Allegations Against FCC Chair Martin
9 12 2008All…
One word – WOW.
Remember this is staff report prepared for the use of Committee on Energy and Commerce from US House of represenatives (110th Congress). This is serious committee. One thing this may do is call the attention to the rates for the VRS providers and the Congressmen will review that carefully.
I will let you be the judge of whether this is a good news or not.
Deception and Distrust Under FCC Chair
I will not focus on other items; instead, I will focus on the TRS (VRS) issues only.
One of report’s highlight point that "The Commission’s oversight of the TRS Fund has been lax at best. The Chairman’s office appears to have ignored evidence that the ratepayers have been overcharged, while the companies providing TRS have been overcompensated, potentially by as much as $100 million per year".
Quote from a FCC staff, the Chief of the Disability Rights Office, Thomas Chandler, had outlined major problems with the FCC admin of the TRS program and the TRS Fund referring to a single VRS company – Sorenson VRS – provides 82 percent of all VRS minutes
"..we know that the dominant provider was overcompensated approx $80 million in calendar 2006 and $57 million in calendar 2005.."
Other quotes from Chandler: "This compensation in excess of costs increase the Fund size. We also know that, with the same compensation rate, some of the smaller providers lost money."
Additional quotes by Chandler: "We have lost our moorings, with terrible and frustrating consequences (not the least which is the size of the Fund and the enormous overcompensation of some providers)."
According to the report, the "last gasp" by Chandler: "Does the Chairman recognize that these rates perpetuate the enormous ($100 million a year) windfall for Sorenson, at the expense of the ratepayers. [sic] Does he realize that Sorenson’s own filin shows that its actual cost of proving [sic] VRS in calendar 2006 was in the low $4.00 range, so that the present $6.64 rate was more than 50% higher than Sorenson’s actual costs?…."
"…At bottom, that really isn’t the right thing to do." One other quote from Chandler: "I hate to say it, but the whole TRS (VRS) compensation regime has become a classic fleecing of America."
Then report seems indicate that Chandler’s "candid analysis evidently went unheeded".
Of course, there are other allegations not related to TRS, but I thought y’all would like to see that. I strongly suggest you click to the link.
Your thoughts, Dear Readers?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Statement from FCC spokesman Robert Kenny in response to Congressional Committee Report:
“After a year of investigation, the Committee’s primary criticism of the Chairman is that he spent too much money to ensure that deaf Americans have equal access to communications services. The Commission provided the Committee with hundreds of emails from deaf and disabled Americans who wrote that they were “appalled to learn that the FCC staff [was] intent on drastically cutting the Video Relay Service (VRS) rate and effectively cutting VRS availability for the deaf.” Disability rights groups were also opposed to proposals to cut funding for the VRS program.
The other major criticism of Chairman Martin is that he believes cable rates are too high and that he has sought to enhance choice and competition in the market for video services. With cable rates having doubled over the last decade, he will continue advocate on behalf of the millions of cable subscribers.
The Chairman makes no apologies for his commitment to serving deaf and disabled Americans and for fighting to lower exorbitantly high cable rates that consumers are forced to pay.”
Wow! Thank you so much for sharing this with all of us, Ed!
Since Sorenson holds 82 percent of the market share and this high percent allows this company to reap the most of the TRS funds.
It is interesting that one paragraph that says…
“A leading example is the case of Sorenson, the dominant VRS provider, with an 80 percent market share. The FCC’s Inspector General (IG) engaged KPMG to conduct an audit of Sorenson.
On April 10, 2008, KPMG reported to the FCC that Sorenson HAD DENIED the KPMG auditors access to the staff and systems necessary to conduct the audit, and REFUSED to permit them to review the company’s unredacted financial statements for 2004, 2005, and 2006. KPMG was therefore unable to conduct the audit.”
“Sorenson’s refusal to cooperate with the auditor meant that the company’s reported costs and minutes-of-service-charged, for which they sought and obtained compensation from the TRS fund, COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIED. Yet the STONEWALLING by Sorenson has EVIDENTLY been effective. Nothing ha been done to force Sorenson to open its books.”
Sorenson was not the one, it happens to other VRS providers, who share a total of 15 percent of the VRS market too. The audits were not reassuring.
This report concluded that this is recommended that the FCC immediately initiate a full investigation and audit of Sorenson.
Wow..
Just what I made a vlog called “I challenge you, Sorenson” filmed on June 7, 2007. It is the fact Sorenson was not willing to be transparent and cooperate with the auditors. Therefore, not willing to be transparent to FCC, which means not willing to be transparent to the general public.
Sorenson supporters.. what do you have to say about this commission report?
What is your response to this?
Amy Cohen Efron
Ed – a very important information that you shared with us. Thank you!
“BUSTED” Is the word I can say at this point. I am not surprised of this.
Will keep an eye on the forthcoming of this issue.
Thanks again Ed!!
Thomas,
Thank you for sharing the response from the FCC to the report.
The question remains, why Sorenson did not cooperate with the auditors? Can you clarify for the readers?
Amy Cohen Efron
Ed,
You surely done the DeafRead readers a great deal of news report abreast for us to keep up with the telecommunication issues.
I am not really surprised what the FCC commission findings consider the VRS companies to be the great fleecing of America.
I still never get the VRS device from any VRS providers.
I often wonder how many low-income deaf Americans being deprived of VRS access via VRS at their homes.
The Link-Up America program help many low-income Americans to have their phone services, not any VRS providers.
Is that really an equal access for the wide spectrum of deaf Americans regardless of their given income?
RLM
Damn..About time they let this information out. We can finally use this to show whoever that VRS needs to do the right thing. Mainly on Sorenson. I can not understand why Sorenson will not allow auidtor to check for any records.
The question is; is it time for state to take over? force all vrs to bid for each state?
Warren,
It will be interesting if this Committee on Energy and Committee will review the NASRA’s ex parte as well? If they do, what do u think they will do?
Yep, the year 2009 is gonna be interesting albeit chaotic one and possibly controversial and fraught with lawsuits here and there?
Amy, I remember your vlog challening SVRS. Prophetic, huh? You have a crystal ball?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
I’m not endorsing any business here in this comment but I think the usage of the term, “busted” is kind of childish. This is too premature to call this a “bust”
I throw in a bone here for you to ponder. Many of you deaf folks are enamored with the Democratic party and all you think they can do for you folks. Guess who was ARRESTED? The Governor of Illinois.
This is routine. No biggie deal. All that matters is the very bottom line after all said and done with investigations and all the jazz that comes with it.
A couple of thoughts…
Not defending Sorenson here, but if they submitted their costs to be at $4.40 a minute, why were they given over $6 a minute? It is expected with their huge number of minutes to do things at a lower cost (economies of scale).
Also, why did NECA recommend to keep things at $6+ a minute when Sorenson says they’re doing it at $4.40? To keep the other VRS companies afloat?
Given that they refused the audits, it is easy to speculate that their actual costs are lower than $4.40, and if that is the case… what would happen to the other VRS companies? Furthermore, why is this such a bad thing? If a company can do things cheaper and more efficiently, why stop them? How to solve this problem? I am not sure, having actual competition where the customers are billed directly (as it was for traditional TRS) is the most appealing solution to me at this time.
Finally, if this is a ‘Republican’ problem, I wouldn’t expect the Democrats to be fully supportive of keeping the rates high. If so, what does that portend for the Deaf community?
What Thomas is referring to, check out this link
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/71148
Look at the end of this report in italitic.
CW,
I agree that it would be nice to know what the break-even price each VRS providers have for VRS. That would give us much needed insight of the actual cost of each VRS providers. Unfortunately, this is a proprietary data.
Ed
Now that serves as a wake up call for us…and at the same time we need to keep the following excerpt in mind:
“…the Chairman makes no apologies for his commitment to serving deaf and disabled Americans and for fighting to lower exorbitantly high cable rates that consumers are forced to pay.”
There, it says a lot about the FCC Chairman being very supportive to the deaf community regardless whatsoever. I’ve never seen anyone like him from the high ranking position in the Federal government.
what more NAD is doing nothing abt VRS! Whenever they have problem with VRS; we simple report to FCC using 03-123 but many customers dont know how to report and FCC. That’s why VRS always tell or show FCC what their customers wants for VRS…..Like I said in the past, FCC could not police VRS companies.
This doesn’t surprise me – Sorenson has a reputation for being greedy. Shame on them. I hope they clean up their act after this… and this is a perfect example of why I do NOT use that VRS company!
I read most of the link you included (LONG report). Ed, I’m wondering what you think about the part where it says VRS should be a subscription service that deaf people pay for (see T Chandler email May 21, 2007) like hearing people pay for their cell phone or land line service. Seems to me if they want deaf to pay for VRS, then what providers are paid should be less from the FCC (if anything). They could get their revenue like every other service – from the people who use it.
Poughkeepsie (unusual name),
I think the relay veterans will tell you that Kennard – one of the past FCC Chair – was probably the very best for persons with disabled, and it was a honeymoon with Kennard. We knew what Kennard wanted and he had an open policy where deaf/hon can comfortably check directly to his office.
As for Martin, it is more of how he managed his agency that was the issue (micromanagement and has control over everything – according to the report), and VRS issue got caught up on that.
That said, I want VRS providers make money as to ensure VRS industry continues, but not obscene amount. I’ve always felt because the compenstation (the Fund) really came from ratepayers, the accounting should be more public than what is now.
So the future FCC will have difficult challenges on this issue.
Ed
Dear “I read it”,
I did a vlog on this “free” mentality; basically I asked is it a good thing or not? I’ve long supported sales of video phone to the consumers. However, one cannot deny that free VP-100 was the key factor that really kicked VRS to what it is now. So the question is are we deaf/hon ready for VP sales and subscription? Difficult to answer that question. “Free” vs “empowerment via ownership”, which is better?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
If anyone wants it, I ran OCR (Optical Character Recognition) on the Report on Chairman Martin.
OCR makes the document machine readable and searchable. So if you wanted to find every mention of “VRS” or “Sorenson” you can do that with this version of the document.
The OCR version is at http://public.me.com/janeknox
The document is in PDF format. If you need a current version of the Adobe Reader (free) you can download it free at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
The times they are a changin, eh?
Suppose if VRS standard is 4.40 per minutes, will deaf received “quality” interpreters ? and what about cost of R&D? what about videophone costs?
I heard that Sorenson somewhat having numbers of less qualified terps to rack up slice of profits? If it’s 100% quality terps then profits will be slight smaller?
Also, based on what sorenson said for 4.40, it’s based on year of 2006 levels, however, 2008 and 2009 could be different. Unless terps willing to have same paid for years to years ?
I am trying to find a link under FCC for the statistics!
The statistics has the number of deaf people use ip, videophone and etc.
Do you know where I can find the information?
Peachlady,
By statistic if you mean call volumes of each VRS providers. This is proprietary information. You also cannot get cost from each providers. However, you can get statistic on “overall” cost and “overall” call volumes of ALL providers.
You can find them under NECA. Go to
http://www.neca.org/source/NECA_Resources_216.asp and on the left, choose tabs to find what you want to know.
On the FCC, you can get statements from persons, companies, etc., by going to this link.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ Then you go to the right portion, and click to “search for filed comments”, and then on that page put 03-123 on #1 and scroll down a little bit then click on “retrieve list” and you can choose from the list to check out comments.
Good luck…
Ed B
Well ??
The way the FCC regulation has set up for VRS is that video phones are not compenstated by the TRS Fund. R&D, only a small portion of that are claimed. Remember the TRS Fund is for the relay service only. Will that change in the future? Who knows???
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Hmm I’ve been thinking a lot on Ed’s last comment about the videophones thenselves being compensated by thr TRS fund.
I don’t agree with that because that will strangle the unique new features that each company with their videophones have and create over time. It would make all the videophones very plain.
I do remember the days with ttys in which all ttys pretty much had a standard function, but the biggest negative ttys had were they were NOWHERE near the the kinds of things that make all of our videophones have today.
I strongly believe that TTYs really bogged down a lot of my time in both my personal and professional calls. Thanks to videophones today, I can get a LOT done faster.
I think the TRS fund should stick to what its designed for: to ensure equal communication for Deaf to Hearing calls.
We have provided community interpreter services, educational interpreter services, medical, legal and engineering specialty services for many years. Recently, we contracted to add provision of VRS interpreter services. All this discussion is wonderful, I enjoy reading the intelligent bantering and want to make a minor comment here…
VRS is just another venue. Quality of life, quality of the services you are provided in any venue be it VRS, at your local hospital or school, in your job has less to do with price and more to do with management.
If you want a quality service, quality has to be the focus. There is a place for entry level interpreters and there is a need to place those with specific qualifications where they are critically needed. Assuming that each and every telephone call requires the best is just not reasonable. Ordering a Pizza is one thing. Providing a quality medical interpreter for a physicians consultation with another physician is critical. Price can not be the sole focus, there are other issues in providing for a better quality of life.
A company can charge a high price but that will not guarantee good quality or even a greater volume. How do you judge a service? What are reasonable expectations? Can the money that is out there for VRS be used for a better quality service and for greater access to services? I think so. Lowering the cost is not the answer. Making better use of the money is critical and that requires more transparency.
Deborah Gunter began her post with “We have provided..”
I wondered, “Who is Deborah Gunter”? Here is the answer:
Sign Shares President and Chief Executive Officer: Deborah Gunter, RID CSC, BEI Level V, OC:B., Court, Master
More at http://center.spoke.com/info/p6QnWo5/DeborahGunter
Official response from Sorenson Consumer Policy Board, for VRS consumers. Read below. Thanks-
J E N N E R & B L O C K
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Tel 202 639-6ooo
http://www.jenner.com
Michael B DeSanctis
Tel 202 637-6323
Fax 202 661-4828
mdesanctis@jenner com
Offices:
Chicago
New York
Washington, DC
June 24, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL
To: Mr. Curtis Hagan
Assistant Inspector General – Audits
Office of Inspector General
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW, Room 2-C478
Washington, DC 20554
Re: TRS Audit
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The purpose of this letter is to record in writing the following facts: The Office of the Inspector General cancelled KPMG’s on-site visit to Sorenson’s corporate headquarters, which was set to begin June 16, 2008, even though Sorensen was ready, willing and able to accommodate that visit and make substantial data available to your auditors.
As Bill Garay will confirm, I personally inquired at least a dozen times over the last 15 months into when OIG planned to conduct the on-site portion of the audit. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Carnahan told me that he and his staff were ready to visit Sorenson’s offices to conduct the onsite portion of the audit of Sorenson’s recordation and reporting of VRS minutes. I had a
telephonic conversation with Mr. Carnahan on June 3, 2008 in which I confirmed that Sorenson would be available and would welcome the KPMG audit staff beginning Monday, June 16, 2008.
We discussed what his team would need in terms of office space and equipment, and I assured him that we would provide him and KPMG with whatever they needed. We also discussed substantively that we would begin first thing Monday morning by having key employees walk his team through Sorenson’s processes and procedures for the recording and reporting of VRS minutes, and that his team would let us know how they wished to proceed from there. He asked Sorenson to reserve a full week, though he did not know whether KPMG would need all of that time.
Following up on my call with Mr. Carnahan, I sent a confirming letter to you on June 5, 2008, in which I stated “We remain committed to cooperating with OIG in the interests of having the audit completed in a timely manner. To that end, I am writing to confirm that Sorenson has agreed to host Terry Carnahan and his KPMG staff, commencing June 16, 2008, for the onsite
component of the portion of the audit involving Sorenson’s systems and procedures for the recording and reporting of VRS minutes.”
In response, you informed me that you had decided to cancel the on-site visit. You asserted that you and Mr. Carnahan read my June 5 letter as not confirming our willingness to host the on-site audit. In fact, the letter states the exact opposite. Moreover, on June 12,1 told you that we still
were ready, willing and able to host your audit commencing on June 16. Indeed, I called you that day from Salt Lake City, where I was involved in the preparations for KPMG’s visit. You made it clear at that time that KPMG would not visit on June 16, and that you were not interested in rescheduling for a later date.
During our June 12 call, you complained that in my June 5 letter I identified confidential data and information that should not be shared with the public or with other offices or bureaus within the Commission. However, I provided that information in writing to you because you had suggested that I do so in our earlier phone conversation on May 29, 2008. That suggestion was consistent with my previous conversation with David Hunt and Carla Conover, who informed me in an in-person meeting on May 14, 2008, that it is and always has been OIG’s policy to keep confidential all non-public information produced by TRS providers during the course of an audit
and that such information would not be disclosed to the public or shared with other bureaus within the Commission. See Letter from M. DeSanctis to W. Garay, May 22, 2008.
Under these circumstances, the OIG bears complete and total responsibility for not undertaking the planned on-site minute audit. We did exactly as you had asked in identifying our confidential information and confirming that we would host the KPMG team beginning June 16. Moreover, over the past 15 months, we have now incurred substantial costs for an audit that you apparently no longer wish to hold. We remain willing, as always, to host the on-site minute audit and would be amendable to speaking with you about rescheduling.
Sincerely,
Michael B. DeSanctis
Counsel for Sorenson Communications, Inc.
cc: Kent Nilsson, Inspector General
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 12:14 am Eastern Time
SECOND UPDATED FLASH
Sorenson Responds to Allegations
Sorenson’s Press Release dated Dec. 9, 2008:
QUOTE:
Statement of Sorenson Communications, Inc.
On November 19, 2007, the five members of the Federal Communications Commission issued a unanimous decision to ensure that individuals who are deaf, hard-of-hearing or speech-impaired are able to participate fully in today’s connected society by obtaining the benefits of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS). Unfortunately, the Majority Staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce released a Report today that repeats the complaints of a disgruntled FCC employee who raised ill-founded questions about the unanimous decision of the FCC to support TRS.
Sorenson Communications and the other providers of TRS participated in an FCC proceeding that began in July 2006 and concluded in November 2007 con cerning compensation rates for all forms of TRS. Sorenson Communications and the other TRS providers submitted detailed information required by the FCC to the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), the administrator of the TRS fund, which included extensive data about historical costs and projected costs. The five members of the FCC relied on these submissions in their unanimous decision establishing new rate methodologies for all forms of TRS and establishing initial rates for each service.
Today’s Staff Report reprints excerpts of emails and memos from a discontented FCC staff person, whose views were rejected by the five members of the FCC. The Staff Report repeats the FCC staff person’s unsubstantiated, and ultimately discarded, assertions as if they were factual. The staffer’s quoted statements are factually inaccurate and ignore the voluminous filings of Sorenson and others, which do not support his conclusions. In fact, as the staffer’s emails reveal, he believes that the deaf should pay for video relay service (VRS); this view rejects the fundamental premise of the VRS program from the time the FCC authorized the service in 2000, that VRS consumers would be required to pay for the broadband service necessary for VRS but would not be charged for the video relay service. From the decision made unanimously by the FCC in November 2007, it is clear that the FCC Commissioners did not agree with the staffer’s characterization of the facts or with his c onclusions.
Sorenson Communications participated in the Inspector General/KPMG audit of TRS providers. While Sorenson expressed concern to the Inspector General and KPMG about the confidential treatment of financial information provided in the audit, and objected strenuously when the financial information of another provider was mistakenly published on the FCC’s website, Sorenson continued to participate in the audit. The KPMG auditors were expected at Sorenson’s headquarters on June 16, 2008 for the purpose of auditing the reporting system used by Sorenson for VRS minutes; Sorenson employees had prepared the information the auditors requested to review; and Sorenson employees were assembled ready to assist the auditors. As the attached letter describes, the KPMG auditors never arrived at Sorenson headquarters. Sorenson is proud of its system of reporting minutes of use of VRS to NECA and remains ready to cooperate with an audit.
That Sorenson press release is funny. Tom Chandler, the head of the DRO, is a disgruntled employee or staffer? You bet.
Also, the press release distorts the Commission’s intentions behind its decision to provide VRS at no cost. This is a temporary arrangement due to technological limitations in identifying the originating location. Apparently, Sorenson believes this will be permanent.
According to Title IV, consumers can be billed for VRS or any other relay service, but it has to be no greater than the rates for hearing folks. And states, once they assume jurisdiction of intrastate VRS calls, would most likely require this in order to save costs.
On the whole, this press release reeks of arrogance.
Let’s not forget the angle that we deaf have been working to obtain equal communication rights for years. Let’s not step backwards. How will we pay for equipment, VRS, and extra fees ourselves? Like other people, many deaf have tight finances and a hard time affording broadband Internet service. Tom Chandler, who is head of he FCC’s Disabilities Rights Office, comments (in memos and e-mails attached to the House report) that we should pay for our own service and equipment. I do not agree See what he had to say.
· “The only solution is adopting an entirely new approach, and there are only two choices: (1) bid the service out as a federal financed service or (2) require TRS to be a subscription service . . . and have the Fund simply compensate the marginal cost of call from a deaf person to a hearing person that results from having to have a CA relay the call back and forth. Apart from those costs, providers . . . would charge customers for equipment, installation, maintenance, extra call features, long distance, etc. . . .”
· “Consumers have been led to think of this service as an entitlement – as noted above, they bear no costs with respect to the service (other than having a broadband connection, which they can also use for Internet access).”
· “Congress envisioned that consumers would pay something to make a TRS call.”
· “We have allowed the service to be one in which consumers neither need to subscribe to, nor pay for (free equipment, free installation, free maintenance, free calls, no long distance charges, etc.)”
· “We have allowed the service to be one in which consumers neither need to subscribe to, nor pay for . . . Why, of all the services used in this country is TRS (and particularly VRS) free to consumers with no need to even sign up to get the service?”
· The ADA “envisions that consumers using TRS would pay for their ‘telephone’ calls, like all other telephone users . . .”
· “DRO drafted an order abolishing the Council, but that idea was rejected by OCM.”
Let’s not forget that VRS providers like Sorenson have put a lot of money into the growth of VRS, which has benefitted us. I don’t want the funding of my VRS—or new features—to be taken away or the burden placed on me.
Jenifer R wrote: “Let’s not forget that VRS providers like Sorenson have put a lot of money into the growth of VRS, which has benefitted us. I don’t want the funding of my VRS—or new features—to be taken away or the burden placed on me.”
Title IV does not mandate free access to the telecommunication networks; rather, it mandates equal access to such networks at a cost no greater than it would take for a hearing person. The traditional TRS model was a good example of that: we paid ourselves for the telephone lines and we paid for any long distance charges incurred when we used the relay services.
Now, with VRS, it has been a completely a free ride for everyone. There is no obligation on anyone’s part to make this a free lunch for you, Jenifer. What the TRS Fund covers is whatever it needs to make our access to the networks equivalent. It does not cover additional features that have no bearing on equal access. The key word here is EQUAL, not FREE access.
Jennifer and CNW,
A little perspective of history may help. When TRS (no VRS at the time) started, Title IV wanted to make sure that deaf/hoh TTY users are not paying more than what hearing persons pay. Hearing persons have telephone network and pay monthly rates for that; so that means when deaf/hoh use TRS, they should not be paying extra for that because deaf/hoh already are paying for a telephone network. That worked out just fine.
Then came VRS. VRS use Internet. To make a comparison, one needs to look at VoIP that hearing persons pay. Ok, now hearing person pays for Internet service, plus VoIP service plus equipment (free if sign for 2 year contract); that is two payments. So deaf/hoh pays for Internet, but not VRS. If one insist on “equality” then theoretically speaking deaf/hon ought to pay for VRS. That didn’t happen cuz the reimbursement rates were high enough that deaf/hon did not have to pay for the VRS.
So CNW was right in the sense the key word is equal, not free access. Jennifer was right for the old TRS network. The FCC is aware of the inequity, so in the future, it is possible that the FCC may insist on reducing the reimbursement rates down to the level where VRS providers may be forced to start charging for the service. Will that happen? I don’t think so, but I do think the FCC will continue to reduce rates to a more reasonable rates, and come up with ruling where the FCC will say this and that practices are legal and this and that practices are illegal – to reduce the volume of VRS minutes. I would not be surprised if it is like 30 to 40 percent of VRS calls came from questionable practices of VRS providers. If this can be eliminated, it would free up Video Interpreters time for legit consumers.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed, there is now a ton of oversight into fraudulent calls by the FCC. Don’t think this is the first time Sorenson or any of the VRS companies have been audited. 30-40% of calls fraudulent? Extremely unlikely. Maybe 3-4%.
And if Deaf and HOH want equal access, they should have to pay for the device and monthly service. But I can see the FCC providing them with high speed internet access to access VRS only. If a hearing person is poor, and can’t afford a phone bill, the local government usually provides them with 911 services for free, but not free local and long distance calling. Telephones are not a neccessary part of life. 911 is a basic right for everyone since everyone pays for the services that 911 provides (police, fire rescue etc..)though. As long as we live in a monetary system, this is the truth we have to live with. If deaf want equal access, it should be equal access.
Joe Blo,
On fraudulent calls. 3%-4%? By now, I would say probably around 10% to 15%. Back then, I did think it did approach 30% calls. Unfortunately, the best we can is educate-guess based on the trend of IP calls volume.
On ur second paragraph – agree with what you are trying to say, and I get the distinct impression deaf/hoh folks are slowly realizing the reality of it all.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
[...] system of reporting minutes of use of VRS to NECA and remains ready to cooperate with an audit. Ed’s Telecom Alert Allegations Against FCC Chair Martin From the comments. We will see how happy Deaf people will be to pay for videophones and a monthly [...]
[...] For a glimpse of their powerful sway over the TRS process, look no further than this link: FCC Majority Staff Report at Ed’s Alert The House Committee on Energy and Commerce received this report, and I assume, acted upon the data [...]