Masters Thesis

Problems and related suggested solutions to deaf users and non-users of the telephone

While Pacific Telephone Company has generously offered to provide some material for advertising new phones and devices for the deaf, there still remains the need to advertise and make it possible for simulated trial use. The majority of deaf persons would greatly enjoy using the telephone, but their own fear and frequent unrecognized needs scares them from even seeking assistance. The Problem: The need of selling the deaf on the idea of using the telephone as well as selling telephone companies on recognizing this unmet source of revenue. New equipment and new ideas for the deaf are abundant. What is lacking is some place for all these to be demonstrated. Suggested Solution: Either the Public Utilities Commission and/or the telephone companies in Southern California to develop a place for hearing impaired persons to view and test new equipment before actual use. Any and all information about such a place must be communicated to all departments of the respective telephone companies so that if a deaf person calls, say, the San Diego office, her will not be put off with the statement that there is no place for which he can try or observe new equipment or devices. Other suggestions or comments: Another area of concern is the need to recognize the limited amount of information that occurs when either the teletype or speech indicator is being used by the deaf person. This has been accurately estimated as about one-third normal rate. In other words, where the hearing person can speak at approximately 120 words per minute, the deaf person with the teletype machine can put across, at best, only about 35 words per minute. The user of a speech indicator is even slower when attempting to receive a message. Why must the deaf person pay normal hearing toll and long distance rates for actually reduced telephone communication? The Problem: Rates for deaf telephone users are not commensurate with the amount of information being communicated. Suggested Solution: While realizing that this may present an extremely difficult problem, two suggestions hint at possible improvement. First, it might be feasible to defray this cost by reducing the normal monthly telephone charge for the telephone (In most cases, reducing this by 50% amounts to only about$2.50 anyway. But it is a start at equalizing charges). Second 9 and probably better, would be to simply deduct a percentage of the total monthly bill of those deaf parsons who use the telephone. In other words, while most deaf persons are using the phone daily now (those who have special devices), they are paying rates far out of line with what the hearing person receives. They are adding revenue to the telephone companies without really using the phone as prices have been established. A percentage reduction could not only show them that the company is concerned with their welfare, it could increase use of the telephone and again increase the profit of the telephone companies. Other suggestions or comments: A subject of bewilderment among those selected few deaf persons who use the telephone is the added monthly charge for a light relay. The light relay is vitally needed by the deaf person to allow a visual signal when the person is being called. The Problem: Why must the deaf person pay for a light relay by a lifetime of increased monthly charges when the nearing person does not have to pay extra for a bell? If the deaf or hearing person needs both, an extra charge is justifiable. But, if only one is needed and used, why charge extra per month for it? Suggested Solution: Eliminate the monthly extra charge for a light relay when only the light is being used. In cases where both the light and bell are needed, continue the extra charge as now established.

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.