Please do realize non-live versions calls are offered in audio but there are times where there’s not even any archival offerings of audio. They make people come live. Credibility is part of the urgency to receive information live. This is the presenter’s viewpoint especially amid lots of the doubtful feelings flooding in the MLM / NM industry. One way or other text offerings are rare.

Simply put, audio is not accessible for the deaf and hard of hearing. Period. In all my several years in solicitation of information via phone as is essential to my business needs I never been told of any scripts being available in text. How about IP-based relay? No way, I was told it’s so slow. The sometimes paid folks who share the information are justifiably very protective about their works and they make sure solicitors get on the phone to dynamically receive information.

Again, doing presentations live adds to credibility of presenters. In some cases the live calls are readily archived in audio but requirements apply in order just to get it. Some calls require one having previously registered and paid for such calls. All of this leaves deaf and hard of hearing people out.

Automatic audio-to-text technology in name of quality isn’t here just yet. FCC has to create newer relay provisions even if it require a whole new order within the relay industry to further the deaf and hard of hearing’s demand for true functional equivalency in information acquisition by above means. VIs are hired supposedly with that prior knowledge. It’s a given in the industry. VI shouldn’t be surprised and complain about this and that.

The bottom line remains as is–when it comes to teleseminars and similar processes the deaf and hard of hearing are inconvenienced while the hearing isn’t. What’s your solution to this one dilemma involving solutions feasible for presenters of information? Where’s win-win scenarios?

Require all internet based relay calls to come from a registered LN.

Require all applicants for LN’s to document their hearing or speech disability the same way we document our disabilities for the state TTY programs.

This will eliminate fraudulent IP relay calls from overseas and will eliminate hearing people from making VRS calls to other hearing people.

The FCC will have to find a way to make the LN’s mobile so Deafies can use their registered LN to make a VRS or IP Relay call from their computer or their 4G cell phone when not at home … (and find a way to prevent an unethical person from “loaning” their registered LN to a non-disabled user.)

Then, the FCC should clarify the rules that VRS/TRS is for communication by one individual to another individual as the law is written (Title IV). VI’s could be instructed to disconnect from any recording that is longer than a standard answering machine message, setting a limit of 60 seconds – for example.

We did not object to registration and certification to get our free TTYs from state programs. We should not object to registration and certification to protect our VRS and IP relay services from abuse.

Yeah – the abuses continue.

Hopefully the FCC will release public notice of clarificaiton on many of the actions by the VRS industry on whether they qualifies as bona fide VRS call or not; I hope the FCC does that soon.

Cheers..

Ed

I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

I have heard the same thing as well from other VIs who do not want their names become public. A few of them said they already resigned solely because of that. They said essentially the same thing you said – do not mind interpreting “real VRS calls”; that is, deaf/HOH individual making “regular” VRS calls.

eyes open,

Ed

1. Before FCC’s ruling on rate per minute, I could make a direct call to the VRS provider’s technical support agent but now I have to make a call via VRS provider before my complaint about the equipment and something like that..
Is that fair?? To my point of view – it’s a big NO!

2. I know a hearing person who made some calls via VRS (unnmamed) provider so that way VRS provider can earn a rate of minutes – just for chatting! Is that fair to deaf/HOH clients? NO!

It is something we deaf/HOH clients have to be very careful how to judge which VRS providers are honest….
I know it’s so hard and very sticky issue to think about rather than hurting us, deaf and HOH clients who use VRS providers daily!
How can we solve this and for the FCC to identify the “fraud” and eliminate the “fraud” by enforcing new ruling or something like that huh????? (SIGH)
Cheers!

People calling in to teleseminars that are actually wanting to learn the information and have no other similarly easy access to the information is fine. As a VI, it is frustrating to have calls to recordings that sometimes even announce that the script is available online.

It is frustrating to have the company I work for have a subdivision that is recruiting people specifically to ‘train’ them. This training entails 7-8 hours a day of recorded calls that of course use our company’s VRS service to interpret. They have conference calls where they direct their recruiters to overbook their VP stations because they need the VP up and running all the time.

They are having many ‘clients’ call in to all of the same recorded calls. If this is a required training for all clients, wouldn’t it make better sense to hire a skilled interpreter to video an interpretation of the recording and play the videotape for the ‘clients’ as a group. It’s frustrating when my co-workers are in the cubical next to me and we are interpreting the exact same recording for different people who are all sitting in the same room on different VPs. This means all the VI’s are on hour (or more) long calls with no breaks in between recordings.

It’s not frustrating to do the interpreting (though it does get exhausting sometimes), it’s the flagrant misuse of the VRS services.

We as VI’s should not be excited when we get a ‘real’ call. They should all be ‘real’ calls.

A business is not “free-enterprise” if the government is paying for it’s services. All TRS/VRS are paid for by the government through surtaxes on local and long distance phone bills.

Look at your own definition: “… not restrained by government interference, regulation or SUBSIDY.”

True free enterprise would be if there were no subsidy, that is: if the USERS were paying for the service, not the government.

Are you advocating that the government stop paying for TRS/VRS and that those companies require a credit card from us before they place our calls?

(jk)

That is a good question. I don’t have answer for that as this is corporate decision.

If the federal gov’t decide to clamp down on several of “questionable” practices, it is possible many of these deaf persons may lose jobs. I worry about them.

It is like should gov’t clamp down on illegal drug market? To do so will cause many of poor Colombia families (farmers) who raise these plants lose their earnings that feed their families.

Tough situation to be sure. Before you flame me, I know it is not a very fair analogy. The point I’m trying to say if any, I mean not just in VRS but any companies that practice illegal actions, they should be stopped even at the cost of “grassroots” persons losing their jobs.

In VRS industry, it is not as easy because some of the practices “look” okay and seems to be functional equivalent when they are not. Relay regulations are “grey” and, often is hard to interpret.

I’ve said that many times before, FCC need to do better job of oversight. If any of these practices are “ok”, then FCC needs to come out and say so or not. Too many of us deaf/HOH as well as VRS providers are left hanging in the air and instead depend on corporate lawyers tell us whether this is ok or not. Obviously, most (not all) corporate lawyers are biased.

As I said, tough situation to be sure. It would be nice if VRS industry has a “backup” plan for these deaf/HOH persons who lose jobs because of federal ruling, and offer them alternative positions so they will not lose their livelhood?

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Many deaf contractors who work for VRS companies are not making enough money to support their families. There is no guarantee of how much they will be paid because it depends on how many customers they are able to recruit or install. That means many of them still rely on the government for assistance.

Are the VRS companies really providing the deaf community with good jobs and future potential if they are being hired only as contractors and are not provided with any benefits or guarantees of income?

VRS is dear to my heart.

You’re right that FCC needs to take action, but often it is people who initiate changes. Whistleblower? I don’t work for any of VRS providers, but whistleblowing in itself is not necessarily bad as they often raised illegal issues that should be exposed.

No body’s talking? Oh, lot of people are talking about many issues and many of them are reporting to the FCC.

I strongly believe it is our responsibility to raise issues that we may be concerned about. Not to do that would be enabling VRS providers to do even more worse. Otherwise how can they clean up their acts if we don’t raise issues.

Also, the folks from Congress – like it or not – are looking at VRS. I want them to see a clean cut, ethical VRS industry operating and be proud of it.

Let the VRS take its course? Just like Gov’t did with businesses, and see what mess it got us into. No, if there are issues, VRS users and Video Interpreters and leaders need to raise them and VRS industry needs to be aware of them.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed