Philly.com; A Blistering Report on VRS
5 02 2009All..
Many of you already read this one. A not very pleasant report on VRS; article stipulates "that costs are too high" for providing VRS; that deaf/hoh are not paying for the services; and so on. Interstate TRS Fund is paying $6.64 per min and the article said one of VRS provider break even cost is at $4.06. So that’s $2.58 per min as profit. Whether that is true of other VRS providers or not, I don’t claim to know. I do know that if Congress folks look at that, their eyes will pop out.
This is a fear that many of us pundits worry would happen. If too many of these type of media come out, Congress will become more aware of these costs, and could make drastic change that would hurt the essence of relay service.
Again, my real concern is that the FCC needs – no, must address and examine each calls to verify that these calls are legitimate calls and processed in a legit and ethical way.
I just want relay service to serve the deaf/consumers as stipulated by the relay regulations, and I know many of you share the same thoughts. I’ll say no more of this for now; don’t want to sound like broken record.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
The FCC also has heard complaints that video-relay companies offer sweepstakes games and other incentives to a captive market of deaf users to inflate videophone usage, and thus reimbursements from an FCC-controlled fund. CSDVRS and other VRS are still doing this type of incentives which should have never happen in first place.
Thanks for sharing. From one broken record to another:
There ain’t no free lunch!
As you imply, Ed, Deaf and HoH users cannot sit back and expect the government to keep paying for new and enhanced services and benefits. Prior to the passage of the ADA, Deaf advocates and advocacy agencies worked tirelessly for decades to obtain basic rights.
Remember when you couldn’t get an interpreter to go see the doctor? Remember when that job interviewer said, “we don’t hire deaf people”?
We should all be sending nice fat donations to the NAD to advocate for us and we should be sending letters to our congressmen thanking them for the services and sharing the benefits. How many Deaf and HoH would lose their jobs if we lost VRS?!!
In New Mexico, the state legislature just raided the Telecommunications Access Fund for 8 million dollars and there was no protest!
Deaf and HoH must pay attention to articles like the Philly.com story and advocate for our services or we will lose them.
Bounce .. bounce .. bounce .. that’s the needle on my broken record going round and round, up and down.
Warren,
I know that the FCC is reading comments like that; keep them coming!
JI-II
[grinning] broken record works!
Ed
I kinda have no sympathy for anyone, who used the VRS service or VP providers since I never get any VP device from either VP companies.
Kinda the best revenge upon VP companies about the real inequality of VP devices and services being provided to the well-off deaf individuals and deny the low-income deaf individuals like me.
I would write a letter of concerns and frustration to several congressional leaders and telecommunciation industry to get the big revenge on VP companies for not providing devices and services to the well-off deaf VP users.
I did and did and did apply for the VP devices and never get any of them. I rather get the confirmation from either of the VP companies first, then get myself the high-speed Internet services.
The U.S. Congress and the Obama adminstration would be appalled after learning that many and many and many low-income deaf individuals being deny the real benefits of VRS services, because of VP companies choose the well-off deaf people to be served.
There should be the federal-state-local program for the reduced cost of high-speed Internet service for low-income deaf people to get the equal footings within communcation access like the “Link-Up America” phone access program created by the Clinton adminstration.
The entire people in the United States ought to know that there are two “wide gap” between well-off deaf people and low-income deaf people for communciation access when comes to the VRS service.
RLM
Oops!
I meant “not providing devices and services to the low-income deaf people”, not “well-off deaf people”.
RLM
There is an inequality of services: those who can afford the $49.95 monthly for cable internet services gets the VP and all the access services it provides besides fast computer connections that also adds to access. Those who cannot afford more than the $14.95 for basic telephone service had better be lucky enough to have a TTY AND English fluency to have the same level of access.
We need to advocate for use of the excess VRS funds for this population. How it might be structured: use an income test such as those receiving pensions get a lower rate, or those below a total family income equivalent to 200% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Or it might be based on an audiogram of one member of the family. Or it might be keyed to presence of the videophone in the house. Whatever, this is one reasonable use of the excess funds.
Other uses for the excess funds: development of portable devices with true cell phone capability; interpreter training programs, job training programs directly related to the devices such as electronics technicians, office management, trainers and community service persons.
Since this involves a wider range of services than strictly telephone access, the bill mandating the funding might have to be written differently. Let’s get form a think tank of Deaf leaders and community representatives and put heads together.
RLM and Dianrez,
When I was with TPUC, I’ve brought this up about the idea of subsidizing poor deaf/hoh with voucher or something to pay part of the high speed Internet. Not unlike the subsidization for poor hearing folks; depends on the income range and limited service. It is not as easy as it looks. My supervisor was receptive to the idea, but we were not able to really come up with a good solution except to approach Texas Legislation of the idea. We never got to the point of suggesting the idea to the PUC commissioners to present to the Texas Legislators.
Now on a national level – who is to decide that? It appears that it would have to come from Congress, I think. There is no “subsidization” program for even poor hearing person that pays for monthly services that I know of. If I am wrong, kindly correct me on this.
I understand your concerns and many of the deaf leaders do, too, but so far no viable/good solution where the decision makers are comfortable with.
Guess we just need to keep plugging and trying…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
What caused one provider’s break even point to be $4.06 while all other providers’ break even point is over $6? Is it because of the high volume? Or is it because this provider’s videophone is pre-programed to minimize the non-compensable set up time prior to each relay call? I am hopeful that the FCC will take this set up issue into consideration.
The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act legislation was introduced last year in Congress (and will be re-introduced this year) by the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (www.COATaccess.org). (NAD is a co-founder of that coalition and a member of the steering committee; in other words, NAD is actively involved. That bill contains a provision to allow low income deaf and hard of hearing individuals who qualify for the telephone service subsidy program (“Life Line”) to use that subsidy to defray the cost of broadband services. (The bill also requests funding to defray the cost of special telecommunications equipment for people who are deaf-blind.) NAD, TDI, and other consumer groups also recently asked the FCC to allow low income deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use Life Line subsidies for broadband services. Industry groups have also requested funding for pilot programs to permit all low income people to use their Life Line subsidies for broadband. Absolutely, we must make broadband services more affordable for low income people. We are working to make that happen.
Sonny,
You make a good point on what’s allowable for reimbursement by the Interstate TRS Fund (people call it “federal fund, but really is funded by ratepayers of telephone companies). Right now video phones are NOT reimbursable; however, as you point out it is how VRS providers minimize the cost of VPs to make the VRS profitable. Should the FCC take this into account? This will be a sticky question.
Ed
For those of who does not know who Rosaline Crawford – she’s a lawyer for NAD.
Rosaline,
Thanks for the info and good to know that this is being worked on on a national level.
I believe a few – unfortunately too few – states are considering subsidizing video phones. For those of you folks who live in ur states, this really is best time to approach your state legislators or state regulators responsible for subsidizing equipment for the disabled to ask them to include VPs part of their package.
Ed B
Hey Rosaline and Ed,
Thanks for sharing regarding “life line” broadband services for poor urban and rural deaf. I pay $120 per month for broadband because I am out in the country and that is the ONLY option that works with video out here.
I am not “well-off”. I am retired and living on disability; That is why my donation to the NAD this year was small. After I pay for broadband, I get to eat brown rice and beans instead of polenta and lobster.
EVERY Deaf/deaf person should dig the coins out of the sofa and that crumpled up dollar bill out of the blue jeans you just washed and send it off to the NAD.
Bounce .. bounce .. bounce ..
Hmm! Are you implying that CSDVRS is doing an illegal activity? I am curious. Thanks!
Deaf Advocate,
CSDVRS will tell you they are not illegal. The FCC Enforcement Bureau has not taken any action on what they may perceive as being illegal (at least not yet). There is difference between illegal and unethical practices. Unethical practices often are legal.
That said, I want to emphasize that there have been reports from deaf/hoh users of “illegal” or “unethical” practices from ALL of VRS providers. None of VRS providers have escaped the label.
Like a broken record, I’ll say this again that my eyes are on FCC – what are they going to do about it? VRS providers will continue any practices as long as the FCC has not taken any action on these seemingly dubious practices.
Who knows? These practices may in fact be legal. Remember, all of VRS providers have their own high-priced lawyers advising them what are not legal and all that.
However, I got from grapevine, though, that the FCC is on the move on this. We’ll see…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed,
Thanks for your feedback. I can agree that it is a corporate battlefield out there. It is matter of life or death fighting for every penny while things are loose. I am not sure how loose…
The government does NOT like to interfere but if there are potential abuses and problems – then the government (FCC) has no choice but to act on it depending on how the laws are interpreted.
20 million and counting laws are made from a simple 10 commandments… how ironic is that?
But the bottom line is that we all need VRS for our daily needs.
Keep up the good work on presenting it on all fronts!
=)
Ed
Thanks for the report. My only concern is that the VRS companies are not using their “profits” to re-invest the deaf community. My understanding is most of the profits go to the hearing people who run the companies so they can afford their “luxury items”.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if FCC allows a non-profit organization to run VRS company where they can use the profits to invest in better employment opportunities, better social services, and better quality of education for the deaf and hard of hearing population? In this way, no more illegal or unethical practices, or no more losing friends who fight over which VRS providers they should be using. Socialism for VRS may works better than Capitalism.
David
Thanks to the real dear Rosaline Crawford, Esquire for her eloquent comments and hard works on the behalf of the Deaf America. She is really a great and sincere person!
Ed and others,
Just simply look up the “Link Up America” program as a model which some regions offer the low-income people to link up the residence phone service like $1 for senior citizens and $3 for low-income people with age and income verification to allow those people be part of the society at large and emergency purposes, etc.
Many social agencies refuse to enclose the broadband access to be counted as the basic utility necessity among low-income deaf people.
That is what the 21th Century Communication and Video Accessibility Act legislation proposal is all about basically bridging the communication gap between low-income deaf people and society at large for communication purpose, etc.
Thanks again to the lovely Rosaline Crawford for her comment and willingness to compose the following comments to educate the Deaf American and other communication proponents.
Thank you a zillion times, Ed for your great contribution to the Deaf America on the issue of telecommunication.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLM,
Thanks for the compliments.
Yeah, VRS Industry, FCC, and deaf/hoh users are still going thru growing pains and it will be a while before established rules will be where all involved parties are comfortable with.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
The Philly.com article is full of misinformation unfortunately. It looks to be an opportunistic chance to latch onto the Martin/Chandler letters while tying it into a local flavor because Worldgate is right outside of Philadelphia and all the dramatic news that has occurred between them and Snap.
David = you’re absolutely right, where are the Deaf owned advertising companies? IT companies? accounting firms? True economic improvement happens when an entire class of people become independent and in control of their own social and economic destiny.
When I founded Snap I envisioned the economic power that could have become the anchor client for that Deaf owned advertising agency that could have sprung up or the accounting firm startup. Unfortunately, it was not in the stars that the once interpreter owned/Deaf allied company would continue to be that.
Warren et all,
I feel obliged to mention this.
Anytime you read any incentives from VRS providers. Sweepstake, brown bag, signups, etc., and if any of them directly or indirectly helped ramp up VRS minutes, then this is a no no according to the relay regulations. If it is not related to VRS minutes as condition to play, sign up, etc, then theoretically – regulatory speaking, these are permitted. I may do a vlog on this in the near future so you will know which are illegal/unethical according to the FCC regulations.
I do want to encourage competition among VRS providers; it is healthy, but need to make sure they are legal and ethical.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed