Consumer Group Expectations of FCC
6 03 2009All..
The link will show you the list of expectations from these consumer groups on what they think the FCC ought to do.
Name of consumer groups who filed the collective remarks are the following:
-
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.,
-
National Association of the Deaf,
-
Communication Service for the Deaf,
-
Hearing Loss Association of America,
-
California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing,
-
Association of Late-Deafened Adults,
-
Deaf & Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, and
- American Association of the Deaf-Blind
Basically. the remarks touch on the FCC’s bureaucracy procedures relating to telecommunications relay service and closed captioned issues and suggesitons on how to improve these procedures.
Examples are: should not so easily exempt TV shows from providing closed captioning, add oversight functions to Disability Rights Office, be familiar with disability issues, work closely with persons with disability issues on various issues, etc etc.
Slow reading, but worth it if you want to know what kind of suggestions from these nationally known consumer groups.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed, let me ask you in regard to the comment below in the long term and ongoing goal:
Review and determine whether to modify the scope of contributions to the Interstate TRS Fund with respect to the inclusion of IP-based communications providers, the setting of reimbursement rates, and the approval of expenses that are eligible for reimbursement from the Fund for Internetbased and other forms of relay services.
Why not include cablemodem companies as well? I am a deaf professional and I use VRS services a lot, yet I do not contribute to the fund because I use cablemodem services. I would like to see Federal Universal Access Fund and perhaps State Universal Access Fund surcharges added to the cablemodem service fees. Right now they are not and it seems only telephone providers are stuck footing this bill. Cable modem service surcharges will add to the fund and ensure that whatever goals the consumer group set for the new FCC and DRO leadership are met. Your opinion?
I am impressed with the paper. I can’t speak for late deafened or the blind, but I can’t think of any real issues that they left out.
One remark that I was surprised to see on there is the establishment of a Universal Service Fund to help low income deaf purchase high speed internet service. I was not aware someone was trying to get something like that set up.
Also, I was not aware that Hearing Aids fell under the scope of the FCC. As a hearing aid user I probably need to do do a little more research on some of the the things that are mentioned in the paper covering hearing aids.
There are a lot more things I would like to comment on but overall I think it was well done and comprehensive.
CR
New Age,
You got the idea right. Internet providers do not contribute to Interstate TRS Fund – that’s what is now financing Internet-based relay service (VRS and Internet Relay).
I asked an acknowledged expert on these type of subsidization, and the response I got back – no, none of the Internet providers contribute to the TRS Fund. As for states, there is no “collective” agreement on this.
Now do I agree that they should or should not contribute? My biggest concern is if it does not remove “net neutrality” then I think Internet Providers should contribute, but if it closes the net neutrality stance, then I would not want that to happen. Net neturality is what is protecting consumers from being taxed or levied fees for usage, etc.
That said, still lot of issues regarding net neutrality that I do not fully understand so don’t quote me on this. ;-]
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
CR,
Yeah lot of good suggestions in that report.
Ed
I am kinda surprised to see the Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf (AGBad) is not on the list of customer advisory group.
I always thought that the AGBAD have been heavily involved in technological issues concerning their own hard of hearing and oral members.
RLM
Can you provide me a completed list of expectations of FCC that should do from consumer groups?
Thank you,
Carol
RLM,
AGBAD has signed on as part of collective group such as these in the past; so it is curious as to why AGBA was not part of this one.
Ed
Also, we need a new law for all the advanced digital technologies on phone, video, and TV. The Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT) is pushing for this law, and they have a petition everyone should sign. Go to http://www.coataccess.org/node/add/petition and add your name today!
Carol,
Click to the “Consumer Group Remarks” in the text format above, it will lead you to full list of expectations. Just under the vlog.
Ed
I thought it was a lot more than. Does the full accessiblity to closed captioning for the real-time local news and weather be available in all small cities on the list of expectations?
Carol,
The report did not say like the way you cited. So guess not part of the expectations. Don’t shoot me! I did not write that report, I merely reported it ;-]
Ed
Ed,
“Now do I agree that they should or should not contribute? My biggest concern is if it does not remove “net neutrality” then I think Internet Providers should contribute, but if it closes the net neutrality stance, then I would not want that to happen. Net neturality is what is protecting consumers from being taxed or levied fees for usage, etc.
Net Neutrality rules should apply to all providers be it DSL or Cable. Since DSL providers are already contributing to the fund, it does not make sense to exclude cable providers from contributing to the fund, too.
Regards
New Age