Federal Order Stay of a FCC Ruling
7 11 2008All..
On this one I will remain neutral. This one is really critical because it has a far-reaching impact on what VRS providers can and cannot do.
When the FCC ruled that TRS providers (actually specifically VRS providers) are not allowed to use Call Database – of which folks sign in to get video phone and Video Relay Service – for any reason whatsoever other than for the purpose of relaying calls. Meaning that the VRS providers cannot dip into Call Database, get the names and addresses, and then mail or email or call VRS users of a political issue and encourage them to send protests (via postcard, email, snail mail, or fax).
Also, another issue of the FCC rule is that providers are not allowed to use federal fund for political and lobbying purposes.
Well, SorensonVRS and GoAmerica challenged that ruling to the FCC at first. Then the FCC responded that the rules stand. Then SorensonVRS and GoAmerican decided to bring them up to the federal court. Both SVRS and GA are Petitioners (that is, they filed a petition with federal court) of which the FCC became the Respondents (the party that must show up at the federal court to defend its ruling). GA’s petition was filed in a different federal district but this case is being heard in the Tenth District where SVRS filed its petition at, presumely, because Sorenson filed the petition before GA did. GA is considered as an "Interventor" because the issues raised in GA’s petition filed in a different district court are similar to the issues raised in SVRS’ petition filed against the FCC.
The link shows that the federal court has decided to temporarily grant Petitioners’ request for "stay" of the FCC rules which means the rules are not to be "activated" for now; that SorensonVRS and GoAmerica and the FCC will have to fight it out in a federal court. One that stood out in this order is that the court basically agreed with Petitioners’ argument that TRS compensation is equivalent to a paycheck where the FCC should not care to know how providers spend the compensation they received from the Interstate TRS Fund the same way your employer should not know how you spend your paycheck. That is an entirely a new analysis. An oral argument is going to take place within a few months.
It is an eye opener and one to watch carefully and closely. It appears the court date is next year. The implications of the ultimate decision will be enormous.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Hmmm. Perhaps they can use the reimbursed money paid for their services as they see fit, but I don’t think they should be reimbursed for lobbying, political activity, advertising, etc. as part of their operating costs. And I have no respect for businesses that set up pseudo consumer groups to advocate in their (meaning business’) best interest and claim that such a group set up by them are representing consumers. The consumer groups like NAD, TDI, HLA, AAPD, etc. can advocate as consumers and the businesses should advocate for themselves and not use consumers to advocate for them.
“…a provider may not use call data to monitor the TRS
use by its customers (or the customers of other providers) to determine whether they are making a sufficient number of calls to warrant further benefits from the provider.”
“[Providers] may not use consumer or call data to contact TRS
users or to in any way attempt to affect or influence, directly or
indirectly, their use of relay service. . . . Providers offering such
programs or otherwise taking action that has the effect of providing consumers incentives to make relay calls, or misusing customer information, will be ineligible for compensation from the Fund.”
Providers should not be monitoring or counting the minutes of individual consumer’s VRS usage, BUT THEY DO. Not only are they monitoring individuals usage, but they are using the data to reward or punish the individual consumer. Rewarding them by giving the consumer a new product (VP-200,MVP,etc), or punishing them by keeping the individual at the bottom of a LONG waiting list to recieve a new product. The products should be kept SEPARATE from the relay provision. WE ALL pay towards the TRS fund through our taxes and phone bill surcharges. I DO NOT want my hard earned money going to HUGE profit making providers that are harrasing its consumers to use their services more than other service providers. I would think there’s a confidentiality issue? Shouldn’t the consumer’s personal and VRS usage information be private unless they sign off their rights?
“With 99.9% of its revenue coming from the TRS fund, this restriction bars Sorenson from lobbying TRS users…Sorenson identifies the actual reason is to insulate the FCC from “the administrative ‘burden’ of hearing from thousands of members of the deaf community.”
Umm, thanks, but no thanks… I think the deaf/hoh community can speak/advocate for themselves. They don’t need relay providers advocating for them. Providers are only looking for ways to make more money, and that’s not always whats best for the consumer.
I wish the FCC good luck, and hope the consumers, at the very least, keep their VRS minute usage private.
Yo Ed,
I’m a research bug myself, heres some lastest information from the web about TN and E911.
“NENA Applauds FCC Adoption of Telephone Number and E9-1-1 Requirements for Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services”
http://www.nena.org/pages/News.asp?CID=517&TID=2
Latest updates of NG9-1-1;
http://www.nena.org/media/File/NG9-1-1DefinitionFinal1.1.pdf
Enjoy!
John R.