FCC Latest Report & Order & Declaratory Ruling - WOW Important Info
22 11 2007All..
Happy Thanksgiving Holiday!
Wow - this is a MUST reading of the FCC’s latest report, order and declaratory ruling as it will impact VRS providers as well as some of the consumers.
I will try to summarize this, basically it is about how relay providers - VRS, IP Relay, traditional TTY Relay, Speech to speech, and Captioning Telephone Service - are paid in a different way. The FCC also had declaratory ruling which means it outlines rules what VRS providers can do and cannot do.
If u want the gritty details, click.
Latest FCC report, order, and Declaratory Ruling
Here is my brief summarization of the FCC stuff.
I will start with Declaratory Ruling first because it impacts VRS users, organizations, and VRS providers.
Please bear in mind this is not a NEW rule; it is based on past ruling that the FCC felt need to clarify. The following declarations are:
- Relay providers may NOT offer consumer financial or other incentives (i.e. rewards) - directly or indirectly - to make relay calls. Examples: sweepstakes that encourage VRS user to call particular VRS provider; that is not allowed.
- That use of customer call base or database by VRS providers to contact relay users for political or marketing practices are not allowed. What this means is that VRS providers cannot use VRS user’s information to contact VRS users for political or improper marketing practices. Example of that is by deploying an email message, postcards, etc. to inform them about pending TRS compensation issues and urge them to contact the Commission about the compensation rates. This is not allowed.
- Track relay user’s usage and then determine if person should get a new video phone or upgrade. this is not allowed.
- Impermissable VRS marketing practices such as "use this VRS or you will not get upgrades" or "to get this video phone, you must use our VRS" or "if you want to keep the video phone, you must use VRS". All these are not allowed.
- Sponsorship that are tied to service usage. Examples of that is state association or local deaf club or alumni club having a contract to receive financial incentives (like 25 cents per min or something like that). These are not allowed.
- Charitable contributions by a provider based on total calls made.
- Charitable contributions/gifts/payment by a provider based on "failure of a call to meet specific time" (in other words, long wait) - a contribution will be made to a third party organization. This is not allowed.
- By registering with a provider and become its "VIP" customer and receive reward or financial incentive. This is not allowed.
- Providers cannot give relay users equipment (i.e. video phone or pagers) as part of outreach efforts or for other purpose, and then seeing lack of use of the provider, get back the equipment.
Why did the FCC decide to do these? The Title IV of the ADA indicate (according to the FCC) that relay providers are intended to be "dial tone"; in other words, provide telephone service. Also, relay users do not pay for the service, the federal funds do. It is not same as hearing person who pays for the service. For example, pay $60 for 1200 minutes, and if beyond that, then person has to pay additional fees. There are no obligation on relay user to watch their usage therefore the FCC does not want any unnecessary minutes that may be logged and billed to the federal fund. Click to the link, you will read additional details on this.
Now to this new issue. Before I go into this, it is worthy to note that the Fund for relay service has grown from approx $40 million in 2000 to over $550 million for FY 2007. Out of that $550, $430 Million is from VRS. This means about 75%. Whew….
Now there is a new cost recovery methodology for TTY relay service including Speech-to-Speech which is called "MARS" plan (Multi-State Average Rate Structure). This methodology simply is use state data to determine the reimbursable rate. The FCC will collect all costs of relay service of all states, and also collect all minutes generated from each states, then calculate a weighted average rate by dividing total state dollars paid by total conversation minutes.
Based on MARS, interstate TTY relay service, the reimbursement rate is $1.59 per conversation minute. This is interesting. Remember this is interstate relay service. In Texas, our reimbursement rate is $1.29 per conversation minute.
MARS gave interstate Speech-to-Speech $1.59 plus $1.13 for outreach costs for total of $2.72. Historically, persons with speech disabilities are difficult to reach hence this. I applaude the FCC of this cuz I see great need for that, too.
MARS gave interstate Captioning Telephone Service and IP Captioning Telephone Service $1.62. This is particularly interesting cuz of IP CTS (Internet) being reimbursed by MARS methodology.
IP Relay at $1.29 (not from MARS methodology)
VRS:
- If under 50,000 minutes, then $6.77
- If over 50K to 500K, then $6.50
- If over 500K, then $6.30
The VRS tiered rates will be same for 3 years except that each subsequent years ,the reimbursement rates will be reduced by .5%.
Obviously there is lot more to the FCC report; there are over 100 pages. Even so, worth reading…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
RT Admin.
Loading ...
Wow. How will it affect the majority of VRS providers and their outreach specialist’s practice? I never knew that these regulatories are in place. Any reason why they reiterated it again?
The bird says that you are behind this scene with Sprint. You are much against any organization who would take advantage of this opportunity by teaching people who are deaf and hard of hearing how to use the relay. Is it true? Or you mislead the information not exactly interpreting what the FCC stated.
C,
I guess the FCC noticed some of the marketing practices and they felt need to clarify the issues.
Annoymous, I pride myself as being neutral. Remember Sprint Relay has a contract with Texas; in other words, Texas oversees Sprint so we have no obligation to do what Sprint wants or not want. I am a regulatory person which means I do not side with ANY phone companies, VRS providers, IP Relay, or whatever. Just ask most of the deaf leaders nationwide, and they will tell you that. As for interpreting the regulation, it is possible that I may not interpret correctly, but I’ve been in relay business for 17 years so I think my interpretation is pretty much on right. Subsequent actions by the FCC and/or relay providers will later prove me to be either right or wrong in interpretation. We’ll see…
But I can tell you right off that you misinterpret my intentions. I would love to see organizations, groups, etc. make money as many of them desperately need funds to improve their quality services. I am merely providing an impartial interpretation of the FCC rules. I can’t twist interpretation to my likings or for that matter for anyone’s or group’s likings. As I said we’ll see how it works out in the end.
One more remark; this blog/vlog - the very purpose of this is to educate deaf and hard of hearing persons about relay related issues that otherwise would not be brought to attention. Texas, I believe, leads nation in reaching grassroots folks and discuss relay issues; Texas constantly has townhall meetings, etc., and will continue to have them in the future.
eyes open & thumbs up, Ed
Dear Annoymous,
I will be the first to say that Ed is one of the most neutral, fair-minded people I know. Having known him for several years now I believe he is only interested in educating the public and does not stand to personally or monetarily benefit from any of this.
I can also tell you from personal experience, even in times when I might have hoped that Ed would take one side or another on an issue, to his credit he did not. He sought out and made available a platform for everyone to state their views.
Yes, there’s a lot of money that is being made in the relay industry. There’s nothing wrong with making good money and doing good work. I can personally attest that Ed is doing more of the good work than he is making the good money.
Thanks Ed for having this forum for everyone to voice their views regardless of what they are.
Why is IP CTS being reimbursed via MARS, but IP Relay is not?
Bill,
Good quesiton.
FCC has this to say “With respect to IP CTS, although the 2007 IP CTS Declaratory Ruling concluded that IP CTS calls would be compensated at the same rate as IP Relay calls, we now conclude that IP CTS should be compensated at the same rate as CTS. IP CTS is a new service without cost history and, upon further examination, we believe that the cost recovery rate for CTS will more accurately reflect the reasonable actual costs of providing IP CTS. As a result, we will compensate IP CTS at the CTS MARS rate.” Whereas with IP Relay is not “same” as traditional relay service, therefore should be analyzed on their costs.
Ed
I have a question, Sprint is offering free tickets to a movie called “wrong game” since they sponsor them and customer have to get their VP installed with sprint relay in order to get free movie ticket. Is that in violation of FCC rules? They’re saying it’s not but other people are saying they are. I’m confused. Can you clear this up? Many thank
Can you give us a source from FCC web site, not from your “personal” web site?
i want to give comment on this (On page 44 - footnote 244)
“Of course, providers might require the return of their equipment if they decide to no longer offer relay service (or to no longer seek compensation for it from the Fund), seek the return of all equipment given to consumers, or seek the return of the equipment for reasons not related to number or nature of relay calls made.”
Suppose VRS X made decision not to provide VRS services due to decline in their earning. It seem that VRS X has authority to get their equipment back. Is that what I am reading this?
If this happen, lot of deaf low income earners will not be able to purchase equipment around $500 and lot of VRS provider will be out of business due to loss of use of equipment that VRS X provide. In fact, many of them do not even own computer and could not afford to get web cam. Lot of middle or upper class could survive with webcam or iprelay.
We need to protect deaf community from going back to tty era. Those group of people are feeling freedom of getting in touch with hearing world using their native language. They were not able to do that with IP relay or tty relay due to english language barrier.
If FCC decide to pay for those equipment, it will be biggest irony.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Rose Ann,
Your question is an interesting one. I think Sprint no longer gives out free D-Link? or Web Camera? Let’s ask that question to the Sprint Folks. Yo, Sprint Folks, what about it? Did y’all require installation of vp in order to get free movie tickets?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Anonymous,
It is http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-186A1.doc
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
FAM,
What you did was take this paragraph out of a whole context. The FCC was explaining what “impermissible marketing and incentive practices” are and used that (what you quoted) as an example of “impermissible marketing and incentive practice”. In other words, the FCC is saying this is wrong and should not be allowed. In essence, the FCC is protecting VRS users from “impermissable marketing and incentive practices”.
At least that is how I understood it to mean.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Hello Ed and Rose Ann
Some Sprint Relay managers are happy to sponsor a tour of the movie WRONG GAME in their regions and some of us do use this as an opportunity to identify those who want us to come over to their work-sites or home-sites and demonstrate the new pool of sign language interpreters that Sprint Relay VRS utilizes. I do not go about saying “you get a free ticket only if you let us demonstrate first”.
And for me, at our movie locations, I give out Sprint Relay reading materials for customers to take home. Also there is a sign up card if the Customer is interested in being on our mailing list for Newsletters, Advertisements, Announcements and possible contacts from one of our Relay reps.
