Wow - Firing Interpreters and Closing One VRS Center
22 10 2008All..
Now heard-tell that SorensonVRS fired several Video Interpreters because they performed unethical or illegal action of racking up inappropriate VRS minutes. Happened in SorensonVRS Austin center. I understood that SorensonVRS paid back all the VRS minutes that had been accumulated by nefarious video interpreters and paid back to the federal fund. I understood that SorensonVRS did that without the FCC jumping on them.
Also heard-tell that Viable closed one Austin Interpreting Center that they had contract with cuz the center was doing unethical or illegal actions of racking up inappropriate VRS Minutes. Understood that Viable chose not to submit VRS minutes the last two months as result of that. Viable did that without the FCC intervention. A group of interpreters, not all of them, were responsible for that;. Viable had tear up the contract with the Center because the CEO of the Austin Center was the one that encouraged racking up minutes. WOW!
If these are true, then I applaud both SorensonVRS and Viable to take the actions that they did.
Truth be told, VRS providers should police themselves and ensure that ALL VRS minutes were done by deaf/hoh which met the FCC rules of "unnecessary VRS minutes". I don’t see that happening in a few of them.
Disclaimer: These stories I know happened, but I do not have the gritty details.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
I agree that the agencies acted appropriately in either not billing or repaying the federal fund for inappropriate minutes. (Agree with Ed’s “applause”) Sad that some people don’t have personal/business ethics — they should have known better. (They should have known it was both wrong and illegal.) Personally, I hope the agencies will also follow through on penalties for the people involved. (Could file complaints with interpreter certification agencies and or court actions …)
I agree with your comment that VRS agencies should police themselves. Not always an easy thing to do, but the agencies need to figure out how to insure the services and billings are correct *without* compromising callers’ right to privacy.
I am not sure I follow this article. What “Minutes” do you refer? VRS Minutes? Is this has to do with parliamentary procedure in the meetings or actually “minutes.” I never heard wordings “VRS Minutes” before. Can you explain the terminology of VRS Minutes. Thank you.
Endy,
VRS Minutes means the time that video interpreters have accumulated by interpreting between calling and called parties (hearing and deaf/hoh). These VRS minutes are appropriately called “Conversation Minutes”. Perhaps by saying VRS Conversation Minutes would have been clearer, but I’ve seen “VRS Minutes” used here and there.
Good question; never assume that everyone knows what VRS minutes, so thank you for calling attention to that.
Ed
How ironic. Sorensen fires interpreters for padding their work minutes in an effort to inflate their earnings. Yet that same company encourages their interpreters to process calls from Canada to end users in Canada so that the company can falsely claim those minutes for reimbursement with American taxpayers’ money. They’re only supposed to accept from Canada to end users in the USA, but I’ve actually seen their interpreters tell Canadian callers, “Don’t tell me where you’re calling from!” Ethics, schmethics!
Joe Canadian,
I’m curious. If the bosses of SorensonVRS knew about these Video Interpreters, would they pat their back, or fire them? Do you have facts to back up the claim that “same company encourages their interpreters to process calls from Canada..”?
I really would like to know the truth of that. For now, since no facts bear that out, I will just leave it as hearsay for now - until of course facts bear them out…
Be careful what we say on comments.
By the way, I have heard the same story myself, but always from third party so I chose not to take them gospel.
Ed
PS: I like the word “schmethics!” ;-]
Hey Ed,
Wow…I was in Chicago a couple of weeks ago. There’s a stir up with HawkRelay as well. They have “people” to make those unnecessary calls. One of relay call centers is located in Chicago. I happen to know some HawkRelay interpreters and I asked them and they “knew” it but working on filing a petition against HawkRelay which is good. Wait and see.
Ed, I know what I’ve seen. I’ve actually seen friends and co-workers and other acquaintances here in Canada place calls with that company to end users in Canada and be told by the interpreter, “Don’t tell me where you’re calling from!” And the one and only time I used that company myself, the interpreter said it to me.
In other cases, the caller told the interpreter, “I’m calling from Canada, but shhhhh!” (wink). The interpreter would laugh and place the call.
Many others have told me to my face that they have done this. That ain’t hearsay (signsay?) in my book. I don’t put any more credence in third-hand accounts than you do, but here are first-hand and second-hand accounts.
Joe,
Wow and thanks for ur frank comments. Guess you know that the FCC is probably reading these comments as well. SorensonVRS folks also read these comments, so should be interesting if u will be contacted?
eyes wide open & thumbs way up,
Ed
Hello Ed,
I strive to maintain my professionalism and ethics. I was happy to see your blog about the Viable and Sorenson centers here in Austin. My concern with Viable is that I have witnessed and processed illegal calls for Viable, and it wasn’t at the Austin center. Calls are confidential, so the VI’s(video interpreters) are put between a rock and a hard place when it comes to filing complaint with the FCC. I terminated my employment with Viable when it was evident nothing would be done about the illegal calls. It pains me (professionally) that Viable seems to have swept this under the rug by closing the center that got busted, but have they completely cut out the illegal calls? I hope for Viable’s sake that they have. I also agree with Rob that action should be taken against the interpreters that were caught. They need to learn that breaking federal law (stealing FCC $$) is unethical, and their licenses/certifications should be revoked.
- Concerned Video Interpreter
Does HawkRelay really run their own relay centers? Seems like they use CACRelay??? I looked briefly into it but got lazy about checking out the VR business scene.
If not, then HawkRelay HR just is a marketing firm (often spun as “owned” by a deaf person) that gets a cut from revenue from the VR calls they funnel into CACRelay?
I do know that HR contracts out their marketing campaigns to deaf people that promise to use only HR for their calls.
Thank you Ed for eye opening informations! How can we know that the VRS companies such as Sorenson and Viable did pay back to FCC? Where can we keep eye on this?
Keep on thumbing and eyes up
Robin
I wonder if Sorenson is going after the interpreter’s certification. This is a federal crime. Money stole from federal goverment. Is any charges filed against these interpreters? Did Sorenson send a letter of complaint for the intepreter conduct and get RID or DARS to suspend their license? I truely like to see this happen so that no action is done in the future..
Wow - I’m very glad to see sophisticated comments! I see a few of you are not fooled by some of the tactics used by VRS providers. Be aware, though, that there are legit and honest VRS providers out there.
Robin, I don’t think we’ll see public info of SorensonVRS paying back or Viable not submitting VRS minutes unless VRS providers themselves volunteer to share the info with public.
Byron, legally speaking - video interpreters do not fall under any RID or DARS or any state certification rules. The FCC rule says “qualified interpreter” - it did not say “certified interpreter”. So that in itself it is really up to the VRS providers to decide whether the video interpreter is qualified and/or ethical. Sometimes I wonder perhaps the FCC rule should be amended to “require certified interpreter - either by RID or state certification board”?
I do not know the details of what SorensonVRS is going to do or want to do - or for that matter what Viable will do. If I learn more and if public info, I will be happy to share.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Many VRS providers themselves do unethical activity for minutes such as Viable and its “secret” coalition of VRS providers. I guarantee you, they wouldn’t be in operation today without illegal calls.
There are other providers that take advantage of “loopholes” in the system. They toe the line of unethical conduct just enough to stay under the radar until they are reported. It is traumatic and stressful for me as a VI to process such calls day in and day out. I am told their business tactics are in compliance to FCC regulations, but it doesn’t feel that way to me.
I have filed a report with the FCC over a year ago. The FCC never followed up with me and they have never returned my calls. But it appears Viable got too greedy and they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They were also reported recently by former employees. Viable has escaped culpability (so far) in this incident by the skin of their teeth becase the franchise center (MASCOM) got the blame not them… Viable actually owes 2 years long of VRS minutes not just 2 months.
It would be a huge relief for the VI and tax payers if the FCC provided oversight. Oversight team to ensure quality of service and ethical conduct. It would cost tax payers way less to pay for this team than the MILLIONS already wasted on illegal calls.
It is obvious that providers will bend the rules as much as they can possibly bend them to create unnecessary traffic for higher profit. We can’t trust them to police themselves…look at what happened on Wall Street….
Gg
This is interesting. We do have rotten apples in the interpreting community. Some are good and some are bad.
It is harder to execute those bad ones. They tend to get away. We need laws with more teeth.
Money talks, greed seeps in
I have seen plenty of interpreters abusing code of ethics… regardless they should be de-certified!
Some terps must have learned from the masters at Wall St. and the White House….
check this out
http://www.viable.net/company/release
compare the above to the below link via google and you will see as to why in reputation damage control viable’s revisionist history whited out mascom:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:KhHwBRJyALgJ:https://www.viable.net/company/release+Mascom+Viable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
google link to the original viable article about mascom
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JCxqI3CmFZ4J:www.viable.net/company/release/2008/6/12/1+Viable+ROund+ROck&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
I wonder how can the FCC ensure compliance?
Can they monitor IP addresses to see where the calls are coming from?
Or is it a trust based system?
Also, for VRS minutes…suppose I call the bank and I am put on hold..or I have to navigate the menu…does the FCC pay for that or only when I am connected to a LIVE REP?
How do the terps measure the minutes?
Do terps hit a button when a live rep comes on..and hit it again when a call is disconnected?
Does the FCC monitor some calls?
Do the VRS providers monitor their own calls for quality assurance purposes ?(I have never been told that it was occurring, but it is normal for when I make calls to other businesses)
Questions…questions…questions…
I also heard about this happening with Sorenson Vi’s. I am going to play devil’s advocate here from an interpreter perspective. I do not advocate unethical behavior and think that the interpreters involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and have certification revoked. I would also remind everyone that this was a small number of interpreters doing this compared to the number of interpreters that work for Sorenson. I feel that the majority of interpreters working in VRS are ethical and doing their best to do a good job for their companies and the consumers. That said, I feel its important to issue a warning. (my opinion for what its worth) While the companies give interpreters a way to take a rest between calls, all interpreters realize that the bottom line is the numbers. Interpreting minutes are tracked and if your numbers are too low you are warned. It’s all about production. The bigger picture here is why did the interpreters involved feel it was necessary to do this? Sometimes an interpreter can see 10 to 15 different consumers in a one hour period and work an average of 5-8 hours a day. Each consumer has a different sign style. The interpreter has absolutely no idea or frame of reference for what the call is going to be about. (names, dates, places, etc) Many times the interpreter is yelled at or hung up on by consumers that don’t feel they are doing a good job. The other side of this is that newbie interpreters are being put into a work situation (VRS) that they are not ready to handle and do not have the experience necessary to do a good job. This is happening to satisfy the company having enough warm bodies sitting in the chair to meet the FCC ASA. VRS is the most stressful job an interpreter can have.
My fear here is that interpreters are crying out and no one is listening. Many are burning out of VRS work and going back to the community and other work. I don’t think the general public or consumers realize just how difficult VRS work is on the interpreter. I am not using this as an excuse for the unethical behavior, but just to point out a warning. I feel strongly that VRS business will be in grave trouble in the future if we do not make changes and take care of the interpreters now.
There were many times where I had to use a VRS for a legitimate conference call for my own business with a network marketing company. Finding out it’s one of these conference calls Video Interpreters of that VRS would engage in profiling giving me haughty attitude!
WHO’S TAKING THE BUM RAP? US BUSINESS PERSONS!
Grace,
I’m keenly aware and so do many deaf that deaf/hoh and interpreters/video interpreters have symbiotic relationship; we can’t live without each other, not unlike alligator allowing a bird to peck in its mouth ;-] Who’s the alligator in our case? I guess deaf/hoh as alligators and interpreters the birds? [g]
Joshing aside, your comments are very much appreciated!
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Passingthru,
Nowadays, it is little hard to determine which VRS providers have their own VRS centers or has contract with various VRS Providers or Interpreting Centers. There are supposedly 9 VRS providers in the USA.
Perhaps the FCC should define what VRS provider is, then the rule would clarify if such and such VRS providers meet the criteria or not.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
VRS I counted are AT&T, Birnbaum, Communication Access Center, CSD, Hamilton, Hawk, GoAmerica (with Hands On VRS, i711, IP-Relay), LifeLinks, Snap!, Sorenson, Sprint, URelay and Viable. That’s thirteen with GoAmerica’s three different brand name services counting as one. Hmm. Can Ed elaborate?
Learning how to count,
You have sense of humor - all right.
Actually, I think the “approved” list of VRS providers by the FCC to be reimbursed by the Interstate TRS Fund, there are only 9 of them. I do know a few are “pending”.
I will be out of town; will be going to Atlanta to give a presentation there.
I will try to find out actual number of VRS providers as determined by the FCC.
Cheerio..
Ed B
We watched your vlog and are a little concerned about this information. We searched extensively yet found no credibility to this story. Sorenson is still advertizing for interpreters in Austin for hire. Also there is no information about closings and firings elsewhere. We hate to be pesimistic but this story seems shady in and of itself. We are definately not Sorenson fans but want the facts before we believe. No information was found on Viable either. Do you really think Sorenson would pay back minutes without being told to do so by the FCC? If an interpreter wants back pay for inaccurate rates they tie them up with lawyers for years. We would just like to see some published facts of this event before we spread this information to our friends. Also how do you get unethical minutes? and who’s watching to say they are unethical? We understand about “canadian” minutes…is there something different?
2terpsfromTampa,
I completly understand your concerns. Although I do not have the gritty details I would like to have, these two incidents happened, otherwise I would not post them. I would not risk posting anything that did not happen and be judged not reliable.
Do you blame both of these VRS providers for not hanging out the dirty sheets? From a business perspective, I could understand their silence stance.
Maybe because of your comment, they may open up?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
funny…the deaf people employed by the HR contractor to make calls via HR earn only $8 to 10 a hour while HR makes….what’s it now….$6.50 a minute?
In my opinion, it’s not the FCC that should be regulating whatever breaches are occurring, nor should FCC police everything that VRS providers do. If a problem is there, what do we do? We come up with a solution and go to the FCC, present the problem and solution. FCC does not have the time, manpower or possesses the deep understanding to regulate VRS industry. Why should they?
As a deaf person who values the VRS service, I am concerned that these “Wall Street” type abuses or greed might shed an unfavorable light on the business model and lead to its future demise.
SOLUTION: A group of concerned deaf citizens should form an association, alliance or a coalition, get FCC approval to police these providers by running internal audits, review their minute reports, even placing illegal type calls to see which VRS providers will process it. Then this coalition prepares reports to the FCC, recommendations for regulation, etc. All VRS providers will have to open their books to this coalition. One thing about the coalition, its members should ignore or report “bribes” from VRS providers looking for their favor.
Same thing with interpreters, someone form a VRS interpreter coalition and ensure that their constituents receive fair treatment and protection from industry abuses.
This will ensure that the invaluable service will live on.
Just a reminder for Daniel… VRS is not just for the deaf and the idea that a group of deaf citizens should police VRS providers is a bit far fetched. VRS belongs to hearing people just a much. An Interpreter processes calls for both hearing and deaf at exactly the same percentage.
I do not see the FCC allowing a group of concerned citizens come in and police a program within its agency. Although there were many times in this past presidential administration when I wish we could have done that!!
I believe it is in the best interest of each VRS provider to police themselves, which apparently they did. At any time, the FCC can withhold payment to the provider for any set period of time. Fraudulent minutes would seem to be a good enough reason for such action.
I’m sure steps are in place to ensure this will not happen again. Thanks for the report!!
Ed, not sure if we are on your mailing list ? If not pls put us on.
Linda/Don
Dear All Interested parties ~ my greatest concern is that a service that has become so important to the Deaf and Hard of hearing community can be jeopardized by the people who are conducting fraudulent activity - those fired interpreters AND the companies who are having their employees process illegal calls. Indeed Sorenson acted swiftly to identify and terminate those performing illegal activities. A center did not have to be shut down because of the swift and certain response. The last VRS company standing will do so because of the integrity in providing a quality service and ethical business practices. I trust it will be Sorenson VRS
I think that Daniel H’s solution is interesting. I am just not sure that more regulation is the answer. I know that any VRS company worth anything is not going to risk being put out of business by unethical behavior. There is too much at stake for them to save or make a few pennies by being unethical. My experience with Sorenson is that they do their best to police their own company. One of the problems is the individual employees may or may not have the same standard for ethical behavior. This is why those employees were immediately fired. As soon as the company was aware of what was going on, they took care of the problem themselves. I applaud Sorenson for doing this. Sorenson also has ways for consumers and employees to report anything they feel is unethical without fear of retribution. A company can train people, give them tools, etc but ethics comes from each person. If you make “test” unethical calls you may catch an interpreter processing a call simply because he/she is not aware of or doesn’t fully understand what the rules are. Rules change frequently in VRS. It’s difficult for interpreters to keep up with those changes. One day you’re doing something one way, and the next its all different. I don’t think that more regulation is the answer. Sorenson did the best thing I think they could have and that is made an example out of those interpreters that were acting unethically. It sent a message to the others that this behavior would not be tolerated by the company. Every company that employs a large number of people is always going to have some bad apples that need to be weeded out. Sorenson just did some weeding. What is left is a company that is doing its best to function and perform its duties to the best of its ability in an ethical manner.
Grace,
True, Sorenson has shown the corporate maturity to take action and regulate itself. But what about other VRS providers? Some earlier comments from some interpreters show that the problem in other companies is/might be rampant.
True, more regulation is not the answer. But with these rampant abuses going on in this business, the FCC’s answer might be to make “drastic cuts” in funding which would possibly degrade the quality of service and lack of funds for R&D, training, education, an undesired long-term effect. Even with “drastic cuts” the rampant abuses might continue. Since the industry generates so much revenue, the answer is tight reins regulation.
Simply, to prevent that, a body designated by the FCC to be responsible for monitoring, tracking quality, fair practices, issues, making recommendations, educating consumers, preventing abuses can possibly protect the industry in falling into the “Wall Street greed” trap. Once rules are in place and all providers show “good faith” operation, then regulation can be relaxed.
A same body could be set up for interpreters, to protect them from industry abuse, provide them the tools and means to an accessible education, and so on…
Daniel,
You make a good point. I personally think that any company that is knowingly promoting shady ethics will drive itself into the ground. It’s just a matter of time. But that said, a watchdog group may be a good thing for the industry in general.
As I stated in my previous post, I think that the biggest problem facing the VRS industry at the present time is the burn out factor with the good, high quality interpreters. It’s not just a company problem. It’s an industry problem. Interpreters have never worked in this type of arena at any time in history. Many choose not to see what is happening. Because we are all so new at this, there is no raw data to refer to related to the physical and emotional effects of VRS work on interpreters. Right now, there is no representation for the interpreter, but hopefully that will change in the future and we can become better educated consumers and preserve the service for the next generation.
“Some earlier comments from some interpreters show that the problem in other companies is/might be rampant. ”
There is a company that shall remain nameless that is nothing but fraudulent calls.
What I thought what I see the several services. Most are great and some not understood or on propose not understand me and repeats. I like to see the interpeters sign to them what am I saying. It will help me the english or make sure what he or her told them what am I saying? Keeping signing all the time for our times thanks, Fred
As a Sorenson interpreter, I cannot comprehend how or why other interpreters would purposely try to outwit Sorenson and the FCC out of their own laziness. I value this job and dress for it as I do any community assignment. I arrive early and I help my colleagues when they need assistance.
I am happy that Sorenson took these actions and I hope that the punishment fits the crime. I also hope Sorenson and the justice system teaches those who broke the law a lesson which will also prevent others from attempting to defraud both the company and the government.
For everyone who uses video relay, please remember that there are many more interpreters who love their job and do well everyday than the few idiots who thought they could get away with breaking the law.
Forgive me, but I’m gushing with pride of the sophisticated comments from obviously concerned and intelligent readers.
I was at Atlanta this past weekend. One person provided a comment that was sorta thought provoking. She said when a deaf/hoh person calls VRS provider(s), and get a busy signal. The reasons for the busy signals could be because of three possible reasons: One: lot of deaf/hoh use the service and not enough interpreters; Two: marketing division/sales division that has contract with VRS provider take up all the time of Video Interpreters thus becomes busy; Or Three: Video Interpreters cheating (either on their own or via instruction from VRS provider).
I would hope it is because of use the VRS alot and not enough VIs, not other two reasons.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Kudos to Viable and Sorenson if they did step up without FCC intervention. It shows integrity to do the right thing without being asked to do it.
I would like to see those interpreters involved pay the appropriate penalties. Unfortunately, RID’s grievance system is based on reconciliation, not punishment. Have they ever taken away a certification (with the exception of the interpreter who let the certificaiton test get out)? RID’s history has been to try and get the two parties to kiss and make up. Hopefully this is because there have not been serious breaches in ethics, but one has to wonder about the past 40 years whether or not that has really been the case.
This is a time when punishment for those who are guilty for such a serious breach should be instituted; if either company does file a grievance, hopefully RID will step up and do the right thing. If not, their Code of Conduct is pointless and unenforceable.
Concerned About Ethics,
That is a recurring question. Should RID be involved in this; should VRS provider approach RID to eke out punishment or tear up the RID certification if they are certified with RID?
Possible problem is that these video interpreters were hired as VRS employee, not as a certified interpreter or as a RID certified Interpreter. They became VI solely based on VRS provider’s analysis of the VIs (I think with one or maybe two exception where VRS providers actually hired persons to be VI only if they are certified).
So this begs the question. Should the FCC require certified interpreters to be VI instead of allowing VRS providers determine the quality of Interpreters to become VI?
Truth to be told, I have mixed feelings about that. If require certified, I would not be surprised if sizable percentage of VIs would be let go, and create a real hardship for VRS providers to meet the speed answer. VRS would be perpetually busy and we don’t want that.
Ed
Thank you very much for the discussion on this matter. I am a Video Interpreter in the North East, and I have been very uneasy about some of the calls we’ve processed in the past. The calls I have felt have been of some ethical conflict are fortunately not as frequent any longer. I want to make sure we are all thinking the same thing, so I wonder exactly what is meant when you say fraudulent or unethical calls? Can someone give an example? What calls were the VIs in Austin making that made it so bad to get fired and close the center?
I also like the issues raised (-perhaps more appropriate on a different thread-) about ensuring the rights for good working conditions for interpreters. I very much dislike what I’ve heard about some VRS providers who only stress production, therefore allowing only a 10 minute break per hour of interpreting. This is a clear disregard for standard business practices as set forth and accepted by RID and the majority of the interpreting community, which suggest only 20 to 30 minutes of active interpreting, then 20 to 30 minutes of supporting your teammate while s/he is in the hot seat. This is probably one of the many reasons why VRS interpreting places the most stress (physically, emotionally, and mentally) on interpreters and leads to early burnout, repetitive motion injury, carpal tunnel, vicarious trauma, etc. Since we’re all into working up groups to monitor stuff, why not have a group to monitor how VRS providers are treating their interpreters?
And for those who were asking about the way VRS interpreters handle the time of calls and how they are counted (J.J.), all I can say is this: The VRS Provider I work for has the interpreters computers set up with a program that monitor the duration of the audio portion of the call and the video duration. They are recorded both separately. Video Minutes are recorded when the interpreter is connected with the deaf consumer but not yet connected to the hearing consumer, from getting the number to call all the way through ringing until someone picks up and in between placing calls, and Audio Minutes are recorded when the interpreter is connected with the hearing consumer but not yet connected with the deaf consumer. I was trained to try my best to decrease the time between the deaf caller connecting to me (the interpreter) and me connecting to the hearing caller because FCC will only reimburse minutes where BOTH video and audio minutes are running, in other words, when the two callers are talking to each other. This means VRS minutes are counted when on hold, navigating menus, or anything else where both callers are connected. And the interpreters do not have a on/off switch to start and stop the timer. Hope that answers some questions on that. I can’t say it’s a standard among all VRS providers, as equipment and training may vary, but I’m sure FCC only reimburses for minutes when both calls are connected.
As far as quality control, that seems to be up to each individual call center managers and trainers. From time to time my supervisor will come sit next to me to see how the call is being processed, and gives me some pointers as needed. They do, of course, encourage me to process call faster and make more VRS minutes, but if I’ve been interpreting for 30 minutes, I’ll be given a replacement and a break with no one breathing down my neck to get right back to work after 10 minutes are up. That way the quality of my interpreting doesn’t suffer.
Hope that answers some questions, and I look forward to having mine answered soon. Thanks so much to everyone supporting this nice exchange of information and ideas, and thanks for letting me have a moment on my soapbox!
Dear “Can I have a quick soap box moment?”
Fraudelent or unethical calls? One example is where VI would bring a laptop and make call to himself/herself (easy to find out IP address of the particular station). There are several other imaginative ways to cheat, and I’m not sure I want to list them to give VIs an idea ;-] I chose laptop because it is easy to spot VI lugging around laptop.
To have a group monitor VRS treating VIs. That’s is probably not possible simply because VRS Providers are companies and they control the system. They will not let any independents outside of VRS provider monitor them. Could the FCC do that? Not even that. Also it may infringe upon privacy issues of VRS call.
We may simply just have to either trust VRS provider or VIs continue express their concerns by sending emails to the FCC or posting comments to websites such as this one?
And, thank YOU for ur soap box comments.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
I am not sure if Ed’s story is true. I prefer to hear from Sorenson themselves. It is possible that Sorenson don’t want to share their confidentiality.
Brenda,
They’re true, but I agree with you. Best from VRS providers themselves.
Ed
Because there are no links for us to check whether this story is true, I strongly doubt this. Can you present proof as to whether this really did happen? Can you point me to where you got the information?
Thanks.
Peggy, Why don’t you ask VRS providers directly and see what they say? Unfortunately, I can’t reveal my sources, but they happened. I would not post them if they were not true. It can be a libel lawsuit against me if they were not true. Ed