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

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.

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

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.

· “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.

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.

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.

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

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