NASRA Files Request of Clarification to the FCC on a few VRS Practices
1 12 2008All..
National Association for State Relay Administration - NASRA - recently filed a request of clarification to the FCC as to whether a few of VRS practices are legal or not.
Before I belabor on this point, NASRA is dear to my heart as I’m one of the charter members who first formed this prestigious NASRA about 15 years ago. NASRA is clearinghous for state relay administrators and now is represented by 34 states. Since I’m now retired and no longer a state realy administrator, I’m an outsider now.
I miss being with the NASRA members on their annual conferences, they’re very good group.
Ok enuff of this sentiment, back to the issue. One of the main reasons why the NASRA filed this is because state relay administrators knew in the near future that the states will pay for Internet-based relay services (IP Relay and VRS), and they are requesting clarifications on a few of VRS practices are legal or not. Remember, right now the Interstate TRS Fund (federal fund) is paying for IP Relay and VRS now and it is supposed to be temporary. The FCC has been saying that subsidizaiton responsiblity of Internet-based relay services will go to the states in the future.
Ok - now the FCC had passed a rule way back where it says VRS providers are not allowed to do certain relay marketing and call handling priactices. The rules basically said because the federal fund pays for the service, not the IP/VRS users, IP/VRS providers are not allowed a few of marketing practices where the providers "reward" users/organizations for using VRS by offering cash, monthly payment, pay for cable cost or new VP, etc.
I kinda understand this position. Hearing persons who have cell phone have to pay monthly service and are limited to so many minutes a month; if over the limit, they have to pay extra. IP/VRS users do not have such restrictions. Even with VoIP, the users are limited to provider’s equipment, pay for service monthly and sign term agreement (usually 2 years) to get "free" VoIP equipment. IP/VRS users do not have that. So that is not functional equivalent.
So the NASRA members decided to ask the FCC to clarify a few marketing practices and cited a few examples of that. Click to the link and get full story.
Here are a few examples that the NASRA is asking the FCC to clarify (read the link as it had more detail, the following is summary):
Example One: Organization/clubs would sign up with a VRS provider to have its own domain name. Like XYZVRS (instead of using VRS provider’s domain name) . In return for marketing the domain name, the VRS provider would pay organization/club an amount of money that varies from month to month - no explanation why the amount varies from month to month. The VRS provider(s) are careful not to say because of "required VRS minutes". They just say "advertise the domain name" only.
NASRA position is that some of the members of the organization/clubs noted that money donations seems to increase when lot of members make VRS calls. Would these be considered "unnecessary VRS Minutes"?
Example Two: VRS provider(s) set up marketing/sales division/dept and hire deaf/hoh as marketers or salesperson. Their job is to use VRS to make telemarketing calls. This increase number of VRS minutes to be submitted to the FCC. More deaf/hoh employed, the higher the VRS minutes. So the cost of sales/marketing is paid by the VRS minutes.
NASRA position is that VRS providers that set up marketing/sales and use deaf/hoh should absorb the cost of VRS since they’re the ones who hired them, not the FCC. Also, NASRA says that generally if persons working in sales/marketing only keep their jobs if they are successful in marketing/sales work. However, by sumitting VRS minutes to the federal, VRS providers do not lose $$ even if they kept those who were not successful.
Example Three: A few independent marketing services sign up with VRS provider with the understanding they will use that VRS provider and in return get so much $$ per minute of VRS minutes ($1 per min for example).
NASRA position is that this may be clarified as an incentive/reward for consumer to place a VRS call (per FCC regulation) therefore illegal?
Example Four: VRS providers encouraging persons to sign up other persons to qualify in getting a free video phone.
NASRA position believes it incurs practice of ramping up unnecessary VRS minutes. NASRA has received reports that in order to get free VP, they need to use the VRS on top of signing up new users. NASRA wants clarification of whether this is legal or not.
Finally…
SorensonVRS responded with a strong support of NASRA ex parte and went on to encourage the FCC to make the clarificaiton as soon as possible to help minimize the cost of VRS. Click to the link and get the details.
SorensonVRS Comment on NASRA Ex Parte
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
I am pretty sure everyone in the past reported about CSDVRS’s illegal contract with non-profit org. It was told by CSDVRS that it is not about the minutes useage, it is about the effort you show to your local community. It is based on levels. However, CSDVRS refused to share about the format. I am pretty sure many of us are not that dumb. One thing is that Customer often gets confusing with too many domain names like FLAVRS, etc…It is best to stick with VRS Provider’s company’s brand name. It is up to FCC to change the rules on CSDVRS and Hawk Relay to stop giving other a domain names. FCC can not control all other domains name and FCC dont have time to police all these weird domains that CSDVRS/Hawk Relay provides.
FCC knows better than that. I am glad to see other VRS stop doing this and taking action against illegal on marketing contract agreement with non-profit org.
Warren Hill, It will be very interesting to see what kind of rulings or clarifications or just comments or (I hope not the next following possiblity) no response of any kind the FCC will undertake.
Due to the seriousness as expressed by both NASRA and SorensonVRS, I think it will be wise for the FCC to respond as soon as humanly possible. I think it would be GREAT if the ruling comes before Jan 1, 2009 to match the release of the anticipated Ten-Digit Telephone Numbers. How about it, FCC folks?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Hola
I would like to have clarification about assigning the deaf people with 800/866 numbers. I was told that FCC passed the law about assigning them with local “real” numbers for direct phone. I think that is great and safe for us. I got my direct phone number (local number) from Sorenson. I got emails from other VRS to encourage me to get 800/866 numbers for the direct phone. I am confused. I prefer my local real number for hearing people to call me. I tried to find info from FCC and I couldn’t find it. Please help me. Thanks, Lillian
Lillian,
You have right to be confused because a great deal many people are confused as well.
I did a vlog on this recently. Basically, the TN (area code and 7 digits - not 866/800) will be distributed by VRS providers (you pick one to be the “default” VRS provider). This one is ideal because emergency dispatchers will “automatically” get full information on the caller. This TN can be shared with both deaf and hearing persons. Now the 800/866 can process emergency calls, but not the same way as TN (in my opinion, TN is wee bit faster than 800/866).
Now what about 866/800? If I understand it right, the 866/800 can be given to hearing person and to deaf person who have the same vp product as yours. I am not sure if 866/800 can be shared with other VP users of different VP.
What are the advantages of 866/800? Only one advantage I can think of is hearing person who lives out of city/state/country does not pay for any long distance phone calls while the TN may or may not incur LD charges for the hearing person (not to the deaf, though).
What do I recommend? I recommend you get the TN (ALL VRS providers are required to provide TN by Jan 1, 2009). What about 800/866? I guess you can keep that to give to hearing persons who live out of your city?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed
I see state administration of IP and VRS as bad for consumers and bad for providers. States will pay much less per minute. Because of the lower reimbursement I expect that quality of service as well as outreach will deteriorate. How do you see it?
Bob
Bob,
Well, keep in mind that if states do Request For Proposal for IP and VRS, and likely most states will insist on certified interpreters, and will add Outreach requirement. Also keep in mind, most state relay administrators do have oversight responsibility and very much likely to follow up on any complaints from consumers promptly. FCC has very little oversight responsibility - they don’t have the manpower to do that especially at the consumer level.
The disadvantage of RFP is states will choose ONE VRS provider and ONE IP provider. On other hand, number of VRS providers will close up and number of interpreters would be more available for those VRS providers who win the contracts. SorensonVRS has the highest call volume, so in theory SorensonVRS will likely be able to underbid if not all, at least most of the VRS providers.
There are pro and cons to both sides - really. It is reason why I push for more stringent FCC regulations (more clarifications really), push for federal funding (get funds from states, but let federal handle the fund), and let states have the oversight responsibility. Can this be done? I think yes, but will be difficult to get the FCC agree to that system.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
In fact, It is not illegal that CSDVRS gave many domains to make its market bigger. GoDaddy has many domains (cheap-discount-domain-names.biz, luckyregister.com, http://www.humdomains.com, and more) to provide different services to different users. It is MARKETING way, not illegal!
IM GoDaddy,
Is GoDaddy reimbursed by federal funds for using VRS? I think not. Little different there. Marketing success is measured or supposed to be measured by success of marketing itself - not by how many VRS minutes. CSDVRS or any VRS providers that do marketing of its services via VRS can pay for its VRS costs instead of submitting to federal for marketing costs. NASRA has no objection to marketing practices if the company absorbs the marketing costs. That’s the theory NASRA is based on.
Im saying about domains only, not about getting more unnecessary VRS minutes. If one VRS provider sets up “www.sexyvrs.com” with beautiful interpreters, Im sure to choose this VRS provider and enjoy its serivice. Of course it will increase VRS minites legally.
Thank for your quick reply. Your blog is VERY GOOD, more interesting!
IM GoDaddy,
Funny. Actually, there is a rule in relay regulation where it says if the relay call is focused on the relay agent (or video interpreters), it would not be considered as relay call.
Well, we’ll find out soon enough (I hope) on what the FCC ultimately rules on this.
Thank YOU for participating in this. It is always good to see different sides.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Hello Ed:
I see the NASRA request and Sorenson support letter. Do either of them address question of how VRS providers handle customer/technical support and whether those minutes are billable if through their own VRS service?
For example, I check out one provider’s list of “contact support” numbers which (besides e-mail) list a VP number and phone number. I dialed the VP number and reached a hearing agent via VRS and had friend call the hearing number who reached a deaf agent via VRS. Are these calls billable? If so, does that mean that the FCC is “paying” for that provider’s technical support department? That would be similar to their arguments about FCC pay for marketing staff.
I do not know if a deaf caller may reach a deaf agent and whether a hearing caller can reach a hearing agent. It may be good to check it out.
Thank you.
Paul
Paul,
This is a good question.
A few months ago when I was with Texas PUC, I noted that practice from one of the VRS provider, and I brought it up with its management and inquired. To the VRS provider’s credit, that VRS provider stopped that practice. Now to get a technician or support service, it will reach a deaf/hoh staff of the VRS provider. This implied that VRS provider may have realized that this is not an enthical practice so stopped doing that.
No, NASRA or SorensonVRS did not address this particular practice.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Hello Ed and All:
Hm, I see the practice is still that way with Sorenson itself. My hearing friend has been on hold for 20 minutes thus far. He asked for a hearing number to call for support and told that they only have an email address… I wonder if and how that can be brought up to Sorenson.
Thanks.
Paul
Paul,
Maybe you should send comment/complaint to the FCC on this one? At any rate, I think the issues that the NASRA ex parte for clarification will cover this even though the NASRA did not expressely specify that; the examples were similar.
I hope the FCC will address this issue ASAP. The more the FCC receives, the more likely they are to address this issue.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed