Hawk Relay Petitioning FCC on SA
27 03 2008All..
Hawk Relay is petitioning the FCC for reconsideration of Speed Answer (SA) for Video Relay Service.
Check this link and read its rationale why SA needs to be further reduced Hawk Relay Petition
Basically Hawk Relay is saying that it is time for the FCC to reduce the required time for SA for VRS. Hawk Relay felt that the circumstances for a long SA is now over.
I was surprised at this petition from a VRS provider. Why am I surprised? It is because if the FCC reduces FCC down to 85/10 (85% of calls answered within 10 seconds), it would mean that VRS providers would need to hire more video interpreters. Right now interpreters are scarce, and VRS providers are scraping the bottom of barrell to find them. Education and community interpreting services are suffering as result. (Now, gentle VLOG readers, do you agree?)
Popular VRS providers that get lot of VRS calls would suffer as result; other smaller VRS providers would not suffer as they do not have lot of traffic. I wonder if this is correct statement? Let us hear your thots.
Hawk Relay recognizes that consumers want faster response and I fully understand that. My concern is do we have enough interpreters to satisfy 14 VRS providers? Is my concern justified or not?
Check an old Reply Comments by National Video Relay Service Coalition NVRSC Comments This Coalition back in 2005 insists that 85/10 is achievable by VRS Industry and that lack of interpreters is not a good reason to justify long SA.
Let me know what you all think of all this folks…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Loading ...
For example, I tried to use Sorenson interpreter, but it took longer for the interpreter to response than smaller VP, so I switch over to them. I think the FCC should have allowed to list all 14 VP on their VP device so it would be much easier for me to dial which ever I choose. As well I notice using Sorenson device and try to use other VP, seems cannot get clear picture of the interpreter when she or he signs. Need to clear this matter up so all Deaf or HOH can use any VP. I think the big VP should help the little guys. Truly we do need more training for more qualified interpreters. I cannot even get an alive interpreter to the doctor’s office or hospital. Because all the good interpreters are working for the VP. This put the Deaf in a bad spot that they cannot find alive interpreter.
I have given up waiting for a video relay interpreter and tried a different VRS in hopes of getting a faster response. Usually it works, but you have raised an important point. What if we have so many VRS agencies that they are depeleting the interpreter pool? Should we concentrate on having a few quality VRS than leaving it open to competition?
Sometimes I prefer to use the internet relay or TTY relay for documentation or for quicker response…but find a variability in the quality of relay operator.
Most annoying is when a faceless relay operator becomes so literal that it halts the whole process. For example, rattling off a list of menu options without using commas to separate them; causing me to choose the wrong number, then telling me “your option is not available” if asked to select for a live operator. Any comment on how this is confusing brings the response “relay is not allowed to engage in conversation” or “relay does not know the answer, please choose an option”.
This is forcing me to use video relay interpreters as it is more face-to-face and the VRI is less likely to frustrate one because of laziness, literalness in following printed instructions or boredom.
To be sure, keep a variety of relay operators and modes of relaying, but let’s focus on quality now that we have the means.
I wonder what is the true motive behind the petition? Do they (Hawk Relay) truly want Deaf people to have an equal access as everyone else or do they just do that to undermine the level of competitiveness by large VRS providers?
We all want an equal access and no question about it. Unfortunately, in reality, to gain something that serves our needs is to lose something (cost). Like you said, if SA is reduced, then it would have an impact on large VRS by putting more pressure on them to hire more interpreters when the supply of interpreters is so scarce. Your question is not easy to answer, ha.
Because the supply is limited, I would prefer to leave the regulation unchanged for some time until there is an evident increase of the number of interpreters available in the market. This leads me to ask a question - do we have that information available to us?
Thank you for the video and I always enjoy watching your announcements and thoughts.
I am much against reduction on speed of answer requirement.
I lost 2 days of Cisco VOIP training last week because the interpreters are not available at my work. Also, we had a meeting with contractor and our team. My boss had to use AIM to type in what was said in the meeting because interpreter is not available. We are working on VRI and VRI is a temporary solutions. I prefer to have a interpreter on site rather than use VRI. I can image that it is hard to use VRI when there are several deaf and hearing people in a room.
Hawk Relay seems to try to push issue of Speed of Answer so that they can force issue to benefet themselves. And if FCC reduce Speed of Answer, VRS provider would start to hire low quality interpreter to meet the requirement.
I have tried to use all VRS provider such as HOVRS, Sorenson, CSDVRS, Viable, and Snapvrs. Sometimes, I do find myself waiting for more than 1 or 2 minutes during peak time. I never have to wait more than 3 minutes.
With VP, you still can choose your own VRS provider. You are not limit to one provider. All you have to do is to add them to speed dial.
Folks,
You all made good remarks - thought provoking and the whole situation bears careful analyzing for sure. I believe the FCC reads these comments, so I’m sure they will take a pause to ur remarks. Keep them coming, folks!
Ed B
Hawk has to remember one thing. The VRS would do anything to meet the ASA by hiring non-certified interpreters!
Good Comments and I fully agree with you. In my view, we are used to be patient for the services we receive in the EU but in the U.S, the demands are far too demanding and I think VRS should be seen as alternatives rather than demanding to provide more and more and then explosive!
Talk soon.
Hawk VRS is dirty business. it owned by Sam Hawks. He only partner with CAC in michigan. Why he is dirty? Because he only uses his VRS for his other business he has. He required his employee and contractor tu use HAWK VRS. We dont see hawk marketing his VRS much. I think he dont care about providing service for the deaf cuz he just wan to run up the VRS hours form his employees and contractor to get rich from FCC. FCC pay about 6.77 per minutes so that about $400 an hours. So he pays his contractor about $10 an hour to do all the carzy callings. Drity man Hawk…. FCC should terminate his service.
Flyboy,
Be careful on making this type of accusation. I hope you have facts to back this up otherwise u can be held for libel issues.
I’ve heard similar situation for other VRS providers, but I do not know if they are in fact factual. It is a cutthroat business in the VRS world, it seems.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed