign language. The United States and several other countries compensate companies to provide "Video Relay Services" (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 via Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). The relative low cost and widespread availability of 3G mobile 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 is deaf, hard-of-hearing or speech-impaired (mute). In such cases the interpretation flow is normally within the same principal language, such as French Sign Language (LSF) to spoken French, Spanish Sign Language (LSE) to spoken Spanish, British Sign Language (BSL) to spoken English, and American Sign Language (ASL) also to spoken English (since BSL and ASL are completely distinct to each other), and so on.

A Video Interpreter (V.I.) assisting an on-screen client. (Courtesy: SignVideo)

Multilingual sign language interpreters, who can also translate as well across principal languages (such as to and from SSL, to and from spoken English), are also available, albeit less frequently. Such activities involve considerable effort on the part of the translator, since sign languages are distinct natural languages with their own construction, semantics and syntax, different from the aural version of the same principal language.

With video interpreting, sign language interpreters work remotely with live video and audio feeds, so that the interpreter can see the deaf or mute party, and converse with the hearing party, and vice versa. Much like telephone interpreting, video interpreting can be used for situations in which no on-site interpreters 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 the necessary equipment. Some advanced equipment enables interpreters to control the video camera remotely, in order to zoom in and out or to point the camera toward the party that is signing.

Further information: Language interpretation -Sign language

VRS deployment worldwide

Video Relay Service providers

The following sortable table is a partial listing of worldwide VRS providers.^[3]

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references (March 2011)

Canada

Canada's's regulatory Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a policy order on July 21, 2009 requiring Canadian telecommunication, wireless service, and VoIP providers to implement IP-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.^[7][8] 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 and deaf-blind.^[9]

The Video Relay Service Trial Project, managed by Telus with Sorenson as the provider, ended on January 15th, 2012. The CRTC has announced that a decision will be made in 2013 on whether this service will be feasible in Canada. As Canada is bilingual, consideration must be weighed on providing access in both French and English. Furthermore, the limiting factor in proceeding with such a service is cost. The trial project, which lasted for 18 months, was accessible for approximately 300 participants in BC and Alberta, and cost over $3 million (CAD). ^[10]

The authorities must weigh in the feasibility of supporting such service for all deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind individuals in Canada. The exact population of people who could become VRS consumers is unknown. The availability of sign language interpreters to support such a program whilst supporting the employment, academic, medical and legal needs of deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind people is unknown at this time. Such factors must be considered at the federal level within the Canadian Government and the CRTC. Due to the complexity of factors involved in the decision making process, it will take considerable time before a final decision is announced.

Denmark

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.

France

There are three companies that provide VRS in France. France has legislated into a law the establishment of three VRS call centres to serve deaf and hard-of-hearing French consumers. However, the long-running disagreement in the French parliament on how to fund the service kept VRS from becoming a reality.

The deaf and hard-of-hearing callers receive the personal budget that covers the cost of VRS and videophone equipment. The personal budget is stipulated for three-year period.

Viable France was established in 2008 by the deaf woman to provide VRS and VRI service in France. The company is fully independent of Viable, Inc. and has its own programming and engineering team. A distinction of Viable France is the sales and distribution of its own videophone product that was fully developed and engineered by the deaf engineers at Viable, Inc.

Elision (ex VisiO08) is a set of services designed by WebSourd. On the phone, in interview or in meeting, Elision (ex VisiO08) enables deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people to communicate in sign language, spoken language and writing using total conversation as a technical fundation of its services.

Tadeo is a communication platform for use between hearing, deaf and hard-of-hearing persons in a professional environment; it offers a French Sign Language interpretation service, in Cued Speech, and live Transcription, remotely and real-time.

Germany

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. TeSS receives the federal subsidy of 1.7 million euros per year and has been awarded two-year contract starting on 1 Januar 2011 and expiring on 31 December 2012.

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 28 eurocents for video relay. TeSS is operated from eight in the morning to eleven in the evening.

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 euro per minute of video relay service. The integration agency restricts the monthly call volume to 100 minutes per client. TeleSign operates from seven in the morning to five in the afternoon.

TeSS has recently 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 1200 clients out of 800,000 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 subsided by the government through the contribution from the telecom companies.

Norway

NAV, which is Norway's national insurance company, provides the national relay service for Norway. The service started in 2008, and its usage is increasing.

Sweden

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 135,000 calls every year.

There is one national service for the country, which is procured by bids to the National Telecom and Postal Agency (PTS) every four years. Customers may download a video software application from the service provider, but more often the government provides the deaf community with videophones. These are also subsidized through the Swedish tax system.

United Kingdom

A person at her workplace using the UK's SignVideo Relay Service, communicating with a hearing person via a Video Interpreter (V.I.) and use of sign language. (Courtesy: SignVideo)

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, which employs only qualified and registered sign language interpreters and which processed its 10,000th video call in 2006, secured national contracts with Access to Work and the National Health Services to provide Video Remote Interpreting services throughout the United Kingdom. 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 of Total Conversation.

United States

In the United States, VRS services have been regulated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since 2002.

Support for initial trials in State of Texas

Ed Bosson of the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) envisioned deaf people communicating with videophones more than 10 years before the FCC began reiumbursing for it. Bosson contacted Mark Seeger of Sprint 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 statewide Telecom 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 from Smithsonian Computerworld and TDI for his work with VRS.

Initial Texas trials

In 1995, the first trial was run by Sprint in Austin and was limited to four public call centers.

The second trial occurred in 1997 and served ten cities in Texas. 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 to Video Remote Interpreting. Linda Nelson has been credited with changing the term from VRI to VRS.) Later, Hanwave Interpreting Service was bought by Communication Service for the Deaf, and Sprint expanded their relay subcontract to include VRS services in addition to the established TRS services.^[6]

In 2002 Washington State and Texas tested a web based VRS, with CSDVRS providing VRS services via the Internet to State of Washington.

Implementation across the United States

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.

U.S. VRS regulation

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the regulatory body for VRS in the United States. In addition to overseeing VRS, the FCC also oversees Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), from which the VRS regulatory framework has evolved. The FCC oversees TRS and VRS as a result of their mandate in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to facilitate the provisions equal access to individuals with disabilities over the telephone network.

Funding for VRS is provided via the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Fund, which was created by the FCC, originally to fund TRS services. Funding for the TRS comes from a tax on the revenue from all telecommunications companies operating in the US. 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 National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), which also administers the much larger Universal Service Fund and publishes the reimbursement rates 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:

• The time it takes an interpreter to answer an incoming VRS call. As of July 1, 2006, VRS providers must answer 80% of calls within two and a half minutes. Starting on January 1, 2007 VRS providers must answer 80% of calls within two minutes;
• as of January 1, 2006, all VRS providers are required to provide service 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
• reimbursement of VRS Video Mail: if a Hearing person calls a sign language user, but there is no answer, the VI signs a message and delivers it to the sign language user's e-mail, similar to an answering machine. Previously this service was not reimbursed and the cost was absorbed by the VRS provider;
• VRS providers are not permitted to "call back" when a customer hangs up before a VRS call is placed;
• VRS providers must only process calls that either originate or terminate in the US or its territories. For example, a person in Canada may use a VRS service in the United States to call a person in the United States, but not another person in Canada.

It is important to understand that Video Relay is not government funded. It is not an appropriation and it is not a tax. Each telephone company is required to make their services accessible to individuals with disabilities. This has been defined to be relay in the various forms (Traditional, VRS, STS, IP Relay, et al.). Each common carrier contributes 0.01137% of their telephone service revenue. They do this because not all common carriers provide relay individually. There had to be a way to pay those that provided relay for those that did not, therefore the interstate relay fund started. Stating the contribution factor in a different way; it is one thousand one hundred thirty seven hundred thousandths of one percent. You would not be able to see the penny if sliced to the proportion a private telephone company contributes.

Only a handful of telephone companies have opted to provide relay themselves. Other telephone companies have the same opportunity, instead they have chosen a group purchasing concept. The fund collects a % contribution from all telephone companies; those carriers providing relay are paid based on minutes provided. They offer relay for themselves and every other telephone company. The goal being to recoup their own contribution & recover costs of providing relay for everyone else.

The FCC & the contractor responsible for administration of the fund, NECA, serve as regulator of standards of relay service and as steward of the fund. The 2009–2010 fund filing, submitted May 1, 2009, contains proposed provider payment formulas, fund size estimate and carrier contribution factor for the period July 2009 through June 2010. The filing proposes a fund size of $891.0 Million and a carrier contribution factor of 0.01137. The fund pays for several forms of relay, not just video relay. Included is captioned telephone, speech to speech and voice carry over. Someone who is late-deafened primarily uses captioned telephone and voice carry over.

The Video Relay service is in and of itself a vital tool in today's workplace for deaf and hard-of-hearing citizens. A CPA who is deaf stated that VRS was key to maintaining his career status because clients did not have to deal with antiquated text based services. While it may seem that deaf people are getting some "high tech service", the callers on the other end who are hearing are also benefiting from the service. Today, unemployment benefits are verified via telephone touch-tone systems or voice recognition. These are for the most part not accessible via traditional text relay services. The necessity for more technological forms of relay is a function of the greater society that we all are a part of, nothing more.

2005 U.S. FCC "Certification Program"

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.^[11] The record reflects that other entities that desire to offer VRS have been unable to join a certified state program.^[12]

(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]}

As of 2009 there have been six providers certified becoming eligible for reimbursement from the TRS fund under the rules advocated for by Daryl Crouse and supported by others in the industry.

Issues in U.S. VRS administration

• Numbering standardization competing VRS providers have incompatible numbering schemes.
• Interconnection between the IP-based videophone network and the worldwide telephone network.
• VRS providers encounter difficulties routing 911 calls to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). When a VRS user dials 911, the call is first delivered to the VRS, as with any other call placed. However, when the VRS interpreter attempts to connect with the user's local PSAP, the call is instead connected to the PSAP that services the VRS provider's location. Additionally, the information displayed at the PSAP will be that of the VRS provider, not the VRS user.
  In order to route emergency calls and accurate information to the appropriate PSAP, VRS providers can send the call information to a national call-routing service. This service determines the appropriate local PSAP for the VRS user and delivers the VRS interpreter's 911 call accordingly. The VRS user can then communicate with the PSAP dispatcher via the VRS interpreter, in order to receive the appropriate emergency services.^[13] The European Union improves access to emergency services 112 for people with disabilities. The REACH112 project intends to implement a 12-month pilot in Sweden, UK, The Netherlands, France and Spain allowing disabled users to communicate at a distance with each other and directly with the emergency services.
• The VRS industry is under investigation by the FCC, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and FBI for alleged fraudulent activities meant to "manufacture" minutes. The FBI raided the offices of several VRS providers in June 2009 and consequently issued warrants and indictments for fraud.^[14] The FCC OIG office presented at the RID conference in Philadelphia alerting the field to the problem and urging all those involved to no longer tolerate and such activity by reporting it to the FCC.^{[citation needed]}
• On November 19, 2009, the FBI unsealed indictments against 26 people charged with engaging in a scheme to steal millions of dollars from the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Video Relay Service (VRS) program. Arrests were made the same day by FBI agents and Postal Inspectors in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Maryland and were the result of a joint FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and FCC Office of Inspector General (FCC-OIG) investigation into a nationwide scheme to defraud the FCC's VRS program.
  The indictments charged the owners, employees and contractors of several companies with engaging in a scheme to defraud the FCC's VRS program:^[15]
  • Viable Communications Inc., of Rockville, Maryland
  • Master Communications LLC, of Las Vegas
  • KL Communications LLC, of Phoenix
  • Mascom LLC of Austin, Texas
  • Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Interpreting Services Inc. (DHIS), of New York and New Jersey
  • Innovative Communication Services for the Deaf
  • Tamara Frankel, Robert Rubeck, Benjamin Pena of Arizona

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2011)

Technical details

Typical calling procedure in the United States

Normally:

1. An individual who communicates by American Sign Language, or another mode of manual communication, such as Signing Exact English, contact signing (Pidgin Signed English), Cued Speech, or Linguistics of Visual English, uses a videophone or other video device, such as a webcam, to connect via broadband Internet to a Video Relay Service;
2. the caller is routed to a sign language interpreter, known as a Video Interpreter (VI). The VI is in front of a camera or videophone;
3. the video user gives the VI a voice number to dial, as well as any special dialing instructions;
4. the VI places the call and interprets as a neutral, non-participating third party. Anything that the audio user says is signed to the video user, and anything signed by the video user is spoken to the audio user;
5. once the call is over, the caller can make another call or hang up with the interpreter;
6. the company that provides the interpreter services will then submit billings to the FCC.

People with normal hearing 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:

• Voice Carry Over: The video user may use his/her own voice instead of the interpreter speaking;
• Hearing Carry Over: the video user may listen for him/herself instead of relying on the interpreter;
• Language Preference: The video user requests that the interpreter use American Sign Language;
• the ability to connect to a sign language interpreter who can interpret into another language, such as Spanish.

Videotelephony descriptive names & terminology

The name videophone is not as standardized as its earlier counterpart, the telephone, resulting in a variety of names and terms being used worldwide, and even within the same region or country. Videophones are also known as videotelephones (or video 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,^[16] although "video telephone" likely entered the lexicon earlier after "video" was coined in 1935.^[17]

Videophone calls (also: videocalls and video chat),^[18] differ from videoconferencing in that they expect to serve individuals, not groups.^[19] However that distinction has become increasingly blurred with technology improvements such as increased bandwidth and sophisticated software clients that can allow for multiple parties on a call. In general everyday usage the term videoconferencing is now frequently used instead of videocall for point-to-point calls between two units. Both videophone calls and videoconferencing are also now commonly referred to as a video link.

Webcams are popular, relatively low cost devices which can provide live video and audio streams via personal computers, and can be used with many software clients for both video calls and videoconferencing.^[20]

A videoconference system is generally higher cost than a videophone and deploys greater capabilities. A videoconference (also known as a videoteleconference) allows two or more locations to communicate via live, simultaneous two-way video and audio transmissions. This is often accomplished by the use of a multipoint 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.^[21][22] A separate webpage article is devoted to videoconferencing.

A telepresence system is a high-end videoconferencing system and service usually employed by enterprise-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 uses of the various technologies described above include videocalling or videoconferencing on a one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many basis for personal, business, educational, deaf Video Relay Service and tele-medical, diagnostic and rehabilitative use or services. New services utilizing videocalling and videoconferencing, such as teachers and psychologists conducting online sessions,^[23] personal videocalls to inmates incarcerated in penitentiaries, and videoconferencing to resolve airline engineering issues at maintenance facilities, are being created or evolving on an on-going basis.

See also

• List of video telecommunication services and product brands
• Over the phone interpreting: audio only language translation used by those with normal hearing
• Telephone interpreting: audio only language translation used by those with normal hearing
• Telecommunications Relay Service: precursor to VRS
• Telepresence: state-of-the-art videoconferencing technology
• Videoconferencing: for multiple parties
• Video Remote Interpreting (VRI): where the hearing person is co-located next to the signer
• Videophone: the ancestral technology
• Videotelephony: technology overview
• Webcam

References

External links

• Media related to Video Relay Services at Wikimedia Commons
• Media related to Videophones and Videotelephony at Wikimedia Commons
• (Russian) Videophone usage for the deaf in Russia
• FCC TRS Rules
• REACH 112

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Video Relay Service

• Keating, Elizabeth; Mirus, Gene. "American Sign Language in Virtual Space: Interactions between Deaf Users of Computer-Mediated Video Communication and the Impact of Technology on Language Practices", Cambridge University Press, Language in Society, November 2003, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 693-714. Article stable URL DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4169299.

v d e Telecommunications (general) History Beacons Broadcasting Computer networks Drums Electrical telegraphy Fax Heliography Hydraulic telegraphs Internet Mass media Mobile phones Optical telegraphy Photophone Radio Radiotelephone Satellite communications Telegraphy Telephones Telephone patent controversies Television Undersea telegraph lines Videophones Pioneers Alexander Graham Bell Alfred Vail Alexander Popov Charles Wheatstone Claude Chappe Edwin Armstrong Elisha Gray Guglielmo Marconi Jagadish Bose Johann Philipp Reis John Logie Baird Lee De Forest Nikola Tesla Philo Farnsworth Reginald Fessenden Tim Berners-Lee Vint Cerf Vladimir Zworykin Media Coaxial cable Free-space optical Landlines Optical fiber Radio waves Terrestrial microwave Networks Advanced Research Projects Agency BITNET Ethernet FidoNet ISDN Internet Local area Mobile/Cellular NGN Packet switched Public Switched Telephone Radio Television Telex Wide area World Wide Web Wireless Geographic v d e Telecommunications in Europe Sovereign states Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales States with limited recognition Abkhazia Kosovo Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Transnistria Dependencies and other territories Åland Faroe Islands Gibraltar Guernsey Jersey Isle of Man Svalbard Other entities European Union v d e Telecommunications in North America Sovereign states Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Canada Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States Dependencies and other territories Anguilla Aruba Bermuda Bonaire British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Curaçao Greenland Guadeloupe Martinique Montserrat Navassa Island Puerto Rico Saint Barthélemy Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saba Sint Eustatius Sint Maarten Turks and Caicos Islands United States Virgin Islands v d e Telecommunications in South America Sovereign states Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Panama Paraguay Peru Suriname Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Dependencies and other territories Aruba Bonaire Curaçao Falkland Islands French Guiana South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands v d e Telecommunications in Oceania Sovereign states Australia Cook Islands East Timor (Timor-Leste) Fiji Indonesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Federated States of Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Dependencies and other territories American Samoa Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Easter Island French Polynesia Guam Hawaii New Caledonia Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Pitcairn Islands Tokelau Wallis and Futuna v d e Telecommunications in Africa Sovereign states Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe States with limited recognition Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Somaliland Dependencies and other territories Canary Islands / Ceuta / Melilla / Plazas de soberanía (Spain) Madeira (Portugal) Mayotte / Réunion (France) Saint Helena / Ascension Island / Tristan da Cunha (United Kingdom) Western Sahara v d e Telecommunications in Asia Sovereign states Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma (Myanmar) Cambodia People's Republic of China Cyprus East Timor (Timor-Leste) Egypt Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen States with limited recognition Abkhazia Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus Palestine Republic of China (Taiwan) South Ossetia Dependencies and other territories Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Hong Kong Macau