Happy Holidays y’all
Danny
Thanks, Danny for taking time to respond.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B.
Thank you Ed for revealing the rules of FCC for VRS users VRS is a wonderful system and has enabled many of us deaf to become a bit more independent. Technology is ever advancing and improving access to communication. I understand the concern if VRS users and providers abuse their privileges we could lose the funding for VRS. I support VRS and love this tool but at the same time I want to respect it. So FCC will continue to fund it. We all know the need to cut funding is happening every day. It would be sad that after we have advance to this level experience a cut in funding for VRS. All of the Deaf as well as all the VRS service providers should follow the rules and do not abuse the previldges we have now. Eyes open and thumbs up!
Sarah,
I think the new reimbursement rates that the FCC has given to the VRS is more than enough to keep VRS floating and not sink down deep in the ocean.
You’re right, the VRS industry needs to wake up and follow the rules carefully. I guess the FCC is now “waking up” the VRS industry. VRS providers prob will do one of two things: one challenge the FCC that the rules are either too strict, or that their interpretation is wrong; or comply and change to follow the rules.
Does this mean that many of us, including myself who have been waiting over 3 years to be upgraded to vp200, have the right to request an upgrade from Sorenson ?
sorenson is telling me I’m not using enough VRS minutes to justify an upgrade. How do they know this ? Do they actually have a way to look into our devices and see how many minutes we’re using ? That’s outrageous !!
What is the number or email address to report this complaint ?
I don’t know if Sorenson can look into their device, but Snap can and does look into the Ojo. I know that from personal experience because they removed the interoperability software from mine my logging into it without my authorization or even notifying me they were doing it.
Anonymous,
As for requesting upgrade to vp-200. I have no idea on what Sorenson’s policy on this is. Let’s ask Sorenson. Hey, Ron Burdett, care to enlighten us on this?
To your other question, if you can show proof that installer or someone from Sorenson did indeed did tell you that u do not have enough VRS minutes to justify upgrade, do let the FCC know of this. Actually, anyone should do this on any other VRS providers as well. According to recent delcatory clarification, even promise to get rewards for using their VRS is in fact a violation.
Website to file complaint is:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Yes! Sorenson is definitely in a volition against the FCC ruling. I was told by a number of installers from Sorenson that they would not provide VP-200 unless we have used “their service frequently”.
Da.Virus,
If that is the case, you need to file complaint with the FCC. Here is the link to complaint website:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html
If you prefer email, it is:
fccinfo@fcc.gov
Make sure your complaint contains factual information. The more info, the better it will be. Use name of installer and date and if u remember the exact words or language used. The FCC will accept detailed complaint better than just “XYZVRS Installed tole me I must use the service or I will not get a new vp or upgrade”.
Ed
Sorenson has a webpage with ASL videos about the Sorenson VP-200 at: http://www.sorensonvrs.com/apply/vp200.php. You can see if your zip code is in the upgrade area. Also, VP-100 users have already been put on a waiting list to receive a VP-200. Thank you.
I am a Pro-Customer Choice Advocate. Why I say that? Because I believe customers should have the right to choose their service providers. I am concerned this will lead to issues which I hope never happens. To state my point, from the looks of this announcement, it seems that this will eventually bring us back to square one. In other words, government is taking more control of relay/internet/vrs/etc. Rather than customer driven approach. It started with traditional relay, each state had their own contracted provider, then eventually there was an explosion of internet relay and VRS and consumer’s choice continues to be a finger click away rather than a 3,4,5 years contract. I suspect a company is a strong influence to FCC’s recent policy, since it is their preferred method of providing relay is by relying on government contracts than customer choice. Think about it, if we sleep, and let the FCC give relay (internet based that we all enjoy) to the state’s control, this one company wins, and we all lose, there will be no more finger click away to choosing whoever you want for your internet relay provider or VRS. Simple, due to the fact they have all those state contracts. Look at captioned telephone, only 2 companies provide it, it worries me because no one else can provide it and they piggyback existing relay contracts to include captioned phone, basically cutting off competition. This will be the case with VRS if we don’t keep our eyes open and thumbs up!
Upon reading your interpretation, “Sponsorship that are tied to service usage. Examples of that is state association or local deaf club or alumni club having a contract to receive financial incentives (like 25 cents per min or something like that). These are not allowed. ” It sounds like what CSDVRS’ ClearBlue is - that is not allowed? see http://www.csdvrs.com/clearblue/index.html .
Rick,
That is right. According to the FCC, this ClearBlue is “illegal”. However, I understand that HOVRS and CSDVRS have challenged the FCC on this. Partly because of that, I think that the FCC will ultimately have to define exactly what VRS should be. Hopefully, once this definition is made, VRS industry will know what qualifies for VRS and whether contracting out to state associations or organizations qualify or not.
Keep eyes peeled for that. I suspect that the FCC will have to respond to these challenges soon.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed, is there a link to the 100 page ruling?
It is on the vlog page. Where it says “you want gritty details, click to”…
Content of that pdf shows over 100 pages, but when I actually opened the pdf file, it had 67 pages.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed