Comments on: Federal Order Stay of a FCC Ruling

By: John R.

John R. — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:47:53 +0000

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.

By: Melissa Kallina

Melissa Kallina — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:52:25 +0000

“…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.

By: Lawrence J Brick

Lawrence J Brick — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:04:28 +0000

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.