Imagine- 14 participants, 14 there on the conference call, then they all sit for 20-30 minutes before they start. This call will last for total of 1 hour.

14 x $6.00 x 60 min = This call will generate $ 5,040.00.

If you figure labor at 1/4 of the revenue, $90.00 for that hour (obviously very generous, no interpreters earn $90 per hour) $90 x 14 = $1260.00 in interpreting costs.

14 participants, installer probably earning $25.00 per hour for sitting on the call, $ 350.00 in labor costs there.

5,040.00
-1,260.00
– 350.00
$ 3430.00 left.

Now do this 5x per week. $17,000 per week in profits from these calls.

You can see where VRS companies are becoming very rich doing this.

No argument with you! Hope the FCC reads your post and wake up!

Ed

[ha ha] – Before I go into that. The next several years are gonna be challenging for the relay providers and the FCC. I know it is technology possible for VRS providers to add TTY baudot to their video phones, but there is no money in that so unlikely they will adopt that. It is also technology possible to add text messaging to video phone as I believe Sweden did and Europe may start adopting that. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is will this make money for the company? I don’t even have to answer that for the answer is all too obvious.

Now on beard, no no. The beard will be to the ground and still relay providers will find a way to disagree with FCC. Regulators and companies rarely agree 100% with each other. So no, I won’t do that [g]

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Not only that, but in some places (many) where there are no videophones, only TTYs (i.e., airports) – it’d be handy to have access to a TTY that can connect with a videophone user in case my pager isn’t working and I’m stranded for whatever reason. Given that most people in my family are deaf, it’d be difficult for me to contact my family if my pager didn’t work, and there was only a TTY. Worst case scenario, I’d have to ask some hearing person to call for me.

While we’re talking about your beard…I vote that you keep growing that beard until every relay provider is 100% satisfied with FCC. That way, we can have you qualify for the world’s longest beard.

I think we can expect the US Congress to look at all spending; and we can expect all taxpayers to look at their phone bills and begin to question the interstate and intrastate taxes they are paying to support.

We cannot afford to pay for ANY fraud or abuse. Effective enforcement should come before expansion of services. My two cents …

(jk-II)

The question is: should we have dual relay services for all, regardless of their abilities, disabilities and choices…or…limited dual relay services to ensure accessibility based on one’s ability such as those who couldnt benefit from VRS due to blindness or inability to sign regardless of ones hearing loss (oralists, late deafened adults, etc)? If so, who should be authorized to “certify” those who qualify for dual relay services?

Sonny

Other than voice callers, it will be interesting to see comments that will be made to FCC regarding the need for VRS users to connect with the other party that use a TTY, VCO, Captel, etc. I believe that TRS users are very marginal in the relay market and States should absorb intrastate VRS costs that involve the other party that uses TTY, VCO, Captel, etc.

Continue with your vlogs.

Claudia Foy

You are right on this.

Remember that there are precedents that allow VCO users to communicate with TTY users; that STS users can communicate with TTY users, and similar past approved practices – these are disabled person communicating with other disabled person. VCO user could be deaf/hoh and so can TTY user. The petitioners are basing their case on this as well as “functionally equivalent” in the telephone network as stipulated in the relay regulation.

Whether the FCC agrees that past approved precents apply to their petition remains to be seen.

You raised good point.

Ed

47 USC 225 (A)(3): “The term “telecommunications relay services” means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.

Thanks for the compliment. It’s a beard, not a goatee [g]

Phil,

Yeah, I think that if the FCC enforces and penalizes (?) regulation breakers, the cost of providing overall TRS would drop signfically, so making the interoperability issue more approachable.

I remember when I was RT Administrator and had several contracts with various vendors/organizations/individuals for outreach work; those I spotted cheating or padding the invoice, I tend not to work with them anymore in the future. I can see same attitude from the FCC or decision makers.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed