36

I was testing donated electronics at a local non-profit, to decide what to put on the shelves and what to recycle, when I found this:

Federal law prohibits anyone but registered users with hearing loss from using this device with Captions On.

Federal law prohibits anyone but registered users with hearing loss from using this device with Captions On.

I can understand the loudness warning on the ear end of the handset, but I'm puzzled as to why captioning a phone call would be illegal if you didn't need it.

What were the circumstances under which that prohibition came about? What is it trying to prevent? For example, is the prohibition based on concerns around eavesdropping or wiretapping? Is the captioning technology licensed under a restrictive license that permits its use only as a disability accommodation? Is the purchase cost of the device subsidized under some disability benefit program?

I've seen commercials for captioned phones, that are clearly not targeting me, but as far as I can tell, none of them mentioned that it's actually illegal for me to use their product for its advertised function.


Per the comments, here's the bottom too:

bottom of unit

cropped on sticker

9
  • 7
    My first guess would be concerns about an aggressive interpretation of wiretapping laws.
    – bdb484
    Commented Aug 23 at 19:11
  • 3
    Or maybe copyright infringement. The ADA may allow this to be fair use for deaf people, but others don't have that excuse.
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 23 at 19:14
  • 1
    Commercials don’t tend to care at all about anybody but the target audience, so they’re not really a great indicator of anything in this case. Commented Aug 24 at 12:43
  • 1
    How old is it- is there a date underneath? In fact, a photo of the bottom showing stickers/labels could be very helpful please.
    – Criggie
    Commented Aug 24 at 21:04
  • 1
    @Criggie I'll see if I can do that. Some things last forever in that place, others go quick, and it's sometimes surprising which is which.
    – AaronD
    Commented Aug 24 at 23:17

1 Answer 1

65

This is the Fed (FCC) saying "I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it."

The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs.

From the FCC: Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission shall 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.

The Carrier, for compensation from the Fed, has to provide logs of the phone number associated with the service. Each Carrier has their own certification procedure to ensure that the person has a documented need for this service.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-F

47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(2)(v)-(vi)

(v) Incoming telephone number and IP address (if call originates with an IP-based device) at the time of the call;

(vi) Outbound telephone number (if call terminates to a telephone) and IP address (if call terminates to an IP-based device) at the time of call;

9
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – feetwet
    Commented Aug 25 at 22:59
  • 3
    Now we see the sticker/model underside, some numbers: The phone can be bought for under $50 from Amazon at amazon.com/Hamilton-CapTel-840i-Captioning-Microfiber/dp/… or $75 from weitbrecht.com/captel-840i.html . The captioning service is not included in that price. But the manufacturer has a "nocost" option specifically for those with hearing loss at captel.com/nocost The pay-cost seems to be $1500 AUD or $1000 USD for 2 years according to accesscomm.com.au/products/captel-840i
    – Criggie
    Commented Aug 26 at 1:59
  • CapTel's website's footer includes: "FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS ANYONE BUT REGISTERED USERS WITH HEARING LOSS FROM USING INTERNET PROTOCOL (IP) CAPTIONED TELEPHONES WITH THE CAPTIONS TURNED ON. Advanced speech recognition software is used to process calls, and, in certain circumstances, a live communications assistant may be included on the call. There is a cost for each minute of captions generated, paid from a federally administered fund. No cost is passed on to the CapTel user for using the service. CapTel captioning service is intended exclusively for individuals with hearing loss." Commented Aug 26 at 17:15
  • How severe does hearing loss have to be to "justify" use of the device? Is there any reasonable way for someone with hearing loss that is likely to be temporary (e.g. as a result of an infection that is expected to heal) to legally use the device until they can hear again?
    – supercat
    Commented Aug 26 at 22:10
  • "but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in" are you saying someone is listening in to any conversation on a phone like this and typing out what they hear? Do you have any links for this? I have seen a phone like this before (not this model), and the speed and accuracy at which the transcription comes out seems to me to be close to a smartphone's speech to text feature.
    – user17915
    Commented Aug 27 at 1:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .